Leaked benchmarks for AMD Radeon RX 480 hits minimum VR spec for $199

[Pemalite]

Chazore said:

Pemalite said:

Now the wait for Vega to see how AMD tackles the high-end.

I honestly have a lot less hope for their high end offering after seeing the benches for their mid/low end. AMD haven't really managed to take much of the high end market let alone pay any attention to it over the years. If they want to take some back then I'd imagine their high end would have to offer less power consumption while doing better than the 1080 or doing better but also being cheaper. I honestly don't know how they are going to go about this though as outputting above the 1080 while selling cheap isn't going to go well for them (unless they sell a lot), but at the same time underperforming against the 1080 but being cheap isn't likely to net them much of a win either, it;s got to be the same but slightly cheaper or greater but not priced at an insane price. 

I think price will continue to be AMD's strong point, it seems to be their focus with the RX 480 and retaining the $200 USD price point with the 4Gb card+slower memory.
Fury was a good look into the high-end, but the one thing that stopped me from upgrading to Fury was the lack of an 8Gb variant.

fatslob-:O said:

Pemalite said:

Didn't you tell me that gains in culling weren't going to happen anymore, Fatslob? :P

I don't remember saying that ... 

I thought that there were gains to be had in culling ever since Graham Wihlidal's presentation ... 

Although it's extremely dependent on the GPU. If your not rasterizer or geometry performance bound then you should definitely see some gains like you do on AMD GPUs which were infamous for their mediocre triangle throughput and sub-ideal command processor that's known to choke on small batches or draws ... 

And the bonus for at least in the case of AMD is that they wouldn't exactly need to implement async compute if they weren't extremely geometry limited ... 

Fair enough, might have been someone else, hence the question mark.

Should really start recording and quoting people's outlandish claims on this forum, to call them up on it... And laugh about it.

oodles2do said:

Chazore said:

The 1080p 60fps part isn't completely guaranteed going by those benches though, at least for a single card and going double ends up taking another free slot that could be used for another better card or something else. I dunno how long the 480 will even last going by those benches, the outcome doesn't look as good as originally hoped. 

What do you (and other guys) think about the RX 480 against the GTX 970 or the GTX 780 Ti? I could get both the nVidia cards for <£200 on eBay, what would be the best option in performance alone, as they'd be cheaper than the 480?

I'll definitely wait and see what the price and performance of the 1060 is too, if that's around $300 and beats the 480 by a fair bit, I could pick on up in the US for $300 which is around £220.

 

EDIT: Even the 970 OC is around £200, that matches the 980 in performance doesn't it?

I wouldn't even make the Geforce 700 series an option at this point, it's getting old.

Anandtech is placing the Geforce 970's performance above the Radeon RX 480 4Gb and 8Gb cards.
So it's a no-brainer from a performance perspective... That is, if you care about Direct X 12 performance, AMD has the edge there... And if you intend to retain your card for many many years, I would go the AMD on that fact alone.

The 970 will also use more power though, anywhere from 20~ watts in games to 70~ watts in a "power virus" like FurMark. (Goes to show how good nVidia made the 900 series, even at 28nm.)

Depending on where the Geforce 1060 drops in the performance charts though, we may see AMD cut the price on the RX 480, might be worth waiting untill then unless you need the GPU sooner rather than later?