From the HardOCP review, in the conclusion page:

"Our first impressions of the video card upon gaming at 1080p are positive. We feel we had a positive and enjoyable gaming experience at 1080p with the Radeon RX 480 8GB video card. In most of the games we played we were able to play at the highest possible in-game settings. This allowed for a very immersive gameplay experience.

Rise of the Tomb Raider and The Witcher 3 are two very GPU intensive games, and both were playable at the highest settings. With the on board 8GB of VRAM Tomb Raider used over 6GB of it while gaming at maximum settings just at 1080p, so that capacity was welcomed."

If you're going to buy an RX 480, it's worth getting the 8GB one.

First benches of the RX 480 over on DSOG: http://www.dsogaming.com/news/amd-radeon-rx-480-first-benchmarks-revealed/

Surprised that in most of those benches, my 980 ends up beating it despite the card being two years old already. 

The 980 is still more expensive though isn't it?

I've got a custom pc on order with no GPU (intended for work) so I'm looking at the 480 for it so I can play some games that will run better / won't be on ps4. I think I'll get it in a few months when I go on holiday to the US, get it nice and cheap :p

I wouldn't say more expensive, cheapest one currently going for £329 is vastly cheaper than it's £5-600 original price point.

Having to slap two 480's together to beat out a 980/ti doesn't really give off the ebst kind of deal, not when you're using up two slots instead of just one.

If you're looking for a cheap deal then by all means go for it, but don't expect it to be some monsterous titan that can take on most high end GPU's, the benches alone that are now out are saying that it's not all that it's cracked up to be. 

Sorry, I meant more expensive than the 480. No I wouldn't expect anything beasty, I just need 1080p and 60fps as that's the best my monitor can do, and my motherboard can't do SLI. I will probably get the 480 and then when it's run its course a few years down the line get the equivalent at the time

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. 

I called it weeks ago in another thread and got chastised for it, especially when I said power consumption was going to be near 150 watts.

It's a card for 1080P gaming.
It's less efficient than nVidia.
It's slower than nVidia.
It overclocks less than nVidia.

In the end though... It is going to be cheap, AMD is actually trying to sell people two of these cards against 1 nVidia 1080... In that aspect they are great.

I think many were under the impression it was going to be able to compete with the Geforce 1070 and do high-resolution gaming, because of how close the Gflop numbers were.

There are some great efficiency gains with GCN 4 though, especially with further improvement to it's colour compression and geometry performance thanks to better culling (Didn't you tell me that gains in culling weren't going to happen anymore, Fatslob? :P), which is good to see, just nVidia is still a few steps ahead.

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

Amd did say mid level in terms of performance but fans were expecting like 1080ti (exaggeration) level performance due to hype and some really stupid so called "leaks" from wccftech.

It does do quite good in dx12 though but if anyone has a 970 or 390, they have zero reason to buy it really.

Edit: If the 1060 thats gonna launch soon apperently is better than a 480 around the $250 range... I hope Vega blows away everything cause its gonna be a bumpy ride.

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 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 ...