By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Leaked benchmarks for AMD Radeon RX 480 hits minimum VR spec for $199

Performance/Price -> always AMD



MEGADRIVE, SNES, SATURN, PS1, N64, DREAMCAST, PS2, GC, XBOX, X360, Wii, PS3, Wii U, PS4, XONE, GAME GEAR, GBP, GBA, NGAGE, GBAP, DS, PSP, 3DS, VITA.

Around the Network
Chazore said:
oodles2do said:

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. 

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?



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?



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

 

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?

So, the 970 OC will perform better than the 480 but consume more power?

There's no rush at all for me, my new PC hasn't even arrived yet. I'd rather get a newer card because obviously it'll stay relevant for longer but if an older card outperforms it then surely that'll stay relevant too?

I'll only be using it at 1080p and and willing to downgrade settings to get it to around 60 fps too.



Pemalite said:

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.

Yeah, this is kinda embarassing for AMD, their 150W 14nm GPU is on par with nVidia's 150W 28nm GPU.

At least there's a good price...until 1060 drops in, that is.



Around the Network

Good value for money, while the crazy hype that preceded its launch surely left many people more or less disappoointed.
About actual power consumption, from the little I read and considerng AMD slow burner reputation, I expect it to slowly improve, together with performances, as AMD releases more optimised drivers. I wouldn't be surprised if the first batches of reference implementation cards had some bugs, oversight or just unrefined code in launch firmware and drivers, AMD looked so sure about power efficiency and maybe, being eternally behind schedule, it rushed some things to avoid being it again.
Overall my feeling is that in 2017 and 2019 or 2020, when I'll do my next major and successive minor upgrades, AMD will offer me again what I want somewhere in the mid/low- to mid/high-range, and for even better value for money than in the past.
If I were a power user I'd be disappointed, maybe (but maybe I'd be waitng for Vega, skipping Polaris altogether), but I'm not, so I'm mildly satisfied now and optimist about being more so in the future.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


HoloDust said:
Pemalite said:

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.

Yeah, this is kinda embarassing for AMD, their 150W 14nm GPU is on par with nVidia's 150W 28nm GPU.

At least there's a good price...until 1060 drops in, that is.

I would argue that it's a bit early to draw that conclusion. Except for Tomb Raider the RX480 is on par or faster than a GTX 980 in DX12 benchmarks. Also the drivers for the GTX 9xxx series are much more mature.

We will have to see what the 1060 brings, but don't forget about the RX470 either.



Card looks to be fantastic value for money, would have preferred if it was maybe 10% higher performance but it is certainly the card that is going into the machines I am building in July for myself and a couple of friends. perfect for 1080p gaming and ok for 1440p and provides some capacity for VR while sucking less juice than previous gen offerings. No it doesn't compete with the 1070 or 1080 but then it was never meant to except in price where it slaughters both in bang for buck. I am just glad I don't have to get another Nvidia card!



oodles2do said:

So, the 970 OC will perform better than the 480 but consume more power?

There's no rush at all for me, my new PC hasn't even arrived yet. I'd rather get a newer card because obviously it'll stay relevant for longer but if an older card outperforms it then surely that'll stay relevant too?

I'll only be using it at 1080p and and willing to downgrade settings to get it to around 60 fps too.

In the majority of games today, yes the Geforce 970 will be faster.

Games of tomorrow (Aka. Direct X 12) is another matter entirely, where the Radeon 480 should have the edge...
The question you need to then ask yourself is... Does the Radeon 480 give you acceptable performance in every game that you are willing to play today? And is more performance in tomorrows games more important?

You can't ignore the fact that Polaris is new, it uses a new architecture... So expect performance gains thanks to improved drivers going forward.

I would revisit all this once you get your new PC and you start looking at GPU's, there might be price shifts soon which might change things for you... And there should be some custom Radeon 480's by then too, Hopefully one with dual PCI-E power and voltage adjustments.

nanarchy said:

Card looks to be fantastic value for money, would have preferred if it was maybe 10% higher performance but it is certainly the card that is going into the machines I am building in July for myself and a couple of friends. perfect for 1080p gaming and ok for 1440p and provides some capacity for VR while sucking less juice than previous gen offerings. No it doesn't compete with the 1070 or 1080 but then it was never meant to except in price where it slaughters both in bang for buck. I am just glad I don't have to get another Nvidia card!

I doubt it is going to be any good for VR, not with all the bells and whistles turned on anyway.

VR's resolution and framerate is 2160x1200 @ 90fps in most cases.

And considering that Tomb Raider, Ashes of Singularity, Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, The Witcher 3, The Division, GTA 5, Hitman and more isn't able to hit 90fps (Heck, it even struggles to hit 60fps) at 1920x1080... With everything turned on... Well. You get the idea.

You would need to turn the graphics effects down for VR, which in my opinion isn't an ideal scenario.

You would likely need a pair of these for the best VR experience.

HoloDust said:

Yeah, this is kinda embarassing for AMD, their 150W 14nm GPU is on par with nVidia's 150W 28nm GPU.

At least there's a good price...until 1060 drops in, that is.

Exactly. If AMD is going to flaunt performance/watt numbers, then they had better at-least soundly beat the competition. :P

AnthonyW86 said:
HoloDust said:

Yeah, this is kinda embarassing for AMD, their 150W 14nm GPU is on par with nVidia's 150W 28nm GPU.

At least there's a good price...until 1060 drops in, that is.

I would argue that it's a bit early to draw that conclusion. Except for Tomb Raider the RX480 is on par or faster than a GTX 980 in DX12 benchmarks. Also the drivers for the GTX 9xxx series are much more mature.

We will have to see what the 1060 brings, but don't forget about the RX470 either.


Possibly. But the PC space moves fast. Fact of the matter is... For today's games and software, the RX 480 isn't doing so well.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
oodles2do said:

So, the 970 OC will perform better than the 480 but consume more power?

There's no rush at all for me, my new PC hasn't even arrived yet. I'd rather get a newer card because obviously it'll stay relevant for longer but if an older card outperforms it then surely that'll stay relevant too?

I'll only be using it at 1080p and and willing to downgrade settings to get it to around 60 fps too.

In the majority of games today, yes the Geforce 970 will be faster.

Games of tomorrow (Aka. Direct X 12) is another matter entirely, where the Radeon 480 should have the edge...
The question you need to then ask yourself is... Does the Radeon 480 give you acceptable performance in every game that you are willing to play today? And is more performance in tomorrows games more important?

You can't ignore the fact that Polaris is new, it uses a new architecture... So expect performance gains thanks to improved drivers going forward.

I would revisit all this once you get your new PC and you start looking at GPU's, there might be price shifts soon which might change things for you... And there should be some custom Radeon 480's by then too, Hopefully one with dual PCI-E power and voltage adjustments.

I agree with waiting for 3rd party cards, this PC is the first that I've custom configured and I don't really know much about motherboards. What do I need for dual PCI-E power? Is that simply from the power supply? The board that I've had to go for (to stick to the configurator on the website) has 1 PCI-E slot for GPU's.