# AMD RX 480 Review Thread



## jacobthellamer

Cheers, watching now!


----------



## sugalumps

Trading blows with the 970 it seems in that video.


----------



## naz2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Trading blows with the 970 it seems in that video.


worse in dx11, better in dx12


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Trading blows with the 970 it seems in that video.


Yeah. Looks lower than what owners on OCN have reported. I suspect he broke NDA as he didn't sign one and is using drivers on disc with card. Users have reported poor performance on these drivers.

I hope this is the case, as owners reporting 980 performance on OCN have been trolling otherwise.


----------



## zealord

ugh the card is roughly as fast as a GTX 970. The GTX 970 was like 250€ in europe with a free game like The Division or DOOM for the last 3-4 months.

I really hoped this card was as fast as a stock GTX 980, but it isn't.

I didn't expect 980 Ti levels of performance, but slower than my 290X come on AMD.


----------



## Code-Red

I'll wait until I see official reviews using appropriate drivers.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Code-Red*
> 
> I'll wait until I see official reviews using appropriate drivers.


After that and it's still the same.......... "I will wait until aib versions for a fair assessment!", still the same................... all the reviewers are biased!


----------



## prznar1

im still waiting for rx 470 and custom boards. Or maybe gtx 1050..


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> After that and it's still the same.......... "I will wait until aib versions for a fair assessment!", still the same................... all the reviewers are biased!


Never settle: sometimes


----------



## Exeed Orbit

That is rough, very rough. Not worth the price of admission for GTX 970 level performance. Unless the drivers make up for that difference, I'll pass. Guess I'll have to go team green (begrudgingly)


----------



## Cakewalk_S

I'm really going to want to see some power consumption numbers from TPU... Compared to the 970 it looks on par. I'd imagine we'd see a good 5-15% improvement with new drivers with Polaris hopefully. That should bring it past the GTX970. Then hopefully those power consumption numbers are a good 25-50w lower than the GTX970, then with overclocking, at or a little past a GTX980... that might make it worth it but we'll see...


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Yeah. Looks lower than what owners on OCN have reported. *I suspect he broke NDA as he didn't sign one* and is using drivers on disc with card. Users have reported poor performance on these drivers.
> 
> I hope this is the case, as owners reporting 980 performance on OCN have been trolling otherwise.


If you don't sign an NDA, how could you possibly break one


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *y2kcamaross*
> 
> If you don't sign an NDA, how could you possibly break one


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> After that and it's still the same.......... "I will wait until aib versions for a fair assessment!", still the same................... all the reviewers are biased!










and finally... "it's ok this card will shine when nvidia gimps 970 performance in 2 years"


----------



## Code-Red

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> After that and it's still the same.......... "I will wait until aib versions for a fair assessment!", still the same................... all the reviewers are biased!


Ulrich himself said he was using old drivers. So he's not reviewing the RX 480 as we're going to get it. Never once said anything about AIB or bias. Untwist your panties.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and finally... "it's ok this card will shine when nvidia gimps 970 performance in 2 years"


----------



## Scorpion49

Man, I done goofed. I bought a 970 to wait for this card


----------



## Fuell

So you package 2 posts that are already posted on OCN news as a new news post? Or are you just trying to get the jump on this news so you can include actual reviews when they come out? Either way, this thread should not exist yet. Basically at this point, your just posting duplicate news stories as your own news post...


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Code-Red*
> 
> Ulrich himself said he was using old drivers. So he's not reviewing the RX 480 as we're going to get it. Never once said anything about AIB or bias. Untwist your panties.


Sanity prevails.


----------



## sherlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> ugh the card is roughly as fast as a GTX 970. The GTX 970 was like 250€ in europe with a free game like The Division or DOOM for the last 3-4 months.
> 
> I really hoped this card was as fast as a stock GTX 980, but it isn't.
> 
> I didn't expect 980 Ti levels of performance, but slower than my 290X come on AMD.


GTX 1060 comes knocking July 7th, the jig might be up at AMD









http://videocardz.com/61583/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-to-be-released-on-july-7th


----------



## redshoulder

So the actual result is quite different from the expected hype from other rx480 threads as usual.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *redshoulder*
> 
> So the actual result is quite different from the expected hype from other rx480 threads as usual.


It's almost exactly the same results as the leaked bits of paper from Poland.

The poster of the youtube video has already stated nobody will use the drivers, they are not retail drivers.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Trading blows with the 970 it seems in that video.


Seems like yet another failed launch


----------



## ChevChelios

1060 has a chance of being THE CARD IN THE NORTH now


----------



## redshoulder

Well at least the drivers can be improved upon, but I think people still expected this to be in 980 level of performance.


----------



## Noufel

The war will end in 30 mins, i just hope that the winner camp spare the lives of the losing one


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *redshoulder*
> 
> Well at least the drivers can be improved upon, but I think people still expected this to be in 980 level of performance.


Yes OCN members who have the card said as much.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> The war will end in 30 mins, i just hope that the winner camp spare the lives of the losing one


I have my white flag ready just in case









never too late to plead for mercy


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 1060 has a chance of being THE CARD IN THE NORTH now


It will always be. just look at 760/960 both slower than competition but sold a crap ton more.


----------



## Noufel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 1060 is THE CARD IN THE VOID now


FTFY


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *redshoulder*
> 
> Well at least the drivers can be improved upon, but I think people still expected this to be in 980 level of performance.


It still could be, we don't know if there are gains on the official driver or not.


----------



## Eorzean

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> The war will end in 30 mins, i just hope that the winner camp spare the lives of the losing one


You mean the inevitable 10+ pages of "I told you so" posts?


----------



## KarathKasun

I cant take this ToT review seriously. He is talking and all I hear is "buzz buzz buzz buzzwords".

He fails to understand how audio processing works, he fails to understand basic GPU concepts, he just fails.

He is also using the EXACT same comparison cards as that Polish magazine. 970 EXOC and nameless 980, the 380x is replaced with 290x/390 though. The results even look the same for the RX 480.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

If these are indeed @ 110W then i wouldn't call a winner/loser just yet..


----------



## mohit9206

Still feel its a great card for $199.But its not going to be that price is most countries outside US.After all the different kinds of taxes,it ends up being the same as the current price of 970.So a $200 card becomes $300 card and loses its value for money status.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> Still feel its a great card for $199.But its not going to be that price is most countries outside US.After all the different kinds of taxes,it ends up being the same as the current price of 970.So a $200 card becomes $300 card and loses its value for money status.


Wait what the 970 is exempt from taxes?


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> it *ends up being the same* as the current price of 970


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Trading blows with the 970 it seems in that video.


Yep. Looks like AMD's answer to the GTX970 a generation late and priced to capture marketshare.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*


Well how is it a great price in the US but not in another country? It would be the same price as a 970 wherever you go right?


----------



## Luciferxy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> Still feel its a great card for $199.But its not going to be that price is most countries outside US.After all the different kinds of taxes,it ends up being the same as the current price of 970.So a $200 card becomes $300 card and loses its value for money status.


Seconded.

How come a 2300 shaders card with 16nm can't bested old tech 28nm 980 ?

Sighhh...


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Don't cry. Obviously i made the thread because I happen to be interested and will post all reviews as they come in thick n fast, so we don't have 30 reviews over 5 threads.
> 
> I would have thought that would be obvious.


Nice try on that edit. Anywho, the obvious would be to wait for actual new news, like a new review, and post that in this type of thread. As all you've done is post existing news posts into a single post in anticipation of the news so you can have your name as OP to a top news story. All you gotta do is follow the rules for posting news and people won't have to tell you about it.

And even though you made an edit from the simple "Don't Cry" post, its still not cool to be like this, I suggest you read the professionalism initiative here on OCN, cheers.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Luciferxy*
> 
> Seconded.
> 
> How come a 2300 shaders card with 16nm can't bested old tech 28nm 980 ?
> 
> Sighhh...


Late release, no high end part, and yet perform not better than a 2 years old tech.

I am done with AMD.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

so maybe Kyle wasn't a nVidia fanboy afterall?


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> Nice try on that edit. Anywho, the obvious would be to wait for actual new news, like a new review, and post that in this type of thread. As all you've done is post existing news posts into a single post in anticipation of the news so you can have your name as OP to a top news story. All you gotta do is follow the rules for posting news and people won't have to tell you about it.
> 
> And even though you made an edit from the simple "Don't Cry" post, its still not cool to be like this, I suggest you read the professionalism initiative here on OCN, cheers.


Go bore someone else please.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> Late release, no high end part, and yet perform not better than a 2 years old tech.
> 
> I am done with AMD.


lol, on time release.

Was always meant to be mid range part.

Not meant to beat 2 year old parts, just use less power and cost less.

Back under your bridge silly one.


----------



## Klocek001

whoa it's *a lot* slower than 980 in most of these benches.


----------



## tashcz

So from what we see, 970 vs 480?


----------



## SoloCamo

Going to quote myself here for those that can't see the oddities of this review:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Still at 290x / 390 performance which ties in to between a 970 and 980. As noted, compare his scores to other reviewers and you'll see what I'm talking about. Besides, some games it's 10fps ahead of a 290x and some a frame or two behind. Seems like 1080p results got the biggest bump, like on FO4, so I'm assuming driver improvements. Then you have titles like Star Wars which typically AMD runs away with, and now a 970 is beating a 290x at higher res in it... when a 290x typically beats a 980. Also funny how the only card that would be lower on the scale happens to be an oc'ed version of said card while others are presumably stock. Makes no sense.
> 
> Again, take it with a grain salt, especially considering the NDA was broken.


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> whoa it's *a lot* slower than 980 in most of these benches.


yep , GTX 1060 is a lot Slower than GTX 980


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> whoa it's *a lot* slower than 980 in most of these benches.


yep it's worrying, but the guy who did the vid said he used non-retail drivers, so we may see a small or large difference with official reviews, just have to wait


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> whoa it's *a lot* slower than 980 in most of these benches.


But so is the 290x which we all know isn't the case, especially in games like Star Wars where it usually bests a 980 by a good margin, especially at 1440p+. Again, take this video with a grain of salt as I do all of his videos no matter the card. The benchmarks rarely match other sites and are typically inconsistent, be it a nvidia or amd card.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> yep it's worrying, but the guy who did the vid said he used non-retail drivers, so we may see a small or large difference with official reviews, just have to wait


and this... people are already jumping to conclusions and leaving critical thinking behind but it's par for the course here on OCN unfortunately during gpu launchs
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcham*
> 
> the 970 kicks its ass for around the same price, fail.


Point proven....


----------



## XxOsurfer3xX

Come on bring the reviews. Anand and Guru3D plz


----------



## ChevChelios

i did not expect this green tide to rise right now here on OC.net









calm down guys, wait for more reviews

and *even* with 970 perf, the 480 is better purchase than 970 now and has better p/p than 980

the only thing to beat it would be a 1060, but thats tough, Nvidia would never price a X60 card at $200


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> whoa it's *a lot* slower than 980 in most of these benches.
> 
> 
> 
> yep , GTX 1060 is a lot Slower than GTX 980
Click to expand...

k


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> yep it's worrying, but the guy who did the vid said he used non-retail drivers, so we may see a small or large difference with official reviews, just have to wait


Guy is also obviously not on the up and up of tech. So many "gamer culture" misquotes and misunderstandings about how things work...


----------



## bcham

the 970 kicks its ass for around the same price, fail.


----------



## jellybeans69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> 970 starts above $300 and isn't mainstream one bit.


Gigabyte 970 is currently 275e for cheapest one.
First RX480 8GBs are 275-285e here.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> But so is the *290x* which we all know isn't the case, especially in games like *Star Wars* where *it usually bests a 980 by a good margin*, especially at 1440p+.


lolwut

I very much doubt that


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> i did not expect this green tide to rise right now here on OC.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calm down guys, wait for more reviews
> 
> and *even* with 970 perf, the 480 is better purchase than 970 now and has better p/p than 980
> 
> the only thing to beat it would be a 1060, but thats tough, Nvidia would never price a X60 card at $200


GTX 660 is $230.


----------



## daviejams

Just got an email from overclockers uk - on sale starting £175

Amazing price !


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> lolwut
> 
> I very much doubt that


First second of googling...

http://www.techspot.com/review/1096-star-wars-battlefront-benchmarks/page2.html


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tashcz*
> 
> So from what we see, 970 vs 480?


why so few dx12 async games in the reviews ?!!! amd getting cheated by biased developers and reviewers again !


----------



## comagnum

It was on old drivers, and it's one review. Relax.


----------



## sugarhell

Well

https://hardforum.com/threads/first-gaming-benchmarks-up.1903628/#post-1042385515


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> why so few dx12 async games in the reviews ?!!! amd getting cheated by biased developers and reviewers again !


Does Mirrors edge score doe...


----------



## fragamemnon

Woah, guys, hold up a bit, no need to ignite keyboards all around the world.

Can we wait a bit for at least post-NDA reviews, or will we have to have another thread open? A bit too hard to follow this thread with so much speculation and near zero useful information.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Well
> 
> https://hardforum.com/threads/first-gaming-benchmarks-up.1903628/#post-1042385515


Kyle says "AIB partners are reporting to me this morning that with extremely good custom air coolers the 480 GPUs are seeing from 1480MHz to 1600MHz clocks, but tell me it is a "lottery draw" on GPUs."

Now we're talking.


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Well
> 
> https://hardforum.com/threads/first-gaming-benchmarks-up.1903628/#post-1042385515


so I trust this guy?


----------



## Neilthran

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/


----------



## ryan92084

It's time


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Neilthran*
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/


it's slower than 290X ***


----------



## fragamemnon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Neilthran*
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/
> 
> 
> 
> it's slower than 290X ***
Click to expand...

Seems like it only in certain titles, definitely not in every game.

And TPU is dead, too.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> lol, on time release.
> 
> Was always meant to be mid range part.
> *
> Not meant to beat 2 year old parts*, just use less power and cost less.


First time in GPU launch history that a new architecture and node doesn't surpass the performance of the old...

Maxwell reduced power consumption dramatically and still INCREASED performance... 2 years late AMD decides to improve power consumption and also lower performance


----------



## Newbie2009

Guru up


----------



## awdrifter

Well, AMD is at least a whole generation late I guess. But it's sad to see they can't even beat their own high end card from 2 generations ago.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Neilthran*
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/


And the server crashes. XD


----------



## andydabeast

Tweak Town
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7756/amd-radeon-rx-480-video-card-review-starting-rebellion-199/index.html


----------



## fragamemnon

Spoiler: Batman 4 @ 1080p:

















Spoiler: Batman 4 @ 1440p:















I can't see much else, haha, all that traffic.


----------



## hollowtek

Lol go figure TPU would.


----------



## pony-tail

Should not the NDA have lifted by now ?


----------



## jologskyblues

Quote:


> First time in GPU launch history that a new architecture and node doesn't surpass the performance of the old...


Reminds me of Bulldozer.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> First second of googling...
> 
> http://www.techspot.com/review/1096-star-wars-battlefront-benchmarks/page2.html


its a bit better for 980 on later drivers (Jan 2016) here - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-battlefront-performance-benchmark,4382.html#p4

but I guess youŗe right


----------



## SoloCamo

They improved Fallout 4 performance dramatically... must be the cpu overhead improvements. That alone may save this card because otherwise it's "ok" at best from the numbers atleast.


----------



## zealord

how do they manage to screw up on such a frequent basis


----------



## sugalumps

Seems to beat a 970 in a good few reviews, however what is surprising is that it looses to a 290x most of the time.

But ye from 980ti to 970/290 performance, what wild ride this has been.


----------



## Slomo4shO

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview


----------



## Klocek001

Identical performance per watt as 970 ? On 14nm ? Am I reading this correctly ?
I can't find a proper word to describe the words or Raja promising 2.8x perf/watt, except for a complete lie that'd leave a stain.


----------



## jellybeans69

AIB partners are reporting to me this morning that with extremely good custom air coolers the 480 GPUs are seeing from 1480MHz to 1600MHz clocks, but tell me it is a "lottery draw" on GPUs.

-Taken from hardforum.


----------



## Nickyvida

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> Identical performance per watt as 970 ? On 14nm ? Am I reading this correctly ?
> I can't find a proper word to describe the words or Raja promising 2.8x perf/watt, except for a complete lie that'd leave a stain.


2.8x the bullcrap that's for sure.

LOL.

The new overclocker's dream.. Oh wait.. Wattman


----------



## EightDee8D

@1080p, so within -5% of 390x







. guess i'm safe. future drivers will improve performance i think. now wait for aib cards for ocing.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

TPU shows in performance summary at 1080p it's ahead of the 290X/390 and 970.

If the AIB cards do clock to 1480-1600mhz like Kyle has stated then this card actually may match Fury in some cases as rumoured. All is not lost lol.


----------



## zealord

inb4 random dude says "you guys expected too much!!! way too much hype".









please don't.


----------



## Luciferxy

Hardwarecanucks is up. Can't open g3d


----------



## hollowtek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> how do they manage to screw up on such a frequent basis


Experience, bro.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> lol, on time release.
> 
> Was always meant to be mid range part.
> 
> Not meant to beat 2 year old parts, just use less power and cost less.
> 
> Back under your bridge silly one.


You seem really invested in this video card based on all your comments. Thinking about picking one up?


----------



## Clocknut

thank you RX480 for getting the 970/980 price down. now all I need is to wait those Maxwell owner sell their card below $200.


----------



## sugalumps

ATI need to call a brexit, get away from amd.


----------



## Titanox

My only complaint is performance per watt. They are so behind.....on this new architecture DESIGNED for PPW.


----------



## 364901

Is it possible to include my article that goes over the RX 480 as well, in the OP?

http://www.nag.co.za/2016/06/29/amd-polaris-tech-briefing/


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> You seem really invested in this video card based on all your comments. Thinking about picking one up?


Nah he just really wants amd to come out on top, he joined the day of the 1080 release thread with the name "Waitng4realGPU".

Oops seems like this was the gpu he was "waiting 4"


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> You seem really invested in this video card based on all your comments. Thinking about picking one up?


Yep I'm on an old 7900 series at the moment just wanna max out 1080p for some years. Not buying a reference junker though.

Unlike many people in these AMD threads that have no intention of buying one lol..................
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Nah he just really wants amd to come out on top, he joined the day of the 1080 release thread with the name "Waitng4realGPU".


Damn you got me, I'm actually dancing smoking a cigar right now, yes it's really me.


----------



## Klocek001

I don't give a crap about this card, and frankly it's not that terrible all in all despite the fact that the results are hitting hype boys hard, but how are they ever going to compete with 1080/80Ti with such a terrible performance per watt ? They'd have to make a 400W card


----------



## sugarhell

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/72889-radeon-rx480-8gb-performance-review.html


----------



## 364901

Also, for those interested, screencapped from the reviewer's guide, these are the settings and results from AMD's own benchmarks:


----------



## Derp




----------



## damnwebsite

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-10,4616.html

toms is up


----------



## Fancykiller65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I don't give a crap about this card, and frankly it's not that terrible all in all despite the fact that the results are hitting hype boys hard, but how are they ever going to compete with 1080/80Ti with such a terrible performance per watt ? They'd have to make a 400W card


Considering the RX 480 is not even close to be intended to compete with the 1080, I'm not too sure what your asking.


----------



## dieanotherday

Yo wth AMD,

you couldn't make it 10% faster than a 970 and then make it $240?

It's like 1 fps slower in all the games than a 970, that just doesn't look good at face value jesus christ.


----------



## zealord

Nintendo NX, PS4K NEO here I come !


----------



## sugalumps

Should have known 1:1 pricing here in the UK, £220-£250 on scan









Still a good price compared to the rest of the market here though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*


So the 4gb version has slower ram?

Decent review there though, beating a 970 by a few fps. Trades blows in some other games though, 970 wins in a few probably nvidia sponsored games though.


----------



## Code-Red

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> Still feel its a great card for $199.But its not going to be that price is most countries outside US.After all the different kinds of taxes,it ends up being the same as the current price of 970.So a $200 card becomes $300 card and loses its value for money status.


If, by any sort of chance, these are the drivers that ship with the card... I'm on the fence. It's a great deal in the States, but up here it'll be $300 and $350 (considering our retailers that LOVE to gouge, even after the Maple bucks conversion) which just isn't impressive.

Here's hoping the drivers are better and this is a little closer to 980 performance, with some decent OC headroom.


----------



## nakano2k1

The difference between DX11 and DX12 is really quite amazing. It shows what API this card was built for. Having said that though, in DX11 and perf per watt, i'm not feeling this card that much to be honest. I'll wait for the most recent driver before I make final judgement. My god AMD... The process is HALF the size of the previous gen and all you were able to achieve was 970ish perf per watt?

Hopefully the GTX 1060 will be a more appealing offering.


----------



## vloeibaarglas

There seems to be two sets of results tbh.

Some of the reviewers, 480 is just a tad bit slower than 970 in almost everything neutral.

In other reviewers, 480 is better than 970 in everything neutral and a few fps slower than 980.


----------



## ChevChelios

from tweaktown (all benches put it between 380X & 390X)
Quote:


> Overclocking Adventures
> 
> In order to get this review out on time, I didn't spend much time overclocking it - and I think it deserves its own separate article, something I'll release in a few days. But, I did some basic overclocking on AMD's latest Radeon RX 480 and *hit 1300MHz* on the core without a problem, while I was able to hit 2100MHz (8.4GHz) on the RAM.
> 
> Sitting at this OC on the RX 480, our total power consumption went from 250W to around 340W while the card became much hotter than it did at stock. While it was overclocked, I played around with manual fan settings - ramping it up to 100% and while the GPU was being utilized to 100%, the GPU hit 66C - even with the fan cranked as high as it'll go.


Quote:


> AMD tapped the 14nm FinFET process for its new Polaris GPUs, with our Intel Core i7-5960X test bed with the AMD Radeon RX 480 using 250W total. 250W is pretty good when you consider the 28nm-based, overclocked Radeon R9 390X from SAPPHIRE saw our system use up to 330W. *But if we compare it to the new GeForce GTX 1070, which easily beats the RX 480 in every single test, and only consumes 215W, the RX 480 isn't anywhere near as efficient as NVIDIA's new Pascal-based architecture*.


Quote:


> I expected AMD's new mid-range Radeon RX 480 to be completely silent under load, but I was disappointed with the reference design from the company. While it rocks a slick reference design, the cooler has a weird sound/whine when it's spooled up to keep the card cool. I tried adjusting the fan speeds and getting a custom RPM set, but as soon as it spins up, the card begins making noise that can be annoying.
> 
> With the fan manually set to 100% and a benchmark running using 100% of the GPU, the Radeon RX 480 operates at around 66C average. This isn't too bad, but NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 cards don't make anywhere near the same noise or run anywhere near as hot with the fans pumped to 100%. The RX 480 reaches 89C under load on its own, with everything set to automatic - which is quite hot.
> 
> Even sitting idle in Windows, the Radeon RX 480 gets hot - so much so that taking it out of the system I expected it not to be hot and nearly hurt my hand from the heat. It wasn't sizzling hot, but it was rather warm - uncomfortably warm for a card that wasn't being strained at all. The card was operating at anywhere between 75C to 80C at idle, with the fan speed at around 20% (automatic).


well gotta be honest

outside of the low price, the reference 480 is junk .. but price makes it good junk

lets wait for AIBs


----------



## Olivon

OMG ! What a fail !


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vloeibaarglas*
> 
> There seems to be two sets of results tbh.
> 
> Some of the reviewers, 480 is just a tad bit slower than 970 in almost everything neutral.
> 
> In other reviewers, 480 is better than 970 in everything neutral and a few fps slower than 980.


different reviewers different games.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vloeibaarglas*
> 
> There seems to be two sets of results tbh.In other reviewers, 480 is better than 970 in everything neutral and a few fps slower than 980.


Yea, seems to be the case so far...

Really shines at 1080/1440 but drops off fast at 4k compared to the beefier gpu's like 290x/390 etc.


----------



## dieanotherday

I just realized that it's not much of an improvement over a 290x...


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fancykiller65*
> 
> Considering the RX 480 is not even close to be intended to compete with the 1080, I'm not too sure what your asking.


roughly the same performance per watt as 970/980/980Ti


----------



## Kuivamaa

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/5/#diagramm-f1-2015-2560-1440

Meh results. Certainly a better purchase than 970 and I suppose in 6 months it will be faster than both 390X and 980 due to driver maturity ,but right now, meh.


----------



## Glottis

according to TPU's performance summary, RX480 is closer to 970 than it is to 980, but problem is, this gpu is 330 eur where as 970 is under 300 eur and ofcourse you can find used one in pristine condition for under 200 eur.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> I just realized that it's not much of an improvement over a 290x...


But neither is a 980 and 290x is faster than a 970... so it's still where it was aimed at. Reviews are kind of all over the place.


----------



## fragamemnon

These are the most inconsistent benchmarks between reviewers that I've seen in a while.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> according to TPU's performance summary, RX480 is closer to 970 than it is to 980, but problem is, this gpu is 330 eur where as 970 is under 300 eur and ofcourse you can find used one in pristine condition for under 200 eur.


People have 390x's up on ebay here for £225, which is what the 480 is coming in at. The 480 is not the incredible buy it was made out to be. I bet the huge flood of 390x's are people selling to get this aswell


----------



## julizs

From the german review PCGH (I translate):

"The Radeon Rx 480 while gaming always consumes just under 160 watts"

"Also it often consumes more than 75 watt from the pcie slot, which can stress the mainboard"

Meh, so much for stock 480 consuming around 110 watts wile gaming.


----------



## dieanotherday

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fragamemnon*
> 
> These are the most inconsistent benchmarks between reviewers that I've seen in a while.


yea wth

is it possible these cards are sensitive to the combination of the other hardware?


----------



## hollowtek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fragamemnon*
> 
> These are the most inconsistent benchmarks between reviewers that I've seen in a while.


It seems that way, guess this will be one of those lottery cards.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> yea wth
> 
> is it possible these cards are sensitive to the combination of the other hardware?


Yup they also do not like sunlight and if you feed them after dark terrible things will happen.


----------



## TokenBC

Terrible performance for what it is. What's up with that performance per watt?

Not that bad for its price, but it isn't "revolutionary" either. I expected a better.


----------



## ChevChelios

Im even more shocked by perf/w then 970+ level performance

the 1000 series absolutely _*destroys*_ this in perf/w


----------



## Newbie2009

I've posted a good few reviews, going to go check them out myself now.


----------



## zealord

I just don't understand how it is possible for this card to consume as much power/performance as the 980 Ti

how it is slower than the 980

how it is a 2016 GPU

how it is 260€

I simply don't understand.


----------



## Xuper

I want to know where does it come from ? "110W" who said and where?


----------



## Olivon

AMD marketing pants down, as usual.


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Yup they also do not like sunlight and if you feed them after dark terrible things will happen.


Wow... What an awesome condescending comment. You stay classy keyboard warrior.


----------



## EightDee8D

They shouldn't have left TSMC. that p/w is crap. where's the 2.8x they promised ? is that for vr only or what ? cuz there were 2 p/w claims 1.7 and 2.8. so far its only 1.7x improvement we are seeing here.


----------



## Glottis

performance per watt is extremely disappointing for RX480. it's just a GTX970 released 2 years later for less money. from the hype i was expecting perf/watt to be somewhere in gtx 1070 territory. NEVER trust the hype, lesson learned once again.


----------



## jologskyblues

Hype = Overpromise + Underdeliver


----------



## PlugSeven

A bit underwhelming, it's ~$200 for a reason . Did 14nm finfet let them down or was it design choices I wonder?


----------



## ChevChelios

blame GloFo

all hail TSMC, the King in North


----------



## one-shot

Looks like I'm waiting for a GTX 1070 now. lol


----------



## TheReciever

Benchmarks are all over the place, not even worth reading until members get their hands on them and get some actual consistency.

Otherwise it seems to be right where I expected it to be.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Wow... What an awesome condescending comment. You stay classy keyboard warrior.


It was a joke, becoming your avatar.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> performance per watt is extremely disappointing for RX480. it's just a GTX970 released 2 years later for less money. from the hype i was expecting perf/watt to be somewhere in gtx 1070 territory. NEVER trust the hype, lesson learned once again.


sad,just sad after the way AMD themselves were hyping the perf/watt as the #1 advantage of Polaris.

temp



power draw (system)


----------



## Xuper

lol you bought 1080 , why do you care so much , haha


----------



## hollowtek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> Wow... What an awesome condescending comment. You stay classy keyboard warrior.


It was a movie reference.


----------



## sugarhell

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

They have a 1350/9000 480


----------



## Derp

That efficiency claim was such a lie. Just wow..... Raja...



The look on his face says it all.


----------



## comagnum

Why is newegg saying that estimated arrival date for next tuesday? What the..


----------



## Code-Red

Well, these initial reviews are disappointing. It's hot, it's slow, it chugs power (relatively speaking), and it's not at a great price point up here.

I think I'm going to wait for Vega, or maybe grab an Nvidia card if they do a solid for once and lower their pricing significantly.


----------



## h4rdcor3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> People have 390x's up on ebay here for £225, which is what the 480 is coming in at. The 480 is not the incredible buy it was made out to be. I bet the huge flood of 390x's are people selling to get this aswell


Why anyone thought that the 480 would beat a 390x is beyond me. Every indication we have gotten over the past few months is that the card will maybe challenge the 980, which the 390x does. Personally I was hoping the card would do better out of the gate and push closer to the 980 than what we have seen so far but with current retail pricing this takes the crown away from the 390 as the mid range budget card to buy.


----------



## AmericanLoco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> That efficiency claim was such a lie. Just wow..... Raja...


Well there's still Polaris 11, but Polaris 10's power consumption is a HUGE disappointment, just on par with Maxwell power consumption - pretty embarrassing considering the Fury Nano was also on-par with Maxwell power consumption...


----------



## jologskyblues

That's why it's so cheap. AMD thought that would shift the perception of the product in a better light....


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> from tweaktown (all benches put it between 380X & 390X)
> 
> well gotta be honest
> 
> outside of the low price, the reference 480 is junk .. but price makes it good junk


Interesting they said the card was noisy?

On Tom's it was the opposite.

"The Radeon RX 480 does really well under load. During our gaming loop, it's no louder than Nvidia's reference GeForce GTX 1070. This is in spite of its higher power consumption, simpler cooling solution and more mainstream construction."
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *h4rdcor3*
> 
> Why anyone thought that the 480 would beat a 390x is beyond me. Every indication we have gotten over the past few months is that the card will maybe challenge the 980, which the 390x does. Personally I was hoping the card would do better out of the gate and push closer to the 980 than what we have seen so far but with current retail pricing this takes the crown away from the 390 as the mid range budget card to buy.


According to TPU's performance summary at 1080p it's on par with the 390X.

1080p is where it is aimed for so not too bad.


----------



## Tsaza

Shouldn't this be compared to 960 price wise? I feel like everyone was waiting for something more but that's what Vega is for.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *h4rdcor3*
> 
> Why anyone thought that the 480 would beat a 390x is beyond me. Every indication we have gotten over the past few months is that the card will maybe challenge the 980, which the 390x does. Personally I was hoping the card would do better out of the gate and push closer to the 980 than what we have seen so far but with current retail pricing this takes the crown away from the 390 as the mid range budget card to buy.


True but just pointing out that you could buy a used 390x at the same price as this now making the 390x the better buy.


----------



## criminal

GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 still have way better performance per watt. AMD, you fail again.









Maybe drivers will help performance.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> lol you bought 1080 , why do you care so much , haha


let me tell you

If in order to match 1080 AMD have to deliver a card that's pulling *more than a 980Ti* then how are they ever going to compete in the high end market ?


----------



## fragamemnon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/
> 
> They have a 1350/9000 480


Interesting OC performance gains.


----------



## julizs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/
> 
> They have a 1350/9000 480


Aside from all the dissappointment everyone has with the 480...almost 20% gain at just 1350 Mhz is pretty impressive...Cannot wait for AIB cards.


----------



## Eorzean

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> That efficiency claim was such a lie. Just wow..... Raja...
> 
> 
> 
> The look on his face says it all.


We got trolled hard by Raja/AMD.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Code-Red*
> 
> I'll wait until I see official reviews using appropriate drivers.


This. Remember guys. the 970 has had 2 years to tweak and adjust their drivers on DX11. THis 480 has JUST been released and through drivers adjustments and DX12 I imagine it doing better. Also keep in mind that the 480 has been marketed as a ENTRY LEVEL VR CARD, not necessarily an mid/top tier gaming card.


----------



## GunfighterAK

The power efficiency of this card is terrible. Consumes the same amount a 1070 does but the performance is so much worse.


----------



## andydabeast

I read a couple reviews and could not ascertain the answer to this question:

What is the bottleneck?

It was not throttling under load so is it the 6-pin or stability?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> This. Remember guys. the 970 has had 2 years to tweak and adjust their drivers on DX11. THis 480 has JUST been released and through drivers adjustments and DX12 I imagine it doing better. Also keep in mind that the 480 has been marketed as a ENTRY LEVEL VR CARD, not necessarily an mid/top tier gaming card.


yeah lets wait 2 years and then judge this card ...

...


----------



## KarathKasun

From TH review...
Quote:


> Believe it or not, the situation gets even worse. AMD's Radeon RX 480 draws 90W through the motherboard's PCIe slot during our stress test. This is a full 20 percent above the limit.


No freaking wonder it cant overclock, it can pull 90w from the PCIe slot at stock.









Voltage regulation and power delivery on the reference card is ABYSMAL.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> yeah lets wait 2 years and then judge this card ...
> 
> ...


Thats clearly not what he is saying, and I get the feeling you know this.


----------



## PlugSeven

Where is Vega being fabbed? This could get even uglier for AMD.


----------



## nakano2k1

$335 - 380 for a 8gb model in Canada. GG...


----------



## umeng2002

Not as fast as I would have liked, but close.

If someone doesn't have a 390 or 970 and higher card, I'd recommend the 480.

Be warned though, the 4 GB version's memory is a little slower and the benches show it.


----------



## jologskyblues

2.8X perf per watt is the new overclockers dream.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *julizs*
> 
> Aside from all the dissappointment everyone has with the 480...almost 20% gain at just 1350 Mhz is pretty impressive...Cannot wait for AIB cards.


Yea, seems to scale well. Digital foundry went from 1266 to 1310 and seemed to get 10% performance gains... doesn't seem right but maybe the card was throttling hard before?


----------



## KyadCK

I'm fine with the performance. I'm even fine with the power consumption.

I am not fine with that temp. I wanted a blower style to help in mITX cases and for the card to replace a 7870, but not if it's hitting 80C. I'll wait and see what AIB's do. They need to be 60C or less on their bench for me to consider it, I simply can not risk more.


----------



## GunfighterAK

I have no hope in AMD producing a 1080 killer this year.
Time to go back to nvidia.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fragamemnon*
> 
> Interesting OC performance gains.


So Fury X performance once overclocked, sounds like the leaks........................I'm getting one don't care about power draw lol


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PlugSeven*
> 
> Where is Vega being fabbed? This could get even uglier for AMD.


dont bother, AMD is always a tool for me to get competitive Nvidia GPU.

my only AMD gpu? 7790. The reason to get it? back then 650Ti is way too expensive. Had Nvidia didnt price gauge, I wouldnt even buy AMD at all. I have been with Nvidia since Geforce 2.


----------



## zealord

As much as it hurts to say the RX 480 reviews are a huge win for Nvidia.


----------



## Sonikku13

So, despite the Nano only having 4 GB of VRAM, I assume keeping the Nano is the best bet at this moment in time?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> So Fury X performance once overclocked, sounds like the leaks........................I'm getting one don't care about power draw lol


Wait for the AIB cards unless you want to melt your PCIe slot.


----------



## breenemeister

I'm currently running a 290, unlocked to 290X and using a 1920 x 1200 monitor. I thought about the 480 as being a good way to lower temps, power usage, and whatnot. This is a huge letdown for me. I'll be sticking with the 290X until something better comes along. While this 480 is more efficient and has some new features (none of which will mean anything to me at the moment), it's not nearly the improvement I hoped for. The only people this card should appeal to are people building new systems altogether or trying to upgrade from the 7000 series.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> yeah lets wait 2 years and then judge this card ...
> 
> ...


LOL I'm not saying wait 2 years. But lets see what the first few driver updates bring at least


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sonikku13*
> 
> So, despite the Nano only having 4 GB of VRAM, I assume keeping the Nano is the best bet at this moment in time?


Atleast wait for the AIB 480 reviews for sure.


----------



## maarten12100

As expected the value is amazing but the efficiency is very bad. I think this isn't the right clock speed for efficiency and I am disappointed.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> LOL I'm not saying wait 2 years. But lets see what the first few driver updates bring at least


Sure. I waited since mid 2014 for AMD to release something worthwhile. Let's wait longer.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Wait for the AIB cards unless you want to melt your PCIe slot.


Oh of course, look at the gains to min fps on fallout 4, freakin solid.

Even if I only hit 1500-1550 mhz on an AIB I'll be laughing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> LOL I'm not saying wait 2 years. But lets see what the first few driver updates bring at least


That will be the bonus part and I'll reap the rewards.


----------



## julizs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Yea, seems to scale well. Digital foundry went from 1266 to 1310 and seemed to get 10% performance gains... doesn't seem right but maybe the card was throttling hard before?


Exactly. From the PCGH test:

*Because of the power delivery problems, the 480 clocks itself down quite frequently to:

Full HD: 1.190-1.220 MHz
WQHD: 1.120-1.170 MHz
Ultra HD: 1.050-1.100 MHz*

Really, with a good AIB card and 1350-1400 Mhz stable this card will be a beast and we could have a winner here.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> *As expected the value is amazing* but the efficiency is very bad. I think this isn't the right clock speed for efficiency and I am disappointed.


It's not even that amazing.


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> From TH review...
> No freaking wonder it cant overclock, it can pull 90w from the PCIe slot at stock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voltage regulation and power delivery on the reference card is ABYSMAL.


My god, why didnt they just use a 8 pin connector







AMD once again cheaping out on the reference design.

The power draw from this card is insane.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> let me tell you
> 
> If in order to match 1080 AMD have to deliver a card that's pulling *more than a 980Ti* then how are they ever going to compete in the high end market ?


Simple answer, they wont. Or they expect HBM to save their behinds a second time.

between the 1060 and the (presumed to exist) 1080ti, this is going to be a messy year for AMD.


----------



## ChevChelios

concerning the german review which has 1350 results

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

watch closely on the graphs, the lower performing 480 isnt a 1266Mhz, its a *1150* one (throttling ?)

Quote:


> Die beim Test angefertigten Taktprotokolle liefern weitere Informationen über das relativ schwache Abschneiden der RX 480. AMD hat das Referenzdesign auf eine typische Leistungsaufnahme von 150 Watt getrimmt. Dieses Ziel erfordert trotz moderner Fertigung ein rigoroses Power-Management, infolgedessen die Polaris-Grafikkarte ihren Boost lastabhängig mehr oder minder reduzieren muss, um das Wattkorsett nicht zu sprengen. Dabei agiert die uns vorliegende Grafikkarte vergleichbar zur Radeon R9 Nano und aktuellen Geforce-Modellen: In niedrigen Auflösungen oder bei partieller CPU-Limitierung arbeitet sie deutlich näher an ihrem 1.266-MHz-Maximalboost als bei höheren Auflösungen. Ein Beispiel (The Witcher 3 ohne Gameworks):
> 
> Full HD: 1.190-1.220 MHz
> WQHD: 1.120-1.170 MHz
> Ultra HD: 1.050-1.100 MHz


^ use google translate


----------



## motoray

Does well in solidworks! Now just gotta wait n see if custom cards can really take advantage or not.


----------



## Luciferxy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 still have way better performance per watt. AMD, you fail again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe drivers will help performance.


Those 10xx series are mopping the floor with polaris. No wonder we have crazy pricing from the evil green company.

All hope is lost in this gen


----------



## Sonikku13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sonikku13*
> 
> So, despite the Nano only having 4 GB of VRAM, I assume keeping the Nano is the best bet at this moment in time?
> 
> 
> 
> Atleast wait for the AIB 480 reviews for sure.
Click to expand...

Meh, I hope someone slaps a water block on a reference 480.

Oh, wait, that would be enough for a 1070 already if prices hit actual MSRP and not this FE BS we're seeing.


----------



## gamervivek

1080p card and nothing more. Gets past 390X gaming when overclocked in all the games that pcgh tested and even tops the Fury X in one or two.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/


----------



## NYU87

it's 970 for $200.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Sure. I waited since mid 2014 for AMD to release something worthwhile. Let's wait longer.


Seems like that's the typical response. "Let's wait a little longer for this and that."


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> It's not even that amazing.


Go find me a brand new card thats in this performance level for this price? And don't pick a site that has higher than norm price for 480 vs insane sale for a competing GPU, apples to apples please. Show me that. I challenge you. Go ahead, I'll be waiting.


----------



## Noufel

Wait for the AIB







or i should say wait for the next train


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> Go find me a brand new card thats in this performance level for this price? And don't pick a site that has higher than norm price for 480 vs insane sale for a competing GPU, apples to apples please. Show me that. I challenge you. Go ahead, I'll be waiting.


Don't even bother, haters gonna hate.

Great 1080p for a good price, simple.


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> concerning the german review which has 1350 results
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/
> 
> watch closely on the graphs, the lower performing 480 isnt a 1266Mhz, its a *1150* one (throttling ?)
> ^ use google transalte


Yeah, it is probably throttling for everyone and that explains the varying results. AMD cheaped out on the cooler again.









Though even better cooling won't help with the lack of ROPs.


----------



## KarathKasun

With the throttling being so real with this card... can not wait for a balls to the wall 6+8 pin card with a huge heatpipe cooler or water block to be reviewed.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> Go find me a brand new card thats in this performance level for this price? And don't pick a site that has higher than norm price for 480 vs insane sale for a competing GPU, apples to apples please. Show me that. I challenge you. Go ahead, I'll be waiting.


you are trying too hard to make this card look good.

you can't reduce a GPU simply to "SHOW ME A BETTER CARD AT THIS EXACT PRICE







".

it's not that simple dude.


----------



## provost

Is there any crossfire data available yet?


----------



## edgeofblade

So, it's exciting because it dangles over the VR performance line for cheap?

Sounds to me a lot like those sports casters who can slice a sports statistic out of thin air and try desperately to make it sound significant.

*"This is the most strikeouts by a one-quarter Norwegian pitcher on a Tuesday."

"This is the most consecutive pass completions with even numbered yard gains since October 24 2002."

"This is the most fouls I have ever seen out of a Libertarian Spaniard. There must be some connection.*

That's all to say, if it weren't for VR, I don't think this would matter as much.


----------



## Eorzean

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> $335 - 380 for a 8gb model in Canada. GG...


Before tax? Better off getting a 970 off Kijiji for ~$300 CAD.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> Wait for the AIB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or i should say wait for the next train


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall Abooooooooooooooooooard........
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> With the throttling being so real with this card... can not wait for a balls to the wall 6+8 pin card with a huge heatpipe cooler or water block to be reviewed.


Yep I'm gonna get one. Fury X performance thankyou


----------



## hollowtek

New conspiracy theory: the pc version of the rx 480 are the gpus that didn't make the cut for next gen consoles. Would make sense why the efficiency is pure crap, and also why there's "25x" more availability compare to the 1080 launched.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> With the throttling being so real with this card... can not wait for a balls to the wall 6+8 pin card with a huge heatpipe cooler or water block to be reviewed.


Sadly this is seriously a repeat of the 290x reference card launch, they literally didn't learn. I know you have to cut corners for the price point but not if it's killing your performance at the most critical time to show off the product.

290x non throttling vs stock & throttling are two totally different cards and it looks like the RX480 is exactly the same. Can't wait to see what they can do judging from these oc performance results.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Is there any crossfire data available yet?


There was a CF review posted a few pages back I think.


----------



## Vesku

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AmericanLoco*
> 
> Well there's still Polaris 11, but Polaris 10's power consumption is a HUGE disappointment, just on par with Maxwell power consumption - pretty embarrassing considering the Fury Nano was also on-par with Maxwell power consumption...


8GB vs 4GB so it's actually better vs Maxwell than it first appears. Still a bit underwhelming given the node shrink. Is this the first GPU primarily delivered by their Chinese design team? May not be all on GloFo's shoulders.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hollowtek*
> 
> New conspiracy theory: the pc version of the rx 480 are the gpus that didn't make the cut for next gen consoles. Would make sense why the efficiency is pure crap, and also why there's "25x" more availability compare to the 1080 launched.


it isn't too far fetched considering the PS4 NEO will have this exact GPU


----------



## redshoulder

expect the rx490 to rival gtx 980


----------



## infranoia

Well, I will not be Crossfiring these as an upgrade to an OC 290x. And given Fury X (HBM) + Polaris (this), I'm now genuinely concerned about Vega.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> They improved Fallout 4 performance dramatically... must be the cpu overhead improvements. That alone may save this card because otherwise it's "ok" at best from the numbers atleast.


AMD's DX11 performance is still awful in Ashes of the Singularity with the RX 480. If any improvements were made it should show up here.


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Is there any crossfire data available yet?


TPU have done it, even posting it before the single card review.









http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> you are trying too hard to make this card look good.
> 
> you can't reduce a GPU simply to "SHOW ME A BETTER CARD AT THIS *EXACT PRICE*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".
> 
> it's not that simple dude.


I didn't say exact price, just same segment. And I'm not trying to make this card look good, it looks as good/bad as it is. You, on the other hand want to make it look bad. You claimed the value isn't that good, I asked you to back up your comment, you can't so now you try to weasel your way out of it and turn this into a fanboy arguement. I have facts to back my stance, what do you have?


----------



## Erick Silver

So they have pitted the BRAND NEW DX 12 entry level VR card against a 2 year old DX11 mid/top tier GAMING card in several top tier games and got the results? Lets flip the script and pit the same 2 cards in a VR test and see what the results are?


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Is there any crossfire data available yet?


TechPowerUp has crossfire benches.


----------



## nakano2k1

NVidia headquarters this morning.


----------



## Unkzilla

The performance isn't a issue. Power and poor overclocking make this a dud so far.
Let's see what the custom cards can do. Should increase oc potential and reduce Temps but power use and perf per watt will only get worse


----------



## Clocknut

somethings tells me that Zen might not be spectacular too.....looks like I gonna jump ship to skylake hex core lol


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> I didn't say exact price, just same segment. And I'm not trying to make this card look good, it looks as good/bad as it is. You, on the other hand want to make it look bad. You claimed the value isn't that good, I asked you to back up your comment, you can't so now you try to weasel your way out of it and turn this into a fanboy arguement. *I have facts to back my stance, what do you have*?


hahahaha way to make a fool out of yourself. The internet facts boys are back


----------



## Cakewalk_S

This release is more disappointing than my first gf...

Horribly disappointing with these benchmarks... and I thought power consumption was supposed to be 150w or under?????

Maybe with better drivers the performance will be better but still...


----------



## ChevChelios

AIBs are the next hype train now









but how much will they cost, how much will be down to lottery and *how much frikking watts will this little monster draw at 1500+ Mhz*

also even a 1500-1550+ OC (if its possible) will just match (not exceed) the OCs of 970/980 .. but itll be an improvement over the reference for sure


----------



## clao

I so wanted to upgrade from my 290x but I guess ill wait just a little bit longer seem to be performing at or within 10fps of my 290x


----------



## tpi2007

More or less what was expected.

Summary:

1. Sometimes a little slower than the 970, sometimes faster and sometimes it's actually closer to the 980 ballpark than to the 970, which shows potential with future drivers;

2. The frame times / smooth gameplay are now much better and comparable to Nvidia. It's now appropriate to say thanks Scott! (Scott Wasson from TR who went to work for AMD because of his contributions to frame time analysis);

3. The reference cooler is crappy. A bit loud and lets the card get too hot, third party coolers to save the day;

4. Performance per watt is as expected, it matches the 970 at 28nm, which at the end of the day seems disappointing, but it was a known quantity. They shaved off a lot of watts from the comparable R9 390 / 390X at 28nm, but in the end it goes to show that AMD only made some minor power efficiency improvements in the architecture itself, the power gains are coming from the transition to the new manufacturing process, they are way behind Nvidia in this regard. Maybe they can keep things balanced at the high end if Nvidia uses GDDR5X with the 1080 Ti and AMD uses lower power HBM2 with Vega.

All in all, it's a good card, but I don't know if it builds the momentum that they need. Pricing and overclockability will be key, possibly future driver improvements and also how long it takes Nvidia to launch the 1060 and where it will stand. It's certainly much better than the power hogs semi-rebranded 390X / 390, we can finally put those behind us.


----------



## sugarhell

And the hype is gone.

Next time you should believe your eyes and the facts instead of WCCF.

It seems that AMD still failed with the cooler and the drivers at release as always. The gpu performs as it should. The p/w is pretty good vs their OWN products. It should be around 1.7-1.8

Now we need the rest of the pack:

Bonaire-> polaris 11
Pitcairn -> polaris 10
Tahiti->
Hawaii/Fiji->

It is a good mainstream card for those that needs a good 1080p card.


----------



## hollowtek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> I didn't say exact price, just same segment. And I'm not trying to make this card look good, it looks as good/bad as it is. You, on the other hand want to make it look bad. You claimed the value isn't that good, I asked you to back up your comment, you can't so now you try to weasel your way out of it and turn this into a fanboy arguement. I have facts to back my stance, what do you have?


Dunno if this counts but 970s of all makes have been hovering at the 230-245 range for the past month now. Just check slickdeals if you don't believe me.


----------



## umeng2002

4 GB version with a slight VRAM OC to match the 8 GB version VRAM speed - for $199 bucks seems like a steal.

I wonder if AIB will even bother with a 4GB version though...


----------



## pony-tail

It is a $240 card that performs like a $240 card - not really a surprise !
Unless you are in Australia where it is a $450 Au card performing like a $300 card .
My interest is gone unless there is a significant price drop in Australia !


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> AIBs are the next hype train now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but how much will they cost, how much will be down to lottery and *how much frikking watts will this little monster draw at 1500+ Mhz*
> 
> also even a 1500-1550+ OC (if its possible) will just match (not exceed) the OCs of 970/980 .. but itll be an improvement over the reference for sure


Here is the kicker. 5-10% OC = 5-10% performance boost on this card. This is not the case with the GTX 970 and GTX 980.


----------



## comagnum

I did it.


----------



## julizs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> AIBs are the next hype train now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but how much will they cost, how much will be down to lottery and *how much frikking watts will this little monster draw at 1500+ Mhz*
> 
> also even a 1500-1550+ OC (if its possible) will just match (not exceed) the OCs of 970/980 .. but itll be an improvement over the reference for sure


If you look at the PCGH OC benches, a 1350Mhz (stable!) 480 already matches a 980 Classified @ 1418Mhz.

So yeah.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> It is a $240 card that performs like a $240 card - not really a surprise !
> Unless you are in Australia where it is a $450 Au card performing like a $300 card .
> My interest is gone unless there is a significant price drop in Australia !


The 970 was a $330 card a few days ago with 3.5 GB of RAM


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Here is the kicker. 5-10% OC = 5-10% performance boost on this card. This is not the case with the GTX 970 and GTX 980.


but those cards do offer more than 5-10% OC potential


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> 4 GB version with a slight VRAM OC to match the 8 GB version VRAM speed - for $199 bucks seems like a steal.
> 
> I wonder if AIB will even bother with a 4GB version though...


That seems like a better deal unless you plan on CF and need the extra memory.


----------



## Xuper

So Vega will be like 290x ? 300w ?


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pony-tail*
> 
> It is a $240 card that performs like a $240 card - not really a surprise !
> Unless you are in Australia where it is a $450 Au card performing like a $300 card .
> My interest is gone unless there is a significant price drop in Australia !


I saw an aussie website PC case gear selling the 4GB for $319, and 8GB $379, and that's release day prices lol.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Here is the kicker. 5-10% OC = 5-10% performance boost on this card. This is not the case with the GTX 970 and GTX 980.


970s and 980s overclock quite well, much better than the 480. Not sure what you're implying.


----------



## redshoulder

There goes the dream of going back to reasonably priced graphics cards with decent performance. I guess people will have to pay top dollar for nvidia medium tier gpus.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> but those cards do offer more than 5-10% OC potential


AIB's have said 1480-1600mhz their cards are hitting. With superior scaling.......well.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> 970s and 980s overclock quite well, much better than the *reference* 480. Not sure what you're implying.


FTFY


----------



## hollowtek

Going to buy one from Amazon, then return it.


----------



## Origondoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> 970s and 980s overclock quite well, much better than the 480. Not sure what you're implying.


yes they overclock well, on AIB. So let wait for AMD AIB to move in.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> but those cards do offer more than 5-10% OC potential


From what I have seen RX 480 AIB will offer MUCH better OC capability.

The reference cards are pulling up to 90w from the PCIe slot at stock, that is why they crash systems with mild OC's.









Think of the reference as trying to get a R9 290/390 into a 150w envelope. Its a bad idea and it should have never been done.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> AIB's have said 1480-1600mhz their cards are hitting. With superior scaling.......well.
> FTFY


lets hope he's right


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> AIB's have said 1480-1600mhz their cards are hitting. With superior scaling.......well.
> FTFY


Also mentioning that it's quite literally a silicon lottery like no other in recent history.

I mean, you sure would love to pay $350 for Rx480 Gaming OMG*** editijust to see it sitting at 1450Mhz, wouldn't you?


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> lets hope he's right


I'll be happy with 1500mhz and Fury X performance, only gaming at 1080p gonna blitz future games for a few years no doubt, especially with DX12 coming, and driver increases will be icing on my already reasonably sweet cake








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> Also mentioning that it's quite literally a silicon lottery like no other in recent history.
> 
> I mean, you sure would love to pay $350 for Rx480 Gaming OMG*** editijust to see it sitting at 1450Mhz, wouldn't you?


Would be acceptable. Although no I won't be paying too much for one. the clockspeed is acceptable.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Here is the kicker. 5-10% OC = 5-10% performance boost on this card. This is not the case with the GTX 970 and GTX 980.


a 25%+ OCed 980 about bridgs the ~25% gap it has to stock 980Ti though ...


----------



## Delphi

Honestly it performs as it should at its price point.

is AIB's offer better overclocking potential then this could be a bigger steal. I still think drivers will help this car a bit more and the frame times right now are way better than I could get from my current setup. Possibly in a couple months I'll get one of these in AIB form provided they OC well. As it stands is basically better than my CF 270X's.

So much doom and gloom here it is hilarious. It is 230 USD and performs as it should.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> hahahaha way to make a fool out of yourself. The internet facts boys are back


I made a fool out of myself?

You: This card is bad value.
Me: It's same or better performance than card it competes against that costs more.

Cheapest RX 480 on newegg.com: Link ($239)
Most expensive RX 480 on newegg.com: Link ($249)

Cheapest 970 on newegg.com: Link ($264 on sale)
Most expensive 970 on newegg.com: Link
(Granted this is a rediculous one and average high price of around $330 give or take.

So yea, I'm a fool. The RX480 looks to be about equal to a 970 in DX11 give or take, and stomps it in DX12 where it competes against 980. So you get a better card for $30 cheaper at the lowest end, and on average $60-$90 cheaper. Newer card thats gonna mature and already has better performance and more features and is cheaper.

Yep, thats some crazy bad value right there.

Yea yea, the 970 is old now. So my question still is, where is this card that equals or beats the 480 in its price range? If you can't find an answer to that question, which you won't, then your comment is obviously wrong, as I pointed out.

So again, I'll be waiting


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Well hopefully the non-reference cards offer an additional 10%+ performance increase over stock cards... that's really the only way I'd see them competing with Nvidia's Maxwell cards at this point...


----------



## Klocek001

This card in it reference version is officially more expensive in Poland than a new 970 Strix/6G/G1.
It going from bad to worse with the advantage of price gone.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> AIB's have said 1480-1600mhz their cards are hitting


but perf/watt was promised too ...

I could buy 1450+ for top AIBs, but 1550-1600 ? lol no


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> I made a fool out of myself?
> 
> You: This card is bad value.
> Me: It's same or better performance than card it competes against that costs more.
> 
> Cheapest RX 480 on newegg.com: Link ($239)
> Most expensive RX 480 on newegg.com: Link ($249)
> 
> Cheapest 970 on newegg.com: Link ($264 on sale)
> Most expensive 970 on newegg.com: Link
> (Granted this is a rediculous one and average high price of around $330 give or take.
> 
> So yea, I'm a fool. The RX480 looks to be about equal to a 970 in DX11 give or take, and stomps it in DX12 where it competes against 980. So you get a better card for $30 cheaper at the lowest end, and on average $60-$90 cheaper. Newer card thats gonna mature and already has better performance and more features and is cheaper.
> 
> Yep, thats some crazy bad value right there.
> 
> Yea yea, the 970 is old now. So my question still is, where is this card that equals or beats the 480 in its price range? If you can't find an answer to that question, which you won't, then your comment is obviously wrong, as I pointed out.
> 
> So again, I'll be waiting


you are getting totally caught up in all that. you are way too emotionally invested in that thing. You are even misinterpreting.

dude step back from the PC, drink a soda and relax. It'll do you good.


----------



## SoloCamo

Gah, so when are AIB cards hitting?


----------



## HackHeaven

How is this even a good deal really

If prices drop on 980 and it still has get a $60 game with it and it OCs better then its less then a 480 OC would be but better + free game o.0


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> but they promised perf/watt too ...
> 
> I could buy 1450+ for top AIBs, but 1550-1600 ? lol no


We shall see. As it is, the power delivery is massively gimped, even at stock.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> This card in it reference version is officially more expensive in Poland than a new 970 Strix/6G/G1.
> It going from bad to worse with the advantage of price gone.


The Poland is weird.


----------



## SoloCamo

They should have spent $10 more on the cooler/power delivery and reviews would be far more favorable... it's like the 290x reference card throttling never happened to them, I don't get it.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Would be acceptable.


you'd seriosuly rather buy that $350 1450+Mhz 480 than a 1070 ?


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> The Poland is weird.


No.
RX 480 is bad my friend. That's what it is.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> They should have spent $10 more on the cooler/power delivery and reviews would be far more favorable...


Meh, AIB cards are coming quickly anyway. They wanted this dirt cheap and low powered for people on crap PSUs, they achieved it.


----------



## sugalumps

Coming in about the same price as the AIB 390's and with a 390 here you get warhammer free. Better oc'ing, better cooling and a free game.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> No.
> RX 480 is bad my friend. That's what it is.


lols









Then don't buy one.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Meh, AIB cards are coming quickly anyway. They wanted this dirt cheap and low powered for people on crap PSUs, they achieved it.


See I was hoping that was the case with all the power efficiency being touted, but the power draw is still high enough where psu's are still quite a bit of a concern on OEM systems and lower end rigs.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HackHeaven*
> 
> How is this even a good deal really
> 
> If prices drop on 980 and it still has get a $60 game with it and it OCs better then its less then a 480 OC would be but better + free game o.0


More VRAM,and newer arch which means better driver support down the road are enough. I don't know why anyone would want to buy a 28nm card at this point. 1070/1080 and this card has made everything else obsolete pretty much. And 1060 shouldn't be more than 1-2 months away anyway ,which matters when the reference cooler for 480 is so bad.


----------



## Erick Silver

*sits and waits for better drivers optimization*


----------



## AmericanLoco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vesku*
> 
> 8GB vs 4GB so it's actually better vs Maxwell than it first appears. Still a bit underwhelming given the node shrink. Is this the first GPU primarily delivered by their Chinese design team? May not be all on GloFo's shoulders.


Polaris 10 is designed by the Chinese design team? Might explain why Polaris 11 seems to have much better performance/watt.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Coming in about the same price as the AIB 390's and with a 390 here you get warhammer free. Better oc'ing, better cooling and a free game.


the 4GB version 480 here is $100 cheaper than the 390.


----------



## prznar1

After digging some of the reviews it looks like its not fighting 980 but 970. Less then we thought. But still good. 32 rops are choking this card for sure.


----------



## Lipos




----------



## Klocek001

another thing about these reviews ....
how many ppl are actually gonna run those on oc'd i5's or i7's ? the overhead on low end CPUs is gonna leave RX 480 on 960 level.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> you'd seriosuly rather buy that $350 1450+Mhz 480 than a 1070 ?


A 1070 is over 600 here.

let's face it people every country is going to be different and a good deal to some won't be for others.

personally I'm glad I'm able to get this card at a good price, and far cheaper than the 970/390.


----------



## doritos93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> you are getting totally caught up in all that. you are way too emotionally invested in that thing. You are even misinterpreting.
> 
> dude step back from the PC, drink a soda and relax. It'll do you good.


Why not try to answer


----------



## clao

like using lots of power that means better cooling are built instead of just continuously sending out the same old stuf


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AmericanLoco*
> 
> Polaris 10 is designed by the Chinese design team? Might explain why Polaris 11 seems to have much better performance/watt.


Might also explain why P10 pulls 90 watt from the PCIE slot. Running out of spec is never a good idea long term.


----------



## ChevChelios

the thing is those crazy good AIBs, even if they OC good, will also raise the price and drive p/p down

the hype of this card was a 980 for $200 - that didnt come true, its more like 390/970+

is coming _close_ to stock Fury/stock Fury X on a $300++ AIB really that great of deal in comparison ? its not bad, but the insane p/p is no longer there I think ..

in fact, if the reference 8GB turned out $240-250 in reality, than a really good top custom card would be easily *over* $300, no ? And if youŗe spending over $300 why not get a 1070 ?


----------



## Eorzean

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> *sits and waits for better drivers optimization*


----------



## KarathKasun

4gb RX 480 is definitely the star of the show. 8gb is not overly helpful at its performance level. And is a waste IMHO.

If AIB cards are indeed hitting 1500+ the 8gb of ram may prove necessary, at least in that context.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> another thing about these reviews ....
> how many ppl are actually gonna run those on oc'd i5's or i7's ? the overhead on low end CPUs is gonna leave RX 480 on 960 level.


seeing how it gains going down in resolution. it isn't the case anymore. just look at gw titles too.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> the 4GB version 480 here is $100 cheaper than the 390.


Why would anyone buy the 4gb version, I was talking about the 8gb version ofcourse as those are in the same league the 4gb one is an entry card. Though the main draw of this card is that it has 4gb over the 970, most people in the other thread were saying "Lul why buy a 970 4gb is obsolete".


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doritos93*
> 
> Why not try to answer


I did. It will do him good. Better than if I show him where he was wrong and that infuriates him. I am a human being and he is a human being. It is better to calm things down


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*


that'd count for sth maybe if 970s and 980s didn't drop prices during those 2 years they're out.


----------



## Krahll

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> More VRAM,and newer arch which means better driver support down the road are enough. I don't know why anyone would want to buy a 28nm card at this point. 1070/1080 and this card has made everything else obsolete pretty much. And 1060 shouldn't be more than 1-2 months away anyway ,which matters when the reference cooler for 480 is so bad.


Sure, but the real thing is, what will happen after 1060 releases? it seems like AMD is betting too hard on nVidia's "good will", 2 or even 3 months are not enough to gain needed market share nor doing needed profit.


----------



## HackHeaven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> More VRAM,and newer arch which means better driver support down the road are enough. I don't know why anyone would want to buy a 28nm card at this point. 1070/1080 and this card has made everything else obsolete pretty much. And 1060 shouldn't be more than 1-2 months away anyway ,which matters when the reference cooler for 480 is so bad.


I have a 5850. driver support is a thing? also who cares how big or small the card is i have no idea how big or small my card is nor do i care cause it doesnt effect anything

I was gonig to get a 380X before this whole thing happened and 480 non ref 8gig will most likely be $250 or higher so thats even worse

At $200 even 8gig matching a 980 is what i was hoping for ;p and i still dont know if i can do $200 so may be getting the 380 ;p


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GamerusMaximus*
> 
> Might also explain why P10 pulls 90 watt from the PCIE slot. Running out of spec is never a good idea long term.


Yea, same story goes for gtx 1080/1070. Why AMD and Nvidia made such a mistake with ref cards?


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> No.
> RX 480 is bad my friend. That's what it is.


like I said Why do you care so much , lol ? with perf per money , It's fine.atm GTX 1070 is still expensive.Many people can't buy it.With Display 1.3, HDMI 2.0 b , 8 GB , better perf in DX12 compare to GTX 970 , at price $240 to $300 there is no card that you can find it.If you're Upset then you can leave this Thread because you have GTX 1080.it's not your Place.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Why would anyone buy the 4gb version, I was talking about the 8gb version ofcourse as those are in the same league the 4gb one is an entry card. Though the main draw of this card is that it has 4gb over the 970, most people in the other thread were saying "Lul why buy a 970 4gb is obsolete".


No 3.5GB with a slow .5 is obsolete, always was.

Anyway the 8GB version is $60 cheaper than the 390, so I dunno dude you can keep arguing or accept the 480 is a way better deal where I am.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> like I said Why do you care so much , lol ? with perf per money , It's fine.atm GTX 1070 is still expensive.Many people can't buy it.With Display 1.3, HDMI 2.0 b , 8 GB , better perf in DX12 compare to GTX 970 , at price $240 to $300 there is no card that you can find it.If you're Upset then you can leave this Thread because you have GTX 1080.it's not your Place.


It's called trolling because he hates AMD.


----------



## ChevChelios

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html

that dream of beating a 1080 with CF 480 .. RIP


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> you are getting totally caught up in all that. you are way too emotionally invested in that thing. You are even misinterpreting.
> 
> dude step back from the PC, drink a soda and relax. It'll do you good.


So you got nothing? Right, got it.

Showing facts = emotional
Spewing nonsense hate and lies = calm

Yea, one of us is emotionally invested in this, its a negative emotion. It's a hint at who it is.

Another hint: It's not me


----------



## coupe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> That is rough, very rough. Not worth the price of admission for GTX 970 level performance. Unless the drivers make up for that difference, I'll pass. Guess I'll have to go team green (begrudgingly)


Its > 970 performance for $200. How is that not a great thing? Also, excellent power efficiency.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html
> 
> that dream of beating a 1080 with CF 480 .. RIP


oh you poor thing
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/13/#diagramm-call-of-duty-black-ops-iii-2560-1440_2


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coupe*
> 
> Its > 970 performance for $200. How is that not a great thing? Also, excellent power efficiency.


GTX 970 is a GPU from 2014.

RX 480 is a GPU from 2016.


----------



## julizs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> the thing is those crazy good AIBs, even if they OC good, will also raise the price and drive p/p down
> 
> the hype of this card was a 980 for $200 - that didnt come true, its more like 390/970+
> 
> is coming _close_ to stock Fury/stock Fury X on a $300++ AIB really that great of deal in comparison ? its not bad, but the insane p/p is no longer there I think ..
> 
> in fact, if the reference 8GB turned out $240-250 in reality, than a really good top custom card would be easily *over* $300, no ? And if youŗe spending over $300 why not get a 1070 ?


Because, for the 100th time, a 1070 costs 500$ and upwards in most countries.


----------



## sugarhell

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-rx-480-8gb-review,35.html

They did almost 1400 but the gpu is throttling because of the temps.

Amd no does the same thing as nvidia with the boost. It seems the base clock is 1100 when it's throttling


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html
> 
> that dream of beating a 1080 with CF 480 .. RIP


'Backfired'


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html
> 
> that dream of beating a 1080 with CF 480 .. RIP


Look at the benchmarks... when they include games that do not scale with sli/cf it is 2% behind a 1080 at 4k... hardly a loss considering the price difference.


----------



## ChevChelios

and I'll point out I dont want to hear any more crap about the FE 1080 throttling

480 is no better

please and thank you


----------



## hollowtek

Crossfire these bad boys for a real computer fire using hyper realistic graphics (utilizing the latest reality v. 2 engine). Don't forget the super sick hyper lit overclocking tool Wattman which has a real time motherboard burn in feature. Bonus feature: real time, real life active noise canceling fan system during heated gaming sessions, you probably won't hear anything that's going on around you.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> No 3.5GB with a slow .5 is obsolete, always was.
> 
> Anyway the 8GB version is $60 cheaper than the 390, so I dunno dude you can keep arguing or accept the 480 is a way better deal where I am.
> It's called trolling because he hates AMD.


And I never said it wasn't not once, I did however say where I live the 390 AIB is the same price as the 8gb 480 and a better deal. You then tried to counter with a different tier of card.

Not sure about the 4gb prices yet in the UK.


----------



## jologskyblues

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html
> 
> that dream of beating a 1080 with CF 480 .. RIP


AMD. Please stop the empty hyping up and manage expectations. This does more damage than good. Have they not learned from bulldozer?


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> GTX 970 is a GPU from 2014.
> 
> RX 480 is a GPU from 2016.


And? Its better then current selling card. The fact that it is newer doesnt matter. It will matter if the card will perform worse than 1060 for same lower price (HIGHLY DOUBTFUL with nvidia pricing scheme)


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> and I'll point out I dont want to hear any more crap about the FE 1080 throttling
> 
> 480 is no better
> 
> please and thank you


lol but FE is an absolute rip off.

Uh oh someone's gonna get called into the manager's office at this rate, can't have all your arguments backfire lol

Say hi to Huang for me


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I did. It will do him good. Better than if I show him where he was wrong and that infuriates him. I am a human being and he is a human being. It is better to calm things down


This is why I don't bother debating people here anymore.

Complete waste of everyone's time all the while screaming from the mountain tops of your disappointment in a product he was never the target market of to begin with.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HackHeaven*
> 
> I have a 5850. driver support is a thing? also who cares how big or small the card is i have no idea how big or small my card is nor do i care cause it doesnt effect anything
> 
> I was gonig to get a 380X before this whole thing happened and 480 non ref 8gig will most likely be $250 or higher so thats even worse
> 
> At $200 even 8gig matching a 980 is what i was hoping for ;p and i still dont know if i can do $200 so may be getting the 380 ;p


Why? Get the cheapest 480. Think of the 7870. At launch it was slower than GTX580. these days it is quite faster.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> GTX 970 is a GPU from 2014.
> 
> RX 480 is a GPU from 2016.


GTX 970 is nvidias GPU in this performance range, and it costs more, is older, at the max of its lifes performance (likely, but who knows, a driver increase in performance not impossible) and has less features.

RX 480 is a GPU that performs better, is newer, has more features, will get better with mature drivers, and costs less.

are you getting this yet? Or blinded by AMD hate still?


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> like I said Why do you care so much , lol ? with perf per money , It's fine.atm GTX 1070 is still expensive.Many people can't buy it.With Display 1.3, HDMI 2.0 b , 8 GB , better perf in DX12 compare to GTX 970 , at price $240 to $300 there is no card that you can find it.If you're Upset then you can leave this Thread because you have GTX 1080.it's not your Place.


I care cause that indicates Pascal is mopping the floor with Polaris when it will finally come to comparing high end cards.


----------



## cainy1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *julizs*
> 
> Because, for the 100th time, a 1070 costs 500$ and upwards in most countries.


Damnn if it was $500 I would be all over it... Sadly $730 is the cheapest here.


----------



## Liranan

What drama, the card performs exactly as it should and there's nothing but whining.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> And I never said it wasn't not once, I did however say where I live the 390 AIB is the same price as the 8gb 480 and a better deal. You then tried to counter with a different tier of card.


Well fair enough, so I will buy one and get a good deal on new tech, you will have to buy the old tech, enjoy.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> lol but FE is an absolute rip off.
> 
> Uh oh someone's gonna get called into the manager's office at this rate, can't have all your arguments backfire lol
> 
> Say hi to Huang for me


This is partly true. rx 480 is cheaper card, so cheaper solutions had to be made. But it still does that so problem needs to be solved. Waiting for custom cards


----------



## Iscaria

Just bought mine! Picked up the Sapphire 8gb reference card. I knowthe reviews are disappointing to some, but coming from an HD 6870 like me this card will provide huge performance increases. For those not sold I would recommend waiting for AIB solutions before passing final judgment. This card could be an overclocking beast. I just didn't want to wait because I only plan on keeping this card until Vega when I will buy my high end card. Until then I'll be sure to post some benchmarks


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> And? Its better then current selling card. The fact that it is newer doesnt matter. It will matter if the card will perform worse than 1060 for same lower price (HIGHLY DOUBTFUL with nvidia pricing scheme)


Those people bought it for 329$ and gamed for 2 years with it.

We need progress. In my opinion the RX 480 is not good enough considering we are on a new node and 2 years have past since that.

What confuses me the most is why they have similar performance/power draw. It's unreal. Under normal circumstance the RX 480 at 14nm would have much better power/performance than the 28nm GTX 970 but it doesn't.


----------



## ubbernewb

wonders if there will be a 480x in a month or so


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iscaria*
> 
> Just bought mine! Picked up the Sapphire 8gb reference card. I knowthe reviews are disappointing to some, but coming from an HD 6870 like me this card will provide huge performance increases. For those not sold I would recommend waiting for AIB solutions before passing final judgment. This card could be an overclocking beast. I just didn't want to wait because I only plan on keeping this card until Vega when I will buy my high end card. Until then I'll be sure to post some benchmarks


Congrats


----------



## bcham

think ill be keeping my r9 290 now.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iscaria*
> 
> Just bought mine! Picked up the Sapphire 8gb reference card. I knowthe reviews are disappointing to some, but coming from an HD 6870 like me this card will provide huge performance increases. For those not sold I would recommend waiting for AIB solutions before passing final judgment. This card could be an overclocking beast. I just didn't want to wait because I only plan on keeping this card until Vega when I will buy my high end card. Until then I'll be sure to post some benchmarks


Sweet dude, crank the fan up a bit and OC it if possible to give us some great numbers!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> What confuses me the most is why they have similar performance/power draw. It's unreal. Under normal circumstance the RX 480 at 14nm would have much better power/performance than the 28nm GTX 970 but it doesn't.


It's GCN my friend, what fool made you think otherwise. Who cares.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> GTX 970 is nvidias GPU in this performance range, and it costs more, is older, at the max of its lifes performance (likely, but who knows, a driver increase in performance not impossible) and has less features.
> 
> RX 480 is a GPU that performs better, is newer, has more features, will get better with mature drivers, and costs less.
> 
> are you getting this yet? *Or blinded by AMD hate still?*


I see you don't read any of my post. Ask ChevChelios how much I beat on Nvidia.

Just look at my post in the GTX 1080 threads.

I give 'em both heat. I am neither blinded by hate nor a fanboy of any sort. Just ask people that see me frequently post.

Stop implying I have an agenda. I don't. I objectively look at a product and see how it is.

Btw my current card is a AMD RADEON R9 290X and I love it.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Look at the benchmarks... when they include games that do not scale with sli/cf it is 2% behind a 1080 at 4k... hardly a loss considering the price difference.


? *with* cherry picked scaling only games it _still_ loses by a bit

and with *all* games included (as is a *proper* comparison) it is beaten handily

are you seeing something Im not seeing ?

hell, with all games, it even loses to a 1070


----------



## andydabeast

Tek Syndicate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgbpXh0CifE


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iscaria*
> 
> Just bought mine! Picked up the Sapphire 8gb reference card. I knowthe reviews are disappointing to some, but coming from an HD 6870 like me this card will provide huge performance increases. For those not sold I would recommend waiting for AIB solutions before passing final judgment. This card could be an overclocking beast. I just didn't want to wait because I only plan on keeping this card until Vega when I will buy my high end card. Until then I'll be sure to post some benchmarks


I just bought mine too. I went for the xfx with the factory OC because I don't really stretch my video cards the way I do my processors. Overpaid a little, but meh. I'll post benchmarks as well.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iscaria*
> 
> Just bought mine! Picked up the Sapphire 8gb reference card. I knowthe reviews are disappointing to some, but coming from an HD 6870 like me this card will provide huge performance increases. For those not sold I would recommend waiting for AIB solutions before passing final judgment. This card could be an overclocking beast. I just didn't want to wait because I only plan on keeping this card until Vega when I will buy my high end card. Until then I'll be sure to post some benchmarks


Looking forward to some OCN members benches!


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Those people bought it for 329$ and gamed for 2 years with it.
> 
> We need progress. In my opinion the RX 480 is not good enough considering we are on a new node and 2 years have past since that.
> 
> What confuses me the most is why they have similar performance/power draw. It's unreal. Under normal circumstance the RX 480 at 14nm would have much better power/performance than the 28nm GTX 970 but it doesn't.


How it is not progress? Performance increased comparing it to cheaper cards. So how this is not a progress? Wait for AMD card that will cost +300$ and you will see performance increase.


----------



## tashcz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> The Poland is weird.


Same thing is here in Serbia, custom 970's are less than RX480. And good 970 too.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> ? *with* cherry picked scaling only games it _still_ loses by a bit
> 
> and with *all* games included (as is a *proper* comparison) it is beaten handily
> 
> are you seeing something Im not seeing ?
> 
> hell, with all games, it even loses to a 1070


Cherry picked or not I saw egg on your face, if only for a moment.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> How it is not progress? Performance increased comparing it to cheaper cards. So how this is not a progress? Wait for AMD card that will cost +300$ and you will see performance increase.


it is slight progress, but not good enough.

AMD promised more, they didn't deliver.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tashcz*
> 
> Same thing is here in Serbia, custom 970's are less than RX480. And good 970 too.


Europe I guess.


----------



## Erick Silver

ITS A ENTRY LEVEL VR CARD. NOT A MID/TOP TIER GAMING CARD.

This make the benchmarks against a card like the 970 pretty much crap in my book. Everyone is talking about how its comparing against a card that was purpose built for mid/top tier gaming. Lets see how that mid/top tier gaming card competes in VR against a card that was purpose built for VR.

Oh yeah, thats right. They could possibly be proven wrong and would have to eat crow.


----------



## Blze001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> hell, with all games, it even loses to a 1070


Uh, duh? The 1070 is $300 more than this one, of course the 1070 beats it.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> ? *with* cherry picked scaling only games it _still_ loses by a bit
> 
> and with *all* games included (as is a *proper* comparison) it is beaten handily
> 
> are you seeing something Im not seeing ?
> 
> hell, with all games, it even loses to a 1070


What are you trying to argue here? Even when you CF 2 480's you would still nearly be spending half the price of the 1080..


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> The Poland is weird.


Not wierd. Retailers are greedy and we have here so called tax from new things. Pretty much like everywhere. + dolar to złoty ratio. 970 were bought in time when dollar was cheaper (thx brits for your brexit...)


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> ? *with* cherry picked scaling only games it _still_ loses by a bit
> 
> and with *all* games included (as is a *proper* comparison) it is beaten handily
> 
> are you seeing something Im not seeing ?
> 
> hell, with all games, it even loses to a 1070


please show us any total average that a 970 is beating 480
please do because so far not a single one is showing this expect some nvidia shills that used a highly clocked 970 for their bench


----------



## Iscaria

Leading up to launch I was set on the XFX, my current card is an XFX black edition and performs amazing. However, I was offset by their pricing scheme. I feel like they're charging a premium for doing nothing, but overclocking it. And I plan to do that myself. So I figured I'd save ten bucks and see why everyone loves Sapphire so much.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ITS A ENTRY LEVEL VR CARD. NOT A MID/TOP TIER GAMING CARD.
> 
> This make the benchmarks against a card like the 970 pretty much crap in my book. Everyone is talking about how its comparing against a card that was purpose built for mid/top tier gaming. Lets see how that mid/top tier gaming card competes in VR against a card that was purpose built for VR.
> 
> Oh yeah, thats right. They could possibly be proven wrong and would have to eat crow.


R5 250 is an entry level card.

The RX480 is a mainstream/performance card.


----------



## Slomo4shO

AMD Poland even lied about the $229 price for the 8GB version


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> What are you trying to argue here? Even when you CF 2 480's you would still nearly be spending half the price of the 1080..


Chev is gonna get a serious spanking from Huang for failing to troll this launch effectively.


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I care cause that indicates Pascal is mopping the floor with Polaris when it will finally come to comparing high end cards.


Is there any card like GTX 1060 for price $240? Hell no, this card is great for me.from HD5770.I can buy it because to me it's cheap and it's new.I won't buy GTX 970 or R9 390x even if their price is $150, they reached EOL.If you're really care about Perf/watt , well I don't care.My PSU can Fit the GPU wattage.

even If AMD card is slower than Nvidia card , AMD can make good perf per $. for price $240 , this card is great.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> it is slight progress, but not good enough.
> 
> AMD promised more, they didn't deliver.


Hype promised more. True. But like i said before, even if its not at 980 lvl, it is still a good card. Not exelent, super duper crazyness, but just good product. Do you need something more? 200$ card to perform like still being sold 300$ card is a nice jump.


----------



## y2kcamaross

Though the performance isn't as high as I'd like, still thinking I'm gonna pick one of these up to replace the gtx 950 in my htpc, 4gb should be fine, will need a blower style reference cooler though so overclocking is out the window


----------



## Noufel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-rx-480-8gb-review,35.html
> 
> They did almost 1400 but the gpu is throttling because of the temps.
> 
> Amd no does the same thing as nvidia with the boost. It seems the base clock is 1100 when it's throttling


The gpu is good for that price tag especialy that nvidia have no pascal for this price range.
The main problem is power delivery and thermal throttling, it's better than a 970 and even the 980 in some cases .
Have faith red people the 480 isn't doomed yet


----------



## L36

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> lol but FE is an absolute rip off.
> 
> Uh oh someone's gonna get called into the manager's office at this rate, can't have all your arguments backfire lol
> 
> Say hi to Huang for me


He did not even put some bait on the fishing hook, he just threw the whole fishing rod into the pond. What a champ.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> Hype promised more. True. But like i said before, even if its not at 980 lvl, it is still a good card. Not exelent, super duper crazyness, but just good product. Do you need something more? 200$ card to perform like still being sold 300$ card is a nice jump.


I need something more yes.

What others need I don't know.

After it became clear that AMD plans on hitting the 200-300$ budget crowd I lowered my expectations. I expected :

- 200-239$
- GTX 980 performance
- better performance/watt than 28nm GPUs
- moderate overclockability.

and I was disappointed by today. It's as simple as that. Other people may have had lower expectations. Good for them I guess.


----------



## Code-Red

Lol everyone is gouging the price in Canada $40 or more. 780TI staying where it is unless AIB's can deliver better cards for less.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> please show us any total average that a 970 is beating 480
> please do because so far not a single one is showing this expect some nvidia shills that used a highly clocked 970 for their bench


what in the holy hell are you talking about ??

Im comparing CF 480 vs 1080 (& 1070)

Quote:


> What are you trying to argue here? Even when you CF 2 480's you would still nearly be spending half the price of the 1080..


I bought a G1 1080 for 697 EUR

right now theres listings of 8GB ref 480 for 300+ EUR from the same shops .. it will probably go down to 280 soon

and I was showing performance, not price

because I recall some ppl saying how they were gonna buy CF 480 and beat a 1080 .. RIP dreams

the "CF 480 >= 1080" train got derailed hard too today


----------



## traktor

RX 480 = 163 W
GTX 1070 = 145W
GTX 1080 = 166W

That's impossible. Polaris is at Nvidia's Maxwell generation. That is depressing.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iscaria*
> 
> Leading up to launch I was set on the XFX, my current card is an XFX black edition and performs amazing. However, I was offset by their pricing scheme. I feel like they're charging a premium for doing nothing, but overclocking it. And I plan to do that myself. So I figured I'd save ten bucks and see why everyone loves Sapphire so much.


It will likely not OC any more than its out of the box clocks. If you can hold on for two weeks, skip this reference trash and get a reasonably priced AIB card with an 8pin connection at least.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I see you don't read any of my post. Ask ChevChelios how much I beat on Nvidia.
> 
> Just look at my post in the GTX 1080 threads.
> 
> I give 'em both heat. I am neither blinded by hate nor a fanboy of any sort. Just ask people that see me frequently post.
> 
> Stop implying I have an agenda. I don't. I objectively look at a product and see how it is.
> 
> Btw my current card is a AMD RADEON R9 290X and I love it.


I read your post, and responded accordingly, you just try to shift the subject and call me wrong, when I've proven with facts/sources/links. You just say I'm wrong and say I'm emotionally invested. I don't care if you feel your "neither blinded by hate nor a fanboy of any sort." You made a false comment and was corrected. You keep arguing against the facts I keep showing you. I don't see anything wrong with correcting false information. I dunno if its an agenda or whatever but you were wrong.

I'm glad you have a R9 290X and love it. I have a 7950 and love it. Cards we buy that do what we want for a price we're ok with are nice right?

But as long as we're here, the RX 480 is decent value, despite what you try to claim. Again, if your still arguing with me on that point, please provide proof, any proof, anything, that backs your claim and refutes my counter claim (for which I have sources/facts/links)

Your very emotionally invested in arguing with me, despite your lack of any kind of real info or facts at all, you haven't even tried to cherry pick something, no effort at all. But hey, my facts are wrong, my links are wrong, my sources are all wrong and were done to allow me to push my own emotional agenda on OCN









But this is getting out of hand I think, so unless your actually gonna back up your words with something other than your opinion, I'm moving on. Have a good day! (And be sure to check out the links I posted so you can correct yourself, so you don't make posts others might consider true when they are not.


----------



## tashcz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ITS A ENTRY LEVEL VR CARD. NOT A MID/TOP TIER GAMING CARD.
> 
> This make the benchmarks against a card like the 970 pretty much crap in my book. Everyone is talking about how its comparing against a card that was purpose built for mid/top tier gaming. Lets see how that mid/top tier gaming card competes in VR against a card that was purpose built for VR.
> 
> Oh yeah, thats right. They could possibly be proven wrong and would have to eat crow.


I think the market has more need for the gaming than VR. Just an oppinion.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

With the performance of this card, would it even be worth getting 8GB? By the time you get past 4GB of VRAM usage you're handicapped by the power of the GPU so much I can't imagine how bad your frame rates would be....


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L36*
> 
> He did not even put some bait on the fishing hook, he just threw the whole fishing rod into the pond. What a champ.


He gives it a real go, I like his spirit.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> - 200-239$
> - GTX 980 performance
> - better performance/watt than 28nm GPUs
> - moderate overclockability.


Prices are accurate.
Not quite 980 performance.
Has better performance per watt by a mile over GCN 28nm GPUs, as expected.
Will overclock nicely, it can get Fury X performance on a 6 pin power connector........................
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> With the performance of this card, would it even be worth getting 8GB? By the time you get past 4GB of VRAM usage you're handicapped by the power of the GPU so much I can't imagine how bad your frame rates would be....


if the latest AIB rumour is true of them hitting 1480-1600mhz then you might want 8GB, an overclocked card on a german site is matching fury X as it is.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> With the performance of this card, would it even be worth getting 8GB? By the time you get past 4GB of VRAM usage you're handicapped by the power of the GPU so much I can't imagine how bad your frame rates would be....


Crossfire.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *traktor*
> 
> RX 480 = 163 W
> GTX 1070 = 145W
> GTX 1080 = 166W
> 
> That's impossible. Polaris is at Nvidia's Maxwell generation. That is depressing.


That is what I don't understand.

It's a freaking huge difference. Like unreal. Both the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 are much better than the RX 480 but use roughly the same power. That kinda makes no sense at all.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> R5 250 is an entry level card.
> 
> The RX480 is a mainstream/performance card.


No. The R5 250 is just plain low/entry level not worth the money unless all you do is play Facebook Games card. Maybe Minecraft.
The RX 480 is a Virtual Reality card marketed for entry level VR system with DX12 Capabilities. Its a different type of card.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> what in the holy hell are you talking about ??
> 
> Im comparing CF 480 vs 1080 (& 1070)
> I bought a G1 1080 for 697 EUR
> 
> right now theres listings of 8GB ref 480 for 300+ EUR from the same shops .. it will probably go down to 280 soon
> 
> and I was showing performance, not price
> 
> because I recall some ppl saying how they were gonna buy CF 480 and beat a 1080 .. RIP dreams
> 
> the "CF 480 >= 1080" train got derailed hard too today


you still havent answered to this
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/13/#diagramm-call-of-duty-black-ops-iii-2560-1440_2


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I need something more yes.
> 
> What others need I don't know.
> 
> After it became clear that AMD plans on hitting the 200-300$ budget crowd I lowered my expectations. I expected :
> 
> - 200-239$
> - GTX 980 performance
> - better performance/watt than 28nm GPUs
> - moderate overclockability.
> 
> and I was disappointed by today. It's as simple as that. Other people may have had lower expectations. Good for them I guess.


Games performance were hidden to last day before nda drop. That real game benchamrks leak was already showing us that its going to fight 970 not 980. Overclock was also a thing with ref board. When i first saw info about ref cards not hitting 1.4GHz i knew it was a real stuff and we have to wait for custom pcb cards with more pins delivering power. Price is a "new stuff tax". But in the end i have to say that i also thought it will have more raw power. I was hoping it was going to be a sweet spot between 970 and 980. Well, you cant have it all i guess


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> That is what I don't understand.
> 
> It's a freaking huge difference. Like unreal. Both the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 are much better than the RX 480 but use roughly the same power. That kinda makes no sense at all.


I think it's direct from globalfoundry.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> No. The R5 250 is just plain low/entry level not worth the money unless all you do is play Facebook Games card. Maybe Minecraft.
> The RX 480 is a Virtual Reality card marketed for entry level VR system with DX12 Capabilities. Its a different type of card.


That is your definition.

You are even starting to switch up your words like a hypocrite. Read your 2 posts then you see what I mean.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> you still havent answered to this
> https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/13/#diagramm-call-of-duty-black-ops-iii-2560-1440_2


Not all games get CF scaling that is close to that. A large chunk dont work with CF at all.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> - 200-239$
> - GTX 980 performance
> - better performance/watt than 28nm GPUs
> - moderate overclockability.


To be fair, those were not very high expectations to begin with. All in all, a failed product launch... This image sums it up well enough:



Nvidia: Titan X performance at half the price!
AMD: Near R9 290X performance at half the price!









Asking for greater performance than from 3 years ago is asking for too much from AMD.


----------



## GTR Mclaren

Great, between the 970 and 980 in performance.....lets see what nvidia does with the 1060


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I need something more yes.
> 
> What others need I don't know.
> 
> After it became clear that AMD plans on hitting the 200-300$ budget crowd I lowered my expectations. I expected :
> 
> - 200-239$
> - GTX 980 performance
> - better performance/watt than 28nm GPUs
> - moderate overclockability.
> 
> and I was disappointed by today. It's as simple as that. Other people may have had lower expectations. Good for them I guess.


They have a lot better p/w than THEIR 28nm GPUS. They cant match the power efficiency of the small chips from nvidia. They use different architectures and AMD with GCN can't match Pascell power efficiency no matter what.

Also if you search a lot of reviews aside of the temp throttling the gpu performs around 390 performance. In dx12 most of the times it is faster than 980. On computerbase they have tests without throttling

I know that this forum expects more but this gpu offers what is suppose to offers.


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html
> 
> that dream of beating a 1080 with CF 480 .. RIP


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> To be fair, those were not very high expectations to begin with. All in all, a failed product launch... This image sums it up well enough:
> 
> 
> 
> Nvidia: Titan X performance at half the price!
> AMD: Near R9 290X performance at half the price!


I agree.

Overall I think the RX480 is a fail launch considering it is a mid 2016 GPU.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> you still havent answered to this
> https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/13/#diagramm-call-of-duty-black-ops-iii-2560-1440_2


yes, Blops 3 likes CF (also you expect me to read german or what ?)

in the TPU chart, across all games, CF gets destroyed by 1080

Quote:


> Will overclock nicely, *it can get Fury X performance on a 6 pin power connector*........................


new dream, new hype, new train


----------



## GHADthc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> and I'll point out I dont want to hear any more crap about the FE 1080 throttling
> 
> 480 is no better
> 
> please and thank you


Who the f does this guy think he is? Lol...Go to a different discussion if people are hurting your little green heart, with their opinions and thoughts sunshine...

On topic, this has been seriously underwhelming, I knew the hype train had gone well out of hand, but even still, this is somewhat disappointing, I know AMD are running on fumes compared to NV's R&D department, but I can't help being left wanting more.

I hope that AIB cards have less restrictive bios's and power limits, and with more power and better temps these things can peform closer to 980 OC/Fury levels of performance, then I will drop coin for one, as of the moment, its not worth upgrading from my 290X @ 1200/1500 imo.


----------



## tashcz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I need something more yes.
> 
> What others need I don't know.
> 
> After it became clear that AMD plans on hitting the 200-300$ budget crowd I lowered my expectations. I expected :
> 
> - 200-239$
> - GTX 980 performance
> - better performance/watt than 28nm GPUs
> - moderate overclockability.
> 
> and I was disappointed by today. It's as simple as that. Other people may have had lower expectations. Good for them I guess.


Gotta say I'm in your train. I expected somewhere near GTX980 performance, maybe around 5-7% lower, but if they're using 14nm FinFet and that little power consumption I had no reason to believe it's going to overclock bad. I had high expectations on overclocking, at least gaining additional 300MHz. AT LEAST. Sorry, might be a lot, but it's 14nm and produces very little heat, and VRM's should be more than able to handle it.

Seems to me AMD knew what they were into when it was time to release it and they pushed it to the limit OC'ing the core to provide best possible performance without leaving any OC room.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> That is what I don't understand.
> 
> It's a freaking huge difference. Like unreal. Both the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 are much better than the RX 480 but use roughly the same power. That kinda makes no sense at all.


Maybe nvidia cards and architecture is not that bad afterall. Hunt for GHz might be good for gpus. I would love to see clock to clock compare 1080 with rx 480. Then i would like to do some math including chip size, power draw etc.


----------



## spurdomantbh

Some very conflicting reviews right there. But looks like overall it's where it was expected. Slightly disappointed by the power draw, expected 150W max, but can't be helped.
For people wondering why perf/w is at ~970~980 level, it's because GCN is a more complicated architecture. Chances are it will be used in firepro cards for 1/2DP, NVidia's mainstream cards only have 1/32 DP to SP unit ratio, thus resulting in a much more efficient card.
I'd pick one up but the only problem for me is the price. First cards in my country cost 340€.. Not much better on NVidia side though: cheapest 1070 - 600€, cheapest 1080 - 830€. Sucks for me m8s.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> They have a lot better p/w than THEIR 28nm GPUS. They cant match the power efficiency of the small chips from nvidia. They use different architectures and AMD with GCN can't match Pascell power efficiency no matter what.
> 
> Also if you search a lot of reviews aside of the temp throttling the gpu performs around 390 performance. In dx12 most of the times it is faster than 980. On computerbase they have tests without throttling
> 
> I know that this forum expects more but this gpu offers what is suppose to offers.


sure, but Nvidia is in the GPU market aswell.

It simply isn't enough. When you have a 14nm GPU in 2016 then 28nm GPU from 2016 power/perf simply isn't good enough.


----------



## Defoler

As expected.

970 performance in DX11, between the 970 and the 980 in most DX12 games, and my guess is mainly because of the 8GB memory. Not an amazing OCer (people who claimed 980/390x performance were wrong) but at least the 8GB can OC.
Claims that 480 CFX can beat the 1080 were only depends if the game is favouring one manufacturer or the other, and some games not support CFX makes it a useless endeavour.

All the reviews include the 8GB version, which means the 4GB is most like not going to give the 970 performance at 200$ level.

Its a nice card for 200$, and AMD might get some leg room in the market until the 1060 comes out.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*


do you enjoy picking cherries ?


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*


odd how you left out the other 2 games where it gets destroyed...


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> do you enjoy picking cherries ?


do you enjoy ignoring facts?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> Maybe nvidia cards and architecture is not that bad afterall. Hunt for GHz might be good for gpus. I would love to see clock to clock compare 1080 with rx 480. Then i would like to do some math including chip size, power draw etc.


Nvidia makes good GPUs, but their prices are really bad and how they handle stuff. They are greedy and use proprietary stuff like Apple. Just awful. I hate Nvidia for that


----------



## Wvls

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I need something more yes.
> 
> What others need I don't know.
> 
> After it became clear that AMD plans on hitting the 200-300$ budget crowd I lowered my expectations. I expected :
> 
> - 200-239$
> - GTX 980 performance
> - better performance/watt than 28nm GPUs
> - moderate overclockability.
> 
> and I was disappointed by today. It's as simple as that. Other people may have had lower expectations. Good for them I guess.


I expected pretty much the same you said here, in my opinion is not impossible for AMD do that honestly.
I not saw many AMD launches but i have the feeling are kind of Christmas thing the kids are expecting to
win something then want as a console or something like this but end up disappointed because got clothes
as gift instead.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> new dream, new hype, new train


http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> do you enjoy ignoring facts?


facts from average of almost 20 games > 3 games


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> As expected.
> 
> 970 performance in DX11, between the 970 and the 980 in most DX12 games, and my guess is mainly because of the 8GB memory. Not an amazing OCer (people who claimed 980/390x performance were wrong) but at least the 8GB can OC.
> Claims that 480 CFX can beat the 1080 were only depends if the game is favouring one manufacturer or the other, and some games not support CFX makes it a useless endeavour.
> 
> All the reviews include the 8GB version, which means the 4GB is most like not going to give the 970 performance at 200$ level.
> 
> Its a nice card for 200$, and AMD might get some leg room in the market until the 1060 comes out.


8gb of ram gives pretty much nothing at 1080p.

More vram does not help until you run out, then your performance falls off a cliff.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wvls*
> 
> I expected pretty much the same you said here, in my opinion is not impossible for AMD do that honestly.
> I not saw many AMD launches but i have the feeling are kind of Christmas thing the kids are expecting to
> win something then want as a console or something like this but end up disappointed because got clothes
> as gift instead.


well the card is not as big a failure as Bulldozer is, but it is still worse than my lowered expectations


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/


just RotR and Hitman then ?


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Nvidia makes good GPUs, but their prices are really bad and how they handle stuff. They are greedy and use proprietary stuff like Apple. Just awful. I hate Nvidia for that


I know what you are talking about. After two green cards im going back to red team (tired of drivers issues and lower perfomance with newer drivers).


----------



## jellybeans69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spurdomantbh*
> 
> Some very conflicting reviews right there. But looks like overall it's where it was expected. Slightly disappointed by the power draw, expected 150W max, but can't be helped.
> For people wondering why perf/w is at ~970~980 level, it's because GCN is a more complicated architecture. Chances are it will be used in firepro cards for 1/2DP, NVidia's mainstream cards only have 1/32 DP to SP unit ratio, thus resulting in a much more efficient card.
> I'd pick one up but the only problem for me is the price. First cards in my country cost 340€.. Not much better on NVidia side though: cheapest 1070 - 600€, cheapest 1080 - 830€. Sucks for me m8s.


280 euro here for Gigabyte RX480 but will probably drop down a bit in coming weeks.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> just RotR and Hitman then ?


Huh? Doom fury X.............

Division it's near a 980ti lol?

Take whatever you want from those OC results, it's a good card for the price.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> sure, but Nvidia is in the GPU market aswell.
> 
> It simply isn't enough. When you have a 14nm GPU in 2016 then 28nm GPU from 2016 power/perf simply isn't good enough.


WHy you care so much about power/watt? The price is really good and this is the only thing that the gpu needs. The power that needs are low enough for amd to sell it to OEMs and to the majority of gamers.

It is a low mid range card and they improved a lot vs their previous products. Maybe you need to clean your head from the hype. It's 200 bucks even pitcairn release price was 350 and it couldnt beat 580 on release.

AMD 28nm gpus never matched the power efficiency of the nvidia gpus except the big dies like hawaii and fiji matching gk110 and gm200.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> well the card is not as big a failure as Bulldozer is, but it is still worse than my lowered expectations


Considering that you are comparing it to Bulldozer...


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> I know what you are talking about. After two green cards im going back to red team (tired of drivers issues and lower perfomance with newer drivers).


I have had driver issues with both Nvidia and AMD, but never anything really bad.

AMD products do age pretty well. My 290X got better basically every month from 2014 to 2016.

Nvidia products are great if you have money and buy a new one very year.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Nvidia products are great if you have money and buy a new one very year.


Also good for shills on a forum trying to derail an AMD product launch


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Division it's near a 980ti lol?
> 
> Take whatever you want from those OC results, it's a good card for the price.


but you were comparing it to Fury X .. (and also an OCed 980Ti is 25% faster than stock 980Ti)

anyway yeah it has some OC hype left, lets see what the partners do with it


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> *WHy you care so much about power/watt?* The price is really good and this is the only thing that the gpu needs. The power that needs are low enough for amd to sell it to OEMs and to the majority of gamers.
> 
> It is a low mid range card and they improved a lot vs their previous products. Maybe you need to clean your head from the hype. It's 200 bucks even pitcairn release price was 350 and it couldnt beat 580 on release.
> 
> AMD 28nm gpus never matched the power efficiency of the nvidia gpus except the big dies like hawaii and fiji matching gk110 and gm200.


It gives us a good indication of what is to come from future 14nm AMD products.

I was hoping for VEGA10 (RX490) but now I am not so sure anymore considering perf/watt of RX480 is terrible. It's the same architecture


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I have had driver issues with both Nvidia and AMD, but never anything really bad.
> 
> AMD products do age pretty well. My 290X got better basically every month from 2014 to 2016.
> 
> Nvidia products are great if you have money and buy a new one very year.


that is why im going to invest in better company, even if the product didnt match my expectations. But ill just wait for custom cards


----------



## GTR Mclaren

People are crazy, 970 are selling right now for 280$ or more, 980 for $350 or more...and this 4GB card too at 199 is performing between them?? what more dou you want ?? this card will get the 1060 price dow from the originals plans of NVIDIA for sure, and that is a win for both red and green teams


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> but you were comparing it to Fury X .. (and also an OCed 980Ti is 25% faster than stock 980Ti)
> 
> anyway yeah it has some OC hype left, lets see what the partners do with it


Are you easily confused Chev?

oh now it's only close to a stock 980ti when OC'd so it's a bad thing.....................

You're cracking me up lol


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> that is why im going to invest in better company, even if the product didnt match my expectations. But ill just wait for custom cards


you can do that if you feel like it.

I thank you for taking the bullet


----------



## GorillaSceptre

I'm also completely perplexed when it comes to Perf-Per-Watt..

It looks like Polaris is similar to Pascal, shoe-horned in between Volta and Vega.. At this power draw it isn't really a deal breaker, but if the whole "1500MHz" with AIB's is true those things will be pulling close to Hawaii level.. Good little card for the masses, but I'd be lying if i said i wasn't disappointed. Nvidia have no answer for it right now, but i think the 1060 is going to have a few things to say when it arrives.

No point in downplaying it though, they more or less delivered what they promised. I was just hoping for something really special.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> oh now it's only close to a stock 980ti when OC'd so it's a bad thing.....................


OC gets compared to OC


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> do you enjoy picking cherries ?


you accussing someone else of cherry picking is irony lol
also accept it on gameworks games it usually 5% slower
on neutral games is above it simple as that

now we will have to wait for more gameworks games on 2016 so nvidia can win again..

oh wait none big one!


----------



## Wvls

I also would like to ask a thing, is true the RX 480 put a excessive load on PCI Express slot?
in my opinion this are not a good combination for a GPU has the intention to sell to the masses
as an average Joe will look to the price and not if the can can melt in motherboard and AMD is
not on the financial situation for replace stuff and get sued because that, and then don't need
more negative things around their brand.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> It gives us a good indication of what is to come from future 14nm AMD products.
> 
> I was hoping for VEGA10 (RX490) but now I am not so sure anymore considering perf/watt of RX480 is terrible. It's the same architecture


Yet you cant read my comment. AMD never matched the power efficiency of the small dies from nvidia with GCN. Never

Yet when both release the big guns they are matching their performance and the power.

Tahiti was a bit slower on release with a lot more tdp.
Pitcairn on release was the same vs the 660.
And tonga that is kinda flop on the power consumption


----------



## Erick Silver

There's a lot of controversy here. But I still stand by my thoughts on it

1. Its been marketed as a entry level VR card that be benched against a mid/top tier gaming card.(GTX970/980
2. Drivers have not yet been updated where as the 970/980 have had 2 years worth of tweaking done.
3. Lets see how it fares in VR against the same cards it was tested against in gaming.
4. I don't like the insinuation of being called a hypocrite. I have not changed my outlook on what this card is or the benches done already.

Yes its disappointing at its current performance. But at a release price of +/- $200 what is to be expected? THe 970 released at $329 when it was released 2 years ago. the 980 at $549. So in this day and age for a VR GPU to come in at $200 and compete with a card thats had 2 years worth of drivers updates and fixes really speaks loads to those of us that can't afford to spend $300+ on a GPU.


----------



## chir

Eh. Not surprised, really sick of "leaks" overhyping stuff. This is about what you can expect from a low power draw 230€ card. Luckily, I have low standards, a budget, and really want variable refresh rate without paying for G-Sync. Looks acceptable for 2560x1080 and medium/high detail on last year titles. Really hate giving AMD money though. We'll see, I'll wait for the quieter, cooler AIB models, but certainly do not expect any performance increase from those.

..And I kinda really want a GTX1070 now tbh. Meh.


----------



## jellybeans69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTR Mclaren*
> 
> People are crazy, 970 are selling right now for 280$ or more, 980 for $350 or more...and this 4GB card too at 199 is performing between them?? what more dou you want ?? this card will get the 1060 price dow from the originals plans of NVIDIA for sure, and that is a win for both red and green teams


275 euro for 970 gtx gigabyte here
280 euro for RX480 8gb


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Yet you cant read my comment. AMD never matched the power efficiency of the small dies from nvidia with GCN. Never
> 
> *Yet when both release the big guns they are matching their performance and the power.*
> 
> Tahiti was a bit slower on release with a lot more tdp.
> Pitcairn on release was the same vs the 660.
> And tonga that is kinda flop on the power consumption


So you would expect the RX490 (VEGA10) to have the same perf/watt as the GTX 1080?

Or do you mean GPUs beyond that? GTX 1080 Ti and whatever comes for AMD ?


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> you accussing someone else of cherry picking is irony lol
> also accept it on gameworks games it usually 5% slower
> on neutral games is above it simple as that
> 
> now we will have to wait for more gameworks games on 2016 so nvidia can win again..
> 
> oh wait none big one!


http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html

*150% - 184%
147% - 185%*

memorize it


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> The price is really good and this is the only thing that the gpu needs.


In what universe is a $239 price for 3 year old performance really good? I suppose you found the GTX 960 providing near GTX 680 performance at $200 a great buy as well


----------



## ciarlatano

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Also good for shills on a forum trying to derail an AMD product launch


AMD seems to be doing a fine job of that all by themselves these days. I really had hope for this card.....I was assured (again.....) that it was going to be different this time.....

But, not as bad as my worst fears. The cynical part of me said "matches performance of a 980 in two random synthetic benchmarks, performs like a 960 everywhere else". It is distinctly better than a 960, so I guess there is that.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 8gb of ram gives pretty much nothing at 1080p.


I was not talking just about 1080p.
And that depends on the game. Some of the newer games really start to take into usage the 4GB+ options. With the 970 having 3.5gb of fast memory and 0.5gb of slow memory, it does get hit when it comes to high settings high memory usage times (mainly the reason why the 480 can run modestly at 1440p and the 970 can't in many games, even if it is still behind the 980 is most games).


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I have had driver issues with both Nvidia and AMD, but never anything really bad.
> 
> AMD products do age pretty well. My 290X got better basically every month from 2014 to 2016.
> 
> Nvidia products are great if you have money and buy a new one very year.


Yup, 290x has been the best gpu purchase I've ever made at this point, and it came with a copy of BF4 as well. I had considered selling my 290x for the rx-480 even if it matched it due to the anticipated power consumption and quieter cooler (plus extra 4gb at 4k helps) but it missed the mark a bit there unfortunately and at higher res it just can't handle itself as well as an oc'ed 290x can.


----------



## Blze001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html
> 
> *150% - 184%
> 147% - 185%*
> 
> memorize it


We get it. The $250 card doesn't match the $450+ cards. I still don't see why you're gloating about that.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jellybeans69*
> 
> 275 euro for 970 gtx gigabyte here
> 280 euro for RX480 8gb


The 970 has had two years for prices to stabilize, give it a couple days for the gouging to stop.

In either case, it's stronger than a 970 and as you pointed out, has 8GB of Vram compared to 3.5.


----------



## PontiacGTX

On TPU review in some games as resolution increases it performs behind the r9 390x (1440+)

ROP and Bandwidth limited

it needed at least 384 bit bus and at leats 64 ROPs/4 RBEs per SE


----------



## mohit9206

Disappointing.970 is already $250 so where is the value in the 8gb card? 4gb model is a good value though.


----------



## Clovertail100

These chips are coming from GloFlo. The price difference and clock difference makes a lot more sense now.

I'm remember hearing (I think it was last year) that AMD was planning to use both GloFlo and TSMC across their lineup. I can see GloFlo being superior in the priceerformance area, and making more sense for the mid-low range.

AMD certainly has a priceerformance winner in the 480, but I feel like the 970 performance bracket is already heavily saturated. The 480 is going to be a sidegrade for most people, and nothing more. It's a great value for people who basically skipped the entire 28nm generation, but 28nm lingered so long that I doubt there are many people in that category. They'll make some sales in mobile and OEM as well, I imagine.

Hopefully Vega will be a TSMC chip.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blze001*
> 
> We get it. The $250 card doesn't match the $450+ cards. I still don't see why you're gloating about that.


the "CF 480 > 1080" thing rustled my jimmies a bit, but now Im good again


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> OC gets compared to OC


You're on fire tonight.









$350 card vs $850 card in my country and you don't think coming to 55fps 480 OC'd vs 60fps stock 980ti is something worth discussing?

Ok lol

Fury X is also $800 here.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I'm also completely perplexed when it comes to Perf-Per-Watt..
> 
> It looks like Polaris is similar to Pascal, shoe-horned in between Volta and Vega.. At this power draw it isn't really a deal breaker, but if the whole "1500MHz" with AIB's is true those things will be pulling close to Hawaii level.. Good little card for the masses, but I'd be lying if i said i wasn't disappointed. Nvidia have no answer for it right now, but i think the 1060 is going to have a few things to say when it arrives.
> 
> No point in downplaying it though, they more or less delivered what they promised. I was just hoping for something really special.


From the numbers the 480 with 8GB is sitting between the 980 and the 970 in both performance and watt, which means it is in the maxwell region, not pascal region. The 480 is taking more watt than the 1070, which is a few good grades of performance above it.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I have had driver issues with both Nvidia and AMD, but never anything really bad.
> 
> AMD products do age pretty well. My 290X got better basically every month from 2014 to 2016.
> 
> Nvidia products are great if you have money and buy a new one very year.


Agreed. I've had issues with both sides but nothing I would hold against either side. My 7950 is holding up quite well for what I need it to do. My needs aren't that demanding









So all in all I'd agree that if you want the absolute best performance on the market and upgrade when theres an upgrade available, nvidia is likely your choice, as long as your not bound by a budget heh. For people like myself who buy whats the best in their price range and hold onto it for years, I find myself mainly buying AMD cards these days. Though the backup 560 I'm running now while my 7950 is RMA'd was such a good deal I couldn't turn it down (FREE! When I bought a Corsair 300R, 990FX mobo and FX6300. And a free DVD burner but who cares)

Heck for me these days, even using this 560 doesn't feel too bad... Shows how little I game now huh...


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> You're on fire tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $350 card vs $850 card in my country and you don't think coming to 55fps 480 OC'd vs 60fps stock 980ti is something worth discussing?
> 
> Ok lol
> 
> Fury X is also $800 here.


move to my country









we have 300 EUR 480, 700 EUR 1080, 480 EUR 980Ti, 460-480 1070 & 690 EUR Fury X


----------



## DrPhilGood

Very disappointed to be honest. I guess for people expecting stock 980 performance the options are 1) wait for AIB card overclocking/pricing or 2) Wait for 1070s to drop below $400USD. Have to say though, I'm really loath to give Nvidia any money after all their proprietary BS.


----------



## SoloCamo

At this point AMD may as well say to hell with power consumption again and just release a 9590 on the gpu front. 400w+ beast is fine by me if it has the performance to match at this point and that means handily beating a 1080. Hopefully Vega does not disappoint.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wvls*
> 
> I also would like to ask a thing, is true the RX 480 put a excessive load on PCI Express slot?
> in my opinion this are not a good combination for a GPU has the intention to sell to the masses
> as an average Joe will look to the price and not if the can can melt in motherboard and AMD is
> not on the financial situation for replace stuff and get sued because that, and then don't need
> more negative things around their brand.


Yes, in testing it has been found to exceed the PCIe spec by up to 20%. On average it was over the spec by 10%.


----------



## NYU87

I'm surprised this thing draws more power than a 1070 and 1080 and offers so little performance.

It also draws more power than the recommended out of the PCI-e slot. I guess if you want to damage your motherboard, you would pick this up.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ciarlatano*
> 
> AMD seems to be doing a fine job of that all by themselves these days. I really had hope for this card.....I was assured (again.....) that it was going to be different this time.....
> 
> But, not as bad as my worst fears. The cynical part of me said "matches performance of a 980 in two random synthetic benchmarks, performs like a 960 everywhere else". It is distinctly better than a 960, so I guess there is that.


The 960 is garbage, look at the frametimes on Tom's 480 review for starters. They are worse than any other card by a significant margin.

It's on par with a 970. (480)


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DrPhilGood*
> 
> Very disappointed to be honest. I guess for people expecting stock 980 performance the options are 1) wait for AIB card overclocking/pricing or 2) Wait for 1070s to drop below $400USD. Have to say though, *I'm really loath to give Nvidia any money after all their proprietary BS*.


I have that problem too. I don't want to chain myself to a G-Sync monitor knowing I only can buy Nvidia GPUs during the duration I use that monitor


----------



## Erick Silver

I'm waiting until a Non Reference Asus Model is available. I am running my 770 right now. But I do like my AMD....


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> move to my country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have 300 EUR 480, 700 EUR 1080, 480 EUR 980Ti, 460-480 1070 & 690 EUR Fury X


See this is the thing, and I know why you are so Nvidia biased due to the odd gouging that goes on for AMD cards there, it's very interesting.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mookster*
> 
> I'm remember hearing (I think it was last year) that AMD was planning to use both GloFlo and TSMC across their lineup. I can see GloFlo being superior in the priceerformance area, and making more sense for the mid-low range.
> 
> Hopefully Vega will be a TSMC chip.


I don't think TSMC has 14nm (samsung does though). Also zen is rumoured to be a 16nm from TSMC because global foundries might not have enough 14nm yield to produce them and polaris and others at the same time.


----------



## spurdomantbh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> It gives us a good indication of what is to come from future 14nm AMD products.
> 
> I was hoping for VEGA10 (RX490) but now I am not so sure anymore considering perf/watt of RX480 is terrible. It's the same architecture


Frankly, when we have vega vs big pascal it will be the best comparison for efficiency. GCN is a more complicated architecture, its 1/2 DP capabilities are built in and cannot be removed like with NVidia's CUDA cores. NVidia's mainstream cards only have 1/32 DP ratio and result in a much more efficient card. Big pascal will have all the DP units so the final perf/w should be a lot closer.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

So, they did improve the CPU overhead, which is nice. Faster than 970 and 290X @1080p while not running @1266MHz all the time. All AIB cards will be running >1266MHz all the time. This is exactly the performance I expected. Power usage is higer tho.


----------



## santi2104

Another year, another amd hyped launch with dissapointing results, not impressed tho, basically, you get a gtx 970 for 200, probably the same price that they will cost used, not to mention that the price will only be 200 in the us, outside of the us, it will be higher, for example in Argentina where i live, gtx 980 performance for 200, im waiting.
I just hope, that zen is not the same failure.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> At this point AMD may as well say to hell with power consumption again and just release a 9590 on the gpu front. 400w+ beast is fine by me if it has the performance to match at this point and that means handily beating a 1080. Hopefully Vega does not disappoint.


Agreed. I mean, how can it consume more power than 1070 and 1080 and offer half the performance?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I don't think TSMC has 14nm (samsung does though). Also zen is rumoured to be a 16nm from TSMC because global foundries might not have enough 14nm yield to produce them and polaris and others at the same time.


It is more likely that SS is picking up the slack. You have to totally redesign for another fab if the process is not the same.


----------



## Blackops_2

Not that concerned with power consumption as long as i can clock it high and get 980+ performance. Will be waiting to see. There is also the fact that we will see driver improvements if previous iterations of GCN have taught us anything. I'd probably better off going with a 480 rather than a 980. I have a friend with a 980 with block willing to let it go 275$ right now though..

Right now the 980 is a no brainer but i did this between the 780 and 290x and look where that got me..gonna hold out until AIB get throttling under control and we see consistent OCing results.


----------



## Xuper

http://techreport.com/review/30328/amd-radeon-rx-480-graphics-card-reviewed


----------



## Derp

The RX 480 is VERY close to GTX 970 performance and power consumption. Especially when you consider the overclock headroom of Maxwell. Think about that for a minute.

GTX 970 released in 2014 on 28nm.
RX 480 released in 2016 on 14nm.

This is BAD. Compare it to Pascal's efficiency and it's very clear how far behind AMD is. You get more Vram and hopefully save a few bucks but to the unbiased consumer this cannot be considered a truly successful launch.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> From the numbers the 480 with 8GB is sitting between the 980 and the 970 in both performance and watt, which means it is in the maxwell region, not pascal region. The 480 is taking more watt than the 1070, which is a few good grades of performance above it.


I'm aware.







What i meant was that Pascal is more or less a shrink of Maxwell, and most of it's efficiency gains come from the new process. It looks like the same is true for Polaris, so it obviosly gains efficiency from 14nmFF, but AMD hasn't improved relative to Nvidia. They've both just gained from the new process, AMD maybe slightly more because Polaris had a few more changes compared to Pascal.

Vola and Vega were obviously both delayed and Polaris and Pascal were used to bridge the gap.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spurdomantbh*
> 
> Frankly, when we have vega vs big pascal it will be the best comparison for efficiency. GCN is a more complicated architecture, its 1/2 DP capabilities are built in and cannot be removed like with NVidia's CUDA cores. NVidia's mainstream cards only have 1/32 DP ratio and result in a much more efficient card. Big pascal will have all the DP units so the final perf/w should be a lot closer.


The 1/2 DP is not true for Fury/Tonga/Polaris.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> See this is the thing, and I know why you are so Nvidia biased due to the odd gouging that goes on for AMD cards there, it's very interesting.


the 300 EUR 480 is just first day

it will settle to 280+, maybe 270 EUR after more stock comes in


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> So, they did improve the CPU overhead, which is nice. .


I don't think so.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> AMD's DX11 performance is still awful in Ashes of the Singularity with the RX 480. If any improvements were made it should show up here.


----------



## PlugSeven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> Disappointing.970 is already $250 so where is the value in the 8gb card? 4gb model is a good value though.


The 970 is tapped out though, it is all but officially announced EOL.


----------



## Noufel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> Disappointing.970 is already $250 so where is the value in the 8gb card? 4gb model is a good value though.


Even the 4gb 480 is 0.5gb better than the 970


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> Not that concerned with power consumption as long as i can clock it high and get 980+ performance. Will be waiting to see. There is also the fact that we will see driver improvements and if previous iteration of GCN point to anything, i'd probably better off going with a 480 rather than a 980. I have a friend with a 980 with block for 275$ right now.
> 
> Right now the 980 is a no brainer but i did this between the 780 and 290 and look where that got me..gonna hold out until AIB get throttling under control and we see consistent OCing results.


depends where you live where I am the 980 is $600 vs $350 8GB 480.

Check out these benchmarks

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

scroll down page for OC results.

1350mhz 480 pretty close to Hercules 980 1380mhz (depending on game)

Matches fury X.


----------



## spurdomantbh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> The 1/2 DP is not true for Fury/Tonga/Polaris.


They've been limiting it in gaming GPUs, the hardware is still there. Fury never got a workstation equivalent card due to only have 4GB RAM. Polaris though was promised for workstation market iirc, so it should also come with 1/2 DP then.


----------



## santi2104

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> The RX 480 is VERY close to GTX 970 performance and power consumption. Especially when you consider the overclock headroom of Maxwell. Think about that for a minute.
> 
> GTX 970 released in 2014 on 28nm.
> RX 480 released in 2016 on 14nm.
> 
> This is BAD. Compare it to Pascal's efficiency and it's very clear how far behind AMD is. You get more Vram and hopefully save a few bucks but to the unbiased consumer this cannot be considered a truly successful launch.


Totally agree with you, two years later, double the manufacturing process, and still the same performance and power compsuption, not good at all.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I have that problem too. I don't want to chain myself to a G-Sync monitor knowing I only can buy Nvidia GPUs during the duration I use that monitor


You do know you can use AMD cards on that monitor you know, and you will be able to gain a use of a higher Hz monitor?
You just won't get the benefit of g-sync itself.

Also g-sync is considered superior than adaptive sync in terms of ghosting elimination and overall screen performance, but it is just a bit more pricer. Just like getting a basic mazda 3 vs a tricked out mazda 3. Same car, just one has a bit more nice things in it, but it also cost a bit more.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *santi2104*
> 
> Totally agree with you, two years later, double the manufacturing process, and still the same performance and power compsuption, not good at all.


60% chip size of 970, and 60% of 970 price with same performance is bad?


----------



## umeng2002

Tomshardware exposes a few issues with these reference boards.

1. The card goes over the advertised TDP
2. The card pulls 20% more power through the PCI express slot than the standard allows
3. There is one memory chip between the GPU and Vregs that heats up beyond Samsung's rated specs.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

This card @ constant 1266MHz will be as fast as 390X @1080p, slower @1440p


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> You do know you can use AMD cards on that monitor you know, and you will be able to gain a use of a higher Hz monitor?
> You just won't get the benefit of g-sync itself.
> 
> Also g-sync is considered superior than adaptive sync in terms of ghosting elimination and overall screen performance, but it is just a bit more pricer. Just like getting a basic mazda 3 vs a tricked out mazda 3. Same car, just one has a bit more nice things in it, but it also cost a bit more.


yes I know that.

But it would be wasteful to buy a G-Sync monitor with that horrible extra fee and then not use it.

I'd rather have 70 fps with G-Sync enabled than 90fps without G-Sync


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> depends where you live where I am the 980 is $600 vs $350 8GB 480.
> 
> Check out these benchmarks
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/
> 
> scroll down page for OC results.
> 
> 1350mhz 480 pretty close to Hercules 980 1380mhz (depending on game)
> 
> Matches fury X.


Yeah i'm talking about a friend who has a 980 and an EK block here in the states who is willing to let it go for 275$, not a retailer by any means. I can't predict the future though so i'm going to wait.

Those are pretty solid results.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> 60% chip size of 970, and 60% of 970 price with same performance is bad?


But the power consumption is the only con, let them focus on it and expel all their energy, they will tire eventually and we can discuss the many pros to these cards.

As a PC enthusiast that OC's my CPU, ram and GPU I don't give a stuff about power lol.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> Yeah i'm talking about a friend who has a 980 and an EK block here in the states who is willing to let it go for 275$, not a retailer by any means. I can't predict the future though so i'm going to wait.
> 
> Those are pretty solid results.


That's a good deal for sure, but these 480 AIB cards will be exciting if they can hit 1480-1600mhz as rumoured from Kyle.


----------



## Clovertail100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I don't think TSMC has 14nm (samsung does though). Also zen is rumoured to be a 16nm from TSMC because global foundries might not have enough 14nm yield to produce them and polaris and others at the same time.


TSMC has 16nm FinFet, which is what Pascal is currently being built on. NV's premium pricing makes it harder to decipher which node is cheaper, but GloFlo has historically been cheaper and inferior to TSMC.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spurdomantbh*
> 
> They've been limiting it in gaming GPUs, the hardware is still there. Fury never got a workstation equivalent card due to only have 4GB RAM. Polaris though was promised for workstation market iirc, so it should also come with 1/2 DP then.


No, Fury/Tonga/Polaris are all pretty similar. No 1/2 DP in hardware. Now, it may do 1/8 or 1/16 instead of 1/32.


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> But the power consumption is the only con, let them focus on it and expel all their energy, they will tire eventually and we can discuss the many pros to these cards.
> 
> *As a PC enthusiast that OC's my CPU, ram and GPU I don't give a stuff about power lol*.


This.


----------



## traktor

GTX 970 is at 250EUR ( vat included ) , basically there there with the RX 480 4GB


----------



## Kedas

300€ the 8gb version here in Portugal, guess the 4gb will be around 250€


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mookster*
> 
> TSMC has 16nm FinFet, which is what Pascal is currently being built on. NV's premium pricing makes it harder to decipher which node is cheaper, but GloFlo has historically been cheaper and inferior to TSMC.


Ehhhh. GF had SoI 32nm and could get much better clocks out of it than anything TSMC could produce for a long time. After 32nm though, GF has been pretty meh.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *traktor*
> 
> GTX 970 is at 250EUR ( vat included ) , basically there there with the RX 480 4GB


Exactly so you buy an AIB 480, why would you want that pile of junk 3.5GB card.

I'd be embarrassed walking down the street to my car with a 970.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> Even the 4gb 480 is 0.5gb better than the 970


I agree








But for 1080p (where both cards are aiming, since the 480 even with 8GB isn't giving great performance in most games at 1440p an above), both cards are aiming well now in price and performance and are overall very similar. One from 2014, one from 2016.
That is actually pretty nice for nvidia. Just reduce the price of the leftover 970s in order to hit on the 480 market, and then release the 1060 at a competitive price (if they can) and higher performance and they are set for another year of leading the market.


----------



## mkclan

For me only disappointment is power consumption. It fits my budget and have big improvement over my HD 7850.
For those who thought that it is better to buy a gtx 970, think that it will happen with that, when gtx 1060 hit market.
Sry my english.


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Exactly so you buy an AIB 480, why would you want that pile of junk 3.5GB card.
> 
> *I'd be embarrassed* walking down the street to my car with a 970.


lol


----------



## d3v0

After reading through 20 of these reviews, I compiled:

*Average overclock* across all reviewers: *1335mhz.*

(That is not counting the 5 reviewers who said overclocking was so poor that they did not bother to post results.) If I were to include those five, the average overclock for an end user, being an experienced video card reviewer, would be *1318mhz.*

The range of stable overclocks achieved by manipulating Wattman and voltages: *1300mhz - 1375mhz*.

(*Only 3 reviewers out of 20 achieved higher than 1350mhz.)*


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I agree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But for 1080p (where both cards are aiming, since the 480 even with 8GB isn't giving great performance in most games at 1440p an above), both cards are aiming well now in price and performance and are overall very similar. One from 2014, one from 2016.
> That is actually pretty nice for nvidia. Just reduce the price of the leftover 970s in order to hit on the 480 market, and then release the 1060 at similar price and higher performance and they are set for another year of leading the market.


And the beauty of these cards is AMD can price them even lower if needed due to reduced production costs (apparantly)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d3v0*
> 
> After reading through 15 of these reviews, I compiled an *average overclock* across all reviewers of *1335mhz.*
> The range of stable overclocks achieved by manipulating Wattman and voltages is from 1300mhz to 1375mhz, maximum. *Only 3 reviewers out of 20 achieved higher than 1350mhz.*


That damn 6 pin.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> To be fair, those were not very high expectations to begin with. All in all, a failed product launch
> 
> Nvidia: Titan X performance at half the price!
> AMD: Near R9 290X performance at half the price!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asking for greater performance than from 3 years ago is asking for too much from AMD.


That's a invalid comparison. You need to compare the cards to the same variable. So if using the Titan x it would be:
Nvidia titan x performance at 1/2 of the cost
Amd 1/2 Titan x performance at 1/5 of the cost
Btw the 980ti would be a much better variable as it would at least make your post appear somewhat genuine on the surface. But then again it makes the 1080 look pretty bad as well.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Exactly so you buy an AIB 480, why would you want that pile of junk 3.5GB card.
> 
> I'd be embarrassed walking down the street to my car with a 970.


You can also get a good AIB 970 which might perform just as good as the 480 and might even have a bit more OC room.


----------



## julizs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d3v0*
> 
> After reading through 15 of these reviews, I compiled an *average overclock* across all reviewers of *1335mhz.*
> 
> That is not counting the 5 reviewers who said overclocking was so poor that they did not bother to post results. If I were to include those five, the average overclock for an end user, being an experienecd video card reviewer, would be *1318mhz.*
> 
> The range of stable overclocks achieved by manipulating Wattman and voltages is from 1300mhz to 1375mhz, maximum. *Only 3 reviewers out of 20 achieved higher than 1350mhz.*


...on the heavily power limited reference card.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d3v0*
> 
> After reading through 15 of these reviews, I compiled an *average overclock* across all reviewers of *1335mhz.*
> 
> That is not counting the 5 reviewers who said overclocking was so poor that they did not bother to post results. If I were to include those five, the average overclock for an end user, being an experienecd video card reviewer, would be *1318mhz.*
> 
> The range of stable overclocks achieved by manipulating Wattman and voltages is from 1300mhz to 1375mhz, maximum. *Only 3 reviewers out of 20 achieved higher than 1350mhz.*


Motherboard quality likely plays more into RX 480 reference overclocking than usual. If the board has independent power connections for the PCIe slots, it may overclock further. This still does not account for the rubbish cooler though.


----------



## SOCOM_HERO

Anyone have a chart with comparisons to 7950 or R9 280x?


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> You have a car, so why walking down the street with it?
> Isn't a car meant for the road, and not the street?
> I don't get people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, you can also get a good AIB 970 which might perform just as good as the 480 and might even have a bit more OC room.


You can't always park at the front door to most shops lol. I was envisioning my local shops at the time. It does sound odd looking back at it.

Anyway I'd run to my car with the 970 under a cloth crying like a child in shame knowing my future gaming would take a hit on this obsolete junk with 3.5GB vram and bad DX12 support.


----------



## PontiacGTX

FramePacing+CF+XDMA saving AMD performance.


Architecture bottlenecks ruins single gpu performance...


----------



## Awsan

So based on history an overclocked AIB will trade blows with 980 and remember my words


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> And the beauty of these cards is AMD can price them even lower if needed due to reduced production costs (apparantly)


When? Now? In 3 months? How much room do they have now at 200$? Nvidia most likely just have stocks left of the 970 and they aren't making them anymore anyway.

Also if the 480 is being cut by 30-40$ in MSPR within the first 3 months, people might go a bit ballistic over it.


----------



## spurdomantbh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> No, Fury/Tonga/Polaris are all pretty similar. No 1/2 DP in hardware. Now, it may do 1/8 or 1/16 instead of 1/32.


The thing is, GCN doesn't require specialized hardware for 1/2DP. They may have cut some data paths for Fury/Tonga to save some power, since they didn't need them, but GCN in itself is designed to maximize DP performance and most of that hardware cannot be removed without redesigning the whole architecture. Frankly we won't know anything about polaris DP capabilities until we get a workstation card, but since they promised it I'm fairly certain they'll use 1/2 DP.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SOCOM_HERO*
> 
> Anyone have a chart with comparisons to 7950 or R9 280x?


The 280x is included in this comparison.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awsan*
> 
> So based on history an overclocked AIB will trade blows with 980 and remember my words


Because a stock 980 can't be OCed, and there do not exist AIB 980s....


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> FramePacing+CF+XDMA saving AMD performance.
> 
> 
> Architecture bottlenecks ruins single gpu performance...


that CF cant even save itself


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spurdomantbh*
> 
> The thing is, GCN doesn't require specialized hardware for 1/2DP. They may have cut some data paths for Fury/Tonga to save some power, since they didn't need them, but GCN in itself is designed to maximize DP performance and most of that hardware cannot be removed without redesigning the whole architecture. Frankly we won't know anything about polaris DP capabilities until we get a workstation card, but since they promised it I'm fairly certain they'll use 1/2 DP.


No, it was cut. CGN does not get native 1/2 DP for free. It is not intrinsic to the architecture. Look at the HD 7870 for example.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Because a stock 980 can't be OCed, and there do not exist AIB 980s....


That's irrelevant, I think they are just stating that the earlier leaks were somewhat accurate. The 980 is much more expensive for starters........


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> FramePacing+CF+XDMA saving AMD performance.
> 
> 
> Architecture bottlenecks ruins single gpu performance...


Stil overall under a single 1070 which cost less, takes less power, and have less CFX issues than the CFX solution.


----------



## looniam

it's like everytime nvidia wants to drive me away with pricing, AMD wants to chase me back with (expected) performance.









and to think i almost bought a 4K freesync screen on impulse yesterday.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *julizs*
> 
> ...on the heavily power limited reference card.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Motherboard quality likely plays more into RX 480 reference overclocking than usual. If the board has independent power connections for the PCIe slots, it may overclock further. This still does not account for the rubbish cooler though.


YES.

Read tomshardware review. The refernce PCB design is pulling more power from the PCI Express slot than what is in the PCIe standard.

AMD should have put an 8 pin connector on this card.

Two reference 480s in Crossfire will really test your Mobo's power handling capability.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> YES.
> 
> Read tomshardware review. The refernce PCB design is pulling more power from the PCI Express slot than what is in the PCIe standard.
> 
> AMD should have put an 8 pin connector on this card.
> 
> Two reference 480s in Crossfire will really test your Mobo's power handling capability.


If you want to damage your motherboard, pick up two 480s in CF.


----------



## Rustynails

seems like a great card,
if we go off of amd history i would say in 1 year this card will out perform a 980ti


----------



## ZealotKi11er

They said they are making a VR card so we all should have expected R9 290 and 970 performance. I hope AMD goes back to making HD 7970/290X cards.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rustynails*
> 
> seems like a great card,
> if we go off of amd history i would say in 1 year this card will out perform a 980ti


Which means it will outperform a 1070. Makes sense. /sarcasm


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> The refernce PCB design is pulling more power from the PCI Express slot than what is in the PCIe standard.


isnt that dangerous ?


----------



## Awsan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Awsan*
> 
> So based on history an overclocked AIB will trade blows with 980 and remember my words
> 
> 
> 
> Because a stock 980 can't be OCed, and there do not exist AIB 980s....
Click to expand...

250$
400$


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> The 980 is much more expensive for starters........


WTH are you talking about?
The AIB 480s were rumoured to cost 300$? They are not even out yet, and that is the price you can get for a reference 980 in some places. So more expensive? Not really.

Also yes, even if it is more expensive, you also get more performance, and more OC room.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> The refernce PCB design is pulling more power from the PCI Express slot than what is in the PCIe standard.
> 
> 
> 
> isnt that dangerous ?
Click to expand...

i see where you want to go but, NO.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> isnt that dangerous ?


Hitorically speaking other GPU's have done the same thing, and I don't remember there being much, if any, complaints about damaged mobos. That said, I think they were only going over by a small amount, like 5watts of something, maybe 10... Dang, I can't remember the card(s). I think AMD even had a card that pulled more from both the PCIe bus AND the power connectors than they were rated for... Was it the 6990 or 7990? Or am I wrong altogether... Oh well putting kid down for his nap so I will try to look up after. Any1 else wanna chime in on this?


----------



## SwishaMane

And my Sapphire RX 480 order is in...

$10 says it beats my GTX 580 by a mile. lol


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SwishaMane*
> 
> And my Sapphire RX 480 order is in...
> 
> $10 says it beats my GTX 580 by a mile. lol


Spoiler warning :


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



It does beat the GTX 580


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SwishaMane*
> 
> And my Sapphire RX 480 order is in...
> 
> $10 says it beats my GTX 580 by a mile. lol


Thats gonna be the longest mile ever


----------



## mr one

This is too much, too much 480 threads and too much 1070(-80) threads. And not a single article on, how to stop being a fanboys


----------



## bossie2000

Oh boy.So many funny guys on this forum!

What does the 480 replace? It replaces the 380 offcause!

1. Is it faster than a 380. Yes it is!
2.Does it have lower power usage.Yes it do!
3.Does it support newest tech.Yes it does!
4 Please add another few if you can!!

Good job AMD!


----------



## SwishaMane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Spoiler warning :
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> It does beat the GTX 580


LOL, of course it does. 580 is weak now-a-days. Just been forever since i could spend money on a new GPU, especially one thats way better and pretty affordable.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awsan*
> 
> 250$
> 400$


320$ you mean.

It is also getting out of stocks, preparing for the 1060, so most likely whatever is left in stocks of the 980, are going to drop in price soon enough.

Also 250$ for a stock limited OCed under 980 performance card. And that is after the argument was about 480 AIBs which we know are at least 300$? Get your arguments in order please.


----------



## Eorzean

I guess Vega, if we're lucky, will be competing with the 980 Ti / 1070 at best... in over a year from now? I was really hoping AMD would bring its revolution and drive prices down, but I don't see that happening anymore. If you wanted to stay 2 years behind and save money, why not just buy old/used hardware? In Canada, a 970/290x/390 are all priced lower and offer similar/even better performance than the 490. That's a fail, IMO.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> isnt that dangerous ?


About as dangerous as you charging your phone through a micro USB 2.0 port.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SwishaMane*
> 
> And my Sapphire RX 480 order is in...
> 
> $10 says it beats my GTX 580 by a mile. lol


Gotta post those comparison benches to see!!


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> Oh boy.So many funny guys on this forum!
> 
> What does the 480 replace? It replaces the 380 offcause!
> 
> 1. Is it faster than a 380. Yes it is!
> 2.Does it have lower power usage.Yes it do!
> 3.Does it support newest tech.Yes it does!
> 4 Please add another few if you can!!
> 
> Good job AMD!


AMD has outdone themselves.

This is a miracle.

Beating the R9 380.

Utterly unbelievable.

I have never thought this to be possible.

AMD set the bar high, but they managed to beat the R9 380.

The 380 was the behemoth of GPUs.

AMD I congratulate you. This is truly world class.


----------



## ChevChelios

_You (480) were the chosen one !_


----------



## Newbie2009

AMD are apparently releasing new drivers tonight...









Might help out the crossfire situation at least.

So who just bought one?


----------



## hollowtek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SwishaMane*
> 
> And my Sapphire RX 480 order is in...
> 
> $10 says it beats my GTX 580 by a mile. lol


So you'll give me $10/mile that it beats the gtx 580? Where do I sign up?


----------



## SlackerITGuy

Not quite what I expected, but nice release either way.

I would be buying a GTX 1070 right about now if it wasn't for the supply and boot/DL-DVI issues.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> 320$ you mean.


True. But to be fair you picked a sale price thats not always happening... A sale price thats over $100 off (26% off limited time pricing)... True, but cherry picking and not exactly the best arguement to make.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> Oh boy.So many funny guys on this forum!
> 
> What does the 480 replace? It replaces the 380 offcause!
> 
> 1. Is it faster than a 380. Yes it is!
> 2.Does it have lower power usage.Yes it do!
> 3.Does it support newest tech.Yes it does!
> 4 Please add another few if you can!!
> 
> Good job AMD!


Only sensible post I've seen all morning.

And for those crying out it has 970 performance, it is almost always faster than a 970 based off the more reputable review sites. It seems to match the 390/390x and slightly tail the 980 in a handful of games. Seems to match expectations.

The only bad thing is the power consumption, really wonder what happened there


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> AMD has outdone themselves.
> 
> This is a miracle.
> 
> Beating the R9 380.
> 
> Utterly unbelievable.
> 
> I have never thought this to be possible.
> 
> AMD set the bar high, but they managed to beat the R9 380.
> 
> The 380 was the behemoth of GPUs.
> 
> AMD I congratulate you. This is truly world class.


----------



## mohit9206

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> More or less what was expected.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> 1. Sometimes a little slower than the 970, sometimes faster and sometimes it's actually closer to the 980 ballpark than to the 970, which shows potential with future drivers;
> 
> 2. The frame times / smooth gameplay are now much better and comparable to Nvidia. It's now appropriate to say thanks Scott! (Scott Wasson from TR who went to work for AMD because of his contributions to frame time analysis);
> 
> 3. The reference cooler is crappy. A bit loud and lets the card get too hot, third party coolers to save the day;
> 
> 4. *Performance per watt is as expected,* it matches the 970 at 28nm, which at the end of the day seems disappointing, but it was a known quantity. They shaved off a lot of watts from the comparable R9 390 / 390X at 28nm, but in the end it goes to show that AMD only made some minor power efficiency improvements in the architecture itself, the power gains are coming from the transition to the new manufacturing process, they are way behind Nvidia in this regard. Maybe they can keep things balanced at the high end if Nvidia uses GDDR5X with the 1080 Ti and AMD uses lower power HBM2 with Vega.
> 
> All in all, it's a good card, but I don't know if it builds the momentum that they need. Pricing and overclockability will be key, possibly future driver improvements and also how long it takes Nvidia to launch the 1060 and where it will stand. It's certainly much better than the power hogs semi-rebranded 390X / 390, we can finally put those behind us.


You don't remember AMD promised 2.5X perf/watt improvement for Polaris?


----------



## airfathaaaaa

i still dont understand how we devolved to discuss only one review that clearly showed a card reaching its stress limit on a game and just forgets about pretty much the rest of the reviewers that didnt saw such a thing......


----------



## Awsan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Awsan*
> 
> 250$
> 400$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 320$ you mean.
> 
> It is also getting out of stocks, preparing for the 1060, so most likely whatever is left in stocks of the 980, are going to drop in price soon enough.
> 
> Also 250$ for a stock limited OCed under 980 performance card. And that is after the argument was about 480 AIBs which we know are at least 300$? Get your arguments in order please.
Click to expand...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16814127834

This is a proper card not the one you linked, the one you linked is the most extreme situation for an AIB card.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> WTH are you talking about?
> The AIB 480s were rumoured to cost 300$? They are not even out yet, and that is the price you can get for a reference 980 in some places. So more expensive? Not really.
> 
> Also yes, even if it is more expensive, you also get more performance, and more OC room.


Where I live 980 is $600

4GB 480 is $319

1070 $750

So AIB will be under $400


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> Hitorically speaking other GPU's have done the same thing, and I don't remember there being much, if any, complaints about damaged mobos. That said, I think they were only going over by a small amount, like 5watts of something, maybe 10... Dang, I can't remember the card(s). I think AMD even had a card that pulled more from both the PCIe bus AND the power connectors than they were rated for... Was it the 6990 or 7990? Or am I wrong altogether... Oh well putting kid down for his nap so I will try to look up after. Any1 else wanna chime in on this?


already did. but to add to that and your's; there was talk of upping the power spec to 150 watts per slot in PCI-E 2.0 but i believe it died out with PSU manufactures and wanting to be concerned with the additional 150 watts+ on multi slot MBs. also there are power boards sold by the likes like evga to add more 12v to the pci-e slots to relieve the 12v from the 24 pin header not to mention MBs with additional power plugs.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> True. But to be fair you picked a sale price thats not always happening... A sale price thats over $100 off (26% off limited time pricing)... True, but cherry picking and not exactly the best arguement to make.


That is going to be the norm for the 980. Who in his right mind will buy a 400$ card from previous gen when the 1070 is out at the same price?
The 980s are going to crash in price. Especially with the 1060 coming in a few months at most. Everyone will want to clear stocks, and that is what is going to happen.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Stil overall under a single 1070 which cost less, takes less power, and have less CFX issues than the CFX solution.


that if you play some of the games which dont scale CF and bring the scaling down


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mohit9206*
> 
> You don't remember AMD promised 2.5X perf/watt improvement for Polaris?


If I remember correctly the press conference slides showed efficiency increase of 1.8x with special cases being up to 2.8x (most likely DX12/VR scenarios). If they we're comparing the card to Hawaii the efficiency increase is roughly 1.77x for DX11 performance, slightly higher in DX12. tpi is correct.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Only real knocks for this card is the lower than expected power efficiency. Other than that it does what it needs to do; it updates options for those who have around $250 to spend and it exploits a performance tier that NVIDIA has yet to cover with Pascal.

Also, I would expect the performance of the RX 480 to improve a lot as AMD takes a long time to get full performance out of their architectures.


----------



## mr one

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> That is going to be the norm for the 980. Who in his right mind will buy a 400$ card from previous gen when the 1070 is out at the same price?
> The 980s are going to crash in price. Especially with the 1060 coming in a few months at most. Everyone will want to clear stocks, and that is what is going to happen.


why do you care so much about that 980 price dropping lower than ur pants?


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> that if you play some of the games which dont scale CF and bring the scaling down


so you cant play a bunch of games if you go CF ?

nice


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I am worried about Vega now. This 14/16 nm shift for both side has been super disappointing. Almost like they are holding back knowing they will be in this node for eternity.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> already did. but to add to that and your's; there was talk of upping the power spec to 150 watts per slot in PCI-E 2.0 but i believe it died out with PSU manufactures and wanting to be concerned with the additional 150 watts+ on multi slot MBs. also there are power boards sold by the likes like evga to add more 12v to the pci-e slots to relieve the 12v from the 24 pin header not to mention MBs with additional power plugs.


PCIE 3.0 is still rated at 75W just like the PCIE 2.0, mainly because it is also backwards compatible so you can not mess with the connections too much.
Yes some add a bit more juice to it, or more correctly, they add more connectors in order to put less strain on the ATX connection and allow a draw from another source in order to give the CPU more stable power as well and not burn out the main power connector, and more than a few power suppliers also allow more draw from the 6pin.

Overall the 155-160w power consumption at max can be explained from other sources of power usage which are running, and they are not "cut down" from the equation for various reasons.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Its a new manufacturing process and neither company wants to pull a Fermi. Its completely reasonable for them to be this conservative.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> That is going to be the norm for the 980. Who in his right mind will buy a 400$ card from previous gen when the 1070 is out at the same price?
> The 980s are going to crash in price. Especially with the 1060 coming in a few months at most. Everyone will want to clear stocks, and that is what is going to happen.


They will, but outside a few rare cases they aren't that much cheaper yet. Sure, the prices will come down, but we can only compare prices of now. And that price you posted is now so I agreed with you a bit, but I also realize this is a sale, and not a new lower regular price. I'm waiting to see how these cards will affect the price of existing cards. That said, retailers and etailers alike are gonna try to find a balance between pricing these cards where they should be now with new cards out and trying to recoup as much of their own costs/maximize profits on cards they bought a while ago at a higher price themselves (compared to what they would be paying for them now given the new products on the market) Expect sales and lower prices, but expect them to trickle down slowly till retailers are absolutely forced to go lower than they want...


----------



## Echoa

only problem im having is that at 240-250$ this is a hard sell vs grabbing a 290 for 200$ or less, yea its better on power and such but you get roughly equal performance for cheaper @ 1080p. Need those 4gb models to come out please XP


----------



## spurdomantbh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> No, it was cut. CGN does not get native 1/2 DP for free. It is not intrinsic to the architecture. Look at the HD 7870 for example.


You're right about the 7870. But it might just have cut data paths for better perf/w. Pitcairn was their mobile flagship gpu so it would make sense to save some power.
The reason why I believe the 1/2DP hardware is always there is from an AMD paper about their GCN architecture. Can't find the exact one I'm thinking of atm, however a similar one about GCN: https://www.amd.com/Documents/GCN_Architecture_whitepaper.pdf

This talks a bit about the register use for 64bit processing, nothing about ALU though :/ I'll respond if I can find the paper I'm thinking of.


----------



## GoLDii3

So this launch is pretty much the same as GTX 1070 launch minus the P/Watt improvement.

Anywayws i wonder why they cheaped out so much on the cooler,it looks like neither vendors can make a decent reference cooler for once.

In Europe price is currently between 270 or more for 8 GB version.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> only problem im having is that at 240-250$ this is a hard sell vs grabbing a 290 for 200$ or less, yea its better on power and such but you get roughly equal performance for cheaper @ 1080p. Need those 4gb models to come out please XP


I think a lot of new PC builders don't want to go straight to used parts yet and would rather take a RX 480 brand new. Otherwise, I agree with you. I told you guys that the 8GB would be a bad value.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> only problem im having is that at 240-250$ this is a hard sell vs grabbing a 290 for 200$ or less, yea its better on power and such but you get roughly equal performance for cheaper @ 1080p. Need those 4gb models to come out please XP


You do not want a R9 290 now especially reference. Unless you already own RX 480 is a better buy then all GCN 1.1 cards.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Where I live 980 is $600
> 
> 4GB 480 is $319
> 
> 1070 $750
> 
> So AIB will be under $400


And were I live the 1080 is 1000$ and the 1070 is 670$ and the 480 is 430$, and the 980 is on sale for under 400$ and the 970 is 300$. So what is your point?


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> FramePacing+CF+XDMA saving AMD performance.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Architecture bottlenecks ruins single gpu performance...


Let me guess . . . pcars, W3.

They are good for retrieving bioses, though.









Look at the 780. That's the future of the 980.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> So this launch is pretty much the same as GTX 1070 launch minus the P/Watt improvement.
> 
> Anywayws i wonder why they cheaped out so much on the cooler,it looks like neither vendors can make a decent reference cooler for once.
> 
> In Europe price is currently between 270 or more for 8 GB version.


Why does everyone keep saying this...

GCN is not Maxwell or Pascal.

For 290X/390/390x performance, you're getting a rough efficiency increase of 1.77x which is a large jump. There is most certainly a huge P/watt improvement when comparing it to the architecture it should be compared to. It sucks the p/watt isn't similar to pascal, but the uarchs are MASSIVELY different.

Please stop....


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> You do not want a R9 290 now especially reference. Unless you already own RX 480 is a better buy then all GCN 1.1 cards.


mmm let's go buy second hand 290's with no warranty lol and higher power draw. Dat logic.

480 is the best value 1080p card ever. At least where I live.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,22.html


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Why does everyone keep saying this...
> 
> GCN is not Maxwell or Pascal.
> 
> For 290X/390/390x performance, you're getting a rough efficiency increase of 1.77% which is a large jump. There is most certainly a huge P/watt improvement when comparing it to the architecture it should be compared to. It sucks the p/watt is similar to pascal, but the uarchs are MASSIVELY different.
> 
> Please stop....


Oh logic. Just a mistake it is 1.77X not %


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> They will, but outside a few rare cases they aren't that much cheaper yet. Sure, the prices will come down, but we can only compare prices of now. And that price you posted is now so I agreed with you a bit, but I also realize this is a sale, and not a new lower regular price. I'm waiting to see how these cards will affect the price of existing cards. That said, retailers and etailers alike are gonna try to find a balance between pricing these cards where they should be now with new cards out and trying to recoup as much of their own costs/maximize profits on cards they bought a while ago at a higher price themselves (compared to what they would be paying for them now given the new products on the market) Expect sales and lower prices, but expect them to trickle down slowly till retailers are absolutely forced to go lower than they want...


The price will come down, but you can't really compare as previously done, a AIB with isn't even in the market, to a card which is, so there are tons of hypothetical arguments going around. I was just giving the option and the example.


----------



## bossie2000

Quote:


> The 480 is going to be a sidegrade for most people


Well i think will stick with my 390x bit longer,except if i want the newest tech


----------



## SwishaMane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Gotta post those comparison benches to see!!


I will gladly post comparisons of what I can. Not like anyone's interested in what a gtx 580 can do anymore, LOL. Will be interesting.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> You do not want a R9 290 now especially reference. Unless you already own RX 480 is a better buy then all GCN 1.1 cards.


Im just saying vs the rx480 8gb, the 4gb model (which i cant seem to find any) @ roughly 200$ seems like the better deal for budget minded 1080p gamers like me, but the 8gb model being even a bit beyond msrp makes the value plummet imo. Just mean the 4gb models cant come fast enough







Ill have to wait for those to show unfortunately


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> So this launch is pretty much the same as GTX 1070 launch minus the P/Watt improvement.
> 
> Anywayws i wonder why they cheaped out so much on the cooler,it looks like neither vendors can make a decent reference cooler for once.


Some old cards called the 290 series started off being bashed into the ground using bad coolers too, but damn did they come of age.


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SwishaMane*
> 
> I will gladly post comparisons of what I can. Not like anyone's interested in what a gtx 580 can do anymore, LOL. Will be interesting.


That card held it's on for some time to be honest. Buddy is still running one though i think he's running into problems.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> that if you play some of the games which dont scale CF and bring the scaling down


Hey, I wasn't the one who claimed superiority over the 1080 with a CFX example during the AMD 480 presentation now did I?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> PCIE 3.0 is still rated at 75W just like the PCIE 2.0, mainly because it is also backwards compatible so you can not mess with the connections too much.
> Yes some add a bit more juice to it, or more correctly, they add more connectors in order to put less strain on the ATX connection and allow a draw from another source in order to give the CPU more stable power as well and not burn out the main power connector, and more than a few power suppliers also allow more draw from the 6pin.
> 
> Overall the 155-160w power consumption at max can be explained from other sources of power usage which are running, and they are not "cut down" from the equation for various reasons.


didn't say anything about PCI 3.0 i said there was talking during *2.0*









the power to the cpu has nothing to do with it.

bottom line is the "additional power" someone might be concerned about is hardly more than what goes to a fan header when you account for the five traces of 12v going to the slot.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> FramePacing+CF+XDMA saving AMD performance.
> 
> 
> Architecture bottlenecks ruins single gpu performance...


lol

barely matched a 150W $400 GTX 1070

great scaling in CF optimized games tho. but fps is half the story with stuttering plaguing Crossfire in a lot of games that actually do scale well and give the impression of being perfectly optimized for CF.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> And were I live the 1080 is 1000$ and the 1070 is 670$ and the 480 is 430$, and the 980 is on sale for under 400$ and the 970 is 300$. So what is your point?


My point is it's great value for me you joker.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> lol
> 
> barely matched a 150W $400 GTX 1070


What fool would buy two cards for crossfire over a 1070/1080 anyway lol.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Hey, I wasn't the one who claimed superiority over the 1080 with a CFX example during the AMD 480 presentation now did I?


it beats the 1080 in one game so technically there was no lie.


----------



## SwishaMane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> That card held it's on for some time to be honest. Buddy is still running one though i think he's running into problems.


I realized a heavy need for a new GPU with Rise of the Tomb Raider... I played that whole game at 30fps (barely), medium settings... Best the 580 could do, even with an AMD 8350 @ 4.4, and 16GB RAM. Hoping the RX 480 will change this.I'm interested to replay the game, and actually see game and not a slideshow.


----------



## sugarhell

Well i kinda miss alatar and the old guys here on ocn. This is not a conversation just fanboys are fighting each other with zero logic. And the lack of the mods in general..

I am out have fun guys


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

It's as simple as this.................

480 is a card you should buy

980 is a card you should buy

1070 is a card you should buy

1080 is a card you should buy

Anyone have a problem?

(I left out any cards below 480 tier)

These are the cards you should purchase if you can afford them, all can offer great gaming performance at each price range.


----------



## iTurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Well i kinda miss alatar and the old guys here on ocn. This is not a conversation just fanboys are fighting each other with zero logic. And the lack of the mods in general..
> 
> I am out have fun guys


100% this whole post is on point.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> mmm let's go buy second hand 290's with no warranty lol and higher power draw. Dat logic.
> 
> 480 is the best value 1080p card ever. At least where I live.
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,22.html


the 480 is fantastic, just they need to get those 4gb models out asap if the 8gb models are gonna be around 250$ it makes the 4gb model all that more appealing if they stick within 10$ of msrp, you essentially get a 290x at that point which is great for 1080p


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> the 480 is fantastic, just they need to get those 4gb models out asap if the 8gb models are gonna be around 250$ it makes the 4gb model all that more appealing if they stick within 10$ of msrp, you essentially get a 290x at that point which is great for 1080p


Where can you buy a brand new 290X? It's a 390X now.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Well... at least it is faster than GTX 480 ...


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> 480 is a card you can buy
> 
> 1070 is a card you should buy
> 
> 1080 is a card you want to buy


FTFY


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> My point is it's great value for me you joker.


But we are not talking about *you* mr. all mighty batman, we are talking about the market and the overall. So get out of your cave once in awhile.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> it beats the 1080 in one game so technically there was no lie.


No, but it was a directed statement wasn't it? A big part of the PR. "get two 480s instead of a single 1080!" kind of statement.
If they stated 480 < 980 performance, it wouldn't be as much of a punch now wouldn't it?


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> FTFY


I could purchase any of those three cards right now unlike some people who have to use their credit card lol.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> It's as simple as this.................
> 
> 480 is a $250 card you should buy
> 
> 980 is a +$300 card you should buy
> 
> 1070 is a $400 card you should buy
> 
> 1080 is a card you should buy for max pefromance regardless of the price


fixed


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> the 480 is fantastic, just they need to get those 4gb models out asap if the 8gb models are gonna be around 250$ it makes the 4gb model all that more appealing if they stick within 10$ of msrp, you essentially get a 290x at that point which is great for 1080p
> 
> 
> 
> Where can you buy a brand new 290X? It's a 390X now.
Click to expand...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202042


----------



## aDyerSituation

Not disappointed with the card as much as I am with the fact that I don't think they will regain as much market-share with it as I was hoping for.

Lord save me from this $700 mid tier cards


----------



## hokk

Gtx970 is cheaper than rx480 here

By a small amount

:[


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Where can you buy a brand new 290X? It's a 390X now.


you can still grab new ones from amazon, newegg, and a few other places. reference ones go for 200-215 though right now pricing isnt looking as good obviously, but when the 4gb rx480 is available @ 200$ its gonna steal the show (which is what Im waiting for personally)


----------



## prjindigo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> PCIE 3.0 is still rated at 75W just like the PCIE 2.0, mainly because it is also backwards compatible so you can not mess with the connections too much.
> Yes some add a bit more juice to it, or more correctly, they add more connectors in order to put less strain on the ATX connection and allow a draw from another source in order to give the CPU more stable power as well and not burn out the main power connector, and more than a few power suppliers also allow more draw from the 6pin.
> 
> Overall the 155-160w power consumption at max can be explained from other sources of power usage which are running, and they are not "cut down" from the equation for various reasons.


Molex PCIe 6-pin is capable of delivering 6A x 12V x 3 wires. 216w, add th '75 watts' which is only actually 54 watts on 3.0 due to signaling and you can spike up around 290w on a six pin without too much risk.

The "wattage" numbers for these connectors are imposed as maximum draw thresholds on the manufacturers, they are not the physical limits of the power supply or connectors. A card that exceeds 150+50 watts draw stock with only a 6-pin will simply not be certified, this is why you see boards that often have unused mounting points for an additional power lead so an additional connector can be added.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> But we are not talking about *you* mr. all mighty batman, we are talking about the market and the overall. So get out of your cave once in awhile.
> No, but it was a directed statement wasn't it? A big part of the PR. "get two 480s instead of a single 1080!" kind of statement.
> If they stated 480 < 980 performance, it wouldn't be as much of a punch now wouldn't it?


Well I can talk about my situation, as I'm looking to buy a card, you are just trolling with no intention of purchasing, you're not the joker, the joke is on you honestly.

PR is bull****, look at nvidia. Plus he never said 480s in Xfire will beat a 1080 in all games, pay attention next time and you won't be fooled by marketing noob.


----------



## TRoy1001

AMD needs 14nm to match Nvidia's efficiency on 28nm, Pathetic,


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> Not disappointed with the card as much as I am with the fact that I don't think they will regain as much market-share with it as I was hoping for.
> 
> Lord save me from this $700 mid tier cards


TBH, I think they put that as their first card because they saw how the 970 was really a very popular card in the mid-range level, so they wanted that too, to bring a card to each the mid-range, and hoped they could pull an nvidia stunt by bringing a mid range performer card for cheap and eat on that market while nvidia doesn't have a new card in that market.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Well I can talk about my situation, as I'm looking to buy a card, you are just trolling with no intention of purchasing, you're not the joker, the joke is on you honestly.
> 
> PR is bull****, look at nvidia. Plus he never said 480s in Xfire will beat a 1080 in all games, pay attention next time and you won't be fooled by marketing noob.


I'm not. Yet it was their statement. To the people who are not running in OCN and reading all the threads, might presume that the 480s is a better deal. And aren't they aiming at those people with the cards?

Bringing a hype is just as important in PR as giving false hope.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

The argument has sunk as low as people actually stating they'd buy a reference 290 instead. 'Crazy town in here' I'm out enjoy the trolling.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Well... if there's darn better coolers it might make it worth it...

at 1080p gaming or even 1440p I don't think 8GB would be justified over 4GB with the raw GPU power from this card...

I supposedly get my GTX970 send back "by the latest,Friday"...so I don't think it'd be worth the sale and buy of this new card. Unless driver optimization and overclocking go way above some of these initial reviews...


----------



## mickeykool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SlackerITGuy*
> 
> Not quite what I expected, but nice release either way.
> 
> I would be buying a GTX 1070 right about now if it wasn't for the supply and boot/DL-DVI issues.


What boot/DL-DVI issues?


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> But the power consumption is the only con, let them focus on it and expel all their energy, they will tire eventually and we can discuss the many pros to these cards.
> 
> As a PC enthusiast that OC's my CPU, ram and GPU I don't give a stuff about power lol.
> That's a good deal for sure, but these 480 AIB cards will be exciting if they can hit 1480-1600mhz as rumoured from Kyle.


I do care about it but same power draw, and same performance for less price got me. I just dont understand some people. And the fact that its 14nm or 28nm chip dont hit me. Im not playing with nanometers, im playing games with my pc (overall thing). Sure, it is a flaw that lower sized die draws same power with same performance, but I DONT CARE.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I'm not. Yet it was their statement. To the people who are not running in OCN and reading all the threads, might presume that the 480s is a better deal. And aren't they aiming at those people with the cards?
> 
> Bringing a hype is just as important in PR as giving false hope.


You invalidated your point by using the word "deal".


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> ...graphics nerds hoping that AMD would regain its performance lead in the future might wonder whether AMD set out to make a mainstream card, or whether-thanks to less than stellar efficiency improvements with Polaris-its hand was forced.


http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/amd-rx-480-polaris-review/

They may have a point there. AMD may not have set out to target the mainstream, but dealt the hand they were given. Ouch.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prjindigo*
> 
> Molex PCIe 6-pin is capable of delivering 6A x 12V x 3 wires.


It is 6A *total*, not 6Ax3.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> Well... if there's darn better coolers it might make it worth it...
> 
> at 1080p gaming or even 1440p I don't think 8GB would be justified over 4GB with the raw GPU power from this card...
> 
> I supposedly get my GTX970 send back "by the latest,Friday"...so I don't think it'd be worth the sale and buy of this new card. Unless driver optimization and overclocking go way above some of these initial reviews...


I still remember people say the same thing about 1 GB/2 GB/ 3 GB cards. Till people got their 780 Ti stutter like crazy in games like Watch Dogs and SOM with Ultra textures setting. 8 GB while might not be fully saturated but it is still a good benefit over 3.5 GB.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> You invalidated your point by using the word "deal".


A price is a price. It doesn't matter if the card used to cost 650$ on release, if it is being sold now at 320$ now isn't it?


----------



## hawker-gb

Great card as i expected.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *prjindigo*
> 
> Molex PCIe 6-pin is capable of delivering 6A x 12V x 3 wires.
> 
> 
> 
> It is 6A *total*, not 6Ax3.
Click to expand...

his math is correct.


----------



## Insan1tyOne

When you see the overclocked RX 480 consistently beating the GTX 970 and trading blows with the GTX 980 and buyers can have it all for $199 - $229. I can't wait to see what the AIBs do with this card. Personally I feel that a card this powerful at this price point could really help to improve PC gaming for everyone. Plus it is relatively small and it only takes one 6-pin to power it.

All I have to say is... Good job AMD!

- Insan1tyOne


----------



## Echoa

Once that 4gb version is in stock ill be pulling that trigger, this is a pretty good increase vs my 270x

(think this videos already been posted)


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> his math is correct.


Nope. PCI-e connector can only deliver a 75 wats by the specs.


----------



## Just a nickname

The cheapest GTX 1070 I can find on newegg is the gigabyte one at 400$.
The RX 480 is priced at 230$. How can one say that they are going to buy the 1070 instead? It's not the same price and it is not the same category at all... Yea AMD suck but I guess Vega is going to offer what all of us are waiting for. The GTX 970 is still very expensive even second-hand. The RX480 really has a nice value for sure!


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> so you cant play a bunch of games if you go CF ?
> 
> nice


From TPU were like 4-5 out of 17


----------



## hawker-gb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Insan1tyOne*
> 
> When you see the overclocked RX 480 consistently beating the GTX 970 and trading blows with the GTX 980 and buyers can have it all for $199 - $229. I can't wait to see what the AIBs do with this card. Personally I feel that a card this powerful at this price point could really help to improve PC gaming for everyone. Plus it is relatively small and it only takes one 6-pin to power it.
> 
> All I have to say is... Good job AMD!
> 
> - Insan1tyOne


Agree. Great card.

Only problem with card is flood of nGreedia shills.


----------



## prznar1

Anyway, after watching and reading some reviews of rx 480 i can easly say that if amd wont cut rops on rx 470, it would suit me very well. If the 2048 sp spec is true. For 150$ i would hug this card.


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

I was sort of hoping this wouldn't happen, it's not like AMD said anything close to "GTX 980" performance themselves, and all signs pointed to the RX 480 (AdoredTV correctly pointed out a month ago that it was an R9 290 replacement, R9 390~ level Steam VR benchmark, AMD positioning the card between GTX 970 and GTX 980) being an R9 390/GTX 970 replacement - and it is, and it's pretty good at what it does.
But even so I can't help but feel disappointed, because in a good number of scenarios it's only barely ahead of a R9 390 and GTX 970, and the PPW seems to not come from improvements to the arch. but rather simply from 14nmFF.

Disappointed still, not just with RX 480 but with the GTX 1070/1080 too - I was expecting way too much just because there hasn't been a die shrink since 2011, I guess.

Although I would expect improvement in drivers to at least give this card 10% better performance across the board, and I'm sure in a year it actually will be outperforming a GTX 980.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> A price is a price. It doesn't matter if the card used to cost 650$ on release, if it is being sold now at 320$ now isn't it?


You were comparing the 1080 to cf 480s. Where does 650 and 320 fit into that comparison?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prjindigo*
> 
> Molex PCIe 6-pin is capable of delivering 6A x 12V x 3 wires. 216w, add th '75 watts' which is only actually 54 watts on 3.0 due to signaling and you can spike up around 290w on a six pin without too much risk.
> 
> The "wattage" numbers for these connectors are imposed as maximum draw thresholds on the manufacturers, they are not the physical limits of the power supply or connectors. A card that exceeds 150+50 watts draw stock with only a 6-pin will simply not be certified, this is why you see boards that often have unused mounting points for an additional power lead so an additional connector can be added.


It has been measured at the slot with a PCIe pass through. Up to 90w at stock.

6 pin is 75 w in the PCIe spec due to wire derating.

The extra mounting holes are from the same board being used for the higher clocked designs.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> his math is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. PCI-e connector can only deliver a 75 wats by the specs.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

have some specs:


----------



## bossie2000

Quote:


> When you see the overclocked RX 480 consistently beating the GTX 970 and trading blows with the GTX 980 and buyers can have it all for $199 - $229. I can't wait to see what the AIBs do with this card. Personally I feel that a card this powerful at this price point could really help to improve PC gaming for everyone. Plus it is relatively small and it only takes one 6-pin to power it.
> 
> All I have to say is... Good job AMD!
> 
> - Insan1tyOne thumb.gif


+1

About all the review sites have only praise for this card!(with a minor one or two isuis)


----------



## infranoia

Yeah, I expected more from the new DX11 command processor. I suspect this is one of the things that drivers + time will really improve.


----------



## Slomo4shO

It appears that 2 RX 480s can't match a single GTX 1080... The GTX 1080 die is only about 25% larger but yields around 80% more performance. Yes the prices are gouged by Nvidia... the reason is obvious. AMD can't compete. I don't foresee the 1060 having any problems outperforming a GTX 970


----------



## Insan1tyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hawker-gb*
> 
> *nGreedia shills.*


If only I could post memes in a news thread... This would be the time to do it...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> +1
> 
> About all the review sites have only praise for this card!(with a minor one or two isuis)


I agree, most of the reviews are coming through with flying colors! I am kicking myself for not buying AMD stock back when it was like $2 a couple months ago...

- Insan1tyOne


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> have some specs:


Read carefully, that is the connector spec, not the wiring spec.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It appears that 2 RX 480s can't match a single GTX 1080... The GTX 1080 die is only about 25% larger but yields around 80% more performance. Yes the prices are gouged by Nvidia... the reason is obvious. AMD can't compete. I don't foresee the 1060 having any problems outperforming a GTX 1070


nobody expected it to though (even in crossfire itll just be in spitting distance), its been known for some time the rx480 was never meant to go against the 1080

the rx480 is meant to compete/replace the 970/390(290) and if you expected anything else thats on you. The card has delivered exactly what was promised

edit: that graph shows that in games that actually use it that it does come close to a 1080, but as usually the problem with multi gpu is lack of support. AMD cant force devs to support CF, and what we haveall known for years is that single large GPU is always the best way to go for universal gains


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> have some specs:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read carefully, that is the connector spec, not the wiring spec.
Click to expand...

i am fully aware as to watt (pardon the pun) i am reading. we have had this discussion before but unlike you, i have proper documentation.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> Yeah, I expected more from the new DX11 command processor. I suspect this is one of the things that drivers + time will really improve.


It seems there were some significant improvements in a few games, most notably from the TPU review is the performance increase in fallout 4 vs the 390x; I suspect it's due to some of the new changes with respect to tessellation. I'm hoping to see AMD leverage some extra performance in games where traditionally Nvidia held a performance lead over AMD, in respect to the 390x

Other than that I'm not surprised after seeing the leaked slides the other day, like I noted yesterday the only major addition to Polaris are the Hardware Schedulers which seem to focus on async/dx12/vr load types.


----------



## sammkv

Wow, just read all 60 pages and my mind is exhausted









All in all I think this is a great card for people who want good satisfying frames at 1080p gaming and don't want to spend a hefty price just for PC gaming


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TRoy1001*
> 
> AMD needs 14nm to match Nvidia's efficiency on 28nm, Pathetic,


Maxwell and Pascal are very stripped down architectures compared to GCN. Maxwell and Pascal are ad hoc architectures designed to get the most performance out of games and more mainstream 3D applications and not much else. GCN based architectures are much greater at compute and have more features in the hardware, such as the ability to do asynchronous compute. All of those extra features cause higher power consumption.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Just a nickname*
> 
> The cheapest GTX 1070 I can find on newegg is the gigabyte one at 400$.
> The RX 480 is priced at 230$. How can one say that they are going to buy the 1070 instead? It's not the same price and it is not the same category at all...


Welcome to the delusion of many "enthusiasts" here, who think every card should be made to serve them.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> i am fully aware as to watt (pardon the pun) i am reading. we have had this discussion before but unlike you, i have proper documentation.


Did you know that the ATX spec derates as if all wires are in conduit with an ambient temperature of 60c?

The spec has to allow for fully enclosed/sealed systems with possible hot surfaces in the 70-80c range.


----------



## Ding Chavez

It's really good except for the big noise, being on par with a 290X and power consumption higher than a GTX980.


----------



## mohit9206

I think a used 970 for $150 makes more sense than $250 for RX480. Although the 4gb RX480 cannot be beat in terms of value.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ding Chavez*
> 
> It's really good except for the big noise, being on par with a 290X and power consumption higher than a GTX980.


reference cooler what can we say?







lol at least it looks nice


----------



## Ding Chavez

I would buy a second hand card over this like a GTX 980...


----------



## doritos93

This thread has forced me to block so many members... first time in my lifetime on OCN that I block posters... Makes the thread less long.

Just sold my 280x. 1070/1080 are out of my price range. This definitely looks good for me since I game at 1080p

Anyone find any Canadian retailers with these in inventory?


----------



## bossie2000

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> the rx480 is meant to compete/replace the 970/390(290)
Click to expand...

Well if all speculation is true , it's more like replacing 380/380x. There should be a 490 on it's way to replace 390/390x..


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> i am fully aware as to watt (pardon the pun) i am reading. we have had this discussion before but unlike you, i have proper documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that the ATX spec derates as if all wires are in conduit with an ambient temperature of 60c?
> 
> The spec has to allow for fully enclosed/sealed systems.
Click to expand...

that derating you erroneously use is for the 24 pin connection to the motherboard which would have more of a derating than 6 wires.









ATX specs ≠ PCI SIG

you seem to have an issue understanding that.


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ding Chavez*
> 
> I would buy a second hand card over this like a GTX 980...


as of the current moment, second hand 980's still hover around 380 on ebay(people still feeling the force of FE and low stock)

Essentially my opinions:

Pros
Confirmed the idea of best price/perf replacing the 290(950 is now a good value for performance)
can get close to the 980 at times, will probaly get it with the AIB models, but lets see

What I expected
loud, once i saw the heatsink size, and understand how a blower card sounds like
beat the 390, which I was expecting. Anybody who imagined higher than that sorta overread what AMD was aiming for, a the moment AMD mentioned its lowering the bar for VR, I automatically assumed it will at least match the 390, and not much after.

Cons
Power consumption is very funky, be it idle or load


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> that derating you erroneously use is for the 24 pin connection to the motherboard which would have more of a derating than 6 wires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ATX specs ≠ PCI SIG
> 
> you seem to have an issue understanding that.


Oh, but the PCIe connection is defined in the Intel ATX spec, and its coming from an ATX spec PSU, which has to comply with the spec for certification...

PCI SIG only defines the connector ON A CARD.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> Well if all speculation is true , it's more like replacing 380/380x. There should be a 490 on it's way to replace 390/390x..


well price wise yea it replaces the 380/x, but performance wise it hits higher on the food chain


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Oh, but the PCIe connection is defined in the Intel ATX spec, and its coming from an ATX spec PSU, which has to comply with the spec for certification...


NO the PEG is NOT in there.

so by your claim intel>pci sig.









just stahp.


----------



## bossie2000

Quote:


> well price wise yea it replaces the 380/x, but performance wise it hits higher on the food chain


That's a good thing then!!


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> NO the PEG is NOT in there.
> 
> so by your claim intel>pci sig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just stahp.


Not the PEG silly, the PCIe power connector.


----------



## umeng2002

Note that PCPER said that the min VRAM speed is 7 Gbps.

So some AIBs might opt for 8 GB with 7 Gbps VRAM instead of 8 Gbps.

We even, hopefully, might see 8 Gbps 4 GB Variant to save some coin... unless the speed difference really drives up the cost of the chips to negate the savings.


----------



## HackHeaven

Just think if the price is $269 now at ref when it was meant to be $229? whats going happen when you get a non ref $339 cards incoming lol


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> Note that PCPER said that the min VRAM speed is 7 Gbps.
> 
> So some AIBs might opt for 8 GB with 7 Gbps VRAM instead of 8 Gbps.
> 
> We even, hopefully, might see 8 Gbps 4 GB Variant to save some coin.


Incorrect. Per AMD specs, the 4GB version will have 7Gbps VRAM and the 8GB models come with 8Gbps memory.


----------



## ChevChelios

One thing to note about the RX 480 is its memory. AMD has talked up the RX 480's fast 8GB/s GDDR5 memory since its announcement, which-when tied to its 256-bit bus-results in 256GB/s of memory bandwidth. However, it turns out that only the more expensive 8GB version of the card (£215/$230) will feature 8GHz GDDR5, with the cheaper model featuring slower 7GHz GDDR5 for only 224GB/s of bandwidth. Even then, AMD isn't promising that all 8GB versions will feature the faster memory, saying that "you may see configurations that vary from our reference spec

Hmm...


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HackHeaven*
> 
> Just think if the price is $269 now at ref when it was meant to be $229? whats going happen when you get a non ref $339 cards incoming lol


Price is only 269 for a custom overclocked "reference" card with a backplate.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Incorrect. Per AMD specs, the 4GB version will have 7Gbps VRAM and the 8GB models come with 8Gbps memory.


Actually, AMD briefed the press as 7gbps simply being the minimum. AIB manufacturers are free to use anything 7+gbps.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Incorrect. Per AMD specs, the 4GB version will have 7Gbps VRAM and the 8GB models come with 8Gbps memory.


Spec where?

It's just the reference boards use the faster VRAM for the 8 GB version.

VRAM selection has always been up to board partners as long a MIN spec is observed... in this case, PCPER explicitly said some AIB could, in theory put 7 Gbps speed VRAM in an 8 GB card.


----------



## incog

I was perhaps too hyped for this card. I'm not impressed.

It has GTX 970 levels of performance (which is the gen from before!), noise isn't impressive, I don't care about wattage, etc. Overall quite lackluster, even for that price point. Even overclocking isn't impressive?

I'll keep sticking to this 7970 this time as well!


----------



## Catscratch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> Once that 4gb version is in stock ill be pulling that trigger, this is a pretty good increase vs my 270x
> 
> (think this videos already been posted)


Can anyone summarize this ? I can't watch youtube right now (extreme circumstances in my stupid country)


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> NO the PEG is NOT in there.
> 
> so by your claim intel>pci sig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just stahp.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the PEG silly, the PCIe power connector.
Click to expand...

and what is the pci-e power connection?

*P*ci-*E G*raphics power connection.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> Can anyone summarize this ? I can't watch youtube right now (extreme circumstances in my stupid country)


essentially you get 2x the 270x FPS at the same die size and power draw, and about 1.5x the 380/380x at a smaller die and power draw.


----------



## HackHeaven

Also reddit AMD dude said he sent reviewers 8gig versions that can flash to 4gig versons so not sure wy there is no 4gig stats


----------



## airfathaaaaa

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4qfy9d/i_work_at_amd_the_time_has_come_to_ama_about/
apparently on 2 of the 43 reviewers found that pcie wattage draw issue and no one is able to replicate it


----------



## Ding Chavez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *incog*
> 
> I was perhaps too hyped for this card. I'm not impressed.
> 
> It has GTX 970 levels of performance (which is the gen from before!), noise isn't impressive, I don't care about wattage, etc. Overall quite lackluster, even for that price point. Even overclocking isn't impressive?
> 
> I'll keep sticking to this 7970 this time as well!


Agree 100% had high hopes for AMD but this is just not really good enough. The GTX 1060 might be much better. About the only good thing is the price IMO.


----------



## sugalumps

Do we have any reviews on the 4gb version? People keep comparing the 8gb version to the 970 by saying it's only $200, but the $200 version is the 4gb one right? The 4gb version is supposed to perform a bit worse and the 8gb version is about on par with the 970, so for all we know the 4gb version might be worse than a 970.

Unless I missed a review in the last few hours(went to the gym for a few).


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Do we have any reviews on the 4gb version? People keep comparing the 8gb version to the 970 by saying it's only $200, but the $200 version is the 4gb one right? The 4gb version is supposed to perform a bit worse and the 8gb version is about on par with the 970, so for all we know the 4gb version might be worse than a 970.
> 
> Unless I missed a review in the last few hours(went to the gym for a few).


nope, and i cant find a 4gb version for sale anywhere either


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> One thing to note about the RX 480 is its memory. AMD has talked up the RX 480's fast 8GB/s GDDR5 memory since its announcement, which-when tied to its 256-bit bus-results in 256GB/s of memory bandwidth. However, it turns out that only the more expensive 8GB version of the card (£215/$230) will feature 8GHz GDDR5, with the cheaper model featuring slower 7GHz GDDR5 for only 224GB/s of bandwidth. Even then, AMD isn't promising that all 8GB versions will feature the faster memory, saying that "you may see configurations that vary from our reference spec
> 
> Hmm...


aibs will create a custem clock for their cards?
NO WAY THIS NEVER HAPPENS


----------



## dlee7283

I am disappointed that it doesn't beat the 980, would have spent 299 for that alone but this is obviously meant for VR Gurus and as a upper mid range card for others.

Crysis 3 was really bad in the benchmarks but that is optimized for Nvidia


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dlee7283*
> 
> disappointed that it doesn't beat the 980, would have spent 299 for that alone but this is obviously meant for VR Gurus and as a upper mid range card for others.


well it does beat it on dx12 (and its close on mantle powered catalyst)


----------



## iLeakStuff

GTX 970 was released in freaking 2014 and here comes AMD in 2016 with 14nm and barely beating it in performance and efficiency and price.

What a revolution AMD
LOL


----------



## TK421

mrw crossfire benches





Had high hopes when they said 2xRX480 > 1080


----------



## EightDee8D

Ok people stop shilling (both camps ) and let's discuss why the card failed on p/w metric, because performance is what most of us expected.

some interesting points

it has 5.6bil transistors on 232mm (14nm) compared to 5 bil transistors on 355mm (28nm) that's like 71% more transistors/mm

GP104 vs GM204 - has 75.5% more t/mm.

isn't that weird? i mean 14nm supposed to be denser than 16nm. maybe another fail by glofo ?

also stop saying 980 is a better deal, even at same price it simply is not. maxwell is old discontinued and lacks better dx12 and vr support. its already maxed out and 480 will get better performance in future drivers and games. amd takes time. you are going to buy the card now for next 1-2 years. either get 480 or 1070. skip older maxwell unless it's alot cheaper than 480. even for aib versions at least wait, if anything 980's price will drop even more. so stop recommending that crap.


----------



## NicksTricks007

https://youtu.be/2IcRF201cEc

Probably one of the better video reviews so far. Very unbiased and in depth.


----------



## rluker5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It appears that 2 RX 480s can't match a single GTX 1080... The GTX 1080 die is only about 25% larger but yields around 80% more performance. Yes the prices are gouged by Nvidia... the reason is obvious. AMD can't compete. I don't foresee the 1060 having any problems outperforming a GTX 1070


Remember when the 780ti was ahead of the 290x? It wasn't that long ago, also early drivers from amd.


----------



## Serandur

Wasn't expecting demonstrably large architectural changes (unlike certain people hyping it to the moon and back) and I have no reason to care much for a low-end GPU like this, but actually seeing these performance, power consumption, and die size figures through actual reviews is still pretty disheartening because of what it says about AMD's architecture and how limiting it is.

Sucking down this much power and using this many transistors/die space for this level of performance really brings into question whether Vega even has a chance of coming close to big Pascal. If the rumored 4096 shader part really is the largest Vega part and its architecture isn't vastly overhauled from Polaris (read: specialized for gaming; GCN is too fundamentally "jack of all trades" as is), the answer is most probably no. Such a part would end up competing with the 1080 while having a notably larger die and close to big Pascal power consumption.

I have an unfortunate feeling that prices aren't going to be getting any prettier any time soon. One company's being uncontested in selling mid-range Pascal as a flagship and the other seems to be really struggling to compete on an architectural level. Meanwhile, there's a rising wafer cost problem going on.

I blame miniscule R&D funds for AMD's GPU issues.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/anton-shilov/amd-development-of-zen-processors-is-our-largest-rd-spending-now/

Lisa Su made it clear last year that most of the company's R&D was going into Zen (leaving less for GPU development)and the company as a whole (with CPUs and GPUs) still have significantly less of an R&D budget than Nvidia (with just GPUs) at this point.










The engineers aren't to blame, AMD's past management decisions and currently poor financial state are in my humble opinion. Still, it appears to be a death spiral of inefficient chips -> reduced margins and/or sales -> reduced R&D budget -> more inefficient chips.

I wish ATi were still independent, I don't like what their parent company's done to them.


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rluker5*
> 
> Remember when the 780ti was ahead of the 290x? It wasn't that long ago, also early drivers from amd.


i suspect the numbers will get alot better after they get better drivers


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Ok people stop shilling (both camps ) and let's discuss why the card failed on p/w metric, because performance is what most of us expected.
> 
> some interesting points
> 
> it has 5.6bil transistors on 232mm (14nm) compared to 5 bil transistors on 355mm (28nm) that's like 71% more transistors/mm
> 
> GP104 vs GM204 - has 75.5% more t/mm.
> 
> isn't that weird? i mean 14nm supposed to be denser than 16nm. maybe another fail by glofo ?
> 
> also stop saying 980 is a better deal, even at same price it simply is not. maxwell is old discontinued and lacks better dx12 and vr support. its already maxed out and 480 will get better performance in future drivers and games. amd takes time. you are going to buy the card now for next 1-2 years. either get 480 or 1070. skip older maxwell unless it's alot cheaper than 480. even for aib versions at least wait, if anything 980's price will drop even more. so stop recommending that crap.


thats because it didnt only 2 people found that "bug" on the power draw
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4qfy9d/i_work_at_amd_the_time_has_come_to_ama_about/
and it seems no one can replicate it so take it with a huge grain of salt


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It appears that 2 RX 480s can't match a single GTX 1080... The GTX 1080 die is only about 25% larger but yields around 80% more performance. Yes the prices are gouged by Nvidia... the reason is obvious. AMD can't compete. I don't foresee the 1060 having any problems outperforming a GTX 1070


Its a reason why AMD used AoTS in their marketing to try to trick people in to believing CF would beat 1080.
Told you it would be a different story when neutral games was tested.

Crossfire match a freaking GTX 1070.
Lets see, rely on good crossfire scaling for every single game and draw much more power and produce more noise. Or go with single 1070 with perfect scaling and less power and noise. For less money.

Not even here did AMD deliver.
What the heck are they doing?
They cant do anything right


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NicksTricks007*
> 
> https://youtu.be/2IcRF201cEc
> 
> Probably one of the better video reviews so far. Very unbiased and in depth.


His channel overall is very unbiased and in depth. Great channel really.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its a reason why AMD used AoTS in their marketing to try to trick people in to believing CF would beat 1080.
> Told you it would be a different story when neutral games was tested.
> 
> Crossfire match a freaking GTX 1070.
> Lets see, rely on good crossfire scaling for every single game and draw much more power and produce more noise. Or go with single 1070 with perfect scaling and less power and noise. For less money.
> 
> Not even here did AMD deliver.
> What the heck are they doing?
> They cant do anything right


since chev wasnt able to answer perhaps you will
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/13/#diagramm-call-of-duty-black-ops-iii-2560-1440_2
explain this on neutral games


----------



## mrawesome421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> Not disappointed with the card as much as I am with the fact that I don't think they will regain as much market-share with it as I was hoping for.
> 
> Lord save me from this $700 mid tier cards


This!


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its a reason why AMD used AoTS in their marketing to try to trick people in to believing CF would beat 1080.
> Told you it would be a different story when neutral games was tested.


Sorry to burst your bubble.









https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/8.html

Not just AOTS, sure they cherry picked, but didn't lie.

Just as you are cherry picking for your argument because you don't like AMD.

lol it's a great value card for 1080p. Crossfire is stupid anyway.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ubbernewb*
> 
> i suspect the numbers will get alot better after they get better drivers


I've only been trying to say this all morning......


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> I've only been trying to say this all morning......


Look at marketshare 80% Nvidia, look at OCN members.............probably the same percentage.

Most would've never bought one of these cards anyway, yet they are obligated to troll the threads pending release.

This release reminds me of the 290X, hot, power hungry cards with ok performance.

Can't wait to get my AIB version it's going to be a great card for many years.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> since chev wasnt able to answer perhaps you will
> https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/13/#diagramm-call-of-duty-black-ops-iii-2560-1440_2
> explain this on neutral games


You dont seem to understand how average work.
You are showing me one game where CF does better than 1080.
TechPowerUp tested almost 20 games and thats how you find the true performance and average. And the reality from testing AMD tuned games, Nvidia tuned games, Good CF scaling, bad CF scaling etc. It all sums up to 1070 performance.

Which is extremely bad result considering the hype AMD tried to pull off


----------



## sugalumps

Every single card gets better after launch with matured drivers, it does not change the fact that this is a lackluster launch. You dont have to be a big bad nvidia fanboy to see that this card is not all that.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Every single card gets better after launch with matured drivers, it does not change the fact that this is a lackluster launch. You dont have to be a big bad nvidia fanboy to see that this card is not all that.


Not disagreeing this fact. Thats why after a few comments earlier I have just been sitting back and eating popcorn.......


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> You dont seem to understand how average work.
> You are showing me one game where CF does better than 1080.
> TechPowerUp tested almost 20 games and thats how you find the true performance and average. And the reality from testing AMD tuned games, Nvidia tuned games, Good CF scaling, bad CF scaling etc. It all sums up to 1070 performance.
> 
> Which is extremely bad result considering the hype AMD tried to pull off


actually its 3 neutral and 2 gameworks infested..
but go ahead "its one"

also lol at bringing techpowerup..
a site that uses games dated back as 2013 doesnt deserve to be relevant


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Well i kinda miss alatar and the old guys here on ocn. This is not a conversation just fanboys are fighting each other with zero logic. And the lack of the mods in general..
> 
> I am out have fun guys


Because of all of the fanboys and lack of modding, I'd say most of us just don't comment much anymore. This thread is a perfect example of how bad OCN has gotten in recent years.


----------



## Sleazybigfoot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> ugh the card is roughly as fast as a GTX 970. The GTX 970 was like 250€ in europe with a free game like The Division or DOOM for the last 3-4 months.
> 
> I really hoped this card was as fast as a stock GTX 980, but it isn't.
> 
> I didn't expect 980 Ti levels of performance, but slower than my 290X come on AMD.


250 euro? hahahahahaha. More like 370 euro most of the time. couple months back it was still 360.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Every single card gets better after launch with matured drivers, it does not change the fact that this is a lackluster launch. You dont have to be a big bad nvidia fanboy to see that this card is not all that.


It doesnt deliver much vs 970 in value.
It doesnt deliver in performance against the 2.5 year old GTX 970 card.
It doesnt deliver in value against GTX 1070 with crossfire.

Decent card for someone stuck with a GT 540 card or R7 360 or something. But for the rest its a huge meh card


----------



## crash4fun

Looks like I'll be holding onto my 290X for a while, AMD isn't getting my money yet. Glad to finally see some real numbers (not handpicked from AMD). For the games I play it looks like I'd see no benefit, maybe even lose a couple frames with these new cards. Perhaps that will change with new drivers?

For a minute there I thought AMD was going to do something progressive & competitive. All they managed to do was push down the prices on old tech by $50. Sure it's more energy efficient but that's not enough to prompt me to buy a brand new card.

Thanks Nvidia for releasing incredibly overpriced cards out of my reach as my only upgrade path, and thanks AMD for making my current product of yours feel inferior without an alternative.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> Not wierd. Retailers are greedy and we have here so called tax from new things. Pretty much like everywhere. + dolar to złoty ratio. 970 were bought in time when dollar was cheaper (thx brits for your brexit...)


You realize GB was a net contributor while Poland is a leecher. We litteraly pay for your roads the EU technocrats may be good to you but they are not to us. The lack of a tariff free deal is the EUs fault too BTW. Brexit hasn't even started BTW.

We have to overpay for our products simply because people are so incompetent in Brussels. If we were allowed to make deals ourselves all would be well.

Cheapest I'm seeing them for is 219 euros


----------



## dlee7283

I never for a second thought it would beat a 1070 but when the benchmarks showed it was give or take against the 970 I knew AMD was going to face the fire.

In all honesty they were really pushing this as a VR card and the press were running with another rhetoric. AMD probably got a massive discount price on old GDDR5 with GDDR5x and HBM becoming the new standard and decided this was their way in case the VR market gets big.

If this was loaded with 8GB HBM I think it would have been an excellent card, but would have drove it back up to the 300 USD or above which is a pricepoint mainstream people are picky with.

The silver lining to this is that I always see people on ebay pushing old used AMD/Nvidia cards for way too much and this might help enthusiasts get SLI/Crossfire setups going for cheaper in their rigs.

When I see stuff like the following it makes me sick

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMD-Radeon-HD-7950-3GB-Video-card-for-Mac-Pro-4K-Boot-Screen-7970-280X-/282050294503?hash=item41ab81f2e7:g:~IEAAOSwLnlWnR91

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMD-Radeon-HD-7990-FX-799A-XN-XNF-6GB-384-Bit-x2-GDDR5-HD7990-Boost-1GHz-mDP-/112032121345?hash=item1a15a28201:g:xjwAAOSwMNxXZlB-


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crash4fun*
> 
> Looks like I'll be holding onto my 290X for a while, AMD isn't getting my money yet. Glad to finally see some real numbers (not handpicked from AMD). For the games I play it looks like I'd see no benefit, maybe even lose a couple frames with these new cards. Perhaps that will change with new drivers?
> 
> For a minute there I thought AMD was going to do something progressive & competitive. All they managed to do was push down the prices on old tech by $50. Sure it's more energy efficient but that's not enough to prompt me to buy a brand new card.
> 
> Thanks Nvidia for releasing incredibly overpriced cards out of my reach as my only upgrade path, and thanks AMD for making my current product of yours feel inferior without an alternative. /s


So what you are saying is both sides suck these days? I can def agree with that


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> It doesnt deliver much vs 970 in value.
> It doesnt deliver in performance against the 2.5 year old GTX 970 card.
> It doesnt deliver in value against GTX 1070 with crossfire.
> 
> Decent card for someone stuck with a GT 540 card or R7 360 or something. But for the rest its a huge meh card


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IcRF201cEc
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/06/amd-rx-480-polaris-review/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBwvFAlEKEY
http://www.bug.hr/buglab/test-amd-radeon-rx-480-8gb/97369.aspx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozATbV11rBA
http://www.digitaltrends.com/video-card-reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-review/
https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/29/amds-radeon-rx-480-is-the-new-king-of-budget-video-cards/
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-rx-480-8gb-review,1.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/72889-radeon-rx480-8gb-performance-review.html
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/06/29/amd_radeon_rx_480_video_card_review#.V3PO1zXrAwo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GdfDCq86Gk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y6Ky_pCawQ
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3089316/components-graphics/amd-radeon-rx-480-review-redefining-whats-possible-with-a-200-graphics-card.html
http://techreport.com/review/30328/amd-radeon-rx-480-graphics-card-reviewed
i could post dozen of them but you get the point the card does perform around where amd said so between 970 and 980 often goes near the latter
now i dont know if your paycheck comes faster than your posts but just lol


----------



## nagle3092

I bought two, going to play with them until Vega comes out and then these will go in both of my kids computers replacing 750ti's.


----------



## crash4fun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> So what you are saying is both sides suck these days? I can def agree with that


Yeah I'm not a fanboy of either side, I've owned both products (actually own a GTX770 and R9 290X) and all I've noticed compared to the old days, is they both tend to neuter their new products from their full potential, in some cases rebrand new products, make obsolete with new drivers etc. Essentially what happens when you only have 2 companies.

I shouldn't need to pay $600-$700 to get 60FPS+ in 2.5k resolutions these days. It's 2016 FFS


----------



## raisethe3

So this card is no better than the GTX970. At least according to reviews, it puts it a little below that.


----------



## hiarc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Because of all of the fanboys and lack of modding, I'd say most of us just don't comment much anymore. This thread is a perfect example of how bad OCN has gotten in recent years.


Yeah this is one of the biggest negatives I have against OCN in these kinds of threads. The lack of modding is hilarious, you can always expect some fanboy from either camp to start the war right off the bat and then the thread just becomes trash immediately.

On-topic, the card is performing pretty much as it was intended to. I also wish it was slightly better off because of architecture/node changes but I guess its a good start?


----------



## hokk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> GTX 970 was released in freaking 2014 and here comes AMD in 2016 with 14nm and barely beating it in performance and efficiency and price.
> 
> What a revolution AMD
> LOL


Pretty much this

I bought a 970 on release for £232

Over 16months later

AMD releases a £219 card with 5% performance + or -

Awful.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> I bought two, going to play with them until Vega comes out and then these will go in both of my kids computers replacing 750ti's.


Brilliant!


----------



## NuclearPeace

Interesting how almost all reviewers are impressed with the card whereas on OCN it seems like people are trying their best to hate the card.


----------



## SoCalMX70

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Because of all of the fanboys and lack of modding, I'd say most of us just don't comment much anymore. This thread is a perfect example of how bad OCN has gotten in recent years.


As a long time reader and small time poster, I'd say, at least with the AMD related threads, it is always the same 2 or 3 guys that derail everything. Everyone knows who they are... and it still snowballs out of control.

And it's no just here, it is in every forum. The fanboy arguments have gotten completely insane. Hell, I call myself an AMD fanboy... I've only always owned ATi/AMD cards. However, when someone asks for my advice on what to buy, they want top tier, and they have a bunch of money to spend, I point them to Nvidia... at least in the past couple years anyway. Funny enough, yesterday, a very frugal friend of mine said he wanted to upgrade his 270 and he was looking at $260 390s and 970s. I said, "Check out the RX 480 at 6am. You'll get that performance and save a bit on power for $200." and that was was that. I'd say my advice was completely reasonable.

Is it that hard to see reason? I have a hard time believing there are grown men spewing fanboy logic all day... It's one of those things where I'd like to interview one, in person, to get a good measure of what kind of person they really are.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raisethe3*
> 
> So this card is no better than the GTX970. At least according to reviews, it puts it a little below that.


5% faster than 970 and 24W less


----------



## dlee7283

im interested to see where the RX 470 is priced at, it actually might be the budget card everyone buys.


----------



## Awsan

Most good 980 are 400-450
AIB 480s will cost around 300

So a 980 is 30%-50% more expensive and its not faster even by 20% so what is the problem?

Cheapest 980 is 300 and cheapest 480 is 200 which means even the cheapest 980 is still 50% more expensive than the cheapest 480.

Cheapest 980 will perform as good as the most expensive 480 while costing the same, Problem?


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoCalMX70*
> 
> As a long time reader and small time poster, I'd say, at least with the AMD related threads, it is always the same 2 or 3 guys that derail everything. Everyone knows who they are... and it still snowballs out of control.
> 
> And it's no just here, it is in every forum. The fanboy arguments have gotten completely insane. Hell, I call myself an AMD fanboy... I've only always owned ATi/AMD cards. However, when someone asks for my advice on what to buy, they want top tier, and they have a bunch of money to spend, I point them to Nvidia... at least in the past couple years anyway. Funny enough, yesterday, a very frugal friend of mine said he wanted to upgrade his 270 and he was looking at $260 390s and 970s. I said, "Check out the RX 480 at 6am. You'll get that performance and save a bit on power for $200." and that was was that. I'd say my advice was completely reasonable.
> 
> Is it that hard to see reason? I have a hard time believing there are grown men spewing fanboy logic all day... It's one of those tings where I'd like to interview one, in person, to get a good measure of what kind of person they really are.


Well the 1080 thread was derailed/trolled pritty hard by a few, it's every forum/thread. Not many can be objective about the things they own/ are invested in.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Interesting how almost all reviewers are impressed with the card whereas on OCN it seems like people are trying their best to hate the card.


its almost like they are in denial of the fact that this card replaces 380/280x...


----------



## SamuraiGuns

I'm so happy I curbed my enthusiasm. As I expected, 970 performance for a cheap price.


----------



## ubbernewb

driivers do make a BIG differnce want proof? someone with a gtx970 install the drivers it came with at launch to the rx480,







LAUNCH driver VS LAUNCH driver, i suspect the 480 SMOKES the 970 then, also compare launch 970 drivers vs drivers its on now i suspect differnce will be pretty big


----------



## alcal

It's also good to bear in mind the pricing of these once they go on the used market. I could see an RX480 for $160-$170 on craigslist being quite a steal.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awsan*
> 
> Most good 980 are 400-450
> AIB 480s will cost around 300
> 
> So a 980 is 30%-50% more expensive and its not faster even by 20% so what is the problem?
> 
> Cheapest 980 is 300 and cheapest 480 is 200 which means even the cheapest 980 is still 50% more expensive than the cheapest 480.
> 
> Cheapest 980 will perform as good as the most expensive 480 while costing the same, Problem?


It's not even the 980 they are competing against tbh, they are competing against themselves I.e the 390(with a free game) or used 390x's which can be had for the same price as the 480 here in the uk.


----------



## Noufel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> It doesnt deliver much vs 970 in value.
> It doesnt deliver in performance against the 2.5 year old GTX 970 card.
> It doesnt deliver in value against GTX 1070 with crossfire.
> 
> Decent card for someone stuck with a GT 540 card or R7 360 or something. But for the rest its a huge meh card


970 is 2.5 years old








Nvidia boys have a serious problem with dates


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> Pretty much this
> 
> I bought a 970 on release for £232
> 
> Over 16months later
> 
> AMD releases a £219 card with 5% performance + or -
> 
> Awful.


lol exactly.


----------



## Awsan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Awsan*
> 
> Most good 980 are 400-450
> AIB 480s will cost around 300
> 
> So a 980 is 30%-50% more expensive and its not faster even by 20% so what is the problem?
> 
> Cheapest 980 is 300 and cheapest 480 is 200 which means even the cheapest 980 is still 50% more expensive than the cheapest 480.
> 
> Cheapest 980 will perform as good as the most expensive 480 while costing the same, Problem?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not even the 980 they are competing against tbh, they are competing against themselves I.e the 390(with a free game) or used 390x's which can be had for the same price as the 480 here in the uk.
Click to expand...

The problem is that its a x80 card replacement and AMD fanboys trying to make it kill a titan and Nvidia fanboys want to but it up there with Intel HD530.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> lol exactly.


So he bought GTX970 for 260 USD at launch, yeah OK. I got my HD 7970 for free so it's infinity better then any card before and after. Reasons? Logic!


----------



## raghu78

Polaris is a disaster in terms of perf/watt. GP106 will murder it in terms of perf/watt. Rx 480 is drawing as much power as GTX 1070 but the GTX 1070 is 40-50% faster. GF 14LPP seems to be one of the major reasons for this debacle. TSMC 16FF+ is a vastly superior process in terms of electrical characteristics and yields. Anyway another AMD product release follows the pattern of overpromise and underdeliver. The pre release hype and perf/watt gains were all useless given that AMD is not competing against their old gen products but Nvidia's Pascal. I don't think there is any hope left for AMD's GPU business to gain market share and turn profitable.


----------



## Titanox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> 5% faster than 970 and 24W less


Why does this make you happy? Your Nvidia card is probably going to end up more expensive as a result.


----------



## NicksTricks007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crash4fun*
> 
> Looks like I'll be holding onto my 290X for a while, AMD isn't getting my money yet. Glad to finally see some real numbers (not handpicked from AMD). For the games I play it looks like I'd see no benefit, maybe even lose a couple frames with these new cards. Perhaps that will change with new drivers?
> 
> For a minute there I thought AMD was going to do something progressive & competitive. All they managed to do was push down the prices on old tech by $50. Sure it's more energy efficient but that's not enough to prompt me to buy a brand new card.
> 
> Thanks Nvidia for releasing incredibly overpriced cards out of my reach as my only upgrade path, and thanks AMD for making my current product of yours feel inferior without an alternative.


I agree. Was waiting on reviews before I made any decision on selling my 290X For the 480. It would have had to have been 5-10% faster for me to consider it. I'll reserve final judgement until I see AIB cards, but it looks like I'll be sticking with my current card.


----------



## animagr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ubbernewb*
> 
> driivers do make a BIG differnce want proof? someone with a gtx970 install the drivers it came with at launch to the rx480,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LAUNCH driver VS LAUNCH driver, i suspect the 480 SMOKES the 970 then, also compare launch 970 drivers vs drivers its on now i suspect differnce will be pretty big


But this isn't really a valid argument. You SHOULD compare current offerings in the market against this new card. That definitely includes the current drivers. It makes NO sense to compare using old drivers. No one is using ancient drivers in the market! This comparison makes no common sense.


----------



## Clockster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> So he bought GTX970 for 260 USD at launch, yeah OK. I got my HD 7970 for free so it's infinity better then any card before and after. Reasons? Logic!


Mmmm I'm sure the GTX970 launched at $329..


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Polaris is a disaster in terms of perf/watt. GP106 will murder it in terms of perf/watt. Rx 480 is drawing as much power as GTX 1070 but the GTX 1070 is 40-50% faster. GF 14LPP seems to be one of the major reasons for this debacle. TSMC 16FF+ is a vastly superior process in terms of electrical characteristics and yields. Anyway another AMD product release follows the pattern of overpromise and underdeliver. The pre release hype and perf/watt gains were all useless given that AMD is not competing against their old gen products but Nvidia's Pascal. I don't think there is any hope left for AMD's GPU business to gain market share and turn profitable.


It's just GCN. There is only so much they can tweak it. Also could be the clock speeds they are targeting are too aggressive and might break efficiency.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clockster*
> 
> Mmmm I'm sure the GTX970 launched at $329..


Yeah MSRP was $330. Do not remember how much they sold. I think most models where ~ $350. This was in USA. People for EU always complain for higher prices and TAX and here he says he payed way less.


----------



## moonroket

Only quick read from 3d guru. Around 290 to 390x. Hmm its ok. Im expect not less than 390x actualy. But in some new games and dx12 games its a little better than 390x.im sure its due the Driver. Buuutt i really dispointed with that cheep blower cooler. Nope i wont sugest ref cooler for my friends or anyone


----------



## hokk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> So he bought GTX970 for 260 USD at launch, yeah OK. I got my HD 7970 for free so it's infinity better then any card before and after. Reasons? Logic!


£


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Interesting how almost all reviewers are impressed with the card whereas on OCN it seems like people are trying their best to hate the card.


they are only impressed with the price, as they should be

there is nothing else whatsoever to be impressed with on the reference 480 besides price


----------



## EightDee8D

They never said 2.8x for 480, its 1.7-2x and 2.7x for rx470.


----------



## mxthunder

Not impressed at all. They are comparing it to a 2 year old card that can be purchased for $50 more, and its still slower.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> The pre release hype and perf/watt gains were all useless given that AMD is not competing against their old gen products but Nvidia's Pascal. I don't think there is any hope left for AMD's GPU business to gain market share and turn profitable.


If there was a third company for competition we could buy from them but they don't exist.

So should we just buy from nvidia until AMD are dead?

Hoping that someone will buy them out and magically create an architecture on par with nvidia's?

It just seems the whole market is doomed.

Or back in reality for me I can just go buy a 480 and enjoy 1080p gaming for a decent price.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mxthunder*
> 
> Not impressed at all. They are comparing it to a 2 year old card that can be purchased for $50 more, and its still slower.


Yet you bought a 780ti? That card's lifespan was pretty impressive.


----------



## Mad Pistol

For the price, the RX 480 is a great card.

However, I am shocked that the 1070 is able to match the RX 480 on power consumption... Nvidia is just really taking it hard to AMD as of late.


----------



## the9quad

It's right in line with what I expected really, except noise, heat, and power. Not a bad deal really if they can be had for the $200 to $230 USD they are supposed to list at. I think I will hold out for the big boys next year though. See no reason to upgrade.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> £


Sorry forgot about the Island. Either way since GTX970/980 prices have changed. If I compared what I payed for 290X and what I need to pay for 1070 its a different story now. $550 CAD for 290X , 620 CAD for 1070. 290X MSRP $550 USD, 1070 $380 USD.


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *animagr*
> 
> But this isn't really a valid argument. You SHOULD compare current offerings in the market against this new card. That definitely includes the current drivers. It makes NO sense to compare using old drivers. No one is using ancient drivers in the market! This comparison makes no common sense.


i making the point, i HONESTLY think when drivers mature it will be ALOT faster im betting 390x or slightly above


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> For the price, the RX 480 is a great card.
> 
> However, I am shocked that the 1070 is able to match the RX 480 on power consumption... Nvidia is just really taking it hard to AMD as of late.


It's been this way since maxwell, not sure why people are so shocked honestly.


----------



## Ding Chavez

I think it's OK but just too noisy, if AIB cards are quiet it might seem a bit better IMO. But then I'd wait to see what GTX 1060 is like... might be better, which wouldn't be hard.


----------



## yesitsmario

Any reviews for the 4gb model?


----------



## Olivon

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/951-1/amd-radeon-rx-480-8-go-14nm-polaris-test.html

Worst efficiency than Maxwell and Fury, pityful results and bad cooling solution, it's a nightmare.
Seems like Kyle from [H] was totally right, this GPU launch is a massive disappointment.
Raja can smoke cigars, we all know the truth now.


----------



## hokk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Sorry forgot about the Island. Either way since GTX970/980 prices have changed. If I compared what I payed for 290X and what I need to pay for 1070 its a different story now. $550 CAD for 290X , 620 CAD for 1070. 290X MSRP $550 USD, 1070 $380 USD.


At the time £232 was around $370 i think

@ $1.61/£1

also sorry you're CAD

you get it the worst










Anyways my point still stands

i would be ok with 390x performance

but losing to a GTX 970 in some games

wow that is not great.


----------



## raisethe3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> 5% faster than 970 and 24W less


You forgot, priced cheaper too.


----------



## noilly

I just woke up from a dream where AMD never bought ATI, where ATI was trading fierce blows with Nvidia instead of being chained to their desks to make APUs for consoles....

alas


----------



## bossie2000

Quote:


> massive disappointment.


That's taking it a bit to far!


----------



## Ultracarpet

I'm not so much disappointed in the performance, but the perf/watt is concerning to say the least. I have no idea what internal work they did on GCN4 but it does not seem to translate into better efficiency or performance which is a sad thing, because it is what is so desperately needed for them to gain back marketshare.

Also, why do they bother doing incredibly counter-intuitive things like creating a brand new overclocking suite that only works for one card ATM, and that one card can max overclock by like 5%.... like what are they thinking? lollllll


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> At the time £232 was around $370 i think
> 
> @ $1.61/£1
> 
> also sorry you're CAD
> 
> you get it the worst
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways my point still stands
> 
> i would be ok with 390x performance
> 
> but losing to a GTX 970 in some games
> 
> wow that is not great.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.hardware.fr/articles/951-1/amd-radeon-rx-480-8-go-14nm-polaris-test.html
> 
> Worst efficiency than Maxwell and Fury, pityful results and bad cooling solution, it's a nightmare.
> Seems like Kyle from [H] was totally right, this GPU launch is a massive disappointment.
> Raja can smoke cigars, we all know the truth now.


The funny part about that is when maxwell was launching people were saying they didn't care about power to performance etc But here we are years later and it's a big thing and something that was hyped for this card.

I remember the exact threads with the 980 and people were saying it didn't matter that it ran alot cooler/quieter etc


----------



## dlee7283

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*


Thank you for that, seriously lol


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> and what is the pci-e power connection?
> 
> *P*ci-*E G*raphics power connection.


Too tired to argue. The ATX spec calls for 18 AWG wire on PEG connections, its in the design spec and its derated just like the rest of the wiring. Not that I can even get to the PCI-SIG PDF's anymore as they all seem to be locked down. What follows are quotes from the full specification from various sources.

PCI-SIG has the following to say...
Quote:


> A standard height x16 add-in card intended for graphics applications must, at initial power-up, not exceed 25 W of power dissipation, until configured as a high power device, at which time it must not exceed 75 W of power dissipation.


Quote:


> A x16 graphics card is limited to 75 W. The 75 W maximum can be drawn via the combination of +12V and +3.3V rails, but each rail draw is limited as defined in Table 4-1, and the sum of the draw on the two rails cannot exceed 75 W.


Quote:


> A PCI Express x16 Graphics 150W-ATX add-in card can draw a maximum of 75W through the standard connector, as specified in PCI Express CEM 1.1. Up to 75W additional power is provided through a 6-pin wire-to-board connector. Therefore, the maximum total power that must be provided to a PCI Express x16 Graphics 150W-ATX add-in card is 150W.


Even by the PCI-SIG spec you are wrong. 150w is defined as the total of 75w(slot)+75w(6P). 225w is 75w(slot) 75w(6P) 75w(6P). 300w spec is 75w(slot) 75w(6P) 150w (8P).

Capabilities do not need to match prescribed limits, it looks like the connectors are derated just as badly as the standard ATX wiring, notice the footnote about rise in temperature over ambient in the image you used as proof.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Worst efficiency than Maxwell and Fury, pityful results and bad cooling solution, it's a nightmare.


Akin to 290 series launch many years ago before you were probably in control of a keyboard, yet they are still great cards to this day.

Can't say much for the Nvidia cards from back then.

Fury had HBM to reduce power btw so meh.


----------



## MoRLoK

So nice gpu. So nice price. Sadly not where i live. Here is like 350$


----------



## Randomdude

It seems like a great card at its 199$ MSRP. When prices settle and AIB's come out, and the dust has settled, we should all take a breather and have a look at it again.

A lot of people here seem to forget that this is a mainstream card. We're on an enthusiast forum and most members, from my perspective at least, seem to have hoped for buying a low-to-mid end card that can match a 1070's performance (the performance these enthusiasts "need" or "want"), or in other words expecting from a low-to-mid range card to satisfy their higher (high-enthusiast) standard - which simply couldn't have happened, not at this price.

People looking to spend less are obviously going to like this card, as their judgement isn't as polluted as what is being shown here since quite some time now.

Quite frankly, this board is beginning to look like the political landscape of a 3rd world country. =(

Once again, I believe we should all get off our high horse thinking we know what's best for everyone and see the card for what it is, not what we want it to be or what others want us to think it should be. Perspective is everything.

A few things, the reference board is nothing spectacular, but it's nothing too bad either, exactly what you'd expect for a card in this price range. Overclocking seems to yield very good results, makes me hopeful for the after market cards for those of us who want to play around with them. Thermals and power draw suffer quite considerably when the card is pushed outside specifications, with a small die like that cooling can't be an easy feat. I am hoping that with a new revision these issues become less pronounced, and let's not forget we're going to stay on this node for a long while.

I am most interested in how high these can clock though, that is what intrigues me as an enthusiast, because of the possible implications that might have for the bigger chips (clad in AIB's) which I am interested in. A lot of added power draw and temperature, but a <10% overclock netting ~10% pure gaming performance across mins and averages, then that speaks great for those of us who don't care about power draw and can push the cards.


----------



## bossie2000

At least you done have to use a stupid bridge between cards! How Nvidia did'nt work that one out this round is beyone me?


----------



## The-Beast

Is it me, or is the world seemingly against AMD.

from Newegg.
NOTE Orders received from 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, 6/29/16 to midnight Thursday, 6/30/16 won't be shipped until Friday, 7/1/2016 as we conduct our biannual inventory.


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awsan*
> 
> Most good 980 are 400-450
> AIB 480s will cost around 300
> 
> So a 980 is 30%-50% more expensive and its not faster even by 20% so what is the problem?
> 
> Cheapest 980 is 300 and cheapest 480 is 200 which means even the cheapest 980 is still 50% more expensive than the cheapest 480.
> 
> Cheapest 980 will perform as good as the most expensive 480 while costing the same, Problem?


If I was in the 400-450 price point I certainly wouldn't be shopping for a 980. There are also 980Ti's at that price point right now and theoretically 1070's.


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Well the 1080 thread was derailed/trolled pritty hard by a few, it's every forum/thread. Not many can be objective about the things they own/ are invested in.


It has gotten bad though. I had a post about a new benchmark not even a GPU and the red/green nonsense started. There are a loud handful for both sides and both side like to pretend the trolls/fanboys only exist on the other team...


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> The funny part about that is when maxwell was launching people were saying they didn't care about power to performance etc But here we are years later and it's a big thing and something that was hyped for this card.
> 
> I remember the exact threads with the 980 and people were saying it didn't matter that it ran alot cooler/quieter etc


I don't care about power to performance on the higher end scale. But this card is filling in the main stream/low end of the spectrum which is nice to see a power/performance efficient GPU


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Well i kinda miss alatar and the old guys here on ocn. This is not a conversation just fanboys are fighting each other with zero logic. And the lack of the mods in general..
> 
> I am out have fun guys


I'd have to agree unfortunately. And I'll have to apologize myself, I get sucked into the bait too often here and try to promote logic and it only derails the thread further. My amd logo avatar doesn't seem to help, but it's actually me being disappointed in them at this point, not promoting them.

To sum it up, the 480 looks like a good card and I believe many opinions will change once AIB's hit. The only true concern I have is power consumption - it's not a big deal for me, but when they promote it so strongly and we end up with... less than ideal results especially regarding power delivery on cards like this it makes me weary of what they will do on the high end.

Go full beast mode like the 9590 with vega or go home at this point... Otherwise the 1080ti is likely my next card.


----------



## SuperZan

So it looks like... everything normal people were expecting.

Improves AMD's perf/watt relative to its own designs, still lagging behind NV in this area.

Performs at the 970/980 level AKA the 390/390x level. Improves some of the worst of AMD's DX11 performance, looks very nice in DX12.

Not a card for 4k - debatable value at 1440p, but clearly intended for 1080p and entry-level VR.

Reference overclocking gimpy, reference blowers remain subpar. Shocker. As with the 1070/1080 I'm not calling a fail on overclocking capability until we see AIB cards and at least one driver revision.

Why are we all surprised?


----------



## kittysox

If aib cards can cut the noise and heat I'll be interested, but not at 300$


----------



## dmasteR

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but the card is apparently failing PCI-E Specifications.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but the card is apparently failing PCI-E Specifications.


Yep. Reviews showing 160-170w under load.

Though some have undervolted and shaved 30+ watts off of that.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but the card is apparently failing PCI-E Specifications.


It has indeed been mentioned, @KarathKasun brought it up pages ago, though with the speed of the thread it's quite understandable.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> So it looks like... everything normal people were expecting.
> 
> Improves AMD's perf/watt relative to its own designs, still lagging behind NV in this area.
> 
> Performs at the 970/980 level AKA the 390/390x level. Improves some of the worst of AMD's DX11 performance, looks very nice in DX12.
> 
> Not a card for 4k - debatable value at 1440p, but clearly intended for 1080p and entry-level VR.
> 
> Reference overclocking gimpy, reference blowers remain subpar. Shocker. As with the 1070/1080 I'm not calling a fail on overclocking capability until we see AIB cards and at least one driver revision.
> 
> Why are we all surprised?


Is there any vr benchmarks? People keep saying it's a great entry vr card, I wonder how it stacks up against the 970/980/1070 in vr.


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Is there any vr benchmarks? People keep saying it's a great entry vr card, I wonder how it stacks up against the 970/980/1070 in vr.


Someone tried it maybe PCPer? I don't remember though as I've perused a few.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Is there any vr benchmarks? People keep saying it's a great entry vr card, I wonder how it stacks up against the 970/980/1070 in vr.


Haven't seen any yet, hopefully somebody does a few soon. Given that it performs in the 970/980 arena I'd expect at least that performance in VR.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *noilly*
> 
> offering past performance for less money is business as usual for hardware. what I'm saying is that it's not even that much less money


lol you do understand that this card is 40% better than 380 right? this is what is suppose to be
we are not talking about 390 level of card here that was suppose to replace an actualy high end card stop twisting everything.......


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Performs at the 970/980 level AKA the 390/390x level. Improves some of the worst of AMD's DX11 performance, looks very nice in DX12.


it does *not* perform ot 980/390X level though

its at 970/390 or slightly above


----------



## dmasteR

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-radeon-rx-480-4gb-video-cards-8gb-memory_183548

Quote:


> Want in on a little secret? AMD and their board partners had some problems sourcing enough 8Gbps GDDR5 memory for the Radeon RX 480 launch today. That caused AMD to lower the clock speeds at the very last minute, so now the Radeon RX 480 will be using at least 7Gbps GDDR5 memory and we have learned that ultimately it is up to the board partners to pick what they want to use. Since there was not enough parts to build the Radeon RX 480 4GB cards for the launch today all the at-launch cards are shipping with 8GB of 8Gbps GDDR5 memory.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> I expect zero difference in performance at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 for most games.


Some games need a bit more recently I think (new doom game for example) so maybe best going for the 8gb unless your on a very strict budget

Still though , only £175 it is tempting


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> it does *not* perform ot 980/390X level though
> 
> its at 970/390 or slightly above


"or slightly above" - are you really going to say within a few fps on most games is not within reach of 390x/980 level now?


----------



## PontiacGTX

Why people is complaining about the performance of a mainstream card like a *RX 480*?

AMD clearly comparing to a *300-375w* TPB, the 2.5x perf-watt of GCN4 improvement,with *minimal changes* to the architecture structure,they brought down the power from 340w card to the *half*. while reaching *similar level of performance* on the *mainstream* resolution (1920x1080) with same memory size, what It used to be *450usd* card performance now it is 50% less money, similar level of compute, improved tessellation/triangle throughput while culling triangles, improving memory bandwidth compared to the latest compression algorimth,improving the shader efficiency for compute/graphic/audio tasks.improving the Crossfire scaling which shows similar performance of a 700usd+ card for just 57% its price.

If it fails to deliver greater perf over 1920x1080 is due to the ROPs or Memory Bottleneck, but people still gets performance of what used to be a 130usd more expesive card on 1440+ , and allowing an *affordable VR* card, and they keep complaning.

All from a card that replaces the *R9 380*


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Some games need a bit more recently I think (new doom game for example) so maybe best going for the 8gb unless your on a very strict budget
> 
> Still though , only £175 it is tempting


I can play Doom on a 2gb 750 Ti. There is no way that the nightmare textures/shadows are worth $40.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> it does *not* perform ot 980/390X level though
> 
> its at 970/390 or slightly above


That's seemed very dependent on the game. It's clearly sat between the two, closer to 390 but still capable of performing closer to the 980. Given a driver or two I'd be very surprised if the balance weren't reversed, particularly after the AIB cards come out. Point being, as a starting point this is pretty much where reasonable expectations reckoned the card would be and lo, here it is. It's not the greatest card ever designed nor is it the worst. It's pretty much what it's supposed to be.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> 5% faster than 970 and 24W less


But we're talking last-gen Nvidia vs current-gen AMD. Hell, under-five-years-old AMD is equally appropriate. They were _still_ releasing driver updates for TeraScale until last fall, an architecture they stopped selling with the 7000 series (other than crap OEM rebrands, but those never count). The Nvidia conspiracies that they were crippling performance on previous gen card? They weren't entirely without merit. I don't think it was intentionally crippling them per se but rather failing to optimize and focusing on the current-gen stuff instead. Meanwhile, AMD continues to optimize their GPUs regardless of age. Take a look:



The 270X vs the 760 is the most interesting case since it's over the longest time and has GPUs from the same tiers as the 970, 1070, and RX 480 competing. In 2.5 years, AMD drivers have managed to - assuming Nvidia drivers did absolutely nothing for or against the 760 - give about 40% extra performance _for free_ to 270X owners.

So the 970 might lose by 5% now. But give it a couple years, and it will be losing by about 30% if not more.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> it does *not* perform ot 980/390X level though
> 
> its at 970/390 or slightly above


oh and what was amd promise about 480?
was it the destroyed of world?
the conqueror of time?
the dicactor of universe?
or was it slightly less than 980? aka above 970?


----------



## Chaython

Can still get a used 970 for 200$ or a 480 will probably be $
300(Canada)? The 970 seems to meet or beat the 480


----------



## moustang

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> It needs some obvious work with the PCIe overdraw but the 380/960 segment sucks a bit less in performance after today which is kind of the point of a new product in that segment.


I think the segment that you speak of has moved a bit. This card is the same price as a GTX 970 now, and they both seem to be very similar in performance as well.

I see it as a strange card. I can't help but wonder why AMD bothered even making a new card that was so close to their existing ones in performance. Seems to me they could have simply doubled the RAM on the 290X and it would have essentially been the same thing. In fact I can't help but wonder why it has 8GB of RAM when it clearly lacks the performance and bandwidth to actually make use of it in high resolutions. 8GB is hardly necessary for 1080p playing.


----------



## WrathOfGod1337

My issue with this card is, it makes no sense to buy it. It's a side grade for most people, and even worse, the 1060 will be out relatively soon. If Nvidia ends up pricing the 1060 at $250 or less, it's going to make this card obsolete, as I'm willing to bet it'll destroy the 480 on performance in every aspect. Either way, much smarter to wait a bit, though I'll be super happy if this sells well, Nvidia will need to respond.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> I think the segment that you speak of has moved a bit. This card is the same price as a GTX 970 now, and they both seem to be very similar in performance as well.
> 
> I see it as a strange card. I can't help but wonder why AMD bothered even making a new card that was so close to their existing ones in performance. Seems to me they could have simply doubled the RAM on the 290X and it would have essentially been the same thing. In fact I can't help but wonder why it has 8GB of RAM when it clearly lacks the performance and bandwidth to actually make use of it in high resolutions. 8GB is hardly necessary for 1080p playing.


It was a pipe cleaner for a new process at a new fabrication partner.

Also, they only need to make two chips, not 5.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Thank you for those charts cynical.

/thread


----------



## tajoh111

As I said in april, expect 2x performance per watt increase, not 2.5. Both companies don't tell the truth.

But back to performance. This is kind of disappointing as it performs closer to my worst expectations then my optimistic ones. Closer to 390 performance than 390x. With power consumption closer to 150 watts than 100. If people were critical of Nvidia's marketing, they have to be critical here too. AMD obviously framed certain and best case scenario's at earlier presentations. What is clear however is why these products are priced as they are.

I was expecting, the 1070 to be 35-40% faster, not 50%. It's no wonder this thing is priced at 200 for the 4gb and 229 for the 8gb.

The engineering on this card is a big let down in general. Mahigan, is probably going to disappear for a while considering the hype he talked about this card.

The 1080 is 80% faster which is insane. Forget vega, AMD needs the ones that comes after this. It's crazy how much AMD engineering has fallen behind. Two pitcairns smoked the 680. Two rx 480's not so much vs the 1080. Add in how far ahead Nvidia is in regards to performance per watt, and it seems like maxwell architecture conroed AMD.

GCN needs to replaced asap. It's starting to show it's age.


----------



## Eastrider

Spain:

Cheapest, slowest, worst GTX970: 299€
All of the 8GB RX480 (no 4GB): 299€

Also considering it's launch day.

480 > 970

where's the problem?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> As I said in april, expect 2x performance per watt increase, not 2.5. Both companies don't tell the truth.
> 
> But back to performance. This is kind of disappointing as it performs closer to my worst expectations then my optimistic ones. Closer to 390 performance than 390x. With power consumption closer to 150 watts than 100. If people were critical of Nvidia's marketing, they have to be critical here too. AMD obviously framed certain and best case scenario's at earlier presentations. What is clear however is why these products are priced as they are.
> 
> I was expecting, the 1070 to be 35-40% faster, not 50%. It's no wonder this thing is priced at 200 for the 4gb and 229 for the 8gb.
> 
> The engineering on this card is a big let down in general. Mahigan, is probably going to disappear for a while considering the hype he talked about this card.
> 
> The 1080 is 80% faster which is insane. Forget vega, AMD needs the ones that comes after this. It's crazy how much AMD engineering has fallen behind. Two pitcairns smoked the 680. Two rx 480's not so much vs the 1080. Add in how far ahead Nvidia is in regards to performance per watt, and it seems like maxwell architecture conroed AMD.
> 
> GCN needs to replaced asap. It's starting to show it's age.


RX 460 and 470 will give you 2.5x since they will be clocked lower and have less active units. Just like with Fury, a small clock drop can quickly drop TDP.

It also looks like they are pushing voltages pretty hard to get the most cards past QC. Some have already under volted and dropped wattage by 20%.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Eastrider*
> 
> Spain:
> 
> Cheapest, slowest, worst GTX970: 299€
> All of the 8GB RX480 (no 4GB): 299€
> 
> Also considering it's launch day.
> 
> 480 > 970
> 
> where's the problem?


That the 970 was released 2 years ago and people used it for 2 years for gaming etc.

People hoped for more. The RX 480 is no embodiment of 2 years of progress we hoped for.


----------



## noilly

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> lol you do understand that this card is 40% better than 380 right? this is what is suppose to be
> we are not talking about 390 level of card here that was suppose to replace an actualy high end card stop twisting everything.......


I'm not twisting anything nor am I trying to. I just pointed out that you could snag a 290x last year or a 970 recently for <$250 US on sale. It doesn't matter what msrp card it's "supposed" to replace when you could often find deals that offer the similar performance and price up to a year ago.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Was going to buy 2 rx 480's....... but like.... they are 329 CAD, and I can find gtx 1070's for mid-low $500's..... Haven't had an Nvidia card since the 8800gt....... To betray, or not betray.....


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> I can play Doom on a 2gb 750 Ti. There is no way that the nightmare textures/shadows are worth $40.


People like to play at the highest settings and a 8gb one will let you do that . Think it's best to wait to see what AMD's partners come up , we will get a Tri-X one from Sapphire , that is what my 290x is and it's pretty awesome never goes above 80c in a tiny case and it's really quiet.


----------



## GunfighterAK

My biggest issue with this card, power consumption and efficiency of the future fury replacement. If this mediocre cards eats as much as a 1070 then how much will the next AMD 14nm high end card eat to match the 1080? 350W?


----------



## Xuper

Over 700 cards sold out.

Quote:



> Over 700 now, I expected good sales, but this is beyond my expectations for day one. Several lines have sold out infact.
> 
> I see competitors have also moved prices on 8Gb part up so I guess they are low on stock, I reckon I can hold my 8GB pricing as I did have well over 1000 units in stock for launch.
> 
> Shame on the 4GB part though, going to push AMD hard to manufacturer more, or put 8GB cards in 4GB boxes haha


https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29714968&postcount=69


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> I think the segment that you speak of has moved a bit. This card is the same price as a GTX 970 now, and they both seem to be very similar in performance as well.
> 
> I see it as a strange card. I can't help but wonder why AMD bothered even making a new card that was so close to their existing ones in performance. Seems to me they could have simply doubled the RAM on the 290X and it would have essentially been the same thing. In fact I can't help but wonder why it has 8GB of RAM when it clearly lacks the performance and bandwidth to actually make use of it in high resolutions. 8GB is hardly necessary for 1080p playing.


Hm, that depends on where you are I suppose. The 970 is still more expensive where I live, and offers less performance at 1080p even with the obvious issues and traditional terrible AMD launch drivers. This is also a card meant to grow the TAM. Whether or not that is realistic is another question. But for those purposes offering a card that can play new games at 1080p and has a bigger VRAM number than the competition, a less knowledgeable consumer new to PC gaming is probably going to pick the cheaper card with the bigger VRAM number. 'Coz that has to be good, right? I don't think it's a perfect card at all but I see where they were going. Whether or not that was the best choice is still up in the air but they needed to try something different because losing to Nvidia's newest thing on launch day and then catching up 6 months later with nobody 're-reviewing' the cards was just not working out for them. They don't have the money to square off with Nvidia like that. So I see what they were going for and for the sake of the market I hope it works out for them.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WrathOfGod1337*
> 
> My issue with this card is, it makes no sense to buy it. It's a side grade for most people, and even worse, the 1060 will be out relatively soon. If Nvidia ends up pricing the 1060 at $250 or less, it's going to make this card obsolete, as I'm willing to bet it'll destroy the 480 on performance in every aspect. Either way, much smarter to wait a bit, though I'll be super happy if this sells well, Nvidia will need to respond.


you really dont understand why this card exists in the first place...

this is nvidia themselfs saying that


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> People like to play at the highest settings and a 8gb one will let you do that . Think it's best to wait to see what AMD's partners come up , we will get a Tri-X one from Sapphire , that is what my 290x is and it's pretty awesome never goes above 80c in a tiny case and it's really quiet.


I just dont think reference cards will have the grunt to make use of all 8gb without crossfire.


----------



## JackCY

Seems too power hungry, while an improvement indeed it's now in the Maxwell kind of efficiency and it shows that AMD doesn't have the insane $ for R&D to make more frequent updates to the architecture.
32 ROPS is IMHO a fail and it should have had at least 48, 64 preferred.

Overall it's a decent card once AIBs come out with better PCB and cooling design but it lacks that 1 step of R&D IMHO that AMD didn't invest into or focused elsewhere. I would have rather seen no Fury and have better 4xx series instead.
As long as price stays low it will sell.

960 was a piece of overpriced crap compared to AMD mainstream cards so it remains to be seen if/when and at what price/performance the 1060 will be available.

Some say that RX480 is a side grade, that may be so for OCN members but for general population it is a definitely upgrade to a very good price/performance card that brings previous generation high end performance down into mainstream prices and mainstream power requirements.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Seems too power hungry, while an improvement indeed it's now in the Maxwell kind of efficiency and it shows that AMD doesn't have the insane $ for R&D to make more frequent updates to the architecture.
> 32 ROPS is IMHO a fail and it should have had at least 48, 64 preferred.
> 
> Overall it's a decent card once AIBs come out with better PCB and cooling design but it lacks that 1 step of R&D IMHO that AMD didn't invest into or focused elsewhere. I would have rather seen no Fury and have better 4xx series instead.
> As long as price stays low it will sell.
> 
> 960 was a piece of overpriced crap compared to AMD mainstream cards so it remains to be seen if/when and at what price/performance the 1060 will be available.


The fact that its 32 ROPs are hanging with R9 290/390 which have 64 ROPs...


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> The fact that its 32 ROPs are hanging with R9 290/390 which have 64 ROPs...


It does well considering indeed.


----------



## julizs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WrathOfGod1337*
> 
> My issue with this card is, it makes no sense to buy it. It's a side grade for most people, and even worse, the 1060 will be out relatively soon. If Nvidia ends up pricing the 1060 at $250 or less, it's going to make this card obsolete, as I'm willing to bet it'll destroy the 480 on performance in every aspect. Either way, much smarter to wait a bit, though I'll be super happy if this sells well, Nvidia will need to respond.


So, the 480 will be a sidegrade for most people but the 1060 wont be? Ok.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> That the 970 was released 2 years ago and people used it for 2 years for gaming etc.
> 
> People hoped for more. The RX 480 is no embodiment of 2 years of progress we hoped for.


Your reasoning is flawed. The fact that performance was already aviable is irrelevant if the price is not the same.

Right now,on alternate.de the 4 GB version is sitting at 219 EUR. Have you ever seen a GTX 970 at that price? Not even now,not even pre-Pascal announcement.


----------



## bossie2000

Quote:


> So the 970 might lose by 5% now. But give it a couple years, and it will be losing by about 30% if not more.


Ja,they call it future proof.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> I just dont think reference cards will have the grunt to make use of all 8gb without crossfire.


at 1080p gaming I would say yeah probably best just going for the 4gb one. I am at 1440p so would be best for me to get 8gb

Very interested to see what the AIB partners come up with , 8gb nice factory overclock and nice cooler is what I am after. Chip itself seems great


----------



## Klocek001

where are the times when amd's x90 card can compete with nvidia's x80 card ? I can't see that happen ATM

290X>780
390X=980


----------



## RadarOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> But we're talking last-gen Nvidia vs current-gen AMD. Hell, under-five-years-old AMD is equally appropriate. They were _still_ releasing driver updates for TeraScale until last fall, an architecture they stopped selling with the 7000 series (other than crap OEM rebrands, but those never count). The Nvidia conspiracies that they were crippling performance on previous gen card? They weren't entirely without merit. I don't think it was intentionally crippling them per se but rather failing to optimize and focusing on the current-gen stuff instead. Meanwhile, AMD continues to optimize their GPUs regardless of age. Take a look:
> 
> -Graph-
> 
> The 270X vs the 760 is the most interesting case since it's over the longest time and has GPUs from the same tiers as the 970, 1070, and RX 480 competing. In 2.5 years, AMD drivers have managed to - assuming Nvidia drivers did absolutely nothing for or against the 760 - give about 40% extra performance _for free_ to 270X owners.
> 
> So the 970 might lose by 5% now. But give it a couple years, and it will be losing by about 30% if not more.


Where did those numbers come from and what was the metric used to measure performance? I bet there is some interesting data behind that chart.


----------



## WrathOfGod1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *julizs*
> 
> So, the 480 will be a sidegrade for most people but the 1060 wont be? Ok.


If the 1060 keeps up as well as the 1070 kept up with the 1080...well you get the idea. Either way, no reason to not wait for the 1060.


----------



## hokk

Well at least you're getting 8GB of ram not 3.5

right?


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> where are the times when amd's x90 card can compete with nvidia's x80 card ? I can't see that happen ATM


https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html



Also, I won't be at all surprised if the 490 is competitive with the 1080.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> where are the times when amd's x90 card can compete with nvidia's x80 card ? I can't see that happen ATM
> 
> 290X>780
> 390X=980


Alright, seeing your edit I see what you mean... sort of. The difference in performance between 390/390x/980 is relatively small in many games, though.


----------



## KarathKasun

With these power numbers, it looks like AMD should have made a "wider" chip with slightly lower clocks. Probably could have hit 980 performance at 130w. Perhaps they were banking too much on higher clocks that never materialized.


----------



## Transmaniacon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WrathOfGod1337*
> 
> If the 1060 keeps up as well as the 1070 kept up with the 1080...well you get the idea. Either way, no reason to not wait for the 1060.


If the 1060 keeps up fairly well with the 1070, it won't be less than $299... and you can bank on $349 for the FE.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> and what is the pci-e power connection?
> 
> *P*ci-*E G*raphics power connection.
> 
> 
> 
> Too tired to argue. The ATX spec calls for 18 AWG wire on PEG connections, its in the design spec and its derated just like the rest of the wiring. Not that I can even get to the PCI-SIG PDF's anymore as they all seem to be locked down. What follows are quotes from the full specification from various sources.
> 
> PCI-SIG has the following to say...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> A standard height x16 add-in card intended for graphics applications must, at initial power-up, not exceed 25 W of power dissipation, until configured as a high power device, at which time it must not exceed 75 W of power dissipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> A x16 graphics card is limited to 75 W. The 75 W maximum can be drawn via the combination of +12V and +3.3V rails, but each rail draw is limited as defined in Table 4-1, and the sum of the draw on the two rails cannot exceed 75 W.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> A PCI Express x16 Graphics 150W-ATX add-in card can draw a maximum of 75W through the standard connector, as specified in PCI Express CEM 1.1. Up to 75W additional power is provided through a 6-pin wire-to-board connector. Therefore, the maximum total power that must be provided to a PCI Express x16 Graphics 150W-ATX add-in card is 150W.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even by the PCI-SIG spec you are wrong. 150w is defined as the total of 75w(slot)+75w(6P). 225w is 75w(slot) 75w(6P) 75w(6P). 300w spec is 75w(slot) 75w(6P) 150w (8P).
> 
> Capabilities do not need to match prescribed limits, it looks like the connectors are derated just as badly as the standard ATX wiring, notice the footnote about rise in temperature over ambient in the image you used as proof.
Click to expand...

so you can't get to the specs but going to use "various sources"?

as i said *there is NO PEG specs in intel's ATX standards.* trying to use quotes from various sources like wikipedia (which include the x16 slot and not the PEG) are not the same as PCI-SIG.

its funny you're telling me i am wrong as i pull specs via screen shot from the specs themselves:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







and the problem with derating using an ambient temp is that its completely ambiguous; but using intel case temp of 60c with no air flow, then the PEG would need to deliver 8 amps per pin at 90c.

but by that point, if the case is that hot it's likely there would be more problems with the cpu potentially thermal tripping. so pretty much worse case scenario(s) that don't exist in the real world. maybe too tired to think that through?

and btw, don't let that "_total maximum power that must be provided_" stuff throw you off - nothing says it cannot provide MORE!


----------



## tkenietz

The performance was expected from leaks.
The things I'm disappointed about would be the (lack of) efficiency, which in turn makes the reference cooler WORSE that we thought it would be (and I thought it would be pretty bad after the leaked photos); the overclocking is abysmal; the apparent inconsistency from sample to sample.

I feel like there's no reason to purchase the reference card at all really. Even if you put a clc on it you would still be dealing with questionable power management.

Prospective aib 6+8 pin makes sense with this power draw. One review had a 90watt system increase at only 1300mhz

With the massive numbers they produced, could we see price drops for reference models after aib launch if they don't sell as well as predicted? I still don't know that I would buy a reference card at this point even if they were cheaper


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Your reasoning is flawed. The fact that performance was already aviable is irrelevant if the price is not the same.
> 
> Right now,on alternate.de the 4 GB version is sitting at 219 EUR. Have you ever seen a GTX 970 at that price? Not even now,not even pre-Pascal announcement.


my reasoning isn't flawed because the person asked what's the problem with the negative attitude of informed people here. It has nothing to do with how well the card is doing or anything like that. I think it is safe to say that many people (those that know a thing or two about GPU releases) are disappointed (atleast to some extent).

You are trying to make my post into something it isn't. The person didn't ask for a market analysis from me or anything. There is a huge difference and I was only responding to the raw question and didn't go any further.

The RX480 simply isn't as good as informed people hoped it'd be. I am not saying it should've been on GTX 1080 levels, but AMD even managed to undergo my low expectations of 980 performance on average.

The RX480 is still going to sell allright, because AMD finally managed to create hype with marketing. It's good for them, bad for us.

Like I said earlier. it's probably a good card to go for those that buy a new budget PC and don't really care or those that come from a 750 Ti or 670 or 7850 or something.

Still disappointing in the grand scheme of things considering we are on 14nm in 2016.

That is why there is a small "outrage" on various sites. You can't ignore that.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> so you can't get to the specs but going to use "various sources"?
> 
> as i said *there is NO PEG specs in intel's ATX standards.* trying to use quotes from various sources like wikipedia (which include the x16 slot and not the PEG) are not the same as PCI-SIG.
> 
> its funny you're telling me i am wrong as i pull specs via screen shot from the specs themselves:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the problem with derating using an ambient temp is that its completely ambiguous; but using intel case temp of 60c with no air flow, then the PEG would need to deliver 8 amps per pin at 90c.
> 
> but by that point, if the case is that hot it's likely there would be more problems with the cpu potentially thermal tripping. so pretty much worse case scenario(s) that don't exist in the real world. maybe too tired to think that through?
> 
> and btw, don't let that "_total maximum power that must be provided_" stuff throw you off - nothing says it cannot provide MORE!


Use an IR thermometer on a hot reference card, see what temps are near the sockets. Also, there are extended thermal operating range components for industrial use. They still need to be able to be served by the same basic standards framework.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Transmaniacon*
> 
> If the 1060 keeps up fairly well with the 1070, it won't be less than $299... and you can bank on $349 for the FE.


My bet is that 1060 will be >+5% faster than 980 so they can claim "Faster than 980" and priced between 280-300 dollars. They need to be crazy to pull the FE crap on a low-mid range card as the 1060.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Still disappointing in the grand scheme of things considering we are on 14nm in 2016.


nVidia had the same jump from 970 > 1070 so i don't know what you're expecting?

7870 kind of jump where mid range was equal to last generation high range? Not happening since both vendors have introduced additional tiers.


----------



## SniperOct

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> That the 970 was released 2 years ago and people used it for 2 years for gaming etc.
> 
> People *(I hoped for more)* hoped for more. The RX 480 is no embodiment of 2 years of progress we hoped for.


32Cus vs 64 cus
256bit vs 512bit
less power consumption
better temps
supports latest apis, connectors, tech, etc
199 launch price vs $550 launch price (will end up being $100 and much faster as time goes by)
First attempt at a new process vs one of the later attempts at the old process (remember the first attempt was 7870 class)

Remember that this replaces 380, not 390/290. Yet does better, even with reference design.

I can go on and on and on. You were warned not to believe in rumors and now you are psychologically damaged. there is a reason why I posted ZERO messages in rumor threads. Your problems are of your own creation.


----------



## MNiceGuy

This thread is exploding so fast there's no way I'm able to catch everything being said. That being said I feel like some people are approaching it like this:

Oh the new AMD card. Hmmm - I'm supposed to hate them I think.

It's too expensive! Err...wait it's actually reasonably priced. Nevermind

It's not powerful enough! Err....It's actually good performance at that pricepoint. Nevermind

It's a botched launch! Err...They actually have good stock for launch day. Nevermind

The performance/watt is not as good as Nvidia. AH HA! OMG AMD is doomed! Worst launch in history! Hear that internet? I don't like something!

Some of these arguments are stretched sooo thin. The 1080 thread, a discussion for the currently most powerful gaming GPU, was full of penny pincers and now this thread is full of power efficiency aficionados.


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MNiceGuy*
> 
> This thread is exploding so fast there's no way I'm able to catch everything being said. That being said I feel like some people are approaching it like this:
> 
> Oh the new AMD card. Hmmm - I'm supposed to hate them I think.
> 
> It's too expensive! Err...wait it's actually reasonably priced. Nevermind
> 
> It's not powerful enough! Err....It's actually good performance at that pricepoint. Nevermind
> 
> It's a botched launch! Err...They actually have good stock for launch day. Nevermind
> 
> The performance/watt is not as good as Nvidia. AH HA! OMG AMD is doomed! Worst launch in history! Hear that internet? I don't like something!
> 
> Some of these arguments are stretched sooo thin. The 1080 thread, a discussion for the currently most powerful gaming GPU, was full of penny pincers and now this thread is full of power efficiency aficionados.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> so you can't get to the specs but going to use "various sources"?
> 
> as i said *there is NO PEG specs in intel's ATX standards.* trying to use quotes from various sources like wikipedia (which include the x16 slot and not the PEG) are not the same as PCI-SIG.
> 
> its funny you're telling me i am wrong as i pull specs via screen shot from the specs themselves:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the problem with derating using an ambient temp is that its completely ambiguous; but using intel case temp of 60c with no air flow, then the PEG would need to deliver 8 amps per pin at 90c.
> 
> but by that point, if the case is that hot it's likely there would be more problems with the cpu potentially thermal tripping. so pretty much worse case scenario(s) that don't exist in the real world. maybe too tired to think that through?
> 
> and btw, don't let that "_total maximum power that must be provided_" stuff throw you off - nothing says it cannot provide MORE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use an IR thermometer on a hot reference card, see what temps are near the sockets. Also, there are extended thermal operating range components for industrial use. They still need to be able to be served by the same basic standards framework.
Click to expand...

no need to use an IR thermometer when i can place my hand in them and feel them cooler than the cards vrms - that stay under ~70c.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> no need to use an IR thermometer when i can place my hand in them and feel them cooler than the cards vrms - that stay under ~70c.


On what card? I have cards that get to ~70c minimum over the whole back surface of the card. You derate for worst case scenarios.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MNiceGuy*
> 
> This thread is exploding so fast there's no way I'm able to catch everything being said. That being said I feel like some people are approaching it like this:
> 
> Oh the new AMD card. Hmmm - I'm supposed to hate them I think.
> 
> It's too expensive! Err...wait it's actually reasonably priced. Nevermind
> 
> It's not powerful enough! Err....It's actually good performance at that pricepoint. Nevermind
> 
> It's a botched launch! Err...They actually have good stock for launch day. Nevermind
> 
> The performance/watt is not as good as Nvidia. AH HA! OMG AMD is doomed! Worst launch in history! Hear that internet? I don't like something!
> 
> Some of these arguments are stretched sooo thin. The 1080 thread, a discussion for the currently most powerful gaming GPU, was full of penny pincers and now this thread is full of power efficiency aficionados.


God damn this is spot on, well done sir.


----------



## hokk

Same performance as a 18month old nvidia GPU with only 25w less power draw

AT THE SAME PRICE POINT CURRENTLY

Inb4

"well the drivers will give it so much % in so much time"
"Lol its really good for the value if you ignore the gtx970"
"U JUST A NVIDA FANBOI NOOB OMG U DERAIL THREAD REPORTED!!!"


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SniperOct*
> 
> 32Cus vs 64 cus
> 156bit vs 512bit
> less power consumption
> better temps
> supports latest apis, connectors, tech, etc
> 199 launch price vs $550 launch price $550
> First attempt at a new process vs one of the later attempts at the old process (remember the first attempt was 7870 class
> Remember that this repalces 380, not 390/290. Yet does better at the reference design.
> 
> I can go on and on and on. ]You were warned not to belive in rumors and now you are psycologically damaged]. there is a reason why I posted ZERO messages in rumor threads. Your problems ar your own.


are you for real?









one of the worst posts on OCN I've seen in a while (besides BlindDeafMute and ChevChelios daily failures)


----------



## Transmaniacon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> Same performance as a 18month old nvidia GPU with only 25w less power draw
> 
> AT THE SAME PRICE POINT CURRENTLY
> 
> Inb4
> 
> "well the drivers will give it so much % in so much time"
> "Lol its really good for the value if you ignore the gtx970"
> "U JUST A NVIDA FANBOI NOOB OMG U DERAIL THREAD REPORTED!!!"


You are comparing a discontinued card that is on closeout pricing to a new card. Come back and show me all these cheap 970s in about 3 weeks when they are all gone.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> Same performance as a 18month old nvidia GPU with only 25w less power draw
> 
> AT THE SAME PRICE POINT CURRENTLY
> 
> Inb4
> 
> "well the drivers will give it so much % in so much time"
> "Lol its really good for the value if you ignore the gtx970"
> "U JUST A NVIDA FANBOI NOOB OMG U DERAIL THREAD REPORTED!!!"


omg rekt omg

meanwhile 380 was what 20% less than 970?
480 comes closes that gaps and actually goes slightly faster
people loose their minds expecting a 1080 killer for a led bulb wattage


----------



## Evil Penguin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MNiceGuy*
> 
> This thread is exploding so fast there's no way I'm able to catch everything being said. That being said I feel like some people are approaching it like this:
> 
> Oh the new AMD card. Hmmm - I'm supposed to hate them I think.
> 
> It's too expensive! Err...wait it's actually reasonably priced. Nevermind
> 
> It's not powerful enough! Err....It's actually good performance at that pricepoint. Nevermind
> 
> It's a botched launch! Err...They actually have good stock for launch day. Nevermind
> 
> The performance/watt is not as good as Nvidia. AH HA! OMG AMD is doomed! Worst launch in history! Hear that internet? I don't like something!
> 
> Some of these arguments are stretched sooo thin. The 1080 thread, a discussion for the currently most powerful gaming GPU, was full of penny pincers and now this thread is full of power efficiency aficionados.


This pretty much.

Some people around here can't get it through their head that this card is a Pitcairn replacement.

Would have been nice if AMD managed to trim another 20% power from retail cards but oh well.


----------



## Romin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nojoda*
> 
> so one question, this card was supposed to be day 1 available but i dont see on amazon?


Sold out !


----------



## sherlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nojoda*
> 
> so one question, this card was supposed to be day 1 available but i dont see on amazon?


Because the "25X supply of 1080" hype/rumor is a lie like everything else spewed here and gobbled up without thought.


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Transmaniacon*
> 
> You are comparing a discontinued card that is on closeout pricing to a new card. Come back and show me all these cheap 970s in about 3 weeks when they are all gone.


I think the funny thing is the same exact situation happened with the gpu he uses in his build. the 280/285/280x were for the most part cheaper than the 960 on release, perform better as well, but they were being phased out as the 960 launched.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nojoda*
> 
> so one question, this card was supposed to be day 1 available but i dont see on amazon?


amazon launched the gpus a day early


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> Same performance as a 18month old nvidia GPU with only 25w less power draw
> 
> AT THE SAME PRICE POINT CURRENTLY
> 
> Inb4
> 
> "well the drivers will give it so much % in so much time"
> "Lol its really good for the value if you ignore the gtx970"
> "U JUST A NVIDA FANBOI NOOB OMG U DERAIL THREAD REPORTED!!!"


MSRP for 4 GB is set at 199 where are the new 970's at 200?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> On what card? I have cards that get to ~70c minimum over the whole back surface of the card. You derate for worst case scenarios.


you have issues if the 750ti in your sig get like that.









and yeah one derates for worse case scenarios however, that does not *hard limit* what is operational under normal conditions.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> MSRP for 4 GB is set at 199 where are the new 970's at 200?


Cheapest I seen on newegg was 265 and I think amazon had one for 260 with a 2-4 week wait.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> Same performance as a 18month old nvidia GPU with only 25w less power draw
> 
> AT THE SAME PRICE POINT CURRENTLY
> 
> Inb4
> 
> "well the drivers will give it so much % in so much time"
> "Lol its really good for the value if you ignore the gtx970"
> "U JUST A NVIDA FANBOI NOOB OMG U DERAIL THREAD REPORTED!!!"


show me new gtx 970 for 230$


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nojoda*
> 
> so one question, this card was supposed to be day 1 available but i dont see on amazon?


LOL, Read My Post , Over 700 cards ( wanna to know who is Gibbo ? sure here His Face! )

My Post


----------



## SniperOct

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> are you for real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one of the worst posts on OCN I've seen in a while (besides BlindDeafMute and ChevChelios daily failures)


I'm for real. what is your objection exactly? or will you make this a long discussion with no substance as you have done previously?


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> My bet is that 1060 will be >+5% faster than 980 so they can claim "Faster than 980" and priced between 280-300 dollars. They need to be crazy to pull the FE crap on a low-mid range card as the 1060.
> nVidia had the same jump from 970 > 1070 so i don't know what you're expecting?
> 
> 7870 kind of jump where mid range was equal to last generation high range? Not happening since both vendors have introduced additional tiers.


280-300 doesn't make sense with 1070 non founder edition pricing at 379.

I think $239-250 with a substantially smaller die then the rx 480 seems like the more likely price. e.g 66-70% of the performance @ 66% of the price. 300 dollar's doesn't make sense for a card that's going to be 33% slower.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SniperOct*
> 
> I'm for real. what is your objection exactly? or will you make this a long discussion with no substance as you have done previously?


then maybe you should stop adressing me if you expect nothing of substance. Thank you.

One very important thing to remember with the RX480.

Nvidia has the GTX 1060 ready to compete. It probably comes out next week/month. People can wait and decide then.

I wish AMD had something ready to compete with the GTX 1070 / 1080. Sadly isn't coming next week/month.


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> 280-300 doesn't make sense with 1070 non founder edition pricing at 379.
> 
> I think $239-250 with a substantially smaller die then the rx 480 seems like the more likely price. e.g 66-70% of the performance @ 66% of the price. 300 dollar's doesn't make sense for a card that's going to be 33% slower.


would actually agree, it would be a mistake if Nvidia launched a 3gb card for anything near 300$


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> you have issues if the 750ti in your sig get like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yeah one derates for worse case scenarios however, that does not *hard limit* what is operational under normal conditions.


Nah, it was a 900mhz GTX 470.

That thing was DEFINITELY out of spec.


----------



## hyp36rmax

I'm loving this drama! Every GPU release will have this lol! But this is the first i've seen a mainstream card get this much hype. Its a great price for what you get. And an awesome upgrade for those running GPU's below an R9 290. What I don't understand is the hype with some people thinking this was an end game GPU. Some people on Reddit sold their R9 390X for this side-grade. Funny thing is I don't think AMD said anything about this being a game changer in the higher end market. More like mainstream and market share. Which it totally does. If I didn't already own crossfire 290X's, GTX 780Ti, GTX 970 and (Crossfire FURYX's) this would have made a viable option for my HTPC and 4K.


----------



## MNiceGuy

As much as I don't enjoy reading the whole 'my truck brand is better than your truck brand' commentary here, Nvidia fans should also be rooting for this card to be a success. I for one hope this thing sells like hotcakes for the next several months and I'm typing this as I glace over at my 1080.

The more successful Polaris is the more of market share AMD will win. More market share means more competition to Nvidia. Good competition is generally good for the consumer. Nvidia pricing is something complained about on this forum ad nauseam so for you complainers, starting talking up the 480 to your not-as-nerdy friends who want recommendations.


----------



## SniperOct

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> then maybe you should stop adressing me if you expect nothing of substance. Thank you.


expect? it was a question, your choice. You have made the choice again that when confronted with logic, you will just keep on avoiting th actual conversation and get in the realm of "you can't be serious". you do that a lot. So the question was "is it to be expected? or will you actually address the real conversation." You decided to continue avoiding logical replies to your posts. I wonder what the point is of posting here if you aren't willing to engage in an actual conversation.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> 280-300 doesn't make sense with 1070 non founder edition pricing at 379.
> 
> I think $239-250 with a substantially smaller die then the rx 480 seems like the more likely price. e.g 66-70% of the performance @ 66% of the price. 300 dollar's doesn't make sense for a card that's going to be 33% slower.


That 380 USD MSRP is a pipe dream,nVidia played everyone. Even reference PCB EVGA GTX 1070 ACX 3.0 is priced 420 bucks.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Also, I won't be at all surprised if the 490 is competitive with the 1080.


the 490 will need to be the 4096 Vega (idk if that is vega 10 or 11) to compete with 1080 (just 1080, not 1080Ti)


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> the 490 will need to be the 4096 Vega (idk if that is vega 10 or 11) to compete with 1080 (just 1080, not 1080Ti)


that I am wondering aswell.

Is AMD one step behind again? When the RX490 comes out, which will most likely compete with GTX 1080, will Nvidia release a new Titan / 1080 Ti and one-up them again?

It most definitively looks like it


----------



## vmatt1203

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> ugh the card is roughly as fast as a GTX 970. The GTX 970 was like 250€ in europe with a free game like The Division or DOOM for the last 3-4 months.
> 
> I really hoped this card was as fast as a stock GTX 980, but it isn't.
> 
> I didn't expect 980 Ti levels of performance, but slower than my 290X come on AMD.


But the 480 8GB was almost exactly on par with the stock 980 in almost every bench? and at $229 US!! Plus were all these run with launch drivers? (at work cant open most* links...) Either way it will be a nice upgrade for my aging 7970 and I wont be running out of vram in GTAV anymore!

*edit


----------



## KarathKasun

I think I will be getting an RX 460, because its probably the fastest single slot card for a while. Need it for a specific form factor case.

Not sure about the RX 480 though. May just wait for RX 470 instead of paying more for an AIB RX480. It should OC better percentage wise, and Im stuck at sub 1920x1080 for a while anyway.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmatt1203*
> 
> But the 480 8GB was almost exactly on par with the stock 980 in almost every bench? and at $229 US!! Plus were all these run with launch drivers? (at work cant open any links...) Either way it will be a nice upgrade for my aging 7970 and I wont be running out of vram in GTAV anymore!


depends on the games (different reviewers, different games, different results). For the future it might look good with DX12. It all depends on what one wants to play. I have still a lot of DX11 titles in my backlog. That is something people need to consider too.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

What people tend to forget, when they say "970 performance at the same price" is that the 980 Ti came down in price to match the 1070 too, so can I say then that it's a botched deal since I can find a980TI at $430? No. Vendors will adjust their pricing according to new players on the field.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> depends on the games (different reviewers, different games, different results). For the future it might look good with DX12. It all depends on what one wants to play. I have still a lot of DX11 titles in my backlog. That is something people need to consider too.


And this card improves DX11 compare to older AMD cards. To me this card is like a Mix of GTX970 and 390.


----------



## KarathKasun

Those cheap last gen cards will not hang around for long either.


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sherlock*
> 
> Because the "25X supply of 1080" hype/rumor is a lie like everything else spewed here and gobbled up without thought.


No, it probably was true. According to Robert from AMD on reddit (in a post I can't find easily - it was a massive thread with >30k comments) GPUs priced between $100 and $300 sell 85% of all units. The 1080, at more than double that upper bound and triple the 480's price for the reference version, probably would have sold out in around the same time with 4% the units available.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> I think I will be getting an RX 460, because its probably the fastest single slot card for a while. Need it for a specific form factor case.
> 
> Not sure about the RX 480 though. May just wait for RX 470 instead of paying more for an AIB RX480. It should OC better percentage wise, and Im stuck at sub 1920x1080 for a while anyway.


What kind of form factor? It looks like the reference PCB is pretty small. I'd guesstimate 8" if you can get a smaller cooler installed. It's not R9 Nano tier small, sadly.


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> They have a lot better p/w than THEIR 28nm GPUS. They cant match the power efficiency of the small chips from nvidia. They use different architectures and AMD with GCN can't match Pascell power efficiency no matter what.
> 
> Also if you search a lot of reviews aside of the temp throttling the gpu performs around 390 performance. In dx12 most of the times it is faster than 980. On computerbase they have tests without throttling
> 
> I know that this forum expects more but this gpu offers what is suppose to offers.


Nobody expected AMD to patch pascal in performance per watt, but their 14nm GPUS having close to identical performance per watt to nvidia's old 28nm chips? I still dont understand how AMD managed that.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> 280-300 doesn't make sense with 1070 non founder edition pricing at 379.
> 
> I think $239-250 with a substantially smaller die then the rx 480 seems like the more likely price. e.g 66-70% of the performance @ 66% of the price. 300 dollar's doesn't make sense for a card that's going to be 33% slower.


The thing is with NVIDIA's pricing is that it doesn't have to make sense. People were falling over each other to pay $700 for a reference 1080.


----------



## Rustynails

the rx 480 has sold out at newegg.
and the price is not bad. 309 for the 8 gb and 260 for the 4 gb .


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> you have issues if the 750ti in your sig get like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yeah one derates for worse case scenarios however, that does not *hard limit* what is operational under normal conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, it was a 900mhz GTX 470.
> 
> That thing was DEFINITELY out of spec.
Click to expand...

i see









fwiw, i'll admit one cannot go wrong with following what you have stated and i'll leave it at that.

got some stuff to do and DOOM is calling me again.

thanks for the chat and take care til next time.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> No, it probably was true. According to Robert from AMD on reddit (in a post I can't find easily - it was a massive thread with >30k comments) GPUs priced between $100 and $300 sell 85% of all units. The 1080, at more than double that upper bound and triple the 480's price for the reference version, probably would have sold out in around the same time with 4% the units available.
> What kind of form factor? It looks like the reference PCB is pretty small. I'd guesstimate 8" if you can get a smaller cooler installed. It's not R9 Nano tier small, sadly.


1U rack-mount chassis. It will take full height cards, but the cooler HAS to be no more than single slot width.


----------



## gooface

This card did what it was supposed to do, set the new bar for the next gen mainstream 14nm/16nm cards ($200 range).

The last $200 cards (launch MSRP) were weaker than the high end cards of 2012, this is the first time that a $200 (Launch MSRP) beats out the GTX 680/7970 of yesteryear...

That alone is a great feat, and I am excited to see what nvidia brings to the table now that the cat is out of the bag (RX 480)

I wonder if this will heavily influence the GTX 1060 (I saw they leaked an image and said it was going to come out sooner now and cheaper)


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Polaris is a disaster in terms of perf/watt. GP106 will murder it in terms of perf/watt. Rx 480 is drawing as much power as GTX 1070 but the GTX 1070 is 40-50% faster. GF 14LPP seems to be one of the major reasons for this debacle. TSMC 16FF+ is a vastly superior process in terms of electrical characteristics and yields. Anyway another AMD product release follows the pattern of overpromise and underdeliver. The pre release hype and perf/watt gains were all useless given that AMD is not competing against their old gen products but Nvidia's Pascal. I don't think there is any hope left for AMD's GPU business to gain market share and turn profitable.


I thought the latest Apple comparison of the iphones on TSMC v Samsung (same as Glofo afaik for 14nm) showed single digit clock/power differences between 16nm ff and 14 lpp?

My guess would be the power usage is more from the architecture differences, specifically compute engines and new hardware schedulers.


----------



## KingGreasy

www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=23332

While the performance per watt compared to my current GTX 970 leaves a lot to be desired, the open source Linux driver performs admirably and should continue to get better over time so I still have reason to wait and see how the RX 490 performs. Not too long ago the open source and proprietary driver were terrible. Now they're both fairly good. It's still a good upgrade for my friend on a 270x.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> I thought the latest Apple comparison of the iphones on TSMC v Samsung (same as Glofo afaik for 14nm) showed single digit clock/power differences between 16nm ff and 14 lpp?
> 
> My guess would be the power usage is more from the architecture differences, specifically compute engines and new hardware schedulers.


Well, Apple does not make 6bn transistor chips either.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> the 490 will need to be the 4096 Vega (idk if that is vega 10 or 11) to compete with 1080 (just 1080, not 1080Ti)


Doubtful, IMO. 3584 shaders Fury (non X) beat the 980. I don't see why a similarly cut Vega chip couldn't do the same to the 1080.


----------



## vmatt1203

crap now im torn, the MSI GAMING 390 8GB just dropped to 269.00 with amazon prime. Now I dont know if I should wait for 480's to get back instock


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gooface*
> 
> This card did what it was supposed to do, set the new bar for the next gen mainstream 14nm/16nm cards ($200 range).


what a die shrink should achieve.
selling like hotcakes atm.


----------



## Xuper

Newegg doesn't tell me how much sold out? where can i find ?


----------



## vmatt1203

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> Newegg doesn't tell me how much sold out? where can i find ?


well the the 4GB is $199 just like AMD confirmed so I would assume the 8GB is $229 since they confirmed that as well.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> People like to play at the highest settings and a 8gb one will let you do that . Think it's best to wait to see what AMD's partners come up , we will get a Tri-X one from Sapphire , that is what my 290x is and it's pretty awesome never goes above 80c in a tiny case and it's really quiet.


Wait... why would more VRAM let you play at a higher setting...?


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 1U rack-mount chassis. It will take full height cards, but the cooler HAS to be no more than single slot width.










Shouldn't be too hard to do then. Let's see:



Looking at some product images, it's 1 1/4" exactly on my monitor between screw holes. The PCIe connector is 1 15/16". Compared to my 750Ti that I just have lying on my desk, that has a 3 5/16" PCIe connector. Do the math and we get actual measurements that are 71.0% larger than the image. That's 2.138" between screw holes or 54.3mm. Now, if we look at universal waterblock measurements, we see some very similar spacings in existing GPUs. It's pretty typical for a "medium" GPU in any case.

And on a somewhat related note, it looks like the PCB is 7" give or take a bit. Looks good for small, watercooled systems, particularly since the reference board is single slot.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Well, Apple does not make 6bn transistor chips either.


Regardless, I don't think node differences are the sole reason for the power issues.

Kepler to Maxwell on the same node was a huge move in efficiency, Maxwell to Pascal there were very few arch changes and the efficiency gains came completely from the node shrink.

Hawaii to Tonga/Fiji on the same node was a very very small efficiency increase, Hawaii/Fiji to Polaris have far more arch changes in comparison to nvidia and the efficiency gains come from both the node change and minor arch changes. My guess remains that due to the additional hardware (possibly more complex arch) is the main reason Polaris is sucking down more power than expected.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Doubtful, IMO. 3584 shaders Fury (non X) beat the 980. I don't see why a similarly cut Vega chip couldn't do the same to the 1080.


well the 2304 shaders Polaris10 is ~80% slower than 1080

4096/2304 = 77-78%

of course Vega may improve elsewhere, but _how much_ can it really improve .. especially if the 4096 is the biggest Vega and it still has to fight 1080Ti somehow too (1080Ti still having room starting from 314 mm2 upward)

but its all speculation for now


----------



## pengs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> Wait... why would more VRAM let you play at a higher setting...?


Can't tell if being coy or serious..


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't be too hard to do then. Let's see:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at some product images, it's 1 1/4" exactly on my monitor between screw holes. The PCIe connector is 1 15/16". Compared to my 750Ti that I just have lying on my desk, that has a 3 5/16" PCIe connector. Do the math and we get actual measurements that are 71.0% larger than the image. That's 2.138" between screw holes or 54.3mm. Now, if we look at universal waterblock measurements, we see some very similar spacings in existing GPUs. It's pretty typical for a "medium" GPU in any case.
> 
> And on a somewhat related note, it looks like the PCB is 7" give or take a bit. Looks good for small, watercooled systems, particularly since the reference board is single slot.


Nono, water is out of the question. The card is going to be in a cage that is literally only two slots of space. IE, there is insulation on the case that is "behind" the card to prevent shorting. The top edge is a MM or two from the "side" of the cage. This is why that system is getting an RX 460.









The RX 470 would replace my 750 Ti in my Antec 900 system "Infernal Machine" in my signature.


----------



## HarrisLam

man i dont know....

I'm sure this has been said in this thread at least 100 times (this being page 84 and all), but these results really disappoint.

Some of the more hopeful guys are hoping for 980-beating performance. To avoid disappointment, I never set my expectations too high in most things. I thought it was gonna be a bit worse than the 980. Was hoping for it to totally beating 970, and maybe 3-5% worse than the 980 and I'll be happy to finally upgrade. First month purchase for me.

It's really sad to see that the RX 480 can only "nearly" match the 980 in 3Dmark firestrike, which I don't spend a lot of game time on. On actual games, the graphs only got head shaking and facepalms from me. Not a bad card, price still looks good, however it is no longer immediate buy material.

With performance around the same as 970 (sometimes better sometimes worse), at the worse half of the charts in terms of all temp, power and noise, this card went from the dream to "this is what 200 buck should get you for next gen anyway."

I mean, at $200, or non-reference at maybe 230, its probably still a decent deal if the non-reference coolers can improve temp and noise by 10-20%. Other than that though, AMD really gotta pray for their next driver working wonders.

I got hyped by Pascal for a year ever since my 570 showed signs of dying. They came out, 1070's price immediately hurt my feelings. This RX 480 came into my life right when I was hurt and had been who I dreamt about every night ever since.

Seems like this guy is also hiding something from me after all.


----------



## Coach Mcguirk

A solid upgrade for me. The fans be rattling on my ancient R9 270







Gonna wait for aftermarket coolers though.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pengs*
> 
> Can't tell if being coy or serious..


/Shrug


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> well the 2304 shaders Polaris10 is ~80% slower than 1080
> 
> 4096/2304 = 77-78%
> 
> of course Vega may improve elsewhere, but how much can it really improve .. especially if the 4096 is the biggest Vega and it still has to fight 1080Ti somehow too (1080Ti still having room starting from 314 mm2 upward)
> 
> *but its all speculation for now*


Exactly. That's why I phrased what I said the way that I did. I won't be surprised if a 490 can compete with a 1080. I certainly wouldn't guarantee it at this point, but I don't think that Vega's architecture will be unimpressive, nor do I think Pol 10 is necessarily indicative of how AMD would design a high-performance GPU. They went for a weird niche but one that I think could pay off in terms of sales, and the card does seem to be moving so.. we'll see. I think financially it's going to be a successful product but I don't think it's represenative of AMD's entire bag of tricks.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

With the RX 460 crushing the GTX 950 in efficiency (86W vs 145W total system power draw), why did this one not manage it?


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> With the RX 460 crushing the GTX 950 in efficiency (86W vs 145W total system power draw), why did this one not manage it?


We only can take AMDs word for that so far. There are no RX 460 reviews out yet.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Exactly. That's why I phrased what I said the way that I did. I won't be _surprised_ if a 490 can compete with a 1080. I certainly wouldn't guarantee it at this point, but I don't think that Vega's architecture will be unimpressive, nor do I think Pol 10 is necessarily indicative of how AMD would design a high-performance GPU. They went for a weird niche but one that I think could pay off in terms of sales, and the card does seem to be moving so.. we'll see. I think financially it's going to be a successful product but I don't think it's represenative of AMD's entire bag of tricks.


we'll see in 2017

the thing is if 480 perf/watt / efficiency problems stem from the 14nm of GloFo then Vega may "inherit" that too


----------



## FLCLimax

Dude at mocrocenter walled out with 9 cardss lol.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> We only can take AMDs word for that so far. There are no RX 460 reviews out yet.


We don't have to. That demo was very above board. We got the full specs, CPU use was equalized, and unless AMD was lying and they had a GP107 ES in there...


----------



## nagle3092

Looks like they are selling well.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> we'll see in 2017
> 
> the thing is *if 480 perf/watt / efficiency problems* stem from the 14nm of GloFo then Vega may "inherit" that too


It will be important to see how the 470 and 460 do by comparison in terms of efficiency. Is 480 pushing the limits of what Polaris can offer in terms of performance, and thus is prone to inefficiency relative to its smaller brethren? Is this something that can be avoided by a different design a la Vega or is this an issue with GloFo's 14nm process? As you say it's an 'if' and a big one, but as we don't have the data the full story is yet to be told.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Well it's just half the vram so assuming you don't go over that performance should be the same. It is the same chip after all
> 
> It's probably best to buy a 8gb one though for future proofing and ultra settings on some games that use a lot of vram


I was going off what digital foundry said, they said it's not only half the vram but slower ram.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> I was going off what digital foundry said, they said it's not only half the vram but slower ram.


The 4gb card on NewEgg has 8gbps ram. Its up to the manufacturer.


----------



## ladcrooks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> ugh the card is roughly as fast as a GTX 970. The GTX 970 was like 250€ in europe with a free game like The Division or DOOM for the last 3-4 months.
> 
> I really hoped this card was as fast as a stock GTX 980, but it isn't.
> 
> I didn't expect 980 Ti levels of performance, but slower than my 290X come on AMD.


faster than 970 same price and an xtra 4 gig - it will sell well


----------



## bigboy678

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> we'll see in 2017
> 
> the thing is if 480 perf/watt / efficiency problems stem from the 14nm of GloFo then Vega may "inherit" that too


I didnt think Vega was going to use 14nm from glofo but rather TSMC 16nm ff ?


----------



## vmatt1203

As I read into the pages I really dont understand the disappointment. Its an 8GB card MATCHING a stock 980 for $229!!!!! vs a card that was over $600 at release and is still currently a around* $500(new) and only has 4GB of vram.

This card is shattering the price per performance mark, and everyone is disappointed? I really dont understand OCN sometimes...

*edit: found some on amazon for $475.00


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ladcrooks*
> 
> faster than 970 same price and an xtra 4 gig - it will sell well


not because of the specifications, but because AMD uesd momentum and hype to market it well


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmatt1203*
> 
> As I read into the pages I really dont understand the disappointment. Its an 8GB card MATCHING a stock 980 for $229!!!!! vs a card that was over $600 at release and is still currently a around* $500(new) and only has 4GB of vram.
> 
> This card is shattering the price per performance mark, and everyone is disappointed? I really dont understand OCN sometimes...
> 
> *edit: found some on amazon for $475.00


Maybe because the average has it more rivaling a 970 and not a 980? Also let's not forget that maxwell is amazing at ocing.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigboy678*
> 
> I didnt think Vega was going to use 14nm from glofo but rather TSMC 16nm ff ?


first time I heard this

was sure AMD was going solely with GloFo 14nm for all their 2016/2017 GPUs

anyone know ?


----------



## xSociety

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pengs*
> 
> Can't tell if being coy or serious..


Well, to be fair, only on certain games AND certain settings will more VRAM start to matter.


----------



## hyp36rmax

Thread is moving so fast not sure if this was posted.

EK has a waterblock for the RX480. Because WHY NOT!?! 



*Source: *Link


----------



## vmatt1203

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> Maybe because the average has it more rivaling a 970 and not a 980? Also let's not forget that maxwell is amazing at ocing.


I am an optimist lol. I see 2 or 3 benches matching it so i assume the potential is there we just need the drivers to be as well.

and i mean $229... come on... I feel like its a steal.


----------



## darkpower45

So I got a question for everyone. Since when did mid to low tier GPUs out perform the mid/high end of last generation. I dont remember GTX 960 being as good as GTX 780? It seems the hype for new tech at a low price had blinded many people, though I cant say I blaim them since initially it was touted as a GTX 980 level gpu.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmatt1203*
> 
> As I read into the pages I really dont understand the disappointment. Its an 8GB card MATCHING a stock 980 for $229!!!!! vs a card that was over $600 at release and is still currently a around* $500(new) and only has 4GB of vram.
> 
> This card is shattering the price per performance mark, and everyone is disappointed? I really dont understand OCN sometimes...
> 
> *edit: found some on amazon for $475.00


980 is EOL. If you were familiar with EOL Nvidia cards, you will see they rarely get price drops. Current price of the 980 is irrelevant when you can get a 1070 or a 980 Ti cheaper.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkpower45*
> 
> So I got a question for everyone. Since when did mid to low tier GPUs out perform the mid/high end of last generation. I dont remember GTX 960 being as good as GTX 780? It seems the hype for new tech at a low price had blinded many people, though I cant say I blaim them since initially it was touted as a GTX 980 level gpu.


660 Ti was faster than GTX 580
7870 was faster than 6970

and so on


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkpower45*
> 
> So I got a question for everyone. Since when did mid to low tier GPUs out perform the mid/high end of last generation. I dont remember GTX 960 being as good as GTX 780? It seems the hype for new tech at a low price had blinded many people, though I cant say I blaim them since initially it was touted as a GTX 980 level gpu.


Uhhh well, i would have to go with one of the best selling GPU's of all time, a card that the rx 480 is disappointingly going toe to toe with in all metrics other than price...... the gtx 970. Pretty much matched a 780ti.


----------



## hyp36rmax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkpower45*
> 
> So I got a question for everyone. Since when did mid to low tier GPUs out perform the mid/high end of last generation. I dont remember GTX 960 being as good as GTX 780? It seems the hype for new tech at a low price had blinded many people, though I cant say I blaim them since *initially it was touted as a GTX 980 level gpu*.


I don't remember that. It was supposed to be disruptive to the GPU culture in a way it will increase marketshare in the mid-range price bracket. Basically single monitor 1080P-1440P users. I do agree AMD never intended for this to be a high end killer.


----------



## neurotix

I pretty much knew this would happen so I ignored all the hype.

People were saying total lies like it would OC to 1500mhz, be faster than a 980ti, be faster than a 1070, be faster than a Fury X and all that..

Friends don't let friends read WCCFtech.

In reality, it's not even faster than the 390, let alone the 290, though it does use less power.

Personally, I think going with only 32 ROPs and less texture units than the 290 is why it underperforms.

I'm waiting for Vega, but, if Vega doesn't have at least 96 ROPs (preferably 128) and doesn't perform twice as fast as the 290 (which I had two of before), then I hate to say it, but my money will go to Nvidia. And I've used AMD cards only since 2008.

Just another example of a card being hyped up for months and dumb people believing it. Just goes to show that until a card releases and the reviews show up, we really don't know anything. I, however, expected this to happen and figured the card would be less powerful than older ones.


----------



## bucdan

I think the card was released within what was expected and the early leakers were half right. It does perform near 980 levels in DX12, and it does perform near 970 levels in DX 11.


----------



## kingduqc

200 USD that compete with a card that use to be 450 to 500 a year ago? Ain't bad


----------



## fatmario

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4qfwd4/rx480_fails_pcie_specification/

Apparently RX480 fails PCI-E specification , pulls way to much power from motherboards.

Power delivery is out of ATX spec. This forces the card to attempt to draw more from the motherboard than the motherboard may be rated for. This is fine in reviewers test systems which have high quality motherboards and PSUs that can safely exceed ATX spec. But your typical Best Buy customer won't have this. Best case, the card under performs due to less power. Worst case (and this will be as rare as being stuck by lightning), components get damaged.

Kinda scary if your mobo get fried after using for couple of months


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> 200 USD that compete with a card that use to be 450 to 500 a year ago? Ain't bad


professional sugercoating level unlocked.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> 200 USD that compete with a card that use to be 450 to 500 a year ago? Ain't bad


By that logic a 1070 is a steal too. Faster than a Titan X for less than half the price!


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> not because of the specifications, but because AMD uesd momentum and hype to market it well


AMD hardly hyped this card. That was tech forums. AMD kept pretty hush hush about everything


----------



## xartic1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neurotix*
> 
> I pretty much knew this would happen so I ignored all the hype.
> 
> *People were saying total lies like it would OC to 1500mhz, be faster than a 980ti, be faster than a 1070, be faster than a Fury X and all that..*
> 
> Friends don't let friends read WCCFtech.
> 
> In reality, it's not even faster than the 390, let alone the 290, though it does use less power.
> 
> Personally, I think going with only 32 ROPs and less texture units than the 290 is why it underperforms.
> 
> I'm waiting for Vega, but, if Vega doesn't have at least 96 ROPs (preferably 128) and doesn't perform twice as fast as the 290 (which I had two of before), then I hate to say it, but my money will go to Nvidia. And I've used AMD cards only since 2008.
> 
> Just another example of a card being hyped up for months and dumb people believing it. Just goes to show that until a card releases and the reviews show up, we really don't know anything. I, however, expected this to happen and figured the card would be less powerful than older ones.


I think we should wait until the the aftermarket boards with more power pins come out and the drivers get updated (seeing how not all reviewers had the same driver) before the performance conclusion of the rx480 is made.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> AMD hardly hyped this card. That was tech forums. AMD kept pretty hush hush about everything


I never said AMD hyped this card









I said they used the momentum and hype to market it well.


----------



## naz2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kingduqc*
> 
> 200 USD that compete with a card that use to be 450 to 500 a year ago? Ain't bad


it's 10x as fast an 8800 ultra at 20% of the price!!! take that nvidia!


----------



## darkpower45

Thank your for all the knowledge. I do agree that targetting the gtx 970 market is a bad idea seeing how most people looking for that level of performance already have a 970 or 390. (Myself included on that one)


----------



## Diogenes5

I was going to take the day off for this card (just because I've been without a card for a month now) and my air conditioning broke anyways which was good because I was available today for the repairman to come. Unfortunately that meant I could not be there at the opening of Fry's or Microcenter. They sold out of the MSI and XFX cards I wanted but a shipment of Sapphire 8gb 480's came in which I quickly bought.

I game at 1440p and for the foreseeble future (until 1440p ultrawides with 100+hz are commonly available so maybe 1+ year).

At stock, I got about 5000 on Firemark Extreme (~5200 graphics score). Somewhat disappointing. My 290 overclocked to a 390x under water got 5300.

I overclocked using guru3d's settings and got about 5750. There was some artifacting so I need to go down a bit or adjust my cooling settings. Also the cooler sucks donkeyballs and sounds like a jet turbine. The normal cards are both throttled by power (only so much juice out of a 6-pin) and thermally I think.

*Basically my results were right in line with the guru 3d review. With an overclock of about 9% above stock for the GPU core, I got 390x performance.* My firemark score scaled more than 10% so I'm assuming some of that memory overclocking is in there too.

I am pretty sure the custom coolers will be able to achieve 390x performance with a 480 pcb.

The real question is what is the ceiling on this card with water and more power-pin connectors. Maybe we won't get fury levels, but a nice 10-15% boost on top of a normal 390x at a $260 pricepoint is fully reasonable given my initial testing (and maybe even more under water). It'll be interesting to see when the limiting factor is the silicon itself and not heat and voltage as we see in the reference cards.

Assuming linear scaling, if this thing can hit above 1.5; it will fill a niche in the market at the $300 pricepoint and still beat out the 1070 in terms of perf/$ I believe. But again, it's all wait and see at this point.


----------



## sage101

It seems everyone in here is disappointed in the 480 mainly because it's on par with the 970 but the same people were praising and recommending the 960 when it was release and it couldn't even beat the HD7950 which was released in 2011.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sage101*
> 
> It seems everyone in here is disappointed in the 480 mainly because it's on par with the 970 but the same people were praising and recommending the 960 when it was release and it couldn't even beat the HD7950 which was released in 2011.


LOL AND YOU REMEMBER EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PERSONS AND YOU KNEW HAHAHA?


----------



## sage101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> LOL AND YOU REMEMBER EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PERSONS AND YOU KNEW HAHAHA?


Most are in this thread.


----------



## Ultracarpet

This card is Tonga, with slightly better specs, ported to 14nm, and then jacked up clocks to the point where the power efficiency is getting back to crap because they wanted more performance.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I never said AMD hyped this card
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said they used the momentum and hype to market it well.


I see what you're saying, but I don't see how AMD had any control over that. Because they didn't step in and to say "guys it's not that good"? Lol


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diogenes5*
> 
> I was going to take the day off for this card (just because I've been without a card for a month now) and my air conditioning broke anyways which was good because I was available today for the repairman to come.


It's like you and me are the same. My A/C broke as well and took off for the repair guy... Fortunately my 290x is good enough not to warrant a purchase of the 480 though.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> I see what you're saying, but I don't see how AMD had any control over that. Because they didn't step in and break their own nda to say "guys it's not that good"? Lol


the hype went well for them. People were eagerly expecting this card and its going to sell well.

sadly the construction, design and engineering wasn't that good.


----------



## sledge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> the hype went well for them. People were eagerly expecting this card and its going to sell well.
> 
> sadly the construction, design and engineering wasn't that good.


Well we'll just have to hope they get some market share back and build off of this with better products in the future...









or not


----------



## Clovertail100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neurotix*
> 
> I pretty much knew this would happen so I ignored all the hype.
> 
> People were saying total lies like it would OC to 1500mhz, be faster than a 980ti, be faster than a 1070, be faster than a Fury X and all that.


Once we found out the die size, all those claims became irrelevant. Just as many people were saying AMD would be incapable of beating a 980 Ti because they have absolutely no knowledge of what die shrinks do. It's been 5 years, after all, so we have a lot of people who haven't even been interested in the enthusiast scene for long enough to see one.

I know I've personally made rebuttals explaining why the new generation of AMD cards could easily surpass any of the current offerings.

But again, die size matters. And fab process matters. It's difficult to compare based on die size now, because we have NV on TSMC's node and AMD on GloFlo's node. We more or less need to compare on price, as opposed to the traditional way (die size) to find out who's touting the superior architecture.

And there are more questions. Everyone is hitting a hard limit when overclocking, reporting extreme artifacting and crashes once they get to the tipping point. This is symptomatic of a GPU that isn't getting enough power. This makes it even more difficult to know what the chip is capable of, but we would hope that AMD didn't do this to save money and keep P10 from interfering with future midrange segments.

It's difficult to make accurate predictions about this stuff. Some people might see that AMD opted for 14nm FF and assume the node is superior to TSMC's 16nm FF, but they'd likely be wrong because GloFlo nodes have been disastrous for years. Some people will see the clocks or temps and assume the chip doesn't have more potential, but they could easily be wrong as well because AMD has junk reference coolers and we might be hitting a power draw wall when overclocking.

Saying you "called it" just means that you made a severely uneducated guess and you happened to be right. That, or you know more about the TSMC, GloFlo, and the testing of this chip that occurred behind closed doors with different coolers, drivers, and power delivery. If it's the latter, I'll excuse myself. But, I know you wouldn't be on here saying you called it if that were the case.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sage101*
> 
> It seems everyone in here is disappointed in the 480 mainly because it's on par with the 970 but the same people were praising and recommending the 960 when it was release and it couldn't even beat the HD7950 which was released in 2011.


Anyone that ever praised the 960 is an idiot... lol


----------



## magnek

I read every single one of the 885 posts (as of me typing this), and my IQ has gone down about 20 points and I'm physically exhausted, so I'm just going to express myself through others and maybe throw in a snide remark/emoji here or there.

*How I feel about the card:*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> I need something more yes.
> 
> What others need I don't know.
> 
> After it became clear that AMD plans on hitting the 200-300$ budget crowd I lowered my expectations. I expected :
> 
> - 200-239$
> - GTX 980 performance
> - better performance/watt than 28nm GPUs
> - moderate overclockability.
> 
> and I was disappointed by today. It's as simple as that. Other people may have had lower expectations. Good for them I guess.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> my reasoning isn't flawed because the person asked what's the problem with the negative attitude of informed people here. It has nothing to do with how well the card is doing or anything like that. I think it is safe to say that many people (those that know a thing or two about GPU releases) are disappointed (atleast to some extent).
> 
> You are trying to make my post into something it isn't. The person didn't ask for a market analysis from me or anything. There is a huge difference and I was only responding to the raw question and didn't go any further.
> 
> The RX480 simply isn't as good as informed people hoped it'd be. I am not saying it should've been on GTX 1080 levels, but AMD even managed to undergo my low expectations of 980 performance on average.
> 
> The RX480 is still going to sell allright, because AMD finally managed to create hype with marketing. It's good for them, bad for us.
> 
> Like I said earlier. it's probably a good card to go for those that buy a new budget PC and don't really care or those that come from a 750 Ti or 670 or 7850 or something.
> 
> Still disappointing in the grand scheme of things considering we are on 14nm in 2016.
> 
> That is why there is a small "outrage" on various sites. You can't ignore that.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> I was sort of hoping this wouldn't happen, it's not like AMD said anything close to "GTX 980" performance themselves, and all signs pointed to the RX 480 (AdoredTV correctly pointed out a month ago that it was an R9 290 replacement, R9 390~ level Steam VR benchmark, AMD positioning the card between GTX 970 and GTX 980) being an R9 390/GTX 970 replacement - and it is, and it's pretty good at what it does.
> But even so I can't help but feel disappointed, because in a good number of scenarios it's only barely ahead of a R9 390 and GTX 970, and the PPW seems to not come from improvements to the arch. but rather simply from 14nmFF.
> 
> Disappointed still, not just with RX 480 but with the GTX 1070/1080 too - I was expecting way too much just because there hasn't been a die shrink since 2011, I guess.
> 
> Although I would expect improvement in drivers to at least give this card 10% better performance across the board, and I'm sure in a year it actually will be outperforming a GTX 980.


tl;dr version:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> In what universe is a $239 price for 3 year old performance really good? I suppose you found the GTX 960 providing near GTX 680 performance at $200 a great buy as well


*Other musings about the card:*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moustang*
> 
> I think the segment that you speak of has moved a bit. This card is the same price as a GTX 970 now, and they both seem to be very similar in performance as well.
> 
> I see it as a strange card. I can't help but wonder why AMD bothered even making a new card that was so close to their existing ones in performance. Seems to me they could have simply doubled the RAM on the 290X and it would have essentially been the same thing. *In fact I can't help but wonder why it has 8GB of RAM when it clearly lacks the performance and bandwidth to actually make use of it in high resolutions. 8GB is hardly necessary for 1080p playing.*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> Wait... why would more VRAM let you play at a higher setting...?


To help with edge cases where 4GB is just barely not enough. DOOM with ultra nightmare settings would be one example, but I'm sure as we go forward and PC game optimization continues its downward spiral, vram requirements are just going to get more and more bloated.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> As I said in april, expect 2x performance per watt increase, not 2.5. Both companies don't tell the truth.
> 
> But back to performance. This is kind of disappointing as it performs closer to my worst expectations then my optimistic ones. Closer to 390 performance than 390x. With power consumption closer to 150 watts than 100. If people were critical of Nvidia's marketing, they have to be critical here too. AMD obviously framed certain and best case scenario's at earlier presentations. What is clear however is why these products are priced as they are.
> 
> I was expecting, the 1070 to be 35-40% faster, not 50%. It's no wonder this thing is priced at 200 for the 4gb and 229 for the 8gb.
> 
> The engineering on this card is a big let down in general. Mahigan, is probably going to disappear for a while considering the hype he talked about this card.
> 
> The 1080 is 80% faster which is insane. Forget vega, AMD needs the ones that comes after this. It's crazy how much AMD engineering has fallen behind. Two pitcairns smoked the 680. Two rx 480's not so much vs the 1080. Add in how far ahead Nvidia is in regards to performance per watt, and it seems like maxwell architecture *conroed* AMD.
> 
> GCN needs to replaced asap. It's starting to show it's age.


At first I was like







and I thought you spelled cornered wrong, but then I realized you were







and I









*Green goblins who bleed red*:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Well i kinda miss alatar and the old guys here on ocn. This is not a conversation just fanboys are fighting each other with zero logic. And the lack of the mods in general..
> 
> I am out have fun guys


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> A major problem is the sheer lack of modding on OCN anymore. Like seriously. As of this comment, there are around 3300 users on OCN, a tenth of which are viewing this thread. And there area only 2-3 mods on this website at any point in time. That is just wrong.


And of the 2-3 mods on, only one of them is actively reading threads, let alone moderating.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MNiceGuy*
> 
> This thread is exploding so fast there's no way I'm able to catch everything being said. That being said I feel like some people are approaching it like this:
> 
> Oh the new AMD card. Hmmm - I'm supposed to hate them I think.
> 
> It's too expensive! Err...wait it's actually reasonably priced. Nevermind
> 
> It's not powerful enough! Err....It's actually good performance at that pricepoint. Nevermind
> 
> It's a botched launch! Err...They actually have good stock for launch day. Nevermind
> 
> The performance/watt is not as good as Nvidia. AH HA! OMG AMD is doomed! Worst launch in history! Hear that internet? I don't like something!
> 
> Some of these arguments are stretched sooo thin. The 1080 thread, a discussion for the currently most powerful gaming GPU, was full of penny pincers and now this thread is full of power efficiency aficionados.










































*Random ramblings:*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> I could purchase any of those three cards right now unlike some people who have to use their credit card lol.


I've pretty much stopped using cash since 2012 except for paying rent. I actually lose out if I don't use my credit card since I always get 1% cashback and up to 3% for certain things or if there are special deals. Also my bank runs these amazing cashback deals with selected retailers, and I actually got *$50 cashback* when I bought my 980 Ti from TigerDirect.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Was going to buy 2 rx 480's....... but like.... they are 329 CAD, and I can find gtx 1070's for mid-low $500's..... Haven't had an Nvidia card since the 8800gt....... To betray, or not betray.....


When in doubt, gently poke yourself with a needle until some blood comes out. If you bleed red, then definitely buy 2 RX 480s. If you bleed green, dial 911 right away.


----------



## Echoa

seems like newegg might be creating an artificial shortage by only listing a few at a time and only for short duration. The XFX OC model is still in stock but not even listed unless you have the physical link to it and the other listings keep appearing and disappearing.


----------



## flopper

while Kyle at hardocp can be said to say things all over the place he got word that aib OC can be expected to be 1480-1600mhz. overclock. Individual cards can vary.
so if that holds up and anything dont say it will your seeing a 20%-25% OC and then it will be up there within the 980ti/furyx especially in Dx12 titles and be fair thats is the future of PC gaming with dx12 titles like BF1 is coming.
Looks good for the 480 OC value people as myself.


----------



## tkenietz

@magnek
You're insane man, I read the first 8-10 pages and I was already getting ill. Lol

Good tl;dr highlights


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> his math is correct.


That means both of you have no math skills.
Three 12v lanes does not mean 6A per 12V. It means total of 6A on a 12V spec connector, in this case, 2Ax 3 hot / 3 ground x 12v total, aka, spec for 75W.
You should learn your GPU.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> while Kyle at hardocp can be said to say things all over the place he got word that aib OC can be expected to be 1480-1600mhz. overclock. Individual cards can vary.
> so if that holds up and anything dont say it will your seeing a 20%-25% OC and then it will be up there within the 980ti/furyx especially in Dx12 titles and be fair thats is the future of PC gaming with dx12 titles like BF1 is coming.
> Looks good for the 480 OC value people as myself.


props to you for you tenacity even after today


----------



## sage101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> while Kyle at hardocp can be said to say things all over the place he got word that aib OC can be expected to be 1480-1600mhz. overclock. Individual cards can vary.
> so if that holds up and anything dont say it will your seeing a 20%-25% OC and then it will be up there within the 980ti/furyx especially in Dx12 titles and be fair thats is the future of PC gaming with dx12 titles like BF1 is coming.
> Looks good for the 480 OC value people as myself.


And the hype is born again, well that's 1 passenger that won't be hopping this train.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I read every single one of the 885 posts (as of me typing this), and my IQ has gone down about 20 points and I'm physically exhausted, so I'm just going to express myself through others and maybe throw in a snide remark/emoji here or there.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> *How I feel about the card:*
> 
> tl;dr version:
> *Other musings about the card:*
> 
> To help with edge cases where 4GB is just barely not enough. DOOM with ultra nightmare settings would be one example, but I'm sure as we go forward and PC game optimization continues its downward spiral, vram requirements are just going to get more and more bloated.
> At first I was like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I thought you spelled cornered wrong, but then I realized you were
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Green goblins who bleed red*:
> 
> And of the 2-3 mods on, only one of them is actively reading threads, let alone moderating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Random ramblings:*
> I've pretty much stopped using cash since 2012 except for paying rent. I actually lose out if I don't use my credit card since I always get 1% cashback and up to 3% for certain things or if there are special deals. Also my bank runs these amazing cashback deals with selected retailers, and I actually got *$50 cashback* when I bought my 980 Ti from TigerDirect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in doubt, gently poke yourself with a needle until some blood comes out. If you bleed red, then definitely buy 2 RX 480s. If you bleed green, dial 911 right away.


I mean, it lacks a certain zantastic quality but this is a good summary. +1 for public service!


----------



## Ultracarpet

If the card is truly only being held back board power and cooling, the AIB cards could be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy faster than these.... which makes me think that they will be wayyyyyyyy more expensive, or they won't be much faster at all because the chip just stinks, otherwise there is going to be a loooooooooot of salty dogs with reference rx480s lol.


----------



## Meta|Gear

I guess for $200 this card is ok? Doesn't seem to be all that exciting overall


----------



## toddincabo

I think it's a good deal for what you get. It smokes my 380x that I bought just seven months ago for $240 after taxes.

I Could have waited for this but have no regrets with the 380x as I plan on gaming on 1080p for at least another couple of years. I'm waiting till 2018 when AMD will probably have some Zen APU's under their belt and I can purchase one of those and a discreet card that will kick in during gaming sessions. Also a more mature 14nm.

The power usage issue on the RX 480 seems to me to be the same issue as against Maxwell on 28nm. That architecture is meant more or less for gaming only and Pascal is just a shrink of that. AMD still has the extra features (and more now) to deal with DX12 which simply takes more juice.

The AIO cards in a couple of weeks should address the power through the pci slots and cool this baby down as well. AMD should sell a boatload of these.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> If the card is truly only being held back board power and cooling, the AIB cards could be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy faster than these.... which makes me think that they will be wayyyyyyyy more expensive, or they won't be much faster at all because the chip just stinks, otherwise there is going to be a loooooooooot of salty dogs with reference rx480s lol.


That is a huge IF.
Mainly because if the card is already seeing artifacts at a somewhat low OC room, the chip itself is already hitting its pretty top performance.
AIBs might change VRMs or memory chips which might give it a bit of extra room. But all those big promises, I'm very skeptic about them.


----------



## LAKEINTEL

wait wait, So it has the TFLOPs of a 390x but is clearly slower than a 390x?

*insert explicative here*

This better be a driver issue.


----------



## Haruna

Do I buy a ticket for the custom card train? Or is already left the station?


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LAKEINTEL*
> 
> wait wait, So it has the TFLOPs of a 390x but is clearly slower than a 390x?
> 
> *insert explicative here*
> 
> This better be a driver issue.


Because tflops are always a poor example of real world performance.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Haruna*
> 
> Do I buy a ticket for the custom card train? Or is already left the station?


The train has tons of seating, a lot of people got off at the last stop!


----------



## neurotix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mookster*
> 
> Once we found out the die size, all those claims became irrelevant. Just as many people were saying AMD would be incapable of beating a 980 Ti because they have absolutely no knowledge of what die shrinks do. It's been 5 years, after all, so we have a lot of people who haven't even been interested in the enthusiast scene for long enough to see one.
> 
> I know I've personally made rebuttals explaining why the new generation of AMD cards could easily surpass any of the current offerings.
> 
> But again, die size matters. And fab process matters. It's difficult to compare based on die size now, because we have NV on TSMC's node and AMD on GloFlo's node. We more or less need to compare on price, as opposed to the traditional way (die size) to find out who's touting the superior architecture.
> 
> And there are more questions. Everyone is hitting a hard limit when overclocking, reporting extreme artifacting and crashes once they get to the tipping point. This is symptomatic of a GPU that isn't getting enough power. This makes it even more difficult to know what the chip is capable of, but we would hope that AMD didn't do this to save money and keep P10 from interfering with future midrange segments.
> 
> It's difficult to make accurate predictions about this stuff. Some people might see that AMD opted for 14nm FF and assume the node is superior to TSMC's 16nm FF, but they'd likely be wrong because GloFlo nodes have been disastrous for years. Some people will see the clocks or temps and assume the chip doesn't have more potential, but they could easily be wrong as well because AMD has junk reference coolers and we might be hitting a power draw wall when overclocking.
> 
> Saying you "called it" just means that you made a severely uneducated guess and you happened to be right. That, or you know more about the TSMC, GloFlo, and the testing of this chip that occurred behind closed doors with different coolers, drivers, and power delivery. If it's the latter, I'll excuse myself. But, I know you wouldn't be on here saying you called it if that were the case.


I'll humor you and reply even if your attitude is clearly antagonistic and vengeful.

No, I didn't "know more about the TSMC, GloFlo, and the testing of this chip that occurred behind closed doors with different coolers, drivers, and power delivery."

I simply made an educated guess, that you call an uneducated one, because 1) It's AMD 2) the Fury X underperformed and 3) There's been tremendous unwarranted hype and rumors since the card was announced. Surely, it doesn't take much reason (or a rocket scientist) to figure that the card would probably not live up to the rumors. It's really as simple as that.

Of course, it probably helps that I'm a fairly high ranked enthusiast benchmarker on HWBOT that has benched nothing but AMD cards since 2011. At least 10 of them. The majority are GCN. So I have a fairly deep understanding of how these GPUs work, how they overclock and so forth. I'll assume you're capable of finding my profile there, if you're so inclined. Traditionally, AMD cards overclock less than Nvidia, so I figured the rumors about the RX 480 overclocking to crazy levels were probably false. Though, that may change with AIB cards and better power delivery. However, I strongly doubt this will be the case based on my experiences.

Even IF the RX 480 *can* overclock to the 1500mhz range, and by doing so it pulls ahead of the 390/290, from the benchmarks of it I've seen it will still be less powerful than the 390 at the same clocks. E.g. it may take a RX 480 at 1500mhz to equal a 390/290 at 1200mhz. In which case, the card is basically a failure imo. It needed to be faster than the 390/290, but it isn't, probably because it has less ROPs and TMUs.


----------



## MNiceGuy

Sorry guys I had to hit the bathroom. Where are we at in the cycle?

1. AMD is doomed
2. GTX 970 is better
3. I'm definitely keeping my old card
4. OMG the power efficiency!!
5. The cooler sucks
6. Everything sucks

Thanks


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> That is a huge IF.
> Mainly because if the card is already seeing artifacts at a somewhat low OC room, the chip itself is already hitting its pretty top performance.
> AIBs might change VRMs or memory chips which might give it a bit of extra room. But all those big promises, I'm very skeptic about them.


Yea actually I think you are right considering it is already artifacting... I was thinking maybe the first thing to get dropped was voltage when the board power limit gets hit, but that would be really easy to see with monitoring software....


----------



## LAKEINTEL

Well, it's GCN. I don't expect things to logically go *backwards*


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I mean, it lacks a certain zantastic quality but this is a good summary. +1 for public service!


So, A+ for effort, but B+ for quality?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Haruna*
> 
> Do I buy a ticket for the custom card train? Or is already left the station?


It just pulled into station, and no tickets are required. Feel free to check yourself any one of the three compartments depending on how excited you're feeling.


----------



## LAKEINTEL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MNiceGuy*
> 
> Sorry guys I had to hit the bathroom. Where are we at in the cycle?
> 
> 1. AMD is doomed
> 2. GTX 970 is better
> 3. I'm definitely keeping my old card
> 4. OMG the power efficiency!!
> 5. The cooler sucks
> 6. Everything sucks
> 
> Thanks


it's "it's slower than 390x, thus end of the world."


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MNiceGuy*
> 
> Sorry guys I had to hit the bathroom. Where are we at in the cycle?
> 
> 1. AMD is doomed
> 2. GTX 970 is better
> 3. I'm definitely keeping my old card
> 4. OMG the power efficiency!!
> 5. The cooler sucks
> 6. Everything sucks
> 
> Thanks


7. BRB committing seppuku.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> It just pulled into station, and no tickets are required. Feel free to check yourself any one of the three compartments depending on how excited you're feeling.


Why there? The best spot is in front of the train laying on the tracks!


----------



## MNiceGuy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> 7. BRB committing seppuku.


I'll confess I had to look up the term but well played sir.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Almost feel like RX 470 is the better card if it has 32 CPUs.


----------



## Noufel

i guess AMD should put more money in the R&D departement than in the W&S one


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neurotix*
> 
> Even IF the RX 480 *can* overclock to the 1500mhz range, and by doing so it pulls ahead of the 390/290, from the benchmarks of it I've seen it will still be less powerful than the 390 at the same clocks. E.g. it may take a RX 480 at 1500mhz to equal a 390/290 at 1200mhz. In which case, the card is basically a failure imo. It needed to be faster than the 390/290, but it isn't, probably because it has less ROPs and TMUs.


From the OC results it seems at least this card has excellent scaling, approaching 1:1 basically. So assuming 1:1 scaling, at 1500 it would be 18.5% faster than stock, and it would unambiguously edge out a stock 980 at that speed.

Also surprised nobody picked up on this, but the memory overclocks to *over 9000!!!*








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MNiceGuy*
> 
> Sorry guys I had to hit the bathroom. Where are we at in the cycle?
> 
> 1. AMD is doomed
> 2. GTX 970 is better
> 3. I'm definitely keeping my old card
> 4. OMG the power efficiency!!
> 5. The cooler sucks
> 6. Everything sucks
> 
> Thanks


7. Wait for AIB
8. Wait for drivers
9. 480 @ 1500 will wreck 980, @ 1700 will match 980 Ti, and under LN2 will match 1080.

I _may_ have embellished the last one a bit, _just a tiny bit_.


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Doubtful, IMO. 3584 shaders Fury (non X) beat the 980. I don't see why a similarly cut Vega chip couldn't do the same to the 1080.


Be analytical here.

First off, a gtx 980 has 2048 shaders vs 2560 shaders 1080. That alone makes that comparison inappropriate.

In addition 3584 shaders is only 55% more shaders than 2304 which means you can only expect 55% more performance at best. Considering scaling goes down as an architecture goes up, expect performance to increase maybe 45%. And considering the 70-80% gap between the 1080 and rx 480, a 4096 shader would struggle.


----------



## tkenietz

I wish I could just buy some of that Samsung vram to put on my 7850 to replace my 'only stable at 1000mhz' elpida garbage and actually take advantage of how well the core oc's


----------



## flopper

early OC tease
http://oc.jagatreview.com/2016/06/teaser-overclocking-amd-radeon-rx480-ke-1-4ghz-dengan-cooler-3rd-party/2/


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So, A+ for effort, but B+ for quality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just pulled into station, and no tickets are required. Feel free to check yourself any one of the three compartments depending on how excited you're feeling.


Naw it's an objective A!


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LAKEINTEL*
> 
> wait wait, So it has the TFLOPs of a 390x but is clearly slower than a 390x?
> 
> *insert explicative here*
> 
> This better be a driver issue.


Compute performance is one area of the overall performance.

Memory bandwidth is another important factor, thats where the RX480 fails compared to the 390X.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> early OC tease
> http://oc.jagatreview.com/2016/06/teaser-overclocking-amd-radeon-rx480-ke-1-4ghz-dengan-cooler-3rd-party/2/


That's a good score. I think Fury scores ~ 14.5K,


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Why there? The best spot is in front of the train laying on the tracks!


He asked about getting _on_ the hype train, not derailing it.


----------



## slavovid

I have a few thoughts myself. (after reading all the previous posts !!!) AMD is doing badly it seems. They have had this chip for a while and introduced it to us as sub 150W TDP yet it has problems with not enough power with even a slight OC and that problem with the PCI-express line drawing more than it's alowed.

Second this card has almost as much Tflops compared to 390x and given it is suposed to be upgraded architecture we are getting way less performance across the board and that speaks that for all this time that AMD had the chip they didn't manage to push a good enough driver for it or they actually failed at making GCN4 better.

I do have hopes for the AIB cards with better cooling and better power + maybe upgraded drivers will make this card what is still expected it to be but then we will be missing the power efficiency that AMD were so proud of.

Overall the card is doing us good lowering this segment's pricing but i am worried that all those problems might be bad signs for AMD and if there is no competition for Nvidia things are not looking bright friends









Hopefully i didn't had too much IQ to loose to begin with







All the above posts were in fact educational


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> That's a good score. I think Fury scores ~ 14.5K,


compared to nano on the same website, its in the same ballpark.


----------



## ChevChelios

so at 1425 its a bit behind Nano

wonder how high the best AIBs will go for 24/7 stable clocks


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slavovid*
> 
> I have a few thoughts myself. (after reading all the previous posts !!!) AMD is doing badly it seems. They have had this chip for a while and introduced it to us as sub 150W TDP yet it has problems with not enough power with even a slight OC and that problem with the PCI-express line drawing more than it's alowed.
> 
> Second this card has almost as much Tflops compared to 390x and given it is suposed to be upgraded architecture we are getting way less performance across the board and that speaks that for all this time that AMD had the chip they didn't manage to push a good enough driver for it or they actually failed at making GCN4 better.
> 
> I do have hopes for the AIB cards with better cooling and better power + maybe upgraded drivers will make this card what is still expected it to be but then we will be missing the power efficiency that AMD were so proud of.
> 
> Overall the card is doing us good lowering this segment's pricing but i am worried that all those problems might be bad signs for AMD and if there is no competition for Nvidia things are not looking bright friends
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully i didn't had too much IQ to loose to begin with
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the above posts were in fact educational


There are other stuff that give performance. This card has 4 ACE vs 8 ACE on 290X, 32 ROP vs 64 ROP and 256-Bit vs 512-Bit. There is so much a architecture iteration can change. This is not GCN 2.0 this is GCN 4th gen or if we follow the old naming methodology it's GCN 1.3. Same can be said for Nvidia.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> early OC tease
> http://oc.jagatreview.com/2016/06/teaser-overclocking-amd-radeon-rx480-ke-1-4ghz-dengan-cooler-3rd-party/2/


Might have to pull out my AC twin turbo 2s and try them on my 480s eventually.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

One of GCN 1.2's improvements was in its firestrike score. In fact, the 380X blew away the 280X in that benchmark even though it's overall slower.



I don't know if putting too much stock in the firestrike score is a good idea.


----------



## ChevChelios

google translate from that OC link
Quote:


> Variations overclockability Radeon RX480 we do not know, and based on the 4 GPU that is in us (2 from AMD, 2 from PowerColor), only 1 GPU capable of running at 1.4GHz clock. The rest varies between 1.33-1.35Ghz. As an additional note of our innate cooler version of reference seem difficult to withstand temperatures as improved voltage VGA.
> 
> We will continue testing the complete OC when we already know the characteristics of AMD RX480 clocked her better, which contains:
> 
> Game Tests in a state overclock
> Testing Temperature and Power when OC
> OC Radeon Wattman Guide for software
> 
> Look forward to the next OC test here!


----------



## $ilent

It'd be good if people actually waited until after the AIB cards are released before writing the new 480 off completely. I think some people you just cant please. AMD has released a card today that is without doubt the best performing for how much it costs. So what if it doesnt beat NV offerings, its actually quite affordable to most people. Even if AMD gave this gpu away people would moan. How can you possibly expect AMD to magically come up with a world beating graphics card and then sell it for next to nothing? If they were capable of such things they would be dominating the market without competition.

In RL some people dont have a spare £600 sat around for a GTX 1080 all the time, and if your one of those people its easy to rip on others for having to settle for less. Im just interested and hopng the AIB 480s come out and then they overclock quite well in the hope that it will be a really good card for good money.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Might have to pull out my AC twin turbo 2s and try them on my 480s eventually.


Patience is a rare commodity in todays world.
I wait for custom cards.


----------



## tajoh111

The only thing that saved this card is the price. As far as performance and power, the most pessimistic performance and power prediction and overclockability expectations were met. Look for the worst prediction as far as performance and power go, and you will see how those were the most accurate prediction.

I blame mahigan for gettings peoples expectations so high for this card.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> That's a good score. I think Fury scores ~ 14.5K,



OC rx 480 got me even more curious


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neurotix*
> 
> Even IF the RX 480 *can* overclock to the 1500mhz range, and by doing so it pulls ahead of the 390/290, from the benchmarks of it I've seen *it will still be less powerful than the 390 at the same clocks.* E.g. it may take a RX 480 at 1500mhz to equal a 390/290 at 1200mhz. In which case, the card is basically a failure imo. It needed to be faster than the 390/290, but it isn't, probably because it has less ROPs and TMUs.


Dunno what benchies you are reading but this is just wrong.

At 1500Mhz OC on air it will blow away a 290 overclocked to the max on air. When I say, 'to the max' I mean what you can generally achieve using just AB.

Also, power draw will be drastically lower for the 480 at 1500 compared to a 290/390 at 1200 for sure.


----------



## zealord

people giving the "before release expectations" too much fault.

There is no need for excuses if a card simply isn't that great.

Objectively speaking, without any previous rumors, leaks and hopes go, the card isn't what one would expect in 2016 on a much more efficient node.

The reality lies in the middle. This product should be viewed for what it is. Neither expectations that are way too high (on par with GTX 1080) nor people saying it will be slower than a GT 210 Performance Edition HDMI should have a real effect on what it is.

In all honestly everyone that knows a tad about moving forwards knows that there is a lot of ... lets call it missed potential with the RX480 from a consumer standpoint.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> The only thing that saved this card is the price. As far as performance and power, the most pessimistic performance and power prediction and overclockability expectations were met. Look for the worst prediction as far as performance and power go, and you will see how those were the most accurate prediction.
> 
> I blame mahigan for gettings peoples expectations so high for this card.


I haven't seen Mahigan in ages, and not in any of the recent (~1 month old) 480 threads, so I'm not sure you can pin the blame on him.

If I had to point a finger, it would all the rumor sites with their "leaks", and people themselves for getting overhyped.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Dunno what benchies you are reading but this is just wrong.
> 
> At 1500Mhz OC on air it will blow away a 290 overclocked to the max on air. When I say, 'to the max' I mean what you can generally achieve using just AB.
> 
> Also, power draw will be drastically lower for the 480 at 1500 compared to a 290/390 at 1200 for sure.


A 1500 480 will be a few % faster than a stock 980, so I dunno if I would call that blowing away a max OC 290.


----------



## ZealotKi11er




----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*


beautiful looking card. great design.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> A 1500 480 will be a few % faster than a stock 980, so I dunno if I would call that blowing away a max OC 290.


a few%? it blow away the 980 performance wise and the gap is only going to widen as more dx12 games comes along








why buy old tech as the 980?


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> If I had to point a finger, it would all the rumor sites with their "leaks", and people themselves for getting overhyped.


If I had a nickel for every "wait for the 480 and buy that" post in various GPU suggestion threads just on this site, I could buy a 1080.


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *$ilent*
> 
> It'd be good if people actually waited until after the AIB cards are released before writing the new 480 off completely. I think some people you just cant please. AMD has released a card today that is without doubt the best performing for how much it costs. So what if it doesnt beat NV offerings, its actually quite affordable to most people. Even if AMD gave this gpu away people would moan. How can you possibly expect AMD to magically come up with a world beating graphics card and then sell it for next to nothing? If they were capable of such things they would be dominating the market without competition.
> 
> In RL some people dont have a spare £600 sat around for a GTX 1080 all the time, and if your one of those people its easy to rip on others for having to settle for less. Im just interested and hopng the AIB 480s come out and then they overclock quite well in the hope that it will be a really good card for good money.


Part of the moaning is justfied. This card performed below peoples lowered expectations. That being this card performs well below an 980/390x and closer to a 970/390. Considering the die size of this thing for a finfet, this is the bare minimum to expect.

When any product performs at a level at a level that is near/below a pessimistic expectations, then as far as a product goes, it deserves some criticism. Add the power consumption is in line with a 1070 and you basically have to be worried for AMD graphic department.

AMD CPU started to come off the rails after conroe hit. The graphic division is starting to look similar.


----------



## Phixit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> a few%? it blow away the 980 performance wise and the gap is only going to widen as more dx12 games comes along
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why buy old tech as the 980?


.. and why run a GTX 980 at stock speed ?


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*


They literally just covered the cheese grater design in black paint OMGWTHBBQ
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xzamples*
> 
> https://www.twitch.tv/sapphirepr/v/73369656
> 
> at the 20:21 mark


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> a few%? it blow away the 980 performance wise and the gap is only going to widen as more dx12 games comes along
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why buy old tech as the 980?


How do you figure it'll blow away the 980 at 1500? Didn't and still am not advocating for the 980; merely using it as a reference point.


----------



## Zaor

If the custom 480 can oc up to 1500Mhz beating stock 980 it will be a really good deal for the moderate gamers especially looking at the future and dx12 where it beats 970 handily .It really needs to be priced at $280-$300 no more than that and i'm being generous here.I can find new 980ti for $450 and used for $50-80 less than that without ordering abroad.There aren't any noteworthy games during summer so the more sensible can wait to see how the landscape shapes in coming months.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Are there any reviews that undervolted to see how low the card could go and maintain stock clocks?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> When any product performs at a level at a level that is near/below a pessimistic expectations, then as far as a product goes, it deserves some criticism. Add the power consumption is in line with a 1070 and you basically have to be worried for AMD graphic department.


The performance I actually kind of expected. I jumped off the hype train two weeks ago when I decided to get a 1070. But the power consumption blows my mind. I don't particularly care about power consumption, but the 480 pulling as much as a 1070 yet performing no where near it? Crazy.


----------



## NFL

It's a stock reference card and it's throttling...how?!?!?!?!


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *$ilent*
> 
> It'd be good if people actually waited until after the AIB cards are released before writing the new 480 off completely. I think some people you just cant please. AMD has released a card today that is without doubt the best performing for how much it costs. So what if it doesnt beat NV offerings, its actually quite affordable to most people. Even if AMD gave this gpu away people would moan. How can you possibly expect AMD to magically come up with a world beating graphics card and then sell it for next to nothing? If they were capable of such things they would be dominating the market without competition.
> 
> In RL some people dont have a spare £600 sat around for a GTX 1080 all the time, and if your one of those people its easy to rip on others for having to settle for less. Im just interested and hopng the AIB 480s come out and then they overclock quite well in the hope that it will be a really good card for good money.


No one has to have a spare £600, if they do however have the spare £225 that it costs for the 480 then they can and have been able to grab a 390 8gb for the same price with an aftermarket cooler better ocs's and a free game. That's the kicker here imo, not even nvidias competition amds own cards are the 390 and 390x used just as good value and have been here for a while with more stable oc information etc.

In the end I guess it does not matter what we here think all that matters is if the card sells well, and apparently it's selling very well.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> In the end I guess it does not matter what we here think all that matters is if the card sells well, and apparently it's selling very well.


Agree.


----------



## infranoia

My 290x is tired... ...so tired... He just wants to lay down for a moment. Just one moment.

NOOO... DON'T GO TOWARD THE LIGHT! I NEED YOU STILL


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> My 290x is tired... ...so tired... He just wants to lay down for a moment. Just one moment.
> 
> NOOO... DON'T GO TOWARD THE LIGHT! I NEED YOU STILL


Let him go...


----------



## StrongForce

let me set the record straight, the 8gb card offers incredible value and long term/future-proofness for that price, just like the r9 390/x provided, the aftermarket cards+ more mature drivers will make this card a great buy performance/price/longevity.

It is worth noting that before the r9 390's launched last year one of the rare cards offering more than 4gb was the high end expensive 980ti, I don't mean to overemphasize the importance of VRAM but it certainly something worth mentioning and we can thank AMD for making the VRAM less a problem, as it was not so long ago.

And also one thing that's cool, even if the raw performance isn't really overwhelming aswell as the power consumption, it still a cool thing I mean people this year are getting r390x-gtx 980 ish performance for 200 ish and less power consumption that's better than last year so I'd say let's focus on the positive side of things, what's there to complain about ?

On top of that I could add, the r9 290/x r9 390/x stocks are gonna sell for mad cheap now.. not even talking about the second hand cards which are likely going to be 100-150$ soon, I'd say this is an exciting time for PC gamers who are looking to build a decent gaming config for a relatively cheap price !


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> If I had a nickel for every "wait for the 480 and buy that" post in various GPU suggestion threads just on this site, I could buy a 1080.


2x 480 are still cheaper by 300-400usd and as fast
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StrongForce*
> 
> let me set the record straight, the 8gb card offers incredible value and long term/future-proofness for that price, just like the r9 390/x provided, the aftermarket cards+ more mature drivers will make this card a great buy performance/price/longevity.
> 
> It is worth noting that before the r9 390's launched last year one of the rare cards offering more than 4gb was the high end expensive 980ti, I don't mean to overemphasize the importance of VRAM but it certainly something worth mentioning and we can thanks AMD for making the VRAM less a problem, as it was not so long ago.
> 
> Of course I don't know if someone already said that but I don't have the time to look all the posts so you'll excuse me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> And also one thing that's cool, even if the raw performance isn't really overwhelming aswell as the power consumption, *it still a cool thing I mean people this year are getting r390x-gtx 980 ish performance for 200 ish* that's better than last year so I'd say let's focus on the positive side of things
> 
> On top of that I could add, the r9 290/x r9 390/x stocks are gonna sell for mad cheap now.. not even talking about the second hand cards which are likely going to be 100-150$ soon, I'd say this is an exciting time for PC gamers who are looking to build a decent gaming config for a relatively cheap price !


Not quite.

it's more like 390 or 970 depending on game


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> people giving the "before release expectations" too much fault.
> 
> There is no need for excuses if a card simply isn't that great.
> 
> Objectively speaking, without any previous rumors, leaks and hopes go, the card isn't what one would expect in 2016 on a much more efficient node.
> 
> The reality lies in the middle. This product should be viewed for what it is. Neither expectations that are way too high (on par with GTX 1080) nor people saying it will be slower than a GT 210 Performance Edition HDMI should have a real effect on what it is.
> 
> In all honestly everyone that knows a tad about moving forwards knows that there is a lot of ... lets call it missed potential with the RX480 from a consumer standpoint.


This is pretty much it. It is what it was supposed to be but as I said earlier that doesn't make it great or a fail, as it did not exceed reasonable expectation nor did it fail to meet reasonable expectation. It's not what I would have hoped for but it's a decent card for what it is, and an AIB model could be fun to play with if additional power and better cooling help in that regard (and they should).

I won't pretend to be awed by the card or say it's all I had hoped a node shrink and improved arch would bring but I also find some of the naysaying to be a bit ridiculous, especially before the AIB models. I'll also speculate that the greatest portion of the market for this card doesn't comment for hours on threads like these. They're probably just now replacing their 660 Ti and thinking 'wow, 8Gb and 970 plus performance, $200!? tits!'


----------



## StrongForce

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Not quite.
> 
> it's more like 390 or 970 depending on game




Ok maybe I exagerated a little, but yea still cool, ok let's say gtx 970- r9 390, as people mentioned we can project ourselves a bit and hope for a near gtx 980 performance with future drivers


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StrongForce*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok maybe I exagerated a little, but yea still cool, ok let's say gtx 970- r9 390, as people mentioned we can project ourselves a bit and hope for a near gtx 980 performance with future drivers


I said earlier in the thread that I will be very surprised if the 'slightly above 970 and sometimes a bit below 980' isn't switched to 'slightly below 980 and sometimes a bit above 970' within a driver or two.

Source: I buy too many damn graphics cards.


----------



## FlyingSolo

Some UK shop price for the 8GB Sapphire Radeon RX 480 was £219.95 now it's £233.40. Damn these cards price is slowly rising. Now i wander how much the AIB cards will cost in the UK.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlyingSolo*
> 
> Some UK shop price for the 8GB Sapphire Radeon RX 480 was £219.95 now it's £233.40. Damn these cards price is slowly rising. Now i wander how much the AIB cards will cost in the UK.


wait a week. Let the marked fill up. Price will come down soon enough when shops will have supply of them and they stop selling like mad. Then you will even start seeing some discounts :>

Best would be to wait for 1060. First because we will know how it performs, and second it will put a pressure on amd and nvidia to fight eachother. Now all market is screwed because both companies dont have similar producs. Nvidia holds top performance atm, and AMD have midrange covered.


----------



## smash_mouth01

This is an interesting turn of events...

Here in Australia the cheapest 480 the 4 gb model retails for $319 and the one of the cheapest 480 8GB models are $379..

that almost comes in at $70-100 cheaper than the run out 970 models and is cheaper than both the 980/ti by $200..

It also is cheaper than both the 390 and 390x by a slim margin which sort of quantifies the price.

On the other hand a pair of them is $758...even a fraction cheaper than a 1070 (well some of the models) and a pair of them are $442 cheaper than a 1080..
this is a hard call...

I think the price to performance here in Australia is right on the mark,,, and even better if paired up in CFX...

regardless of what people think , this is a mainstream card that competes with the higher end mainstream of the 390/390x reasonably well considering that some of thise cards still sell for a bit.


----------



## FlyingSolo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> wait a week. Let the marked fill up. Price will come down soon enough when shops will have supply of them and they stop selling like mad. Then you will even start seeing some discounts :>


Yeah i will wait and see how much the AIB cards cost first. Now i think back i should have kept that 970 and put that in my other rig. Rather then thinking of putting a 480 there instead.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> This is pretty much it. It is what it was supposed to be but as I said earlier that doesn't make it great or a fail, as it did not exceed reasonable expectation nor did it fail to meet reasonable expectation. It's not what I would have hoped for but it's a decent card for what it is, and an AIB model _could_ be fun to play with if additional power and better cooling help in that regard (and they should).
> 
> I won't pretend to be awed by the card or say it's all I had hoped a node shrink and improved arch would bring but I also find some of the naysaying to be a bit ridiculous, especially before the AIB models. I'll also speculate that the greatest portion of the market for this card doesn't comment for hours on threads like these. *They're probably just now replacing their 660 Ti and thinking 'wow, 8Gb and 970 plus performance, $200!? tits!'*


that is exactly the crowd AMD is targeting and it looks like it is working quite well for them


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> 2x 480 are still cheaper by 300-400usd and as fast
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/19.html


here 2x 480 8GB = ~600 EUR, maybe a little less
1x 1080 = 730+ EUR

and your definition of "as fast" is radically different from anyone elses lol .. CF dun got smacked


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> that is exactly the crowd AMD is targeting and it looks like it is working quite well for them










Not everyone can toss a 500$ for card each year you know?


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> that is exactly the crowd AMD is targeting and it looks like it is working quite well for them


True never thought of it like that, think alot of us are sad now that the realization has set in that amd probably wont compete with nvidia this year allowing nvidia to keep on with the greed editions meaning us at the top end need to sit on maxwell or pay stupid prices(which I refuse).


----------



## Cakewalk_S

It'll be very interesting to see what 2-4 newer drivers do after release... Looks like some games could definitely see a big boost in performance hopefully...


----------



## ProclusLycaeus

I'm surprised this thread doesn't have a link to this possibly game changing rumor. One that possibly could damage your motherboard and/or void its warranty.

[Redit] RX 480 violates the PCIe specification and draws too much power.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ProclusLycaeus*
> 
> I'm surprised this thread doesn't have a link to this possibly game changing rumor. One that possibly could damage your motherboard and/or void its warranty.
> 
> [Redit] RX 480 violates the PCIe specification and draws too much power.


I have seen about 5 people so far posting links to sites saying RX480 draws too much power from PCIE slot. it started with PCGH I guess.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone can toss a 500$ for card each year you know?


I don't do that either.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ProclusLycaeus*
> 
> I'm surprised this thread doesn't have a link to this possibly game changing rumor. One that possibly could damage your motherboard and/or void its warranty.
> 
> [Redit] RX 480 violates the PCIe specification and draws too much power.


What the hell does that mean? What about 295X2? 500W from 375W provided within the speck?


----------



## Zaor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone can toss a 500$ for card each year you know?


I don't toss $500 for gpu each year either.I toss $1000-$1500 each year for iems though...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> What the hell does that mean? What about 295X2? 500W from 375W provided within the speck?


I think the difference is where it is pulling the extra power. The 295X2 was presumably pulling it through the PCIe power connectors, not the slot itself.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> What the hell does that mean? What about 295X2? 500W from 375W provided within the speck?


It's from the PCI-e slot.


----------



## xTesla1856

That's it, getting 1080s in SLI now


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> his math is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> That means both of you have no math skills.
> Three 12v lanes does not mean 6A per 12V. It means total of 6A on a 12V spec connector, in this case, 2Ax 3 hot / 3 ground x 12v total, aka, spec for 75W.
> You should learn your GPU.
Click to expand...

pardon me? I need to learn?

have some specs:

http://wenku.baidu.com/view/21e1d2573c1ec5da50e270e8.html

its per PIN so you do multiply by the number of pins.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xTesla1856*
> 
> That's it, getting 1080s in SLI now


----------



## Pnanasnoic

AMD betet hope this mobo destroying talk doesn't gain any traction. They got enough to deal with if it's true already.


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*


Is it bad that simply because the cheese grater was painted black, my feelings toward the aesthetic has flipped 180°?
Still, I'm very excited to see some AIBs - hopefully sooner rather than later.


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> Is it bad that simply because the cheese grater was painted black, my feelings toward the aesthetic has flipped 180°?
> Still, I'm very excited to see some AIBs - hopefully sooner rather than later.


no. color is very important.

Like the inside of a case, remember when they used to be silver/grey? looks horrible

now they are black. looks amazing


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> Is it bad that simply because the cheese grater was painted black, my feelings toward the aesthetic has flipped 180°?
> Still, I'm very excited to see some AIBs - hopefully sooner rather than later.


I like it too. They also have a feature where the fan can poop out and if they break you get new fan shipped to you.


----------



## NFL

After reading Guru3D's review, I think I'm warming to the card. Not the reference version (which I think is a hot mess, literally), but possible AIB versions.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Performance is where i expected and price is alright. But I am really disappointed that Polaris hasn't done anything on efficiency front compared to previous architecture, only benefitting from node shrink. AMD had opportunity to close the gap since Nvidia only released Maxwell 2.0 on smaller node but failed to do so.

This is basically a repeat of 28nm generation.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*


My original response to the cheese grater was "would look better black".

I feel confident in saying that I was right. It looks night and day different









Since sapphire had mock ups done a while ago, I wonder how long it will take for them to paint them all and release lol


----------



## badtaylorx

Anybody watched any of this guy yet???

He's only got 30K+ subs, but is VERY knowledgeable (above avg. for a tuber anyway) and worth a look-see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IcRF201cEc


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> My 290x is tired... ...so tired... He just wants to lay down for a moment. Just one moment.
> 
> NOOO... DON'T GO TOWARD THE LIGHT! I NEED YOU STILL


Shhhh shhhhshhhhshhhh

It's ok, everything's gonna be alright.

Although as a desperate last measure, you could always just use an AED apply more volts.


----------



## badtaylorx

I wonder if using a mobo with extra power (molex/6pin/8pin) would alleviate some of the power draw issue with the new card???


----------



## Slomo4shO

AMD is now focused on competing with products from 2+ years ago... Zen is targeting 22nm Haswell IPC and Polaris/Vega will be attempting to match the performance and power consumption of 28 nm Maxwell...


----------



## Chaython

$340 in Canada [8gb only available] =262.73 US Dollar @ NCIX/Memory Express
However the king of pc components NEWEGG has 4gb for $259.99 and 8gb for $309.99
Still rather get a used 970


----------



## Aussiejuggalo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> AMD is now focused on competing with products from 2+ years ago... Zen is targeting Haswell IPC and Polaris/Vega will be attempting to match the performance and power consumption of 28 nm Maxwell...


It's AMD's marketing, they know majority of gamers on Steam don't buy the $500+ GPU's or CPU's so that's who there aiming at and I think with the 480 (although it has the power issue atm) it's a damn good card for the market.

Also works well for country's whose dollar is up the creek like Australia, just look at the prices of the 480 compared to the 1080, 1070 hell even the 980 & 970. AMD has done the right thing business wise targeting the lower end of the market seeing we all know Nvidia owns the top end hence why they can charge whatever they want.

Another thing to add is AMD's drivers have improved ten fold over what they were even this time last year. They also haven't bricked cards with driver "upgrades".


----------



## cranfam

So it performs about where it should. I expect performance to increase as the drivers mature. I also expect the custom AIB cards to perform better.


----------



## mrawesome421

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aussiejuggalo*
> 
> It's AMD's marketing, they know majority of gamers on Steam don't buy the $500+ GPU's or CPU's so that's who there aiming at and I think with the 480 (although it has the power issue atm) it's a damn good card for the market.
> 
> Also works well for country's whose dollar is up the creek like Australia, just look at the prices of the 480 compared to the 1080, 1070 hell even the 980 & 970. AMD has done the right thing business wise targeting the lower end of the market seeing we all know Nvidia owns the top end hence why they can charge whatever they want.
> 
> Another thing to add is AMD's drivers have improved ten fold over what they were even this time last year.


I agree 100%

They are not worried about the top tier enthusiast crowd. They are gonna gobble up the mainstream mid-high tier market and I hope they gain some market share back, although I still have my doubts.


----------



## Unkzilla

The two nvidia cards ive owned from last gen 960 and 980 were both overclocking powerhouses

My 390 and fury x are the worst overclockers I can remember ( from my own benchmarks my 980 was very close to my fury x both at max oc )

That being said I am highly skeptical about how much benefit the aftermarket cards will bring to overclocking after seeing initial Temps and power draw. This card could draw 300-400 w with extra voltage ?


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chaython*
> 
> $340 in Canada [8gb only available] =262.73 US Dollar @ NCIX/Memory Express
> However the king of pc components NEWEGG has 4gb for $259.99 and 8gb for $309.99
> Still rather get a used 970


So you would willingly get a slower card, with less memory, that will no longer see major driver support, that uses more power, that sees negative performance increases in DX12.. to me, it just makes no sense.


----------



## Dudewitbow

I wonder if XFX's 480 will use those swapable fans they revealed a month back


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chaython*
> 
> $340 in Canada [8gb only available] =262.73 US Dollar @ NCIX/Memory Express
> However the king of pc components NEWEGG has 4gb for $259.99 and 8gb for $309.99
> Still rather get a used 970


Why used GTX970? You are Canadian? GTX970 still sell a lot even used $300+.

Also has it seem 4Gb cards are just 8GB cards with the chips disabled. Maybe a Bios flash? Easy save $40?


----------



## phenom01

Well i guess the WCCF thread on here with all of the people gloating about how the 480 overclocked was gonna match a fury-x or 980TI/Titan X were sorely mistaken.









But I guess thats cool that it matchs performance of midrange cards released in Sep 2014, and june 2015 respectively. (970/390) For the $200 dollar price point 7 months into 2016.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Performance is where i expected and price is alright. But I am really disappointed that Polaris hasn't done anything on efficiency front compared to previous architecture, only benefitting from node shrink. AMD had opportunity to close the gap since Nvidia only released Maxwell 2.0 on smaller node but failed to do so.
> 
> This is basically a repeat of 28nm generation.


I've already gone over this, they are two entirely different architectures, all of hawaii tonga and fiji draw more power than their nvidia counterparts. Why does anyone expect polaris/vega to be any different from when at it's core it is simply a tweaked GCN with components within the arch that nvidia does not have?

The important thing to realize here is in comparison to their previous GCN cards. In a worse case scenario (furmark) a RX 480 is 1.77x more efficient than Hawaii/Grenada, it only increases in DX12 scenarios.

Everyone needs to stop and actually think about this card. Everyone hyped it up to be something it clearly wasn't going to be, and all of the sudden it's a failure when it has introduced previous high-midranged performance @ a $199 to $249 price range. This card is a significant ways ahead of the 380x and 960 which it replaces based on price range, don't get me started on the 970 as that will soon be EOL.

Seriously, come on...


----------



## ChevChelios

the real test wil be against the 1060


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*


Yeah that's the Rumor Edition it has been talked about on Sapphire's twitch stream.


----------



## neurotix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dudewitbow*
> 
> I wonder if XFX's 480 will use those swapable fans they revealed a month back
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


This would be absolutely great other than that XFX coolers generally suck.

Every card should have this in 2016. I've had to RMA cards numerous times because the fans had problems. With something like this, such a minor thing could be a thing of the past.

If you're paying more than $300 for a GPU, something like this should be mandatory.

No other comments other than what I've said already on the RX 480.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> the real test wil be against the 1060


The real test was whether the RX 480 would match performance from 3 years ago, which it clearly failed.


----------



## JackCY

Ahem it runs 150W not 300W.


----------



## WolfssFang

The temptation is killing me!
http://i.imgur.com/QcVo4KG.png


----------



## JackCY

Nah man, the reference cards from nGreedia and AMD both suck.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> the real test wil be against the 1060


GTX1070 ~ 45% faster then RX 480

GTX1060 1280 SP vs 1920 SP on GTX1070 which has 1.5x more Cuda cores. 192-Bit 6GB and you got a card very close to RX 480.

Memory bandwidth should be similar to GTX970, As the Tflops. GTX970 1664*2*1253 ~ 4.2, Assuming 1060 will have similar clocks to 1070. SP 1280 * 2 * 1683 ~ 4.3 Tflops.

So this card will basically only really beat RX 480 in power consumption by 30-40W. It will still lose in DX12.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> GTX1070 ~ 45% faster then RX 480
> 
> GTX1060 1280 SP vs 1920 SP on GTX1070 which has 1.5x more Cuda cores. 192-Bit 6GB and you got a card very close to RX 480.
> 
> Memory bandwidth should be similar to GTX970, As the Tflops. GTX970 1664*2*1253 ~ 4.2, Assuming 1060 will have similar clocks to 1070. SP 1280 * 2 * 1683 ~ 4.3 Tflops.
> 
> So this card will basically only really beat RX 480 in power consumption by 30-40W. It will still lose in DX12.


we'll see what they make of it .. probably not as good relative performance as 1070/1080 though .. but DX12 is also not as bad as 970/980

also according to TPU slides a 1070 is ~50% above 480


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The real test was whether the RX 480 would match performance from 3 years ago, which it clearly failed.


I think what really rubbed me the wrong way was the whole #betterred campaign.

The questionable themes and slogans aside (it's marketing so it's bound to be a bit cringe worthy), there just isn't anything revolutionary about the card, and for them to hype and market it as such just felt wrong.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I think what really rubbed me the wrong way was the whole #betterred campaign.
> 
> The questionable themes and slogans aside (it's marketing so it's bound to be a bit cringe worthy), there just isn't anything revolutionary about the card, and for them to hype and market it as such just felt wrong.


What is cringe worthy is AMDs claim of this card being 150W TDP. Have you seen a review that had power draw under 150W during gaming? This launch is a bigger failure than the Hawaii silent mode fiasco...

The performance per watt is still below the 980 and about half if compared to the 1080.


----------



## Ultracarpet

I think the sales will taper off pretty fast with this card. I just don't really see it being the card that will regain AMD any huge amounts of market share.

IMO it's not even the cards fault, they just missed the target on the marketing side. The homerun would have been this:

For starters the card should have been the rx 470 and it should have been priced $175 (4gb) and $200 (8gb), I know this is eating into margins but stay with me. The card should have been only clocked at 1ghz, and they could have used slower (cheaper gddr5 memory), it would have fallen slightly below a GTX 970, but the price coupled with the power consumption (which should be reduced quite a bit from a voltage reduction and clock speed reduction) would have been worth it to every single person that does not have gtx 970< level of performance already (ie, exactly who they are targeting).

In doing this, the card now has massive OCing capability (20-30%) which would give Wattman a reason to exist, and praises would being sung rather than disappointment looming over a poo 5% OC. They should also have more usable dies (assuming they had to bin some to reach the 1266 boost clock). The performance, even at stock, should still be good enough for precious VR considering how much of a performance increase polaris was touted as having in VR (by AMD mind you).

Then AIB designs come, and they can be priced at what they were going to be originally because they are supposedly the key to reaching higher clocks than the reference cards at max OCs, and the performance should justify it.

I am disappointed by the rx 480, and I realize the card was never designed for me, but this should have been the card that changed everything. Alas, we are left with a card that OCs terribly, is curiously power hungry, and is likely to be superseded by the competition before the new year.... but what do i know.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> What is cringe worthy is AMDs claim of this card being 150W TDP. Have you seen a review that had power draw under 150W during gaming? This launch is a bigger failure than the Hawaii silent mode fiasco...
> 
> The performance per watt is still below the 980 and about half if compared to the 1080.


Well I can stomach the performance, but that perf/watt is just dreadful. I mean Polaris on 14nm can just barely match 970 on 28nm and still gets outdone by 980 and GM200, that's just...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Well I can stomach the performance, but that perf/watt is just dreadful. I mean Polaris on 14nm can just barely match 970 on 28nm and still gets outdone by 980 and GM200, that's just...


Why do you have to stomach the performance? You have a GTX980 Ti lol.


----------



## magnek

I mean it's not the end of the world for me if performance is 10-15% less than what I expected. But there's just no excuse for perf/watt to be that bad on 14nm. Look at this:



It's 8% more efficient than Fury, WUT.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I mean it's not the end of the world for me if performance is 10-15% less than what I expected. But there's just no excuse for perf/watt to be that bad on 14nm. Look at this:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 8% more efficient than Fury, WUT.


Fury has HBM and is not pushed as hard. This cards seems to be pushing P10 to the MAX.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> At the time £232 was around $370 i think
> 
> @ $1.61/£1
> 
> also sorry you're CAD
> 
> you get it the worst
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways my point still stands
> 
> i would be ok with 390x performance
> 
> but losing to a GTX 970 in some games
> 
> wow that is not great.


To be fair the pound just crashed to a 30 yr low and tech prices are increasing due to the referendum. The 480 hit a double storm in terms of the UK and pricing. I.E. The 480s price is higher in the UK than it would be.


----------



## EightDee8D

Performance is still within what i expected, but the most disappointing thing for me is perf/tlops is *gone backwards* even though it's supposed to go *up by 15%*. there's really something wrong with the card, either glofo or drivers IDK. p/w is a upto figure so i won't blame them seeing pascal didn't deliver 2x p/w either. but from technical standpoint the p/w is worse than i thought, it hardly matches maxwell. price is good, and it's only thing that will sell this card.

another weird thing is this chip is less dense compared to what gp104 did vs 28nm ( GP104 is 75% more dense and Pol10 is 71%) , even though 14nm is supposed to be more dense than 16nm. i wish vega will be on TSMC or kiss goodbye to 1080 performance, let alone 1080ti. also it seems *after hawaii*, every gpu they made is under performing for some reason.

They also need to ditch that GCN, or they will never beat nvidia in perf/w/mm. it's the time for new clean sheet design incorporating only the good parts from GCN. GCN is only good for vr+consoles where they can use all of its features, but on pc (dx11) it has more unused parts wasting mm^2 and wattage.

And for the next time, shoot every hayper/fake hyper with a freaking nuke, and *BAN that WCCF*, they did more to the hyping on performance than amd themselves.

/r


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Fury has HBM and is not pushed as hard. This cards seems to be pushing P10 to the *MAX*.


And it still failed to maintain TDP while neglecting to match the performance of a R9 290X...


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Fury has HBM and is not pushed as hard. This cards seems to be pushing P10 to the MAX.


Any power savings with HBM should've been easily negated by transitioning to 14nm FinFET.

Yes P10 maybe pushed to the max, but if pushed to the max it just matches a 970, then that's even worse. Also I care about perf/watt because it gives me an indication of what to expect from Vega 10, and if things don't improve, then AMD might need another 300W card to match just 1080 performance, let alone 1080 Ti performance. :/


----------



## Titanox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Performance is still within what i expected, but the most disappointing thing for me is perf/tlops is *gone backwards* even though it's supposed to go *up by 15%*. there's really something wrong with the card, either glofo or drivers IDK. p/w is a upto figure so i won't blame them seeing pascal didn't deliver 2x p/w either. but from technical standpoint the p/w is worse than i thought, it hardly matches maxwell. price is good, and it's only thing that will sell this card.
> 
> another weird thing is this chip is less dense compared to what gp104 did vs 28nm ( GP104 is 75% more dense and Pol10 is 71%) , even though 14nm is supposed to be more dense than 16nm. i wish vega will be on TSMC or kiss goodbye to 1080 performance, let alone 1080ti. also it seems *after hawaii*, every gpu they made is under performing for some reason.
> 
> They also need to ditch that GCN, or they will never beat nvidia in perf/w/mm. it's the time for new clean sheet design incorporating only the good parts from GCN. GCN is only good for vr+consoles where they can use all of its features, but on pc (dx11) it has more unused parts wasting mm^2 and wattage.
> 
> And for the next time, shoot every hayper/fake hyper with a freaking nuke, and *BAN that WCCF*, they did more to the hyping on performance than amd themselves.
> 
> /r


How can they ditch GCN when it's in all the current and new consoles? Their entire GFX strategy is based around the architecture. Maybe Nvidia is just that good. Really shows what a homerun maxwell was.
What in the world is causing it to suck so much power?

Is Volta going to be twice as power efficient as Vega? Their cards are going to get unaffordable if that happens. And then the gouging begins.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Titanox*
> 
> How can they ditch GCN when it's in all the current and new consoles? Their entire GFX strategy is based around the architecture. Maybe Nvidia is just that good. Really shows what a homerun maxwell was.
> What in the world is causing it to suck so much power?
> 
> Is Volta going to be twice as power efficient as Vega? Their cards are going to get unaffordable if that happens. And then the gouging begins.


If their all eggs on that bucket, i'm afraid we should kiss goodbye the competitive AMD gpus, unless dx12 takes speed, its doing them no good.

and what about perf/tflops? 232mm die for 390 performance, 464mm die for another 80% performance puts it around 1080, how they gonna fight 1080ti then ? and volta in future ? they need to increase perf/tflops, and they gone backwards instead. epic fail if you ask me.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I mean it's not the end of the world for me if performance is 10-15% less than what I expected. But there's just no excuse for perf/watt to be that bad on 14nm. Look at this:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's 8% more efficient than Fury, WUT.


It's not great. I mean, it matches up with what was promised if you look at the 285, or the 390, but it's still not great. That's more an AMD failing generally though, so that even though the RX 480 is improved by comparison with its own products it's still not where it should be compared to Nvidia.

I still want to see what happens with AIB cards before I pass judgement on the 480 but the reference is shades of 290/x launch and that's not great. All that said I still think this card ends up a bigger win in terms of market share than our enthusiast perspectives would indicate. It's still good performance for the price and the AIB models and a new driver or two could also change my opinion on how well this card competes. I'm really interested in 470/460 perf/watt and efficiency so we can learn more about whether different configs are stressing the 14nm chips more, or less, and what that means for other designs on the node.


----------



## magnek

For its intended segment it'll do fine, although that depends on where the 1060 will land exactly.

I'm just dissecting it on its technical merits, mainly because it doesn't paint a very rosy picture for Vega.


----------



## DrFPS

Quote:


> SpeedyVT
> PC Gamer
> 
> Joined: Jan 2009
> Posts: 4,567
> Rep: 129 (Unique: 90)
> 
> Quote:
> This would put the 480 just below a 1080 in performance, for $250 that's a steal.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1603063/wccf-amd-rx-480-rivals-r9-nano-gtx-980/230#post_25271222

It is? How so? Would you like to repete that please. No???? Why not? What type of math was that you used again? magnek math. Your not even close at all. Prehaphs you may learn from your mistakes?


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I mean it's not the end of the world for me if performance is 10-15% less than what I expected. .


Polaris 10: the only mid-grade chip that failed to surpass the performance of a 3 year old high end predecessor...

AMD sure does like to set new precedence...


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DrFPS*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1603063/wccf-amd-rx-480-rivals-r9-nano-gtx-980/230#post_25271222
> 
> It is? How so? Would you like to repete that please. No???? Why not? What type of math was that you used again. Your not even close at all. Learn from your mistakes?


Is it 1700mhz ? you can't even troll properly lol.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> For its intended segment it'll do fine, although that depends on where the 1060 will land exactly.
> 
> I'm just dissecting it on its technical merits, mainly because it doesn't paint a very rosy picture for Vega.


I get that, and I don't disagree with your assessment. I'm just throwing in my two cents towards the holistic perspective that AMD's perf/watt has been poor for so long so that even these improvements which might have been good a few years ago are now barely meeting the minimum of what was promised. What I want to know is if it's just the continuing symptom of GCN's perf/watt issues or a product of the difficulty AMD is facing with designs on the 14nm node, and more specifically, porting the inefficient GCN design to 14nm. Curious cat.


----------



## rv8000

Going to lay down a few things one last time...

- GCN =/= Maxwell or Pascal In terms of architectural components
- GCN has always had worse P/W than nvidia counterparts
- From Grenada/Tonga/Fiji P/W is up 1.77x, which AMD stated in the PR slides months ago that P/W increases were approximately 1.8x (special cases up to 2.8x)
- This is a huge step forward in P/W for AMD; THIS CARD IS STILL GCN, with minor tweaks
- This card is in the price bracket of the 380x and GTX 960, in which the RX480 is SIGNIFICANTLY faster
- The price is good
- The P/W jump is comparable to Nvidia's for their OWN architecture; both being attributed mostly to node changes
- AMD made not a single official statement hyping this card to be anything more than what we got; all of the hype blame rests on you as forum users and the rumor mills, NOT AMD.

This is a good card, at a good price. Many people expect the 1060 to drop soon, but until then Nvidia doesn't have a new direct competitor which is good for AMD.

It's sad that so many users are posting drivel when many guests will come view this site for information and guidance, and be so horribly mislead by nosensical and borderline bipolar comments being made. This card is by no means a failure, and as far as I see this almost exactly what AMD told us they set out to do.


----------



## Titanox

Someone just announced the price here at 420$ ex taxes and shipping. Now i'm pissed. Screw you, AMD.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DrFPS*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1603063/wccf-amd-rx-480-rivals-r9-nano-gtx-980/230#post_25271222
> 
> It is? How so? Would you like to repete that please. No???? Why not? What type of math was that you used again? magnek math. Your not even close at all. Prehaphs you may learn from your mistakes?


While I'm honored I have a type of math named after me, I would like for you to find just ONE post of mine where I jumped through hoops and did some crazy math to make unrealistic claims.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I get that, and I don't disagree with your assessment. I'm just throwing in my two cents towards the holistic perspective that AMD's perf/watt has been poor for so long so that even these improvements which might have been good a few years ago are now barely meeting the minimum of what was promised. What I want to know is if it's just the continuing symptom of GCN's perf/watt issues or a product of the difficulty AMD is facing with designs on the 14nm node, and more specifically, porting the inefficient GCN design to 14nm. Curious cat.


I really think there's just something wrong with 14nm LPP. I mean if Fury (non X) has 92% the efficiency of P10 on 28nm, then surely this must be something to do with 14nm LPP. Even discounting for HBM Fury should still end up with at least 80% of P10's efficiency, and that's just ridiculous for a node shrink + transition to FinFET.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I really think there's just something wrong with 14nm LPP. I mean if Fury (non X) has 92% the efficiency of P10 on 28nm, then surely this must be something to do with 14nm LPP. Even discounting for HBM Fury should still end up with at least 80% of P10's efficiency, and that's just ridiculous for a node shrink + transition to FinFET.


Agreed. I hope it's not an issue with the node but that's the most likely culprit. That's why I'm so keen to see 460 and 470 efficiency numbers. If they also push the limits of their designs in terms of efficiency then it will be a very strong indicator that the node itself poses a problem that GCN exacerbates.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I really think there's just something wrong with 14nm LPP. I mean if Fury (non X) has 92% the efficiency of P10 on 28nm, then surely this must be something to do with 14nm LPP. Even discounting for HBM Fury should still end up with at least 80% of P10's efficiency, and that's just ridiculous for a node shrink + transition to FinFET.


Cause Fury X is a sleeper lol. Most of its Compute performance does not get used up because of Internal bottlenecks. Looks at Nano. Why is it so efficient? Think of P10 as a Turbo car. Small engine but uses as much fuel as a big engine.


----------



## 12Cores

I was expecting more from this card, somewhere between a 390x and Nano to be precise. I think these cards will perform better with more cooling and maybe another 6 pin connector. The question is how much better, >1,500mhz better?

And the elephant in the room is that the green team is still way ahead in efficiency, this cards matches the 1070 is power consumption but is about 45% slower in DirectX 11 titles. All Nvidia has to do now is have the 1060 6gb match the 980 with all kinds of OC headroom and its a rap for this card. I am still intent on getting two of these because I want the higher VSR resolutions so I can game above 2880x1620 and Tahiti has to die at some point, it might as well be now.

I would like to take a moment to thank the 7970 for performing well beyond its time, that card just would give and give when it had no business still be relevant.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Going to lay down a few things one last time...
> 
> - GCN =/= Maxwell or Pascal In terms of architectural components
> - GCN has always had worse P/W than nvidia counterparts
> - From Grenada/Tonga/Fiji P/W is up 1.77x, which AMD stated in the PR slides months ago that P/W increases were approximately 1.8x (special cases up to 2.8x)
> - This is a huge step forward in P/W for AMD; THIS CARD IS STILL GCN, with minor tweaks
> - This card is in the price bracket of the 380x and GTX 960, in which the RX480 is SIGNIFICANTLY faster
> - The price is good
> - The P/W jump is comparable to Nvidia's for their OWN architecture; both being attributed mostly to node changes
> - AMD made not a single official statement hyping this card to be anything more than what we got; all of the hype blame rests on you as forum users and the rumor mills, NOT AMD.
> 
> This is a good card, at a good price. Many people expect the 1060 to drop soon, but until then Nvidia doesn't have a new direct competitor which is good for AMD.
> 
> It's sad that so many users are posting drivel when many guests will come view this site for information and guidance, and be so horribly mislead by nosensical and borderline bipolar comments being made. This card is by no means a failure, and as far as I see this almost exactly what AMD told us they set out to do.


I don't substantially disagree with any of this. I still would have liked to see better perf/watt than the minimum of what was promised but I give them that they did provide exactly what they said they would. It will improve with AIB models and with drivers, I'm quite certain of that. I think it's a good card, I think it will sell well.

I'm not blown away by what AMD or Nvidia has done thus far and that's just the enthusiast part of me talking. The observer still thinks this ends up as a win for AMD relative to their recent releases. The enthusiast part of me wishes it was a reality-shattering triumph because that's what the market-space needs more than anything right now. I'm still keen on seeing the AIB models, and I still think people on 600-series Nvidia and 6/7000 series AMD cards can find a nice and inexpensive upgrade with an AIB 480.


----------



## Lex Luger

Looks like the 14nm GloFo silicon is a complete dud. This should be a surprise to no one. Hopefully AMD goes back to 16nm ASAP for their GPU's. I feel this chip on 16nm would have been at least 25 percent better than it turned out.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Agreed. I hope it's not an issue with the node but that's the most likely culprit. That's why I'm so keen to see 460 and 470 efficiency numbers. If they also push the limits of their designs in terms of efficiency then it will be a very strong indicator that the node itself poses a problem that GCN exacerbates.


I'm really hoping AMD goes back to TSMC for Vega. 16nm FF+ seems to be the clear winner over 14nm LPP at this point, assuming the perf/watt we're seeing is not a result of some serious deficiency in GPU design.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Cause Fury X is a sleeper lol. Most of its Compute performance does not get used up because of Internal bottlenecks. Looks at Nano. Why is it so efficient? Think of P10 as a Turbo car. Small engine but uses as much fuel as a big engine.


Fury non-X dude. Nano is only about 6% more efficient than Fury non-X.

I understand what you're getting at though, but as I said, that just makes things even worse. If AMD has to push P10 to its limits and break its efficiency just to get 970 performance, this doesn't bode well at all for the high end stuff they have planned.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Going to lay down a few things one last time...
> 
> - GCN =/= Maxwell or Pascal In terms of architectural components
> - GCN has always had worse P/W than nvidia counterparts
> - From Grenada/Tonga/Fiji P/W is up 1.77x, which AMD stated in the PR slides months ago that P/W increases were approximately 1.8x (special cases up to 2.8x)
> - This is a huge step forward in P/W for AMD; THIS CARD IS STILL GCN, with minor tweaks
> - This card is in the price bracket of the 380x and GTX 960, in which the RX480 is SIGNIFICANTLY faster
> - The price is good
> - The P/W jump is comparable to Nvidia's for their OWN architecture; both being attributed mostly to node changes
> - AMD made not a single official statement hyping this card to be anything more than what we got; all of the hype blame rests on you as forum users and the rumor mills, NOT AMD.
> 
> This is a good card, at a good price. Many people expect the 1060 to drop soon, but until then Nvidia doesn't have a new direct competitor which is good for AMD.
> 
> It's sad that so many users are posting drivel when many guests will come view this site for information and guidance, and be so horribly mislead by nosensical and borderline bipolar comments being made. This card is by no means a failure, and as far as I see this almost exactly what AMD told us they set out to do.


Someone actually understands what is going on, sadly, many people in this thread don't seem to understand this basic logic. Many of those same bad users I notice post way more often than anyone else as well









You sir, get a +1


----------



## Titanox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> I know, but what I'm telling you is anything that is more than $199 and $229 is not AMDs fault. That is tariffs, taxes, and greed at work that AMD does not cash in on at all.


No, my friend. My country does not charge import duties and customs at 100%. Infact Zauba has them importing it at a declared value of about 200$. I'm still hoping against all hope but the outlook is grim.
Maybe i'll delve into the second hand market. My 7950 is showing artifacts and I just ordered replacement fans because one just broke.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I'm really hoping AMD goes back to TSMC for Vega. 16nm FF+ seems to be the clear winner over 14nm LPP at this point, assuming the perf/watt we're seeing is not a result of some serious deficiency in GPU design.
> Fury non-X dude. Nano is only about 6% more efficient than Fury non-X.
> 
> I understand what you're getting at though, but as I said, that just makes things even worse. If AMD has to push P10 to its limits and break its efficiency just to get 970 performance, this doesn't bode well at all for the high end stuff they have planned.


Does it matter though? I never cared that my 290X used 275W. It was always a beats. Just look at GTX1080 for example. They could have chosen to clock it 200-300MHz lower and get to GTX980 Ti performance but deiced to push it too the max too. Both sides kind of killed overclocking. GCNs true p/w is in DX12.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I'm really hoping AMD goes back to TSMC for Vega. 16nm FF+ seems to be the clear winner over 14nm LPP at this point, assuming the perf/watt we're seeing is not a result of some serious deficiency in GPU design.
> Fury non-X dude. Nano is only about 6% more efficient than Fury non-X.
> 
> I understand what you're getting at though, but as I said, that just makes things even worse. If AMD has to push P10 to its limits and break its efficiency just to get 970 performance, this doesn't bode well at all for the high end stuff they have planned.


The only saving grace for AMD would be that 16nm FF allows them to push Vega to higher clocks, as GCN scales much better than both Maxwell and Pascal. If the clock limitation is due to GCN, we will continue the current trend in the GPU market until AMD can afford to design an entirely new architecture, which is bad for everyone!


----------



## Titanox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Does it matter though? I never cared that my 290X used 275W. It was always a beats. Just look at GTX1080 for example. They could have chosen to clock it 200-300MHz lower and get to GTX980 Ti performance but deiced to push it too the max too. Both sides kind of killed overclocking. GCNs true p/w is in DX12.


It matters in a subtropical climate with relatively expensive electricity. I'm not referring to the card's consumption but the constant air conditioning required during gaming.


----------



## Lex Luger

Sure, power consumption doesn't matter, in winter time when the furnace is running. In the middle of summer, it matter a ton, especially when you have to run air conditioning. I guess if you aren't paying for electricity and you live your mom's basement, then it doesnt matter much. For every extra watt, you need 3 more watts of air conditioning to balance out the extra heat. Thats adds up to lots of money.


----------



## Fuell

People are so focused on p/w its insane, and they're not even focused on that issue properly. To properly judge the RX 480 you have to compare it to what its replacing in the same arch, and its a very nice increase in p/w in that scenario.

So the p/w is actually good for an AMD card, but AMD is behind nVidia in p/w and has been for a long time. As many keep stating GCN =/= Pascal/maxwell.

So moving on from that "issue" thats actually good for AMD, why don't you look at the performance/Price. P/P is where the RX 480 literally nukes everything else on the market. Go over to AdoredTV YT channel and watch that video. Guy is crazy unbiased and he calls it as it is. When you see the P/P of the RX 480 its kind of mind blowing how good it is.

When was the last time you got this tier of performance at anywhere near this price at launch? It's been a very long time. This card is by no means perfect, it has some obvious issues, just like any product, but it is an obvious winner.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Going to lay down a few things one last time...
> 
> - GCN =/= Maxwell or Pascal In terms of architectural components
> - GCN has always had worse P/W than nvidia counterparts
> - From Grenada/Tonga/Fiji P/W is up 1.77x, which AMD stated in the PR slides months ago that P/W increases were approximately 1.8x (special cases up to 2.8x)
> - This is a huge step forward in P/W for AMD; THIS CARD IS STILL GCN, with minor tweaks
> - This card is in the price bracket of the 380x and GTX 960, in which the RX480 is SIGNIFICANTLY faster
> - The price is good
> - The P/W jump is comparable to Nvidia's for their OWN architecture; both being attributed mostly to node changes
> - AMD made not a single official statement hyping this card to be anything more than what we got; all of the hype blame rests on you as forum users and the rumor mills, NOT AMD.
> 
> *This is a good card, at a good price. Many people expect the 1060 to drop soon, but until then Nvidia doesn't have a new direct competitor which is good for AMD.*
> 
> It's sad that so many users are posting drivel when many guests will come view this site for information and guidance, and be so horribly mislead by nosensical and borderline bipolar comments being made. This card is by no means a failure, and as far as I see this almost exactly what AMD told us they set out to do.


Re bold part: the problem is, people have no problem waiting for nVidia, but trying to get them to wait for AMD is much harder. AMD needs to get AIB 480 cards out the door ASAP so the reviews will look much better, and minimize any disruption 1060 would bring to the scene.

Also I don't blame AMD for hyping (because quite honestly they've said very little), and as I've said this card will serve its intended segment just fine, BUT "this is a huge step forward for AMD" just isn't going to cut the mustard when you have fierce competition.

Also I looked up the efficiency numbers, and
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Does it matter though? I never cared that my 290X used 275W. It was always a beats. Just look at GTX1080 for example. They could have chosen to clock it 200-300MHz lower and get to GTX980 Ti performance but deiced to push it too the max too. Both sides kind of killed overclocking. GCNs true p/w is in DX12.


It matters because if P10 is 970 performance at 150W, what kind of TDP would AMD need to reach 1080 performance? How about 1080 Ti performance?


----------



## Lex Luger

The RX 480 is a good design. It seems obvious that that 14nm silicon is garbage for GPU's. Very foolish to not use TMSC. Thats probably why its so cheap.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> People are so focused on p/w its insane, and they're not even focused on that issue properly. To properly judge the RX 480 you have to compare it to what its replacing in the same arch, and its a very nice increase in p/w in that scenario.
> 
> So the p/w is actually good for an AMD card, but AMD is behind nVidia in p/w and has been for a long time. As many keep stating GCN =/= Pascal/maxwell.
> 
> So moving on from that "issue" thats actually good for AMD, why don't you look at the performance/Price. P/P is where the RX 480 literally nukes everything else on the market. Go over to AdoredTV YT channel and watch that video. Guy is crazy unbiased and he calls it as it is. When you see the P/P of the RX 480 its kind of mind blowing how good it is.
> 
> When was the last time you got this tier of performance at anywhere near this price at launch? It's been a very long time. This card is by no means perfect, it has some obvious issues, just like any product, but it is an obvious winner.


We got this kind of performance but at $350 with HD 7870 back in 2012.


----------



## erocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lex Luger*
> 
> Sure, power consumption doesn't matter, in winter time when the furnace is running. In the middle of summer, it matter a ton, especially when you have to run air conditioning. I guess if you aren't paying for electricity and you live your mom's basement, then it doesnt matter much. For every extra watt, you need 3 more watts of air conditioning to balance out the extra heat. Thats adds up to lots of money.


Around 160 watts maximum load? No. Not even close to make any substantial difference.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erocker*
> 
> Around 160 watts maximum load? No. Not even close to make any substantial difference.


People where expecting this card to do 110W.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> People where expecting this card to do 110W.


No that's the 470.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Re bold part: the problem is, *people have no problem waiting for nVidia, but trying to get them to wait for AMD is much harder.* AMD needs to get AIB 480 cards out the door ASAP so the reviews will look much better, and minimize any disruption 1060 would bring to the scene.
> 
> Also I don't blame AMD for hyping (because quite honestly they've said very little), and as I've said this card will serve its intended segment just fine, BUT "this is a huge step forward for AMD" just isn't going to cut the mustard when you have fierce competition.
> 
> Also I looked up the efficiency numbers, and
> It matters because if P10 is 970 performance at 150W, what kind of TDP would AMD need to reach 1080 performance? How about 1080 Ti performance?


I would say the vast majority of people buying GPU's in this price range have little to no knowledge of how a GPU even works. The vast majority in this price segment will generally buy the best card they can get in their budget, or try to balance price/performance. This card is a homerun in this segment. AMD's biggest issue with this card is that, as in the CPU market, many regular joes know the name nvidia, but look at you like a fool if you say AMD, or even worse if you say Advanced Micro Devices.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Re bold part: the problem is, people have no problem waiting for nVidia, but trying to get them to wait for AMD is much harder. AMD needs to get AIB 480 cards out the door ASAP so the reviews will look much better, and minimize any disruption 1060 would bring to the scene.
> 
> Also I don't blame AMD for hyping (because quite honestly they've said very little), and as I've said this card will serve its intended segment just fine, BUT "this is a huge step forward for AMD" just isn't going to cut the mustard when you have fierce competition.
> 
> Also I looked up the efficiency numbers, and
> It matters because if P10 is 970 performance at 150W, what kind of TDP would AMD need to reach 1080 performance? How about 1080 Ti performance?


+1 for saving me some typing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Does it matter though? I never cared that my 290X used 275W. It was always a beats. Just look at GTX1080 for example. They could have chosen to clock it 200-300MHz lower and get to GTX980 Ti performance but deiced to push it too the max too. Both sides kind of killed overclocking. GCNs true p/w is in DX12.


I agree in a sense. I mean, if a card isn't turning off the lights in my house I'm fine, I'm always going to go with performance/dollar first. But like mr. magnek, I'm interested in it as both an exercise and as a useful part of the picture in terms of the overall performance of the architecture. Efficiency isn't my number one concern but it's a 'nice-to-have' and for a card like the 480 it's important in terms of generic buyers with bad PSU's as well as OEM's. All other things being equal the more efficient architecture will likely OC better and perform better under pressure. Still, agree with the sentiment in terms of it not being my main metric in my own buying decisions.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> We got this kind of performance but at $350 with HD 7870 back in 2012.


Which is nowhere near this level of performance and costs much more. ($20 to $150 extra at this price range is a massive increase)


----------



## th3illusiveman

Wow... what a fail... I really think this may be game over for AMD. The fact that they managed to produce a 14nm card that is SLOWER than their own 28nm card with nearly identical specs is absolutely amazing! Incredible really. They have really sunk to the bottom of the barrel.

To add insult to injury the 28nm GTX 980 is faster and uses the same amount of power while being on a node 2 times as big! AMD are done in the high end. If they can't even do this right, i have absolutely no hope that Vega will even challenge whatever Nvidia have up their sleeve. What a waste. I had high hopes AMD could catch up with 14nm, and those hopes are officially expunged.







pathetic.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> It matters because if P10 is 970 performance at 150W, what kind of TDP would AMD need to reach 1080 performance? How about 1080 Ti performance?


I get where your coming from but whos to say Vega is the same? It wouldnt surprise me if Polaris was retooled and tweaked tonga to test 14nm then vega is something new.

Regardless I cant wait for my cards to get here tomorrow to play with them.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> *
> I would say the vast majority of people buying GPU's in this price range have little to no knowledge of how a GPU even works.* The vast majority in this price segment will generally buy the best card they can get in their budget, or try to balance price/performance. This card is a homerun in this segment. AMD's biggest issue with this card is that, as in the CPU market, many regular joes know the name nvidia, but look at you like a fool if you say AMD, or even worse if you say Advanced Micro Devices.


Which means they're even more susceptible to influences not based on facts but emotions and/or bias.

AMD's biggest issue is they simply don't have the mindshare right now, and they needed nothing less than a perfect launch to even try to get people to change their perception. And this was far from a perfect launch.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> Wow... what a fail... I really think this may be game over for AMD. The fact that they managed to produce a 14nm card that is SLOWER than their own 28nm card with nearly identical specs is absolutely amazing! Incredible really. They have really sunk to the bottom of the barrel.
> 
> To add insult to injury the 28nm GTX 980 is faster and uses the same amount of power while being on a node 2 times as big! *AMD are done in the high end.* If they can't even do this right, i have absolutely no hope that Vega will even challenge whatever Nvidia have up their sleeve. What a waste. I had high hopes AMD could catch up with 14nm, and those hopes are officially expunged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pathetic.


the fact that you say something like this in this horrible post shows you have absolutely no idea what market this is aimed at. Please go read the reviews, and try to understand why the general consensus in reviews paints this card in a positive light. Hint: It's because this card in its price range and performance tier is an great card at an amazing price, and its price/performance is quite incredible.


----------



## FLaguy954

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Going to lay down a few things one last time...
> 
> - GCN =/= Maxwell or Pascal In terms of architectural components
> - GCN has always had worse P/W than nvidia counterparts
> - From Grenada/Tonga/Fiji P/W is up 1.77x, which AMD stated in the PR slides months ago that P/W increases were approximately 1.8x (special cases up to 2.8x)
> - This is a huge step forward in P/W for AMD; THIS CARD IS STILL GCN, with minor tweaks
> - This card is in the price bracket of the 380x and GTX 960, in which the RX480 is SIGNIFICANTLY faster
> - The price is good
> - The P/W jump is comparable to Nvidia's for their OWN architecture; both being attributed mostly to node changes
> - AMD made not a single official statement hyping this card to be anything more than what we got; all of the hype blame rests on you as forum users and the rumor mills, NOT AMD.
> 
> This is a good card, at a good price. Many people expect the 1060 to drop soon, but until then Nvidia doesn't have a new direct competitor which is good for AMD.
> 
> It's sad that so many users are posting drivel when many guests will come view this site for information and guidance, and be so horribly mislead by nosensical and borderline bipolar comments being made. This card is by no means a failure, and as far as I see this almost exactly what AMD told us they set out to do.


Thanks for this post. +1 Rep


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> the fact that you say something like this in this horrible post shows you have absolutely no idea what market this is aimed at. Please go read the reviews, and try to understand why the general consensus in reviews paints this card in a positive light. Hint: It's because this card in its price range and performance tier is an great card at an amazing price, and its price/performance is quite incredible.


Thats one thing I find interesting. Reviews have been pretty positive while OCN is just crapping all over it.


----------



## yesitsmario

Kind of interesting that most of the reviewers actually like the card.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Which means they're even more susceptible to influences not based on facts but emotions and/or bias.
> 
> AMD's biggest issue is they simply don't have the mindshare right now, and they needed nothing less than a perfect launch to even try to get people to change their perception. And this was far from a perfect launch.


At best average joes in this market segment will likely read reviews... Scratch that, they will skim or skip to conclusion section most of the time. And reviews are looking good for this card. I can't see many average joe buyers looking into this card and walking away with a bad impression.

The launch may not be perfect, but staying away from forums like OCN and just reading the reviews and watching videos, things seem quite positive...


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Thats one thing I find interesting. Reviews have been pretty positive while OCN is just crapping all over it.


It's important to parse the thread to see those who are critical or curious about aspects of the card versus people with naked bias who are just spewing rubbish for the sake of noise. The former has been more prevalent though I won't deny that there has been a hefty serving of the latter.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

People here these days do not fall on $200 price point anymore. We have evolved to wasting more money then needed.


----------



## Lex Luger

It's a good card for the price, but if AMD had used 16FF, they could of charged a lot more because the card would of been much better.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lex Luger*
> 
> It's a good card for the price, but if AMD had used 16FF, they could of charged a lot more because the card would of been much better.


I am pretty sure they have to use GF because of the history thing. Could be wrong though.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Re bold part: the problem is, people have no problem waiting for nVidia, but trying to get them to wait for AMD is much harder. AMD needs to get AIB 480 cards out the door ASAP so the reviews will look much better, and minimize any disruption 1060 would bring to the scene.
> 
> *Also I don't blame AMD for hyping (because quite honestly they've said very little), and as I've said this card will serve its intended segment just fine, BUT "this is a huge step forward for AMD" just isn't going to cut the mustard when you have fierce competition.*
> 
> Also I looked up the efficiency numbers, and
> It matters because if P10 is 970 performance at 150W, what kind of TDP would AMD need to reach 1080 performance? How about 1080 Ti performance?


You're one of the few people who have actually made some good posts in this thread, so that comment was never really for you and a select few others.

It is a big step forward, and Nvidia is definitely ahead, but a revision of GCN was never the answer. Smaller budget, less market/mindshare than Nvidia, less behind the scenes pull for developers, and their investment in consoles/DX12 have pretty much solidified a singular track they can take. There is no way AMD will catch up until we see a completely new architecture. The only other option as I previously stated is if 16nm FF @ TSMC can magically allow Vega to clock above and beyond 1500, there is no way they will compete directly with the 1080/1080ti/new Titan.

AMD has comparable or better cards in almost all price brackets if you are willing to forgo power usage, and the fact that people do almost no research or fact finding for themselves seriously bothers me. It paint's a terrible picture for AMD that most of the time isn't true, this is not what a large enthusiast PC site should portrait.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lex Luger*
> 
> It's a good card for the price, but if AMD had used 16FF, they could of charged a lot more because the card would of been much better.


There is currently not a single shred of evidence to prove this statement, and there won't be until we see an AMD card built on TSMC 16nm FF


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> *People here* these days do not fall on $200 price point anymore. We have evolved to wasting more money then needed.


People here... Well the vast majority of the market buys in the sub $300 market segment, and whats the absolute hands down best card in this segment as of right now? Well thats easy, the RX 480 of coarse.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Thats one thing I find interesting. Reviews have been pretty positive while OCN is just crapping all over it.


How else would they keep getting free samples?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> People here... Well the vast majority of the market buys in the sub $300 market segment, and whats the absolute hands down best card in this segment as of right now? Well thats easy, the RX 480 of coarse.


You are right about the market, problem being most people as you already stated buy from that sub $300 market meaning they already have 970s/290s/290x's/390s/390s etc meaning this is a side grade at best.


----------



## DrPhilGood

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yesitsmario*
> 
> Kind of interesting that most of the reviewers actually like the card.


It's a good card for the price (p/w aside). The problem for us here at OCN is that we were hoping for something that could somehow compete with the 980ti/1070 when overclocked, seeing as how there's a big AMD sized hole in that price/performance segment. Most reviewers probably did not have this preconception, so they appreciate the card for what it is.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lex Luger*
> 
> It's a good card for the price, but if AMD had used 16FF, they could of charged a lot more because the card would of been much better.


Nothing better than good old armchair engineering right there.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Thats one thing I find interesting. Reviews have been pretty positive while OCN is just crapping all over it.


The OCN community has higher standards than typical PC users.


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> The OCN community has higher standards than typical PC users.


Yeah...that must be it.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> Wow... what a fail post I am making...........The fact that they managed to produce a 14nm card that is SLOWER than their own 28nm card with nearly identical specs is absolutely amazing! Incredible really. They have really sunk to the bottom of the barrel.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DrPhilGood*
> 
> It's a good card for the price (p/w aside). The problem for us here at OCN is that we were hoping for something that could somehow compete with the 980ti/1070 when overclocked, seeing as how there's a big AMD sized hole in that price/performance segment. Most reviewers probably did not have this preconception, so they appreciate the card for what it is.


Yes we live in a magical land of unicorns where a $200 card was expected to compete with top tier cards.

oh gosh..............


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I think people wanted HD 4870. Remember HD 4870 was $300 vs $400 GTX260. What AMD has here is HD 4830.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DrPhilGood*
> 
> It's a good card for the price (p/w aside). The problem for us here at OCN is that we were hoping for something that could somehow compete with the 980ti/1070 when overclocked, seeing as how there's a big AMD sized hole in that price/performance segment. Most reviewers probably did not have this preconception, so they appreciate the card for what it is.


But you could flip it around and say theres an nvidia sized hole in this price/performance segment. But that is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. You said most reviewers appreciate the card for what it is, the same any logical person should...


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> But you could flip it around and say theres an nvidia sized hole in this price/performance segment. But that is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. You said most reviewers appreciate the card for what it is, the same any logical person should...


Is it just OCN that are reacting like this?

Card seems to be getting a positive response from reviewers and potential customers.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I think people wanted HD 4870. Remember HD 4870 was $300 vs $400 GTX260. What AMD has here is HD 4830.


people wanted the world, and when AMD only had a graphics card people started carrying on like a child that lost it's favourite toy.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> The OCN community has higher standards than typical PC users.


To many people spending time in that secret Jen Huang shrine section that opens when you get your overclocked account maybe.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes we live in a magical land of unicorns where a $200 card was expected to compete with top tier cards.
> 
> oh gosh..............*


Except we did for a few days there over the span of a 150 page thread


----------



## lombardsoup

Its a good entry level card at a low price

Why are we whining again?


----------



## th3illusiveman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To which card are you referring?


R9 390 has the same specs.... Its 28nm this is 14nm, This has improved color compression while lower the bandwidth advantage the 390 has and yet it's still slower. It's slower than my 290x in some games... my 3 years old card... That is an absolute fail.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> the fact that you say something like this in this horrible post shows you have absolutely no idea what market this is aimed at. Please go read the reviews, and try to understand why the general consensus in reviews paints this card in a positive light. Hint: It's because this card in its price range and performance tier is an great card at an amazing price, and its price/performance is quite incredible.


It's price range will mean nothing when Nvidia obliterates it with the 1060.They are still winning with their 970 lol.


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> R9 390 has the same specs.... Its 28nm this is 14nm, This has improved color compression while lower the bandwidth advantage the 390 has and yet it's still slower. It's slower than my 290x in some games... my 3 years old card... That is an absolute fail.
> It's price range will mean nothing when Nvidia obliterates it with the 1060.They are still winning with their 970 lol.


by the time the 1060 hits i suspect the amd drivers will have matured a little and it will bench higher then it does now


----------



## th3illusiveman

People forget just how important a node shrink is in terms of performance and just how badly AMD missed the mark.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> R9 390 has the same specs.... Its 28nm this is 14nm, This has improved color compression while lower the bandwidth advantage the 390 has and yet it's still slower. It's slower than my 290x in some games... my 3 years old card... That is an absolute fail.
> It's price range will mean nothing when Nvidia obliterates it with the 1060.They are still winning with their 970 lol.


less cores, far less power consumption, = improvements.

970..........mhm take the goggles off.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ubbernewb*
> 
> by the time the 1060 hits i suspect the amd drivers will have matured a little and it will bench higher then it does now


Of course, this same trolling happens on every AMD card release, then within a couple of months drivers and AIB cards significantly improve the card.

By then every man and his dog has already decided they are garbage though lol.

The Shills and pessimists have therefore succeeded.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Forgetting Nvidia. AMD was able to match a card with 2 x ROP, 2 x ACE, 2 x Memory Interface and with less CUs. I think P10 is impressive for price. You have to keep in mind Sub $200 cards are the worse when it comes to showing off the architecture/ process. I mean compare GTX 960 and GTX980. GTX960 is a terrible card.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> R9 390 has the same specs.... Its 28nm this is 14nm, This has improved color compression while lower the bandwidth advantage the 390 has and yet it's still slower. It's slower than my 290x in some games... my 3 years old card... That is an absolute fail.
> It's price range will mean nothing when Nvidia obliterates it with the 1060.They are still winning with their 970 lol.


Didn't realize 4 less CU's, half the rops, less TMU's, and lower bandwidth are the same specs. You could have fooled me









I don't even know why I'm still posting, so many users have no clue what they're talking about. Deaf ears everywhere.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Didn't realize 4 less CU's, half the rops, less TMU's, and lower bandwidth are the same specs. You could have fooled me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know why I'm still posting, so many users have no clue what they're talking about. Deaf ears everywhere.


Exactly. The amount of ignorance is astounding.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Forgetting Nvidia. AMD was able to match a card with 2 x ROP, 2 x ACE, 2 x Memory Interface and with less CUs. I think P10 is impressive for price. You have to keep in mind Sub $200 cards are the worse when it comes to showing off the architecture/ process. I mean compare GTX 960 and GTX980. GTX960 is a terrible card.


^

But ring your doomsday bells people AMD IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> R9 390 has the same specs.... Its 28nm this is 14nm, This has improved color compression while lower the bandwidth advantage the 390 has and yet it's still slower. It's slower than my 290x in some games... my 3 years old card... That is an absolute fail.


Reference model without any driver revisions:


----------



## deskiller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Why is newegg saying that estimated arrival date for next tuesday? What the..


I was told by chat support that newegg is doing inventory count for two days. saying order wont ship out until friday....

who thought is was a great idea to do this during a holiday season and new GPU release.


----------



## cainy1991

Anyone have any info on when the custom cards are due?

I have seen the three designs from MSI, Sapphire and Asus, but as far as I'm aware there is no ETA?

That sapphire cheese grater looks rather snappy in black


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fuell*
> 
> At best average joes in this market segment will likely read reviews... Scratch that, they will skim or skip to conclusion section most of the time. And reviews are looking good for this card. I can't see many average joe buyers looking into this card and walking away with a bad impression.
> 
> The launch may not be perfect, but staying away from forums like OCN and just reading the reviews and watching videos, things seem quite positive...


I'd actually wager your average joe just asks his "tech savvy super smart e1337 gamer" friend for advice, and guess what he's gonna say 75% of the time?

But yes for the average joes who actually do read reviews, the 480 would at least leave a positive first impression. Like I said though, all it takes is one simple "dude I heard nVidia's gonna come out with like something awesome called the 1060 or something" to sway them. Which is why I said the best thing AMD can (and should) do right now is to release the floodgate on AIB cards and rack up as many positive reviews as possible before the 1060 onslaught.


----------



## Fuell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *th3illusiveman*
> 
> R9 390 has the same specs.... Its 28nm this is 14nm, This has improved color compression while lower the bandwidth advantage the 390 has and yet it's still slower. It's slower than my 290x in some games... my 3 years old card... That is an absolute fail.
> It's price range will mean nothing when Nvidia obliterates it with the 1060.They are still winning with their 970 lol.


So the GTX 1060 is gonna release and destroy the 980ti is it? I'll keep that in mind. Oh wait you think thats an unfair comparison? Oh gee, you don't say









Do yourself a bit of good and actually look at the facts and market segment this chip is in. Also nvidia still winning with 970? the RX 480 is about equal or better the majority of the time and in some cases like DX12 comes within spitting distance of a 980. So no, nvidia is not beating a RX 480 with a 970, and given the 970 being priced well above the RX 480's market segment, the RX 480 is the undeniable winner in this comparison. Things might get tricky if prices on 970 tank, but for now, the RX 480 is by far the better card, and it costs significantly less.


----------



## DrPhilGood

At this point, I think if AIBs can match 980/nano levels of performance for ~$280 it would be a good upgrade for people like myself still running a 290. Not too bothered about the power draw. Guess we'll see in a couple weeks.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I'd actually wager your average joe just asks his "tech savvy super smart e1337 gamer" friend for advice, and *guess what he's gonna say 75% of the time?*
> 
> But yes for the average joes who actually do read reviews, the 480 would at least leave a positive first impression. Like I said though, all it takes is one simple "dude I heard nVidia's gonna come out with like something awesome called the 1060 or something" to sway them. Which is why I said the best thing AMD can (and should) do right now is to release the floodgate on AIB cards and rack up as many positive reviews as possible before the 1060 onslaught.


BUY THAT 960 BUDDY!


----------



## NicksTricks007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> You are right about the market, problem being most people as you already stated buy from that sub $300 market meaning they already have 970s/290s/290x's/390s/390s etc meaning this is a side grade at best.


Only thing, most people that own those cards you listed (unless they got them used) weren't shopping in the sub $300 market to begin with. Cheapest card of those was the 970 at $350ish iirc. This card is aimed more at the 280X/960 owners, in which case it has already been pointed out that the 480 beats handily.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

(speculation) The GTX 1060 will end up being the card we were hoping for plus 5-10% in all metrics except perf/$.


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> (speculation) The GTX 1060 will end up being the card we were hoping for plus 5-10% in all metrics except perf/$.


Needs to be at or sub $300, or forget about it


----------



## 12Cores

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DrPhilGood*
> 
> At this point, I think if AIBs can match 980/nano levels of performance for ~$280 it would be a good upgrade for people like myself still running a 290. Not too bothered about the power draw. Guess we'll see in a couple weeks.


THIS


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> People where expecting this card to do 110W.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> No that's the 470.


No, the rumor/expectation was 110W for the 480 at gaming load.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HGooper*
> 
> Latest leak from chiphell, RX480 comes along with manual, 1*10W full load on gaming,* the leaker is still waiting for official driver so no bench yet.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Make no mistake i'm not saying gcn is bad or anything, it's actually better than everything. but from p/w and dx11 point of view i think they have hit a wall. that's why muti die approach. from that perspective they need to ditch gcn, start new only incorporate goods from gcn.
> 
> this card is good for the price, but from tech it's meh.
> 
> Edit : *seems like it's locked to 110w.*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slavovid*
> 
> *The thing is if it consumes 110W* and does a set amount of Mining / h then doubling the power consumption for 15% OC seems like a bad idea for wouldn't it make less profit / hour
> Double the power consumption of a 6+8 pin AIB version getting +20% seems not so great.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to get more reference cards / rigs rather than less cards but AIB versions not only they will cost extra 10-15% to buy but also will consume a lot more power for just 10-20% better mining ?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buris*
> 
> How is it a hype train, I'm basing my information on fact.
> 
> Things we know about the RX 480
> 
> *100-110W usage at full load (tested)*
> 70c hottest during thermal tests on blower cooler (video proof)--> some report 60c under full load
> 1500Mhz OC reported by various reviewers and independent sources
> 14nm, should be able to clock into the 1600's when adjusted for voltage if we see 1080/1070's hitting 2000mhz.
> .


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Doesn't even need to be unlocked. 2048 cores at 1.2-1.3Ghz is still great. *110W TDP is something to lust for*.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> meh, 390x performance for 230$ *on 110w is already impressive*. anything else is just a bonus. but fake hype went too much out of hand.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buris*
> 
> The RX 480 is rumored to *use about 110w under load* and be around 60c on a stock cooler... That's pretty damn good. If that's true, then I'll be purchasing one for my roommate, and one for myself!


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> Needs to be at or sub $300, or forget about it


It'll come in at $250-270. $300+ for AIB, no funder's edition.


----------



## cainy1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> (speculation) The GTX 1060 will end up being the card we were hoping for plus 5-10% in all metrics except perf/$.


But even with how disappointing the 480 is I for one just cannot get excited about an Nvidia card they just over price sooo bad here.
For example the gtx 980 is still over $600 here and that includes the recent price drop.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Overall I still think its a decent card. It provides 290 or better performance at $200, which isn't earth shattering but it is much more readily available than used 290s and EOL 970s. It also uses a GPU that is purpose built for mid range offerings, and thus it doesn't suffer from the downsides of repurposing a high end GPU to mid range cards such as high power consumption and expensive manufacturing. It's really all you need for mainstream 60hz 1080P gaming and has a limited capacity for 1440p gaming. It's in stock everywhere and it has no current main competitor from NVIDIA, so it will sell a lot. My only big grievance is the existence of the 8GB version; the extra RAM adds little to the practical value of the card and performance in graphics settings it will be used at while charging more.

Even though the RX 480 looks great (in my opinion), I think Polaris/Vega as a whole is looking a lot less sunny. The RX 480 is performing more like Hawaii PRO ported to 14nm than something that is a beneficiary of a serious hardware revision of GCN. The per core performance gain is barely worth mentioning and the p/w level is still that of 28nm cards from NVIDA and AMD (Nano, 380X undervolted)


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> BUY THAT 960 BUDDY!


Joe: Dude but I heard like, nVidia sucks at DX12 and this eh sink thingamajig whatever and AMD owns them at it
1337 gamer: Oh yeah sorry didn't realize you were into those things. Well there's always the 1070, which is FASTER THAN TITAN X FOR LITERALLY LESS THAN HALF THE MONEYS. How can you not like a card like that?
Joe: Uhh dude, I told you $300 MAX budget
1337 gamer: Oh ok, in that case just wait for the 1060, heard it was gonna be like $250 or something (and then mumbles under his breath "goddamn casuals")
Joe: What about this RX 480 card that just got released? It's like $250 for EIGHT GIGA BYTES OF RAM holy bejesus
1337 gamer: Well you don't want AMD trust me I used to have a 2900 XT and that thing sucked, couldn't even match the 8800 GTS from nVidia, and this was like 9 years ago.
Joe: I didn't understand half of what you said, but it sounds like nVidia has been better than AMD since 9 years ago. I think I'll wait and go with nVidia then. Thanks dude.
1337 gamer: Anytime bud *later goes to bank and cashes check for $0.50 from nVidia*


----------



## SuperZan

I wish that conversation wasn't so plausible. I'm pretty sure you could hear a version of that at any PC hardware shop in the world.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> (speculation) The GTX 1060 will end up being the card we were hoping for plus 5-10% in all metrics except perf/$.



6 GB
980 performance
$250
Pick two.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> (speculation) The GTX 1060 will end up being the card we were hoping for plus 5-10% in all metrics except perf/$.


I feel the same way. It will end up faster than 480 while consuming half the power.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Joe: Dude but I heard like, nVidia sucks at DX12 and this eh sink thingamajig whatever and AMD owns them at it
> 1337 gamer: Oh yeah sorry didn't realize you were into those things. Well there's always the 1070, which is FASTER THAN TITAN X FOR LITERALLY LESS THAN HALF THE MONEYS. How can you not like a card like that?
> Joe: Uhh dude, I told you $300 MAX budget
> 1337 gamer: Oh ok, in that case just wait for the 1060, heard it was gonna be like $250 or something (and then mumbles under his breath "goddamn casuals")
> Joe: What about this RX 480 card that just got released? It's like $250 for EIGHT GIGA BYTES OF RAM holy bejesus
> 1337 gamer: Well you don't want AMD trust me I used to have a 2900 XT and that thing sucked, couldn't even match the 8800 GTS from nVidia, and this was like 9 years ago.
> Joe: I didn't understand half of what you said, but it sounds like nVidia has been better than AMD since 9 years ago. I think I'll wait and go with nVidia then. Thanks dude.
> 1337 gamer: Anytime bud *later goes to bank and cashes check for $0.50 from nVidia*


3.5/4


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Re bold part: the problem is, people have no problem waiting for nVidia, but trying to get them to wait for AMD is much harder. AMD needs to get AIB 480 cards out the door ASAP so the reviews will look much better, and minimize any disruption 1060 would bring to the scene.
> 
> Also I don't blame AMD for hyping (because quite honestly they've said very little), and as I've said this card will serve its intended segment just fine, BUT "this is a huge step forward for AMD" just isn't going to cut the mustard when you have fierce competition.
> 
> Also I looked up the efficiency numbers, and
> It matters because if P10 is 970 performance at 150W, what kind of TDP would AMD need to reach 1080 performance? How about 1080 Ti performance?


Yup.

I said it time and time again. AMD has to be flawless with their launches, while Nvidia can make mistakes. AMD mistakes are magnified while Nvidia's tend to be minimized. This launch has too many warts and after the initial sell out, people are going to wait for the 1060.

If this card had gtx 980/390x speed at 110 watts, this would be a different story. At 390/970 speed and 150 watts, people will wait.

Remember what I said, on the best thing AMD could do was wait for Pascal to come out and embarrass them by showing them up in reviews. The opposite is also true, since AMD has already shown their hand, if the 1060 comes out faster, with better power consumption and a potentially cheaper price with AMD having already shown it's hand, its game over for AMD in this segment.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 
> 6 GB
> 980 performance
> $250
> Pick two.


I'm going to go with A and C, along with box art of JHH staring you down disapprovingly and pointing to his right, where the 1070's and 1080's will be stocked by Nvidia's requirements. 1060's will only be produced in sufficient quantity to serve as directional pylons herding customers to the Founder's Edition goodness.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> Yup.
> 
> I said it time and time again. AMD has to be flawless with their launches, while Nvidia can make mistakes. AMD mistakes are magnified while Nvidia's tend to be minimized. This launch has too many warts and after the initial sell out, people are going to wait for the 1060.
> 
> If this card had gtx 980/390x speed at 110 watts, this would be a different story. At 390/970 speed and 150 watts, people will wait.
> 
> Remember what I said, on the best thing AMD could do was wait for Pascal to come out and embarrass them by showing them up in reviews. The opposite is also true, since AMD has already shown their hand, if the 1060 comes out faster, with better power consumption and a potentially cheaper price with AMD having already shown it's hand, its game over for AMD in this segment.


So enthusiasts actually believe that buying any X60 card from Nvidia over the past few generations has ever been a good investment?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 
> 6 GB
> 980 performance
> $250
> Pick two.


With 1280SP I think not. GTX1080 is 20% faster with 10% less Cuda Cores. Same Memory bandwidth.
1060 will have 60% less SP and less memory bandwidth. For reference GTX960 could not beat GTX780 nor 770 at launch.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> The opposite is also true, since AMD has already shown their hand, if the 1060 comes out faster, with better power consumption and a potentially cheaper price with AMD having already shown it's hand, its game over for AMD in this segment.


I dont see nvidia making it cheaper if its faster. No way in hell.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> I dont see nvidia making it cheaper if its faster. No way in hell.


Exactly, it's going to be the same as every other X60 card, a pile of junk that is enough to do well in benchmarks at the time and becomes obsolete far quicker than it's AMD rival.

Nvidia do it every generation, and the same fools keep buying them.........'but it uses less power' LOL


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> So enthusiasts actually believe that buying any X60 card from Nvidia over the past few generations has ever been a good investment?


RX 480 is the perfect card for your friend. You do not have to recommend X60 Nvidia GPUs anymore. Yes 960 was terrible but it sold so....


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Exactly, it's going to be the same as every other X60 card, a pile of junk that is enough to do well in benchmarks at the time and becomes obsolete far quicker than it's AMD rival.
> 
> Nvidia do it every generation, and the same fools keep buying them.........'but it uses less power' LOL


If people are lucky they will only charge them $50 more for the founders edition.

Gotta pay for the privilege of using a reference founder edition.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> RX 480 is the perfect card for your friend. You do not have to recommend X60 Nvidia GPUs anymore. Yes 960 was terrible but it sold so....


Exactly, all X60 cards were crap (560/760/960), we all know it, yet people are stomping the AMD into the gutter because of power consumption.

In other words telling people to buy a 1060 instead. The nvidia option will be expensive, and under powered over time.

Enthusiasts claim to want a more fair market and competition, but they won't get behind the underdog even when they should.

If everyone trolls them all over the net, what are the mainstream buyers going to do? Buy X60 all over again.

Sure the X60 will do them fine, but so would the 480, and we need AMD to get marketshare.

marketshare = wealth

wealth = better products

better products = happy enthusiast.


----------



## Nvidia Fanboy

Made it almost 1/4 through all the replies. Without reading the rest of it, I just have one question for everyone. Why is it so disappointing that it was expected to have 980 performance but instead has closer to 970 performance? The 980 is at best 15% faster than the 970. Wow. Big woop.

Did everyone just conveniently forget that this is the approximate truth: 980>290X>970>290? But the real kicker? The 980 is barely faster than the 290. Less than 20%. So everyone is going out of their minds for a less than 20% difference between expectation and reality?

I think most people here need to raise their standards when it comes to what classifies as a significant performance increase. Anything less than 50% difference is simply not that huge. Anything less than 100% is not even worth an upgrade for me.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> Yup.
> 
> *I said it time and time again. AMD has to be flawless with their launches, while Nvidia can make mistakes. AMD mistakes are magnified while Nvidia's tend to be minimized.* This launch has too many warts and after the initial sell out, people are going to wait for the 1060.
> 
> If this card had gtx 980/390x speed at 110 watts, this would be a different story. At 390/970 speed and 150 watts, people will wait.
> 
> Remember what I said, on the best thing AMD could do was wait for Pascal to come out and embarrass them by showing them up in reviews. The opposite is also true, since AMD has already shown their hand, if the 1060 comes out faster, with better power consumption and a potentially cheaper price with AMD having already shown it's hand, its game over for AMD in this segment.


Thanks, pretty much took the words right out of my mouth.

Now I'm not saying it's fair (it isn't, as witnessed by Forceman's law), but that's just reality. Now AMD could either pull another 4870 level upset, or they could _talk_ about pulling another 4870 level of upset while failing to deliver on it, and make themselves look bad.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I'm going to go with A and C, along with box art of JHH staring you down disapprovingly and pointing to his right, where the 1070's and 1080's will be stocked by Nvidia's requirements. 1060's will only be produced in sufficient quantity to serve as directional pylons herding customers to the Founder's Edition goodness.


You just made me realize one thing: Founders Edition would indeed be too pompous for a card in 1060's segment. So instead of having a Founders Edition, the 1060 3GB edition will be called the *Casual Edition*. Why Casual Edition? Because it's for all your _casual_ gaming needs, perfect for the budget conscious yet demanding gamer. Pre-order yours today and reserve a copy on launch day!

Sorry I







too much and got








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> 3.5/4


What's a guy gotta do to get 4/4 around here? Goddamn I swear it was easier trying to keep a >3.5/4 GPA.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I just got home from work and I can say without a doubt (having read the initial numbers) that the AMD hate train is going to be running into overdrive unfortunately. Firstly, I will admit to being a bit underwhelmed with what I am seeing out of the 480. The reason I am still much more underwhelmed with what Nvidia gave us in the 1080 comes down to price, which is the same reason I am mostly OK with the performance of this card. At $200 this kind of performance is still very significant and until we see where the 1060 lands (in price and performance) there's no question the 480 has absolutely no competition at all. We are talking about a card that is slightly faster than the 970 after all. That said, the OCing is abysmal, there's no two ways around that fact. I honestly expected at least 1400MHz up until very recently when the troubling leaks started popping up that suggested difficulty reaching even 1350MHz. In fact, last night I posted that the news about OC's was troubling and am sad to say that they seem to be accurate. I mean, there's no way to spin OC's of less than 5%, especially for a card that has a brand new OCing utility that looks very nice indeed (but seems altogether rather worthless considering the negligible headroom this card seems to have). It is simply undeniable (even for an "AMD fanboy" like me that Nvidia is just massively ahead in terms of clock speed on 14/16nm. They were way ahead with Maxwell and they have extended even that huge lead it would seem. Of course I will wait until we get more numbers here on OCN (and the all important AIB cards) as the guys around here tend to do a lot better than the reviewers but they would have to do a LOT better to make this card actually exciting from a pure performance standpoint (it is already very good for its price).

As I said last night, this pretty much confirms that the RX 480 is a solidly "GOOD" card; one that brings high end performance down to a rock bottom price and should be a great upgrade for anybody on current budget cards or even high end cards from a few years ago (pre-Maxwell, Fiji). It is not however a "GREAT" card a la the 4870 like many of us were hoping it would be. That may be just a case of too high of expectations, but in the face of the very successful and powerful Pascal cards out now its hard to get too excited about GTX 970 performance even at $200. If the card really did clock to 1500MHz+ I think it would have been one of the breakthrough cards of this decade, but as it stands, it clearly isn't. Its just kind of status quo for AMD in that they continually manage to underwhelm with every new release (even if it is still a good card).

Let the Nvidia-loving, AMD hating flood gates open up. I am sure the usual suspects are having absolute celebrations right now, with confetti and fireworks and everything... :/


----------



## 12Cores

Apparently the AIB cards are proving to be much better overclockers, going hang in there for another few weeks and see what is on tap from Sapphire, MSI and Asus. This card will look a lot different above 1.5ghz, I just hope the prices stay under $260. I don't believe that the 970 really had any reference cards, most of us buy AIB cards, so these reference results will mean little to nothing in a few weeks like they always do.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Exactly, all X60 cards were crap, we all know it, yet people are stomping the AMD into the gutter because of power consumption.
> 
> In other words telling people to buy a 1060 instead. The nvidia option will be expensive, and under powered over time.
> 
> Enthusiasts claim to want a more fair market and competition, but they won't get behind the underdog even when they should.
> 
> If everyone trolls them all over the net, what are idiots going to do? Buy X60 all over again.
> 
> Sure the X60 will dot hem fine, but so would the 480, and we need AMD to get marketshare.
> 
> marketshare = wealth
> 
> wealth = better products
> 
> better products = happy enthusiast.


People should not stomp AMD into the gutter. The 480 is a good card from a mainstream consumer point. The problem with the 480 is its high power draw. Something failed since they were rumored to be lower than the TDP value and as we can see that did not come true. This effects AMD with OEM comps with crap 400 Power supplies. As an enthusiast this also makes me call out AMD due to less headroom for overclocking. AMD lost the last round to Maxwell due to power consumption especially at mainstream level. Something is not right with this gpu either architecture or gloflo process. Sure AIB will come out with better OC cards but the thorn in the side will be power consumption.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 
> 6 GB
> 980 performance
> $250
> Pick two.


A and B. Except faster than the 980 by 5-10% (stock), much like the 1070 and Titan X. Pascal is actually a very impressive leap, as it easily wins out against 580 vs 680 and 780 Ti vs 980, or at least it looks that way because of its higher out of the box clocks.


----------



## NuclearPeace

I miss the days where AIB cards were available from day 1. Now you have the whole "Founders Edition" bollocks from NVIDIA and AMD also releasing their reference cooled cards first.


----------



## PsYcHo29388

Looks to me like AMD loses this gen.

Can consume more than 150w at times with less than GTX970/R9 390 level performance. GTX 1070 consumes nearly the same amount of power and provides much greater performance. At this point I have no hope for vega if it's gonna take double the wattage just to compare to a GTX 1080.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> I miss the days where AIB cards were available from day 1. Now you have the whole "Founders Edition" bollocks from NVIDIA and AMD also releasing their reference cooled cards first.


Well at least AMD got it right. They've priced their reference cards below AIB versions instead of the Founders Edition *equine feces*, so AIB cards won't start at an inflated MSRP nor would partners have a reason to justify those prices.


----------



## hollowtek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Joe: Dude but I heard like, nVidia sucks at DX12 and this eh sink thingamajig whatever and AMD owns them at it
> 1337 gamer: Oh yeah sorry didn't realize you were into those things. Well there's always the 1070, which is FASTER THAN TITAN X FOR LITERALLY LESS THAN HALF THE MONEYS. How can you not like a card like that?
> Joe: Uhh dude, I told you $300 MAX budget
> 1337 gamer: Oh ok, in that case just wait for the 1060, heard it was gonna be like $250 or something (and then mumbles under his breath "goddamn casuals")
> Joe: What about this RX 480 card that just got released? It's like $250 for EIGHT GIGA BYTES OF RAM holy bejesus
> 1337 gamer: Well you don't want AMD trust me I used to have a 2900 XT and that thing sucked, couldn't even match the 8800 GTS from nVidia, and this was like 9 years ago.
> Joe: I didn't understand half of what you said, but it sounds like nVidia has been better than AMD since 9 years ago. I think I'll wait and go with nVidia then. Thanks dude.
> 1337 gamer: Anytime bud *later goes to bank and cashes check for $0.50 from nVidia*


Still a better story than twilight.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *12Cores*
> 
> Apparently the AIB cards are proving to be much better overclockers, going hang in there for another few weeks and see what is on tap from Sapphire, MSI and Asus. This card will look a lot different above 1.5ghz, I just hope the prices stay under $260. I don't believe that the 970 really had any reference cards, most of us buy AIB cards, so these reference results will mean little to nothing in a few weeks like they always do.


Performance is great once overclocked according to this review, and it's only at 1350mhz.

(Scroll down to OC results)

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

Initially I was disappointed but after seeing this, and hearing Kyle from HardOCP's news from AIB's regarding cards ranging from 1480-1600mhz peak overclocks, I suddenly realised this is an awesome card for the price compared to their last generation, and compared to cards like the 970 with gimped vram and peaked driver optimisation.

Better drivers over time will just be a bonus and I'm confident going on history that will also happen.

This card should be a real hit with those who won't whine about power consumption.


----------



## JohnLai

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> It is not however a "GREAT" card a la the 4870 like many of us were hoping it would be. That may be just a case of too high of expectations, but in the face of the very successful and powerful Pascal cards out now its hard to get too excited about GTX 970 performance even at $200. If the card really did clock to 1500MHz+ I think it would have been one of the breakthrough cards of this decade, but as it stands, it clearly isn't. Its just kind of status quo for AMD in that they continually manage to underwhelm with every new release (even if it is still a good card).
> 
> Let the Nvidia-loving, AMD hating flood gates open up. I am sure the usual suspects are having absolute celebrations right now, with confetti and fireworks and everything... :/


Well, AMD seems to get wrong product, wrong pricing, wrong time, wrong power efficiency.

During 4870 time, ATI was the first to use GDDR5 (new memory), 55nm fabrication (new process), H.264 UVD2 support and launched at correct time (nvidia doesnt even have GDDR5 and 55nm product ready) and price (way cheaper than GTX260, gtx280 was the king of the period).

But 480 seems to be launched in totally wrong order.
If one wanna reminisce 4870 success, RX 480 ought to be launched last year at $200 with HBM, 14nm, 8 to 12bit HEVC decode and compete with Nvidia GTX970.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> Looks to me like AMD loses this gen.
> 
> Can consume more than 150w at times with less than GTX970/R9 390 level performance. GTX 1070 consumes nearly the same amount of power and provides much greater performance. At this point I have no hope for vega if it's gonna take double the wattage just to compare to a GTX 1080.


You should not foreshadow the 480 to Vega. It is a different Architecture IP9 and hopefully the GLoflo process will have more maturity.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> Looks to me like AMD loses this gen.
> 
> Can consume more than 150w at times with less than GTX970/R9 390 level performance. GTX 1070 consumes nearly the same amount of power and provides much greater performance. At this point I have no hope for vega if it's gonna take double the wattage just to compare to a GTX 1080.


Then buy a 1060 when they come out, I'm sure it will be a solid card for a bargain price


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Performance is great once overclocked according to this review, and it's only at 1350mhz.
> 
> (Scroll down to OC results)
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/
> 
> Initially I was disappointed but after seeing this, and hearing Kyle from HardOCP's news from AIB's regarding cards ranging from 1480-1600mhz peak overclocks, I suddenly realised this is an awesome card for the price compared to their last generation, and compared to cards like the 970 with gimped vram and peaked driver optimisation.


Really? If we are talking 1500-1600MHz OC's then that changes everything. The card will go from just good to amazing overnight. At 1600MHz it would destroy a 980 and get pretty much in Fury range. It makes me wonder though, why would anybody ever buy the reference cards at that point, other than price? Speaking of price, all that "amazing" stuff I just said about 1600MHz AIB cards goes out the window if they price them significantly higher than reference. I mean, say Sapphire releases their 480 super duper X or whatever that actually can do 1600MHz at $299. OK, that's still a really great card. But if it creeps up any more than that, like say $349 or so, then it will be far too close to the 1070 which will still annihilate it. So we will have to see, but you bring a glimmer of hope to what has been a pretty gloomy thread thus far...


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Really? If we are talking 1500-1600MHz OC's then that changes everything. The card will go from just good to amazing overnight. At 1600MHz it would destroy a 980 and get pretty much in Fury range. It makes me wonder though, why would anybody ever buy the reference cards at that point, other than price? Speaking of price, all that "amazing" stuff I just said about 1600MHz AIB cards goes out the window if they price them significantly higher than reference. I mean, say Sapphire releases their 480 super duper X or whatever that actually can do 1600MHz at $299. OK, that's still a really great card. But if it creeps up any more than that, like say $349 or so, then it will be far too close to the 1070 which will still annihilate it. So we will have to see, but you bring a glimmer of hope to what has been a pretty gloomy thread thus far...


Modded (cooling swap only) reference board hit 1425, hitting nano performance. Hard to tell with no pool of samples to draw conclusions from, but I feel 1450-1475 is easily within the realm of possibilities. I say we start low as 99% of users on this forum will run with the hype...


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Really? If we are talking 1500-1600MHz OC's then that changes everything. The card will go from just good to amazing overnight. At 1600MHz it would destroy a 980 and get pretty much in Fury range. It makes me wonder though, why would anybody ever buy the reference cards at that point, other than price? Speaking of price, all that "amazing" stuff I just said about 1600MHz AIB cards goes out the window if they price them significantly higher than reference. I mean, say Sapphire releases their 480 super duper X or whatever that actually can do 1600MHz at $299. OK, that's still a really great card. But if it creeps up any more than that, like say $349 or so, then it will be far too close to the 1070 which will still annihilate it. So we will have to see, but you bring a glimmer of hope to what has been a pretty gloomy thread thus far...


It's seems to be scaling like a beast, it's basically Fury X performance at 1350core 9000mem according to those charts. (well a little lower)

I think many cards may have been throttling, and maybe the german site wound up the fan when testing?

Either way those OC results are intriguing I can't wait to see what AIB cards can do.


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Really? If we are talking 1500-1600MHz OC's then that changes everything. The card will go from just good to amazing overnight. At 1600MHz it would destroy a 980 and get pretty much in Fury range. It makes me wonder though, why would anybody ever buy the reference cards at that point, other than price? Speaking of price, all that "amazing" stuff I just said about 1600MHz AIB cards goes out the window if they price them significantly higher than reference. I mean, say Sapphire releases their 480 super duper X or whatever that actually can do 1600MHz at $299. OK, that's still a really great card. But if it creeps up any more than that, like say $349 or so, then it will be far too close to the 1070 which will still annihilate it. So we will have to see, but you bring a glimmer of hope to what has been a pretty gloomy thread thus far...


It's going to be an interesting and fun silicon lottery to watch when people with custom AIB 480's compete to get the faster card. The strix was said ot have 2x 6 pin, so I would believe that in order to compete, the 2 6 pin will probably be the requirement to see how far polaris can go. Only sad thing is that EK's upcoming waterblock wouldn't be able to cool these custom boards.


----------



## Clocknut

The only good thing this card bring is it destroys 970/980/390/390X resale value. I love how this is happening.

Cheap used 980 = well YES


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Modded (cooling swap only) reference board hit 1425, hitting nano performance. Hard to tell with no pool of samples to draw conclusions from, but I feel 1450-1475 is easily within the realm of possibilities. I say we start low as 99% of users on this forum will run with the hype...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> It's seems to be scaling like a beast, it's basically Fury X performance at 1350core 9000mem according to those charts. (well a little lower)


You all need to get your hype straight. Is it a Nano at 1425 or a Fury X at 1350?


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> You all need to get your hype straight. Is it a Nano at 1425 or a Fury X at 1350?


I don't need to do anything.

More OC results for those interested and not just trolling for the sake of it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-amd-radeon-rx-480-review

The card is scaling better than anything from the last few generations from what I'm seeing.


----------



## kaosstar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nvidia Fanboy*
> 
> Made it almost 1/4 through all the replies. Without reading the rest of it, I just have one question for everyone. Why is it so disappointing that it was expected to have 980 performance but instead has closer to 970 performance? The 980 is at best 15% faster than the 970. Wow. Big woop.


AMD basically released a GTX 970, with possibly _worse_ power consumption, but more memory than an Nvidia GTX 970. The problem is, they did it two years later, and on a 14nm node, as opposed to Nvidia's at 28nm. That's pretty disappointing.

And frankly, I don't think the price is all that great. A couple weeks ago there was a GTX970 on Newegg for $225. When the fire sale starts shortly, there will be 970s for <$200 all day long. I'd take a good AIB GTX 970 for 20% lower price over a reference RX480 any day of the week. Max OC to max OC, the 970 will stomp the 480 across the board.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> You all need to get your hype straight. Is it a Nano at 1425 or a Fury X at 1350?


Looking at the benches he linked to, the 1350MHz benchmarks from pcgameshardware.de, it does look a good deal better than I originally thought. If the AIB cards really do manage 1500MHz+ overclocks I could easily see this thing being faster than the Fury X outright. But that is a huge "IF", and the power consumption numbers are unlikely to be pretty at those clocks as well.


----------



## hteng

looks like i'll be switching to green team if i want to upgrade, time to punch a hole in my wallet.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Looking at the benches he linked to, the 1350MHz benchmarks from pcgameshardware.de, it does look a good deal better than I originally thought. If the AIB cards really do manage 1500MHz+ overclocks I could easily see this thing being faster than the Fury X outright. But that is a huge "IF", and the power consumption numbers are unlikely to be pretty at those clocks as well.


Yeah power draw will be huge (sorry earth)

I only game an hour or two a day so not a problem for me, or many casual/mainstream gamers for that matter.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Really? If we are talking 1500-1600MHz OC's then that changes everything. The card will go from just good to amazing overnight. At 1600MHz it would destroy a 980 and get pretty much in Fury range. It makes me wonder though, why would anybody ever buy the reference cards at that point, other than price? Speaking of price, all that "amazing" stuff I just said about 1600MHz AIB cards goes out the window if they price them significantly higher than reference. I mean, say Sapphire releases their 480 super duper X or whatever that actually can do 1600MHz at $299. OK, that's still a really great card. But if it creeps up any more than that, like say $349 or so, then it will be far too close to the 1070 which will still annihilate it. So we will have to see, but you bring a glimmer of hope to what has been a pretty gloomy thread thus far...


Just an observation but you seem to be overhyping this card also. 1600MHz overclock based on a rumor? Boost clock will be 1700MHz+.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> I don't need to do anything.
> 
> More OC results for those interested and not just trolling for the sake of it.
> 
> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-amd-radeon-rx-480-review
> 
> The card is scaling better than anything from the last few generations from what I'm seeing.


Lighten up, it was a joke. Do you not see the humor in the slower overclock beating the faster card?


----------



## SOCOM_HERO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> The 280x is included in this comparison.


Thanks. TTL also had a video with the 7950 not too far behind in performance. I'll stay where I'm at unless I get a reason to upgrade to a 1440p+ monitor. So far, I just can't justify it.


----------



## yesitsmario

I think it's a decent card right now.. AIB cards could make it a great card if it doesn't go past $269.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> Just an observation but you seem to be overhyping this card also. 1600MHz overclock based on a rumor? Boost clock will be 1700MHz+.


I very clearly said IF in that post. I have already laid out my thoughts on this card as we now know it in what I think was a very fair and un-hyped way. What I was responding to there was SPECULATION, and IF that were to be the case it would indeed make a massive difference in my (and other's) opinion of the card.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'm still getting one of these cards to replace my 270X, though I will probably wait for the AIB's at this point...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Looking at the benches he linked to, the 1350MHz benchmarks from pcgameshardware.de, it does look a good deal better than I originally thought. If the AIB cards really do manage 1500MHz+ overclocks I could easily see this thing being faster than the Fury X outright. But that is a huge "IF", and the power consumption numbers are unlikely to be pretty at those clocks as well.


That review had a 4% core overclock and a 10% memory overclock and performance increased 10%? Does that imply it is bandwidth limited? But yikes, 40W more power draw for a 4% overclock is not a good sign for 1400+ cards.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I'm still getting one of these cards to replace my 270X, though I will probably wait for the AIB's at this point...


Someone needs to make an ITX card stat.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> The 280x is included in this comparison.


Meh, not really missing out with my 380x. Once I can get some good fans to feed my 380x more air I can overclock it to around 1130MHz as I know its a good chip from my undervolting.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> That review had a 4% core overclock and a 10% memory overclock and performance increased 10%? Does that imply it is bandwidth limited? *But yikes, 40W more power draw for a 4% overclock is not a good sign for 1400+ cards*.


No, its not at all...


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Performance is still within what i expected, but the most disappointing thing for me is perf/tlops is *gone backwards* even though it's supposed to go *up by 15%*. there's really something wrong with the card, either glofo or drivers IDK. p/w is a upto figure so i won't blame them seeing pascal didn't deliver 2x p/w either. but from technical standpoint the p/w is worse than i thought, it hardly matches maxwell. price is good, and it's only thing that will sell this card.
> 
> another weird thing is this chip is less dense compared to what gp104 did vs 28nm ( GP104 is 75% more dense and Pol10 is 71%) , even though 14nm is supposed to be more dense than 16nm. i wish vega will be on TSMC or kiss goodbye to 1080 performance, let alone 1080ti. also it seems *after hawaii*, every gpu they made is under performing for some reason.
> 
> They also need to ditch that GCN, or they will never beat nvidia in perf/w/mm. it's the time for new clean sheet design incorporating only the good parts from GCN. GCN is only good for vr+consoles where they can use all of its features, but on pc (dx11) it has more unused parts wasting mm^2 and wattage.
> 
> And for the next time, shoot every hayper/fake hyper with a freaking nuke, and *BAN that WCCF*, they did more to the hyping on performance than amd themselves.
> 
> /r


Cough coincidence that everything since Hawaii is based off of tonga? Cough cough those features tho

How much of the efficiency deficiency can be attributed to process? We knew tsmc 16nm was slightly more efficient on a small scale, how would that translate on a larger die?


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> That was completely hypothetical and I seriously doubt we will see that happen. I was just speculating on WHAT IF? There's no doubt that the OC scaling is very good and at 1600MHz you'd be looking at a monster card. Just not likely to happen...


That was my point. Even speculating that which seems very unlikely adds to the hype.

But yes, I do agree scaling is very good, especially for DX12 games. For the price its a good card. If I was in the market for a $200 card, this would definitely be on the top of the list.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> That was my point. Even speculating that which seems very unlikely adds to the hype.
> 
> But yes, I do agree scaling is very good, especially for DX12 games.


So people aren't allowed to speculate based on news allegedly directly from the AIB's now?

Jeez. We better do as you say in case people get on another hype train.


----------



## NuclearPeace

I seriously doubt that the 480 will OC to like 1500+. Will AIBs overclock much better than on reference? Yes, but GCN based architectures tend to increase in power consumption _a lot_ once you start to venture out of the range where most cards operate at. The heat density of Polaris will be its undoing with overclocking.


----------



## magnek

Can we all just stop speculating? The more we hype it up, the more we set ourselves up for disappointment. I hyped Fury X to the moon (in my head, not publicly) and I was soooooooooooooooooo let down by its actual performance. So I've learned my lesson and only "believe it when I see it" now.


----------



## meowth2

sometimes i wonder what amd is thinking... this is why i blame amd for nvidia price gouging


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I'm still getting one of these cards to replace my 270X, though I will probably wait for the AIB's at this point...


The RX 470 might be a better option.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meowth2*
> 
> this is why i blame *worthless anti-trust laws* for nvidia price gouging


FTFY


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> Folks were speculating in the other 1500MHz+ thread. That added to the hype, you disagree? Some posters were commenting about reaching 1070 performance with an overclock.
> I really believe you need to chill out. It's a video card. Why are you so emotionally invested?


But if they take it as fact, it's their problem.

I'm speculating because I'm optimistic, but not expecting. There is a massive difference.

I'm one of the few people actually buying the card, this is what I find funny about these threads.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> AMD basically released a GTX 970, with possibly _worse_ power consumption, but more memory than an Nvidia GTX 970. The problem is, they did it two years later, and on a 14nm node, as opposed to Nvidia's at 28nm. That's pretty disappointing.
> 
> And frankly, I don't think the price is all that great. A couple weeks ago there was a GTX970 on Newegg for $225. When the fire sale starts shortly, there will be 970s for <$200 all day long. I'd take a good AIB GTX 970 for 20% lower price over a reference RX480 any day of the week. Max OC to max OC, the 970 will stomp the 480 across the board.


It really is a matter of expectations. The power consumption I agree with you. But the rest of what you say is a bunch of FUD. Nvidia realeased the 960 about 1.5 years ago at a price of 199. This 480 absolutely blows the 960 out of the water and the 470 will also at a lower price point. You have a right to your opinion but I would never purchase a 970 at this point. DX12 performance is well behind compared to 480. Less VRam and you do know that there was that issue about 3.5 vs 4 . The 480 also has improved dx11 as we see in witcher 3. The 480 will be supported by driver updates going forward I don't think you can makle that claim about the 970. What you are advising is throwing good money to old technology not very sound advice.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Cough coincidence that everything since Hawaii is based off of tonga? Cough cough those features tho
> 
> How much of the efficiency deficiency can be attributed to process? We knew tsmc 16nm was slightly more efficient on a small scale, how would that translate on a larger die?


I know they were based on tonga, but this time it's a major overhaul ffs, it should at least perform same as gcn 3 on perf/tflops. but it's the opposite.


what happened to 15% more perf/cu ? is that without frequency increase or what ? they need to forward not backwards lol.

14nm glofo seems to be the issue here, since it's not even have same density as 16nm, even though it should be more.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The RX 470 might be a better option.


I want as much as an upgrade as I can get for that PC so that I can game on it as well as I can on my main rig but I don't want to spend too much. The 470 would be a good, cheap option that would definitely be an upgrade. But the 480 would be even better (potentially a lot better if AIB's OC worth a damn) and still not break the bank...


----------



## NYU87

I wonder what the average age of the posters in this thread is? Getting emotional over video cards, flinging insults, trolling (nvidia and AMD). I guess video cards have some intrinsic value I'm not seeing.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> I wonder what the average age of the posters in this thread is? Getting emotional over video cards, flinging insults, trolling (nvidia and AMD). I guess video cards have some intrinsic value I'm not seeing.


You can't be talking about me? I admit I was very hopeful for this card (and am pro-AMD generally just because we need good competition in the GPU market) but I think my comments have been pretty fair?


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You can't be talking about me? I admit I was very hopeful for this card (and am pro-AMD generally just because we need good competition in the GPU market) but I think my comments have been pretty fair?


Nah. I just read a few of the pages and honestly, some posters (both sides of the aisle) just seem to troll each other. A person who is genuinely interested in this card won't be able to get factual information from this thread.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> I wonder what the average age of the posters in this thread is? Getting emotional over video cards, flinging insults, trolling (nvidia and AMD). I guess video cards have some intrinsic value I'm not seeing.


Yep it's a pity someone merely speculating some hypothetical numbers is accused of over hyping for no reason right?

I guess some people think that one thing is fine, whilst another isn't, that's fair I guess.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You can't be talking about me? I admit I was very hopeful for this card (and am pro-AMD generally just because we need good competition in the GPU market) but I think my comments have been pretty fair?


Your comments have been fine, you were the one trolled.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> I wonder what the average age of the posters in this thread is? Getting emotional over video cards, flinging insults, trolling (nvidia and AMD). I guess video cards have some intrinsic value I'm not seeing.


You first.









I'm "old enough".


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I want as much as an upgrade as I can get for that PC so that I can game on it as well as I can on my main rig but I don't want to spend too much. The 470 would be a good, cheap option that would definitely be an upgrade. But the 480 would be even better (potentially a lot better if AIB's OC worth a damn) and still not break the bank...


IF the spec rumors are true and the RX 470 has 2048 SP and is priced at $180 for the 8GB version, you should expect ~85-90% of the performance at 75% of the price.

I sold off my R9 290s and am going to be parting out the rest of my signature in the upcoming weeks. Going to try to build a small form factor passively cooled system this time around, see how that works out


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> IF the spec rumors are true and the RX 470 has 2048 SP and is priced at $180 for the 8GB version, you should expect ~85-90% of the performance at 75% of the price.
> 
> I sold off my R9 290s and am going to be parting out the rest of my signature in the upcoming weeks. Going to try to build a small form factor passively cooled system this time around, see how that works out


Is there any credible rumor on the 470 release date yet?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

You nailed it earlier. If you are in the market for a $200 this is the one you want. Period. Though I would wait for the AIB's just to make sure you get your proper money's worth.

If you want top end performance you can't go wrong with the 1070 at $400 (if you can find one) or the 980Ti at $400 as well (which are readily available). I'd definitely get a pair of 980Ti Classified's right now if I were wanting to replace my Titans...


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

lol WCCFtech are onto the AIB clock speed leak now...........................

http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-asus-strix-msi-gaming/


----------



## Unkzilla

Everyone saying its not AMD's fault that the card was overhyped etc...

Somewhat true - but this could have been avoided if they allowed benchmarks prior to release... say 10 days prior to release like Nvidia did

The whole no benchmarks until release day is a really sketchy practice that I do not support


----------



## ChronoBodi

geez, were you guys expecting the Second Coming of Christ with this card?

I'm happy with it, gtx 970ish up to gtx 980ish performance when OCed, for $200, it's not bad and it's great for budget people.

That said, GoFlo's process leaves the perf/watt much to be desired, but however it's still better than AMD 28nm perf/watt. At least
AMD now has Maxwell 28nm perf/watt, which wasn't the case with their previous 28nm Hawaii/Fiji.

But, it's 14nm, so, they need to optimize GoFlo process or go to TSMC, however,

I think they went with GoFlo because they need all the production of RX 480s to be as high as possible considering its never-before-seen performance at the $199 bracket.

Or, no idea if perf/watt is an inherent weakpoint of GCN in general, worth it to have better DX12 support and Async Compute?

But guys, this is GTX OG Titan 2013 for $200. Think about that. this used to be $1000 for that performance. I'm happy for GTX OG Titan performance to more people.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You nailed it earlier. If you are in the market for a $200 this is the one you want. Period. Though I would wait for the AIB's just to make sure you get your proper money's worth.
> 
> If you want top end performance you can't go wrong with the 1070 at $400 (if you can find one) or the 980Ti at $400 as well (which are readily available). I'd definitely get a pair of 980Ti Classified's right now if I were wanting to replace my Titans...


Agreed. For $200, you can't really beat this card.


----------



## Pnanasnoic

What sales figures must this card miss in the first week or month to be considered a flop?


----------



## meowth2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Says the guy with a Titan Black. i mean WUT


it's a used card. i got it for $400 back when 980 wasn't out


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Is there any credible rumor on the 470 release date yet?


Nothing yet. The 470 and 460 might not have reference designs at launch similar to the R9 390 and 380.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I think he meant one of the few in this green trolling thread (*not meaning you*).


I am just a consumerist, I dish it out to all parties and am frequently called a troll by both the red and green fanatics


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meowth2*
> 
> it's a used card. i got it for $400 back when 980 wasn't out


That's actually an amazing deal, I stand corrected.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChronoBodi*
> 
> geez, were you guys expecting the Second Coming of Christ with this card?


Well me personally, I was hoping we'd get another 4870, but it seems we got a 7870 @ $200 instead.


----------



## cmpxchg8b

AMD seems to follow the same pattern all over again - they overhype their upcoming product to the point where people feel disappointed once they realize it is "only" a decent performer for the money, and not a miracle which makes everything else obsolete.

I kind of have a feeling that Zen launch will be like that, too.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> lol WCCFtech are onto the AIB clock speed leak now...........................
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-asus-strix-msi-gaming/


Well, IF (and I stress IF) the guys at Asus and MSI really told Kyle 1480MHz - 1600MHz then we are really talking! Honestly, the 1480MHz number would be enough for me as that would make it comfortably faster than a 980, albeit at a ridiculous power draw for a 14nm card. 1600MHz seems unlikely but it would line up with previous rumors we heard and would lead to some crazy performance for a little budget card! Fingers crossed...


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Well, IF (and I stress IF)


lol


----------



## Unkzilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChronoBodi*
> 
> geez, were you guys expecting the Second Coming of Christ with this card?
> 
> I'm happy with it, gtx 970ish up to gtx 980ish performance when OCed, for $200, it's not bad and it's great for budget people.
> 
> That said, GoFlo's process leaves the perf/watt much to be desired, but however it's still better than AMD 28nm perf/watt. At least
> AMD now has Maxwell 28nm perf/watt, which wasn't the case with their previous 28nm Hawaii/Fiji.


I think purely on a stock out of the box performance level, the card is good.

The concerns are temps, noise, power draw and overclocking ability. Its not looking good but I think we need to reserve judgement until some of the aftermarket cards come out.

With aftermarket cooling If it turns out like my FuryX - e.g ridiculous power increase for a marginal overclock - that is the nail in the coffin


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You can't be talking about me? I admit I was very hopeful for this card (and am pro-AMD generally just because we need good competition in the GPU market) but I think my comments have been pretty fair?


no matter what you say, you end up being the most quoted in any thread you're in.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> So much for AMDs attempts at mass appeal


All of the 8gb 480s on Newegg are sold out


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cmpxchg8b*
> 
> AMD seems to follow the same pattern all over again - they overhype their upcoming product to the point where people feel disappointed once they realize it is "only" a decent performer for the money, and not a miracle which makes everything else obsolete.
> 
> I kind of have a feeling that Zen launch will be like that, too.


AMD hyped nothing about the RX480, please stop.

Why is everyone parroting this issue of process differences being the sole reason for P/W issues. Unless you're an engineer with detailed knowledge of Pascal, Polaris, TSMC 16nm FF, and Glofo/Samsung 14nm LPP, you and myself included have no idea what the cause is.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cmpxchg8b*
> 
> AMD seems to follow the same pattern all over again - they overhype their upcoming product to the point where people feel disappointed once they realize it is "only" a decent performer for the money, and not a miracle which makes everything else obsolete.
> 
> I kind of have a feeling that Zen launch will be like that, too.


Read this very carefully:

AMD. Did. Not. Hype. This. Card.

In fact they were uncharacteristically quiet about it all the way up to release so I have no idea what you are talking about? The overhyping was done exclusively by fanboys and trolls, with fake leaks and ridiculous claims, none of which came from AMD.


----------



## looniam

gonna leave this here:


----------



## PsYcHo29388

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *cmpxchg8b*
> 
> AMD seems to follow the same pattern all over again - they overhype their upcoming product to the point where people feel disappointed once they realize it is "only" a decent performer for the money, and not a miracle which makes everything else obsolete.
> 
> I kind of have a feeling that Zen launch will be like that, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Read this very carefully:
> 
> AMD. Did. Not. Hype. This. Card.
> 
> In fact they were uncharacteristically quiet about it all the way up to release so I have no idea what you are talking about? The overhyping was done exclusively by fanboys and trolls, with fake leaks and ridiculous claims, none of which came from AMD.
Click to expand...

Well, AMD did say 150W on their polaris slide, and then even 110W on their website.

Yet it's consuming more than 150w on load...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> no matter what you say, you end up being the most quoted in any thread you're in.


Why, that might be the nicest thing anybody has ever said about me!!! Sniff, sniff


----------



## TranquilTempest

I'm surprised by how much power it's using, I expected much better perf/w than Maxwell, given the process node advantage, and the lip service AMD gave to efficiency. I guess they just kept cranking up the voltage and clocks until they got ~970 perf?


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> AMD hyped nothing about the RX480, please stop.
> 
> Why is everyone parroting this issue of process differences being the sole reason for P/W issues. Unless you're an engineer with detailed knowledge of Pascal, Polaris, TSMC 16nm FF, and Glofo/Samsung 14nm LPP, you and myself included have no idea what the cause is.


It is due to the up to 2.8 perf/watt power point Raja had.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> Well, AMD did say 150W on their polaris slide, and then even 110W on their website.
> 
> Yet it's consuming more than 150w on load...


And what did Nvidia claim about their OC potential? I am sure you would never bring that info into a thread.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> It is due to the up to 2.8 perf/watt power point Raja had.


They based it on RX 470 vs R7 370 comparison (and probably scenario specific judging by the asterisk).


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> You are right!, nature appears to be pro Nvidia! But I am sure it is nothing that can't be cured by a blaze


Let me grab a reference 290x and 480 and get started on that straight away.


----------



## kaosstar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Sorry but that's an asinine comment to make and is a good example of rampant fanboyism run amok. You would take a 970 with its 3.5GB of memory for MORE money than an 8GB RX 480 that already outperforms it stock and OC'd and has the potential to go even faster? And you are basing this on PROJECTED 970 sales prices that aren't even a reality yet? Just go play with your "whatever" Nvidia card and leave this thread alone, as you clearly can't contribute anything other than biased and ridiculous drivel...


Ouch, you sound quite bitter. Yes, I'll go back to playing on my 2x R9 290x, since I'm such an Nvidia fanboy.
I just call it like I see it.


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> I dont see nvidia making it cheaper if its faster. No way in hell.


They did it with the gtx 680,670 and 970.

Even the gtx 980 ti could arguably been said to be placed to hurt AMD.

Each time they did it, they took marketshare from AMD.

Since AMD has abandoned the high end for the time being, they can only take it from the area that AMD is competing in which is where the rx 480 is at.

Heck even the 1070, if it ever gets to $379 is aggressively priced.

Considering the shortages, Nvidia could have priced their products higher, but they priced them as is for the marketing press.


----------



## BulletBait

I will say I was optimistic about a potential *490* based off Polaris that would come close to matching the 1070. If I remember correctly, most people that were thinking this Polaris generation would come close to the 1070 were also expecting an 'XT' Polaris that would be the '490' at around $300.

Not many were expecting the 480 to come near the 1070. Most were reasonably expecting 390Xish performance. Lo and behold, that's about where we landed. I'm not disappointed in the 480 at all. I'm disappointed there was no '490' variant, but that's completely different and not AMD's fault or makes this card over-hyped/failure.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> They based it on RX 470 vs R7 370 comparison (and probably scenario specific judging by the asterisk).


My point is that both companies make claims that stretch the truth it is what companies do. The main issue on forums is that shills and fanboys take that to a different level.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> It is due to the up to 2.8 perf/watt power point Raja had.


Compared to what, a hummer? It certainly isn't true for a stock 480: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/25.html


----------



## Mad Pistol

So... because this isn't an Enthusiast card, it's a failure?

@ $200-240, this card's performance is spot on, and if you think about it, it actually has better Perf/$ compared to the GTX 1070. That's what AMD was aiming for, and in that respect, they pulled it off.

Being an owner of a GTX 1070, the RX 480 was definitely not aimed at me. However, if I still had my old HD 7870 from a few years back, the RX 480 would be a massive upgrade AND cheap. That's what they're going for.

And for everyone else drinking the Nvidia koolaid... please stop.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> They based it on RX 470 vs R7 370 comparison (and probably scenario specific judging by the asterisk).


So they're comparing GCN 1.4 to GCN 1.0. Not misleading at all, AMD.


----------



## PsYcHo29388

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> Well, AMD did say 150W on their polaris slide, and then even 110W on their website.
> 
> Yet it's consuming more than 150w on load...
> 
> 
> 
> And what did Nvidia claim about their OC potential? I am sure you would never bring that info into a thread.
Click to expand...

The OC potential is still better than what the RX 480 brings to the table


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> Ouch, you sound quite bitter. Yes, I'll go back to playing on my 2x R9 290x, since I'm such an Nvidia fanboy.
> I just call it like I see it.


You need to see an optometrist


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> The OC potential is still better than what the RX 480 brings to the table


I think we should probably wait for AIB's like we did with the 1080.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> They did it with the gtx 680,670 and 970.
> 
> Even the gtx 980 ti could arguably been said to be placed to hurt AMD.
> 
> Each time they did it, they took marketshare from AMD.
> 
> Since AMD has abandoned the high end for the time being, they can only take it from the area that AMD is competing in which is where the rx 480 is at.


I honestly don't think that Nvidia would mind if AMD clawed back some marketshare to be honest. They don't want to put AMD out of business, they just want to remain dominant in the duopoly, which they will with Pascal. I think AMD is pretty safe in the mainstream market with this 480.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> The OC potential is still better than what the RX 480 brings to the table


Many of the reviews had OC 970 used vs stock 480, the potential for OC is in the 480's court.


----------



## rx7racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> Your comment is complete BS - AMD did not hype anything -Places like wccf and videocardz and some forum members brought the hype.


Yeah, I haven't understood that either. All I saw from AMD was they kept saying Polaris is for the masses pretty much.

I thought that told us right there not to expect too much, and at this price point it's a nice leap forward from where the budget segment was at.

It's like when NV brought out 750 Ti and was applauded for power efficiency blah blah blah who cares about perf/$ pat the higher price

AMD comes out with nice perf/$ and booed for horrible perf/w and all are like who cares about perf/$

I still care about perf/$, why has everyone gone away from that?

Did NV really brainwash everyone, does no one think about what we were paying for this performance?

If you ask me this perf/$ should have been here a couple years ago.

I can't knock AMD one bit for this product honestly, and don't know why everyone is all banking 100% on OC'ing by AIB's to make or break this card.

If some one has only $210 period, no if ands or buts, are you all saying you are NOT going to tell them to get an RX 480, seriously? That's what it sounds like to me.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I seriously doubt the 480 chip is only capable of 1340MHz. AIB cards will increase that by some, if not significantly more so.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Let me grab a reference 290x and 480 and get started on that straight away.


Shirley you mean *GTX* 480 and not *RX* 480 right, _riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight_?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I honestly don't think that Nvidia would mind if AMD clawed back some marketshare to be honest. They don't want to put AMD out of business, they just want to remain dominant in the duopoly, which they will with Pascal. I think AMD is pretty safe in the mainstream market with this 480.


nVidia probably wants AMD where Intel has them currently -- just enough to scrape the bottom of the barrel bread crumbs, but with absolutely no chance of being on parity with them for the foreseeable future


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rx7racer*
> 
> If some one has only $210 period, no if ands or buts, are you all saying you are NOT going to tell them to get an RX 480, seriously? That's what it sounds like to me.


B...b...but I wear green goggles and you should buy a 3.5GB card with no future instead


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I seriously doubt the 480 chip is only capable of 1340MHz. AIB cards will increase that by some, if not significantly more so.


It's like most of us reasonable types were speculating in the pre-launch threads. Reference coolers are bad enough, and AMD's are historically awful. Regardless of anything else to do with the 480, an AIB version should be able to ramp up the clock speeds to a considerable degree compared to the reference.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I seriously doubt the 480 chip is only capable of 1340MHz. AIB cards will increase that by some, if not significantly more so.


I agree and when that happens I will send my tri oc 290X 4 g to my son.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

What I want to know is where the hell is Moey??? Lol...


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> What I want to know is where the hell is Moey??? Lol...


He is hanging out with Reggie Jackson aka Ojo


----------



## PsYcHo29388

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> The OC potential is still better than what the RX 480 brings to the table
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should probably wait for AIB's like we did with the 1080.
Click to expand...

You can wait if you want, I'm just gonna sit back with some popcorn and watch the show unfold.

http://oc.jagatreview.com/2016/06/teaser-overclocking-amd-radeon-rx480-ke-1-4ghz-dengan-cooler-3rd-party/2/


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> It is due to the up to 2.8 perf/watt power point Raja had.


WRONG, like I've stated numerous times in this thread, the number was never 2.8x, 2.8x was for special circumstances. Here is a slide for you and everyone else who can't be bothered to look up information.

While my calculated efficiency increase was 1.77x, my number could be slightly off due to not scaling properly; 1.7x was stated...


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I honestly don't think that Nvidia would mind if AMD clawed back some marketshare to be honest. They don't want to put AMD out of business, they just want to remain dominant in the duopoly, which they will with Pascal. I think AMD is pretty safe in the mainstream market with this 480.


Nvidia will keep the shareholders happy first and foremost. This means expanding revenue and profits in a contracting PC market.

If AMD does go bankrupt, we will have its IP sold and new competition will enter the x86 and GPU markets.


----------



## BulletBait

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> It's like most of us reasonable types were speculating in the pre-launch threads. Reference coolers are bad enough, and AMD's are historically awful. Regardless of anything else to do with the 480, an AIB version should be able to ramp up the clock speeds to a considerable degree compared to the reference.


It's not temp limited, I can tell you that for a fact. I have mine at 1360 right now with a moderate fan speed and it sits around 70c full load on BOINC.

It's a power problem, they really needed to 8 or 6+6 pin this thing. Wattman also doesn't allow overvolting either, so we'll see when Afterburner/Trixx comes out for it also as well as the AIBs.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> WRONG


Image clearly says 1.7X improvement from FinFet, 2.8X with AMD technologies. The special circumstances you keep referring to is not mentioned at all in said slide so I am unsure how you can use said slide as proof of your own statement...


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Image clearly says 1.7X improvement from FinFet, 2.8X with AMD technologies. The special circumstances you keep referring to is not mentioned at all in said slide so I am unsure how you can use said slide as proof of your own statement...


Use your head. I'm done here...


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Image clearly says 1.7X improvement from FinFet, 2.8X with AMD technologies. The special circumstances you keep referring to is not mentioned at all in said slide so I am unsure how you can use said slide as proof of your own statement...


To be 100% fair it does say UP TO.

Just like those up to 70% increases that nVidia touts every other driver release.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Anyway you look at it, AMD did very little hyping of this card when compared to past releases. There's not even any question about it to be honest.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Use your head.


Great rebuttal Sir! I have no interest in using my head to break down the wall of misinformation you are distributing....
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> To be 100% fair it does say UP TO.


In a convenient grey on grey color scheme


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> lol WCCFtech are onto the AIB clock speed leak now...........................
> 
> http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-asus-strix-msi-gaming/


1480-1600 is a massive variance. I'm thinking if true, 1600 is a golden chip


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> WRONG, like I've stated numerous times in this thread, the number was never 2.8x, 2.8x was for special circumstances. Here is a slide for you and everyone else who can't be bothered to look up information.
> 
> While my calculated efficiency increases was 1.77x my number could be slightly off due to not scaling properly. 1.7x was stated...


Dude please, lets be honest here. When you have a PP slide that says up to 2.8 and then release a card that does not come close then the company as I mentioned before is stretching the truth. Same as what Nvidia did with their OC rendering claims. As a consumer this could bite AMD when it comes to winning OEM placements because they have crap PS of 400 in those rigs. From a tech standpoint I am disappointed that they did not get the claims that they made from the shrink and gcn arch improvements. It is not the end of the world. As I have stated before this card is a really good mainstream card with reduced power as compared from 28nm gcn. They problem AMD may face is the 1060 once again having a performance / watt advantage. I do not believe that the performance will be better than 480 overall but we have seen how perf/watt has shaped perception in the past. I will buy a AIB 480 as soon as i see what is being offered in the next few weeks and if the 1060 which comes out in July has less performance. ,


----------



## renx

I can tell with this perf/watt I wouldn't even wait for Vega anymore.
If they want to trade blows with the upcoming GP102, Vega will need a huge die, and lots (I mean LOTS) of power input.
RX480 is ok for what it's worth, but it's not difficult to see that Nvidia is unreachable for AMD, tech wise.
I mean, same or higher power draw than a 1070? srsly?


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> I can tell with this perf/watt I wouldn't even wait for Vega anymore.
> If they want to trade blows with the upcoming GP102, Vega will need a huge die, and lots (I mean LOTS) of power input.
> RX480 is ok for what it's worth, but it's not difficult to see that Nvidia is unreachable tech wise.
> I mean, same or higher power draw than a 1070? srsly?


You have to remember that Vega will probably also have HBM2 as well. If that's the case, it's very possible that power draw could be kept in check. We will just have to wait and see.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> Dude please, lets be honest here. When you have a PP slide that says up to 2.8 and then release a card that does not come close then the company as I mentioned before is stretching the truth. Same as what Nvidia did with their OC rendering claims. As a consumer this could bite AMD when it comes to winning OEM placements because they have crap PS of 400 in those rigs. From a tech standpoint I am disappointed that they did not get the claims that they made from the shrink and gcn arch improvements. It is not the end of the world. As I have stated before this card is a really good mainstream card with reduced power as compared from 28nm gcn. They problem AMD may face is the 1060 once again having a performance / watt advantage. I do not believe that the performance will be better than 480 overall but we have seen how perf/watt has shaped perception in the past. I will buy a AIB 480 as soon as i see what is being offered in the next few weeks and if the 1060 which comes out in July has less performance. ,


The point is, they didn't lie about anything. PR stuff such as this is all done using very imprecise/misleading wording.

On top of that it is clearly pointed out by that slide, and through a logical conclusion when comparing worse case power draw of hawaii v p10, that the efficiency increase is ~1.7x (in dx11 enviorments); almost every review out there matches this. Why do think AMD PURPOSELY included the secondary efficiency remark denoted with "with AMD Technologies". AMD Technologies could refer to anything, VR, DX12, Vulcan, Wattman, Card throttling through software, other polaris chips, and or any combination of this list.

People need to stop and think.


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> You have to remember that Vega will probably also have HBM2 as well. If that's the case, it's very possible that power draw could be kept in check. We will just have to wait and see.


Hopefully HBM2 becomes a game changer.
I'm just a little bit disappointed, but I'm not a fanboy. So I really hope they manage to compete in the high end.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Anyway you look at it, AMD did very little hyping of this card when compared to past releases.


True, but the false price leak was a little distasteful. $40 for 4GB of ram...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LuckyStarV*
> 
> Source


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> I can tell with this perf/watt I wouldn't even wait for Vega anymore.
> If they want to trade blows with the upcoming GP102, Vega will need a huge die, and lots (I mean LOTS) of power input.
> RX480 is ok, for what it's worth, but it's not difficult to see that Nvidia is unreachable tech wise.
> I mean, same or higher power draw than a 1070? srsly?


And here comes the FUD spreaders, Please you have no clue as to why they did not reach their goal. It could be fixed before vega if it is gloflo maturity problem. Vega is a different arch from polaris and may improve past the goal. Comments like yours are total bias and you should join wccf and make your posts over there not on what is a tech forum with intelligent readers.


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Hopefully HBM2 becomes a game changer.
> I'm just a little bit disappointed, but I'm not a fanboy. So I really hope so.


HBM was the reason why the r9 nano's power consumption was so low(and its low clocks) which made it the defacto performance/size GPU. I would be suprised if Vega consumed a lot of power, as in actuality, the memory chips on a gpu consumes quite a bit of power.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Shirley you mean *GTX* 480 and not *RX* 480 right, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?


I suppose I could throw in the GTX 470, but don't tell JHH! And don't call me Shirley!


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Hopefully HBM2 becomes a game changer..


Just like I said with Fury X launch, memory bandwidth will not improve performance unless there is already a bottleneck due to memory bandwidth. AMD will need to launch a chip that has twice the SP just to surpass mid-grade pascal. There is no way AMD will be competing with big pascal unless they radically improve clock speeds somehow.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> The point is, they didn't lie about anything. PR stuff such as this is all done using very imprecise/misleading wording.
> 
> On top of that it is clearly pointed out by that slide, and through a logical conclusion when comparing worse case power draw of hawaii v p10, that the efficiency increase is ~1.7x (in dx11 enviorments); almost every review out there matches this. Why do think AMD PURPOSELY included the secondary efficiency remark denoted with "with AMD Technologies". AMD Technologies could refer to anything, VR, DX12, Vulcan, Wattman, Card throttling through software, other polaris chips, and or any combination of this list.
> 
> People need to stop and think.


Did I say Lie? I did say stretch the truth. Stop and Think about what I just said. You and I agree that the 480 was an improvement. Don't be so defensive, Can you at least admit that the PP slide could lead others to a different conclusion?


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> And here comes the FUD spreaders, Please you have no clue as to why they did not reach their goal. It could be fixed before vega if it is gloflo maturity problem. Vega is a different arch from polaris and may improve past the goal. Comments like yours are total bias and you should join wccf and make your posts over there not on what is a tech forum with intelligent readers.


FUD spreader?
I've been rooting for the 480 for months.
If you can't accept facts such as GTX1070 power draw, and zero overclock on reference cooling...what can I say.

Ok I'm sorry. I'll be mindlessly happy!


----------



## dieanotherday

people who accept the 480 as it is do not understand the situation

AMD is in trouble, they need a jesus video card, this is just a meh.

their stocks will tumble again.


----------



## hawker-gb

This card is right there where i expect it to be.

1080p king for 200 dollars.

Card is not good only for those which was overhyped prelaunch and ,ofc, nGreedia shills.

EDIT: I forgot forum stock market geniuses which predict doom of AMD for years.
Stocks will fall,AMD is doomed.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> people who accept the 480 as it is do not understand the situation
> 
> AMD is in trouble, they need a jesus video card, this is just a meh.
> 
> their stocks will tumble again.


Wants unicorn gets workhorse. Reality blows I guess.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I suppose I could throw in the GTX 470, but don't tell JHH! And don't call me Shirley!


Sorry Natasha Cassandra Roxanne Kate Veronica Rebecca Alexandra Kimberly Zany Zesty SuperZan!.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Just like I said with Fury X launch, memory bandwidth will not improve performance unless there is already a bottleneck due to memory bandwidth. AMD will need to launch a chip that has twice the SP just to surpass mid-grade pascal. There is no way AMD will be competing with big pascal unless they radically improve clock speeds somehow.


Actually looking at how this card scales with overclocking, I do suspect it could be somewhat bandwidth limited. I mean 5% improvement for 5% core OC + 10% memory OC seems to hint at this. (unless P10 just happens to scale really really well with core OC)


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> FUD spreader?
> I've been rooting for the 480 for months.
> If you can't accept facts such as GTX1070 power draw, and zero overclock on reference cooling...what can I say.
> 
> Ok I'm sorry. I'll be mindlessly happy!


Good for you being a rah rah man for 480. It is not a matter of not accepting the facts about a 1070 it is your comments about Vega which you are mindless about


----------



## renx

People is like totally blinded.
970 performance won't be awesome till the end of times.
This is 2 years later, launching a $200 gpu that slightly beats the 970, which is ok. Any less would have been really bad.
Other than that, bad cooling, bad perf/watt when compared to the competition, throttling, no overlock.


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> Good for you being a rah rah man for 480. It is not a matter of not accepting the facts about a 1070 it is your comments about Vega which you are mindless about


I'm just saying that AMD couldn't show a good perf/watt gain, specially when compared to the competition. And that makes me concerned about the upcoming high end.


----------



## Chaython

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> So you would willingly get a slower card, with less memory, that will no longer see major driver support, that uses more power, that sees negative performance increases in DX12.. to me, it just makes no sense.


most reviews I looked at; when both were overclocked the 970 was faster; also nvidia gameworks etc etc makes it a lot better!


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chaython*
> 
> most reviews I looked at; when both were overclocked the 970 was faster; also nvidia gameworks etc etc makes it a lot better!


Hm.. I think an 8Gb AIB 480 will beat a 970 every day of the week. If you were looking at a great deal on a 980 or better that would be different, IMO.


----------



## Chaython

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Why used GTX970? You are Canadian? GTX970 still sell a lot even used $300+.
> 
> Also has it seem 4Gb cards are just 8GB cards with the chips disabled. Maybe a Bios flash? Easy save $40?


GTX 970 as low as 180CAD used locally[they sell quickly below 300 though]


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> People is like totally blinded.
> 970 performance won't be awesome till the end of times.
> This is 2 years later, launching a $200 gpu that slightsly beats the 970, which is ok. Any less would be terrible.
> Other than that, bad cooling, bad perf/watt when compared to the competition, throttling, no overlock.


So if you don't want 970/390 performance at stock, buy a higher tier card? 1070?

It's two years later yes, but it's at aimed at low/mid range market.

Bad cooling is standard with pretty much every reference card.

Bad performance per watt is just the standard for GCN, no surprises.

Throttling ie bad reference card on stock fan profile > nvidia overpriced FE edition.

Overclocking is looking fine, although low %, it's scaling well.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-amd-radeon-rx-480-review

http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-asus-strix-msi-gaming/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> I'm just saying that AMD couldn't show a good perf/watt gain, specially when compared to the competition. And that makes me concerned about the upcoming high end.


We can whine about vega when it comes out, till then it's the 480 we're talking about, and it does a good job of being a value 1080p card for the masses.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chaython*
> 
> GTX 970 as low as 180CAD used locally[they sell quickly below 300 though]


Can buy used 290/290X's too but why would anyone want a card with no warranty etc. Plus 970 only has 3.5GB vram and average DX12 performance.

Power draw of the 480 is pretty similar to the 970 too. There's no real pros for the 970 vs 480 that I can see.


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> They based it on RX 470 vs R7 370 comparison (and probably scenario specific judging by the asterisk).


That video filled a lot of gaps on what the rx480 really is about, bravo!


----------



## hawker-gb

Really,some people compare 480 to EOL 970. lol OCN.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chaython*
> 
> most reviews I looked at; when both were overclocked the 970 was faster; also nvidia gameworks etc etc makes it a lot better!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Hm.. I think an 8Gb AIB 480 will beat a 970 every day of the week. If you were looking at a great deal on a 980 or better that would be different, IMO.


I'd say a 1080p card in 2016 needs a _minimum_ of 4GB if you're expecting any kind of longevity going forward in this mess/joke that is called "PC gaming".

So yes in that respect, the 8GB (and even real 4GB) 480 would be a (much) better option than the 3.5GB 970.


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hawker-gb*
> 
> Really,some people compare 480 to EOL 970. lol OCN.


Didnt reviewers do that with an OC variant? Im not saying that its better but agree its just silly.


----------



## venom55520

Well holy poop on a stick, my 290x that I bought used for ~$245 two years ago and had to RMA ended up being the best purchase I have made thus far when it comes to video cards.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Actually looking at how this card scales with overclocking, I do suspect it could be somewhat bandwidth limited. I mean 5% improvement for 5% core OC + 10% memory OC seems to hint at this. (unless P10 just happens to scale really really well with core OC)


Overclocking results were limited from the reviews, where exactly are you seeing this?

Guru3D oc to 1375/2250:


Techspot oc to 1350:


----------



## hawker-gb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> Didnt reviewers do that with an OC variant? Im not saying that its better but agree its just silly.


If you read all posts you will see that not very knowledgeable posters thinks that 480 is on 970 level.


----------



## sammkv

next stop for the hype train $279-$299 AIB's 1600mhz+, lets get on board!!


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hawker-gb*
> 
> Really,some people compare 480 to EOL 970. lol OCN.


The 480 is a valid purchase it's so simple.

Goes like this depending on how much money you have to buy a *brand new* card............

480 4GB - Low budget

480 8GB/AIB

980

1070

1080 - High Budget

The 970 doesn't fit in anywhere unless you get some incredible clearance sale or something which won't apply to everyone, everywhere. It's now been destroyed by the 480.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *venom55520*
> 
> Well holy poop on a stick, my 290x that I bought used for ~$245 two years ago and had to RMA ended up being the best purchase I have made thus far when it comes to video cards.


Yep they are awesome, and got so much better over time.

Got crucified on release for power draw, bad reference cooler and performance on release day too............480 anyone?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sammkv*
> 
> next stop for the hype train $279-$299 AIB's 1600mhz+, lets get on board!!


lol but no. The peak clock speeds were said to be between 1480-1600mhz. I'd expect AIB cards to fall in the 1350-1450mhz region stock, with a bit of OC headroom depending on chip etc.


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *venom55520*
> 
> Well holy poop on a stick, my 290x that I bought used for ~$245 two years ago and had to RMA ended up being the best purchase I have made thus far when it comes to video cards.


I'm very pleased with my OC'd 290, which matches a 390X.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Overclocking results were limited from the reviews, where exactly are you seeing this?
> 
> Guru3D oc to 1375/2250:
> 
> 
> Techspot oc to 1350:


Techpowerup review, which of course is conveniently down right now.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hawker-gb*
> 
> If you read all posts you will see that not very knowledgeable posters thinks that 480 is on 970 level.


If you are being serious, I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sammkv*
> 
> next stop for the hype train $279-$299 AIB's 1600mhz+, lets get on board!!


Good job now the nvidia shills will blame amd for hyping the AIB cards at 1600mhz+


----------



## Pragmatist

I was going to write I knew it and quote an old post saying it'd perform like a 970 and more. However, watching the video bellow humbled me instead of being a d*ck. I wish AMD and their fans wouldn't over hype a product the way they do, and especially so when it won't meet the expectations. Also, if AMD gets a higher market share with this card they could potentially compete in the future, and that is what I essentially wanted to happen, but I understand why that couldn't happen right now after watching the video.

Sometimes it's easy to forget that there are real people behind a product, I guess.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> gonna leave this here:


----------



## magnek

Could you give me a tl;dw summary of the video? I really don't feel like watching an hour long video right now (but maybe tomorrow or later).


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> gonna leave this here:


I thoroughly enjoyed that thanks.


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hawker-gb*
> 
> If you read all posts you will see that not very knowledgeable posters thinks that 480 is on 970 level.


True, but that came from reviews though. They are just fanning the flame sort of speak. Anyone who's had an AMD card will know that performance will improve overtime. Be it because of a combo of drivers and game updates or something else (something mentioned in the video i quoted earlier from another user}. So overtime the performance gap between the 480 and 970 will widen just like the 7970 and 680 when that was released, etc, etc.

It won't surprise me that initially the 1060 will be faster then the 480. But over time, the table will turn on perf./price.

The problem is that people don't see the trend from history. Which is why I thought that video was so good.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> I'm very pleased with my OC'd 290, which matches a 390X.


That's a prime example of what I'm saying. History repeating itself.


----------



## hawker-gb

480 just made 970 useless buy.

And in few weeks time 480 will truly shine.


----------



## Slaughterem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Could you give me a tl;dw summary of the video? I really don't feel like watching an hour long video right now (but maybe tomorrow or later).


It actually was a pretty good video about how a card like a 480 during the course of 3 years comes to be real, the future of multi gpu, good bourbon for sipping, wattman, and accusition of new company Alg ---something


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Could you give me a tl;dw summary of the video? I really don't feel like watching an hour long video right now (but maybe tomorrow or later).


Zan is really cool and probably the best and the fastest and the strongest.

Jay kay, I'm watching it for the first time at the moment, interesting so far though. Raja talking about AMD's continued support for older cards "we keep delivering on the products that you buy", "people say RX 480 is done, can we go on vacation? No, no, actually your work starts now". RX 480 is what it is (pending AIB models) but I do love that attitude from Raja and AMD.


----------



## sammkv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> lol but no. The peak clock speeds were said to be between 1480-1600mhz. I'd expect AIB cards to fall in the 1350-1450mhz region stock, with a bit of OC headroom depending on chip etc.


yeah if they can get 1500mhz thats still is amazing clock speeds for a AMD mainstream card. I'm not sure if any older gen's have hit core speeds that high before but hey you gotta start somewhere


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> I thoroughly enjoyed that thanks.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> It actually was a pretty good video about how a card like a 480 during the course of 3 years comes to be real, the future of multi gpu, good bourbon for sipping, wattman, and accusition of new company Alg ---something


Alright I'lld add it to my playlist and watch it later.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Zan is really cool and probably the best and the fastest and the strongest.
> 
> Jay kay, I'm watching it for the first time at the moment, interesting so far though.


Lies, Zan can't be the best and fastest and strongest because what would SuperZan be then? The bestest, fastestest, strongestest?


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Lies, Zan can't be the best and fastest and strongest because what would SuperZan be then? The bestest, fastestest, strongestest?


No! I'm just a mild-mannered reporter! I gain nothing from basking in your strange yellow sun.


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *venom55520*
> 
> Well holy poop on a stick, my 290x that I bought used for ~$245 two years ago and had to RMA ended up being the best purchase I have made thus far when it comes to video cards.


290/290X at below $300 is pretty much the Sandy bridge of GPU. Those beast is going to last quite a while.

AMD screw up launch day performance as always. Had 290X launch day come with the performance it has on 390X now. Kepler wouldnt even stand a chance.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Techpowerup review, which of course is conveniently down right now.


Tpu only tests oc on one game, (idr but I assume it's still bf3?), but yes their review did say they got a 5% improvement from 5% core oc plus whatever their memory oc was


----------



## BulletBait

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sammkv*
> 
> yeah if they can get 1500mhz thats still is amazing clock speeds for a AMD mainstream card. I'm not sure if any older gen's have hit core speeds that high before but hey you gotta start somewhere


Why is everyone so laser focused on clockspeed? That's not the end all be all of the card's performance. AMD cards have typically run ~20% lower clockspeeds then their nV bracket competition. They also scale better in performance, but worse in voltage because the architecture and how that speed is tied to everything and not decoupled from other parts of the architecture like nV cards.

If Vega doesn't break 1500, I would be surprised beyond belief, same as if the 1080Ti didn't break 2000 stock. It's going to happen, the difference will be in scaling and longevity.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> 290/290X at below $300 is pretty much the Sandy bridge of GPU. Those beast is going to last quite a while.
> 
> AMD screw up launch day performance as always. Had 290X launch day come with the performance it has on 390X now. Kepler wouldnt even stand a chance.


Same as 7970. Luckily the 480 is also GCN so we can expect some increases.

The 7970 competed with the 670 on release and only got better. 280X ends up matching a 780 iirc.


----------



## comagnum

The xfx I bought has a stock oc @ 1326, hoping to get another 40 mhz out of it to round it out to an even 100 over stock clocks.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Alright I'lld add it to my playlist and watch it later.


Only thing that made me cringe a little was the software guy from AMD.... Reminded me too much of the marketing kids in University that were wayyyyyy too enthusiastic when doing presentations. Felt like the Wattman demo was going to be an offer that i would only qualify for if i called within the next five minutes.









He didn't talk for too long, though; because Raja is an alpha that needs to howl.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Only thing that made me cringe a little was the software guy from AMD.... Reminded me too much of the marketing kids in University that were wayyyyyy too enthusiastic when doing presentations. Felt like the Wattman demo was going to be an offer that i would only qualify for if i called within the next five minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't talk for too long, though; because Raja is an alpha that needs to howl.


I'm still just sat here expecting the cigar to come out.


----------



## Clovertail100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neurotix*
> 
> I'll humor you and reply even if your attitude is clearly antagonistic and vengeful.
> 
> No, I didn't "know more about the TSMC, GloFlo, and the testing of this chip that occurred behind closed doors with different coolers, drivers, and power delivery."
> 
> I simply made an educated guess, that you call an uneducated one, because *1) It's AMD 2) the Fury X underperformed and 3) There's been tremendous unwarranted hype and rumors since the card was announced. Surely, it doesn't take much reason (or a rocket scientist) to figure that the card would probably not live up to the rumors. It's really as simple as that.*
> 
> Of course, it probably helps that I'm a fairly high ranked enthusiast benchmarker on HWBOT that has benched nothing but AMD cards since 2011. At least 10 of them. The majority are GCN. So I have a fairly deep understanding of how these GPUs work, how they overclock and so forth. I'll assume you're capable of finding my profile there, if you're so inclined. Traditionally, AMD cards overclock less than Nvidia, so I figured the rumors about the RX 480 overclocking to crazy levels were probably false. Though, that may change with AIB cards and better power delivery. However, I strongly doubt this will be the case based on my experiences.
> 
> Even IF the RX 480 *can* overclock to the 1500mhz range, and by doing so it pulls ahead of the 390/290, from the benchmarks of it I've seen it will still be less powerful than the 390 at the same clocks. E.g. it may take a RX 480 at 1500mhz to equal a 390/290 at 1200mhz. In which case, the card is basically a failure imo. It needed to be faster than the 390/290, but it isn't, probably because it has less ROPs and TMUs.


I'm not particularly moved by the fact that you've been benchmarking AMD cards since 2011.

And, no, those are not what I'd call criteria for an educated guess. In fact, that "It's AMD" attitude is exactly what resulted in my "antagonistic" response.

Did you know whether it would be produced on GloFlo's, TSMC's, or Samsungs node? No. Did you know the differences between those nodes before the release? No. Do you now? No, no one does. Did you know the die size before release? No. Did you know anything substantial about this release? No, you didn't.

You really summed it up for me. You based your opinion on Fury X's launch and "it's AMD". It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, those are just bad reasons to hold a strong opinion either way. You have nothing to be sitting here bragging about. All this "I called it" talk is weak, and your "high rank" at HWBOT doesn't change that. Die size, fab process, and provider are just as relevant to the performance of the final product as AMD's ability to design the chip. Architecture performance has been so close between NV and AMD, outside of driver enhancements and proprietary garbage, that those few factors matter more than almost anything else these days.

So, no. I wouldn't say my attitude is any more "antagonistic" than your opinion. Your statements warrant a strong response so I gave you one.


----------



## Pnanasnoic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hawker-gb*
> 
> 480 just made 970 useless buy.
> 
> And in few weeks time *480 will truly shine*.


or get punched in the nose. The 1060 looms.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> seeing how it gains going down in resolution. it isn't the case anymore. just look at gw titles too.


unfortunately, overhead is still there, and it's pretty bad too. see how it's 2% slower than 970 on 4790K/4690K, but 13% slower on i3.



22% slower on i3 3.7GHz (27% comparing min fps)



anyone considering this card for a budget build should probably think twice....


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pnanasnoic*
> 
> or get punched in the nose. The 1060 looms.


As I've said in the other thread, doesn't matter how much raw grunt the 1060 has, 3GB vram means it's pretty much DoA, so we should only focus on the 6GB version.


----------



## comagnum

The knee-jerk from a lot of you is nauseating.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> unfortunately, overhead is still there, and it's pretty bad too. see how it's 2% slower than 970 on 4790K/4690K, but 13% slower on i3.
> 
> 
> 
> 22% slower on i3 3.7GHz (27% comparing min fps)
> 
> 
> 
> anyone considering this card for a budget build should probably think twice....


Ugh thats not good news considering their target of the 83% of people that buy $100-$300 GPU's.... those same people probably aren't rocking high clocked i5's and i7's..........

On the optimistic side, though; this is something that AMD probably has the ability to improve in the future... and it is likely to not matter as much with more and more dx12 titles hitting the stores.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Ugh thats not good news considering their target of the 83% of people that buy $100-$300 GPU's.... those same people probably aren't rocking high clocked i5's and i7's..........


that pefromance drop in Crysis 3 is just awful


----------



## EastCoast

Oh I dont know. Perhaps these are the only drivers AMD will release for rx480. In that cause that would be a true statement. But even so, we have a lot of dx12 and other console ports to look forward to


----------



## Pragmatist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slaughterem*
> 
> It actually was a pretty good video about how a card like a 480 during the course of 3 years comes to be real, the future of multi gpu, good bourbon for sipping, wattman, and accusition of new company Alg ---something


Sure, but you didn't mention the interesting stuff IMO.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Could you give me a tl;dw summary of the video? I really don't feel like watching an hour long video right now (but maybe tomorrow or later).


He basically explained that he got back to AMD in 2013 because he knew the gaming/VR etc scene would grow even more. He also said that they've had many to compete against and not just the obvious one which is nVidia. He also mentioned that they've faced a lot of challenges during the time, because they were 2 to 3 years behind schedule, but he was proud over his teams work over the last 9 months.

He most importantly explains that Polaris is a great way to get back up on the sadle, so to speak. Also, it's a way to get some market share back, but it's not all about profit. It is about getting the developers to bring out more content, and that they basically aready are invested (GCN)..

There's much more information, so watch the video when you can.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> unfortunately, overhead is still there, and it's pretty bad too. see how it's 2% slower than 970 on 4790K/4690K, but 13% slower on i3.
> 
> 
> 
> 22% slower on i3 3.7GHz (27% comparing min fps)
> 
> 
> 
> anyone considering this card for a budget build should probably think twice....


Those Crysis 3 results seem off:



Here you can see with a 680, there's still a substantial drop on going from i5-3470 to i3-3320. (60 to 36 FPS!)


----------



## EightDee8D

Yep, that's bad. as i've said before they have gone backwards on many things instead of going forward. yes they managed to deliver the performance of 64rops of last gen with only 32. but that's not enough.

Nvidia disappointed me by price , and amd disappointed me by tech. good thing i don't game anymore.









now just launch that bloody 1040/50 so i can enjoy 4k videos without ditching 3dvision.


----------



## sammkv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BulletBait*
> 
> Why is everyone so laser focused on clockspeed? That's not the end all be all of the card's performance. AMD cards have typically run ~20% lower clockspeeds then their nV bracket competition. They also scale better in performance, but worse in voltage because the architecture and how that speed is tied to everything and not decoupled from other parts of the architecture like nV cards.
> 
> If Vega doesn't break 1500, I would be surprised beyond belief, same as if the 1080Ti didn't break 2000 stock. It's going to happen, the difference will be in scaling and longevity.


true, clockspeed isn't everything. I just remember my last card was a 7950 and it scaled incredibly well when it was overclocked especially the min frames. I don't really upgrade that often just try to get the most performance out of what I got at a good price range. Looking forward to see what the upcoming AIB's can do though and Vega!


----------



## Mad Pistol

I had a friend yell at me for picking up a GTX 1070 a week before the RX 480 launch... guess that means I have the last laugh, now.


----------



## Loladinas

Man, Europe has weird prices.

Cheapest GTX970 - 238,85€ for EVGA GeForce GTX 970 SuperClocked ACX 2.0
Cheapest RX480 4GB - 219€ for Sapphire Radeon RX 480
Cheapest RX480 8GB - 269€ HIS Radeon RX 480

50€ for 4GB of RAM this card can hardly utilize....

EDIT: are there any news on when might custom cards show up or is it just Soon ™ ?


----------



## Pyrotagonist

AMD just seems to be stuck - they've invested in so many pointless false starts and long term plans that they just cannot keep up.

Tonga - Backported to 28nm after 20nm crapped out. Regression in efficiency and performance compared to *Tahiti* while having a bigger die. At least this is true for the 285.
HBM - 2 years too early to make a difference, undoubtedly contributed to making Fiji prohibitively expensive.
DX12 - ACEs in 2012 card. Still waiting to be used mid 2016. Maybe this will eventually pay off, but it came at the cost of DX11 performance for over 4 years and counting.
Fiji - Worthless chip for AMD. Costly, terrible yields/supply, and its competitor was so obviously better it's a joke. They would have been better off scrapping it and just letting Hawaii and Tonga stick it out against Maxwell. From an design standpoint, it's actually quite acceptable/good and HBM is impressive, but not nearly enough.
Global Foundries - Their production of Polaris has been exemplary (miraculous) relatively speaking, but TSMC is so far ahead, at least in performance and efficiency, it's sad.

If any of this really paid off, especially Tonga and DX12, they may have been able to surpass NVIDIA, but NV had the foresight to realize that neither of those things mattered and stuck with proven tech and current needs. All this 'orthogonal' R&D has been worthless and look what they're trying to do with Polaris - backtrack. Color compression, tessellation performance and DX11 were all meant to be addressed by *this chip, the one coming out in 2016*, when they should have been addressing these things 4 and a half years ago - instead we got DX12 preparedness. They are way too forward thinking. By the time the 7970 beats the 970 consistently, both of those chips will be obsolete.

Of course, it's too little too late. Tessellation performance is still bad, color compression is below Maxwell, and DX11 efficiency is taking baby steps.


----------



## bossie2000

Quote:


> I had a friend yell at me for picking up a GTX 1070 a week before the RX 480 launch


Your friend did not do his homework.Was never meant to even come close to a 1070.Leave that for a 490!!


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> Man, Europe has weird prices.
> 
> Cheapest GTX970 - 238,85€ for EVGA GeForce GTX 970 SuperClocked ACX 2.0
> Cheapest RX480 4GB - 219€ for Sapphire Radeon RX 480
> Cheapest RX480 8GB - 269€ HIS Radeon RX 480
> 
> 50€ for 4GB of RAM this card can hardly utilize....
> 
> EDIT: are there any news on when might custom cards show up or is it just Soon ™ ?


It's no wonder all the european members on here hate AMD so much. Where I am it's quite a bit cheaper than a gtx 970.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> They are way too forward thinking. By the time the 7970 beats the 970 consistently, both of those chips will be obsolete.


Do you mean the 480?

Because it's priced fine is on par in DX11, and when it beats the 970 consistently that will be a bonus to owners, and it means they will not need a new card well into the DX12 era.


----------



## NFL




----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Do you mean the 480?
> 
> Because it's priced fine is on par in DX11, and when it beats the 970 consistently that will be a bonus to owners, and it means they will not need a new card well into the DX12 era.


No, I mean the 7970. Its design will eventually allow it to, but all the R&D that went into creating that incredible chip will be little more than a curiosity by the time it's truly unleashed. I'm making a point about how GCN is too forward thinking, while Kepler and especially Maxwell were built for their own times. Yes, the GTX 680 has little use for modern games but it doesn't matter because it was so impressively and definitively replaced by GM204, which has once again been replaced by GK104 almost as impressively. GK104 chips are just a little too costly; the 1070 isn't the 970.


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFL*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Are there any more, you know, "relevant" benchmarks?


----------



## NFL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> Are there any more, you know, "relevant" benchmarks?


I'm just posting for the 1487mhz overclock it's running at


----------



## neurotix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mookster*
> 
> I'm not particularly moved by the fact that you've been benchmarking AMD cards since 2011.
> 
> And, no, those are not what I'd call criteria for an educated guess. In fact, that "It's AMD" attitude is exactly what resulted in my "antagonistic" response.
> 
> Did you know whether it would be produced on GloFlo's, TSMC's, or Samsungs node? No. Did you know the differences between those nodes before the release? No. Do you now? No, no one does. Did you know the die size before release? No. Did you know anything substantial about this release? No, you didn't.
> 
> You really summed it up for me. You based your opinion on Fury X's launch and "it's AMD". It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, those are just bad reasons to hold a strong opinion either way. You have nothing to be sitting here bragging about. All this "I called it" talk is weak, and your "high rank" at HWBOT doesn't change that. Die size, fab process, and provider are just as relevant to the performance of the final product as AMD's ability to design the chip. Architecture performance has been so close between NV and AMD, outside of driver enhancements and proprietary garbage, that those few factors matter more than almost anything else these days.
> 
> So, no. I wouldn't say my attitude is any more "antagonistic" than your opinion. Your statements warrant a strong response so I gave you one.


Your judgment about whether or not my opinion is educated is irrelevant, and so is the specifics of how I arrived at my conclusion, because I was still right. Just because my assumptions don't make sense to you, or aren't "in-depth" enough to you, doesn't discredit them or my way of thinking. My conclusion was still mostly accurate.

And actually, contrary to your assumptions, I actually did know that it would be produced on a combined GloFlo/Samsung 14nm node. I also knew the die size would be roughly 232mm2, this has been known for some time, surely it was less than 250mm2, and it's obviously a midrange chip with a smaller die. This has been common knowledge for months. Do I know the differences? Does it matter? I was still correct. More importantly, I've stated in other posts that I believe that the weak performance of the card are due to it having less ROPs and TMUs- which I also expected. The Fury X only had 64 ROPs while the 980ti had 96, and on release I knew this was a reason for it's poor performance at 1080p. So, I figured that the RX 480/Polaris would likely have 32 ROPs and probably underperform compared to the 390/290.

"It being AMD" is actually a valid reason to be suspicious, I thought everyone knew about Bulldozer at this point







We also get tons of delays for the 14nm node, the Fury and Fury X were turds, the company itself is failing and so on. Personally, I don't know how you can even hold this against me when I've stated I've used nothing but AMD graphics cards since 2008. I'm certainly an AMD supporter, and not an Nvidia troll or something. I'm not blind to the facts though and the companies' history, so obviously I have caution and am diffident in my expectations.

I don't know how these are "bad reasons", I'm sorry I'm not an electrical engineer at a fabrication facility, christ some people think you can't have an opinion or make statements unless you have a degree in this stuff.

The point about HWBOT is simple- where's your results? Where's your cred? If you know so much, then *do something* and prove you're actually good at this- building computers- instead of being full of hot air. I've seen your rigs, they're seriously outdated and they look like crap







So good luck on this front.

With that sir, have a good day. You will remain in my blocklist and receive no further responses.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> No, I mean the 7970. Its design will eventually allow it to, but all the R&D that went into creating that incredible chip will be little more than a curiosity by the time it's truly unleashed. I'm making a point about how GCN is too forward thinking, while Kepler and especially Maxwell were built for their own times. Yes, the GTX 680 has little use for modern games but it doesn't matter because it was so impressively and definitively replaced by GM204, which has once again been replaced by GK104 almost as impressively. GK104 chips are just a little too costly; the 1070 isn't the 970.


Ah I get you, 7970 beating a 970 that's a far stretch it's already come so far.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFL*
> 
> I'm just posting for the 1487mhz overclock it's running at


Wow. Must've got a nice chip, pity it's in a reference shroud with a 6 pin lol.


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFL*
> 
> I'm just posting for the 1487mhz overclock it's running at


Considering where it was posted and the "can't get any more power from 6pin" I wouldn't put too much stock in it.


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFL*
> 
> I'm just posting for the 1487mhz overclock it's running at


GPU-Z, where?


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFL*


For reference, my R9 290

1125/1520


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFL*
> 
> I'm just posting for the 1487mhz overclock it's running at


Bios mod to send more power through 6 pin?

Although just so people don't go nuts, SteamVR is a pretty light test, and I can usually squeeze an extra 20-30 MHz out of my 980 Ti for that test vs actual games.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ




----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Bios mod to send more power through 6 pin?
> 
> Although just so people don't go nuts, SteamVR is a pretty light test, and I can usually squeeze an extra 20-30 MHz out of my 980 Ti for that test vs actual games.


Yeah they have the 480 watercooled which is probably helping too. Still somewhat impressive if true.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> AMD just seems to be stuck - they've invested in so many pointless false starts and long term plans that they just cannot keep up.
> 
> Tonga - Backported to 28nm after 20nm crapped out. Regression in efficiency and performance compared to *Tahiti* while having a bigger die. At least this is true for the 285.
> HBM - 2 years too early to make a difference, undoubtedly contributed to making Fiji prohibitively expensive.
> DX12 - ACEs in 2012 card. Still waiting to be used mid 2016. Maybe this will eventually pay off, but it came at the cost of DX11 performance for over 4 years and counting.
> Fiji - Worthless chip for AMD. Costly, terrible yields/supply, and its competitor was so obviously better it's a joke. They would have been better off scrapping it and just letting Hawaii and Tonga stick it out against Maxwell. From an design standpoint, it's actually quite acceptable/good and HBM is impressive, but not nearly enough.
> Global Foundries - Their production of Polaris has been exemplary (miraculous) relatively speaking, but TSMC is so far ahead, at least in performance and efficiency, it's sad.
> 
> If any of this really paid off, especially Tonga and DX12, they may have been able to surpass NVIDIA, but NV had the foresight to realize that neither of those things mattered and stuck with proven tech and current needs. All this 'orthogonal' R&D has been worthless and look what they're trying to do with Polaris - backtrack. Color compression, tessellation performance and DX11 were all meant to be addressed by *this chip, the one coming out in 2016*, when they should have been addressing these things 4 and a half years ago - instead we got DX12 preparedness. They are way too forward thinking. By the time the 7970 beats the 970 consistently, both of those chips will be obsolete.
> 
> Of course, it's too little too late. Tessellation performance is still bad, color compression is below Maxwell, and DX11 efficiency is taking baby steps.


The RX 480 is the best card on the planet that $200 can buy. Today. All that other stuff is irrelevant. People can't seem to see the forest for the trees. This card was designed to be an amazing $200 card and it is. Comparing it to more expensive EOL cards is bad enough but comparing it to new cards that cost 2-3 times as much $$$ is just ridiculous. And I'm only talking about this supposedly disappointing reference card, the AIB cards are likely to be even better.

It's funny how price to performance all the sudden doesn't matter! "Just buy a $450 1070, it's faster!" -Said nobody ever who only has $200 to spend on a graphics card.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The RX 480 is the best card on the planet that $200 can buy. Today. All that other stuff is irrelevant. People can't seem to see the forest for the trees. This card was designed to be an amazing $200 card and it is. Comparing it to more expensive EOL cards is bad enough but comparing it to new cards that cost 2-3 times as much $$$ is just ridiculous. And I'm only talking about this supposedly disappointing reference card, the AIB cards are likely to be even better.
> 
> It's funny how price to performance all the sudden doesn't matter! "Just buy a $450 1070, it's faster!" -Said nobody ever who only has $200 to spend on a graphics card.


If I've learned anything from enthusiast forums it's that the target is never stationary.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The RX 480 is the best card on the planet that $200 can buy. Today. All that other stuff is irrelevant. People can't seem to see the forest for the trees. This card was designed to be an amazing $200 card and it is. Comparing it to more expensive EOL cards is bad enough but comparing it to new cards that cost 2-3 times as much $$$ is just ridiculous. And I'm only talking about this supposedly disappointing reference card, the AIB cards are likely to be even better.
> 
> It's funny how price to performance all the sudden doesn't matter! "Just buy a $450 1070, it's faster!" -Said nobody ever who only has $200 to spend on a graphics card.


Comparing efficiency is absolutely legitimate for one. For two, I'm not discussing the RX 480, I'm discussing Polaris 10 and a bunch of other AMD chips.

Personally, I have no interest in a $200 graphics card that barely beats my current one, not one that's an engineering failure like this one at least. If I were recommending or discussing a product, I would consider those things of course. I'm talking about the chip.

Yes the 480 is a good product, yes it's the best $230 card, but honestly, it barely manages to be. It made it there by the skin of its teeth as far as I'm concerned. That 970 is way too close for comfort. I think the 970 is given a bad rap. It's faster than overclocked 390X when pushed to its limits.

If NV slashed 970 prices to $200, that's an RX 480 killer instantly. Same efficiency, far more overclocking headroom, aftermarket designs, better idle/multi-monitor/blu-ray power consumption, superior DX11 performance and its power draw doesn't explode when you overclock it either. Honestly, when offered a choice, I know which card I'd pick at $200. God this sucks. What a worthless piece of **** card. July 2016 14nm and it's getting smacked by a cut 28nm card from September 2014 in every metric except perf/mm^2.

2.8x performance per watt compared to 270X, better efficiency in AotS compared to the 1080, 15% IPC improvement. Where? Where is AMD hiding that monster?


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dieanotherday*
> 
> people who accept the 480 as it is do not understand the situation
> 
> AMD is in trouble, they need a jesus video card, this is just a meh.
> 
> their stocks will tumble again.


This card is perfectly fine for our 1080P monitors and not bad for $250 card to replace your 6950. in my case the 7950. The issue with our system (if sig is up to date) is our Phenom.









This card is about twice as fast as my 7950, which is faster than your 6950.

Vega will replace my 290s.

EDIT: Anyone knows where i can get one of these here in Bankok? Thanks.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> If I've learned anything from enthusiast forums it's that the target is never stationary.


You get soooooooo much more satisfaction out of shooting a moving target though.


----------



## Omega X

This thread is one of the few reasons why I hang back and wait for the smoke to clear.


----------



## PsYcHo29388

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Omega X*
> 
> This thread is one of the few reasons why I hang back and wait for the smoke to clear.


I personally like watching closely as the smoke forms and my eyes leak tears of pain.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> You get soooooooo much more satisfaction out of shooting a moving target though.


I can't deny it!


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Omega X*
> 
> This thread is one of the few reasons why I hang back and wait for the smoke to clear.


I love these threads for their







value coz I need mah daily entertainment dammit!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Comparing efficiency is absolutely legitimate for one. For two, I'm not discussing the RX 480, I'm discussing Polaris 10 and a bunch of other AMD chips.
> 
> Personally, I have no interest in a $200 graphics card that barely beats my current one, not one that's an engineering failure like this one at least. If I were recommending or discussing a product, I would consider those things of course. I'm talking about the chip.
> 
> Yes the 480 is a good product, yes it's the best $230 card, but honestly, it barely manages to be. It made it there by the skin of its teeth as far as I'm concerned. That 970 is way too close for comfort. I think the 970 is given a bad rap. It's faster than overclocked 390X when pushed to its limits.


What relevance does the Polaris chip have with any other product than the 480/470? The high end stuff is not going to be Polaris at all. Polaris was designed specifically to bring great performance to the $200 segment while they work on the next high end chips and it does precisely that. Name one other product for $200 that is even in the same league as the 480?

Oh, and if you have no interest in a $200 video card then this product is simply not for you. Go spend twice as much on a 1070 and enjoy yourself. But realize that 80% of the market is keenly interested in a $200 card as powerful as this one...


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> What relevance does the Polaris chip have with any other product than the 480/470? The high end stuff is not going to be Polaris at all. Polaris was designed specifically to bring great performance to the $200 segment while they work on the next high end chips and it does precisely that. Name one other product for $200 that is even in the same league as the 480?
> 
> Oh, and if you have no interest in a $200 video card then this product is simply not for you. Go spend twice as much on a 1070 and enjoy yourself. But realize that 80% of the market is keenly interested in a $200 card as powerful as this one...


All NV needs to do is slash prices on the 970 to $200 and you have a card that's almost strictly better than the 480. Also I edited my post to include an angry rant about why the 480 sucks.

I haven't spent any money yet.


----------



## NFL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> All NV needs to do is slash prices on the 970 to $200 and you have a card that's almost strictly better than the 480. Also I edited my post to include an angry rant.


970 is EOL, so it's not all that important to NV anymore. Besides, the 1060 is right around the corner and that's what will compete with the 480


----------



## Cherryblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> It doesnt deliver much vs 970 in value.
> It doesnt deliver in performance against the 2.5 year old GTX 970 card.
> It doesnt deliver in value against GTX 1070 with crossfire.
> 
> Decent card for someone stuck with a GT 540 card or R7 360 or something. But for the rest its a huge meh card


Well 970 wasn't anywhere near 200$ range at its release. And now it is only comparable because it's nearly out of stock and merchants are clearing the stocks.

No one care less about cross fire, you're talking about average in your last posts, but average people do not crossfire, and AMD's target is cleary not you with this card.

Have some cake mate, chill out.

You have to understand that at this price, AMD is still getting a good margin, since it's the release price.
That's pretty good for them, and I'm cleary not sure NVIDIA could have released a 970 at this price and still have a margin.

You can't look at what other companies do, and take as a given that another company can at least do that much. That's no given here.

The only realistic approch you can have is to compare the card with previous AMD stuff. Yes there has been progress.

Yes compared to competition it's at 970 level in performance and consumption. But it's way better at price.

So it should help AMD gain market share with the *average* public (in which I clearly do not include you).


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFL*
> 
> 970 is EOL, so it's not all that important to NV anymore. Besides, the 1060 is right around the corner and that's what will compete with the 480


My point is that the RX 480 basically offers no resistance. If NV wished, they could stamp out its mark without even trying, using technology from almost 2 years ago. At least with the Fury X it managed to beat everything except the 980 Ti.

Of course the 1060 will crush it even more definitively than the 970 could.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> All NV needs to do is slash prices on the 970 to $200 and you have a card that's almost strictly better than the 480. Also I edited my post to include an angry rant about why the 480 sucks.
> 
> I haven't spent any money yet.


Dude no just NO.

If nothing else that 3.5GB has effectively sealed 970's fate going forward.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

970's are EOL and the 1070 replaced it, they're not slashing anything. It's all about pascal now. I guess you expected AMD to build a card as fast as a 1070 but only charge half as much as Nvidia?


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> 970's are EOL and the 1070 replaced it, they're not slashing anything. It's all about pascal now. I guess you expected AMD to build a card as fast as a 1070 but only charge half as much as Nvidia?


All in the hopes that such a card would provide a $20 price drop on a 1070.


----------



## NFL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> My point is that the RX 480 basically offers no resistance. If NV wished, they could stamp out its mark without even trying, using technology from almost 2 years ago. At least with the Fury X it managed to beat everything except the 980 Ti. It wasn't getting killed by the 780 Ti.
> 
> Of course the 1060 will crush it even more definitively than the 970 could.


If past X60 releases are anything to go by, that's not happening.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> My point is that the RX 480 basically offers no resistance. If NV wished, they could stamp out its mark without even trying, using technology from almost 2 years ago. At least with the Fury X it managed to beat everything except the 980 Ti.
> 
> Of course the 1060 will crush it even more definitively than the 970 could.


LOL suddenly the X60 cards are going to be awesome for the price and age beautifully no doubt.

Lest we forget the 560/660/760/960


----------



## SpeedyVT

I'm questioning if the Samsung LLP node is producing leaky gates for some people. Apple had this problem when going to Samsung for quota production for the iPhone.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

It's funny, these are all the same people that said 970 to 980 performance out of a $200 card would be a great value just a few weeks ago. But now that the card is actually here of course it's time to start circling the wagons around Nvidia. I suspect that the fan boys are just now realizing that their precious Nvidia really has nothing to compete with the 480 at this time and it's stealing their limelight! Oh, what to do?!?!


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Dude no just NO.
> 
> If nothing else that 3.5GB has effectively sealed 970's fate going forward.


3.5GB issue is way overblown in practical terms. I agree it's deception, but it doesn't matter right now. That's more than enough VRAM for 1080p.

Here's what the 970 has going for it:
-Its comparable to an overclocked 390X if not faster. It's a faster chip than Polaris 10.
-It consumes a reasonable amount of power when overclocked and is far ahead of Polaris's efficiency in that regard.
-It's made on the ridiculously mature 28nm process and has no supply issues.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> 970's are EOL and the 1070 replaced it, they're not slashing anything. It's all about pascal now. I guess you expected AMD to build a card as fast as a 1070 but only charge half as much as Nvidia?


Nope. What I expected was a card that came within striking distance of Pascal's efficiency, overclocks reasonably (10% pretty please?) and doesn't consume over 200W with a 5% overclock. Too much to ask from RTG I guess.

I also expected a card that had a greater than 42% efficiency lead over a card we were told it beat in that regard by 2.8X (270X). Further, I expected geometry and color compression on par with Maxwell nearly 2 years down the line. Finally, I expected a card that beat the 1080 in crossfire with superior efficiency. This is what RTG presented on their slides, and this is a fairy tale.


----------



## BulletBait

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> It's faster than overclocked 390X when pushed to its limits.


I'm sorry, I stopped reading at this. My 290X regularly beats 970s OC for OC. Even stock for stock in about half the games these days. Must be so proud of getting smashed by a card that's a year older and lower clocks then the 970 let alone a stock 390x. Must be that extra .5GB of VRAM...









Geez, I wish everyone would stop comparing reference to OCed cards. Especially reference vs AIB OCed cards. Review sites are the biggest culprits in this trend. They get that single reference AMD card and never bother to do anything with it or get an 'OCed' AIB and then compare it against every nV card out there.

Stop spreading misinformation you tool.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> 3.5GB issue is way overblown in practical terms. I agree it's deception, but it doesn't matter right now. That's more than enough VRAM for 1080p.
> 
> Here's what the 970 has going for it:
> -Its comparable to an overclocked 390X if not faster. It's a faster chip than Polaris 10.
> -It consumes a reasonable amount of power when overclocked and is far ahead of Polaris's efficiency in that regard.
> -It's made on the ridiculously mature 28nm process and has no supply issues.
> Nope. What I expected was a card that came within striking distance of Pascal's efficiency, overclocks reasonably (10% pretty please?) and doesn't consume over 200W with a 5% overclock. Too much to ask from RTG I guess.
> 
> I also expected a card that had a greater than 42% efficiency lead over a card we were told it beat in that regard by 2.8X (270X). Further, I expected geometry and color compression on par with Maxwell nearly 2 years down the line. Finally, I expected a card that beat the 1080 in crossfire with superior efficiency. This is what RTG presented on their slides, and this is a fairy tale.


3.5 issue isn't overblown. All new games that break the 3.5 barrier can suddenly cause a loss of 30% in frames like with Mirror's Edge 2. I have a feeling this card is entirely for DX12 as DX12 benchmarks were pretty darn good. Not 390 good, but let's understand it's got a godly 512 bit memory controller.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The RX 480 is the best card on the planet that $200 can buy. Today. All that other stuff is irrelevant. People can't seem to see the forest for the trees. This card was designed to be an amazing $200 card and it is. Comparing it to more expensive EOL cards is bad enough but comparing it to new cards that cost 2-3 times as much $$$ is just ridiculous. And I'm only talking about this supposedly disappointing reference card, the AIB cards are likely to be even better.
> 
> It's funny how price to performance all the sudden doesn't matter! "Just buy a $450 1070, it's faster!" -Said nobody ever who only has $200 to spend on a graphics card.


Two things you are forcefully for some reason ignoring (or mislead):

1. The 200$ has not been reviewed. The 230$ one has. So if you have 200$ to spare only, you don't know the performance you will get.
2. The AIB 480s are rumoured to be 300$ cards. And they start to fall on the 1070 territory, which is not 2-3 times as much $$$, and claiming 2-3 times is just ridiculous when you are talking about a 300$ vs 400$ (math is hard sometimes).

Once the 10 series stock start to become more stable, prices will normalise and the AIB 480s will start to get harder competition. From the 1060 as well as it is soon to come.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> 3.5GB issue is way overblown in practical terms. I agree it's deception, but it doesn't matter right now. That's more than enough VRAM for 1080p.
> 
> Here's what the 970 has going for it:
> -Its comparable to an overclocked 390X if not faster. It's a faster chip than Polaris 10.
> -It consumes a reasonable amount of power when overclocked and is far ahead of Polaris's efficiency in that regard.
> -It's made on the ridiculously mature 28nm process and has no supply issues.
> Nope. What I expected was a card that came within striking distance of Pascal's efficiency, overclocks reasonably (10% pretty please?) and doesn't consume over 200W with a 5% overclock. Too much to ask from RTG I guess.
> 
> I also expected a card that had a greater than 42% efficiency lead over a card we were told it beat in that regard by 2.8X (270X). Further, I expected geometry and color compression on par with Maxwell nearly 2 years down the line. Finally, I expected a card that beat the 1080 in crossfire with superior efficiency. This is what RTG presented on their slides, and this is a fairy tale.


Haha, and yet still nothing is better at its price and you know it. Whether you like it or not, this card is going to fly off the shelves as people realize how much performance they are getting for two bills and that nothing else even comes close. Meanwhile AMD will happily take all their money while they work on the chips that are actually designed to be impressive in the higher tier brackets...


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> 1. The 200$ has not been reviewed. The *230$* one has. So if you have 200$ to spare only, you don't know the performance you will get.


And not even that. It's 269€ over here, for the reference cooler. But sure, everyone, let's keep ignoring the 2nd largest market and pretend it's $199 card


----------



## Majentrix

Someone on another forum apparently has their 480 running at nearly 1.5GHz with a CLC mounted onto the card, here's a Valley result.


----------



## lolfail9001

Either way, the thing is: I don't care about a $300 card (where i live) that needs a $100 PSU to go with it (where i live, once again).

So as mainstream user budget-wise... thumbs down.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> 3.5 issue isn't overblown. All new games that break the 3.5 barrier can suddenly cause a loss of 30% in frames like with Mirror's Edge 2. I have a feeling this card is entirely for DX12 as DX12 benchmarks were pretty darn good. Not 390 good, but let's understand it's got a godly 512 bit memory controller.


It's the card that SHOULD beat 390 on all metrics available. Better geometry throughput, pretty much exact effective bandwidth (at least Charlie claims AMD claims it has better effective bandwidth than 290X), better raw compute, even better Dx12 support or something.

It does not in Dx12, and that's freaking puzzling.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Haha, and yet still nothing is better at its price and you know it. Whether you like it or not, this card is going to fly off the shelves as people realize how much performance they are getting for two bills and that nothing else even comes close. Meanwhile AMD will happily take all their money while they work on the chips that are actually designed to be impressive in the higher tier brackets...


Well, Europe has something to say about that.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> 3.5GB issue is way overblown in practical terms. I agree it's deception, but it doesn't matter right now. That's more than enough VRAM for 1080p.
> 
> Here's what the 970 has going for it:
> -Its comparable to an overclocked 390X if not faster. It's a faster chip than Polaris 10.
> -It consumes a reasonable amount of power when overclocked and is far ahead of Polaris's efficiency in that regard.
> -It's made on the ridiculously mature 28nm process and has no supply issues.


It's not overblown. Dying Light and DOOM with ultra nightmare settings can already go over 3.5GB even at 1080p, and vram requirements are just going to keep bloating if PC "optimization" in the last few years are any indication. Raw grunt is useless if you don't have the buffer to back it up.

Also, a 970 overclocked to 980 level will consume 180-200W at load, so not exactly sipping power. No argument on the supply issue. But keep in mind 970 is already maxed out, and 480 has just started. I'm also going to reserve full judgement until we see what AIB 480 cards can do.


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Two things you are forcefully for some reason ignoring (or mislead):
> 
> 1. The 200$ has not been reviewed. The 230$ one has. So if you have 200$ to spare only, you don't know the performance you will get.
> 2. The AIB 480s are rumoured to be 300$ cards. And they start to fall on the 1070 territory, which is not 2-3 times as much $$$, and claiming 2-3 times is just ridiculous when you are talking about a 300$ vs 400$ (math is hard sometimes).
> 
> Once the 10 series stock start to become more stable, prices will normalise and the AIB 480s will start to get harder competition. From the 1060 as well as it is soon to come.


1070 Territory? Weird because I just bought the cheapest possible 1070 and it costed me 450$.

Also the difference between a 4GB 480 and 8GB 480 is, well... VRAM, and the frequencies at which these modules work, they're basically the same memory so the 4GB version should clock to the same speed of the 8GB version and you'd essentially have no other difference between these two cards.

Also AIBs for the 199$ RX 480 are unlikely to go past 239$, I can see 269$ for the 8GB version, 299$ should be some crazy/stupid Lightning-Esque card.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> And not even that. It's 269€ over here, for the reference cooler. But sure, everyone, let's keep ignoring the 2nd largest market and pretend it's $199 card


Get the 1070 for 380€ and stop the whining.

Might still be out of stock, though.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

It's interesting being accused of being an NVIDIA fanboy when nearly all my posts up until have been cautiously optimistic about the 480, plus I own an R9 290, so I have credentials in that regard.

What I'm pointing out is the truth. The RX 480 overclocks by 5%, and it's power consumption at that level is awful. The 970 can be overclocked to win against a stock 980 fairly routinely, and indeed against an overclocked aftermarket 390X.

Direct your eyes to this review: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/xfx_r9_390x/

They test the 390X overclocked against a plethora of other overclocked cards. The 970 wins almost every scenario.

Look at how weak the 480 is: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview/4

In nearly every game that AT tested, it lost to a stock 970, sometimes pretty badly. 5% overclocking headroom.

*The 970 is faster and more efficient than this card.* Even the reference version is likely faster. The reference 970 was not power and heat choked like the 1070.

The only defense I seem to be getting is being called a tool, a fanboy, some anecdotal evidence and fortune telling about the 970 being gimped in the future. Can anyone bring something stronger than that?


----------



## DaFirnz

Finally a decent option to replace my 7950 that won't kill my wallet and allow me to adopt freesync. When it's time.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majentrix*
> 
> 
> 
> Someone on another forum apparently has their 480 running at nearly 1.5GHz with a CLC mounted onto the card, here's a Valley result.


Get us some links! Plus that guys CPU looks to be bottling the benchmark.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> It's not overblown. Dying Light and DOOM with ultra nightmare settings can already go over 3.5GB even at 1080p, and vram requirements are just going to keep bloating if PC "optimization" in the last few years are any indication. Raw grunt is useless if you don't have the buffer to back it up.
> 
> Also, a 970 overclocked to 980 level will consume 180-200W at load, so not exactly sipping power. No argument on the supply issue. But keep in mind 970 is already maxed out, and 480 has just started. I'm also going to reserve full judgement until we see what AIB 480 cards can do.


Pointless e-peen settings that have no visual effect. Marketing settings like Hyper in Mirror's Edge to sell 1080s. The discerning gamer doesn't bother with such foolishness. Honestly, lots of reviews have shown the 2GB has been fine for most games in 2015.

180-200W is not sipping power, but OC'ed 480s gulp it down because of GCN's design.

The AIB argument is fair. But I am no longer at all optimistic.

I am not lying when I say I wanted this card to be awesome like iLeakStuff and others are. I know you won't believe me, but it is absolutely true.

It just is not awesome. As an enthusiast I do not like that one bit. I can't make this card awesome, and I can't pretend to be happy with it. I hope it flies off the shelves, I still want AMD to build a kickass Vega card. I will buy a kickass Vega based card. It doesn't change how much AMD has lied and exaggerated about this one; there are my desires and then there's what's true.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Two things you are forcefully for some reason ignoring (or mislead):
> 
> 1. The 200$ has not been reviewed. The 230$ one has. So if you have 200$ to spare only, you don't know the performance you will get.
> 2. The AIB 480s are rumoured to be 300$ cards. And they start to fall on the 1070 territory, which is not 2-3 times as much $$$, and claiming 2-3 times is just ridiculous when you are talking about a 300$ vs 400$ (math is hard sometimes).
> 
> Once the 10 series stock start to become more stable, prices will normalise and the AIB 480s will start to get harder competition. From the 1060 as well as it is soon to come.


1. There's no difference in the performance of the 4 or 8GB cards. And did you know the release cards are actually all 8GB?









2. Stop with the rumors. No pricing has been announced, you're just making up numbers. Even still, at your rumored $300 price, a 1500MHz 480 (gotta love them rumors!!!) will still be $150 less than a reference 1070; that's 50% more. Oh, and 1070 = 2 times, 1080 = 3 times.


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> Get the 1070 for 380€ and stop the whining.
> 
> Might still be out of stock, though.


Gosh golly, someone's cranky.
1070 goes for ~470€, but it comes with a heatsink that's actually decent, in contrast with what the RX480 has. My beef was with people claiming that RX480 is a $199 card and GTX1070 is a $450 card. That is simply not true.

Oh, and there are absolutely no shortages of 1070 here.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> It's interesting being accused of being an NVIDIA fanboy when nearly all my posts up until have been cautiously optimistic about the 480, plus I own an R9 290, so I have credentials in that regard.
> 
> What I'm pointing out is the truth. The RX 480 overclocks by 5%, and it's power consumption at that level is awful. The 970 can be overclocked to win against a stock 980 fairly routinely, and indeed against an overclocked aftermarket 390X.
> 
> Direct your eyes to this review: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/xfx_r9_390x/
> 
> They test the 390X overclocked against a plethora of other overclocked cards. The 970 wins almost every scenario.
> 
> Look at how weak the 480 is: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview/4
> 
> In nearly every game that AT tested, it lost to a stock 970, sometimes pretty badly. 5% overclocking headroom.
> 
> *The 970 is faster and more efficient than this card.* Even the reference version is likely faster. The reference 970 was not power and heat choked like the 1070.
> 
> The only defense I seem to be getting is being called a tool, a fanboy, some anecdotal evidence and fortune telling about the 970 being gimped in the future. Can anyone bring something stronger than that?


and yet in most benches the card seems to be on par with it or slightly above it.. only 4 reviews so far has it below constantly even pcgamer that shiils on amd even because they are red have a total average above the 970


----------



## GorillaSceptre

People are forgetting how much harder these small chips are to cool.. The same is true for the 1070 and 1080.

Whoever is still trying to recommend 970's above this must have an agenda.. We're looking at day-one drivers on a reference cooler with a single six pin, and it's still getting close to the 390X and 980..

Have some perspective, it costs $199.. Usually i'm not in the "wait for AIB" camp, but in this case you have to be a fool not to if you want more performance. If you don't want more performance than it offers, then you still have a card without equal at it's price range.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> Gosh golly, someone's cranky.
> 1070 goes for ~470€, but it comes with a heatsink that's actually decent, in contrast with what the RX480 has. My beef was with people claiming that RX480 is a $199 card and GTX1070 is a $450 card. That is simply not true.
> 
> Oh, and there are absolutely no shortages of 1070 here.


You realize of course that they really are $199 and $450 right? They're American products being sold in American currency. Currency conversions to other countries are irrelevant to the discussion (not to mention wacky VAT and other mark ups out of their control).


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> gonna leave this here:


Watching now, pretty good

If interested in skipping around,

25minutes or so in raja starts talking about multi gpu

33minutes or so other guy starts talking about wattman

41minutes raja says he has gaming pc in bedroom lol

Will update as I get further if necessary


----------



## Origondoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> Get the 1070 for *457€* and stop the whining.
> 
> Might still be out of stock, though.


FTFY


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You realize of course that they really are $199 and $450 right? They're American products being sold in American currency. Currency conversions to other countries are irrelevant to the discussion (not to mention wacky VAT and other mark ups out of their control).


$239 becomes 269€. $450 becomes €470. I'm not sure how's your math, but there's something fishy about this. I guess AMD just doesn't care for the 2nd largest market, huh?


----------



## Dargonplay

Can everyone just calm down and realize that if you have a 750Ti/950/960 | AMD 270s/280s/380s the best card for them to upgrade to is actually a 199$ RX 480?

I get it, this card is not as efficient as I thought, given the fact that it is 14nm and its got the efficiency of Maxwell 970, I get your frustration, but please understand that there's no reason for anyone with the above mentioned cards to buy the 970 over the RX 480, none.

We have mountains of evidence about Nvidia neglecting previous generation cards, I would venture to say that the RX 480 stock will in months time become as fast as a mildly overclocked 980 if Nvidia's track record is anything to go about.

Besides, the 970 is only faster when comparing OC expensive AIB 970s against reference RX 480s, if you really want to hit 1450MHz and destroy a 970 I'm sure you'll buy a 229$ AIB 4GB RX 480.

Again, there's no reason for anyone to buy a 970 over a RX 480, fact.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> Gosh golly, someone's cranky.
> 1070 goes for ~470€, but it comes with a heatsink that's actually decent, in contrast with what the RX480 has. My beef was with people claiming that RX480 is a $199 card and GTX1070 is a $450 card. That is simply not true.
> 
> Oh, and there are absolutely no shortages of 1070 here.


The 1070 can be had for $450. I've seen it but it is not readily available. Now, that's in the US. Prices from other countries differ based on the exchange rate, which can be out of our control.









Either wait for the AIBs for the 480 or put up for the 1070, which is a lot faster. The 480 is to replace the 380.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> *Pointless e-peen settings that have no visual effect. Marketing settings like Hyper in Mirror's Edge to sell 1080s. The discerning gamer doesn't bother with such foolishness.*
> 
> 180-200W is not sipping power, but OC'ed 480s gulp it down because of GCN's design.
> 
> The AIB argument is fair. But I am no longer at all optimistic.
> 
> I am not lying when I say I wanted this card to be awesome like iLeakStuff and others are. I know you won't believe me, but it is absolutely true.
> 
> It just is not awesome. As an enthusiast I do not like that one bit. I can't make this card awesome, and I can't pretend to be happy with it. I hope it flies off the shelves, I still want AMD to build a kickass Vega card. I will buy a kickass Vega based card. It doesn't change how much AMD has lied and exaggerated about this card.


Dude seriously?







That's an entirely relevant point when trying to sell the 970 over the 480. One is already on its way out, one will stay relevant for (much) longer.

AMD barely said anything about this card, and I certainly don't think there's anything they "lied" about the card. Exaggerated on the per/watt improvements yes, but no outright lies like the Fury X overclocker's dream. If you're referring to the hype that 480 would overclock to stock 980 Ti or even 1070 (lol) levels, well you can blame clickbait rumor sites and the people who believed them and hyped them like it was the absolute truth.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> $239 becomes 269€. $450 becomes €470. I'm not sure how's your math, but there's something fishy about this. I guess AMD just doesn't care for the 2nd largest market, huh?


how is that an amd problem?
companies set a global suggested price and when the card lefts the factory its out of their hand to do something about the price...they cant control it imagine how much they need to cut it down in new zealand in order to be relevant... almost 230 bucks practicly giving it free


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> People are forgetting how much harder these small chips are to cool.. The same is true for the 1070 and 1080.
> 
> Whoever is still trying to recommend 970's above this must have an agenda.. We're looking at day-one drivers on a reference cooler with a single six pin, and it's still getting close to the 390X and 980..
> 
> Have some perspective, it costs $199.. Usually i'm not in the "wait for AIB" camp, but in this case you have to be a fool not to if you want more performance. If you don't want more performance than it offers, then you still have a card without equal at it's price range.


I recommend a 970 against it at the same price, at this moment. Absolutely.

Maybe this review has an agenda, but in their suite, it's OC'ed 390X vs OC'ed 970, and there is not a single win for 390X at 1080p or 1440p. None of us can deny that the 970 is one powerful card.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/xfx_r9_390x/


----------



## magnek

So would you also recommend a 980 Ti against the 1070 if both were at the same price then?


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> $239 becomes 269€. $450 becomes €470. I'm not sure how's your math, but there's something fishy about this. I guess AMD just doesn't care for the 2nd largest market, huh?


$239 becomes 256€, they're selling for 269€ and that's up to the retailers and not AMD.


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> how is that an amd problem?
> companies set a global suggested price and when the card lefts the factory its out of their hand to do something about the price...they cant control it imagine how much they need to cut it down in new zealand in order to be relevant... almost 230 bucks practicly giving it free


It's an AMD problem because that makes their card less attractive in regards to p/p. How is that a difficult concept to grasp? It being priced $199 in US has *absolutely no effect* to anyone buying it outside of US.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> I recommend a 970 against it at the same price, at this moment. Absolutely.
> 
> Maybe this review has an agenda, but in their suite, it's OC'ed 390X vs OC'ed 970, and there is not a single win for 390X at 1080p or 1440p. None of us can deny that the 970 is one powerful card.
> 
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/xfx_r9_390x/


are you seriously posting a battlefield 3 bench on 2016?

can you find a half life 1 bench to post?

THATS why techpowerup needs not to be taken seriously
using bf3 wow and wotanks as a relevant benchmark on 2016 is just beyond stupidity


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Dude seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an entirely relevant point when trying to sell the 970 over the 480. One is already on its way out, one will stay relevant for (much) longer.
> 
> AMD barely said anything about this card, and I certainly don't think there's anything they "lied" about the card. Exaggerated on the per/watt improvements yes, but no outright lies like the Fury X overclocker's dream. If you're referring to the hype that 480 would overclock to stock 980 Ti or even 1070 (lol) levels, well you can blame clickbait rumor sites and the people who believed them and hyped them like it was the absolute truth.


Polaris RX 480 have awful efficiency, AMD didn't lied, AMD used the RX 470 numbers for their efficiency claims for Polaris which seems to be a way more efficient card.

Polaris seem to be an architecture aimed to the mobile market, as you increase performance with more cores and frequencies you lose its main advantage, efficiency.

I think we will see that the RX 470 is a better card overall than the 480. I really hope that Polaris was designed with RX 460/470 performance in mind, and that the RX 480 is just AMD stretching this architecture as much as they can for performance numbers, greatly sacrificing efficiency.

It's scary to think that a 970 on 28nm have roughly the same efficiency as Polaris on 14nm, main reason why I just bought a GTX 1070 for my 2ndary RIG.

Hopefully the RX 480 efficiency (Or lack of) is only a side effect of having a low end architecture being stretched out to a performance level that it was never intended to be in, and that with VEGA efficiency is set back on track.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

So lets put a heavily overclocked aftermarket 970 against the others in *BF3* and call it a win..









That 970 is beating a 980 too if you didn't notice.. They're all easily over 100 fps anyway so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.. The 970 is going to get demolished in newer titles, DX12 ones in particular.

Keep recommending a 970, i just feel sorry for whoever believes you.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Dude seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an entirely relevant point when trying to sell the 970 over the 480. One is already on its way out, one will stay relevant for (much) longer.
> 
> AMD barely said anything about this card, and I certainly don't think there's anything they "lied" about the card. Exaggerated on the per/watt improvements yes, but no outright lies like the Fury X overclocker's dream. If you're referring to the hype that 480 would overclock to stock 980 Ti or even 1070 (lol) levels, well you can blame clickbait rumor sites and the people who believed them and hyped them like it was the absolute truth.


Overclocker's dream is less of lie than this slide turned out to be:



It's explicitly stated that the RX 480 vs the R9 270X is the basis for their claim of Polaris 10's 2.8X performance per watt. Instead, we got 1.42X.

"Overclocker's dream" is a lie, but vague enough that you can't really call it out.


----------



## tkenietz

. Oops


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Overclocker's dream is less of lie than this slide turned out to be:
> 
> 
> 
> It's explicitly stated that the RX 480 vs the R9 270X is the basis for their claim of Polaris 10's 2.8X performance per watt. Instead, we got 1.42X.
> 
> "Overclocker's dream" is a lie, but vague enough that you can't really call it out.


Nope it's 470 vs 270X and not 480 vs. 270X. Read carefully.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> I recommend a 970 against it at the same price, at this moment. Absolutely.
> 
> Maybe this review has an agenda, but in their suite, it's OC'ed 390X vs OC'ed 970, and there is not a single win for 390X at 1080p or 1440p. None of us can deny that the 970 is one powerful card.


Yet techpowerup's performance summary shows the 480 at 100%, 970 at 95%. - 480 wins.

Performance per watt - 480 wins.

Performance per dollar - 480 wins.

Not to mention 8GB vs 3.5GB vram.

Sigh


----------



## NFL

GPU-Z from 480/H100 guy


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Overclocker's dream is less of lie than this slide turned out to be:
> 
> 
> 
> It's explicitly stated that the RX 480 vs the R9 270X is the basis for their claim of Polaris 10's 2.8X performance per watt. Instead, we got 1.42X.
> 
> "Overclocker's dream" is a lie, but vague enough that you can't really call it out.


RX 4*7*0 vs RX 270X

Since RX 470 isn't released we can't verify. But that paragraph gives very good detail about how they calculated those perf/watt improvements, so when RX 470 does get released, those interested enough could verify or disprove those numbers for themselves.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> RX 4*7*0 vs RX 270X


lol uh oh another argument crushed.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So lets put a heavily overclocked aftermarket 970 against the others in *BF3* and call it a win..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That 970 is beating a 980 too if you didn't notice.. They're all easily over 100 fps anyway so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.. The 970 is going to get demolished in newer titles, DX12 ones in particular.
> 
> Keep recommending a 970, i just feel sorry for whoever believes you.


I also posted a link to a great deal of other benchmarks.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/xfx_r9_390x/

I have made no mention of recommending a 970 at its current price point. My point is that an overclocked 970 beats an overclocked RX 480. If you have something to dispute that, I suggest you post it.

My problem is that it seems the crux of your argument is 'wait'. Wait for games where the 970 gets beaten; they're coming, believe me. What kind of argument is that? It's worthless. The 970 has the performance and the efficiency right now, and in every game released up until this point.


----------



## Kpjoslee

I would stop anyone who even thinks about getting 970 over Rx480, seriously lol.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So would you also recommend a 980 Ti against the 1070 if both were at the same price then?


@Pyrotagonist Still waiting on an answer to this question.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> It's an AMD problem because that makes their card less attractive in regards to p/p. How is that a difficult concept to grasp? It being priced $199 in US has *absolutely no effect* to anyone buying it outside of US.


you do realise that not a single company can dictate vat shipping prices and whatever else right? if on nz you see a 500 tag its not amd problem they CANT lower the price because a country is going full ******
same goes for my country almost every retailer has it on 350 (cartel) yet no one bats an eye..
and yet overclockers already reported that more than 1000+ cards already are sold through them


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> The 970 has the performance and the efficiency right now, and in every game released up until this point.


Really?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

Check out OC benchmarks bottom of page.

[email protected] vs [email protected]

Both have room for higher core speeds.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> lol uh oh another argument crushed.


Alright fine, that was stupid.

But I'm curious as to what other arguments have been crushed?

All I've gotten is 'wait for games where the 480 wins' so far. What I haven't seen is verifiable results that an OC'ed 480 wins or rivals an OC'ed 970 on average, the RX 480 is unaffected by DX11 overhead present in older AMD cards, that it can compete with the efficiency of an OC'ed 970.

Where is all this?


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So lets put a heavily overclocked aftermarket 970 against the others in *BF3* and call it a win..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That 970 is beating a 980 too if you didn't notice.. They're all easily over 100 fps anyway so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.. The 970 is going to get demolished in newer titles, DX12 ones in particular.
> 
> Keep recommending a 970, i just feel sorry for whoever believes you.


There is actually a frame performance breakaway point for any benchmark, just as soon as a card steps past a threshold of the benchmark workload it's not uncommon for the card to over excel in a benchmark especially if it's got high base clocks. If you under clock a 1070 to the stock clocks of it's same cuda the benchmarks the card should perform worse than it's counter part with equal cudas. 1080 and 1070 are just clocked high enough to just step over the threshold. You can notice this when you look at 1080p vs 4K this is because the threshold is much larger at 4K, while under the load of 4K for Nvidia it loose more FPS proportionally than AMD.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Alright fine, that was stupid.
> 
> But I'm curious as to what other arguments have been crushed?
> 
> All I've gotten is 'wait for games where the 480 wins' so far. What I haven't seen is verifiable results that an OC'ed 480 wins or rivals an OC'ed 970 on average, the RX 480 is unaffected by DX11 overhead present in older AMD cards, that it can compete with the efficiency of an OC'ed 970.
> 
> Where is all this?


linked above

970 beaten in 4 out of 5 titles?

Oh and I meant other arguments within this thread, not from you.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

It's literally day one for the 480 with no AIB cards even announced yet and you act as though OCs are already set in stone vs a card that as had AIB OC versions out for nearly two years. Back to the point, the 970 is dead and irrelevant. Once the last cards are gone, that's it. The 480 is the only option at $200-$240 and everybody knows it. You want something faster you're going to have to dig a lot deeper in your wallet...


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Really?
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/
> 
> Check out OC benchmarks bottom of page.
> 
> [email protected] vs [email protected]
> 
> Both have room for higher core speeds.


I see that it wins 3/6 tests.

If the RX 480 has more headroom, it's yet to be shown as far as I can tell, and I don't know what kind of power it draws at that level either.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> I see that it wins 3/6 tests.
> 
> If the RX 480 has more headroom, it's yet to be shown as far as I can tell, and I don't know what kind of power it draws at that level either.


That's why I said scroll down to OC results, there are 5 games not 6..................

When you're not winning benchmarks refer to power draw gotcha.

Winning 4 out of 5................


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> I would stop anyone who even thinks about getting 970 over Rx480, seriously lol.


No, you're right. Buying anything 28nm new would be plain stupid at this point. It just baffles me how AMD keeps stepping on the same rake - can't the put a decent stock heatsink on their cards for once?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> you do realise that not a single company can dictate vat shipping prices and whatever else right? if on nz you see a 500 tag its not amd problem they CANT lower the price because a country is going full ******
> same goes for my country almost every retailer has it on 350 (cartel) yet no one bats an eye..
> and yet overclockers already reported that more than 1000+ cards already are sold through them


I see I'm still not getting my point across.
AMD cards are *overpriced* in Europe, relative to Nvidia cards. AMD might not be able to do anything about it, but it doesn't even enter the mind of an average buyer.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Alright fine, that was stupid.
> 
> But I'm curious as to what other arguments have been crushed?
> 
> All I've gotten is 'wait for games where the 480 wins' so far. What I haven't seen is verifiable results that an OC'ed 480 wins or rivals an OC'ed 970 on average, the RX 480 is unaffected by DX11 overhead present in older AMD cards, that it can compete with the efficiency of an OC'ed 970.
> 
> Where is all this?


all we got is exactly what amd said
slightly above 970 and less of 980
which suprise suprise its there in literally 90% of the reviews

now if we put dx12 on the radar only the argument that 480 crushes 980 is just simply true..
BUT no one speaks about dx12 because it doesnt fit their view to shill on the card
OR no one will mention those results
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/13/#diagramm-call-of-duty-black-ops-iii-2560-1440_2


----------



## lolfail9001

Sorry guys but that slide is still a lie.

Rx470 would need to be twice more efficient than rx480 turned out to be to actually fit that slide.

Does anyone of you really bevieve that would be the case?

Also, this GPU-Z is fishy, it does not identify GPU or revision.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFL*
> 
> GPU-Z from 480/H100 guy


Yeah, exactly why does not he not use 0.8.9? Even if that's decent enough of validation, question stands.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> I see that it wins 3/6 tests.
> 
> If the RX 480 has more headroom, it's yet to be shown as far as I can tell, and I don't know what kind of power it draws at that level either.


The literal day of the NDA and you think that's the end of the story for the 480? No AIB cards? No results from decent OCers here on OCN? Just the typical useless day one reviews (who barely OC cards anyway) and it's all already decided, eh? Ok then...


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> Sorry guys but that slide is still a lie.
> 
> Rx470 would need to be twice more efficient than rx480 turned out to be to actually fit that slide.
> 
> Does anyone of you really bevieve that would be the case?
> 
> Also, this GPU-Z is fishy, it does not identify GPU or revision.


Nvidia wins power consumption, acknowledged.

Yeah I would take those pics with a grain of salt at this point, they are not official reviews obviously.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> No, you're right. Buying anything 28nm new would be plain stupid at this point. It just baffles me how AMD keeps stepping on the same rake - can't the put a decent stock heatsink on their cards for once?
> I see I'm still not getting my point across.
> AMD cards are *overpriced* in Europe, relative to Nvidia cards. AMD might not be able to do anything about it, but it doesn't even enter the mind of an average buyer.


its really not...
970 is EOL running on fumes
remind again did you saw any reasonable priced 970 at the first week of its launch anywere in this planet? no ofc not it was always overpriced and even after the fiasco of the memory it never dropped down


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Alright fine, that was stupid.
> 
> But I'm curious as to what other arguments have been crushed?
> 
> All I've gotten is 'wait for games where the 480 wins' so far. What I haven't seen is verifiable results that an OC'ed 480 wins or rivals an OC'ed 970 on average, the RX 480 is unaffected by DX11 overhead present in older AMD cards, that it can compete with the efficiency of an OC'ed 970.
> 
> Where is all this?


So here's the thing: 970 was a "virtual launch" with no reference card available until much later, and even then it remained a BestBuy or OEM exclusive. All were AIB cards with custom coolers at least. So if we really wanted an apples to apples OC vs OC comparison, we'll just have to wait and see what AIB 480s will do.


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Nvidia wins power consumption, acknowledged.
> 
> Yeah I would take those pics with a grain of salt at this point, they are not official reviews obviously.


Nah, it's believable enough. Also, considering AMD_Robert's recent post... I am afraid AMD blatantly cheated with power efficiency figures.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So here's the thing: 970 was a "virtual launch" with no reference card available until much later, and even then it remained a BestBuy or OEM exclusive. All were AIB cards with custom coolers at least. So if we really wanted an apples to apples OC vs OC comparison, we'll just have to wait and see what AIB 480s will do.


We would also have to concede with the fact that contrary to AMD's/GF's early slides, Polaris has ridiculous silicon lottery going on.


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> No, you're right. Buying anything 28nm new would be plain stupid at this point. It just baffles me how AMD keeps stepping on the same rake - can't the put a decent stock heatsink on their cards for once?
> I see I'm still not getting my point across.
> AMD cards are *overpriced* in Europe, relative to Nvidia cards. AMD might not be able to do anything about it, but it doesn't even enter the mind of an average buyer.


Nope, they are not.
480: $239 MSRP and 269€
1070 FE: $449 MSRP and ~480€
Customs: $379 MSRP and ~470€


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So here's the thing: 970 was a "virtual launch" with no reference card available until much later, and even then it remained a BestBuy or OEM exclusive. All were AIB cards with custom coolers at least. So if we really wanted an apples to apples OC vs OC comparison, we'll just have to wait and see what AIB 480s will do.


No, no, no, it's the first day of launch with no AIB cards and the 480 is a fail forever (even though nothing in its segment even comes close)! "Don't wait for the (AIB) translation, answer me now!!!!"


----------



## Glottis

*Multiple reviewers report potential problem with Radeon RX 480 graphics cards, which draw too much power from PCI-Express slot.*

http://videocardz.com/61667/what-reviewers-say-about-radeon-rx-480-exceeding-pci-express-power-specifications

I would avoid this product until we know everything about this very serious fault. People who can only afford $199 GPU probably don't want to put their motherboard in any sort of danger. We need to spread awareness.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> Nah, it's believable enough. Also, considering AMD_Robert's recent post... I am afraid AMD blatantly cheated with power efficiency figures.


Ha ha oh gosh. Oh well it's not as bad as 3.5gate.

I don't care too much but that's just me, can understand others being worried.

I'll double my fps and use about the same power anyway from my 7900 series.


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> its really not...
> 970 is EOL running on fumes
> remind again did you saw any reasonable priced 970 at the first week of its launch anywere in this planet? no ofc not it was always overpriced and even after the fiasco of the memory it never dropped down


I'm not talking about 970. For the umpteenth time - AMD prices are skewed in EU so the whole "price/performance king" "$199/$239 card" argument is moot to us.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500400
http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/8192MB-ZOTAC-GeForce-GTX-1070-AMP--Edition-Aktiv-PCIe-3-0-x16--Retail-_1095216.html

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814126108
https://www.vibuonline.de/product_info.php/8192MB-MSI-Radeon-RX-480-Aktiv-PCIe-3-0--Retail-_1110489.html
(ASUS card was more expensive here, picked the cheapest one)

Do you see the relative increase in price for each card?


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> *Multiple reviewers report potential problem with Radeon RX 480 graphics cards, which draw too much power from PCI-Express slot.*
> 
> http://videocardz.com/61667/what-reviewers-say-about-radeon-rx-480-exceeding-pci-express-power-specifications
> 
> I would avoid this product until we know everything about this very serious fault. People who can only afford $199 GPU probably don't want to put their motherboard in any sort of danger. We need to spread awareness.


2 reviewers said its drawing more power and now its multiple
meanwhile some months ago
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960,4038-8.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_960_SSC_ACX_Cooler/27.html
oh look the same exact situation only this time is an nvidia card

and nobody said a single word but now since its an amd card every fanboy that wants to find a flaw is going trump mode


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> *Multiple reviewers report potential problem with Radeon RX 480 graphics cards, which draw too much power from PCI-Express slot.*
> 
> http://videocardz.com/61667/what-reviewers-say-about-radeon-rx-480-exceeding-pci-express-power-specifications
> 
> I would avoid this product until we know everything about this very serious fault. People who can only afford $199 GPU probably don't want to put their motherboard in any sort of danger. We need to spread awareness.


I'm assuming it's a leaky gate issue because Apple had chips made on Samsung's node process and it consumed more than their primary node so not all iPhone for a specific generation were made equally.


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Polaris RX 480 have awful efficiency, AMD didn't lied, AMD used the RX 470 numbers for their efficiency claims for Polaris which seems to be a way more efficient card.
> 
> Polaris seem to be an architecture aimed to the mobile market, as you increase performance with more cores and frequencies you lose its main advantage, efficiency.
> Hopefully the RX 480 efficiency (Or lack of) is only a side effect of having a low end architecture being stretched out to a performance level that it was never intended to be in, and that with VEGA efficiency is set back on track.


I'm watching this interview with Raja.




Minute: 17:11

This fits what I said before, Raja Koduri: "Our target was centered on Polaris 11"

The RX 470 should definitely be WAY more efficient than the RX 480 as the architecture itself was designed around the RX 460.


----------



## jezzer

Maybe partners can crank that OC up.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> I also posted a link to a great deal of other benchmarks.
> 
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/xfx_r9_390x/
> 
> *I have made no mention of recommending a 970 at its current price point.* My point is that an overclocked 970 beats an overclocked RX 480. If you have something to dispute that, I suggest you post it.
> 
> *My problem is that it seems the crux of your argument is 'wait'.* Wait for games where the 970 gets beaten; they're coming, believe me. What kind of argument is that? It's worthless. The 970 has the performance and the efficiency right now, and in every game released up until this point.


Firstly, you've said multiple times now that you recommend a 970 above the 480.

Secondly, the 970 is already beaten by the 480 when you average benches... and a lot of these benches include aftermarket 970's and the 480 still wins. I also never said wait indefinitely.. I told people wanting more performance to wait for AIB models.. If people are happy with the current day-one-reference performance then there's no need to wait, it's already the best price/performance card on the market.

As i mentioned already, such tiny high-performance die's are a pita to cool, it's just physics. So how is it fair to throw a reference cooled 480 against aftermarket 970's and call an OC winner? I'm seeing a lot of talk around forums that the 480 does indeed clock very high given sufficient cooling.. The 480 also scales extremely well with it's clocks, a 5% OC gives 5% performance, if that scaling continues to 1400MHz then even the Fury line is under threat.

Before making yourself look silly, take a step back.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> I'm not talking about 970. For the umpteenth time - AMD prices are skewed in EU so the whole "price/performance king" "$199/$239 card" argument is moot to us.
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500400
> http://www.mindfactory.de/product_info.php/8192MB-ZOTAC-GeForce-GTX-1070-AMP--Edition-Aktiv-PCIe-3-0-x16--Retail-_1095216.html
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814126108
> https://www.vibuonline.de/product_info.php/8192MB-MSI-Radeon-RX-480-Aktiv-PCIe-3-0--Retail-_1110489.html
> (ASUS card was more expensive here, picked the cheapest one)
> 
> Do you see the relative increase in price for each card?


so wait are you seriously saying that a 30 euro increase is OVERPRICED?
in my country is 120 euros above some online stores have it at 400+
this is...i dont know how should i call it when someone thinks 30 euros is overpriced./.


----------



## You Mirin

I wonder if Asus is using the same cooler from another board again...


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> *Multiple reviewers report potential problem with Radeon RX 480 graphics cards, which draw too much power from PCI-Express slot.*
> 
> http://videocardz.com/61667/what-reviewers-say-about-radeon-rx-480-exceeding-pci-express-power-specifications
> 
> I would avoid this product until we know everything about this very serious fault. People who can only afford $199 GPU probably don't want to put their motherboard in any sort of danger. We need to spread awareness.


We need to spread awareness rofl.

We have an entire *THREAD* dedicated to this. So yeah, I'm sure everybody and their mother and their dog and their mother's dog are aware by now.


----------



## NFL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe partners can crank that OC up.


More of a personal preference than anything, but I hope ASUS will make a 2-fan Strix cooler for the 480 and 1060 rather than the 3 currently seen on the 1070/80


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> It's literally day one for the 480 with no AIB cards even announced yet and you act as though OCs are already set in stone vs a card that as had AIB OC versions out for nearly two years. Back to the point, the 970 is dead and irrelevant. Once the last cards are gone, that's it. *The 480 is the only option at $200-$240 and everybody knows it.* You want something faster you're going to have to dig a lot deeper in your wallet...


It's so dead and irrelevant that it competes with the RX 480. There's one available for $244 AR as well. Dangerously close to 8GB 480s.

I'm still not sure why the RX 480 is so great. Can you explain precisely why the bolded statement is true, with evidence?

Here's where it stands at stock:

6.4% faster
2% more efficient




According to TPU, it gains 5% from its overclock.
A factory overclocked 970, without any end user overclocking gains 2% over stock.

OC'ed 480 is 11.72% faster than stock 970
Factory OC'ed 970 is 2% faster than stock 970, with headroom available for an additional 12.3% from the end user. 12.54% faster in total. The MSI Gaming checks in an 16.7% faster than stock.

Here are some direct comparisons: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2496-amd-rx-480-8gb-review-and-benchmark-vs-gtx-970-1070/page-6

It's sad that an overclocked RX 480 can't even definitively beat a factory OC'ed 970 that still has headroom left over.

I was wrong about the overclocked power consumption for the 480. It seems reasonable, and right now *a 480 is definitely the better purchase.*

The bottom line is that AMD still hasn't escaped Maxwell. I can make a case for this; not sure if I'm right anymore. I'm not sure what AIB cards will bring to the table, I'll shut up for now, but the fact that this argument can even be made is just depressing. It just isn't good enough. Doesn't it suck that this ******* turned out to be right? http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38189102&postcount=71

He lowballed the card (back in the rumored 3600 Firestrike Ultra days) and now the card is out, and he doesn't have to buy one, because he was right, even though he's an insufferable green team die hard and the post was *meant to mock AMD* and it was spot on.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> *Multiple reviewers report potential problem with Radeon RX 480 graphics cards, which draw too much power from PCI-Express slot.*
> 
> http://videocardz.com/61667/what-reviewers-say-about-radeon-rx-480-exceeding-pci-express-power-specifications
> 
> I would avoid this product until we know everything about this very serious fault. People who can only afford $199 GPU probably don't want to put their motherboard in any sort of danger. We need to spread awareness.


It won't cause problems as OCed cards and certain custom cards already do it but the question that remains is why, why when there is a 6P connector.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jezzer*
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe partners can crank that OC up.


This card looks super nice and over engineered.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *You Mirin*
> 
> I wonder if Asus is using the same cooler from another board again...


And charge more than every other company? No doubt









Asus is a company I firmly ignore when it comes to hardware now, they ride their name all the way to the bank.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFL*
> 
> More of a personal preference than anything, but I hope ASUS will make a 2-fan Strix cooler for the 480 and 1060 rather than the 3 currently seen on the 1070/80


With the length of the 480 PCB at only around 7", it's exactly what they should do.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> This card looks super nice and over engineered.


probably so they didn't have to make a new cooler from the ground up, just wack the 1070 one on


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> so wait are you seriously saying that a 30 euro increase is OVERPRICED?
> in my country is 120 euros above some online stores have it at 400+
> this is...i dont know how should i call it when someone thinks 30 euros is overpriced./.


This isn't about any set amount of money. This is simply about AMD getting shafted in our market by retailers.
That 1070, after subtracting 19% VAT and converting to USD comes out at $438, 480 after doing the same comes out to $251.


----------



## Derp

Has anyone seen an RX480 3dmark API test result posted?


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> We need to spread awareness rofl.
> 
> We have an entire *THREAD* dedicated to this. So yeah, I'm sure everybody and their mother and their dog and their mother's dog are aware by now.


no one knows this except few nerds who read hardware forums 24/7. we need all major websites reporting on this. hopefully it will happen.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> no one knows this except few nerds who read hardware forums 24/7. we need all major websites reporting on this. hopefully it will happen.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> no one knows this except few nerds who read hardware forums 24/7. we need all major websites reporting on this. hopefully it will happen.


Then I can only hope you dedicate as much effort to spreading awareness about Asus 960 Strix's fail as well:



This is the original link: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960,4038-8.html

And the relevant quotes:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tomshardware*
> We've got to go back to the foundations article mentioned above to put the measurements at separate rails into context. *This is because the otherwise very good Asus GTX 960 Strix leaves the motherboard connector to deal with unprecedented unfiltered power spikes all on its own:
> 
> The very frequent spikes beyond the motherboard slot's supposed limit won't cause immediate damage to the hardware, but there might well be long-term repercussions that are hard to judge now. The same goes for how the system might otherwise be impacted with problems such as "chirping" on-board sound when the mouse is moved.* The Asus GTX 960 Strix should do a much better job smoothing these spikes out.


So yeah, please go ahead and spread the awareness. And while you're at it, please manufacture incite create some outrage on Reddit as well, kthxbai


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> no one knows this except few nerds who read hardware forums 24/7. we need all major websites reporting on this. hopefully it will happen.




lol beaten to it


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> It's so dead and irrelevant that it competes with the RX 480. There's one available for $244 AR as well. Dangerously close to 8GB 480s.
> 
> I'm still not sure why the RX 480 is so great. Can you explain precisely why the bolded statement is true, with evidence?
> 
> Here's where it stands at stock:
> 
> 6.4% faster
> 2% more efficient
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to TPU, it gains 5% from its overclock.
> A factory overclocked 970, without any end user overclocking gains 2% over stock.
> 
> OC'ed 480 is 11.72% faster than stock 970
> Factory OC'ed 970 is 2% faster than stock 970, with headroom available for an additional 12.3% from the end user. 12.54% faster in total. The MSI Gaming checks in an 16.7% faster than stock.
> 
> Here are some direct comparisons: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2496-amd-rx-480-8gb-review-and-benchmark-vs-gtx-970-1070/page-6
> 
> It's sad that an overclocked RX 480 can't even definitively beat a factory OC'ed 970 that still has headroom left over.
> 
> I was wrong about the overclocked power consumption for the 480. It seems reasonable, and right now *a 480 is definitely the better purchase.*
> 
> The bottom line is that AMD still hasn't escaped Maxwell. I can make a case for this; not sure if I'm right anymore. I'm not sure what AIB cards will bring to the table, I'll shut up for now, but the fact that this argument can even be made is just depressing. It just isn't good enough. Doesn't it suck that this ******* turned out to be right? http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38189102&postcount=71
> 
> He lowballed the card (back in the rumored 3600 Firestrike Ultra days) and now the card is out, and he doesn't have to buy one, because he was right, even though he's an insufferable green team die hard and the post was *meant to mock AMD* and it was spot on.


so since you like numbers so much

please do this

380/x vs 480
960 vs 480
970 vs 480
980 vs 480
please include both dx11 and dx12
and get more samples not only 2-3 cherry picked reviews
lets see how the 480 is doing since its replacing the last mid tier amd card


----------



## Pyrotagonist

^Wow.


----------



## Derp

Stop trying to avoid the subject. Showing a problem with a random GTX 960 doesn't change anything. AMD's previous cards didn't have this problem.


----------



## Randomdude

Still haven't finished reading this thread but damn, some people really need to shill out and take a breather. It's not such a bad launch.

Someone mentioned that the card gains 10% performance for a 4% core clock and 10% memory, indicating it's bandwidth starved. Can somebody test just oc-ing the memory and how that translates to gains? We can extrapolate possible HBM performance thus.


----------



## jologskyblues

These people do the same thing every time anybody finds a flaw with Nvidia cards and yet they talk like as if they don't do it. lol


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Randomdude*
> 
> Still haven't finished reading this thread but damn, some people really need to *shill out* and take a breather. It's not such a bad launch.
> 
> Someone mentioned that the card gains 10% performance for a 4% core clock and 10% memory, indicating it's bandwidth starved. Can somebody test just oc-ing the memory and how that translates to gains? We can extrapolate possible HBM performance thus.


Sorry bud, we're already all shilling as hard as we can.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Stop trying to avoid the subject. Showing a problem with a random GTX 960 doesn't change anything. AMD's previous cards didn't have this problem.


neither did nvidia whats your point?
when 960 shows the same thing no one bats an eye
when amd is showing it
global warming
nuclear winter
captain america is hydra
amd it finished
bla bla


----------



## lolfail9001

Either way, my guts did not lie to me.

This is another Tonga. Failure from technical point of view, still a good value card in the nutshell.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> so since you like numbers so much
> 
> please do this
> 
> 380/x vs 480
> 960 vs 480
> 970 vs 480
> 980 vs 480
> please include both dx11 and dx12
> and get more samples not only 2-3 cherry picked reviews
> lets see how the 480 is doing since its replacing the last mid tier amd card


Hitman and AotS will not be included unless they're balanced by a Project Cars or a Rise of the Tomb Raider. Whether you'd like to believe it or not, those latter games are built for GCN, even DX11 performance shows this in Hitman.

I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm posting all the reviews with overclocking comparisons. They're in short supply. Out of the two I've seen (PCGH and GamersNexus) it's a wash between an OC'ed RX 480 and an aftermarket 970. One of those cards still has headroom left over.

It's way late here. If you can find some reviews that present an opposite opinion, I want to see them. But I'm not going to go track down any more when I've already posted plenty.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Stop trying to avoid the subject. Showing a problem with a random GTX 960 doesn't change anything. AMD's previous cards didn't have this problem.


And neither did nVidia's cards.

Now until we make a big fuss about how that Asus 960 Strix (which btw isn't a "random" 960 card) will also cause motherboards to catch on fire, I don't want to hear anybody complaining about the 480 making the mobo catch on fire.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Out of the two I've seen (PCGH and GamersNexus) it's a wash between an OC'ed RX 480 and an aftermarket 970. One of those cards still has headroom left over.


You have proof the other card doesn't or?


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Hitman and AotS will not be included unless they're balanced by a Project Cars or a Rise of the Tomb Raider. Whether you'd like to believe it or not, those latter games are built for GCN, even DX11 performance shows this in Hitman.
> 
> I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm posting all the reviews with overclocking comparisons. They're in short supply. Out of the two I've seen (PCGH and GamersNexus) it's a wash between an OC'ed RX 480 and an aftermarket 970. One of those cards still has headroom left over.


so games that make really use of dx12 wont be included ? rightt off to a good start i see








whether you like or not most of the dx12 are gcn based since they are ports.. only rotr managed to fail even their devs said so..


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> You have proof the other card doesn't or?


The reference card doesn't. Do you have any proof that it does?That's the real question.


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> Either way, my guts did not lie to me.
> 
> This is another Tonga. Failure from technical point of view, still a good value card in the nutshell.


I'm still set on getting one, once AIB boards show up. I'm just a bit disappointed it's trading blows with 970 and not 980, and that it doesn't have slightly better power efficiency. I don't care about power consumption, but I do care about heat and by proxy noise.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> so games that make really use of dx12 wont be included ? rightt off to a good start i see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whether you like or not most of the dx12 are gcn based since they are ports.. only rotr managed to fail even their devs said so..


Didn't say that. I'll be happy to include UWP games if anyone's tested them.

AotS and Hitman in no way represent average games. It may represent the average DX12 game, but we don't know. And if those two are part of the equation, I'll have to include RotR as well.

AotS is in no way a port. It's a very impressive awesome game from a technical standpoint, but it is skewed one way in performance and is sponsored by AMD.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> 
> 
> lol beaten to it


nice try to downplay the issue, but what you show is just an issue with one Asus model, not nvidia design issue. here is same gtx 960 just from gainward and no excessive power spikes



with RX480 it's a REFERENCE AMD design, so their entire design is messed up.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> The reference card doesn't. Do you have any proof that it does?That's the real question.


The link I showed you the 1350mhz 480 was beating a 1380mhz 970, add in another 150mhz on top of that with crap scaling and where does the 970 land? Around the 480 at 1350mhz.

There's already screenshots of a watercooled 480 at 1500mhz, and rumours from a reliable source in Kyle from HardOCP, with AIB's reporting 1480-1600mhz on the architecture, just like the many rumours prior to launch.

Figure it out champ.


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> The link I showed you the 480 was beating a 1380mhz 970, add in another 150mhz on top of that with crap scaling and where does the 970 land? Around the 480 at 1350mhz.
> 
> There's already screenshots of a watercooled 480 at 1500mhz, and rumours from a reliable source in Kyle from HardOCP, with AIB's reporting 1480-1600mhz on the architecture, just like the many rumours prior to launch.
> 
> Figure it out champ.


Didn't everyone write off Kyle as a liar after his claims about P10 and P10 supplies







? Also, Kyle did mention that it's a question of silicon lottery, rather than something "on the architecture".


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> nice try to downplay the issue, but what you show is just an issue with one Asus model, not nvidia design issue. here is same gtx 960 just from gainward and no excessive power spikes
> 
> 
> 
> with RX480 it's a REFERENCE AMD design, so their entire design is messed up.


I'm sure it's nothing a new BIOS can't solve. It might be a bit embarrassing, but not much more.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> The reference card doesn't. Do you have any proof that it does?That's the real question.


very few actually had a refrence card and not the usual ones not even toms had one...they "emulate" it and since pretty much all the rest cards passed the limit its safe to say the refrence will too


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> The link I showed you the 480 was beating a 1380mhz 970, add in another 150mhz on top of that with crap scaling and where does the 970 land? Around the 480 at 1350mhz.
> 
> There's already screenshots of a watercooled 480 at 1500mhz, and rumours from a reliable source in Kyle from HardOCP, with AIB's reporting 1480-1600mhz on the architecture, just like the many rumours prior to launch.
> 
> Figure it out champ.


The link you showed me demonstrated a 480 losing the half the time.

You're still arguing based on things that don't exist. Do you have any others? Do you have proof that this card destroys the 970? It doesn't. Maybe it wins by a decent margin when aftermarket versions arrive, but it is by no means a revolutionary leap from what NV was doing in Maxwell, and it in no way met anyone's expectations except Team Green trolls.

Aren't you at all angry that everything they claimed came true did?


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> Didn't everyone write off Kyle as a liar after his claims about P10 and P10 supplies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ? Also, Kyle did mention that it's a question of silicon lottery, rather than something "on the architecture".


Yeah so between 1480-1600mhz depending silicon lottery.

So we can assume 1480 low 1600mhz high?

probably with a tonne of voltage but that's not the debate right now, it's raw performance.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> Didn't everyone write off Kyle as a liar after his claims about P10 and P10 supplies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ? Also, Kyle did mention that it's a question of silicon lottery, rather than something "on the architecture".


where did someone said it had shortages? overclockers literally said they sold pretty much every card they had more than 1000+ yesterday...


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> The link you showed me demonstrated a 480 losing the half the time.
> 
> You're still arguing based on things that don't exist. Do you have any others? Do you have proof that this card destroys the 970?


So you chose to ignore the OC results? Why?

I'll say it all again, not sure why I have to.............

It wins 4 out of 5 games OC'd in that German review. 1350mhz vs 1380mhz 970

here it is AGAIN.....................

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

SCROLL DOWN FOR OC RESULTS, PICK EACH GAME TO SEE RESULTS. USE MOUSE TO DO SO>

And I never said it destroys a 970, don't put words in my mouth lol it's immature. (There is one game where it destroys but that is in Hitman so meh)

The ONLY game the 970 WINS is FALLOUT 4.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> nice try to downplay the issue, but what you show is just an issue with one Asus model, not nvidia design issue. here is same gtx 960 just from gainward and no excessive power spikes
> 
> 
> 
> with RX480 it's a REFERENCE AMD design, so their entire design is messed up.


960 had no reference card btw, but all AIB designs still have to be approved by nVidia. So yes, nVidia gave the greenlight on Asus's design.
Quote:


> Some parameters of the Green Light program are that vendors have to send in their board designs *for approval from Nvidia to meet Nvidia's noise, power, voltage and heat figures. If those figures are not met, Nvidia does not approve the card.* If a company does not follow the Green Light program, they risk losing their GPU warranty and BIOS support. More importantly, they could possibly risk their allocation according to some AIBs.


So how did this one slip through the crack I wonder...


----------



## airfathaaaaa

can someone tell me how a card on 2015 draws 166watts and a year later it draws 129 watt?


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> can someone tell me how a card on 2015 draws 166watts and a year later it draws 129 watt?


One was overclocked from the factory? Custom PCB? 8 pin power instead of reference 6 pin?(SSC)


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> So you chose to ignore the OC results? Why?
> 
> I'll say it all again, not sure why I have to.............
> 
> It wins 4 out of 5 games OC'd in that German review. 1350mhz vs 1380mhz 970
> 
> here it is AGAIN.....................
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/
> 
> SCROLL DOWN FOR OC RESULTS, PICK EACH GAME TO SEE RESULTS. USE MOUSE TO DO SO>
> 
> And I never said it destroys a 970, don't put words in my mouth lol it's immature. (There is one game where it destroys but that is in Hitman so meh)


So it did. And it won 3/8 games AT reviewed stock vs stock. Including Hitman and AotS. 5% gains from TPU, 6.4% advantage at stock.

I apologize for not reading more carefully. Obviously I'm being hurt by confirmation bias. You can have the win.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 960 had no reference card btw.


Wat?

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/68697-nvidia-gtx-960-reference-review.html


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> 
> can someone tell me how a card on 2015 draws 166watts and a year later it draws 129 watt?


Anti-furmark driver update most likely.



The results are identical in games. Nothing to see here.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Wat?
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/68697-nvidia-gtx-960-reference-review.html


I stand corrected. Doesn't really change what I said in my post though.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> So it did. And it won 3/8 games AT reviewed stock vs stock. Including Hitman and AotS. 5% gains from TPU, 6.4% advantage at stock.
> 
> I apologize for not reading more carefully. Obviously I'm being hurt by confirmation bias. You can have the win.


Yes! I beat you! This is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAR.

But back to reality I will go now. The 970 and 480 present great performance at 1080p (even at 1440p for people willing to sacrifice some settings)

There's really no reason to buy a 970 though with that gimped Vram.


----------



## Newbie2009

It is still a good card for the price. However my biggest worry looking at the numbers is VEGA.

Will it be hot, power hungry and slow?


----------



## Firann

Thought everyone blacklisted Kyle for being salty for not getting invited and all that and all the things he said about the 480 being low tier and not what everyone expected.

Suddenly because he says with a lot of luck you might get a card that OCs to ~1600 he isnt a salty basher?

/sigh people on these boards have shorter memories than football fans....

My personal opinion? Its a good product for its price. However it didnt deliver based on they hype they promised. Its still though the best card tou can buy for its MSRP price however the MSRP is not applied in EU.

239 USD should convert to GBP 178 and EUR 215. Add in abou 20% VAT tax it should be GBP 214 an EUR 258.

UK prices are close enough with 219 on the sapphire while the rest are 229-239 (basicly a 1:1 covrsion).

EU ones are all over the place. Computeruniverse for example has most brands at 289 with the exception of powercolor and xfx at 269. So not even 1:1.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> It is still a good card for the price. However my biggest worry looking at the numbers is VEGA.
> 
> Will it be hot, power hungry and slow?


All AMD cards are at release.



Then drivers come of age, suddenly power/performance looks better. Custom coolers fix heat problems.

But yes I imagine Vega won't compete with nvidia's top card the 1080ti, maybe the 1080 though.


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> It is still a good card for the price. However my biggest worry looking at the numbers is VEGA.
> 
> Will it be hot, power hungry and slow?


Sadly I can't imagine Vega featuring great perf/watt ratio.
But who knows...


----------



## ChevChelios

I think we are going to have to crown 1080Ti the King in the North of 2017


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> All AMD cards are at release.
> 
> 
> 
> Then drivers come of age, suddenly power/performance looks better. Custom coolers fix heat problems.
> 
> But yes I imagine Vega won't compete with nvidia's top card the 1080ti, maybe the 1080 though.


Would you mind linking me to the source of that graphic?
I've been trying to find that kind of info.


----------



## jellybeans69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Would you mind linking me to the source of that graphic?
> I've been trying to find that kind of info.


Here you go, saw that thread infographic quite a while ago - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1220928


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jellybeans69*
> 
> Here you got, saw that thread infographic quite a while ago - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1220928


Much appreciated!


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> All AMD cards are at release.
> 
> 
> 
> Then drivers come of age, suddenly power/performance looks better. Custom coolers fix heat problems.
> 
> But yes I imagine Vega won't compete with nvidia's top card the 1080ti, maybe the 1080 though.


Many thanks for that. THIS chart is the main reason I just don't want to go Nvidia.

Nvidia is grand if you upgrade every year, end of this year will be 3 years with current cards.


----------



## maarten12100

Any reviews of the 4GB model?


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Sadly I can't imagine Vega featuring great perf/watt ratio.
> But who knows...


I bet they're crying tesselated tears for AMD's perf/watt failure down in Santa Clara


----------



## jellybeans69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> Any reviews of the 4GB model?


Reviewers actually have a card that allows them to switch bios between 4gb and 8gb so we should also see that soonish.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> Sadly I can't imagine Vega featuring great perf/watt ratio.
> But who knows...


Yeah I can imagine Vega 250-300W no problem. Where as nGreedia can push that performance at half power. You just can't avoid that huge dump of $$$ into R&D.


----------



## mejobloggs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maarten12100*
> 
> Any reviews of the 4GB model?


I'm interested to know this too.

I'm currently on 1440p 144hz freesync with a GTX 670.

Ticking along nicely. Most games handle well enough on medium graphics. I'm not overly fussed by the graphics, more interested in gaining freesync ability and start getting above 80fps.

Not really sure if that extra 4gb is useful if I'm not maxing out graphics/textures


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mejobloggs*
> 
> I'm currently on 1440p 144hz freesync


which model if you dont mind my asking ? also TN or IPS ?


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Many thanks for that. THIS chart is the main reason I just don't want to go Nvidia.
> 
> Nvidia is grand if you upgrade every year, end of this year will be 3 years with current cards.


the real problem is AMD. Had Hawaii has the performance of a 390x now @ 290x launch day. That kepler 780Ti will become a crap product.


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mejobloggs*
> 
> Not really sure if that extra 4gb is useful if I'm not maxing out graphics/textures


I think more memory on a value card makes no sense since 4GB isn't going to hammer it's performance almost in all scenarios.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Hopefully non-reference cards with aftermarket coolers provide some really good overclocking potential... I just hope that doesn't mean power consumption will go through the roof with a 10-20% overclock hopefully...


----------



## slavovid

Maybe people have missed the fact that the 4 GB RX 480 is stated to be using lower clocked memory or 7Ghz one as oposed to the 8 Ghz the 8 GB RX 480 will be using

This you can see on various review sites but also on the http://xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-rx-400-series/rx480core-rx-480m4bfa6 is visible that the specs are different

This shouldn't be a big issue but if the card has a little bottleneck due to bandwidth then that might tax the 4GB version a bit
However on the bright side the reference 4GB model will use slightly less power than the 8GB due to less Vram to power and that will let it OC slightly easier with the 6 pin power connector.

Also as stated by the reviewers the RAM actually clocks nicely to +10%


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slavovid*
> 
> Maybe people have missed the fact that the 4 GB RX 480 is stated to be using lower clocked memory or 7Ghz one as oposed to the 8 Ghz the 8 GB RX 480 will be using
> 
> This you can see on various review sites but also on the http://xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-rx-400-series/rx480core-rx-480m4bfa6 is visible that the specs are different
> 
> This shouldn't be a big issue but if the card has a little bottleneck due to bandwidth then that might tax the 4GB version a bit
> However on the bright side the reference 4GB model will use slightly less power than the 8GB due to less Vram to power and that will let it OC slightly easier with the 6 pin power connector.
> 
> Also as stated by the reviewers the RAM actually clocks nicely to +10%


I'd actually want a 4 GB version with the faster RAM to simply save money and get better price-performance ratio

AMD set the min RAM speed, so we could see 8 GB versions with the slower RAM too.


----------



## mejobloggs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> which model if you dont mind my asking ? also TN or IPS ?


MG279Q IPS which I bought for a decent discount.
Default freesync range is 30-90hz (iirc) which I'm fine with as I'm more of a... budget-ish conscious gamer? As in, I like nice things, but I'm happy with 'good enough', and playing games at medium graphics etc.

That's why I'm eyeing up 480 and wondering if 8gb is worth it heh









In regards to the monitor...
Main reasons why I purchased is because
- Wanted something a bit bigger for having two windows open side by side
- Hate screen tearing in gaming
- Heard many people rave about gsync/freesync smoothness
- Heard many people rave about 120/144hz (faster motion, less blur etc etc)

I've used it about a week now (without freesync).

Have been playing the new Unreal Tournament Instagib CTF. Turned the graphics down a bit to get 100+fps

The main thing that surprised me is no screen tearing! I thought at high hz I would still get screen tearing, but I'm not seeing it.
If I had known that, I might not have bothered with freesync. Although freesync will probably help in more demanding games in that 30-90fps range

The other thing is, I don't really see any blur/motion improvement of 100+ vs 60fps.
In fact, I dont know if I really notice any improvements above 40fps. But then again, I read a lot of comments from people saying they didn't notice at first, until they went back and gamed on their old monitor and hated the old monitor.

Me personally... I suspect I won't notice. We shall see. Definitely I'd recommend others trying out 144hz/freesync before purchasing as you may not feel it's worth the money. Or buy one of the Korean monitors! (Wasn't really an option for me as I bought the MG279Q for barely more than it would cost me to import a Korean monitor in NZ)

But I look forward to getting a 480 or maybe a second-hand 390 so I can up my graphics settings and try out freesync


----------



## Orthello

I'm really looking forward to the 480 AIB cards as i think the potential there is huge given the thermal constraints / power envelope of the ref card. The rumoured OC potential is much higher than ref and it will throttle far less so boost should stay near max boost. I'm now in the same waiting game to see those reviews lol ..

Seems it really shines in DX12 beating both the 970 and 980 from the pcper review and hardware cunucks review. Lets hope that's a trend that continues as slowly but surely the AAA titles will be dx12 in time to come .

Interesting to see ROTR flip flop from dx11 rx480 been under the 980 to been over in dx12 (hardware cunnucks review).

The worst negative been the Power consumption been a bit worse than i thought in dx11 but not really and issue still and in dx12 its getting quite good. Some of this is the temperature , get that down a bit and power draw will improve. Big improvement from AMD last gen overall.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> So... because this isn't an Enthusiast card, it's a failure?
> 
> @ $200-240, this card's performance is spot on, and if you think about it, it actually has better Perf/$ compared to the GTX 1070. That's what AMD was aiming for, and in that respect, they pulled it off.
> 
> Being an owner of a GTX 1070, the RX 480 was definitely not aimed at me. However, if I still had my old HD 7870 from a few years back, the RX 480 would be a massive upgrade AND cheap. That's what they're going for.
> 
> And for everyone else drinking the Nvidia koolaid... please stop.


Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.

Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.

Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.

Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.

Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.

The card is a huge MEH


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> The main thing that surprised me is no screen tearing! I thought at high hz I would still get screen tearing, but I'm not seeing it.
> If I had known that, I might not have bothered with freesync. Although freesync will probably help in more demanding games in that 30-90fps range


yeah, at high fps/Hz you get less tear naturally even without Gsync/Freesync

Gsync/Freesync is best for the 40-60+ fps range but it still works at all hz

but I personally decided to go all out, get the best 27" 144Hz 1440p IPS monitor available right now (TN isnt an option for me), which as far as I can tell from my research happens to be XB271HU (it has better QC and better panel uniformity than PG279Q which used to be the best), which also happens to be Gsync (30-144/165 Gsync range)

the fact that Im buying this monitor at the same time as Im buying a new high-end card to power it just favors Nvidia combo even more timing-wise, since the only real option atm is the 1070/1080

Gsync also works in windowed mode, which I suspect I may find useful in some games that I play a lot (I find mysefl alt-tabbing a lot while playing Blizzard games)

but for money value Freesync definitely wins

Quote:


> If I had known that, I might not have bothered with freesync.


the thing is, as far as I could find - ALL 1440p 144Hz monitors are either Freesync or Gsync (at least among the gaming models) .. I actually have not been able to find a 1440p 144hz which doesnt have either Gsync or Freesync


----------



## jodybdesigns

I'm disappointed. I am done with AMD. My sig says I have been following AMD like a cult for years. Well...not anymore. Glad I didn't hold my breath for the 480. I got my 390 for like $25 brand new, so win for me.


----------



## Cherryblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.
> 
> Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.
> 
> Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.
> 
> Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.
> 
> Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.
> 
> The card is a huge MEH


Card isn't even in the consumers hands that you are screaming at the failure.

Not sure you said "this is a success" the day 970 paper-launched.

I'd be you, I would at least have the decency of waiting for more custom models, more time to see the evolution of the market, and less salty words.

I'm not saying it's a success. I'm saying you need more to godwin your point that it's a failure. And I'm clearly against this kind of attitude. Time will tell, and I sure hope you're wrong because you merit it.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.
> 
> Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.
> 
> Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.
> 
> Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.
> 
> Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.
> 
> The card is a huge MEH


its a failure that gives 40% perf above the card that is replacing
its a failure because it draws the same amount of wattage with a 960 oh wait 960 is an nvidia card so its fine..
its a failure because amd actually indeed delivered cf perf https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/13/#diagramm-call-of-duty-black-ops-iii-2560-1440_2
its a failure because amd said it will be slightly above 970 and below 980 and that is what they actually gave us
its a failure because people like you overhyped a card only to shill on it later on claiming that amd promised something they never did


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> So... because this isn't an Enthusiast card, it's a failure?
> 
> @ $200-240, this card's performance is spot on, and if you think about it, it actually has better Perf/$ compared to the GTX 1070. That's what AMD was aiming for, and in that respect, they pulled it off.
> 
> Being an owner of a GTX 1070, the RX 480 was definitely not aimed at me. However, if I still had my old HD 7870 from a few years back, the RX 480 would be a massive upgrade AND cheap. That's what they're going for.
> 
> And for everyone else drinking the Nvidia koolaid... please stop.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.
> 
> Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.
> 
> Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.
> 
> Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.
> 
> Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.
> 
> The card is a huge MEH
Click to expand...

That's kinda how I feel with this... I still am interested in seeing the benchmarks with non-ref cards and the OC potential... We might be able to get at or a little past a 980 performance but hopefully not at much cost for power draw... I feel like the 14nm architecture is at the same performance per watt level as Maxwell is at 28nm....


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.
> 
> Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.
> 
> Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.
> 
> Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.
> 
> Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.
> 
> The card is a huge MEH


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> That's kinda how I feel with this... I still am interested in seeing the benchmarks with non-ref cards and the OC potential... We might be able to get at or a little past a 980 performance but hopefully not at much cost for power draw... I feel like the 14nm architecture is at the same performance per watt level as Maxwell is at 28nm....


re ileakstuff ..

So by your argument we will see the GTX1060 beat the Fury X otherwise its fail ? Fury X been on the market for a while now .. You don't understand segments lol.

AMD did not promise CF would beat a 1080 in all apps lol .. how ever its does in a few. The 1070 gets beaten by CF 480 in CF supported games thats been proven, and once dx12 multiadaptor becomes more common it will get demolished vs CF 480. I would not recommend this route though as you are waiting on software however.

So why would anyone pay $20 more for a 970 with 4gb (4.5gb) ram less with WAY less dx12 performance is beyond me. If you can't see the value i can't help you.

AIB 480 cards could match 390x or exceed it , reports (quite good ones from Kyle Bennet himself) are 1490-1600 mhz clocks . Given the ref maintains 1150-1200 mhz clocks on average , thats going to be huge increase in performance.

This card will age like fine wine in dx12 .. while the 970 and 980 are already loosing too it without it even maintaining its boost clocks. AIB 480 cards will demolish the 970 and 980 in dx12 even max oc.


----------



## spurdomantbh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.


By that logic every single mainstream card is a failure because enthusiasts had that performance for many years ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.


Yup, power consumption sucks on the RX480. But it seems like Polaris was designed to be a mobile architecture (via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24rFeHo1S-o), RX470 should have better efficiency.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.


In AotS. But cf/sli sucks anyway when half the games don't properly support it and that slide about 480cf was worthless honestly. If anything I'd say the 480 cf presentation was a failure. I wish both AMD and NVidia put more effort into multi gpu.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.


480 is probably more future proof.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.


It's a failure because people kept overhyping the card? There were tons of leaks showing performance between 970 and 980, that's what they delivered.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> So you chose to ignore the OC results? Why?
> 
> I'll say it all again, not sure why I have to.............
> 
> It wins 4 out of 5 games OC'd in that German review. 1350mhz vs 1380mhz 970
> 
> here it is AGAIN.....................
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/
> 
> SCROLL DOWN FOR OC RESULTS, PICK EACH GAME TO SEE RESULTS. USE MOUSE TO DO SO>
> 
> And I never said it destroys a 970, don't put words in my mouth lol it's immature. (There is one game where it destroys but that is in Hitman so meh)
> 
> The ONLY game the 970 WINS is FALLOUT 4.


That GTX970 is running at 1380/7200, that nowhere near the average overclock which is more like 1475/8000, so the GTX970 FPS should increase by 7%-10%.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> That GTX970 is running at 1380/7200, that nowhere near the average overclock which is more like 1475/8000, so the GTX970 FPS should increase by 7%-10%.


Been generous that 7% to 1475 , be unlikely to gain that in FPS increase too.

The reports of the AIB RX480s clocking 1480-1600 (from HardOCP info) are 23% - 33% above the clock speed the ref card maintains ~ 1200mhz according to the ComputerBase . So its goodnight nurse for pretty much ANY 970 OC vs an AIB 480.

If anything the 480 will improve its position quite a lot , i think it could be Fury or better level on the AIBs. Looking forward to the reviews.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> And not even that. It's 269€ over here, for the reference cooler. But sure, everyone, let's keep ignoring the 2nd largest market and pretend it's $199 card


The truth is that it is easier to refer to the price on the US side. Mainly because the price in europe isn't wildly as listed, and in many countries the price can vary because a bit different VATs or different taxes as well.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> 1070 Territory? Weird because I just bought the cheapest possible 1070 and it costed me 450$.
> 
> Also the difference between a 4GB 480 and 8GB 480 is, well... VRAM, and the frequencies at which these modules work, they're basically the same memory so the 4GB version should clock to the same speed of the 8GB version and you'd essentially have no other difference between these two cards.
> 
> Also AIBs for the 199$ RX 480 are unlikely to go past 239$, I can see 269$ for the 8GB version, 299$ should be some crazy/stupid Lightning-Esque card.


VRAM matters. We also have no idea what the OC headroom of the 4GB will be. Everyone are yelling "200$! 200$!" based on a 230$ card performance. Also "unlikely", is that crystal ball talk or knowledge talk? Because no pricing for a 480 AIB has been really out yet. And I really doubt they will be just 10$ over the 8GB version.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Because no pricing for a 480 AIB has been really out yet. And I really doubt they will be just 10$ over the 8GB version.


That's my concern. They'll be priced so high as to compete with the, presumably, better performing GTX 1060.


----------



## XenoRad

I'm sorry to see it's performing worse than my old 290 X.

I think I'll get a GTX 1070 from nVidia this round.

I switched to AMD with the 7970 and followed up with the 290 X and was hoping to do the same now since I have a Freesync monitor but the way things are going it would seem that AMDs future best card (Vega or whatever it will be called) would bring about GTX 1070 performance at best. And that in a few months to half a year's time later.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> VRAM matters. We also have no idea what the OC headroom of the 4GB will be. Everyone are yelling "200$! 200$!" based on a 230$ card performance. Also "unlikely", is that crystal ball talk or knowledge talk? Because no pricing for a 480 AIB has been really out yet. And I really doubt they will be just 10$ over the 8GB version.


OC headroom is the same as the 8GB cards. There are some reviews out in the wild for the 4GB cards.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> 1. There's no difference in the performance of the 4 or 8GB cards. And did you know the release cards are actually all 8GB?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Stop with the rumors. No pricing has been announced, you're just making up numbers. Even still, at your rumored $300 price, a 1500MHz 480 (gotta love them rumors!!!) will still be $150 less than a reference 1070; that's 50% more. Oh, and 1070 = 2 times, 1080 = 3 times.


1. Says who there is no difference? Can you give me a 4GB version review? You keep taking about the 200$ price tag. So were are the performance benchmarks? Where? Why are they absent?

2. 300$ vs 400$ MSPR once stocks stable?
Also learn god damn math! 2 times 300$ is 600$, which is more than 450$ you stated. 300$ times 3 is 900$, more than the price of the 1080. So please, go do your math, and stop making stuff up to suit, including math.


----------



## dasparx

The stupidity in this thread. Oh my.

The card is delivering exactly what it should, on the pricepoint where it should be.
If you look at the last 3 generations of AMD cards before the RX480, you had the 380(x), 270x / 280(really late though), and the 7850.

If you compare each of them to the previous generation higher end counterpart, is this card really that much of a letdown?

I think not.

It's going to compete with the 1060 when it comes out, and knowing Nvidia that will have 970+ performance levels, it'll all come down to optimisations and future dx12 results.
Will the 1060 be the better card in the future? Who knows, but for now, there's only one option, and that's the RX480.

Unless you want a last-gen card, you can buy a 970, or a 390 But in my country the cheapest 4gb 970 is 270 euro's, 390 is about 280(and many are still around the 300 mark), while the 4gb rx480 is only 220. 8Gb RX480 is currently around 270 also.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> That's my concern. They'll be priced so high as to compete with the, presumably, better performing GTX 1060.


I think we will be suprised. They will have to keep it real $10-$30, and they have the fear of the 1060 coming so that will help i think.

Going to be interesting AIB 480 vs ref 1060 for sure.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> OC headroom is the same as the 8GB cards. There are some reviews out in the wild for the 4GB cards.


Have a link?


----------



## TrueForm

People having a cry over a mid range $200 card expecting to replace their 390's. Lol.

Great for 380/960 owners or lower.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

So we're back to having the Maxwell cards having average overclocks of near/@ 1500Mhz? Strange.. According to some of the green team in the 1080/70 thread, most people don't overclock at all, and the cards that do reach 1500 are always far to hot and loud. Of course that only suits them in there because a 980Ti matches/exceeds the 1070, and is only 11% slower than a 1080..

Well that's great then, a more expensive aftermarket 970 at nearly 1400 can beat a reference 480 on day one drivers (which AMD is notorious for improving at least 10%) in one DX11 GameWorks title.. The AIB 480's are going to eat the 970 for breakfast, but i guess i shouldn't do an apples to apples comparison as i risk being a fanboy/shill.









Not to mention future titles are all moving over to DX12 and Vulkan, where the Maxwell cards are going to start really struggling. 8GB vs 3.5, Async and HDR, etc., etc. Some of you are out of your minds trying to push the 970 as a better card..


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> That's my concern. They'll be priced so high as to compete with the, presumably, better performing GTX 1060.


This is really going to depend on nvidia's 1060 performance. If it is sitting between the 1070 and the 480 at complete stock, AIBs will not priced as much as the 1060, unless nvidia plan to go head to head with the 480 price tag in order to completely hit AMD in the soft spots.
It should arrive in a month or so, so we can be patient and see. Its not like most of us plan to rush and buy a 480.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> So we're back to having the Maxwell cards having average overclocks of near/@ 1500Mhz? Strange.. According to some of the green team in the 1080/70 thread, most people don't overclock at all, and the cards that do reach 1500 are always far to hot and loud. Of course that only suits them in there because a 980Ti matches/exceeds the 1070, and is only 11% slower than a 1080..
> 
> Well that's great then, a more expensive aftermarket 970 at nearly 1400 can beat a reference 480 on day one drivers (which AMD is notorious for improving at least 10%) in one DX11 GameWorks title.. The AIB 480's are going to eat the 970 for breakfast, but i guess i shouldn't do an apples to apples comparison as i risk being a fanboy/shill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention future titles are all moving over to DX12 and Vulkan, where the Maxwell cards are going to start really struggling. 8GB vs 3.5, Async and HDR, etc., etc. Some of you are out of your minds trying to push the 970 as a better card..


People were more claiming that the AIB 480s at high OC are going to beat the 980.
But if most people don't actually OC, the 980 is safe in its location









I also doubt 200$/230$ card buyers are going to put a lot of money any time soon for HDR monitors, or vulkan is going to break the DX11 market any time soon.


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> The truth is that it is easier to refer to the price on the US side. Mainly because the price in europe isn't wildly as listed, and in many countries the price can vary because a bit different VATs or different taxes as well.


http://geizhals.de/?cat=gra16_512&xf=1440_RX+480#xf_top
VAT is 19-21% in most places, not that much variance, if you think the difference is too large you can always order from another country. Shipping rates are usually comparable to ordering something from your own country either way.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> 1. Says who there is no difference? Can you give me a 4GB version review? You keep taking about the 200$ price tag. So were are the performance benchmarks? Where? Why are they absent?
> 
> 2. 300$ vs 400$ MSPR once stocks stable?
> Also learn god damn math! 2 times 300$ is 600$, which is more than 450$ you stated. 300$ times 3 is 900$, more than the price of the 1080. So please, go do your math, and stop making stuff up to suit, including math.


There are small differences.

The 4gb cards have ram clocked at 7ghz. (Some at 7.8ghz) , this is dependent on the partner i believe and its due to shortages of 8ghz DDR5.
8gb cards have ram at 8 ghz.

So the 8gb card will be a shade faster especially into 1440p+.

The reviewers got an 8 ghz 8gb card with 2 bioses they could use to slow the ram and disable 4gb of it to test 4gb or 8gb configuration.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> 1. Says who there is no difference? Can you give me a 4GB version review? You keep taking about the 200$ price tag. So were are the performance benchmarks? Where? Why are they absent?


Are you even for real? There's literally 0 difference from 4 GB and 8 GB version. All the specs are the same.

There where reports of 4 GB cards running 7 Gbps RAM but in the end it's in the AIB discretion and this happened because they were short of RAM chips.

https://www.alternate.de/XFX/Radeon-RX-480-Grafikkarte/html/product/1282337

https://www.alternate.de/Sapphire/Radeon-RX-480-Grafikkarte/html/product/1283376

Case in point - Same price, one mounts 7 Gbps memory the other one 8 Gbps.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> People were more claiming that the AIB 480s at high OC are going to beat the 980.
> But if most people don't actually OC, the 980 is safe in its location


Not really, aside from a few of the more "extreme" red members..

Most like me were talking about the AIB 480's matching/exceeding the 980, i always said the 6 pin was going to be a problem. Especially because Polaris was designed for low power/mobile cards, high clocks ruins it's efficiency, so it would hit it's power and thermal limit (because of the very small, high performance die) very quickly.

We haven't seen the AIB versions.. Although the diy guys are seeing very high clocks. We should at least be looking at a 980 with decent cooling, I'm not sure what better power delivery is going to do on top of that.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> People were more claiming that the AIB 480s at high OC are going to beat the 980.
> But if most people don't actually OC, the 980 is safe in its location
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also doubt 200$/230$ card buyers are going to put a lot of money any time soon for HDR monitors, or vulkan is going to break the DX11 market any time soon.


If the leaks are right then the AIB 480 could be inbetween fury and fury x level , especially where the boost clocks are hovering now ~ 1200 mhz on the ref cards (not oc).


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Have a link?


Linus Tech Tips had a 4GB card.

Its the same PCB and GPU, what is going to change overclocks when you are only seeing 5-10%?


----------



## umeng2002

Wouldn't be surprised if 8 pin or dual 6 pin variants are hitting 1500 MHz regularly... with proper cooling of course.


----------



## jellybeans69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> http://geizhals.de/?cat=gra16_512&xf=1440_RX+480#xf_top
> VAT is 19-21% in most places, not that much variance, if you think the difference is too large you can always order from another country. Shipping rates are usually comparable to ordering something from your own country either way.


230e + VAT(23%) here where im at straight up from supplier chain. + few % so shops can be in positive. So ~260-270 euros for Asus 8gb version here.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> There are small differences.
> 
> The 4gb cards have ram clocked at 7ghz. (Some at 7.8ghz) , this is dependent on the partner i believe and its due to shortages of 8ghz DDR5.
> 8gb cards have ram at 8 ghz.
> 
> So the 8gb card will be a shade faster especially into 1440p+.
> 
> The reviewers got an 8 ghz 8gb card with 2 bioses they could use to slow the ram and disable 4gb of it to test 4gb or 8gb configuration.


Not really buying that underclocked cards review. We have seen shady businesses before about cherry picked cards and shady bios from both AMD and Nvidia.
I prefer to see a stock 4GB version from the box.
Just the difference in memory speed is going to make the 200$ at least a good few % less performer even at 1080p.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Linus Tech Tips had a 4GB card.
> 
> Its the same PCB and GPU, what is going to change overclocks when you are only seeing 5-10%?


I think we are going to see the most neccessary AIB cards since the days of the AIB 290x come to market shortly . To get rid of noise and really open up the OC potential massively.

For that bit extra its going to be a world different IMHO.

I hate to say it but the ref card is really only good for people who want a small bit of OC play , nothing serious. Infact its most likely best if they are not overclockers that buy the ref version.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Not really buying that underclocked cards review. We have seen shady businesses before about cherry picked cards and shady bios from both AMD and Nvidia.
> I prefer to see a stock 4GB version from the box.
> Just the difference in memory speed is going to make the 200$ at least a good few % less performer even at 1080p.


Well even 7 ghz chips can be overclocked , i would think to near 8 ghz levels . So in the end it just limits the oc range really.


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jellybeans69*
> 
> 230e + VAT(23%) here where im at straight up from supplier chain. + few % so shops can be in positive. So ~260-270 euros for Asus 8gb version here.


Bummer. As you can see in the listing the 4GB version is being sold at pretty much MSRP - only $3 over $199.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Not really buying that underclocked cards review. We have seen shady businesses before about cherry picked cards and shady bios from both AMD and Nvidia.
> I prefer to see a stock 4GB version from the box.
> Just the difference in memory speed is going to make the 200$ at least a good few % less performer even at 1080p.


12% memory clock difference at this performance level isnt going to yield a 12% performance drop at 1080P. Perhaps 2-4%.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XenoRad*
> 
> I'm sorry to see it's performing worse than my old 290 X.
> 
> I think I'll get a GTX 1070 from nVidia this round.
> 
> I switched to AMD with the 7970 and followed up with the 290 X and was hoping to do the same now since I have a Freesync monitor but the way things are going it would seem that AMDs future best card (Vega or whatever it will be called) would bring about GTX 1070 performance at best. And that in a few months to half a year's time later.


If there is a bencher in you . . . go with the 980 Ti. You might get a good clocker. Even an oc'ed 1080 can't beat a good clocking 980Ti.

Unless you are worried it be falling off nVidia's driver radar. The 1070 and up are the only upgrade from Hawaii. The 480 is a replacement for the Tonga.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Linus Tech Tips had a 4GB card.
> 
> Its the same PCB and GPU, what is going to change overclocks when you are only seeing 5-10%?


If its running at lower memory speeds and different bios, it will not be as powerful as the 8GB version at stock, that is for sure. Which might mean less OC headroom if those are not the same memory chips.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> If its running at lower memory speeds and different bios, it will not be as powerful as the 8GB version at stock, that is for sure. Which might mean less OC headroom if those are not the same memory chips.


You are assuming just as much. You are no more correct than I am. Except I have more proof on my side.









BTW, 4GB cards can be anything from 7gbps to 8gbps. NewEgg has a 4GB card listed with 8gbps memory on it.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> Even an oc'ed 1080 can't beat a good clocking 980Ti.


Performance wise the 1080 at sock is better than the 980 TI at a good overclock. The 1080 can run 30-35% faster than the 980 TI stock vs stock, and you are not getting 30% extra performance from the 980 TI even at a good overclock.

Price wise, especially 2nd hand, the 980 TI is a great deal though.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Performance wise the 1080 at sock is better than the 980 TI at a good overclock. The 1080 can run 30-35% faster than the 980 TI stock vs stock, and you are not getting 30% extra performance from the 980 TI even at a good overclock.
> 
> Price wise, especially 2nd hand, the 980 TI is a great deal though.


If you are into benching, 980 Ti can clock MUCH further than 1500mhz. AFAIK it goes all the way to 1800 under LN2/cascade.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> That GTX970 is running at 1380/7200, that nowhere near the average overclock which is more like 1475/8000, so the GTX970 FPS should increase by 7%-10%.


100mhz increase from 1380mhz? (+small % ram increase)

Work out the clockspeed difference in %

Then try to tell me you'll gain up to 10% in fps, just no.

The card that scales well out of the two is the 480, that's why it's significantly faster in those benchmarks once OC'd

Plus for all we know the AIB 480 may go up to 1500-1600mhz.

From 1350mhz>1500-odd mhz with the kind of scaling we see there..............needless to say the 3.5GB 970 becomes even less relevant than it is already.


----------



## Kuivamaa

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/39615-amd-radeon-rx-480-im-test.html?start=10 you can add this to the OP.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> If you are into benching, 980 Ti can clock MUCH further than 1500mhz. AFAIK it goes all the way to 1800 under LN2/cascade.


I will not run LN2 killing runs on my every day card. You might, but offering someone to buy a 980 TI because it can out perform the 1080 and then say "well just run LN2!" as an excuse... come on









Even into benching, most people aren't running LN2. At max water-cooled.


----------



## FlyingSolo

Not sure if anyone has seen this yet.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> You are assuming just as much. You are no more correct than I am. Except I have more proof on my side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, 4GB cards can be anything from 7gbps to 8gbps. NewEgg has a 4GB card listed with 8gbps memory on it.


That could also be a mistake.
Some cards there don't have any specs, some state basic core clocks as the boost clocks so...
If according to the specs some sites write of the 4GB in their reviews of the 8GB, it means the 4GB version is not going to run the same as the 8GB version.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> I'm a failure because I am confused at the market it was aimed at, and thought it would offer additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.
> 
> I'm a failure because as an enthusiast I should worry about price performance before power draw.
> 
> I'm a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 in AOTS and as a bonus it was actually in more games than one. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070 most of the time but I'd already over hyped and misunderstood the presentation so I'm upset over nothing really.
> 
> I'm a failure because it has released $100 cheaper than the GTX 970 was and I'm upset about it, and you get 8GB vram instead of 3.5, plus superior architecture for the future of DX12. It's also cheaper and far more efficient than the previous 390.
> 
> I'm a failure because hype train riders expected 390X and more out of the card at stock, but sadly you have to overclock it to reach beyond those speeds up to Nano/Fury and possibly Fury X speeds.
> 
> The card is a huge success with units flying out the door on day one,as they actually did a physical launch. and I'm upset about it cos I leakgarbage.


I'll bite


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> I will not run LN2 killing runs on my every day card. You might, but offering someone to buy a 980 TI because it can out perform the 1080 and then say "well just run LN2!" as an excuse... come on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even into benching, most people aren't running LN2. At max water-cooled.


D-Ice/ice chilled loops is another popular option.

You aren't seriously into benching till you go sub-ambient. And for those die hard benchers, the 980 Ti is still superior.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> That could also be a mistake.
> Some cards there don't have any specs, some state basic core clocks as the boost clocks so...
> If according to the specs some sites write of the 4GB in their reviews of the 8GB, it means the 4GB version is not going to run the same as the 8GB version.


Now you are grasping at straws. AMD briefed reviewers on this, they simply said memory speed on 4GB cards was up to the manufacturer and that 7gbps was the minimum allowed spec.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/39615-amd-radeon-rx-480-im-test.html?start=10 you can add this to the OP.


1420 on ref card , highest I've seen.

Interesting stuff too on the memory clocking gains.


----------



## Ban13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/39615-amd-radeon-rx-480-im-test.html?start=10 you can add this to the OP.


How come DX12 scaling isn't that great?
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/39615-amd-radeon-rx-480-im-test.html?start=24


----------



## Menta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.
> 
> Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.
> 
> Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.
> 
> Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.
> 
> Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.
> 
> The card is a huge MEH


Its a winner because there is competition and most likely prices will drop and be more accessible, they already are, The future GTX 1060 would have been more expensive if not for AMD.

And all round i think AMD deserves a







they have done a good job on this card now just want to see a custom card and how well it overclocks


----------



## slavovid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ban13*
> 
> How come DX12 scaling isn't that great?
> http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/39615-amd-radeon-rx-480-im-test.html?start=24


What do you mean "isn't great" the card gains from 34.6 fps to 44.6 fps on average from the switch from DX11 to DX12 that's like 29% increase lol
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menta*
> 
> Its a winner because there is competition and most likely prices will drop and be more accessible, they already are, The future GTX 1060 would have been more expensive if not for AMD.
> 
> And all round i think AMD deserves a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they have done a good job on this card now just want to see a custom card and how well it overclocks


I crave those custom cards too. Preferably one that is silent and deadly.

#RedOctoberCaterpillarSilentCooler


----------



## Ban13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slavovid*
> 
> What do you mean "isn't great" the card gains from 34.6 fps to 44.6 fps on average from the switch from DX11 to DX12 that's like 29% increase lol


But that's just because "Heavy" performs so poorly on DX11, if you look at the other graphs the scaling doesn't look that great.


----------



## 161029

I don't know if this has been pointed out yet but apparently the RX 480 exceeds the maximum power draw rating set by PCI-SIG for PCIe slots (75W):

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-10,4616-9.html

Quote:


> AMD's Radeon RX 480 draws an average of 164W, which exceeds the company's target TDP. And it gets worse. The load distribution works out in a way that has the card draw 86W through the motherboard's PCIe slot. Not only does this exceed the 75W ceiling we typically associate with a 16-lane slot, but that 75W limit covers several rails combined and not just this one interface.


----------



## slavovid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ban13*
> 
> But that's just because "Heavy" performs so poorly on DX11, if you look at the other graphs the scaling doesn't look that great.


Well in Hitman it gains 5 fps that is around 7% gain ... compared to the 970 that actually drops by 3 FPS or aka -5%







seems ok-ish
I do think AMD will polish those drivers sooner than later thou.


----------



## HackHeaven

I read somewhere that the 4gig and 8gig versions of this card are the same card with 4gigs disabled on one and not on the other o.0


----------



## mavendreas

4 gig cards are not 8 gig cards with half the vram disabled. AMD sent custom bioses to reviewers so they could test the 8 gig card with 8 and 4 gig configurations in benchmarks. This is where that confusion comes from. It's all in the reddit AMA they did yesterday.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Defoler*
> 
> Performance wise the 1080 at sock is better than the 980 TI at a good overclock. The 1080 can run 30-35% faster than the 980 TI stock vs stock, and you are not getting 30% extra performance from the 980 TI even at a good overclock.
> 
> Price wise, especially 2nd hand, the 980 TI is a great deal though.


I can get a msi 980ti for <$400 new. What are good secondhand prices atm?


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> I can get a msi 980ti for <$400 new. What are good secondhand prices atm?


Depends on where you live. I have seen them go around the 300$.


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Many thanks for that. THIS chart is the main reason I just don't want to go Nvidia.
> 
> Nvidia is grand if you upgrade every year, end of this year will be 3 years with current cards.


The meat of that chart is why I'm looking at an AMD card to potentially put in my HTPC even if this one isn't it (pending AIB OC reviews). I also wonder though if we can expect that trend to continue. Most people seem to think so (including the adored video posted here a few times) even though no one knows why it is happening. There is a lot of speculation why, but no answer. Is it because Nvidia keeps changing architectures prioritizing new ones while AMD has been using GCN revisions that allows this? If so is Navi still going to be GCN based?

So while I'm liking what we've seen historically regarding improvement over time I'm at least somewhat hesitant to assume that is the way it will always be. (Just a note: I'm not talking about short term performance gains from better drivers, but the long steady improve over time vs competing tier cards).

edit: In theory if it is going to happen (like Kepler) we should start to see it soon with Maxwell now that Pascal is out. Maxwell's lost ground has been smaller so far.


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> All AMD cards are at release.
> 
> 
> 
> Then drivers come of age, suddenly power/performance looks better. Custom coolers fix heat problems.
> 
> But yes I imagine Vega won't compete with nvidia's top card the 1080ti, maybe the 1080 though.


And this is how AMD drivers have worked for several gens now...

The only real way to get the word out is to make it a point to have reviewers re-test the card to show that it's now beating its counterpart.


----------



## Zaor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> I can get a msi 980ti for <$400 new. What are good secondhand prices atm?


Amazon.de has crazy used prices.Lowest i've seen were 230 euro for Zotac extreme.Usually around 300.They are there and then 3 minutes later they disappear.


----------



## EastCoast

It's crazy out there in sales isn't it? One seller already sold a 1000 RX480's


----------



## FLCLimax

My local microcenter sold out and they got alot, over 300 cards gone already. these are the type of cards everyone buys, sadly it's easy for AMD to scam people with a non overclocking, gimped up, non PCIE compliant card due to that.


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> I can get a msi 980ti for <$400 new. What are good secondhand prices atm?


Uh..where?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> My local microcenter sold out and they got alot, over 300 cards gone already. these are the type of cards everyone buys, sadly it's easy for AMD to scam people with a non overclocking, gimped up, non PCIE compliant card due to that.


Someone zip tied an H100 to a RX 480, getting 1487 on the core. Purely power limited at that point, meaning that it is pulling 225w (150w power limit + 50% in WM).

Reported temps were in the mid 60's.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> Uh..where?


Jet.com


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Someone zip tied an H100 to a RX 480, getting 1487 on the core. Purely power limited at that point, meaning that it is pulling 225w (150w power limit + 50% in WM).
> 
> Reported temps were in the mid 60's.


I Zip tied my freezer to a tube that was breathing right onto my card, 1673 Mhz at 49 degrees C.

See how easy that was?... in this forum, you need a credible source. Don't have one? Don't bother spewing more fake hype.


----------



## Ban13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> an account that got reactivated only to start shilling great yet another one on this thread alone


Not at all, I simply remember Fury X scaling very well with DX12 and even more with Async. I was expecting great results from RX 480 too.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> I Zip tied my freezer to a tube that was breathing right onto my card, 1673 Mhz at 49 degrees C.
> 
> See how easy that was?... in this forum, you need a credible source. Don't have one? Don't bother spewing more fake hype.


Well there was already another person who got to 1420 MHz on the core so not sure why 1480 is not believable especially when it was mentioned that it's highly dependant on binning.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Well there was already another person who got to 1420 MHz on the core so not sure why 1480 is not believable especially when it was mentioned that it's highly dependant on binning.


Cos it's AMD lol

If Nvidia, no problemo.

Nvidia went from 1500mhz+ to 2100mhz+ on their new node.

AMD going from around 1200mhz+ to 1500mhz+ is totally plausible.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Cos it's AMD lol
> 
> If Nvidia, no problemo.
> 
> Nvidia went from 1500mhz+ to 2100mhz+ on their new node.
> 
> AMD going from around 1200mhz+ to 1500mhz+ is totally plausible.


LOL


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Well there was already another person who got to 1420 MHz on the core so not sure why 1480 is not believable especially when it was mentioned that it's highly dependant on binning.


Because it's this fake hype that is causing a stir among the enthusiast community. Anecdotal evidence is not representative of the average. Just as NVidia had a card clocked at 2300+. this is not the case for retail cards is it?

All i'm saying is, I've become all too weary of fake hype on these cards.


----------



## sugarhell

Someone on 4chan overclocked his 480 with an AIO to 1490


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ban13*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> an account that got reactivated only to start shilling great yet another one on this thread alone
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I simply remember Fury X scaling very well with DX12 and even more with Async. I was expecting great results from RX 480 too.
Click to expand...

even 980ti scales more but you know you know why? more ROPS, more cores, high end, highly clocked GPU's. look at the scaling on every GPU below say a GTX980 or 390X, not so great some even go backwards in DX12.


----------



## TranquilTempest

Hey, is the 480 the full die?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Someone on 4chan overclocked his 480 with an AIO to 1490


Thats the guy. Only had an image of the 4Chan post though, which there is no point in posting.

1500-1600 is already pretty much the known quantity for possible high end AIB cards.

Not to mention people havee been zip tying AIO CPU coolers to GPU's since the GTX 480.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Thats the guy. Only had an image of the 4Chan post though, which there is no point in posting.
> 
> 1500-1600 is already pretty much the known quantity for possible high end AIB cards.
> 
> Not to mention people havee been zip tying AIO CPU coolers to GPU's since the GTX 480.


Here is the link

http://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/55333091/tfw-you-use-one-of-those-cpu-waterblock-mounts-on#p55333742


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Because it's this fake hype that is causing a stir among the enthusiast community. Anecdotal evidence is not representative of the average. Just as NVidia had a card clocked at 2300+. this is not the case for retail cards is it?
> 
> All i'm saying is, I've become all too weary of fake hype on these cards.


So you'll now believe nothing as you can't analyze real info from garbage? Cool.

When did Nvidia have a card clocked at 2300mhz? The only one I know of was 2100mhz.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Someone on 4chan overclocked his 480 with an AIO to 1490


I don't doubt it, AMD gimped the reference card with that mid 90's heatsink. If i was in the market for mainstream i would boycott this card, lol. They gimped it hard in order to sell a more expensive version later along with AIB's. We have a perfectly good gpu that is held back by power, bad cooling and BIOS limits. They clearly mean to make a non handicapped Polaris GPU hence WattMan, price of entry 300 bucks.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> So you'll now believe nothing as you can't analyze real info from garbage? Cool.
> 
> When did Nvidia have a card clocked at 2300mhz? The only one I know of was 2100mhz.


Oh, I can. But not everyone can, which is why the "OMGZ IT DOESN'T BEAT A 980 TI FAILLLZZZZZ" comments are present.

And the one i'm referring to was the one they used on stage. Remember? 2300 at 68 on air? Average card?


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Oh, I can. But not everyone can, which is why the "OMGZ IT DOESN'T BEAT A 980 TI FAILLLZZZZZ" comments are present.
> 
> And the one i'm referring to was the one they used on stage. Remember? 2300 at 68 on air? Average card?


Lol go watch the video again, it was 2100mhz









Yet I'm the one that has to remember


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> I don't doubt it, AMD gimped the reference card with that mid 90's heatsink. If i was in the market for mainstream i would boycott this card, lol. They gimped it hard in order to sell a more expensive version later along with AIB's. We have a perfectly good gpu that is held back by power, bad cooling and BIOS limits. They clearly mean to make a non handicapped Polaris GPU hence WattMan, price of entry 300 bucks.


You have to remember that AMD is not the one that gains with AIB surcharges. So saying that they gimped reference boards so that they can make more money with AIBs is kind of senseless.


----------



## spyshagg

they had to hit a certain price window guys.

If there are any complaints, it should be about its TDP which seems out of place. Its a great, great cheap card otherwise.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> So you'll now believe nothing as you can't analyze real info from garbage? Cool.
> 
> When did Nvidia have a card clocked at 2300mhz? The only one I know of was 2100mhz.


Actually, it's better to not believe anything. if some people even try to speculate saying lots of *IF*, some fake hypers start hyping and believing that as absolute truth.

that's why we have a situation like this. next time, nuke every freaking shed of hope you see and ban those fud/wccf like cancer sites. that will do good for everyone.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Lol go watch the video again, it was 2100mhz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet I'm the one that has to remember


I stand corrected. The stage demo was indeed at 2100. It was the fanboys who started claiming that 2300+ should be easily attainable. Which again, reiterates my original point.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> And this is how AMD drivers have worked for several gens now...
> 
> The only real way to get the word out is to make it a point to have reviewers re-test the card to show that it's now beating its counterpart.


lol you guys are so predictable. We heard the same arguments with Fury X.
"Just wait. New drivers will make it shine"
"Unlocked BIOS will make it overclock much better"

I feel sorry for those that bought in to your advice then too. Because Fury X is still a poor overclocker and newer drivers didnt make it superpowerful over a year after release.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Actually, it's better to not believe anything. if some people even try to speculate saying lots of *IF*, some fake hypers start hyping and believing that as absolute truth.
> 
> that's why we have a situation like this. next time, nuke every freaking shed of hope you see and ban those fud/wccf like cancer sites. that will do good for everyone.


Well... WCCF was only wrong on power consumption. The card hits the stated OC targets with better cooling.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> I don't doubt it, AMD gimped the reference card with that mid 90's heatsink. If i was in the market for mainstream i would boycott this card, lol. They gimped it hard in order to sell a more expensive version later along with AIB's. We have a perfectly good gpu that is held back by power, bad cooling and BIOS limits. They clearly mean to make a non handicapped Polaris GPU hence WattMan, price of entry 300 bucks.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to remember that AMD is not the one that gains with AIB surcharges. So saying that they gimped reference boards so that they can make more money with AIBs is kind of senseless.
Click to expand...

They certainly gimped it to sell a more expensive design down the road though. This thing is locked up as tight as non-K intel CPU.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Well... WCCF was only wrong on power consumption. The card hits the stated OC targets with better cooling.


please, they were the one saying fury like performance on stock something like that.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> I stand corrected. The stage demo was indeed at 2100. It was the fanboys who started claiming that 2300+ should be easily attainable. Which again, reiterates my original point.


And you are a person that took that as fact obviously, or got confused or whatever happened. Yet you are here saying you're sick of hype and all that.

Ridiculous.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> please, they were the one saying fury like performance on stock something like that.


IIRC that was the 1500mhz rumour and if you look at the german website OC results then it's actually not as far off as you'd think.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> They certainly gimped it to sell a more expensive design down the road though. This thing is locked up as tight as non-K intel CPU.


Need to see what AIB's launch and for what prices. If I can get a RX 480 with windforce or similar cooler for $260, Im gonna be all over it.


----------



## sugarhell

Ok so we have to expect a RX 485?


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Need to see what AIB's launch and for what prices. If I can get a RX 480 with windforce or similar cooler for $260, Im gonna be all over it.


Same here.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Well... WCCF was only wrong on power consumption. The card hits the stated OC targets with better cooling.
> 
> 
> 
> please, *they were the one saying fury like performance on stock something like that.*
Click to expand...

actually they said that for a mystical 8+6 pin variant @ 1500mhz that doesn't exist.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> And you are a person that took that as fact obviously, or got confused or whatever happened. Yet you are here saying you're sick of hype and all that.
> 
> Ridiculous.


I was mistaken in the number. But I never took the hype as fact. I'm well aware that marketing will take the best case scenario, and make it seem like the average use case (take CF 480 vs 1080 for example, on a single DX12 title, which has consistently favored AMD's architecture).


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> please, they were the one saying fury like performance on stock something like that.


AFAIK they were right, in some games its barely behind the Fury/X.

If 1450-1500 is doable on this reference design, it will approach Fury/X much more often with custom variants..


----------



## Noufel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> It's crazy out there in sales isn't it? One seller already sold a 1000 RX480's


Wow i'm realy suprised i think AMD are doing nice this time


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Same here.


I'd be inclined to say the same. I only hope they sort out that whole PCI-e thing.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> I was mistaken in the number. But I never took the hype as fact. I'm well aware that marketing will take the best case scenario, and make it seem like the average use case (take CF 480 vs 1080 for example, on a single DX12 title, which has consistently favored AMD's architecture).


Well anyway we can't just write off all rumours because of a few fools around the place that's for sure, just like we can't write off all anecdotal evidence if there are a reasonable amount of numbers to support the claims.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> AFAIK they were right, in some games its barely behind the Fury/X.
> 
> If 1450-1500 are doable on this reference design, it will approach Fury/X much more often with custom variants..


This is usually the case in DX12 games, because of the fact that it's easier for GCN to edge out NVidia's offerings. In most games however, it doesn't come close.


----------



## jellybeans69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Same here.


Asus RX480 8gb straight from supplier here 230e without vat. So 260$/260e is within a realm of possibility. None at stock yet though.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> This is usually the case in DX12 games, because of the fact that it's easier for GCN to edge out NVidia's offerings. In most games however, it doesn't come close.


Was talking about Fury/X, those are AMD cards last I checked.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> actually they said that for a mystical 8+6 pin variant that doesn't exist.


Well it will exist and if it can get to 1450mhz+ then Fury X performance is a high possibility.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

OC results down on page, 5 games, 1380mhz 970 getting beaten in 80% of them.

[email protected]


----------



## cainy1991

Anyone know if the cooler mounting holes are the same dimensions as previous gen?


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Well anyway we can't just write off all rumours because of a few fools around the place that's for sure, just like we can't write off all anecdotal evidence if there are a reasonable amount of numbers to support the claims.


I agree with you there. The point I was trying to make was that we have to be critical of rumors and hype. Information from sources like WCCF, Videocardz etc. aren't to be taken at face value. And unfortunately, most of the hype that was generated was based off of claims made primarily by those two sources.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cainy1991*
> 
> Anyone know if the cooler mounting holes are the same dimensions as previous gen?


They are the same as the Nano.

I want this card with the Nano cooler now.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> unfortunately, overhead is still there, and it's pretty bad too. see how it's 2% slower than 970 on 4790K/4690K, but 13% slower on i3.
> 
> 
> 
> 22% slower on i3 3.7GHz (27% comparing min fps)
> 
> 
> 
> anyone considering this card for a budget build should probably think twice....


Ugh. You guys have no idea how frustrating this is.

I don't even know why I even got myself thinking that AMD would fix their DX11 issues with Polaris. They were advertising some sort of new "DX11 command center" or a revised front end system that would dramatically lower the inherent DX11 overhead of GCN. The fact that they haven't fixed it means that the RX 480 might look decent on reviewer's i7-K powered test rigs but it will be poor in the average guy's i3 rig. This also probably means that Polaris drivers for DX11 are single threaded, which is going to add on to the hurt for people using older processors such as Sandy Bridge or Vishera. Way to go AMD.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Can everyone just calm down and realize that if you have a 750Ti/950/960 | AMD 270s/280s/380s the best card for them to upgrade to is actually a 199$ RX 480?


Speak for yourself, man. I have a 380x which is self admittedly not a whole lot faster than a 380 4GB and I have next to no desire to "upgrade" to this card. Its only around 50-60% faster which makes it a tough sell for people who got 380s as late as a year ago. I've seen other members in this thread with a 7970 and a 280x express disappointment in the 480 and how they are going to stay with their cards.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> I've seen other members in this thread with a 7970 and a 280x express disappointment in the 480 and how they are going to stay with their cards.


Also people like me on a 7900 series card will happily upgrade to a custom cooled (and powered) 480, as long as it can OC to 1450+ on the core.

It'll be basically twice the performance at that point and will give me another 5GB vram.

The DX11 problem won't really affect me as I have an ivy quad at 4.4ghz and am only running 1080p/60hz.


----------



## cainy1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> They are the same as the Nano.
> 
> I want this card with the Nano cooler now.


Thanks man.

I was hoping they had the same dimensions as 2XX/3XX as I have a couple coolers handy lol


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Someone on 4chan overclocked his 480 with an AIO to 1490


As much as I'd like to believe that, the graphics score is at/hair above stock gtx 1070 performance.

Don't think a relatively small OC like that is going to bring it from 290x level to 1070 level anytime soon


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> As much as I'd like to believe that, the graphics score is at/hair above stock gtx 1070 performance.
> 
> Don't think a relatively small OC like that is going to bring it from 290x level to 1070 level anytime soon


http://www.powercolor.com/event/A_New_Devil_is_Born/index.asp

((AIB intensifies))


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> The DX11 problem won't really affect me as I have an ivy quad at 4.4ghz and am only running 1080p/60hz.


Yeah, but for people who are building a new system using this card or most of the people buying it are budget gamers who I don't imagine will have CPUs with more value than their GPUs by getting i5-Ks. Performance of the RX 480 on even a bog standard i5 locked is disappointing. The performance on the i3 is even worse.

This is why I wish reviewers had different test rigs for different cards. Nobody is going to be using a RX 480 with an 5960x overclocked to 4.5GHz. It would be much more realistic to test low-mid cards with a CPU like an i3-6100 or an i5-4460.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> please, they were the one saying fury like performance on stock something like that.


Someone should make a thread specifically with all the false claims WCCFTECH made about this card before release. I called out their chief editor on Twitter about this as it p*ssed me off as I was taken in by some of it!

They had daily articles before release on the 480 and most of them turned out to be massively wrong. They claimed the card cruises along sipping 110W while gaming and this turns out to be way, way wide of the mark. They also kept posting 3DMark benches where the performance was above or around the same as a 980, leading countless folks to believe that this card was going to beat a 980.

They also claimed that the card is a great overclocker. 5% OC says hi. And they didn't distinguish between ref or non-ref with this OC claim. *Please, no one ever take anything WCCFTECH says as even half-likely going forward.*


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> As much as I'd like to believe that, the graphics score is at/hair above stock gtx 1070 performance.
> 
> Don't think a relatively small OC like that is going to bring it from 290x level to 1070 level anytime soon


At 1350mhz the card is near a Fury X, Fury X is near a 980ti, 980ti is on par with a 1070.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

1490 is no small OC. The cards scale rather well according to many reviews (as above)

I'm still taking 1070 performance with a large grain of salt but in theory not totally impossible.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Yeah, but for people who are building a new system using this card or most of the people buying it are budget gamers who I don't imagine will have CPUs with more value than their GPUs by getting i5-Ks. Performance of the RX 480 on even a bog standard i5 locked is disappointing. The performance on the i3 is even worse.
> 
> This is why I wish reviewers had different test rigs for different cards. Nobody is going to be using a RX 480 with an 5960x overclocked to 4.5GHz. It would be much more realistic to test low-mid cards with a CPU like an i3-6100 or an i5-4460.


Very true.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> They also claimed that the card is a great overclocker. 5% OC says hi. And they didn't distinguish between ref or non-ref with this OC claim. *Please, no one ever take anything WCCFTECH says as even half-likely going forward.*


It *possibly* is a great overclocker.


----------



## rt123

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> As much as I'd like to believe that, the graphics score is at/hair above stock gtx 1070 performance.
> 
> Don't think a relatively small OC like that is going to bring it from 290x level to 1070 level anytime soon


If you knew anything about AMD, you'd know that they tend to do bad in FM benches.
If it gets close to 1070 Graphics score in Firestrike, it will pass it in gaming.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Yeah, but for people who are building a new system using this card or most of the people buying it are budget gamers who I don't imagine will have CPUs with more value than their GPUs by getting i5-Ks. Performance of the RX 480 on even a bog standard i5 locked is disappointing. The performance on the i3 is even worse.
> 
> This is why I wish reviewers had different test rigs for different cards. Nobody is going to be using a RX 480 with an 5960x overclocked to 4.5GHz. It would be much more realistic to test low-mid cards with a CPU like an i3-6100 or an i5-4460.


I agree. It's really sad to see GCN/AMD still struggling with their DX11 driver overhead.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rt123*
> 
> If you knew anything about AMD, you'd know that they tend to do bad in FM benches.
> If it gets close to 1070 Physics score in Firestrike, it will pass it in gaming.


I wouldnt say that. RX 480 does TERRIBLE in BF3 and BF4 as well as a few other games, sometimes at or below R9 290 according to a few reviews.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> I agree. It's really sad to see GCN/AMD still struggling with their DX11 driver overhead.


Let's face it they're never going to fix it, they can't fix it.

They are hoping DX12 comes along and DX11 is all but forgotten.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Let's face it they're never going to fix it, they can't fix it.
> 
> They are hoping DX12 comes along and DX11 is all but forgotten.


Sad thing is, DX 11 is the new DX9. It will hang around for 10 years.


----------



## sugarhell

I don't remember the last GloFo gpu but well there are positives for overclocking

Glofo likes low temperatures.
Glofo scales with more voltage if you have low temps(for example at 60C core temps maybe you can get over 100mhz vs 70C.)
GloFo doesn't have the cold bug for ln2


----------



## Newbie2009

One store shifted over a thousand of these cards in 24 hours. A lot of people seem happy with this card.


----------



## kittysox

Sapphire 480 nitro with single 8pin. I'm sold now, for the right price...


----------



## KarathKasun

Wow, I dont remember this many sites getting knocked offline with GTX 1080 launch.

Powercolor site is down/unresponsive, probably from hits caused by the raffle for their new DEVIL card.


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> 
> 
> Sapphire 480 nitro with single 8pin. I'm sold now, for the right price...


Is it out already? I'm only seeing reference models for sale.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> 
> 
> Sapphire 480 nitro with single 8pin. I'm sold now, for the right price...


LOL so it is the infamous 'cheese grater' cooler, but painted black. I like it.

Is a single 8 pin enough?

I also see DVI for all the people who were scared of being abandoned


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Wow, I dont remember this many sites getting knocked offline with GTX 1080 launch.
> 
> Powercolor site is down/unresponsive, probably from hits caused by the raffle for their new DEVIL card.


Yeah, that happens when a new card launches at a decent price. AMD themselves gave numbers on how tiny the $400+ crowd is.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Wow, I dont remember this many sites getting knocked offline with GTX 1080 launch.
> 
> Powercolor site is down/unresponsive, probably from hits caused by the raffle for their new DEVIL card.


most people upgrading are buying a 480.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> 
> 
> Sapphire 480 nitro with single 8pin. I'm sold now, for the right price...


Where did the pic come from?

There's actually something that doesn't look quite right about it.


----------



## cainy1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> Is it out already? I'm only seeing reference models for sale.


Nah not yet, apparently half way through the month by best estimates.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> 
> 
> Sapphire 480 nitro with single 8pin. I'm sold now, for the right price...


that's the card to get, instead of that awful reference


----------



## kittysox

Was posted on sapphire tech Facebook


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> Was posted on sapphire tech Facebook


Ok thanks, well I'm almost sold, don't like MSI or Asus high pricing so probably this or Gigabyte (3 year warranty is always nice)


----------



## maltamonk

I've never quite figured out who, besides ppl that put blocks or aftermarket coolers on, get reference cards. If heat inside the case is so much of an issue, get some fans. If the case is so bad it can't handle fans, get a new case. Ofc ppl that get prebuilts may but those types usually aren't in the market for cards where gpu heat may be an issue.

That said as with any card...wait for aib models as they are almost always the better option.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> LOL so it is the infamous 'cheese grater' cooler, but painted black. I like it.
> 
> Is a single 8 pin enough?
> 
> I also see DVI for all the people who were scared of being abandoned


One 8 pin can deliver 150w by itself. That means that an 8 pin card has a 50% advantage before it is "out of spec".

If the BIOS power limit is adjusted to go with the power increase, it should be like the reference card with powertune/WM at +50% power setting.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cainy1991*
> 
> Nah not yet, apparently half way through the month by best estimates.


Yeah, around July 12th from what I have seen.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Ok thanks, well I'm almost sold, don't like MSI or Asus high pricing so probably this or Gigabyte (3 year warranty is always nice)


windforce is trash compared to trix or nitro
it's a damn shame sapphire isn't partner with nvidia since nitro/trix is a spectacular cooler in all aspects


----------



## cainy1991

Not sure if this has been posted yet...

But ugliest card I have seen in a long time.


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> I've never quite figured out who, besides ppl that put blocks or aftermarket coolers on, get reference cards. If heat inside the case is so much of an issue, get some fans. If the case is so bad it can't handle fans, get a new case. Ofc ppl that get prebuilts may but those types usually aren't in the market for cards where gpu heat may be an issue.
> 
> That said as with any card...wait for aib models as they are almost always the better option.


If you're running a small form factor and want to X-fire the reference models actually fit the board. Also because the cards are so close together its imperative that the air gets pushed out the back instead onto the other card.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> windforce is trash compared to trix or nitro
> it's a damn shame sapphire isn't partner with nvidia since nitro/trix is a spectacular cooler in all aspects


They are triple fan coolers though, they don't apply. Windforce isn't bad honestly.

We will see what Gigabyte come up with, they've tried to go too fancy with the 1070/1080.

The older Dual-X cooler from sapphire was garbage btw.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cainy1991*
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if this has been posted yet...
> 
> But ugliest card I have seen in a long time.


Yep the ROG is a joke, plus it will cost more.

I don't want lights, don't want gamererz, just a card that works well and overclocks lol.


----------



## Noufel

man the 480 is out of stock in my local store and apparently sold like hotcakes by Gibbo at OC.uk
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29716633&postcount=190


----------



## Noufel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cainy1991*
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if this has been posted yet...
> 
> But ugliest card I have seen in a long time.


didn't u see the strix 1080 it looks the same


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> They are triple fan coolers though, they don't apply. Windforce isn't bad honestly.
> 
> We wills ee what Gigabyte come up with, they've tried to go too fancy with the 1070/1080.
> 
> The older Dual-X cooler from sapphire was garbage btw.
> Yep the ROG is a joke, plus it will cost more.


lol read any 390 G1 Windforce 2X review, this cooler is bad. Best dual cooler - MSI TwinFrozr VI, hands down. It's worth that extra $20

and I think strix is kinda cool


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> lol read any 390 G1 Windforce 2X review, this cooler is bad. Best dual cooler - MSI TwinFrozr VI, hands down. It's worth that extra $20
> 
> and I think strix is kinda cool


Windforce cooler is fine on R9 380. Which is where this card sits in power consumption.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> lol read any 390 G1 Windforce 2X review, this cooler is bad. Best dual cooler - MSI TwinFrozr VI, hands down. It's worth that extra $20
> 
> and I think strix is kinda cool


True about the MSI, but always pricey it seems, if not then highly considered, good quality cards and three year warranty

I'm not sure Gigabyte will just wack that triple fan cooler on the 480 so they may do a different design? We will see.

I'm not doing strix but that would be due to cost, looks aren't a problem for me but honestly it does look tacky.


----------



## cainy1991

Ahh, no I hadn't seen the design on 1070/80's.

I didn't take much note of the AIB cards as both are way outta my price range lol


----------



## Noufel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cainy1991*
> 
> Ahh, no I hadn't seen the design on 1070/80's.
> 
> I didn't take much note of the AIB cards as both are way outta my price range lol


the 1080 strix is my next gpu i hope that it doesn't sucks like the 980ti one but for a gpu like 480 the strix cooler will be very usefull


----------



## Cubeman

Crossfired my 480's, Thinking about doing a Tri-Fire tonight


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Crossfired my 480's, Thinking about doing a Tri-Fire tonight


You are brave man.


----------



## FlyingSolo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> 
> 
> Sapphire 480 nitro with single 8pin. I'm sold now, for the right price...


I'll be getting this or MSI one if the clocks are high on them.


----------



## Cubeman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> You are brave man.


Someones gotta do the crazy work around here


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Someones gotta do the crazy work around here


True. But with the whole PCIE thing?


----------



## FlyingSolo

I think the AIB cards will come out some time around 15th of July or end of July.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> True. But with the whole PCIE thing?


Im pretty sure his motherboard can handle it.


----------



## EastCoast

hmmm currently sold out on newegg.
Wow


----------



## Clovertail100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neurotix*
> 
> Your judgment about whether or not my opinion is educated is irrelevant, and so is the specifics of how I arrived at my conclusion, because I was still right. Just because my assumptions don't make sense to you, or aren't "in-depth" enough to you, doesn't discredit them or my way of thinking. My conclusion was still mostly accurate.


Open forum. If you don't like when people evaluate your opinions, you shouldn't be here giving them.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neurotix*
> 
> And actually, contrary to your assumptions, I actually did know that it would be produced on a combined GloFlo/Samsung 14nm node. I also knew the die size would be roughly 232mm2, this has been known for some time, surely it was less than 250mm2, and it's obviously a midrange chip with a smaller die. This has been common knowledge for months. Do I know the differences? Does it matter? I was still correct. More importantly, I've stated in other posts that I believe that the weak performance of the card are due to it having less ROPs and TMUs- which I also expected. The Fury X only had 64 ROPs while the 980ti had 96, and on release I knew this was a reason for it's poor performance at 1080p. So, I figured that the RX 480/Polaris would likely have 32 ROPs and probably underperform compared to the 390/290.


Die size has not been "known" for months. It hasn't even been _one_ month. Hexus released an article only two weeks ago, estimating the die size from analyzing _a picture_.

I'm somewhat annoyed to be sitting here, responding to all the things that _I_ listed as being relevant factors for gauging where this chip might land. I made that list to emphasize just how much wasn't known, and reinforce just how relevant those unknowns were. I also listed them off because your "educated guess" was anemic on the "educated" side and grotesquely over-weight toward the "guess" side. Let's recap:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neurotix*
> 
> No, I didn't "know more about the TSMC, GloFlo, and the testing of this chip that occurred behind closed doors with different coolers, drivers, and power delivery."
> 
> *I simply made an educated guess, that you call an uneducated one, because 1) It's AMD 2) the Fury X underperformed and 3) There's been tremendous unwarranted hype and rumors since the card was announced.* Surely, it doesn't take much reason (or a rocket scientist) to figure that the card would probably not live up to the rumors. It's really as simple as that.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neurotix*
> 
> "It being AMD" is actually a valid reason to be suspicious, I thought everyone knew about Bulldozer at this point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also get tons of delays for the 14nm node, the Fury and Fury X were turds, the company itself is failing and so on. Personally, I don't know how you can even hold this against me when I've stated I've used nothing but AMD graphics cards since 2008. I'm certainly an AMD supporter, and not an Nvidia troll or something. I'm not blind to the facts though and the companies' history, so obviously I have caution and am diffident in my expectations.
> 
> *I don't know how these are "bad reasons", I'm sorry I'm not an electrical engineer at a fabrication facility*, christ some people think you can't have an opinion or make statements unless you have a degree in this stuff.


You don't know how those are bad reasons? You don't need to be an electrical engineer to know that _you're not an electrical engineer._ There were questions heading into this that you clearly took no consideration of and yet here you are, telling everyone that you "called it because AMD and Fury X and Bulldozer!"

It's asinine, and you just keep digging deeper and deeper.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neurotix*
> 
> The point about HWBOT is simple- where's your results? Where's your cred? If you know so much, then *do something* and prove you're actually good at this- building computers- instead of being full of hot air. I've seen your rigs, they're seriously outdated and they look like crap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So good luck on this front.
> 
> With that sir, have a good day. You will remain in my blocklist and receive no further responses.


And this, I don't even know how to respond to.

My "cred" is that I'm not relying on some Fast and Furious version of PC gaming to make my point. I don't need to point to a case full of neon lights to bolster wild, unfounded assumptions about unreleased chips. I talk about what I know, and what I don't know, and invite meaningful discussion about both. And yes, when I see people making outlandish claims that no credible member of the enthusiast community would otherwise make.. I take issue with that. This all started with you trying to make some kind of "I don't you so" claim of grandeur; as if your criteria for an "educated guess" should hold any weight in the future. God forbid anyone who's new to the PC enthusiast community takes you at your word next time, the way you insist we all should.

You're the lowest bar anyone should ever shoot for, in terms of honest skepticism.


----------



## Cubeman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> True. But with the whole PCIE thing?


Think I should be fine. Otherwise Gigabytes going to be owing me a new motherboard lol.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Im pretty sure his motherboard can handle it.


Yep


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> hmmm currently sold out on newegg.
> Wow


Me thinks AMD knew what they were doing hitting the mainstream market first.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Think I should be fine. Otherwise Gigabytes going to be owing me a new motherboard lol.
> Yep


You'll be fine, honestly I don't even know why I said that, it was fear mongering.

I'm fairly sure AMD did a lot of testing on these cards before releasing them.


----------



## Klocek001

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Crossfired my 480's, Thinking about doing a Tri-Fire tonight






your tri-fire 480s vs my 2GHz GTX 1080 in Witcher 3, I dare you


----------



## EastCoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Me thinks AMD knew what they were doing hitting the mainstream market first.


Nv went for the minority pc market 1st.
AMD went for the majority pc market 1st.
Master Plan nearly complete.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

hmm... I'd imagine either Asus has to fix their direct heatpipe issue with gaps in the heatpipes or it's going to be a heat spreader between the pipes...I'm ok with either... I may end up getting this card if non-ref cards pull through with some great overclocks and power draw isn't through the roof....


----------



## Cubeman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Me thinks AMD knew what they were doing hitting the mainstream market first.
> You'll be fine, honestly I don't even know why I said that, it was fear mongering.
> 
> I'm fairly sure AMD did a lot of testing on these cards before releasing them.


Little to be known, The money is where the mainstream is for CPU's and GPU's. They don't make much (or in some cases at all) with high end cards. It's why AMD a few years ago redirected their entire lineup to try and take over the mainstream/common user.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> 
> your tri-fire 480s vs my 2GHz GTX 1080 in Witcher 3, I dare you


That's a great challenge. Take him down Cubeman!

(Does tri-fire work on W3?







)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> Nv went for the minority pc market 1st.
> AMD went for the majority pc market 1st.
> Master Plan nearly complete.


Just pictured Raja smoking a cigar.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Crossfired my 480's, Thinking about doing a Tri-Fire tonight


Please post a 3dmark API overhead result.


----------



## Cubeman

You bastards are making me run to microcenter now to get the third card. There goes my lunch at work! lol


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Crossfired my 480's, Thinking about doing a Tri-Fire tonight


You sure about tri-fire? You're literally going to start a fire.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> If you're running a small form factor and want to X-fire the reference models actually fit the board. Also because the cards are so close together its imperative that the air gets pushed out the back instead onto the other card.


Small form factor and cfx or sli just seems like a poor idea to me ofc unless under water. Usually it's a much better idea to get a single higher end card than two lesser cards in sli or cfx for for sff. People who get two high end cards usually spend the money to put them under water in that instance since they are already deeply invested.

Ofc to each their own


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> You bastards are making me run to microcenter now to get the third card. There goes my lunch at work! lol


srsly, I'm dying from curiosity how trifire 480s would do against 2GHz 1080 in a game


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Ugh. You guys have no idea how frustrating this is.
> 
> I don't even know why I even got myself thinking that AMD would fix their DX11 issues with Polaris. They were advertising some sort of new "DX11 command center" or a revised front end system that would dramatically lower the inherent DX11 overhead of GCN. The fact that they haven't fixed it means that the RX 480 might look decent on reviewer's i7-K powered test rigs but it will be poor in the average guy's i3 rig. This also probably means that Polaris drivers for DX11 are single threaded, which is going to add on to the hurt for people using older processors such as Sandy Bridge or Vishera. Way to go AMD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself, man. I have a 380x which is self admittedly not a whole lot faster than a 380 4GB and I have next to no desire to "upgrade" to this card. Its only around 50-60% faster which makes it a tough sell for people who got 380s as late as a year ago. I've seen other members in this thread with a 7970 and a 280x express disappointment in the 480 and how they are going to stay with their cards.


So 60% faster than your current card for 199$ is a complete disappointment for you? I guess I'm completely crazy for upgrading my 290 to a GTX 1070 then.


----------



## FLCLimax

upping from 380X to 480 is a no brainer...unless you have no brain.


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> srsly, I'm dying from curiosity how trifire 480s would do against 2GHz 1080 in a game


You should check out the tech power up crossfire review .


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> You should check out the tech power up crossfire review .


I did. 1080 mopped the floor with 480s. But reviews ain't always right.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> 
> your tri-fire 480s vs my 2GHz GTX 1080 in Witcher 3, I dare you


He's only giving up ~600 points to a 1080 graphics score in FSU


----------



## EastCoast

You know, whenever AMD had the upper hand in a next gen release there were always some sort of leak performance from Nv next gen card usually withing 48 hrs. So far I've heard nothing from the 1060 rumored performance.to try and spoil rx480 field parade. Will we see a 1060 at $199?
Take a look at steam survey. The #1 card there is the 970...would you look at that, a mainstream card. It was and never was a 980ti. Furthermore, there is a pretty big uptick from dx11 to dx12 cards.

In all, that will be a vastly different landscape by year end holiday. How muich will the 1060 be a factor? Time will tell.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> You know, whenever AMD had the upper hand in a next gen release there were always some sort of leak performance from Nv next gen card usually withing 48 hrs. So far I've heard nothing from the 1060 rumored performance.to try and spoil rx480 field parade. Will we see a 1060 at $199?
> Take a look at steam survey. The #1 card there is the 970...would you look at that, a mainstream card. It was and never was a 980ti. Furthermore, there is a pretty big uptick from dx11 to dx12 cards.
> 
> In all, that will be a vastly different landscape by year end holiday. How muich will the 1060 be a factor? Time will tell.


Well this is the thing, most people in that bracket will just buy whoever has a new card on the market, they are probably less swayed by enthusiast hype like exactly how much performance per watt etc.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> He's only giving up ~600 points to a 1080 graphics score in FSU


lol benchmarks are not an indication of anything.

will this translate to higher performance in games if we turn off gameworks and use the high preset for our cards to run +100fps ?


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> You know, whenever AMD had the upper hand in a next gen release there were always some sort of leak performance from Nv next gen card usually withing 48 hrs. So far I've heard nothing from the 1060 rumored performance.to try and spoil rx480 field parade. Will we see a 1060 at $199?
> Take a look at steam survey. The #1 card there is the 970...would you look at that, a mainstream card. It was and never was a 980ti. Furthermore, there is a pretty big uptick from dx11 to dx12 cards.
> 
> In all, that will be a vastly different landscape by year end holiday. How muich will the 1060 be a factor? Time will tell.


970 is not mainstream, it was just cheap enough to go for over the mainstream plus it was sooooo much better than the 960 and a bit better than the 290. even if the world sees $389 1070's one fateful day, it's still a bit outside the range where people will buy it in droves.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> 100mhz increase from 1380mhz? (+small % ram increase)
> 
> Work out the clockspeed difference in %
> 
> Then try to tell me you'll gain up to 10% in fps, just no.
> 
> The card that scales well out of the two is the 480, that's why it's significantly faster in those benchmarks once OC'd
> 
> Plus for all we know the AIB 480 may go up to 1500-1600mhz.
> 
> From 1350mhz>1500-odd mhz with the kind of scaling we see there..............needless to say the 3.5GB 970 becomes even less relevant than it is already.


Math fail??

1475/1380 = 6.9% boost.
8000/7200 = 11.1% boost, small overclock? lol.

Add both together and you'll get a 7%-10% FPS boost, I know that since I had GTX970 SLI and GTX980 SLI, GM204 is bandwidth starved.


----------



## yraith

I really want to upgrade. my XFX 280X DDB is artifacting like crazy when working hard.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yraith*
> 
> I really want to upgrade. my XFX 280X DDB is artifacting like crazy when working hard.


I'd check the power draw on the pci-e slot.....


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I'd check the power draw on the pci-e slot.....


Not sure if this is relevant but..............
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Oh no, 750ti! (FYI this is all through the PCIE bus)
> 
> 
> 
> I know I overclocked the snot out of mine and had them folding for months with no issues. Go home and find something better to do people.
> 
> Source
> 
> 480 for comparison.


----------



## yraith

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I'd check the power draw on the pci-e slot.....


I am grabbing an RMA from XFX.. I guess it takes a while to figure out how to email me one.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Not sure if this is relevant but..............


You know why AMD did that. If these cards are used for mining... They will melt the MB lol. This is a feature not a problem







.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Not sure if this is relevant but..............


Oh look, the 750 Ti averages... 66w, right on spec.

RX 480 averages where again? Oh yes, 80w or 20% out of spec. At stock no less.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


That's a freakin sweet spoiler lol.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Oh look, the 750 Ti averages... 66w, right on spec.
> 
> RX 480 averages where again? Oh yes, 80w or 20% out of spec. At stock no less.


I thought it was the peaks that were the problem?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> You know why AMD did that. If these cards are used for mining... They will melt the MB lol. This is a feature not a problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Yeah they should've said the hottest VR performance for your system this year or something.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Oh look, the 750 Ti averages... 66w, right on spec.
> 
> RX 480 averages where again? Oh yes, 80w or 20% out of spec. At stock no less.


Spec is 75w so that would be around 7% over.

If you think your board is going to melt by being 7% over spec your dreaming. 75w is 6 pin spec yet you can pull almost 200w through it. Its ok though because its AMD so lets jump to conclusions.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> That's a freakin sweet spoiler lol.
> I thought it was the peaks that were the problem?


PCI-SIG spec is something like 1 minute running average. Average is important, unless you are peaking high enough to vaporize a trace.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Spec is 75w so that would be around 7% over.


That's probably within tolerances then? People on OCN couldn't have made a mountain out of a molehill? That doesn't happen here right?


----------



## Ha-Nocri

480 4GB vs 480 8GB

Almost no difference as I expected. For 1080p no reason to go 8GB and 40$ more, imo


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Oh look, the 750 Ti averages... 66w, right on spec.
> 
> RX 480 averages where again? Oh yes, 80w or 20% out of spec. At stock no less.


Isn't the PCI-e limit 75w? How is 80w 20%? I'm curious.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Spec is 75w so that would be around 7% over.
> 
> If you think your board is going to melt by being 7% over spec your dreaming. 75w is 6 pin spec yet you can pull almost 200w through it. Its ok though because its AMD so lets jump to conclusions.


No. Its 75w 12v and 3.3v combined. 12v line is specced for 66w.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> 480 4GB vs 480 8GB
> 
> Almost no difference as I expected. For 1080p no reason to go 8GB and 40$ more, imo


Not yet, perhaps.

It's a balancing act between the VRam and the power of the GPU. if the GPU is too weak, it won't be able to use all the ram that's available to it.
If it's too strong, it'll be memory starved (Think Fury X)

I'd say:

If you're planning on staying stock, get 4
If you're planning on pushing mad OC, get 8?

Who knows. I'd prefer it if more people went 8, then more developers could code with 8 GB in mind, since it would be considered mainstream


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> No. Its 75w 12v and 3.3v combined. 12v line is specced for 66w.


Yeah I was referring to the whole slot, you are correct that 12v is rated for 66w.

Still its a non issue, think about boards with 4 pcie slots, do you think they quadruple the thickness of traces for them? Theoretically if you wanted to stay in spec then the board itself has to be able to supply 300w of power alone. 264w on the 12v line alone. This is a non issue, no one blew up a board when reviewing, I dont see it happening anywhere else.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Yeah I was referring to the whole slot, you are correct that 12v is rated for 66w.
> 
> Still its a non issue, think about boards with 4 pcie slots, do you think they quadruple the thickness of traces for them? Theoretically if you wanted to stay in spec then the board itself has to be able to supply 300w of power alone. 264w on the 12v line alone. This is a non issue, no one blew up a board when reviewing, I dont see it happening anywhere else.


Usually a 4 slot board will have aux power connectors for the pcie bus.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> 480 4GB vs 480 8GB
> 
> Almost no difference as I expected. For 1080p no reason to go 8GB and 40$ more, imo


Its the same card. If you buy 4GB I think you can flash it to 8GB. You save $40







.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Usually a 4 slot board will have aux power connectors for the pcie bus.


Some do but they all dont, and you are not required to use them.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Nah they wouldn't put 8GB on a board and then disable half of it, makes no sense.
> I just had a look at a couple of 2011-3 boards and they don't have them.


It does make sense. Like they did with 290 and 6950. Just look at the ratio of 4GB vs 8GB cards in sale. Its like 1/10. No reason for them to make a different SKU and save $10.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> man the 480 is out of stock in my local store and apparently sold like hotcakes by Gibbo at OC.uk
> https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29716633&postcount=190


Over 1000 in 1-2 days is tremendous.

By comparison, iirc, the 1080 only managed to sell 1000 in its first month.

This will take big marketshare back for AMD.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Some do but they all dont, and you are not required to use them.


No, but they are included for a reason. If you step out of spec you may be pulling beyond the max safe load on the 3x18 awg 12v inputs on the 24pin connector.

I have seen melted 24 pin connectors in quad GPU rigs.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> It does make sense. Like they did with 290 and 6950. Just look at the ratio of 4GB vs 8GB cards in sale. Its like 1/10. No reason for them to make a different SKU and save $10.


Interesting, but not quite convinced no offense. Is ram that cheap?


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> man the 480 is out of stock in my local store and apparently sold like hotcakes by Gibbo at OC.uk
> https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29716633&postcount=190
> 
> 
> 
> Over 1000 in 1-2 days is tremendous.
> 
> By comparison, iirc, the 1080 only managed to sell 1000 in its first month.
> 
> This will take big marketshare back for AMD.
Click to expand...

I hope so, they need it desperately.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> By comparison, iirc, the 1080 only managed to sell 1000 in its first month.


If that's all you physically have, that's all you can sell


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> So 60% faster than your current card for 199$ is a complete disappointment for you? I guess I'm completely crazy for upgrading my 290 to a GTX 1070 then.


60% isn't fast enough for me to spend $250 on another card. I only had the 380x for 8 months, too. I aim for a card that is 2x or faster than my previous. In the case of my 380x, anything slower than a 980 Ti is not worth upgrading to, in my opinion.

I'm not swimming in cash like you lot. I can't just go out and buy a card that I will only use for around half a year and buy another.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> No, but they are included for a reason. If you step out of spec you may be pulling beyond the max safe load on the 3x18 awg 12v inputs on the 24pin connector.
> 
> I have seen melted 24 pin connectors in *quad GPU rigs*.


This where I only see issues possibly starting to happen, I think a single, dual and triple setups will be fine. If you are doing quad or _maybe_ even triple gpus then you would probably take the necessary precaution anyways and have a board that can supply the extra needed current. What I am getting at though a board running one or two of these gpus probably isnt even going to flinch at the extra load considering it can handle so much more.


----------



## Zaor

Just ordered a used 980ti for less than 300 euro after looking at rx480 performance.Let's hope previous owner is not an oc member and the card dead from ocing


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> 60% isn't fast enough for me to spend $250 on another card. I only had the 380x for 8 months, too. I aim for a card that is 2x or faster than my previous. In the case of my 380x, anything slower than a 980 Ti is not worth upgrading to, in my opinion.
> 
> I'm not swimming in cash like you lot. I can't just go out and buy a card that I will only use for around half a year and buy another.


Your 1070 awaits. Enjoy


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Your 1070 awaits. Enjoy


The 1070 is too expensive. It would take a miracle card for me to spend more than $300 on a GPU.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> The 1070 is too expensive. It would take a miracle card for me to spend more than $300 on a GPU.


Then I hope for your sake that the GTX 1060 performs like a 980ti. They're rumored at 250 for the 3GB, 300 for the 6GB. Though, the rumors are stemming from WCCF (not the best source, probably closer to the worst)


----------



## NuclearPeace

Lol, i'm not going to upgrade until like another year. I'm perfectly happy with my 380x and I would just rather wait until I feel that I need to upgrade.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> 480 4GB vs 480 8GB
> 
> Almost no difference as I expected. For 1080p no reason to go 8GB and 40$ more, imo


Yep, just what I was expecting.

I know people are going to say "but-but-but, the future!". By the time that games will _require_ (not simply allocate) more than 4GB of VRAM, I bet that we will be in another console generation and a 8GB 480 would be getting like 18 fps whereas a 4GB 480 will be getting around 11 in any given title in 1440p maxed.

I know AMD is hyping up VR but lets be real with ourselves, 99% of the people who are going to buy the 480 are using it for 1080p/60Hz gamimg which makes an 8GB frame buffer unnecessary.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Lol, ii'm not going to upgrade until like another year. I'm perfectly happy with my 380x and I would just rather wait until I feel that I need to upgrade.


Yeah, i'm with you there, if I wasn't rocking a GTX 670, I wouldn't be this enticed to upgrade. Upgrading every 2-3 generations is fine in my book.


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> 60% isn't fast enough for me to spend $250 on another card. I only had the 380x for 8 months, too. I aim for a card that is 2x or faster than my previous. In the case of my 380x, anything slower than a 980 Ti is not worth upgrading to, in my opinion.
> 
> I'm not swimming in cash like you lot. I can't just go out and buy a card that I will only use for around half a year and buy another.


I'm sorry to burst your delusional bubble but the RX 480 cost 199$ not any arbitrary number you choose to give it, the only difference with the 8GB version is memory clock speed, otherwise they're identical and since they both use the same memory they both should clock the same as the 4GB version is SKU limited, not hardware limited.

I'm also sorry to inform you that if you want 980Ti performance then 199$ wont get you anywhere, which is the price point for the RX 480, you'll need to spend 470$ now at the very least as I did for a GTX 1070, and if you buy a 400$ GTX 980Ti I can only pity you given Nvidia track record of gimping older cards, talk about not having money then goes to pay double the price for a card


----------



## hokk

So will my mobo burn into flames if i buy one?

i had a GTX 960 on loan from a friend just gave it back to him today

Still running the HD 6950 got new cooler on it but i think its a little slow these days


----------



## NuclearPeace

Hopefully there is a way to BIOS mod to force the 6 pin to draw more current. With the "150w TDP" I wager that nobody is going to use this with a crappy PSU, so its going to be safe. The only big downside is that the VRM that handles the 6 pin power input is going to see extra load, but everyone says that the RX 480's VRMs are very good.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> So will my mobo burn into flames if i buy one?
> 
> i had a GTX 960 on loan from a friend just gave it back to him today
> 
> Still running the HD 6950 got new cooler on it but i think its a little slow these days


potentially but I would expect motherboards to be able to handle more power than just 80-90w but I could be wrong... alot of Nvidia bios allow upto 75w on the PCIE rail. Maybe with a cheap PCIE riser it would be a big issue... They would have tested the card to ensure its safe for the users...hopefully....


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zaor*
> 
> Just ordered a used 980ti for less than 300 euro after looking at rx480 performance.Let's hope previous owner is not an oc member and the card dead from ocing


Cards don't die from OCing to be honest, this is something thats being said for so long.

When I look for used cards I actually prefer when the seller have overclocked their cards so I can ask for estable achievable frequencies, it's no different than buying a CPU from "Silicon Lottery"


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> Wow i'm realy suprised i think AMD are doing nice this time


Obviously the best price/perf sells. The only ones that are in denial of this are some people that bleed green.

I think this card is a failure from a efficiency perspective but it meets the market demands of high performance at very low cost. Look at the Hawaii cards in terms of efficiency they were a disaster and they sounded like a F35 taking of yet people gobbled them up. (I have 2 Hawaii cards







so much value)

I have friends that will be building a new pc soon ~1000 euros including screen and this is basically what I will get. (I doubt the GTX 1060 will be out before I have to build it)
i5 and this card will make a good gaming setup.


----------



## GTRagnarok

http://rog.asus.com/23792016/coming-soon/asus-republic-of-gamers-introduces-strix-rx-480-graphics-card/


----------



## Cubeman

I'm alive, I put the card in and ran 3dmark but had issues. The 2nd and 3rd card are recognized in CCC but don't do anything when 3dmark kicks in. Unfortantly I had to run back to work but tonight around 1AM EST ill be back at it. (Concert tonight in long island!)

I left the computer running, so lets see if my house is still there when i get home


----------



## AmericanLoco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> I'm alive, I put the card in and ran 3dmark but had issues. The 2nd and 3rd card are recognized in CCC but don't do anything when 3dmark kicks in. Unfortantly I had to run back to work but tonight around 1AM EST ill be back at it. (Concert tonight in long island!)
> 
> I left the computer running, so lets see if my house is still there when i get home


Careful man! Those 3 cards combined might draw an extra *3 amps total*! It'll probably blow the 24 pin connector right off the motherboard!


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Then I hope for your sake that the GTX 1060 performs like a 980ti. They're rumored at 250 for the 3GB, 300 for the 6GB. Though, the rumors are stemming from WCCF (not the best source, probably closer to the worst)


That is an unreasonable expectation since the 1070 already performs in that neighborhood.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CasualCat*
> 
> That is an unreasonable expectation since the 1070 already performs in that neighborhood.


I was being facetious. It's not likely that a card that's priced below $300.00 will perform at GTX 980ti levels.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Holy...

My local MicroCenter has a open box RX480 for $192...DANG!!! Cheap! lol


----------



## xIMcCloud29Ix

So the real question is, would it makes sense for me to try to get a RX 480 if I'm still on my GTX 780 Classy? I guess more VRAM and slightly better performance but I'm really just waiting for 1070 stock to go up and price to go down lol


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> Holy...
> 
> My local MicroCenter has a open box RX480 for $192...DANG!!! Cheap! lol


.....

I would buy it. Even if dead, you know it has a warranty/return policy!


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xIMcCloud29Ix*
> 
> So the real question is, would it makes sense for me to try to get a RX 480 if I'm still on my GTX 780 Classy? I guess more VRAM and slightly better performance but I'm really just waiting for 1070 stock to go up and price to go down lol


In most cases the stock card will perform around a 970. (sometimes more, sometimes less)

So at this point, you should consider whichever one Is cheaper to get since:

Efficiency is about the same
performance is about the same

Can't really say anything about support though. Since people on here tend to have differing opinions on how well NVidia supports older architectures.


----------



## ekg84

This release really reminds me of Radeon HD 4850. $200 card that beats everything in its price range, with a crappy, loud stock cooling solution.
There were so many great aftermarket 4580s though. I loved my 4850 Toxic. Damn, I am old...



The thing is, many people, including myself, expected significantly better efficiency from 14nm chip. Which I think, makes sense to expect with so much of a leap (28nm to 14nm). None the less, I think RX 480, especially 4Gb version for $200, represents a very good value which will get even better when aftermarket cooling solutions come out.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xIMcCloud29Ix*
> 
> So the real question is, would it makes sense for me to try to get a RX 480 if I'm still on my GTX 780 Classy? I guess more VRAM and slightly better performance but I'm really just waiting for 1070 stock to go up and price to go down lol


780 optimisation is pretty much achieved at this point, so it is what it is. 480 will have noticeable performance increases with subsequent driver releases, and is better in DX12. FWIW I'm looking to replace the 780 Ti in my secondary rig with an AIB 480, pending reviews.

If you go that route, I'd avoid reference.


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xIMcCloud29Ix*
> 
> So the real question is, would it makes sense for me to try to get a RX 480 if I'm still on my GTX 780 Classy? I guess more VRAM and slightly better performance but I'm really just waiting for 1070 stock to go up and price to go down lol


If you want an opinion, I would wait.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ekg84*
> 
> This release really reminds me of Radeon HD 4850. $200 card that beats everything for the price with a crappy, loud stock cooling solution.
> There were so many great aftermarket 4580s though. I loved my 4850 Toxic. Damn, I am old...
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, many people, including myself, expected significantly better efficiency from 14nm chip. Which I think, makes sense to expect with so much of a leap (28nm to 14nm). None the less, I think RX 480, especially 4Gb version for $200, represents a very good value which will get even better when aftermarket cooling solutions come out.


The thing is, when you compare the efficiency numbers to AMD's other products, it fares pretty well. Compare them to NVidia's products however, and that's a whole different ballgame.
Aside from the efficiency matter, the card is decent. (Not amazing as some would claim)


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dudewitbow*
> 
> If you want an opinion, I would wait.


Can't even disagree with you on that.


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Can't even disagree with you on that.


im waiting for the AIB ones,i bought a refernce blower type once, they are a pain to cleap clean


----------



## GorillaSceptre

When the hell are AIB's dropping? Reference cards are always the same story... boring and limited. I want to see what type of clocks these things can get.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> Holy...
> 
> My local MicroCenter has a open box RX480 for $192...DANG!!! Cheap! lol
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> I would buy it. Even if dead, you know it has a warranty/return policy!
Click to expand...

If I had my GTX970 back from RMA I'd definitely go pick it up. Heck I could sell my 970 for more than that and I'd actually make a profit...lol


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> If I had my GTX970 back from RMA I'd definitely go pick it up. Heck I could sell my 970 for more than that and I'd actually make a profit...lol


You'd be losing performance in some cases if you did.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> When the hell are AIB's dropping? Reference cards are always the same story... boring and limited. I want to see what type of clocks these things can get.


Probably towards the end of july.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> If I had my GTX970 back from RMA I'd definitely go pick it up. Heck I could sell my 970 for more than that and I'd actually make a profit...lol


Buy $192 card, then sell 970 the moment it gets back from RMA. Win win problem solved.


----------



## ekg84

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> The thing is, when you compare the efficiency numbers to AMD's other products, it fares pretty well. Compare them to NVidia's products however, and that's a whole different ballgame.
> Aside from the efficiency matter, the card is decent. (Not amazing as some would claim)


Except for Nano, which was still a 28nm card with a pretty good efficiency numbers compared to other AMD offerings. So I am pretty sure AMD could have squeezed a lot better efficiency out of 14nm Polaris, but didn't, whether because they wanted to deliver it to the market ASAP, or because majority of people don't care too much about power consumption. Or perhaps both.

But as I said, I think RX 480 Is a great little card anyway. $200 for that baby is a great price point.


----------



## aDyerSituation

It's hard for me to make a conclusion on if this card will be enough for me. I want to see after markets first or I might just throw in more and get a used 980 ti and be tied to gsync


----------



## paulerxx

Can someone show me a better card for $200? No? Used? So then it is a good buy?
This thread has made me realize how insane some people can get...ZOMG NVIDIA > AMD, ZOMG IT CAN'T BEAT A 980TI FOR HALF THE PRICE?? JUNK!!!

lol k guys. This video card is a great offering and more than worth it for the price.


----------



## KeepWalkinG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> It's hard for me to make a conclusion on if this card will be enough for me. I want to see after markets first or I might just throw in more and get a used 980 ti and be tied to gsync


But 980 Ti is very bad on DX 12 games.

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/RX-480-ABC/RX-480-ABC-92.jpg
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/RX-480-ABC/RX-480-ABC-93.jpg


----------



## Max78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> You'd be losing performance in some cases if you did.


For a short period of time, and then we will see the usual Nvidia trend, the 970 will no longer receive drive updates and fall further and further behind. . . .


----------



## hokk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> Can someone show me a better card for $200? No? Used? So then it is a good buy?
> This thread has made me realize how insane some people can get...*ZOMG NVIDIA > AMD, ZOMG IT CAN'T BEAT A 980TI FOR HALF THE PRICE?? JUNK!!!*
> 
> lol k guys. This video card is a great offering and more than worth it for the price.


Who said that?


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ekg84*
> 
> Except for Nano, which was still a 28nm card with a pretty good efficiency numbers compared to other AMD offerings. So I am pretty sure AMD could have squeezed a lot better efficiency out of 14nm Polaris, but didn't, whether because they wanted to deliver it to the market ASAP, or because majority of people don't care too much about power consumption. Or perhaps both.
> 
> But as I said, I think RX 480 Is a great little card anyway. $200 for that baby is a great price point.


From the pcper video with Raja yesterday it seems the design was first around polaris 11 (laptop chip) , then the focus shifted to polaris 10 . Polaris 11 reportedly has much better efficiency (i think thats rx460). So i think they lost a bit of efficiency as they were scaling up a laptop design.

The not caring about power consumption i think is spot on, its something people consider for sure but i think its last on the list for many . You have a triangle with AMD you get good pointed edges in Performance , and $$$ , not so much in power consumption. With NV you get good pointed edges in Performance , low power consumption and you get raped in $$$.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Most retailers are out of stock. Wonder what percent of the sold inventory was purchased by miners...


----------



## aDyerSituation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeepWalkinG*
> 
> But 980 Ti is very bad on DX 12 games.
> 
> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/RX-480-ABC/RX-480-ABC-92.jpg
> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/RX-480-ABC/RX-480-ABC-93.jpg


Very bad? What?

Only game I play at the moment is Overwatch anyway.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Most retailers are out of stock. Wonder what percent of the sold inventory was purchased by miners...


Over 0.9000%


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Most retailers are out of stock. Wonder what percent of the sold inventory was purchased by miners...


As much as i love what the card does at the price , people are better of with the AIB versions anyway. Let the miners buy the ref versions.

I really think you will see any silver type reviews turn to gold reviews once AIBs are out. Better clocks / lower power draw per mhz compared to ref (- binned gpus / lower temperatures ) / much less noise.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> Who said that?


A few people before the official reviews, not sure if the were trolls or not. How close are they in DX12?


----------



## MNiceGuy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Over 0.9000%


You're on a roll lol


----------



## rt123

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Most retailers are out of stock. Wonder what percent of the sold inventory was purchased by miners...


I thought GPU mining was dead...?


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> A few people before the official reviews, not sure if the were trolls or not. How close are they in DX12?


Would be behind by ~ 15-20% i would think. Its 10% above a 980 in dx12 benches from what i have seen.

Its in the realm of an AIB card having same performance or better than a stock clocked 980 ti though in Dx12. You can however overclock the 980ti by an insane amount so difference will remain.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rt123*
> 
> I thought GPU mining was dead...?


There is a algorithm released that currently has no viable ASIC.


----------



## ekg84

Did anyone get a 4Gb XFX version? Does it not have backplate?


----------



## rt123

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> There is a algorithm released that currently has no viable ASIC.


Oh I see.
Can I get a name..?


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> Would be behind by ~ 15-20% i would think. Its 10% above a 980 in dx12 benches from what i have seen.
> 
> Its in the realm of an AIB card having same performance or better than a stock clocked 980 ti though in Dx12. You can however overclock the 980ti by an insane amount so difference will remain.


That's actually quite impressive imo, not sure why some people are giving AMD **** for this card. It is in fact as good as a 980 in DX12. Weren't we promised a card slightly better than a 970 but slightly weaker than a 980? Knowing AMD, I know there will be drivers that hand out 5-10%.


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ekg84*
> 
> Did anyone get a 4Gb XFX version? Does it not have backplate?





Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## rekleif

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> I don't doubt it, AMD gimped the reference card with that mid 90's heatsink. If i was in the market for mainstream i would boycott this card, lol. They gimped it hard in order to sell a more expensive version later along with AIB's. We have a perfectly good gpu that is held back by power, bad cooling and BIOS limits. They clearly mean to make a non handicapped Polaris GPU hence WattMan, price of entry 300 bucks.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> You have to remember that AMD is not the one that gains with AIB surcharges. So saying that they gimped reference boards so that they can make more money with AIBs is kind of senseless.


Bingo! Do you really think AMD, when they say 100-300$, they are talking about AIB cards? Although i do not know this as a FACT. I´m 99.99999% sure, based on unpublished sources(apple insider), there will be a RX490 based on Polaris with the full 40cu chip (13-1400mhz) at app. 300$. Why would AMD care to name an AIB as part of the 1-300$ bracket, they NEVER have done this before. Think people. THINK! P

Nb. Please save this post, and hold me to it at a later time!


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cainy1991*
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if this has been posted yet...
> 
> But ugliest card I have seen in a long time.


Still, If 1450 is doable on that cooler, I'll get one.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rekleif*
> 
> Bingo! Do you really think AMD, when they say 100-300$, they are talking about AIB cards? Although i do not know this as a FACT. I´m 99.99999% sure, based on unpublished sources(apple insider), there will be a RX490 based on Polaris with the full 40cu chip (13-1400mhz) at app. 300$. Why would AMD care to name an AIB as part of the 1-300$ bracket, they NEVER have done this before. Think people. THINK! P
> 
> Nb. Please save this post, and hold me to it at a later time!


Why does this rumor persist? Check the reviews - the RX 480 is a fully enabled Polaris 10. There is no 40 CU Polaris chip so there will be no 40 CU card.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Why does this rumor persist? Check the reviews - the RX 480 is a fully enabled Polaris 10. There is no 40 CU Polaris chip so there will be no 40 CU card.


Considering 32 ROP yeah. 2304 is MAX they can use.


----------



## Skye12977




----------



## rekleif

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Why does this rumor persist? Check the reviews - the RX 480 is a fully enabled Polaris 10. There is no 40 CU Polaris chip so there will be no 40 CU card.


no
Do you really think transistor density would not improve going to 14 nm FinFet. Again Think!


----------



## MountainDewMadOScar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skye12977*


I really enjoy TTLs recent work


----------



## iTurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> Who said that?


hmmmm
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> from tweaktown (all benches put it between 380X & 390X)
> 
> well gotta be honest
> 
> outside of the low price, the reference 480 is junk .. but price makes it good junk
> 
> lets wait for AIBs


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> 780 optimisation is pretty much achieved at this point, so it is what it is. 480 will have noticeable performance increases with subsequent driver releases, and is better in DX12. FWIW I'm looking to replace the 780 Ti in my secondary rig with an AIB 480, pending reviews.
> 
> If you go that route, I'd avoid reference.


In the same boat with my Classy, i agree they're tapped out at this point. If we got moderate OCing results and driver improvements on the 480 it will be worth it. Plus the price is just good. I'll be waiting till AIB come out before i make my decision. The other case is a 980 with block for 275$. But again are we to say the 980 is tapped out too? Or soon to be?


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rekleif*
> 
> Bingo! Do you really think AMD, when they say 100-300$, they are talking about AIB cards? Although i do not know this as a FACT. I´m 99.99999% sure, based on unpublished sources(apple insider), there will be a RX490 based on Polaris with the full 40cu chip (13-1400mhz) at app. 300$. Why would AMD care to name an AIB as part of the 1-300$ bracket, they NEVER have done this before. Think people. THINK! P
> 
> Nb. Please save this post, and hold me to it at a later time!


Oh god, watch... in 2 months, people will be spouting this as fact. When does it end?


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeepWalkinG*
> 
> But 980 Ti is very bad on DX 12 games.
> 
> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/RX-480-ABC/RX-480-ABC-92.jpg
> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/RX-480-ABC/RX-480-ABC-93.jpg


Probably doesn't matter that those scores were against a 980, not a 980Ti (they are not the same card FWIW)


----------



## Nizzen

980ti works great in BF1 closed alpha dx 12 here


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> 980ti works great in BF1 closed alpha dx 12 here


It will work better with AMD I am sure.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rekleif*
> 
> no
> 
> Do you really think transistor density would not improve going to 14 nm FinFet. Again Think!


Maybe you should try reading instead.
Quote:


> Basically, the GPU is based on 36 shader clusters with 64 shader processors each. So that makes a nice 2304 shader processors in total. *AMD claims that this is the fully enabled chip, e.g. there would not be more hidden/deactivated shader cores in there.*


http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,4.html

And of course transistor density increased - compare it to the 380X for example, it packs 10% more cores into a die 33% smaller.


----------



## SSJVegeta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Over 0.9000%


That's my line!


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> It will work better with AMD I am sure.


Yes you know everything


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rekleif*
> 
> no
> Do you really think transistor density would not improve going to 14 nm FinFet. Again Think!


The card is only 232mm.
GTX 1080 in comparison is 314mm.

AMD have crammed in as many transistors as possible with the RX 480.
Need more silicon to build bigger GPU


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skye12977*


This video falls in line with my expectations of AIB cards.
I have a feeling once AIB cards and reviews come out, specifically ones with an 8pin or 8+6pin connector and a better cooling solution the RX 480 is going to kick the GTX 970's teeth in, even with early drivers.
As it stands right now every single review of the GTX 970 vs. RX 480, the GTX 970 is using an AIB card with higher than stock OC and cooling solution. When the playing field is even I have the strong suspicion the GTX 970 will no longer even be in the discussion, but the GTX 980.

Of course, with an increased power target you have a much higher power draw... but when the entire system performance is still well below 300W total, I really don't see the problem if you're just going for pure performance.

Fun times ahead I am sure.


----------



## comagnum

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9047245

On Xfx Black ed. 1328/2050 with 25mv undervolt. Will try and undervolt a bit more and see what I can do. Set fan to 2500/3600 and it honestly isn't bad at all. Temps never got above 69c.


----------



## Skye12977

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> This video falls in line with my expectations of AIB cards.
> I have a feeling once AIB cards and reviews come out, specifically ones with an 8pin or 8+6pin connector and a better cooling solution the RX 480 is going to kick the GTX 970's teeth in, even with early drivers.
> As it stands right now every single review of the GTX 970 vs. RX 480, the GTX 970 is using an AIB card with higher than stock OC and cooling solution. When the playing field is even I have the strong suspicion the GTX 970 will no longer even be in the discussion, but the GTX 980.
> 
> Of course, with an increased power target you have a much higher power draw... but when the entire system performance is still well below 300W total, I really don't see the problem if you're just going for pure performance.
> 
> Fun times ahead I am sure.


Well the way I take the video is that that AMD is under binning their GPUs, they're able to achieve that much of an overclock with only a single 6 pin....
RX 490 with two 8pins.... maybe 3 like the lightning edition (two 8's and one 6) might be decent.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skye12977*


Halfway through the video, and serious questions are coming up already.

The 480 is currently being looked at for already drawing more power across the PCI-E bus than spec. Now the card appears to be getting throttled in performance due to not getting enough power, although it is ALREADY drawing more off the bus than spec.

So, the question is how in the Hell did AMD not catch this? This isn't one of those things you just don't catch, this has to have been known. How damn rushed was this card? Is AMD that concerned with Pascal that they would push a product out well before ready?


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Most retailers are out of stock. Wonder what percent of the sold inventory was purchased by miners...


Idk but OC UK sold 2k of card already. Prices of electricity are quite high in the GB and most of western Europe so I don't think many miners in that batch. Other places where mining is more profitable probably are buying the entire supply.


----------



## Skye12977

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Halfway through the video, and serious questions are coming up already.
> 
> The 480 is currently being looked at for already drawing more power across the PCI-E bus than spec. Now the card appears to be getting throttled in performance due to not getting enough power, although it is ALREADY drawing more off the bus than spec.
> 
> So, the question is how in the Hell did AMD not catch this? This isn't one of those things you just don't catch, this has to have been known. How damn rushed was this card? Is AMD that concerned with Pascal that they would push a product out well before ready?


Would this mean that 1. it's not as power efficient as they're supposed to be 2. that they should just have additional PCI connectors?


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9047245
> 
> On Xfx Black ed. 1328/2050 with 25mv undervolt. Will try and undervolt a bit more and see what I can do. Set fan to 2500/3600 and it honestly isn't bad at all. Temps never got above 69c.


Try it by raising just the power limit as well and see what you get then.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Try it by raising just the power limit as well and see what you get then.


And try to OC?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> And try to OC?


In theory, just raising the power target will get you most of the benefit of an oc.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> And try to OC?


Nope just raise the power limit and see if your score goes higher. According to TTL they are power limited out of the box so just raising the power limit should improve the score.

The video was posted Here.


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skye12977*
> 
> Would this mean that 1. it's not as power efficient as they're supposed to be 2. that they should just have additional PCI connectors?


The reference card is meant to run at stock. If you want to oc, wait for the aftermarket ones.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Halfway through the video, and serious questions are coming up already.
> 
> The 480 is currently being looked at for already drawing more power across the PCI-E bus than spec. Now the card appears to be getting throttled in performance due to not getting enough power, although it is ALREADY drawing more off the bus than spec.
> 
> So, the question is how in the Hell did AMD not catch this? This isn't one of those things you just don't catch, this has to have been known. How damn rushed was this card? Is AMD that concerned with Pascal that they would push a product out well before ready?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skye12977*
> 
> Would this mean that 1. it's not as power efficient as they're supposed to be 2. that they should just have additional PCI connectors?


I think the more likely explanation is they said "to hell with efficiency" and pushed this chip to the brink of its limits and way past its optimal efficiency to extract every last ounce of performance, which would help explain the bizarre and excessive power draw.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I think the more likely explanation is they said "to hell with efficiency" and pushed this chip to the brink of its limits and way past its optimal efficiency to extract every last ounce of performance, which would help explain the bizarre and excessive power draw.


Nah,what i think makes the most sense is that they produced a huge quantity of chips in a new process without taking an eye on the chip leakage wich may explain why some reviews have higher or lower power consumption.


----------



## Skye12977

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> The reference card is meant to run at stock. If you want to oc, wait for the aftermarket ones.


The point isn't overclocking. The card is pulling too much power from the PCI slot, meaning it needs power from somewhere else... like the PCI power connectors.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skye12977*
> 
> Would this mean that 1. it's not as power efficient as they're supposed to be 2. that they should just have additional PCI connectors?


It means a few things...

The bigger issue is addressing the PCI-E power usage, is it a fluke in the initial batch or a bigger issue? Licensing require that they address and fix any issue in order to keep selling it as a PCI-E device.

Secondary to that would be the efficiency concerns, it is really starting to look like the 480 is just starving. Fixing the starvation issue may open it right up to new levels of performance.

EDIT:

I wouldn't be surprised if the single 6 pin isn't able to feed the GPU enough, and the card is attempting to compensate for that via drawing more across the PCI-E bus itself. When electronics aren't properly powered, they will do strange things to attempt to compensate for it.


----------



## slavovid

Guys and girls ... considering that the AIB cards will increase the power allowed to this card and show it's true potential as suggested what do you think they are going to charge us premium for those.

It's a card at a 199-239$ MSRP do you think an extra 20$ max 30$ for better air cooling is what we should expect or much more ?

i am seeing 1080 founders eddition and the Gigabyte G1 version with only 10$ difference in my country. But that's founders eddition not MSRP price


----------



## NuclearPeace

AMD should have stopped being coy and just put 2 six pin connectors on the reference design. The 970 which more or less uses the same amount of power still has two 6 pin connectors.

Anyway, this card has some pretty big efficiency issues. This 232mm2 chip is consuming 150w at stock and the only thing keeping it from consuming more is BIOS power limits. Once you start overclocking 200w+ is going to be tricky to dissipate from such a small die, reference cooler or not.


----------



## nagle3092

I would also like to see more efficiency test done with better coolers. We all know that a hot chip uses more power, how much will this thing use when you cool it down alot.


----------



## BillOhio

soo... any point putting a waterblock on a reference PCB?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> AMD should have stopped being coy and just put 2 six pin connectors on the reference design. The 970 which more or less uses the same amount of power still has two 6 pin connectors.
> 
> Anyway, this card has some pretty big efficiency issues. This 232mm2 chip is consuming 150w at stock and the only thing keeping it from consuming more is BIOS power limits. Once you start overclocking 200w+ is going to be tricky to dissipate from such a small die, reference cooler or not.


The problem is most people have PSUs with only 1x 6 pin.


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skye12977*
> 
> The point isn't overclocking. The card is pulling too much power from the PCI slot, meaning it needs power from somewhere else... like the PCI power connectors.


The card passed PCIe compliance testing with PCI-SIG. According to them its not pulling too much power from the PCI slot. Its more appropriate to take this dicussion to the thread that concerns this very topic.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> The problem is most people have PSUs with only 1x 6 pin.


I guess that's true. I forgot that cards refuse to POST if you forget to plug in auxiliary power.


----------



## kaosstar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slavovid*
> 
> Guys and girls ... considering that the AIB cards will increase the power allowed to this card and show it's true potential as suggested what do you think they are going to charge us premium for those.
> 
> It's a card at a 199-239$ MSRP do you think an extra 20$ max 30$ for better air cooling is what we should expect or much more ?
> 
> i am seeing 1080 founders eddition and the Gigabyte G1 version with only 10$ difference in my country. But that's founders eddition not MSRP price


I'd anticipate $299 for the Gigabyte G1 and similar AIB cards. They'll need custom PCBs with more power delivery, more VRMs, and drastically better cooling. Keep in mind AMD cut corners every way they could for the reference model.

At $299, the price is getting dangerously close to the 1070.


----------



## Pnanasnoic

So a massive reference card bonfire in a few weeks? lol If the damn things really aren't capable of safely drawing enough power, why do they exist? Will AMD recall? I don't remember that ever happening.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> I'd anticipate $299 for the Gigabyte G1 and similar AIB cards. They'll need custom PCBs with more power delivery, more VRMs, and drastically better cooling. Keep in mind AMD cut corners every way they could for the reference model.
> 
> At $299, the price is getting dangerously close to the 1070.


No way. $269 Tops. Anything more and they are overcharging.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> I'd anticipate $299 for the Gigabyte G1 and similar AIB cards. They'll need custom PCBs with more power delivery, more VRMs, and drastically better cooling. Keep in mind AMD cut corners every way they could for the reference model.
> 
> *At $299, the price is getting dangerously close to the 1070*.


Yeah right.

1070s average here in the UK around £450. *£450!*

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/search?sSearch=GTX+1070

From the same vendor, 480s cost £218. There is a huuuge gap. 1070 may come down to £400 in a month or so but AIB 480s won't cost more than £300. A £100 gap is massive.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> No way. $269 Tops. Anything more and they are overcharging.


But $40 for 4GB of ram isn't overcharging?


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Any power savings with HBM should've been easily negated by transitioning to 14nm FinFET.
> I really think there's just something wrong with 14nm LPP. I mean if Fury (non X) has 92% the efficiency of P10 on 28nm, then surely this must be something to do with 14nm LPP. Even discounting for HBM Fury should still end up with at least 80% of P10's efficiency, and that's just ridiculous for a node shrink + transition to FinFET.


14nm finfet is supposed to increase power saving compared to 28nm . RX 480 power consumption might be caused due to higher clock speed and hardware (scheduling) changes
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Going to lay down a few things one last time...
> 
> - GCN has always had worse P/W than nvidia counterparts


GCN1 matched GK104 power consumption while having same performance, GCN2 Matched power consumptionof GK110 while having similar power consumption,scalability of GCN2 past 44CU seems an issue


----------



## Tivan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if the single 6 pin isn't able to feed the GPU enough


In that case, either, the PSU catches fire, or does an emergency shutdown. This is a question of: how many amps are on the rail that feeds the 6 pin connector, and what safety measures are in place to prevent overdraw. (fortunately, these things often happen to be on rails that have a lot of power.)

I think it's more likely that the card is supposed (by bios) to share the load between the connector and the slot roughly evenly, hence it just does that.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Nope just raise the power limit and see if your score goes higher. According to TTL they are power limited out of the box so just raising the power limit should improve the score.
> 
> The video was posted Here.


10% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9047245 - 67c
20% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048719 - 67c
30% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048588 - 69c
40% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048650 - 70c
50% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048859 - 74c all with 2600/3800 fan speed and 25mv undervolt


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> But $40 for 4GB of ram isn't overcharging?


Think of the children


----------



## slavovid

MSI are planning to use the same twin fozor is it that they use on the 1070 or so it seems

Hm founders eddition MSI 1070 is 498.39 on newegg while the MSI twin fozor is 459.99 where the MSRP for the 1070 is 449.00

so that is 20$ for that twin fozor on the more expencive 1070 even if they have to get a different PCB for the 480 RX they shouldn't charge more than 30$ as compared to the MSRP price of 239 for the RX 480 it's 13% extra

what bothers me is that knowing that this will make the card more powerfull the parthners might decide they want to charge more for the extra performance


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> 10% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9047245 - 67c
> 20% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048719 - 67c
> 30% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048588 - 69c
> 40% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048650 - 70c
> 50% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048859 - 74c all with 2600/3800 fan speed and 25mv undervolt


Nice, thanks. Those results look good even with 25mv undervolt.



I am going to install my cards tonight but between working out and reinstalling windows I dont know if I am going to have time to bench them until the weekend.

For reference here was my 970 at 1550 core.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8976766


----------



## slavovid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> 10% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9047245 - 67c
> 20% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048719 - 67c
> 30% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048588 - 69c
> 40% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048650 - 70c
> 50% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048859 - 74c all with 2600/3800 fan speed and 25mv undervolt


the 20% looks best case scenario lowest temp / performance ratio


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slavovid*
> 
> Guys and girls ... considering that the AIB cards will increase the power allowed to this card and show it's true potential as suggested what do you think they are going to charge us premium for those.
> 
> It's a card at a 199-239$ MSRP do you think an extra 20$ max 30$ for better air cooling is what we should expect or much more ?
> 
> i am seeing 1080 founders eddition and the Gigabyte G1 version with only 10$ difference in my country. But that's founders eddition not MSRP price


No way I'm paying more than 260-270 for one. They will try to get what they think they can, but when the emphasis of the card is p/p, you can only go so far before you price it out of range of prospective buyers.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> The problem is most people have PSUs with only 1x 6 pin.


Even the corsair cx500 supplies have 2x 6pin +2


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> 10% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9047245 - 67c
> 20% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048719 - 67c
> 30% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048588 - 69c
> 40% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048650 - 70c
> 50% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048859 - 74c all with 2600/3800 fan speed and 25mv undervolt


The relevant info: graphics scores

10% - 12,672
20% - 13,402
30% - 13,204
40% - 13,391
50% - 13,732

The spread between 20-40% is odd...

Would you mind doing 3 runs at each setting with the fan speed increased to maximum?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Think of the children


who are having to get their parents to pay more for extra ram








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Even the corsair cx500 supplies have 2x 6pin +2


Stock PSUs in pre-built systems usually don't.


----------



## 12Cores

Looks like at 1400mhz its performing close to a Nano, that is a really good deal for $249 in my book. Water and power connectors will do wonders for this chip, I would not want it any other way.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> who are having to get their parents to pay more for extra ram


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Think of the children *of AMD's employees*


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The relevant info: graphics scores
> 
> 10% - 12,672
> 20% - 13,402
> 30% - 13,204
> 40% - 13,391
> 50% - 13,732
> 
> The spread between 20-40% is odd...
> 
> Would you mind doing 3 runs at each setting with the fan speed increased to maximum?
> who are having to get their parents to pay more for extra ram
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stock PSUs in pre-built systems usually don't.


this card probably pulls to much to be used with your typical pre built anyway. Unless it comes with a modern dgpu, in which case it probably comes with a similar psu I would think

If you're using a 3-400watt psu in a pre built, the pcie power cables aren't your main worry


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The relevant info: graphics scores
> 
> 10% - 12,672
> 20% - 13,402
> 30% - 13,204
> 40% - 13,391
> 50% - 13,732
> 
> The spread between 20-40% is odd...
> 
> Would you mind doing 3 runs at each setting with the fan speed increased to maximum?
> who are having to get their parents to pay more for extra ram
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stock PSUs in pre-built systems usually don't.


I will in a few. Away from the pc at the moment. I don't know why it changed so much going from 20-40.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *12Cores*
> 
> Looks like at 1400mhz its performing close to a Nano, that is a really good deal for $249 in my book. Water and power connectors will do wonders for this chip, I would not want it any other way.


If they price the waterblocks appropriately to the card , eg a bit cheaper than top end waterblocks it could be a nice way with something with a LC loop to have some fun.

From what we are seeing with reducing voltage and upping powerlimit - the gains there without touching the core, and the TDP lowering effect water brings it could be a sweet match.

Best i've seen on air is 1420 from ref , be interesting to see what a watercooled ref card could do.

Thinking about the above though , even though it would be fun , AIB cards will just outperform water cooled ref anyway i would think.


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> 10% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9047245 - 67c
> 20% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048719 - 67c
> 30% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048588 - 69c
> 40% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048650 - 70c
> 50% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048859 - 74c all with 2600/3800 fan speed and 25mv undervolt


Those aren't bad. When you run them again, would you kindly run it in extreme too? Thanks.


----------



## nagle3092

Stock crossfire score with .075 undervolt.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9052043

Here is stock out of the box fresh windows install.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9051091

Looks like this AMD just juiced it out of the gate without thinking about it because its hurting performance.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4qoclm/german_site_explores_the_potential_for/


----------



## Drake87

When are the AIB cards set to release?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> I don't doubt it, AMD gimped the reference card with that mid 90's heatsink. If i was in the market for mainstream i would boycott this card, lol. They gimped it hard in order to sell a more expensive version later along with AIB's. We have a perfectly good gpu that is held back by power, bad cooling and BIOS limits. They clearly mean to make a non handicapped Polaris GPU hence WattMan, price of entry 300 bucks.


No. Just no. They gimped the reference (if you want to even call it that) because its a $200 budget card that the intended market will not likely bother OCing anyway. The AIB's are the cards for enthusiasts looking for additional performance on top of stock. I will fully admit, however, that I was completely wrong in speculating that reference would do about as well as reference similar to Pascal. I expected the efficiency to be much better than it turned out to be and that is an unavoidable negative of Polaris 10 no question...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Speak for yourself, man. I have a 380x which is self admittedly not a whole lot faster than a 380 4GB and I have next to no desire to "upgrade" to this card. Its only around 50-60% faster which makes it a tough sell for people who got 380s as late as a year ago. I've seen other members in this thread with a 7970 and a 280x express disappointment in the 480 and how they are going to stay with their cards.


"Only" 50-60% faster.







I guess the 1080 is a fail then as its "only" about 40% faster than a 980.


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> No. Just no. They gimped the reference (if you want to even call it that) because its a $200 budget card that the intended market will not likely bother OCing anyway. The AIB's are the cards for enthusiasts looking for additional performance on top of stock. I will fully admit, however, that I was completely wrong in speculating that reference would do about as well as reference similar to Pascal. I expected the efficiency to be much better than it turned out to be and that is an unavoidable negative of Polaris 10 no question...


I think the "negative" is negated if you are upgrading from low end and rx 480 brings great performance with very compelling pricing. I have an R9 Fury nitro and a 750 ti in a mini itx rig...bye bye gtx 750 ti,hello rx 480.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I guess the 1080 is a fail then as its "only" about 40% faster than a 980.


You mean 1070? The 1080 is comfortably more than 40% faster than a 980.


----------



## kaosstar

I don't know if any of you saw this, but we have confirmation on the stats for at least one of the custom AIB cards: http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-rx-400-series/rx480be-rx-480m8bba6

Anyway, it's 1328 Mhz, but it's still using a blower style cooler. The backplate looks pretty nice though.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> I don't know if any of you saw this, but we have confirmation on the stats for at least one of the custom AIB cards: http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-rx-400-series/rx480be-rx-480m8bba6
> 
> Anyway, it's 1328 Mhz, but it's still using a blower style cooler. The backplate looks pretty nice though.


I have that same card.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> I don't know if any of you saw this, but we have confirmation on the stats for at least one of the custom AIB cards: http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-rx-400-series/rx480be-rx-480m8bba6
> 
> Anyway, it's 1328 Mhz, but it's still using a blower style cooler. The backplate looks pretty nice though.


Its just a reference card with higher default clocks. The other ones that I have have a stock clock of 1288 and come with backplates as well.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> No. Just no. They gimped the reference (if you want to even call it that) because its a $200 budget card that the intended market will not likely bother OCing anyway. The AIB's are the cards for enthusiasts looking for additional performance on top of stock. I will fully admit, however, that I was completely wrong in speculating that reference would do about as well as reference similar to Pascal. I expected the efficiency to be much better than it turned out to be and that is an unavoidable negative of Polaris 10 no question...


Remember the days when gpu oc'ing was more about getting cheaper parts to perform like faster cards? Pepperidge farm remem.... I mean remember.









The saving grace for this card (once throwing power efficiency out the window) will be how AIB's overclock.

Not saying it's a bad card, because it's far from it and still the best deal for the price, but it could certainly could have been better off the bat if amd simply added a power connector to the thing and a slightly beefier cooler. I don't think many here would have minded a 10 buck premium on reference cards if it oc'ed past 980 easily.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> I don't know if any of you saw this, but we have confirmation on the stats for at least one of the custom AIB cards: http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-rx-400-series/rx480be-rx-480m8bba6
> 
> Anyway, it's 1328 Mhz, but it's still using a blower style cooler. The backplate looks pretty nice though.


That's an OC reference card.

edit - oops I'm the thousandth person to say it








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Not saying it's a bad card, because it's far from it and still the best deal for the price, but it could certainly could have been better off the bat if amd simply added a power connector to the thing and a slightly beefier cooler. I don't think many here would have minded a 10 buck premium on reference cards if it oc'ed past 980 easily.


Yeah true.

Although, that cooler just isn't made for overclocking so.......................


----------



## rexolaboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaosstar*
> 
> I don't know if any of you saw this, but we have confirmation on the stats for at least one of the custom AIB cards: http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-rx-400-series/rx480be-rx-480m8bba6
> 
> Anyway, it's 1328 Mhz, but it's still using a blower style cooler. The backplate looks pretty nice though.


yup, it's been on the newegg page for a few days now. It's obviously sold out.

http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=N82E16814150772


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Remember the days when gpu oc'ing was more about getting cheaper parts to perform like faster cards? Pepperidge farm remem.... I mean remember.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The saving grace for this card (once throwing power efficiency out the window) will be how AIB's overclock.
> 
> Not saying it's a bad card, because it's far from it and still the best deal for the price, but it could certainly could have been better off the bat if amd simply added a power connector to the thing and a slightly beefier cooler. I don't think many here would have minded a 10 buck premium on reference cards if it oc'ed past 980 easily.


It seems that AMD cut off a lot of things to meet OEM requirements and the 200 price.

Plastic cooler that can maintain around 70-80C at reasonable noise.
Just a 6-pin so they can put a cheaper psu in there. Most cheap OEM psus are only have 6-pin

The rest is up to AIBs


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Why does this rumor persist? Check the reviews - the RX 480 is a fully enabled Polaris 10. There is no 40 CU Polaris chip so there will be no 40 CU card.


There are still plenty of numbers AMD can use after Polaris 11. Would be interesting however if they decided to release a first revision of P10 with 64 ROP's (if that's possible) as an RX 485.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> You mean 1070? The 1080 is comfortably more than 40% faster than a 980.


I meant the 980 is 60+% the performance of the 1080, my bad. Still only 66% faster according to TPU which was deemed as a fail by the guy I quoted considering that's around how much faster the 480 is than the 380...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/26.html


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> There are still plenty of numbers AMD can use after Polaris 11. Would be interesting however if they decided to release a first revision of P10 with 64 ROP's (if that's possible) as an RX 485.


I dont think there is a higher version of polaris 10. This gpu specs are exactly the same as pitcairn

Both around 220mm^2 , 256 bit, 32 ROPs and 160-170 watt tdp

If you watch the interview of koduri on Pcper he said that they designed around Polaris 11 and they hit some limits with polaris 10 especially on the clocks.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> I dont think there is a higher version of polaris 10. This gpu specs are exactly the same as pitcairn
> 
> Both around 220mm^2 , 256 bit, 32 ROPs and 160-170 watt tdp
> 
> If you watch the interview of koduri on Pcper he said that they designed around Polaris 11 and they hit some limits with polaris 10 especially on the clocks.


In that post I was suggesting there are plenty of numbers beyond 10 and 11 for another Polaris chip. They have never said these will be the ONLY Polaris chips ever made...


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> In that post I was suggesting there are plenty of numbers beyond 10 and 11 for another Polaris chip. They have never said these will be the ONLY Polaris chips ever made...


I comment on the 485 rumor that you said. After polaris 10 is Vega


----------



## NuclearPeace

Where did I say the 480 is a bad card? All I said was that for a lot of people, the 480 isn't worth upgrading from if you already had a 280x, 380x, or a 380. OCN is not representative at all for what the average PC gamer is like. While people on OCN with a 380 might buy a 480, not a lot of people can justify or have the means to keep spending $200-250 every year to upgrade their graphics cards.

Goes to show you how seriously out of touch this forum is. People are calling me crazy for not ditching the 380x that I pretty much just bought.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> I comment on the 485 rumor that you said. After polaris 10 is Vega


Just random speculation. But there is no proof at all that they will not make any more Polaris chips. Vega will be for high end but that may mean Fiji-level cards whereas I could see an RX 490 still on Polaris 12 for instance. Raja said himself that if they released another Polaris it would be the number "12" due to order of release meaning that they have at least thought about more Polaris cards (even if it may be unlikely)


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Where did I say the 480 is a bad card? All I said was that for a lot of people, the 480 isn't worth upgrading from if you already had a 280x, 380x, or a 380. OCN is not representative at all for what the average PC gamer is like. While people on OCN with a 380 might buy a 480, not a lot of people can justify or have the means to keep spending $200-250 every year to upgrade their graphics cards.
> 
> Goes to show you how seriously out of touch this forum is. People are calling me crazy for not ditching the 380x that I pretty much just bought.


Nah, if you're happy with your card there is no reason to move on. What's crazy is the people telling potential buyers to 'just get a 970 instead'.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> In that post I was suggesting there are plenty of numbers beyond 10 and 11 for another Polaris chip. They have never said these will be the ONLY Polaris chips ever made...


Never say never, but the combination of Lisa Su saying the 460/470/480 were the entire Polaris family and this slide showing 2 Polaris versions kind of strongly implies there won't be another.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Where did I say the 480 is a bad card? All I said was that for a lot of people, the 480 isn't worth upgrading from if you already had a 280x, 380x, or a 380. OCN is not representative at all for what the average PC gamer is like. While people on OCN with a 380 might buy a 480, not a lot of people can justify or have the means to keep spending $200-250 every year to upgrade their graphics cards.
> 
> Goes to show you how seriously out of touch this forum is. People are calling me crazy for not ditching the 380x that I pretty much just bought.


Its the way you said it man. People are throwing money at Nvidia to "upgrade" from 980Ti's to 1080's which is a FAR smaller upgrade than from the 380X to the 480, and they are spending $700+ for the "privilege", whereas the 480 is only gonna run you two bills. It's a logical no-brainer upgrade but if you don't want cheaper performance then that's totally up to you...


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Its the way you said it man. People are throwing money at Nvidia to "upgrade" from 980Ti's to 1080's which is a FAR smaller upgrade than from the 380X to the 480, and they are spending $700+ for the "privilege", whereas the 480 is only gonna run you two bills. It's a logical no-brainer upgrade but if you don't want cheaper performance then that's totally up to you...


Yes, a 480 certainly seems like a much more viable (and likely) upgrade from a 380 than a 1080 does from a 980 Ti.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Never say never, but the combination of Lisa Su saying the 460/470/480 were the entire Polaris family and this slide showing 2 Polaris versions kind of strongly implies there won't be another.


Well roadmaps are not the "end all and be all" and you know that. Granted I am wildly speculating but its based on logical reasoning anyway. Vega will be HBM2 which means its likely going to be meant to fight the highest tier (big Pascal) which leaves a gaping hole in the product stack between 480 and Fury Next (or whatever they call it). I could easily see a larger, less efficiency-focused Polaris12 with GDDR5X filling that void nicely as a 490. You can't just rule it out completely...


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Yes, a 480 certainly seems like a much more viable (and likely) upgrade from a 380 than a 1080 does from a 980 Ti.


Yeah mostly because 380 was a big meh compared to 980ti which is a really strong gpu

380 even failed to beat tahiti the first 28nm gpu

Also i bet there is polaris 10,11 and vegas 10 and 11. I dont think that amd has the money for the R&D to support more than 4 chips


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Yeah mostly because 380 was a big meh compared to 980ti which is a really strong gpu
> 
> 380 even failed to beat tahiti the first 28nm gpu
> 
> Also i bet there is polaris 10,11 and vegas 10 and 11. I dont think that amd has the money for the R&D to support more than 4 chips


You really think there will be non-HBM Vega's? Or do you really think the 490 will be HBM as well as the new Fury?


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You really think there will be non-HBM Vega's? Or do you really think the 490 will be HBM as well as the new Fury?


We will see at least a 384 bit gpu (maybe G5x) and then HBM i think


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Also i bet there is polaris 10,11 and vegas 10 and 11. I dont think that amd has the money for the R&D to support more than 4 chips


Certainly seems the most likely course. There really isn't room for a card based in a larger Polaris chip, then cards based on two Vega chips on top of that. Having six more cards above the 480 seems unlikely, and making only one card per chip would be uncharacteristic. Unless Polaris is a stop-gap and the Vega chips replace the entire stack, which also seems unlikely given the timing.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Yes, a 480 certainly seems like a much more viable (and likely) upgrade from a 380 than a 1080 does from a 980 Ti.


People who buy cards like the 480 have a different approach to hardware upgrading than those who buy more towards the high end.

Even though the 380 > 480 is a very large speed increase, I don't imagine many 380 owners are going to get it. The 380 is at max one year old and its just too soon for a lot of mid range buyers. Remember, a lot of (us?) them tend to hold on to hardware much longer, often until it seriously becomes out of its league in new games. Hell, there are some people who were still asking around on OCN how would their 460 perform in Fallout 4. I plan on getting the 580 or whatever is the architectural successor to the 480 because by then the 380x will be slow and I would have gotten my money's worth out of it in terms of how long I used it.

So for an enthusiast, the 380 to 480 is a no brainier but very little 380 or 380x buyers are going to get this card. Again, the 480 is a good card but this is more meant for new PC gamers or people who seriously need a new GPU. It is, after all, the succesor to Pitcairn in terms of die size and not Tahiti and Tonga.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> People who buy cards like the 480 have a different approach to hardware upgrading than those who buy more towards the high end.
> 
> Even though the 380 > 480 is a very large speed increase, I don't imagine many 380 owners are going to get it. The 380 is at max one year old and its just too soon for a lot of mid range buyers. Remember, a lot of (us?) them tend to hold on to hardware much longer, often until it seriously becomes out of its league in new games. Hell, there are some people who were still asking around on OCN how would their 460 perform in Fallout 4. I plan on getting the 580 or whatever is the architectural successor to the 480 because by then the 380x will be slow and I would have gotten my money's worth out of it in terms of how long I used it.
> 
> So for an enthusiast, the 380 to 480 is a no brainier but very little 380 or 380x buyers are going to get this card. Again, the 480 is a good card but this is more meant for new PC gamers or people who seriously need a new GPU. It is, after all, the succesor to Pitcairn in terms of die size and not Tahiti and Tonga.


Well if you have no plans to upgrade and want to hang onto your hardware for a while then that makes total sense. But if you have a 380 and you do want a new card, a $200 480 is your best bet. There really is absolutely nothing else short of $400 right now that is any competition for the 480.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> People who buy cards like the 480 have a different approach to hardware upgrading than those who buy more towards the high end.


Yeah, that's a fair point.


----------



## Iscaria

I'm playing on my Sapphire RX 480 8GB right now and I love it. At 1080p I've been able to max out all my games and don't even come close to dipping below 60fps. This thing is a budget builder dream. I'll be posting my benchmarks tomorrow


----------



## Fancykiller65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iscaria*
> 
> I'm playing on my Sapphire RX 480 8GB right now and I love it. At 1080p I've been able to max out all my games and don't even come close to dipping below 60fps. This thing is a budget builder dream. I'll be posting my benchmarks tomorrow


Can you give a list of games that you can have max settings without dipping below 60 fps? I think I might sidegrade from a 290X to a AIB 480.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Tomorrow the results of the 480 AIO Hybrid should be done and uploaded:






Interested in seeing the results, probably wont be as good as if an OCN member put it under water and put a custom bios on it too but we will have to see what GN ends up doing.


----------



## Iscaria

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fancykiller65*
> 
> Can you give a list of games that you can have max settings without dipping below 60 fps? I think I might sidegrade from a 290X to a AIB 480.


I haven't finished testing all my games yet. Everything will be up tomorrow. Too tired to do anymore and it's burrito and chill time.


----------



## bossie2000

Quote:


> I'm playing on my Sapphire RX 480 8GB right now and I love it.


What did you own before 480?


----------



## Iscaria

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> What did you own before 480?


The XFX Black Edition HD Radeon 6870. Needless to say any newish card would've been a nice upgrade, but I'm glad I waited this long. I feel like this card is specifically for people like me who game on a budget and rarely upgrade. It's by no means an enthusiast card and I feel like most of the pessimism towards it has come from enthusiasts.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iscaria*
> 
> The XFX Black Edition HD Radeon 6870. Needless to say any newish card would've been a nice upgrade, but I'm glad I waited this long. I feel like this card is specifically for people like me who game on a budget and rarely upgrade. It's by no means an enthusiast card and I feel like most of the pessimism towards it has come from enthusiasts.


You don't need to be spending lots of money to be an enthusiast though.

That reference card isn't an enthusiast model though that's for sure, but an AIB model on the other hand I can see a lot of overclockers and such picking up.

That would be a huge boost in performance from your 6870 great upgrade.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iscaria*
> 
> It's by no means an enthusiast card and I feel like most of the pessimism towards it has come from enthusiasts.


I don't really understand the pessimism, we knew the performance going in stock and we knew the reference cards weren't going to overclock that well. We have yet to see AIB cards, and I think people should just relax a little bit and wait for real custom cards to get in the hands of actual enthusiasts to get a better idea of what this card is capable of.


----------



## Iscaria

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> You don't need to be spending lots of money to be an enthusiast though.
> 
> That reference card isn't an enthusiast model though that's for sure, but an AIB model on the other hand I can see a lot of overclockers and such picking up.
> 
> That would be a huge boost in performance from your 6870 great upgrade.


Yeah, I considered going AIB, but I really just needed something to get me through until Vega release when I will actually get a high level card (Because I'll be done with college and have a good job by then). So I saved a few bucks. Also I bought AMD stock for $200 leading up to Polaris release and I sold it yesterday for $300 so you could say I got the card for $139


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Did AMD fix RoTR DX12? I just tested with HD 7970 and got 20% boost in average fps.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Did AMD fix RoTR DX12? I just tested with HD 7970 and got 20% boost in average fps.


I've seen sites with the RX480 above 970 and 980 in this game in DX12 and then lose to both in DX11 , so they must have really bolstered in dx12.


----------



## comagnum

Anyone have a site where I can compare this score?

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9053896 - 13821 gfx score - 1350/2050, 50% power, 15mv undervolt.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Anyone have a site where I can compare this score?
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9053896 - 13821 gfx score - 1350/2050, 50% power, 15mv undervolt.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1406832/single-gpu-fire-strike-top-30

It's comparable to a GTX 970 @ 1500MHz (Graphics Score wise)


----------



## Orthello

Hmm just been reading more of the Games Hardware review and even with google translate messing with my head this is really interesting ..

These are the average boost clocks in each res in the witcher 3 from their game testing :

Full HD: 1190-1220 MHz
WQHD: 1120-1170 MHz
Ultra HD: 1050-1100 MHz

Once they sort the throttling out we should see some nice games. Particulary in WQHD and Ultra HD. In UltraHD the clocks are woefull .. 15-20% off max boost in this game.

AIBs are going to be really interesting indeed


----------



## Iscaria

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Anyone have a site where I can compare this score?
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9053896 - 13821 gfx score - 1350/2050, 50% power, 15mv undervolt.


I can tell you that it beats my stock clock graphic score of 12274. And also there's some funny business with your time consistency measurements.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9052000


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> AIBs are going to be really interesting indeed


_Really_ interesting:



Quote:


> Kyle Bennet, editor at HardOCP.com revealed earlier today that AMD's add-in-board partners - AIBs - report that RX 480 graphics cards with "extremely good air coolers" are hitting anywhere from 1480mhz to 1600mhz depending on the silicon lottery. Which is 17% to 26% higher than the stock clock speed of 1266Mhz on the reference RX 480 design.
> 
> Kyle Bennet :
> AIB partners are reporting to me this morning that with extremely good custom air coolers the 480 GPUs are seeing from 1480MHz to 1600MHz clocks, but tell me it is a "lottery draw" on GPUs.


http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-asus-strix-msi-gaming/


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Anyone have a site where I can compare this score?
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9053896 - 13821 gfx score - 1350/2050, 50% power, 15mv undervolt.


Those clocks look good with the card undervolted.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> Hmm just been reading more of the Games Hardware review and even with google translate messing with my head this is really interesting ..
> 
> These are the average boost clocks in each res in the witcher 3 from their game testing :
> 
> Full HD: 1190-1220 MHz
> WQHD: 1120-1170 MHz
> Ultra HD: 1050-1100 MHz
> 
> Once they sort the throttling out we should see some nice games. Particulary in WQHD and Ultra HD. In UltraHD the clocks are woefull .. 15-20% off max boost in this game.
> 
> AIBs are going to be really interesting indeed


This behavior can be seen in Nvidia cards starting at the 600 series as well. As the resolution increases, the max boost decreases because the card's resources are being more heavily strained; the power usage is higher.

I agree that we should see a new side to the RX 480 once the power/temperature items are brought under control.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> _Really_ interesting:
> http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-asus-strix-msi-gaming/


I think we are going to see AIBs outperform ref cards by a massive amount .. This chip is just so power / cooling strangled it seems.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> I think we are going to see AIBs outperform ref cards by a massive amount .. This chip is just so power / cooling strangled it seems.


I think this was AMD's intention. Provide the masses with a basic great 1080p card for a low price, so the reference design was never meant to hold a premium. AMD probably told the AIB partners to go nuts with their versions of the card, so here AMD provides a great base MSRP for AIBs to start with and then when you have companies going over the top like this:



https://rog.asus.com/23792016/coming-soon/asus-republic-of-gamers-introduces-strix-rx-480-graphics-card/

You really have to wonder what the performance on that card is going to be compared to reference. They are basically taking designs that were originally made to handle a 1080 or 1070 and using them for the RX 480 here.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> I think we are going to see AIBs outperform ref cards by a massive amount .. This chip is just so power / cooling strangled it seems.


It seems rumours may have been true about Polaris 10 and that it will cover a huge range of price brackets ie $199-$299

Basic and cheap, power/temp limited card for $199-$229

Then AIB cards up to $300 that actually warrant the higher price due to a much larger level of gaming performance.

Not only due to the increased clocks and no throttling, but the chip itself seems to be scaling very well.

We could see a 20%+ increase in performance?

I'm excited to buy one of these AIB's that's for sure.


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> It seems rumours may have been true about Polaris 10 and that it will cover a huge range of price brackets ie $199-$299
> 
> Basic and cheap, power/temp limited card for $199-$229
> 
> Then AIB cards up to $300 that actually warrant the higher price due to a much larger level of gaming performance.
> 
> Not only due to the increased clocks and no throttling, but the chip itself seems to be scaling very well.
> 
> We could see a 20%+ increase in performance?
> 
> I'm excited to buy one of these AIB's that's for sure.


I'm more curious to see what they do with the board itself, because you can always just slap on an aftermarket one, if it's just the cooler that's causing all the problems.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> This behavior can be seen in Nvidia cards starting at the 600 series as well. As the resolution increases, the max boost decreases because the card's resources are being more heavily strained; the power usage is higher.
> 
> I agree that we should see a new side to the RX 480 once the power/temperature items are brought under control.


Wow it makes sense but i had not see that highlighted before now .. I guess i've had too many years of custom bioses - boost disabled bioses etc lol . That would explain my TXs making electrical noise in ROTR in 4k then , working hard at 80-99 % usage in sli (1530mhz @ 40c so i'm treating them nicely still).

Still i guess if the AIB cards can just open up the doors, you could see Fury - Fury X performance depending on the game . In lower resolutions it might exceed them even. On the AMD side anything up to Fury X could really be covered by AIB 480 OC performance then.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> I think we are going to see AIBs outperform ref cards by a massive amount .. This chip is just so power / cooling strangled it seems.


I wonder if it isn't bandwidth starved too. TPU managed to get pretty much 1:1 scaling - 5% core OC + 13% memory OC = 5% improvement in games.

Obviously I can't tease out how much each component is contributing, but if core OC is scaling 1:1 with performance increase, that does make me think.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> I'm more curious to see what they do with the board itself, because you can always just slap on an aftermarket one, if it's just the cooler that's causing all the problems.


So far I believe a custom air cooler (like an Accelero) did 1425MHz and I believe an H100 modded card did 1480MHz. So there is definitely limitations with the reference cooler.

But it also seems custom PCBs will help the card out more, because we also see the power limitations with the reference design.


----------



## Cubeman

Picture: http://i.imgur.com/1jQeall.jpg

So earlier today I decided to go nuts and buy a 3rd RX480. They estimated around 130-150 wattage per card so i figured i could pull 3 of them off without buying a new power supply (750W). I'm too lazy to have to redo cable management so this seemed like a fun test and a time to answer a question that was never asked.

I had some crossfire/trifire issue and 3dmark only used one card. I had to go back to work so i just left the computer idling all day and hoped my house would still be there. It was surprisingly considering the cars idle at 40-45C with the room at 74F

Turned out CCC disabled crossfire so i just re-enabled it and good to go. I ran 3dmark while paying attention to wattage and temps and the max my cards drew EACH was 131 watts. I took a printscreen but lost it during the 3dmark screenshots i was taking for results. Tempatures between all the cards was between 70-80C. Mainly staying in the lower 70's surprisingly. (All stock/automatic settings)

Firestrike Ultra Results:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/12832894
SCORE: 6,689
TL;DR: Better then 980s in SLI, 20% faster then 980s in SLI?

Pricing (Micro Center Pricing, Cheapest cards I can find of those types)
3x RX480 - $749

Games that played great no problems with Crossfire and now Trifire in 4K: GTA V, Overwatch, Hearts Of Iron IV
Now gotta install my H115 and some other goodies. Should I even try to Quadfire next? also sorry, no fire.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> I'm more curious to see what they do with the board itself, because you can always just slap on an aftermarket one, if it's just the cooler that's causing all the problems.


Its power delivery unfortunately .. and most likely the worst of the gpu pool so poorer asics , eg binned ones for AIB cards. Sure temps help but i don't think ref is going over 1420 (max i've seen) very often.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Don't get too carried away, guys. We're probably not going to see Fury X performance out of an AIB RX 480. 1500mhz is about a 10% OC increase over the currently top overclock for reference cards. That's roughly a GTX 980 level of performance. The Fury X is a class above the 980.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Don't get too carried away, guys. We're probably not going to see Fury X performance out of an AIB RX 480. 1500mhz is about a 10% OC increase over the currently top overclock for reference cards. That's roughly a GTX 980 level of performance. The Fury X is a class above the 980.


Overclocked reference cards are already making it to Nano levels, so Fury/Fury X is not too far off believe it or not.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Don't get too carried away, guys. We're probably not going to see Fury X performance out of an AIB RX 480. 1500mhz is about a 10% OC increase over the currently top overclock for reference cards. That's roughly a GTX 980 level of performance. The Fury X is a class above the 980.


Yeah thats right but those OCs currently are all throttled. Eg they are not hitting those boost clocks half the time . So i think it will be a little better than that . I was referring to Fury or just over, i think we will see that level of performance from some of the AIBs.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Picture: http://i.imgur.com/1jQeall.jpg
> 
> So earlier today I decided to go nuts and buy a 3rd RX480. They estimated around 130-150 wattage per card so i figured i could pull 3 of them off without buying a new power supply (750W). I'm too lazy to have to redo cable management so this seemed like a fun test and a time to answer a question that was never asked.
> 
> I had some crossfire/trifire issue and 3dmark only used one card. I had to go back to work so i just left the computer idling all day and hoped my house would still be there. It was surprisingly considering the cars idle at 40-45C with the room at 74F
> 
> Turned out CCC disabled crossfire so i just re-enabled it and good to go. I ran 3dmark while paying attention to wattage and temps and the max my cards drew EACH was 131 watts. I took a printscreen but lost it during the 3dmark screenshots i was taking for results. Tempatures between all the cards was between 70-80C. Mainly staying in the lower 70's surprisingly. (All stock/automatic settings)
> 
> Firestrike Ultra Results:
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/12832894
> *SCORE: 6,689*
> TL;DR: Better then 980s in SLI, 20% faster then 980s in SLI?
> 
> Pricing (Micro Center Pricing, Cheapest cards I can find of those types)
> 3x RX480 - $749
> 
> Games that played great no problems with Crossfire and now Trifire in 4K: GTA V, Overwatch, Hearts Of Iron IV
> Now gotta install my H115 and some other goodies. Should I even try to Quadfire next? also sorry, no fire.


You reported the overall score ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

*Graphics score = 7441*. That's 45% faster than a single 1080 at stock, so most definitely faster than 980 SLI.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> Overclocked reference cards are already making it to Nano levels, so Fury/Fury X is not too far off believe it or not.


Not quite...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1754?vs=1748

Nano is all but untouchable compared to an RX 480. However, a 1500mhz RX 480 might equal a stock Nano.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Not quite...
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1754?vs=1748
> 
> Nano is all but untouchable compared to an RX 480. However, a 1500mhz RX 480 might equal a stock Nano.


Results seem to vary and it depends which game too.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

OC results further down the page show it nipping at the fury X's heels, and that's with a nice memory OC and 1350mhz on the core.

Either way I'd be happy with Nano or Fury (non X) performance.

Hype train has officially been fixed after derailing and is chugging along waiting for AIB variants


----------



## Klocek001

the official statement from one of the biggest Polish shops concerning the price of RX480 (currently more expensive than GTX 970)
Quote:


> For many potential buyers surprising was the price, which differs from that suggested by AMD . Also offer , which you can find in our online shop and salons differs from that which can be found on pages and fanpage'ach AMD . This situation is dictated by the purchase prices imposed on the companies cooperating with AMD . They are much higher than the suggested retail prices. Currently, we are waiting for the official position of the company on pricing policy which adversely affects the stores , including our offer


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Not quite...
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1754?vs=1748
> 
> Nano is all but untouchable compared to an RX 480. However, a 1500mhz RX 480 might equal a stock Nano.


If at 1500MHz it is at Nano/Fury levels, it doesn't need much more to make it to Fury X levels:



I think @ 1600MHz it will be able to yield another 7% performance increase to bring it to Fury X levels


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Not quite...
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1754?vs=1748
> 
> Nano is all but untouchable compared to an RX 480. However, a 1500mhz RX 480 might equal a stock Nano.


Its a bit all over the place , i suspect thats due to rops and the games mix of workload etc but its going to get there in some games. ROTR for example / the division another.

That looks to be a stock RX480 too .. so figure 1200 ish boost avg clocks not the 1350 you mention. So % increase should be a lot larger than 10 % in those metrics if AIBs hit 1500 mhz avg vs ~ 1200mhz avg.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> the official statement from one of the biggest Polish shops concerning the price of RX480 (currently more expensive than GTX 970)


So it's the EU distributors gouging?


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> So it's the EU distributors gouging?


As per usual AMD cards are slightly more expensive here than US, and Nvidia cards are slightly cheaper than US (before taxes).


----------



## TrueForm

$500NZD here for a 480


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TrueForm*
> 
> $500NZD here for a 480


Yeah sold out too at playtech and dropping fast at computerlounge $530 there tho greedy buggers.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Those clocks look good with the card undervolted.


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/12833441? - 13930 gfx score - 1355/2100, 10mv undervolt, 50% power

can't seem to get it to make a run with anything over 1355.. stock volts or otherwise


----------



## sammkv

constant 1600mhz boost speeds with no throttling + BF1 hype!


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sammkv*
> 
> constant 1600mhz boost speeds with no throttling + BF1 hype!


The aibs might even be worth water cooling .. who knows , depends how temperatures and power levels hold i guess.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> The aibs might even be worth water cooling .. who knows , depends how temperatures and power levels hold i guess.


I would love to see a custom AIB card with dual RX 480s on the pcb, with a custom pcb/power delivery, and watercooled like a 295x2.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iscaria*
> 
> Yeah, I considered going AIB, but I really just needed something to get me through until Vega release when I will actually get a high level card (Because I'll be done with college and have a good job by then). So I saved a few bucks. Also I bought AMD stock for $200 leading up to Polaris release and I sold it yesterday for $300 so you could say I got the card for $139


I'm with you there. I'm thinking about waiting till October or November to buy parts for a new work/gaming computer. See what Zen has to offer and then upgrade accordingly. I really don't want to go Intel because AMD has VM support on all chips at a modest price range.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Results seem to vary and it depends which game too.
> 
> http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Specials/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/
> 
> OC results further down the page show it nipping at the fury X's heels, and that's with a nice memory OC and 1350mhz on the core.
> 
> Either way I'd be happy with Nano or Fury (non X) performance.
> 
> Hype train has officially been fixed after derailing and is chugging along waiting for AIB variants


From that site its already faster in ROTR at 1350 mhz OC .. might be something wrong with that bench.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> I would love to see a custom AIB card with dual RX 480s on the pcb, with a custom pcb/power delivery, and watercooled like a 295x2.


Nah better off with Dual Vega and HBM2.

Card could be reasonably compact and ridiculously irresponsibly powerful, what a dual chip card should be.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> From that site its already faster in ROTR at 1350 mhz OC .. might be something wrong with that bench.


Maybe an older driver for the Fury X results.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Nah better off with Dual Vega and HBM2.
> 
> Card could be reasonably compact and ridiculously powerful, what a dual chip card should be.


After running this GTX 780 for over two years now, I really missed the perks of having a small die card like my 670. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever go with a big die card again. Rather wait until that performance is implemented into a small die card the following year.


----------



## comagnum

Here's a comparison of my gains from my first initial test (stock) to my most recent;
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9054741/fs/9046683#


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> After running this GTX 780 for over two years now, I really missed the perks of having a small die card like my 670. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever go with a big die card again. Rather wait until that performance is implemented into a small die card the following year.


What sorts of perks are you referring to?


----------



## magnek

Lower TDP and thus less heat dumped into room I'm guessing.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Here's a comparison of my gains from my first initial test (stock) to my most recent;
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9054741/fs/9046683#


Would be surprised if you couldn't do 2200MHz on the memory (seems most reference cards are able to do that). I believe they are running Samsung memory so up to 9Gbps effective is also possible.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> What sorts of perks are you referring to?


Basically this:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Lower TDP and thus less heat dumped into room I'm guessing.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Here's a comparison of my gains from my first initial test (stock) to my most recent;
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9054741/fs/9046683#


Wow that's really interesting. That's AIB 980 levels isn't it? (Not that firestrike translates into gaming performance)


----------



## Cubeman

Audio on my Rampage is now dead, No longer recognizes rear ports except for digital audio. The RX480's are striking _maybe_


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Audio on my Rampage is now dead, No longer recognizes rear ports except for digital audio. The RX480's are striking _maybe_


Uh oh.

I'm assuming you've never had anything like this happen before with the board?

Maybe the third card was just too much..............


----------



## Cubeman

Board has been flawless since it's release date. Going to see what happens after i throw on a usb audio card and continue playing games. If it kills the board looks like XFX will be getting a message from me lol


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Board has been flawless since it's release date. Going to see what happens after i throw on a usb audio card and continue playing games. If it kills the board looks like XFX will be getting a message from me lol


That motherboard certainly isn't low end or low quality but you put THREE RX480s in it right? One was probably going to be ok, two was asking for trouble, three..... you're crazy.

I bet you raised the power limit and overclocked them too.


----------



## fragamemnon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> 10% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9047245 - 67c
> 20% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048719 - 67c
> 30% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048588 - 69c
> 40% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048650 - 70c
> 50% - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9048859 - 74c all with 2600/3800 fan speed and 25mv undervolt
> 
> 
> 
> The relevant info: graphics scores
> 
> 10% - 12,672
> 20% - 13,402
> 30% - 13,204
> 40% - 13,391
> 50% - 13,732
> 
> The spread between 20-40% is odd...
> 
> *Would you mind doing 3 runs at each setting with the fan speed increased to maximum?*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Think of the children
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who are having to get their parents to pay more for extra ram
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Even the corsair cx500 supplies have 2x 6pin +2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stock PSUs in pre-built systems usually don't.
Click to expand...

Do keep in mind that if the card is power starved, the fan can actually take some of the possible performance away.








This was the case with my GTX 680.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Board has been flawless since it's release date. Going to see what happens after i throw on a usb audio card and continue playing games. If it kills the board looks like XFX will be getting a message from me lol


I like you. And I thank you.


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Board has been flawless since it's release date. Going to see what happens after i throw on a usb audio card and continue playing games. If it kills the board looks like XFX will be getting a message from me lol


That wouldnt be xfx fault as much as amds if its the one issue thats been getting more attention lately. Hopefully it isnt but it could be the mb pciexpress overdraw issue.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Wow that's really interesting. That's AIB 980 levels isn't it? (Not that firestrike translates into gaming performance)


Not sure. I'm downloading GTA and BF4 right now. I'll do a run with witcher also and see what I get. I may pick up doom this weekend just to mess around with it. I'll get some real world benchmarks done so we can see if ocing makes it gain as much ground in real performance as it does in synthetics.


----------



## Cubeman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> That motherboard certainly isn't low end or low quality but you put THREE RX480s in it right? One was probably going to be ok, two was asking for trouble, three..... you're crazy.
> 
> I bet you raised the power limit and overclocked them too.


Nope, all stock settings

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fragamemnon*
> 
> Do keep in mind that if the card is power starved, the fan can actually take some of the possible performance away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was the case with my GTX 680.
> I like you. And I thank you.


Np!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> That wouldnt be xfx fault as much as amds if its the one issue thats been getting more attention lately. Hopefully it isnt but it could be the mb pciexpress overdraw issue.


Welp, We'll see.


----------



## tajoh111

Did u buy an overclocked xfx board by any chance? If so, we have the likely culprit for your issues.


----------



## tkenietz

I read somewhere (may have been wccf or videocardz) that afterburner and whatever the Asus software is called would allow increased voltage over what watt mananger allows for their respective custom cards. I don't see why that would be necessary unless they oc well, or I guess are voltage hungry when oc'd.

Is this guy reputable?
http://hwbot.org/submission/3251198_lucky_n00b_3dmark___fire_strike_radeon_rx_480_12668_marks

14646 graphics score on firestrike
Wouldn't that be on fury level at 1425mhz?

Edit:
Has anyone tried not overclocking or even underclocking the vram to see if you can get further on the core oc?


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> I read somewhere (may have been wccf or videocardz) that afterburner and whatever the Asus software is called would allow increased voltage over what watt mananger allows for their respective custom cards. I don't see why that would be necessary unless they oc well, or I guess are voltage hungry when oc'd.
> 
> Is this guy reputable?
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3251198_lucky_n00b_3dmark___fire_strike_radeon_rx_480_12668_marks
> 
> Wouldn't that be on fury level at 1425mhz?


Closer to Nano:



But if it's doing Nano levels of performance @ 1425MHz that's pretty substantial information for what AIB cards will be able to do.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Closer to Nano:
> 
> 
> 
> But if it's doing Nano levels of performance @ 1425MHz that's pretty substantial information for what AIB cards will be able to do.


Going off that chart it would be higher than fury x


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Going off that chart it would be higher than fury x


Yup, you are right, went deeper into the link a second ago and saw the Graphics Score:

@ 1425MHz it is already at Fury X levels:



This is big right here.


----------



## motoray

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Picture: http://i.imgur.com/1jQeall.jpg
> 
> So earlier today I decided to go nuts and buy a 3rd RX480. They estimated around 130-150 wattage per card so i figured i could pull 3 of them off without buying a new power supply (750W). I'm too lazy to have to redo cable management so this seemed like a fun test and a time to answer a question that was never asked.
> 
> I had some crossfire/trifire issue and 3dmark only used one card. I had to go back to work so i just left the computer idling all day and hoped my house would still be there. It was surprisingly considering the cars idle at 40-45C with the room at 74F
> 
> Turned out CCC disabled crossfire so i just re-enabled it and good to go. I ran 3dmark while paying attention to wattage and temps and the max my cards drew EACH was 131 watts. I took a printscreen but lost it during the 3dmark screenshots i was taking for results. Tempatures between all the cards was between 70-80C. Mainly staying in the lower 70's surprisingly. (All stock/automatic settings)
> 
> Firestrike Ultra Results:
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/12832894
> SCORE: 6,689
> TL;DR: Better then 980s in SLI, 20% faster then 980s in SLI?
> 
> Pricing (Micro Center Pricing, Cheapest cards I can find of those types)
> 3x RX480 - $749
> 
> Games that played great no problems with Crossfire and now Trifire in 4K: GTA V, Overwatch, Hearts Of Iron IV
> Now gotta install my H115 and some other goodies. Should I even try to Quadfire next? also sorry, no fire.


That is pretty awesome for the money! Thanks for taking one for the team.
edit:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> Yup, you are right, went deeper into the link a second ago and saw the Graphics Score:
> 
> @ 1425MHz it is already at Fury X levels:
> 
> 
> 
> This is big right here.


That is with a 1000$ cpu, which seems to be a big factor in all the different results being shown.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motoray*
> 
> That is pretty awesome for the money! Thanks for taking one for the team.
> edit:
> That is with a 1000$ cpu, which seems to be a big factor in all the different results being shown.


Not quite,

This score is even better.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motoray*
> 
> That is with a 1000$ cpu, which seems to be a big factor in all the different results being shown.


By running a $1000 CPU you eliminate CPU bottlenecks, but this does not affect the Graphics Score though in 3DMark. So Graphics Score is still relevant.


----------



## motoray

[/quote]
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> By running a $1000 CPU you eliminate CPU bottlenecks, but this does not affect the Graphics Score though in 3DMark. So Graphics Score is still relevant.


You are correct lol im exhausted and been reading through these threads for way too long.


----------



## jellybeans69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motoray*
> 
> That is with a 1000$ cpu, which seems to be a big factor in all the different results being shown.


I can get 17k physics score with my 5 year old 3970x on AIO cooling and only dual channel ram. (7970 gpu)


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> By running a $1000 CPU you eliminate CPU bottlenecks, but this does not affect the Graphics Score though in 3DMark. So Graphics Score is still relevant.


Guru3D chart however is only an overall score, so yeah.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Audio on my Rampage is now dead, No longer recognizes rear ports except for digital audio. The RX480's are striking _maybe_


I think you've got another problem it's been determined that the motherboard's voltage limit is at fault not the RX 480. The RX 480 is thirsty and the motherboard sees that so it quenches it as it pleases.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> Guru3D chart however is only an overall score, so yeah.


That's okay though, because it's only @ 1425MHz and is faster than a non-reference Fury (non-X):



If we have up to 1600MHz overclock with the RX480 as suggested by the AIB partners, we will definitely be able it to make it to another 9% increase in performance:



Which would bring us at Fury X levels (and most likely beyond).


----------



## JackCY

This 1.6GHz hype train








The chips barely do 1.4GHz.


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> This 1.6GHz hype train
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chips barely do 1.4GHz.


Is it your lack of knowledge on GPUs and the 14nm process that makes you believe this is a hype train? It's hardly hype, it's science really. 14nm offers 40-50% improvement in clockspeed compared to 28nm.

And then of course there is this:


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> That's okay though, because it's only @ 1425MHz and is faster than a non-reference Fury (non-X):
> 
> 
> 
> If we have up to 1600MHz overclock with the RX480 as suggested by the AIB partners, we will definitely be able it to make it to another 9% increase in performance:
> 
> 
> 
> Which would bring us at Fury X levels (and most likely beyond).


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> This 1.6GHz hype train
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chips barely do 1.4GHz.


From my observation the RX 480s are purposely limited for this price bracket. They're limited in this price bracket because of their power modifiers for the graphics cards. They're very power thirsty and the power limit has been modified quite low by default. When we get either a single eight pin or six plus eight pin RX 480 we might see 1.6+ Ghz as they can modify the default power limit on the GPU.


----------



## lolfail9001

There's also the part where from what i remember 3dmark of rx480 is consistently higher than it's real world performance implies, so i would need some tests too, though i believe 1450ish Mhz rx480 would contest Nano (outside of being less power efficient rofl).


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> From my observation the RX 480s are purposely limited for this price bracket. They're limited in this price bracket because of their power modifiers for the graphics cards. They're very power thirsty and the power limit has been modified quite low by default. When we get either a single eight pin or six plus eight pin RX 480 we might see 1.6+ Ghz as they can modify the default power limit on the GPU.


I agree, more power and better cooling will do this chip justice.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> I agree, more power and better cooling will do this chip justice.


It's not just more power though, it's the way the power is distributed on these RX 480s that limit them. I can see a greater efficiency when they address the power draw of the card. I think we could see 1070 performance for about 220 watts from the card. I'm reading reddit where people undervolted and could raise the max power target. Example they would move the default max power target to 100% of the current they can reduce the voltage required by the card. So this card is actually purposely limited probably for unlocked RX 480s later with better power distribution.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> It's not just more power though, it's the way the power is distributed on these RX 480s that limit them. I can see a greater efficiency when they address the power draw of the card. I think we could see 1070 performance for about 220 watts from the card. I'm reading reddit where people undervolted and could raise the max power target. Example they would move the default max power target to 100% of the current they can reduce the voltage required by the card.


Max additional power is 50%.

Lowering voltage helps because it reduces power consumption and thus throttling. Not all cards can OC and undervolt at the same time.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Max additional power is 50%.
> 
> Lowering voltage helps because it reduces power consumption and thus throttling. Not all cards can OC and undervolt at the same time.


I know that. I'm saying that if they 3rd party manufacturers move the physical max power limit of newer cards to 100% of what the default of the current is and we should see leaps in performance while also being able to dramatically lower the voltage. These cards are hard limited by their power design.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> I know that. I'm saying that if they move the physical max power limit of newer cards to 100% of what the default of the current is and we should see leaps in performance.


If the BIOS power limit is higher, there will be more watts available. Current cards at 150% power target have something like a 225w power limit.
The reference card does not run out of steam until 1400-1450, its the cooler that is limiting clocks to 1350 at the moment.

That being said, I would love to see a card with 225w default TDP with a max of ~300w. Then combine that with a good cooler or waterblock, the overclocking landscape should be interesting.


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> If the BIOS power limit is higher, there will be more watts available. Current cards at 150% power target have something like a 225w power limit.
> The reference card does not run out of steam until 1400-1450, its the cooler that is limiting clocks to 1350 at the moment.
> 
> That being said, I would love to see a card with 225w default TDP with a max of ~300w. Then combine that with a good cooler or waterblock, the overclocking landscape should be interesting.


No, the reference card does run out of steam about 1350 on average, the guy who slapped a quality air cooler on the chip actually had to go through 4 to get his 1425Mhz sample.

Silicon lottery, god dam it.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> If the BIOS power limit is higher, there will be more watts available. Current cards at 150% power target have something like a 225w power limit.
> The reference card does not run out of steam until 1400-1450, its the cooler that is limiting clocks to 1350 at the moment.
> 
> That being said, I would love to see a card with 225w default TDP with a max of ~300w. Then combine that with a good cooler or waterblock, the overclocking landscape should be interesting.


Absolutely correct from my analysis of reading everyone's statements online. We shouldn't have to raise the voltage to get higher clocks on the GPU just it's power draw limit. Seeing it at 225 TDP would be spectacular. I'm more than certain we should be able to hit 1.6ghz with that.


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> If the BIOS power limit is higher, there will be more watts available. Current cards at 150% power target have something like a 225w power limit.
> The reference card does not run out of steam until 1400-1450, its the cooler that is limiting clocks to 1350 at the moment.
> 
> That being said, I would love to see a card with 225w default TDP with a max of ~300w. Then combine that with a good cooler or waterblock, the overclocking landscape should be interesting.


That would make it ridiculously bad at perf/watt metric. Even Fury-X barely draws that much during gaming, and it's on an older arch, and process.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> That would make it ridiculously bad at perf/watt metric. Even Fury-X barely draws that much during gaming, and it's on an older arch, and process.


The difference is in memory. Plus there are some other variables at work here too. Switching to HBM would shave a lot of power consumption on the physical die of the GPU compared to the memory controller for GDDR5. NVidia saves power by using GDDR5x modules. It's not any faster but it's controller requires less voltage.


----------



## Nickyvida

If the 14nm glofo node yield reaches maturity will we see less leakage and better overclocking?


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nickyvida*
> 
> If the 14nm glofo node yield reaches maturity will we see less leakage and better overclocking?


All fabrication processes, yes. NVidia can hit as high as it does because of it's elastic core design, but no Async. Future in computing is Async. Old argument, it's not dead but really depending on DX11 to stay around is terrible for the future of graphics technology. We should be able to see better OCs from both companies as their fabs mature.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> That would make it ridiculously bad at perf/watt metric. Even Fury-X barely draws that much during gaming, and it's on an older arch, and process.


Its on a different fab and node. It is possible that GF/SS have good power characteristics at lower speeds but have more headroom once you are beyond that point. TSMC seems to have great power over a wider range, but less headroom past that.

Im wondering myself if we are going to end up with a re-spin of the P10 chip like what happened with the HD 4890.


----------



## Nickyvida

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> All fabrication processes, yes. NVidia can hit as high as it does because of it's elastic core design, but no Async. Future in computing is Async. Old argument, it's not dead but really depending on DX11 to stay around is terrible for the future of graphics technology. We should be able to see better OCs from both companies as their fabs mature.


Thats funny. I remember 14nm LPE having reached maturity some months ago. Why would it be this bad? Is there a HP/LPP somewhere? That would explain the non maturity leakage problems. Why would AMD choose glofo despite TSMC 16nm being a better process from what we seen so far?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nickyvida*
> 
> Thats funny. I remember 14nm LPE having reached maturity some months ago. Why would it be this bad? Is there a HP/LPP somewhere? That would explain the non maturity leakage problems. Why would AMD choose glofo despite TSMC 16nm being a better process from what we seen so far?


To keep all designs on the same fab and node and to eliminate multiple source fab contracts. This plays into their APU strategy heavily. They dont have to redesign the GPU parts for their semi-custom ASIC's either if they all come from the same fab.

TL;DR... saving money.


----------



## Vesku

This looks like a first project, or thereabouts, for AMD's Chinese GPU team with corresponding quirks. Doesn't appear much tweaking was done of the actual CUs.


----------



## Nickyvida

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> To keep all designs on the same fab and node and to eliminate multiple source fab contracts. This plays into their APU strategy heavily. They dont have to redesign the GPU parts for their semi-custom ASIC's either if they all come from the same fab.
> 
> TL;DR... saving money.


I thought they would have seen the light after BD's fiasco. Sometimes saving money can be detrimenal as we have seen with all the leakage and power draw problem.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nickyvida*
> 
> I thought they would have seen the light after BD's fiasco. Sometimes saving money can be detrimenal as we have seen with all the leakage and power draw problem.


BD didn't suffer from leakage/power draw issues. It suffered from having unrealistic clock targets and a core design that was off in left field for the applications of the time.

GF 32 SOI was pretty close to Intel's 32nm process. The problem was that BD had more transistors dedicated to CPU cores, got less performance from them, and clocked them higher to boot, thats why BD runs hotter than Sandy Bridge for the most part.


----------



## xioros

Just a thought:

How does the R9 Nano fare vs the RX 480?
The R9 Nano has a TDP of 175W, compared to the 150W on the RX 480.

How does the efficiency compare? (as in performance/watt)


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xioros*
> 
> Just a thought:
> 
> How does the R9 Nano fare vs the RX 480?
> The R9 Nano has a TDP of 175W, compared to the 150W on the RX 480.
> 
> How does the efficiency compare? (as in performance/watt)


Pretty much 1:1.


----------



## xioros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *xioros*
> 
> Just a thought:
> 
> How does the R9 Nano fare vs the RX 480?
> The R9 Nano has a TDP of 175W, compared to the 150W on the RX 480.
> 
> How does the efficiency compare? (as in performance/watt)
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much 1:1.
Click to expand...

So basically, the GPU market is choosing between a cheaper Nano (yet, noisier) or overpriced, throttling green cards?

Meh.


----------



## Newbie2009

Looks like these puppys can get to nano level performance with a reasonable overclock.

http://oc.jagatreview.com/2016/06/teaser-overclocking-amd-radeon-rx480-ke-1-4ghz-dengan-cooler-3rd-party/2/


----------



## spencer785

AMD seriously needs to give up the RX 480 is such a disappointment. Its uses more watts than a gtx 1070 and has half the performance. In reality the RX 480 should be a 75W card not 150W+. Plus tests show they are having power limit problems even when stock and drawing too much power from the pcie slot.


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spencer785*
> 
> AMD seriously needs to give up the RX 480 is such a disappointment. Its uses more watts than a gtx 1070 and has half the performance. In reality the RX 480 should be a 75W card not 150W+. Plus tests show they are having power limit problems even when stock and drawing too much power from the pcie slot.


Pretty sure it is half the price, which is the point.


----------



## spencer785

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Pretty sure it is half the price, which is the point.


LOL so impressive uses more power than the gtx 1070 with less than half the performance.


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spencer785*
> 
> LOL so impressive uses more power than the gtx 1070 with less than half the performance.


Less than half the price. Does not compute?


----------



## Newbie2009

A guy on 4Chan overclocked his 480 to 1487 MHZ using a H100 AIO with temps around 65C. Only the 6-pin is limiting it. (taken from overclockeers)

http://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/553...s-on#p55333742


From 4Chan:


----------



## spencer785

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> Less than half the price. Does not compute?


You are not understanding what I'm saying. Yes its half the price but its a 150w+ card and should be 75w. Please don't respond if you want to keep bringing up the price. Thanks


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spencer785*
> 
> You are not understanding what I'm saying. Yes its half the price but its a 150w+ card and should be 75w. Please don't respond if you want to keep bringing up the price. Thanks


Seems that you dont get it. 150w or 75w does not really matter to the average consumer as both really need a 6pin connection. Price and performance matter.


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spencer785*
> 
> You are not understanding what I'm saying. Yes its half the price but its a 150w+ card and should be 75w. Please don't respond if you want to keep bringing up the price. Thanks


I understand perfectly. You are saying it is "AMD need to give up" because the card uses more power than everyone expected.

Seems like a lot of people don't share your enlightened opinion as they are flying off shelves.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spencer785*
> 
> You are not understanding what I'm saying. Yes its half the price but its a 150w+ card and should be 75w. Please don't respond if you want to keep bringing up the price. Thanks


Your not the target market, so its not surprising that your missing the point entirely of this card.


----------



## Loladinas

Is it too much to expect either more performance or smaller power usage from a smaller node. Getting neither is kind of meh, and I think that was his point.

EDIT: before someone points out HBM and it's reduced power usage - end user doesn't care one bit where the p/p comes from, he only cares about end result


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> Is it too much to expect either more performance or smaller power usage from a smaller node. Getting neither is kind of meh, and I think that was his point.
> 
> EDIT: before someone points out HBM and it's reduced power usage - end user doesn't care one bit where the p/p comes from, he only cares about end result


The 1070 gets both. More performance at less the power consumed. Put the $200 difference and get the 1070. Whenever it becomes available in your neck of the woods. Simple.


----------



## Digitalwolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> Is it too much to expect either more performance or smaller power usage from a smaller node. Getting neither is kind of meh, and I think that was his point.


That probably was their point....

But "the point" is the vast majority of people out there.... are not on this site and all they see is: $199.99 or $239.99 etc They don't much care about anything else.

So a counter of "stop bringing up the price" doesn't really work.... The card and it's price in general aren't the kind of thing that is aimed at people on this site. That said... there are probably quite a few people even here... that only have so much money to spend at any given time and don't buy $700 cards or $1600+ cpu's.

When I see an RX 480 and think about playing with them... the first thing I think about is two of them... and where are the water blocks... which isn't the target audience either.


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Digitalwolf*
> 
> That probably was their point....
> 
> But "the point" is the vast majority of people out there.... are not on this site and all they see is: $199.99 or $239.99 etc They don't much care about anything else.
> 
> So a counter of "stop bringing up the price" doesn't really work.... The card and it's price in general aren't the kind of thing that is aimed at people on this site. That said... there are probably quite a few people even here... that only have so much money to spend at any given time and don't buy $700 cards or $1600+ cpu's.
> 
> When I see an RX 480 and think about playing with them... the first thing I think about is two of them... and where are the water blocks... which isn't the target audience either.


No, I'm not saying it's a bad card for the price, I'm just pointing out that from an engineering point of view it's not very impressive, and that's what a lot of people are saying. As for the price... Well people are still buying them from Amazon at like $350 a pop. Some people are just weird.


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> No, I'm not saying it's a bad card for the price, I'm just pointing out that from an engineering point of view it's not very impressive, and that's what a lot of people are saying. As for the price... Well people are still buying them from Amazon at like $350 a pop. Some people are just weird.


Those people are fools. A fool and their money....


----------



## Kuivamaa

Consumption/thermals aside, a full polaris 10 die is comparable to a cut down GP104, so a highly clocked 480 should be going toe to toe with a 1070. If such SKUs are eventually released in AIB form and the performance is not around 980Ti/1070 levels, then there is something very wrong with polaris.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Consumption/thermals aside, a full polaris 10 die is comparable to a cut down GP104, so a highly clocked 480 should be going toe to toe with a 1070. If such SKUs are eventually released in AIB form and the performance is not around 980Ti/1070 levels, then there is something very wrong with polaris.


Like 256 bit memory bus and 32 ROPs?


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Consumption/thermals aside, a full polaris 10 die is comparable to a cut down GP104, so a highly clocked 480 should be going toe to toe with a 1070. If such SKUs are eventually released in AIB form and the performance is not around 980Ti/1070 levels, then there is something very wrong with polaris.


Here we go again.









Maybe you should be an engineer. You obviously have all the ability to make a mainstream chip perform miracles. Stock = around 970. Could the 970 clock to 980Ti levels of performance? Maxwell clocked pretty well right?

Right... didn't think so.


----------



## Slomo4shO

First card in history that performs better if you lower voltage? If this is the case, AMD is committing self-sabotage...


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Consumption/thermals aside, a full polaris 10 die is comparable to a cut down GP104, so a highly clocked 480 should be going toe to toe with a 1070. If such SKUs are eventually released in AIB form and the performance is not around 980Ti/1070 levels, then there is something very wrong with polaris.


Reality is the RX480 is very far away from the GTX1070 in both performance and performance/watt.

The only area the RX480 trumps the GTX1070 is in perf/price, but not even by the huge amount we hoped it would.

If the GTX1070 was actually available for 379$ then the situation in price/perf for the 239$ 8GB RX480 would look very grim.

But the cheapest GTX1070 in Europe is 479€ and the cheapest RX480 8GB is 264€.

The GTX1070 is 46% faster than the RX480 8GB. With current prices for available cards the RX480 8GB has a better price/perf, but if both cards would sell at MSRP the gap would be much much smaller.

One thing to remember is that higher priced cards have a diminishing return (under normal circumstances). For example the Vanilla Titan at 1000$ was not twice as fast as the 500$ GTX 680.

The RX480 definitively makes the GTX1070 look better than it actually is. For around 399€ I'd definitively consider it. Sadly it's 479€ for the most ugly MSI plastic card I've ever seen.


----------



## gene-z

Has this been posted yet? Two reports of 480's frying PCIE slots.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Reality is the RX480 is very far away from the GTX1070 in both performance and performance/watt.
> 
> The only area the RX480 trumps the GTX1070 is in perf/price, but not even by the huge amount we hoped it would.
> 
> If the GTX1070 was actually available for 379$ then the situation in price/perf for the 239$ 8GB RX480 would look very grim.
> 
> But the cheapest GTX1070 in Europe is 479€ and the cheapest RX480 8GB is 264€.
> 
> The GTX1070 is 46% faster than the RX480 8GB. With current prices for available cards the RX480 8GB has a better price/perf, but if both cards would sell at MSRP the gap would be much much smaller.
> 
> One thing to remember is that higher priced cards have a diminishing return (under normal circumstances). For example the Vanilla Titan at 1000$ was not twice as fast as the 500$ GTX 680.
> 
> The RX480 definitively makes the GTX1070 look better than it actually is. For around 399€ I'd definitively consider it. Sadly it's 479€ for the most ugly MSI plastic card I've ever seen.


The target group for the 480 dont care about the 1070.
they upgrade and double the fps with the 480.
thats an awesome deal right there.
you see thats due to having had so many cards in stock and they are literally flying off the shelves the store dont even have time to unpack them before the customers rip them from their hands.
Thats some insane deal of the year right there with the 480 and no one of those care about anything the 1070 does as its twice the price.
twice which makes it, sad and tragic obviously EXCEPT for those that did double their fps and are gaming happily with the 480 that is.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> First card in history that performs better if you lower voltage? If this is the case, AMD is committing self-sabotage...


It has vdroop compensation and finfet technology, both of which are strictly beneficial in undervolting.


----------



## Eroticus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> Reality is the RX480 is very far away from the GTX1070 in both performance and performance/watt.
> 
> The only area the RX480 trumps the GTX1070 is in perf/price, but not even by the huge amount we hoped it would.
> 
> If the GTX1070 was actually available for 379$ then the situation in price/perf for the 239$ 8GB RX480 would look very grim.
> 
> But the cheapest GTX1070 in Europe is 479€ and the cheapest RX480 8GB is 264€.
> 
> The GTX1070 is 46% faster than the RX480 8GB. With current prices for available cards the RX480 8GB has a better price/perf, but if both cards would sell at MSRP the gap would be much much smaller.
> 
> One thing to remember is that higher priced cards have a diminishing return (under normal circumstances). For example the Vanilla Titan at 1000$ was not twice as fast as the 500$ GTX 680.
> 
> The RX480 definitively makes the GTX1070 look better than it actually is. For around 399€ I'd definitively consider it. Sadly it's 479€ for the most ugly MSI plastic card I've ever seen.


GTX 970 was 160% stronger than 960 only for 150$ more.

Nothing has been changed.....


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flopper*
> 
> The target group for the 480 dont care about the 1070.
> they upgrade and double the fps with the 480.
> thats an awesome deal right there.
> you see thats due to having had so many cards in stock and they are literally flying off the shelves the store dont even have time to unpack them before the customers rip them from their hands.
> Thats some insane deal of the year right there with the 480 and no one of those care about anything the 1070 does as its twice the price.
> twice which makes it, sad and tragic obviously EXCEPT for those that did double their fps and are gaming happily with the 480 that is.


The target group of rx480 also cares about having working GPU.

If their system shuts down during gaming, audio dies or god forbid, PCI-E slot itself, do you think they'll like it?

Also, it maybe an insane deal in US, but in Russia 1070 does look like a better offer right now even cost wise. And in EU from what i see it's fairly similar (well, except apparently 1070 is more expensive in EU).


----------



## Eroticus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> The target group of rx480 also cares about having working GPU.
> 
> If their system shuts down during gaming, audio dies or god forbid, PCI-E slot itself, do you think they'll like it?
> 
> Also, it maybe an insane deal in US, but in Russia 1070 does look like a better offer right now even cost wise. And in EU from what i see it's fairly similar (well, except apparently 1070 is more expensive in EU).


In Russia really ?

1 Russian Ruble equals 0.016 US Dollar

How much banks you need to robe ?

Lets troll together

GTX 1070
43000 Russian Ruble equals - 671.529 US Dollar
https://marketmio.ru/model/msi-geforce-gtx-1070-1607mhz-pci-e-3-0-8192mb-8108mhz-256-bit-dvi-hdmi-hdcp-gaming-13910998

RX 480 - 23000 Russian Ruble equals 359.518 US Dollar
https://marketmio.ru/search?text=RX+480

2RX 480 per 1 GTX 1070.

"REALLY GOOD PRICE"


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Eroticus*
> 
> In Russia really ?
> 
> 1 Russian Ruble equals 0.016 US Dollar
> 
> How much banks you need to robe ?
> 
> Lets troll together


You can get an AIB 1070 for 32k rubles. reference rx480 8gb goes for 21k right now.

Is the 11k worth the perfomance, noise et cetera differential? I dare say yes.


----------



## Eroticus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> You can get an AIB 1070 for 32k rubles. reference rx480 8gb goes for 21k right now.
> 
> Is the 11k worth the perfomance, noise et cetera differential? I dare say yes.


GTX 1070
43000 Russian Ruble equals - 671.529 US Dollar
https://marketmio.ru/model/msi-geforce-gtx-1070-1607mhz-pci-e-3-0-8192mb-8108mhz-256-bit-dvi-hdmi-hdcp-gaming-13910998

RX 480 - 23000 Russian Ruble equals 359.518 US Dollar
https://marketmio.ru/search?text=RX+480

2RX 480 per 1 GTX 1070.

"REALLY GOOD PRICE"

Share Store URL + In Stock.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> You can get an AIB 1070 for 32k rubles. reference rx480 8gb goes for 21k right now.
> 
> Is the 11k worth the perfomance, noise et cetera differential? I dare say yes.


Link on that 1070 for 32k rubles?


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Eroticus*
> 
> GTX 1070
> 43000 Russian Ruble equals - 671.529 US Dollar
> https://marketmio.ru/model/msi-geforce-gtx-1070-1607mhz-pci-e-3-0-8192mb-8108mhz-256-bit-dvi-hdmi-hdcp-gaming-13910998
> 
> RX 480 - 23000 Russian Ruble equals 359.518 US Dollar
> https://marketmio.ru/search?text=RX+480
> 
> 2RX 480 per 1 GTX 1070.
> 
> "REALLY GOOD PRICE"
> 
> Share Store URL + In Stock.


http://www.regard.ru/catalog/tovar226665.htm

http://www.xpert.ru/products.php?category_id=835

Here


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> You can get an AIB 1070 for 32k rubles. reference rx480 8gb goes for 21k right now.
> 
> Is the 11k worth the perfomance, noise et cetera differential? I dare say yes.


Stop your absurd trolling.

GTX 1070 is £400-500 here in the UK. Price has even gone up.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/search?sSearch=gtx+1070

RX 480 is £230-250, although seeing as these are all the same, the price is £230:

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/search?sSearch=RX+480

I don't think the 1070 is worth double the price of the AMD card at all. Those 1070 prices are approaching launch 980 Ti prices ffs.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Stop your absurd trolling.
> 
> GTX 1070 is £400-500 here in the UK. Price has even gone up.
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/search?sSearch=gtx+1070
> 
> RX 480 is £230-250, although seeing as these are all the same, the price is £230:
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/search?sSearch=RX+480
> 
> I don't think the 1070 is worth double the price of the AMD card at all. Those 1070 prices are approaching launch 980 Ti prices ffs.


Ye the prices for the 1070 here in the UK are disgusting, imo it makes the card pointless as the point in the 970/1070 was/is great price to performance. If I was in the market atm I would try snag a cheap used 980ti or the better option being to wait it out.


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Stop your absurd trolling.
> 
> GTX 1070 is £400-500 here in the UK. Price has even gone up.
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/search?sSearch=gtx+1070
> 
> RX 480 is £230-250, although seeing as these are all the same, the price is £230:
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/search?sSearch=RX+480
> 
> I don't think the 1070 is worth double the price of the AMD card at all. Those 1070 prices are approaching launch 980 Ti prices ffs.


Is now stating facts with evidence "absurd trolling"?

Also, RIP GBP, apparently.


----------



## Eroticus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> http://www.regard.ru/catalog/tovar226665.htm
> 
> http://www.xpert.ru/products.php?category_id=835
> 
> Here


Ewww insert palit meme.png

Cheapest 1070 here is Gigabyte and will cost you 2500 Israeli New Sheqel equals - 649.81 US Dollar - VAT included.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should be an engineer. You obviously have all the ability to make a mainstream chip perform miracles. Stock = around 970. Could the 970 clock to 980Ti levels of performance? Maxwell clocked pretty well right?
> 
> Right... didn't think so.


How is that post relevant at all to what I mentioned above? When you have two dies of the same size and one performs much better, there must be a reason behind it. Possible explanations are Frequency deficit for 480 (1070 has roughly 40% higher core freq) , lithography and architecture (this is related to the other two). Setting the thernals aside (process plays a big role here), If a 480 with a hefty overclock cannot rival a 1070, this is bad news for future AMD SKUs. If same logic applies to big dies, it might be so that biggest Vega will not even come close to big pascal performance even if their dies are of similar size.and frequencies comparable. Is it clear now?


----------



## Cherryblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> ...
> But the cheapest GTX1070 in Europe is 479€ and the cheapest RX480 8GB is 264€.
> ...


In france I've seen multiple offers under that price for RX 480.

Currently at 260€ with no delivery fee on 2 web merchants (cdiscount, rue du commerce).

CDiscount also has a 500€ offer for cross fire, which makes one card 250€. You could group with someone to buy the two and get only one at 250€, which is not bad for 8go.

... But still I would wait for custom model.

... Yet I didn't even follow my own advice, I was waiting for Polaris for like 6 months and stopped midway 3 weeks ago, buying a Sapphire R9 390X 8go for 285€, when I heard perf wouldn't be higher than this. Well try to understand me guys, Blood and wine was released...







..


----------



## zealord

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cherryblue*
> 
> In france I've seen multiple offers under that price for RX 480.
> 
> Currently at 260€ with no delivery fee on 2 web merchants (cdiscount, rue du commerce).
> 
> CDiscount also has a 500€ offer for cross fire, which makes one card 250€. You could group with someone to buy the two and get only one at 250€, which is not bad for 8go.
> 
> ... But still I would wait for custom model.
> 
> ... I say that, but I was waiting for Polaris for like 6 months and stopped midway 3 weeks ago, buying a Sapphire R9 390X 8go for 285€, when I heard perf wouldn't be higher than this. Well understand me guys, Blood and wine was released...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..


yeah maybe.

I only looked at "in stock" cards.

There were some GTX 1070s for 450€ but the cheapest in stock was 479€


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> How is that post relevant at all to what I mentioned above? When you have two dies of the same size and one performs much better, there must be a reason behind it. Possible explanations are Frequency deficit for 480 (1070 has roughly 40% higher core freq) , lithography and architecture (this is related to the other two). Setting the thernals aside (process plays a big role here), If a 480 with a hefty overclock cannot rival a 1070, this is bad news for future AMD SKUs. If same logic applies to big dies, it might be so that biggest Vega will not even come close to big pascal performance even if their dies are of similar size.and frequencies comparable. Is it clear now?


If it were rival a 1070 there would be something horribly wrong with the 1070. It's simply an unreal expectation.

That said, the 480 market segment for the most part could care less about the engineering ins and outs. All they want is perf/$. If it fits their budget, case and their PSU can handle it.....great! The rest is mostly noise to them.


----------



## Cherryblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zealord*
> 
> yeah maybe.
> 
> I only looked at "in stock" cards.
> 
> There were some GTX 1070s for 450€ but the cheapest in stock was 479€


No problem mate, only 4 or 5 euros less anyway. But still it's available even at this price.


----------



## Cubeman

Submitting my XFX ticket later today. Looks like the slightly stock OC'd XFX pulls higher wattage then the gigabyte cards, which led to my on-board audio failure.


----------



## cainy1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Submitting my XFX ticket later today. Looks like the slightly stock OC'd XFX pulls higher wattage then the gigabyte cards, which led to my on-board audio failure.


Not a good thing to hear... not good at all..

The best of luck to you good sir.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> How is that post relevant at all to what I mentioned above? When you have two dies of the same size and one performs much better, there must be a reason behind it. Possible explanations are Frequency deficit for 480 (1070 has roughly 40% higher core freq) , lithography and architecture (this is related to the other two). Setting the thernals aside (process plays a big role here), If a 480 with a hefty overclock cannot rival a 1070, this is bad news for future AMD SKUs. If same logic applies to big dies, it might be so that biggest Vega will not even come close to big pascal performance even if their dies are of similar size.and frequencies comparable. Is it clear now?


You were claiming that if this card doesn't perform close to a 980 TI when overclocked, it will have been a failure.

My response to you was that if this card performs like a 970 at stock. Logic would dictate that it would perform like a 970 OC when OCed. Even the best OCed 970s never reached 980Ti performance (let alone 1070 performance)


----------



## Eroticus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Submitting my XFX ticket later today. Looks like the slightly stock OC'd XFX pulls higher wattage then the gigabyte cards, which led to my on-board audio failure.


Are you sure ? about 480 ? my Rampage IV died randomly after 8 months of using, i turned off my PC, after i sleep it just didn't turned on back....


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> Is it your lack of knowledge on GPUs and the 14nm process that makes you believe this is a hype train? It's hardly hype, it's science really. 14nm offers 40-50% improvement in clockspeed compared to 28nm.
> 
> And then of course there is this:


It's amazing how often that comment has been quoted here. Last week Kyle was an AMD-hating, Nvidia-shilling laughingstock, and this week he is the definitive word on AIB overclocking. All it took was one positive comment about AMD - it's an American rehabilitation success story.


----------



## KarathKasun

Kyle is fine in my book. He is very harsh when a company screws something up though, which AMD has been doing a lot of lately.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> It's amazing how often that comment has been quoted here. Last week Kyle was an AMD-hating, Nvidia-shilling laughingstock, and this week he is the definitive word on AIB overclocking. All it took was one positive comment about AMD - it's an American rehabilitation success story.


I have no idea who that is nor do I care. Just another random on the net making claims with no proofs.


----------



## flopper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> I have no idea who that is nor do I care. Just another random on the net making claims with no proofs.


Your opinion is noted
Logs evidence (missing)
Logs claims (missing)
random noise in ocforums again


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> You were claiming that if this card doesn't perform close to a 980 TI when overclocked, it will have been a failure.
> 
> My response to you was that if this card performs like a 970 at stock. Logic would dictate that it would perform like a 970 OC when OCed. Even the best OCed 970s never reached 980Ti performance (let alone 1070 performance)


There is no rule to that, I would actually say it is a logical fallacy. We know that GCN on 28nm gained more performance per clock compared to kepler or maxwell. If this is still the case, a 480 should see much larger gains. Btw from the reviews of apparently non throttling cards (computerbase,hardwareluxx) stock 480 is generally faster than stock 970.

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/39615-amd-radeon-rx-480-im-test.html?start=14


----------



## Cubeman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Eroticus*
> 
> Are you sure ? about 480 ? my Rampage IV died randomly after 8 months of using, i turned off my PC, after i sleep it just didn't turned on back....


My rampage IV has been fine for years. Literally happened right after 3dmark was running.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> My rampage IV has been fine for years. Literally happened right after 3dmark was running.


This doesn't bode well for all those people who bought reference.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> My rampage IV has been fine for years. Literally happened right after 3dmark was running.


I dont think the audio issue was caused by a videocard TBH, at least not directly. Pulling more amps on the PCIe slot isnt going to push voltages up, it pulls them down.

Have you tried pulling power/CMOS battery and discharging the caps on the board? Ive had power brownouts cause funky issues on a few boards that persisted until I discharged the board as if I were resetting the CMOS. Things like hyperspeed RTC values (minutes counting like seconds), inoperative NIC's, sound distortion, etc.


----------



## Cubeman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> I dont think the audio issue was caused by a videocard TBH, at least not directly. Pulling more amps on the PCIe slot isnt going to push voltages up, it pulls them down.
> 
> Have you tried pulling power/CMOS battery and discharging the caps on the board? Ive had power brownouts cause funky issues on a few boards that persisted until I discharged the board as if I were resetting the CMOS. Things like hyperspeed RTC values (minutes counting like seconds), inoperative NIC's, sound distortion, etc.


Attempted so, The fact is the audio card has half of it's ports functioning now. Digital out and subwoofer and one other.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Attempted so, The fact is the audio card has half of it's ports functioning now. Digital out and subwoofer and one other.


Yeah, that honestly sounds unrelated unless the sound ASIC is sitting on top of the 12v trace and it got hot enough to cook it or de-solder it. You would have smelled burning at that point though.


----------



## Cubeman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Yeah, that honestly sounds unrelated unless the sound ASIC is sitting on top of the 12v trace and it got hot enough to cook it or de-solder it. You would have smelled burning at that point though.


The cards naturally gave off a light "warm" smell since install. From dual to triple.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> My rampage IV has been fine for years. Literally happened right after 3dmark was running.


Did you provide extra power to the PCIE slots via the 6 pin?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> The cards naturally gave off a light "warm" smell since install. From dual to triple.


No, I mean the smell of burning PCB. Not the "warm" smell of "hot" electronics.


----------



## Clockster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> My rampage IV has been fine for years. Literally happened right after 3dmark was running.


If memory serves there was an issue with the Rampage IV and audio just dying for no good reason.
My Rampage IV died from sitting idle in windows lol


----------



## GorillaSceptre

What a massive fail..







Nice one AMD, like usual. After doing some reading it looks like they might of flipped power draw limits in bios by accident. The 6 pin seems to be locked to 75W and the card instead turns to the PCIE for power.. For what feels like the thousandth time... why a damn 6 pin on a high performance card? Besides this "issue", whoever is considering a 480 should wait for the AIB's anyway, AMD reference cards are always terrible in one way or another.

Having said that, I'm not sure how so many boards are suddenly burning up, particularly high-end ones. They should easily be able to handle the extra current, especially when most of them can supply extra power to the lanes. If there was a break down of cards going over the PCIE spec i bet the percentage would be very high, with overclocking, custom bios, etc.

No need to panic if you already have one, lol. But definitely avoid the reference if you're in the market for one..

Besides the major downer on this launch, I'm still looking forward to what the AIB's can do.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clockster*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> My rampage IV has been fine for years. Literally happened right after 3dmark was running.
> 
> 
> 
> If memory serves there was an issue with the Rampage IV and audio just dying for no good reason.
> My Rampage IV died from sitting idle in windows lol
Click to expand...

could be ASUS, could be AMDevil.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> What a massive fail..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice one AMD, like usual. After doing some reading it looks like they might of flipped power draw limits in bios by accident. The 6 pin seems to be locked to 75W and the card instead turns to the PCIE for power.. For what feels like the thousandth time... why a damn 6 pin on a high performance card? Besides this "issue", whoever is considering a 480 should wait for the AIB's anyway, AMD reference cards are always terrible in one way or another.
> 
> Having said that, I'm not sure how so many boards are suddenly burning up, particularly high-end ones. They should easily be able to handle the extra current, especially when most of them can supply extra power to the lanes. If there was a break down of cards going over the PCIE spec i bet the percentage would be very high, with overclocking, custom bios, etc.
> 
> No need to panic if you already have one, lol. But definitely avoid the reference if you're in the market for one..
> 
> Besides the major downer on this launch, I'm still looking forward to what the AIB's can do.


No substance to that "flipped" claim. Power draw is roughly equal on the slot and the 6 pin connector.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Yeah mostly because 380 was a big meh compared to 980ti which is a really strong gpu
> 
> 380 even failed to beat tahiti the first 28nm gpu
> 
> Also i bet there is polaris 10,11 and vegas 10 and 11. I dont think that amd has the money for the R&D to support more than 4 chips


R9 285 really beat 280 by 5%, now r9 380x didnt outperform 280x by 5%


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> *R9 285 really beat 280 by 5%,* now r9 380x didnt outperform 280x by 5%


Only at fullHD.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> No substance to that "flipped" claim. Power draw is roughly equal on the slot and the 6 pin connector.


It's all speculation.

It's not equal, the 6 pin does not exceed 75W, the PCIE slot does. Some are speculating that AMD might of meant to give the 6 pin a higher power limit, but instead the power controller gives it to the PCIE slot..


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Sapphire Nitro 480 incoming, with a great price too:

- 8-Pin
- DVI Port
- OC out of box (1325-1350MHz region, TBC)
- Black Shroud
- Removable fans for cleaning
- Backplate

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29722219&postcount=10494

Price will be £249.99


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Only at fullHD.


at the time it was released there wasnt a big difference but due to vram probably there is, but 380 fix that


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> It's all speculation.
> 
> It's not equal, the 6 pin does not exceed 75W, the PCIE slot does. Some are speculating that AMD might of meant to give the 6 pin a higher power limit, but instead the power controller gives it to the PCIE slot..


It was roughly equal in all the tests I have seen. ~80w on the slot and ~80w on the 6 pin.

So, no, there is no substance to that rumor.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29722219&postcount=10494
> 
> Price will be £249.99


Overclockers.co.uk are selling Sapphire 8GB model reference design cards for £229.99 Still a 20 quid premium


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> It was roughly equal in all the tests I have seen. ~80w on the slot and ~80w on the 6 pin.
> 
> So, no, there is no substance to that rumor.


Was that the peak stock results? I've seen the the slot pulling 100W.

It looks like the average gaming draw on the PCIE slot is 80W, which is why i don't understand how all these people with high-end boards are burning them up.. The slots are rated for 75W, there's no way 80W is going to blow your board..

Either way, i wouldn't be overclocking these reference cards right now, at least until AMD informs people what's going on/gives a solution. Everything should be perfectly fine at stock, if people want to overclock they should wait for the AIB's with decent coolers and much better power delivery.

The reference cooler underneath the "nice" plastic shroud looks far cheaper/worse than the stock Intel/AMD CPU coolers..


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Was that the peak stock results? I've seen the the slot pulling 100W.
> 
> It looks like the average gaming draw on the PCIE slot is 80W, which is why i don't understand how all these people with high-end boards are burning them up.. The slots are rated for 75W, there's no way 80W is going to blow your board..
> 
> Either way, i wouldn't be overclocking these reference cards right now, at least until AMD informs people what's going on/gives a solution. Everything should be perfectly fine at stock, if people want to overclock they should wait for the AIB's with decent coolers and much better power delivery.


Peak is ~225w. 112w from the slot and 112w from the 6 pin.

The slots are rated for *66w on the 12v line* and 9w on the 3.3v line.


----------



## Slomo4shO

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2499-diy-amd-rx-480-hyrbid-results-with-bigger-overclocking


----------



## Gdourado

When can we expect custom cards to go on sale?


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Peak is ~225w. 112w from the slot and 112w from the 6 pin.
> 
> The slots are rated for *66w on the 12v line* and 9w on the 3.3v line.


Oh, okay then.









There goes that theory.









The slots are good for 75W max before going out of spec.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gene-z*
> 
> Has this been posted yet? Two reports of 480's frying PCIE slots.


Oops?


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> It's amazing how often that comment has been quoted here. Last week Kyle was an AMD-hating, Nvidia-shilling laughingstock, and this week he is the definitive word on AIB overclocking. All it took was one positive comment about AMD - it's an American rehabilitation success story.


AMD sent him a sample so now he is all nice towards AMD again. Kyle cares about one thing alone... himself.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

So the reference board looks like it can be overclocked to 980 performance levels.. Hope is restored for the AIB's.









1500 may still be doable after all, goodbye all efficiency though, but who cares.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Looks like the AIBs are overclocking much higher to make this card really stretch its wings. I only really have two knocks against the card; 8GB version should not exist and I suspect its going to keep all of the good coolers from the 4GB version and power consumption when overclocked.


----------



## keikei

Not sure how accurate the prices are, but: http://techfrag.com/2016/06/30/aftermarket-custom-radeon-rx-480-designs/
Quote:


> Prices for these aftermarket RX 480s is as follows:
> 
> 
> ASUS (S$409) = U.S. $304
> Gigabyte (S$409)= U.S. $304
> HIS (S$389)=U.S. $288
> MSI (S$399)=U.S. $296
> PowerColor (S$388)=U.S. $288
> Sapphire (S$399)=U.S. $296


*edited to U.S. currency. Thanks KarathKasun.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> Not sure how accurate the prices are, but: http://techfrag.com/2016/06/30/aftermarket-custom-radeon-rx-480-designs/
> [/LIST]


Edit: can't read pricing correct, not USD.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> That would be a joke. The only way that would be justified if they are beating 1070's out pretty badly, and well, I think anyone who has been around long enough highly doubts that as well.


Thats in Singapore dollars. ~290 USD.


----------



## Cubeman

Going to do some additional testing later (Removing one card) to see if that fixes my audio issue. Worst case out of all of this guess i go do a new build and ask XFX what they can do... SC 1080 just came into my micro center. Maybe its a sign


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Thats in Singapore dollars. ~290 USD.


Good catch, thanks. $290 is somewhat reasonable, assuming it beats the 980 down...


----------



## NuclearPeace

$290? Why are AIBs so much more expensive than reference when cards before you could get a basic AIB card for at most $10 above reference? $290 hurts the value a lot and not a lot of RX 480 buyers can afford that.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> $290? Why are AIBs so much more expensive than reference when cards before you could get a basic AIB card for at most $10 above reference? $290 hurts the value a lot and not a lot of RX 480 buyers can afford that.


AMD did say $199-$299, that's why most of us were thinking the P10 would clock very well.

I agree, it does suck that the prices are so much higher. But depending on the types of clocks you can get we may see only a small dip in perf/$ with them.

Those prices are also converted to U.S, they may be a lot less depending on what type of import fees, duties, etc. Singapore has.


----------



## SpeedyVT

It appears to me that a lot of people don't understand that the card has to power parts inside of a die which we have *no* voltage control of with exception to core voltage. The core voltage needs more when the GPU is thirsty for power, but if you raise the max GPU power limit by 100% you can dramatically lower the core voltage while raising the it's power limit further. The card is currently artificially locked by power settings.


----------



## FLCLimax

Prices certainly do translate 1:1 from region to region.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

$250-$260 is reasonable for AIBs with mild overclocks. I don't see myself paying $300 for these cards. I'm basically just going to wait until the 1060s come out, and make my decision. Since it's all comparable in terms of Price/Perf. If the leaks are accurate, the GTX 1060 should be "out" in July, which means to market in August, which means actually available September.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> AMD did say $199-$299, that's why most of us were thinking the P10 would clock very well.
> 
> I agree, it does suck that the prices are so much higher. But depending on the types of clocks you can get we may see only a small dip in perf/$ with them.
> 
> Those prices are also converted to U.S, they may be a lot less depending on what type of import fees, duties, etc. Singapore has.


You make good sense. Myes.


----------



## maltamonk

Not going to delve into it too much but via a brief comparison to other Singapore gpu prices, those don't see too bad.


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> $290? Why are AIBs so much more expensive than reference when cards before you could get a basic AIB card for at most $10 above reference? $290 hurts the value a lot and not a lot of RX 480 buyers can afford that.


I guess a markup from the retailer. I remember getting a nitro which price matched that of the reference model. It was released late in the Furys life cycle though.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> It's amazing how often that comment has been quoted here. Last week Kyle was an AMD-hating, Nvidia-shilling laughingstock, and this week he is the definitive word on AIB overclocking. All it took was one positive comment about AMD - it's an American rehabilitation success story.


To be fair more than a few of us only questioned his comments-section rabble rousing. Personally I've not questioned his proficiency, only his professionalism. He gets a bit LiveJournal at times.


----------



## Xuper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cubeman*
> 
> Going to do some additional testing later (Removing one card) to see if that fixes my audio issue. Worst case out of all of this guess i go do a new build and ask XFX what they can do... SC 1080 just came into my micro center. Maybe its a sign


hey buddy, That Avatar , Is that you ?


----------



## andydabeast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> It was roughly equal in all the tests I have seen. ~80w on the slot and ~80w on the 6 pin.
> 
> So, no, there is no substance to that rumor.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> It's all speculation.
> 
> It's not equal, the 6 pin does not exceed 75W, the PCIE slot does. Some are speculating that AMD might of meant to give the 6 pin a higher power limit, but instead the power controller gives it to the PCIE slot..


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> No substance to that "flipped" claim. Power draw is roughly equal on the slot and the 6 pin connector.


So can I just mod the bios to put a max of 75 on the slot and the rest into the 6pin? never modded a bios before...


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andydabeast*
> 
> So can I just mod the bios to put a max of 75 on the slot and the rest into the 6pin? never modded a bios before...


No, power split is determined by board design.


----------



## nagle3092

Running two on a cheap MSI z97 krait, no issues to report yet. Yesterday was alot of benchmarks and playing with wattman. The cards do behave strangely though, it could just be their new overclocking tool though as sometimes the card wouldn't use the voltage that I applied or resetting the same settings previously wouldn't work the second time around.

No destroyed mobo yet. I even ran it at max power target and let it loop around in heaven until temps leveled out and then some. No issues.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Running two on a cheap MSI z97 krait, no issues to report yet. Yesterday was alot of benchmarks and playing with wattman. The cards do behave strangely though, it could just be their new overclocking tool though as sometimes the card wouldn't use the voltage that I applied or resetting the same settings previously wouldn't work the second time around.
> 
> No destroyed mobo yet. I even ran it at max power target and let it loop around in heaven until temps leveled out and then some. No issues.


It was reported in a review, I think the suggestion was to press the reset button between switches.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> You reported the overall score ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
> 
> *Graphics score = 7441*. That's 45% faster than a single 1080 at stock, so most definitely faster than 980 SLI.


Faster than a stock clock 980 SLI, but a nice score nonetheless

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/3961110 7607 Graphics Score OCd 980 SLI


----------



## Final8ty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gibbo;29723592*
> They are smart, this is the far bigger market! 2000 sold at OcUK in just over 24hr !!!!


https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29723592&postcount=75


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Final8ty*
> 
> https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29723592&postcount=75


And yet no real mobo burn issues. smells fishy lol.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> And yet no real mobo burn issues. smells fishy lol.


It's only been 24 hours. Let's wait and see. Bear in mind, if you have 1 pc, and the card fries the mobo, you can't really go onto the internet to complain about it, can you?


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> It's only been 24 hours. Let's wait and see. Bear in mind, if you have 1 pc, and the card fries the mobo, you can't really go onto the internet to complain about it, can you?


Well, unless you've got a mobile phone. I do a lot of complaining with one o'them when my internet connection cuts out.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Bear in mind, if you have 1 pc, and the card fries the mobo, you can't really go onto the internet to complain about it, can you?


Everyone has a smartphone...


----------



## ekg84

Damn, this is getting interesting

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Power-Consumption-Concerns-Radeon-RX-480


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> It's only been 24 hours. Let's wait and see. Bear in mind, if you have 1 pc, and the card fries the mobo, you can't really go onto the internet to complain about it, can you?


I guess it is cheap publicity for AMD. GG WP.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

He was using a Foxcom A78AX-K. The MB is AM2+ 7 years old. Even so it did not break anything. System just shut down. I think if you have a system older then 5 years It's time to upgrade first before the GPU.


----------



## SwishaMane

Newegg just got ASUS RX 480 for sale at 12:30 my time, sold out by 12:55...

BOOM!


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SwishaMane*
> 
> Newegg just got ASUS RX 480 for sale at 12:30 my time, sold out by 12:55...
> 
> BOOM!


https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rx480/

still a lot available


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ekg84*
> 
> Damn, this is getting interesting
> 
> http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Power-Consumption-Concerns-Radeon-RX-480


Quote:


> It seems clear at this point that the new AMD Radeon RX 480 does in fact draw more power through both the motherboard PCI Express connection and the 6-pin power connection than specifications state it should even when running at stock settings in certain gaming scenarios. The overdraw on the 6-pin cable is likely a non-issue; with power coming directly from the power supply and not passing through your motherboard and the fact that most cabling is built to handle higher power draw than we are seeing here, it's very low on my list of concerns. The motherboard power draw is definitely something to keep an eye on though, especially given the voltage droop seen when motherboard traces are loaded to that degree.
> 
> The highest power draw I measured with the RX 480 at stock settings showed 80-85 watts of power draw at over 7A on the +12V line and 4.5-5.0 watts of power draw on the 3.3V line. These were consistent power draw numbers, not intermittent spikes, and users have a right to know how it works. When overclocked, we witnessed motherboard PCIe slot +12V power draw at 95+ watts!
> 
> I asked around our friends in the motherboard business for some feedback on this issue - is it something that users should be concerned about or are modern day motherboards built to handle this type of variance? One vendor told me directly that while spikes as high as 95 watts of power draw through the PCIE connection are tolerated without issue, sustained power draw at that kind of level would likely cause damage. The pins and connectors are the most likely failure points - he didn't seem concerned about the traces on the board as they had enough copper in the power plane to withstand the current.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jprovido*
> 
> https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rx480/
> 
> still a lot available


Everyone is probably avoiding newegg because of their inventory that is holding up orders.


----------



## the9quad

I see a bios revision in the future and lower fps as a result.


----------



## SwishaMane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Everyone is probably avoiding newegg because of their inventory that is holding up orders.


Thats why they are sold out...







?? lol

My order was made Wed., seen their inventory was happening and will delay my order processing until today... Oh well, feelings not hurt. I have inventory to do at my work next week, so i feel the pain. I've waited 5 years for a new GPU, I can wait 3more days...


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SwishaMane*
> 
> Thats why they are sold out...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?? lol
> 
> My order was made Wed., seen their inventory was happening and will delay my order processing until today... Oh well, feelings not hurt. I have inventory to do at my work next week, so i feel the pain. I've waited 5 years for a new GPU, I can wait 3more days...


Sold out you say?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20601203818&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30


----------



## Mirotvorez113

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Sold out you say?
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20601203818&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30


All 4Gb cards are sold out, but they do have few expensive 8Gb cards left. Also, XFX has one with backplate for $10 more, which is awesome









Edit: as soon as I posted that, PowerColor 4Gb is back in stock.


----------



## SwishaMane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Sold out you say?
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20601203818&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30


Eh, I guess not all, give it 7 minutes... I only followed the Sapphire and ASUS 8Gb models. Both sold out within minutes.


----------



## tkenietz

If those prices are correct, the AIBs just priced me out of getting one. No way I'm spending $60-70 over reference.


----------



## MNiceGuy

Do any of you remember the GTX 280 pricing controversy?

Take a minute and have a look: Link

Nvidia launched the GTX 280 at ~$650 and people bought it despite the fact its predecessor, the 9800 GTX, cost ~$325. Just days after the launch, AMD announced they were releasing the HD 4870, a similarly performing card, for just $299. I imagine that was a bad day to be working for Nvidia HQ. At that point, there was no other option for Nvidia than to discount their card and they did so immediately and aggressively. There was a $200 price cut overnight, across the board. Even then the card's value against the AMD offering was questionable.

I'm disappointed that so many in these threads don't understand that rooting for the competition to fail is actually counter productive. There are what, 500-something pages right here OCN littered with people complaining of the GTX 1080 pricing. That's what the world looks like in segments where AMD is not competing. No matter your brand-allegiance, the smart call is hoping like heck AMD smooths this over and continues to grow their product line.

Yes, AMD has a problem on their hands if for no other reason than this issue gaining attention. So far it doesn't sound like there is a proof-positive case where this issue is causing performance degradation or damage to hardware. Now that this is the new, exciting thing people are talking about. people are going to start trying to incite the problem. Remember the bending iPhone 6 Plus? Goodness I wonder how many of those phones were destroyed for no reason. Coincidental issues are also going to get wrongly blamed on the 480. It's only a matter of time before we hear that someone's 8 year-old case fan froze up because their gaming session must have caused the 480 to ask too much.

I'm no engineer but logic suggests that if this was truly a large-scale problem then we would have seen more examples by now especially considering this is marketed at people who might be installing it to older and/or OEM hardware. I'm not denying that there is excessive power draw nor and I denying AMD has potentially made a bad call. I just don't feel that currently this problem is as much of a problem some are playing it out to be.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Sold out you say?


8GB RX 480 for $250

R9 390 + Total War: Warhammer for $260

R9 390X + Total War: Warhammer for $310

GTX 980 for $315

Total War: Warhammer resells for around $35 on ebay.

The reference 480 doesn't look very appealing...

Even if non-reference models start at $259, the price cut GTX 970, GTX 980, R9 390, and R9 390X will eat away at sales considering that these cards actually provide better performance overall...


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MNiceGuy*
> 
> Do any of you remember the GTX 280 pricing controversy?
> 
> Take a minute and have a look: Link
> 
> Nvidia launched the GTX 280 at ~$650 and people bought it despite the fact its predecessor, the 9800 GTX, cost ~$325. Just days after the launch, AMD announced they were releasing the HD 4870, a similarly performing card, for just $299. I imagine that was a bad day to be working for Nvidia HQ. At that point, there was no other option for Nvidia than to discount their card and they did so immediately and aggressively. There was a $200 price cut overnight, across the board. Even then the card's value against the AMD offering was questionable.
> 
> I'm disappointed that so many in these threads don't understand that rooting for the competition to fail is actually counter productive. There are what, 500-something pages right here OCN littered with people complaining of the GTX 1080 pricing. That's what the world looks like in segments where AMD is not competing. No matter your brand-allegiance, the smart call is hoping like heck AMD smooths this over and continues to grow their product line.
> 
> Yes, AMD has a problem on their hands if for no other reason than this issue gaining attention. So far it doesn't sound like there is a proof-positive case where this issue is causing performance degradation or damage to hardware. Now that this is the new, exciting thing people are talking about. people are going to start trying to incite the problem. Remember the bending iPhone 6 Plus? Goodness I wonder how many of those phones were destroyed for no reason. Coincidental issues are also going to get wrongly blamed on the 480. It's only a matter of time before we hear that someone's 8 year-old case fan froze up because their gaming session must have caused the 480 to ask too much.
> 
> I'm no engineer but logic suggests that if this was truly a large-scale problem then we would have seen more examples by now especially considering this is marketed at people who might be installing it to older and/or OEM hardware. I'm not denying that there is excessive power draw nor and I denying AMD has potentially made a bad call. I just don't feel that currently this problem is as much of a problem some are playing it out to be.


From the video that was posted and PCPer's review, it sounds like unless it is an older mobo (like the example one in the video powering down) the problem (if it is one) may actually not show up immediately. I don't agree with the statement that we should have seen more examples by now. If it is a problem as the mobo mfg PCPer talked to suggested, we may not even know the GPU is at fault since it could take time for the mobo to degrade.

edit: agree that I don't want to see AMD's demise. I see very few people rooting for AMD to fail though.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CasualCat*
> 
> From the video that was posted and PCPer's review, it sounds like unless it is an older mobo (like the example one in the video powering down) the problem (if it is one) may actually not show up immediately. I don't agree with the statement that we should have seen more examples by now. If it is a problem as the mobo mfg PCPer talked to suggested, we may not even know the GPU is at fault since it could take time for the mobo to degrade.
> 
> edit: agree that I don't want to see AMD's demise. I see very few people rooting for AMD to fail though.


There is nothing that would degrade over time other than the plastic of the slot. The 12v line on the MB is a simple connection from the 24pin header to the slots. At most there is a current measuring shunt to shut down on overload.


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> There is nothing that would degrade over time other than the plastic of the slot. The 12v line on the MB is a simple connection from the 24pin header to the slots. At most there is a current measuring shunt to shut down on overload.


Well the the Pcper article disagrees with you.
Quote:


> I asked around our friends in the motherboard business for some feedback on this issue - is it something that users should be concerned about or are modern day motherboards built to handle this type of variance? One vendor told me directly that while spikes as high as 95 watts of power draw through the PCIE connection are tolerated without issue, sustained power draw at that kind of level would likely cause damage. The pins and connectors are the most likely failure points - he didn't seem concerned about the traces on the board as they had enough copper in the power plane to withstand the current.


So we may over time see some PCIE slots die. Why are you expecting the plastic to fail?


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MNiceGuy*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you remember the GTX 280 pricing controversy?
> 
> Take a minute and have a look: Link
> 
> Nvidia launched the GTX 280 at ~$650 and people bought it despite the fact its predecessor, the 9800 GTX, cost ~$325. Just days after the launch, AMD announced they were releasing the HD 4870, a similarly performing card, for just $299. I imagine that was a bad day to be working for Nvidia HQ. At that point, there was no other option for Nvidia than to discount their card and they did so immediately and aggressively. There was a $200 price cut overnight, across the board. Even then the card's value against the AMD offering was questionable.
> 
> I'm disappointed that so many in these threads don't understand that rooting for the competition to fail is actually counter productive. There are what, 500-something pages right here OCN littered with people complaining of the GTX 1080 pricing. That's what the world looks like in segments where AMD is not competing. No matter your brand-allegiance, the smart call is hoping like heck AMD smooths this over and continues to grow their product line.
> 
> Yes, AMD has a problem on their hands if for no other reason than this issue gaining attention. So far it doesn't sound like there is a proof-positive case where this issue is causing performance degradation or damage to hardware. Now that this is the new, exciting thing people are talking about. people are going to start trying to incite the problem. Remember the bending iPhone 6 Plus? Goodness I wonder how many of those phones were destroyed for no reason. Coincidental issues are also going to get wrongly blamed on the 480. It's only a matter of time before we hear that someone's 8 year-old case fan froze up because their gaming session must have caused the 480 to ask too much.
> 
> I'm no engineer but logic suggests that if this was truly a large-scale problem then we would have seen more examples by now especially considering this is marketed at people who might be installing it to older and/or OEM hardware. I'm not denying that there is excessive power draw nor and I denying AMD has potentially made a bad call.
> 
> 
> I just don't feel that currently this problem is as much of a problem some are playing it out to be.


There is no problem. The Green shills/fanbois trying to drum up any controversy no matter how trivial to bring down the hype of the card. Nothing new. Unless we see a flood of fried boards that is what we are seeing. Green team in full force. The fact that you need a board that is far past its warranty/life to create this 'issue' says volumes on the other sides desparation. I rarely bring up sides, but this is ridiculous. While there are some concerns from neutral people, i believe most of the outcry is obvious trolling.


----------



## MNiceGuy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CasualCat*
> 
> edit: agree that I don't want to see AMD's demise. I see very few people rooting for AMD to fail though.


That's a fair point. I suppose I was being a little sensational myself. My point was toward the level of enthusiasm some folks seem to have that AMD has slipped up or could face long-term repercussions.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CasualCat*
> 
> Well the the Pcper article disagrees with you.
> So we may over time see some PCIE slots die. Why are you expecting the plastic to fail?


I think you may have misinterpreted that comment. It's saying that the level to which the power draw spiked is not a problem as it was only momentary. In the event the power draw _consistently_ reached that level then damage could follow.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> There is no problem. The Green shills/fanbois trying to drum up any controversy no matter how trivial to bring down the hype of the card. Nothing new. Unless we see a flood of fried boards that is what we are seeing. Green team in full force. The fact that you need a board that is far past its warranty/life to create this 'issue' says volumes on the other sides desparation. I rarely bring up sides, but this is ridiculous. While there are some concerns from neutral people, i believe most of the outcry is obvious trolling.


As a few reasonable people have said, with the sales numbers on this card any real issue will become very visible presently. I'll wait until we hear of a veritable black plague of motherboards dying left and right before I call it a 'debacle' as some of our verdant friends are so keen on doing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MNiceGuy*
> 
> That's a fair point. I suppose I was being a little sensational myself. My point was toward the level of enthusiasm some folks seem to have that AMD has slipped up or could face long-term repercussions.
> 
> Fairly common in enthusiast forums. Most of the AMD 'fanboys' are people that say they're tired of overpaying for Intel/Nvidia and hope AMD can pull off a big win. It's the Nvidia fanboys that seem to have a fascination with burning ants under magnifying lenses or something as they take a perverse joy in the failures of a massive underdog that poses no real threat to their spiritual liege JHH.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I call it a 'debacle' as some of our verdant friends are so keen on doing.


The debacle was launching a product that is severely power limited. If you can undervolt the card and get extra performance then there is definitely something wrong with the product launch.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> 8GB RX 480 for $250
> 
> R9 390 + Total War: Warhammer for $260
> 
> R9 390X + Total War: Warhammer for $310
> 
> GTX 980 for $315
> 
> Total War: Warhammer resells for around $35 on ebay.
> 
> The reference 480 doesn't look very appealing...
> 
> Even if non-reference models start at $259, the price cut GTX 970, GTX 980, R9 390, and R9 390X will eat away at sales considering that these cards actually provide better performance overall...


While I agree that 480 reference is no stunner,in my book it rendered every other card south of 350 obsolete. New arch with years of driver improvements and memory make it a better buy than any comparable 28nm card. Crazy used deals aside, there is no reason to buy any card other than 1070-1080-480 right now.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The debacle was launching a product that is severely power limited. If you can undervolt the card and get extra performance then there is definitely something wrong with the product launch.


I don't disagree with that at all. I'm only addressing the idea that in some giddy green goblin's fantasy world 480's are popping motherboards like champagne corks.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The debacle was launching a product that is severely power limited. If you can undervolt the card and get extra performance then there is definitely something wrong with the product launch.


Something is up with these cards, not sure if its drivers, bios or design but there is definitely some power issues. That being said I still like them. I haven't used crossfire since 6XXX and its was smooth as butter yesterday in everything I tried.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> While I agree that 480 reference is no stunner,in my book it rendered every other card south of 350 obsolete. New arch with years of driver improvements and memory make it a better buy than any comparable 28nm card. Crazy used deals aside, there is no reason to buy any card other than 1070-1080-480 right now.


It can't match the performance of the 390 or 390X but somehow makes them obsolete even when they are priced within 10% of the RX 480?









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I don't disagree with that at all. I'm only addressing the idea that in some giddy green goblin's fantasy world 480's are popping motherboards like champagne corks.


There is always someone out there wanting to see the world burn


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I don't disagree with that at all. I'm only addressing the idea that in some giddy green goblin's fantasy world 480's are popping motherboards like champagne corks.


Most of those are giddy green strawmen.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It can't match the performance of the 390 or 390X but somehow makes them obsolete even when they are priced within 10% of the RX 480?


I'm so confused by this... if anything this thing is pretty much consistently on par with a 390.. and in cases better. The fact that it just released and has wonky performance issues that can be sorted out there is clearly a lot of potential in this card...

And if I was in the market for a card, no I would not consider a 970, 980 or 290/290x/390/390x at this point over this.

AIB's will be the obvious choice.

Shame about the reference cards... I actually typically prefer blower cards just to dump the heat out and this is the best looking blower card AMD has released IMO. Better power delivery and beefier heatsink would have been nice out of the gate but oh well.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Something is up with these cards, not sure if its drivers, bios or design but there is definitely some power issues. That being said I still like them. I haven't used crossfire since 6XXX and its was smooth as butter yesterday in everything I tried.


That's the thing, they're still good cards, and the AIB's are likely to show more of what they can do. I'll agree to terms like 'debacle' when we're talking about them from a technical or an engineering standpoint, even though I'd say more underwhelming than than enraging or anything. But for day to day use and particularly for the average consumer, none of that matters as much as the almighty perf/$ and these RX 480 hits a decent sweet spot there.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm so confused by this... if anything this thing is pretty much consistently on par with a 390.. and in cases better.


Are we looking at the same benchmarks?


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MNiceGuy*
> 
> That's a fair point. I suppose I was being a little sensational myself. My point was toward the level of enthusiasm some folks seem to have that AMD has slipped up or could face long-term repercussions.
> I think you may have misinterpreted that comment. It's saying that the level to which the power draw spiked is not a problem as it was only momentary. In the event the power draw _consistently_ reached that level then damage could follow.


I'll go back an reread that section, but I was under the impression their OC card was regularly hitting >95W on the 12V. So maybe not sitting at 95, but not an occasional spike either.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Are we looking at the same benchmarks?


http://www.techspot.com/review/1198-amd-radeon-rx-480/page2.html

it's either slightly below, slightly ahead or matched.. on pretty much all review sites. Factoring in margin of error, yea I'd say it matches a 390 just fine. 970/390 are head to head and the same can be said for them where one of the other is either slightly below, slightly ahead or matched.

Let's be realistic here, the 390x/980 are within spitting distance of both a 390 and 970 for most titles.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Let's be realistic here, the 390x/980 are within spitting distance of both a 390 and 970 for most titles.


The R9 390 was rebranded last year and launched for $329 to compete with the GTX 970 that was launched 2 years ago for $329. Now you have a product with marginally inferior, equal, or marginally superior performance for $240. Grats on waiting 2 years to save $90... or did you?




Lets be realistic here, the RX 480 is a polished turd that still fails to compete with 2-3 year old products. Whether it is in spitting distance or not, it still trails in performance when compared to the 390X or 980. Any claims for low power consumption also go out the window as soon as you overclock...


----------



## Transmaniacon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> 8GB RX 480 for $250
> 
> R9 390 + Total War: Warhammer for $260
> 
> R9 390X + Total War: Warhammer for $310
> 
> GTX 980 for $315
> 
> Total War: Warhammer resells for around $35 on ebay.
> 
> The reference 480 doesn't look very appealing...
> 
> Even if non-reference models start at $259, the price cut GTX 970, GTX 980, R9 390, and R9 390X will eat away at sales considering that these cards actually provide better performance overall...


You do realize this is temporary right? Those GPUS are no longer in production and retailers are putting them at closeout prices so they sell. There is always a small window during new product launches where you can get some crazy deals on last years hardware. I would wager in 2-3 weeks all those deals will be gone, and we will be comparing the RX 480 to the GTX 1060 like it should be.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The R9 390 was rebranded last year and launched for $329 to compete with the GTX 970 that was launched 2 years ago for $329. Now you have a product with marginally inferior, equal, or marginally superior performance for $240. Grats on waiting 2 years to save $90... or did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be realistic here, the RX 480 is a polished turd that still fails to compete with 2-3 year old products. Whether it is in spitting distance or not, it still trails in performance when compared to the 390X or 980. Any claims for low power consumption also go out the window as soon as you overclock...


It's good cause it's cheap!!!!!1111

None of those things matter because it's dirt cheap









Got a saying here "pay cheap buy dear", i.e if you cheap out and buy something just cause it's cheap you end up paying for it like people are atm with broken mother boards or cards downclocking and under performing etc. Or having to upgrade sooner than you would have if you got the better card meaning it would be more expensive in the long run.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The R9 390 was rebranded last year and launched for $329 to compete with the GTX 970 that was launched 2 years ago for $329. Now you have a product with marginally inferior, equal, or marginally superior performance for $240. Grats on waiting 2 years to save $90... or did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Lets be realistic here, the RX 480 is a polished turd that still fails to compete with 2-3 year old products*. Whether it is in spitting distance or not, it still trails in performance when compared to the 390X or 980. Any claims for low power consumption also go out the window as soon as you overclock...


Do you read what you write? Is there a better card in this price range? Does Nvidia have a current card out now to compete with it? Can you even find a gtx1070 at msrp? Did I say it matches the 390x or 980?

The answer to all of the above is no. With a strong emphasis on the first question.

It's actually more embarrassing that amd's rebranded cards are faster than Nvidia's offerings in the same segment. But you wouldn't dare point that out would you?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The R9 390 was rebranded last year and launched for $329 to compete with the GTX 970 that was launched 2 years ago for $329. Now you have a product with marginally inferior, equal, or marginally superior performance for $240. Grats on waiting 2 years to save $90... or did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be realistic here, the RX 480 is a polished turd that still fails to compete with 2-3 year old products. Whether it is in spitting distance or not, it still trails in performance when compared to the 390X or 980. Any claims for low power consumption also go out the window as soon as you overclock...


Yep, I agree.

This card should have been 4GB only, clocked at 1150 and priced at $179.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CasualCat*
> 
> Well the the Pcper article disagrees with you.
> So we may over time see some PCIE slots die. Why are you expecting the plastic to fail?


The problem with long term high current operation is the heat generated at points of high resistance. The card edge and 24pin plug are the points of high resistance.


----------



## Transmaniacon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Do you read what you write? Is there a better card in this price range? Does Nvidia have a current card out now to compete with it? Can you even find a gtx1070 at msrp? Did I say it matches the 390x or 980?
> 
> The answer to all of the above is no. With a strong emphasis on the first question.


Not to mention we haven't even seen the full capability of the RX 480 yet. With board partners releasing their versions with additional power delivery, we should see higher stable OCs and better performance.


----------



## formula m

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The R9 390 was rebranded last year and launched for $329 to compete with the GTX 970 that was launched 2 years ago for $329. Now you have a product with marginally inferior, equal, or marginally superior performance for $240. Grats on waiting 2 years to save $90... or did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be realistic here, the RX 480 is a polished turd that still fails to compete with 2-3 year old products. Whether it is in spitting distance or not, it still trails in performance when compared to the 390X or 980. Any claims for low power consumption also go out the window as soon as you overclock...


So, let me get this right.

If you were building a rig for a neighbor who plans on playing something like Overwatch. You would build that rig with a power hungry R9 390x, instead of the low power rx480..?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Yep, I agree.
> 
> This card should have been 4GB only, clocked at 1150 and priced at $179.


Again how is that going to help? This card was targeting R9 290/GTX970 because those are the entry to VR. VR was the selling point of this card. Also is this card was 1150MHz then people with overclocks would still face the same problem. Overclocked or not you will still RMA the card. AMD does not benefit from this at all.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Are we looking at the same benchmarks?


What benchmarks are you looking at? Tpu has it 3% >390 in 1080p performance summary and 99% of 390 at 1440p

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html

Also it's a reference card, 390 had no reference. You could call the 390 an aib oc'd 290, in which the reference 480 is 10% better at 1080p and 6% better at 1440p


----------



## CasualCat

As far as 390/390x they're not EOL yet are they?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Again how is that going to help? This card was targeting R9 290/GTX970 because those are the entry to VR. VR was the selling point of this card. Also is this card was 1150MHz then people with overclocks would still face the same problem. Overclocked or not you will still RMA the card. AMD does not benefit from this at all.


I do wonder about the VR marketing strategy. Someone throwing down $600-$800 for VR probably isn't going to scoff at paying more than $200 for a GPU. I don't think there is a huge intersection of these two markets at the moment (VR and mainstream GPUs).


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CasualCat*
> 
> As far as 390/390x they're not EOL yet are they?


Not yet, when do become EOL, should be able to readily pick them up cheaper than the RX 480 as they are being liquidated.


----------



## Transmaniacon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> They sold the the R9 390 and R9 390X for comparable prices since last year... The GTX 970 was around $270 since Nov 2015


The GTX 970 dropped to $290 in November (Black Friday) but was still over $300 until May of this year when Pascal was announced, according to CamelCamelCamel.

The R9 390 was always around $330 and only recently was lowered with the RX 480 on the way.

Regardless, the RX 480 offers the same performance for almost $100 less.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Transmaniacon*
> 
> The GTX 970 dropped to $290 in November (Black Friday) but was still over $300 until May of this year when Pascal was announced, according to CamelCamelCamel.
> 
> The R9 390 was always around $330 and only recently was lowered with the RX 480 on the way.


I suppose the data for multiple vendors available at pcpartpicker is invalid since it doesn't match the Amazon only pricing from CamelCamelCamel


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CasualCat*
> 
> As far as 390/390x they're not EOL yet are they?
> I do wonder about the VR marketing strategy. Someone throwing down $600-$800 for VR probably isn't going to scoff at paying more than $200 for a GPU. I don't think there is a huge intersection of these two markets at the moment (VR and mainstream GPUs).


there are 300usd kits, also in CF they are a really good choice if VR uses DX12+ASync / SFR /Multiadapter


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> there are 300usd kits, also in CF they are a really good choice if VR uses DX12+ASync / SFR /Multiadapter


Wouldn't the extra latency of crossfire be a really big problem for VR?


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> Wouldn't the extra latency of crossfire be a really big problem for VR?


VR doesnt use AFR with liquidVR. Each gpu renders the frame of each eye


----------



## CasualCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> VR doesnt use AFR with liquidVR. Each gpu renders the frame of each eye


That's cool, how much effort on the devs part to implement that? Would be nice to see CF/SLI be an easy choice to make at least for VR.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CasualCat*
> 
> That's cool, how much effort on the devs part to implement that? Would be nice to see CF/SLI be an easy choice to make at least for VR.


I don't know but it should be easier than AFR


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> R9 290 & R9 290X
> 
> Just because you are ignorant of historical prices doesn't mean such prices didn't exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Low power RX 480? I suppose if the neighbor was concerned by power usage he could always opt for the more efficient GTX 980 or 980 Ti


LOLWUT

R9 290 and R9 290X Launched at double the price of the RX 480.

GTX 980 is about equal in efficiency.

1/10 wasnt interesting or believable.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> LOLWUT
> 
> R9 290 and R9 290X Launched at double the price of the RX 480.


I really don't care what you want to believe or not. The data is there to prove otherwise.




R9 290 deals from 2014:
http://slickdeals.net/e/7288384-his-iceq-x2-radeon-r9-290-oc-4gb-video-card-3-amd-games-230-after-20-rebate-free-shipping?v=1&src=SiteSearch
http://slickdeals.net/e/7380162-gigabyte-r9-290-222-ac-ar-newegg?v=1&src=SiteSearch
http://slickdeals.net/e/7412008-sapphire-radeon-r9-290-tri-x-video-card-4gb-gddr5-3-games-199-99-ar-vco-td?v=1&src=SiteSearch
http://slickdeals.net/e/7512064-asus-directcu-ii-oc-radeon-r9-290-4gb-198-99-free-shipping-ar-w-masterpass-checkout-rakuten?v=1&src=SiteSearch
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 1/10 wasnt interesting or believable.


I bet you were quick to belive that the R9 280X rebrand for $299 was a good value even though HD 7970s were selling for less than $275 months before the rebrand launch


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> I really don't care what you want to believe or not. The data is there to prove otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R9 290 deals from 2014:
> http://slickdeals.net/e/7288384-his-iceq-x2-radeon-r9-290-oc-4gb-video-card-3-amd-games-230-after-20-rebate-free-shipping?v=1&src=SiteSearch
> http://slickdeals.net/e/7380162-gigabyte-r9-290-222-ac-ar-newegg?v=1&src=SiteSearch
> http://slickdeals.net/e/7412008-sapphire-radeon-r9-290-tri-x-video-card-4gb-gddr5-3-games-199-99-ar-vco-td?v=1&src=SiteSearch
> http://slickdeals.net/e/7512064-asus-directcu-ii-oc-radeon-r9-290-4gb-198-99-free-shipping-ar-w-masterpass-checkout-rakuten?v=1&src=SiteSearch


Were those in 2013? Do they have HDMI 2.0? How much power do they use?

People make this same argument every time an old flagship gets replaced with a newer smaller card at the same performance level.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

I don't think they should of sold them for $179 or anything like that.. These things when given sufficient cooling, even with the severely limited reference board and 6 pin are getting to 1400Mhz+. At those speeds they match/exceed the 980, and more or less match a 390X.

What AMD should of done is what Nvidia, and only Nvidia seem smart enough to do, don't release any reference cards.. Like the 960. They should of let the AIB's duke it out for the best price and performance in the $199- $300 range.

I think the custom 480's are going to be completely different, there's too many rumors about these getting over 1500+ for them to not be somewhat true.. At those speeds they'll be threatening the Fury. The reference boards are a major downer to this chip..

Having said that, even the reference 480 is still the best price/performance card on the market, and even though the 970 isn't that far behind under DX11, it's going to be a different story when it comes to Vulkan/DX12. Even when excluding things like Async, new features, etc. It's still just better hardware than the 970 is, all with day one drivers mind you, and we all know how the long game plays out for AMD..

I just wish there was never a reference card to begin with.. Even though this isn't a high-end card, it's still a "performance" card, so why the hell they put a 6 pin on it I'll never know.. Oh wait, it was ironically meant to separate themselves from the AIB's..


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Really? Considering that this is the first product launch that failed to match or exceed the performance of the previous generation, I find your deduction faulty and tainted with bias


This is a mid range card replacing the 380(X) price point. This was its intended market. I was not targeted at replacing anything in the 330+ price range. The R9 290 and R9 290X are cheap because they are OLD.

I find your deduction to be faulty and tainted by unrealistic expectations.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> R9 290 & R9 290X
> 
> Just because you are ignorant of historical prices doesn't mean such prices didn't exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Low power RX 480? I suppose if the neighbor was concerned by power usage he could always opt for the more efficient GTX 980 or 980 Ti


I sure hope the GTX 1060 outperforms the 480 by a good bit. Otherwise you'd be forced to call it useless too. Can't have that... can we.

Oh and god forbid it costs more than $260. Because that would mean that its price/performance is even worse than the 8GB 480.


----------



## sugarhell

For real Slomo. You just spam all the threads with the same logic. Yeah we got it that for you and your logic this is not a good card. Especially when you compare msrp with sales of EOL products. But 480x is here to stay at this price 199$ and soon they will stop selling 970 and 980. It's the same logic as 980 vs 780 ti, 1070 vs 980 ti etc etc. Also you forget a big factor. The prices of 970 are not that good everywhere. Here it still cost 400 bucks vs 305 of 480 for 4gb vs 8gb VRam.

Because for you it is a better deal to get an older generation card because of the sales it doesnt apply to everyone.

Still stop spaming all the threads with the same thing. We got it


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I love watching the drool and froth coming out of Slomo's mouth! He's really taking it personally that nobody is buying any of his crap. The 480 is the unquestioned best performance you can buy for anywhere near $200 and he knows it. So he's getting more and more hysterical with every post! Please do continue Slomo, this is hilarious!


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Really? Considering that this is the first product launch that failed to match or exceed the performance of the previous generation, I find your deduction faulty and tainted with bias


pretty sure it passes the 380x by around 40%. And idk how you still can't understand that it beats the 390 in 1080p, on day 1.

You understand that this is the RX 4*8*0 right?


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Lets be realistic here, the RX 480 is a polished turd that still fails to compete with 2-3 year old products. Whether it is in spitting distance or not, it still trails in performance when compared to the 390X or 980. Any claims for low power consumption also go out the window as soon as you overclock...


The 480 is supposed to replace the 380 and it delivers 40% more performance for the same price. It is not to be compared to higher tiers card.

One month ago you couldn't buy a 970 for 200 bucks new,you still can't now.

If you want to compare it to 500+ USD MSRP cards go ahead but you're just pathethic.

Also who would have guessed that if you overclock...the stock power figures aren't the same anymore....CRAZY RIGHT?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Also who would have guessed that if you overclock...the stock power figures aren't the same anymore....CRAZY RIGHT?


Yeah, but power usage is insane for the performance (when you compare to Pascal). The power efficiency AMD spoke of went straight out the window when they had to clock the card high enough to compete/surpass the 970.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> 480 looks bad in terms of p/watt because it seems that the gpu is out of the sweet spot of perf/watt . I will wait for 470 and polaris 11 to judge more


^^^^^


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Yeah, but power usage is insane for the performance. The power efficiency AMD spoke of went straight out the window when they had to clock the card high enough to compete/surpass the 970.


Pretty much this. It still lands at 2x perf/w compared to HD 7970/R9 280X though.


----------



## GoLDii3

In another news:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29725101&postcount=167

Gibbo says RX 480 Nitro is going to be aviable for preorder tomorrow....2000 units.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Yeah, but power usage is insane for the performance (when you compare to Pascal). The power efficiency AMD spoke of went straight out the window when they had to clock the card high enough to compete/surpass the 970.


That's why I don't think that the 480 as we have it now was necessarily as it was intended to be. We'll know more once we see the perf/watt on the 460 and 470 to get a better overview of the entire Polaris range but it seems that for the size of P10 the 480 is pushing the limits of what it can do. It would explain quite a bit if there is substantial efficiency loss beyond a certain performance point. I think that the AIB 480's will be solid performers and more efficient than previous AMD cards but will lose some ground on the efficiency gains relative to the 460, 470, and obviously the reference 480. Either way it's still moving in terms of sales due to perf/$ and that's the primary metric the mainstream market operates on.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> I sure hope the GTX 1060 outperforms the 480 by a good bit. Otherwise you'd be forced to call it useless too. Can't have that... can we.


Yes, because I have a track record of supporting Nvidia price hikes.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> This is a mid range card replacing the 380(X) price point. This was its intended market. I was not targeted at replacing anything in the 330+ price range. The R9 290 and R9 290X are cheap because they are OLD.


By your own logic, the "mid-range" 380(X) lineup was initially launched as the the HD 7970 for $500 and then relaunched as the HD 7970 GHz Edition for $ 450 and then it was rebranded as the R9 380(X) for $299 and was eventually refreshed as the larger Tonga part that is the $229 R9 380(X)

Let us see what is going on with Hawaii...
Hawaii was initially launched as the the R9 290(X) for $550 and then it was rebranded as the R9 390(X) for $430 and was eventually refreshed as the smaller Polaris part that is the $239 RX 480

Notice any parallels?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I love watching the drool and froth coming out of Slomo's mouth! *He's really taking it personally* that nobody is buying any of his crap. The 480 is the unquestioned best performance you can buy for anywhere near $200 and he knows it. So he's getting more and more hysterical with every post! Please do continue Slomo, this is hilarious!


Oh you wish. I enjoy watching morons fall for marketing gimmicks and then continue to backpedal and justify their purchasing decisions. Speaking of which, how is that RX 480 treating ya?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> For real Slomo. You just spam all the threads with the same logic. Yeah we got it that for you and your logic this is not a good card. Especially when you compare msrp with sales of EOL products.
> 
> Still stop spaming all the threads with the same thing. We got it


[in hominid voice)
Bashing AMD Bad!
Bashing Nvidia Good!

Yea yea... I get it


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> That's why I don't think that the 480 as we have it now was necessarily as it was intended to be. We'll know more once we see the perf/watt on the 460 and 470 to get a better overview of the entire Polaris range but it seems like for the size of P10 the 480 is pushing the limits of what it can do. It would explain quite a bit if there is substantial efficiency loss beyond a certain performance point. I think that the AIB 480's will be solid performers and more efficient than previous AMD cards but will lose some ground on the efficiency gains relative to the 460, 470, and obviously the reference 480. Either way it's still moving in terms of sales due to perf/$ and that's the primary metric the mainstream market operates on.


Yeah, their price/performance looks like it's going to be through the roof, if all the talk is to be believed..

The p/w is going to go down the drain though, but it can't be worse than AMD's previous cards. And if they get within spitting distance of a Fury then i doubt anyone will complain.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Yes, because I have a track record of supporting Nvidia price hikes.


Uh just because you mudsling both brands it still does not change the fact it's mudsling...move along,nice try though.

Your argument is pretty lame,you're backlashing on a card that has nothing to hate besides the PCI-E problem. Comparing it to previous flagships and getting salty that it doest no live to your expectations.

Is this GTX 1070 redux again? Old users salty at their card getting obsolete? Sure it does look like,because at this point there's no rational way to explain your behaviour.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Yes, because I have a track record of supporting Nvidia price hikes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your own logic, the "mid-range" 380(X) lineup was initially launched as the the HD 7970 for $500 and then relaunched as the HD 7970 GHz Edition for $ 450 and then it was rebranded as the R9 380(X) for $299 and was eventually refreshed as the larger Tonga part that is the $229 R9 380(X)
> 
> Let us see what is going on with Hawaii...
> Hawaii was initially launched as the the R9 290(X) for $550 and then it was rebranded as the R9 390(X) for $430 and was eventually refreshed as the smaller Polaris part that is the $239 RX 480
> 
> Notice any parallels?
> Oh you wish. I enjoy watching morons fall for marketing gimmicks and then continue to backpedal and justify their purchasing decisions. Speaking of which, how is that RX 480 treating ya?
> [in hominid voice)
> Bashing AMD Bad!
> Bashing Nvidia Good!
> 
> Yea yea... I get it


Sure, the 780 Ti ($700) was refreshed as the GTX 970 ($330) which was then refreshed as the 1060 ($300). I can use that logic on NV's lineup too. Every time there is a refresh the performance levels get pushed down the product stack. Its been that way for quite some time now.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The debacle was launching a product that is severely power limited. If you can undervolt the card and get extra performance then there is definitely something wrong with the product launch.


This just screams to me that they didn't (have time/money) to properly bin the chips (or they didn't want too many salvage chips) and they just slapped on a one-size-fits-all (over)voltage and called it a day.

As I mentioned in another post, Intel had the exact same issue with mobile Haswell CPUs.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Yeah, their price/performance looks like it's going to be through the roof, if all the talk is to be believed..
> 
> The p/w is going to go down the drain though, but it can't be worse than AMD's previous cards. And if they get within spitting distance of a Fury then i doubt anyone will complain.


Except it'll likely take ~250 watts to get it there. People will complain. They always find something to complain about. It's in our nature.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> R9 290 & R9 290X


Ok, we are basing pricing on specials and sales, not msrp or actual pricing. I mean, everyone you posted included using a mail in rebate, but that's cool. Oh and those were all 290's, not 290x's. Hit me back when you find actual normalizing pricing for $199.00 without any discounts.

With that mindset you should be excited that with the types of deals and rebates you showed these cards are going to be around $150! Sign me up.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> Wouldn't the extra latency of crossfire be a really big problem for VR?


Asynchronous shaders and SFR should solve that


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It can't match the performance of the 390 or 390X but somehow makes them obsolete even when they are priced within 10% of the RX 480?


It roughly matches them on 1080/1440, it is cheaper, consumes less has untapped performance as every new design and will receive driver support for longer periods . You must be crazy to get a 390 now. Just look what 7870 did to GTX580 18 months down the road. Same thing will happen with Hawaii / Granada and Polaris


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> It roughly matches them on 1080/1440, it is cheaper, consumes less has untapped performance as every new design and will receive driver support for longer periods . You must be crazy to get a 390 now. Just look what 7870 did to GTX580 18 months down the road. Same thing will happen with Hawaii / Granada and Polaris


it matches 390x 1080p< but above 1440 the bandwidth/ROPs seem to be a bottleneck, and also depending on the game because some at 1080 seem to use more SPs than Clock speed


----------



## NicksTricks007

@Cubeman

You made the tech news buddy lol.

http://www.techspot.com/news/65435-amd-radeon-rx-480-reportedly-overdrawing-power-pcie.html


----------



## SuperZan

And so the great circle continues.


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CasualCat*
> 
> That's cool, how much effort on the devs part to implement that? Would be nice to see CF/SLI be an easy choice to make at least for VR.


Quite easy... as easy as programming Asynchronous compute + graphics. At least as per Dan Baker it is quite easy.


----------



## Iscaria

Just finished my benchmarks and reviewing for the RX 480. Feel free to check out the post guys!

http://www.overclock.net/t/1604690/rx-480-unboxing-and-initial-review


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> it matches 390x 1080p< but above 1440 the bandwidth/ROPs seem to be a bottleneck, and also depending on the game because some at 1080 seem to use more SPs than Clock speed


Actually, there have been one or two reviews showing clock speed drops going from 1080 > 1440 > 4k being ~ 40-60mhz. This issue is likely to be remedied with AIB cards, unfortunate for the reference 480, but that heatsink reminds me of taking apart pentium 3 rigs


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> This issue is likely to be remedied with AIB cards, unfortunate for the reference 480, but that heatsink reminds me of taking apart pentium 3 rigs










- I still kept a ton of those heatsinks until recently


----------



## C2H5OH

Power usage - mower usage
Quote:


> They are smart, this is the far bigger market! 2000 sold at OcUK in just over 24hr !!!!


https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29723592&postcount=75

Let's hope that this will give AMD the long needed breathing room and the much needed R&D money

Edit:
Quote:


> Sapphire Nitro is on the way - I hope to see benchmarks soon (Again courtesy to Gibbo)
> - 8-Pin
> - DVI Port
> - OC out of box (1325-1350MHz region, TBC)
> - Black Shroud
> - Removable fans for cleaning
> - Backplate


https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29722219&postcount=10494


----------



## 12Cores

When can we expect the AIB cards?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *12Cores*
> 
> When can we expect the AIB cards?


Probably will start going on sale by the end of next week, if not the week after...


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> It's amazing how often that comment has been quoted here. Last week Kyle was an AMD-hating, Nvidia-shilling laughingstock, and this week he is the definitive word on AIB overclocking. All it took was one positive comment about AMD - it's an American rehabilitation success story.


I don't have a problem with HardOCP, never did. From my understanding they were originally called out for being AMD fanboys, and now are considered NVIDIA fanboys. So honestly, I don't really care what other people's opinions are. Because regardless of whether they are pro-AMD or pro-NVIDIA it seems they are criticized.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Who cares about personal feelings toward Kyle really? Unless he is flat out lying the fact remains that he was told to expect 1480-1600MHz OC's from the AIB cards which actually lines up with the numerous rumors we have had for a while that stated the same. Its interesting that the response to this news is to attack AMD fans as hypocrites for quoting Kyle all of the sudden rather than dealing with the substance of his reporting. A 1600MHz 480 with custom PCB, high end cooling, and dual power connectors should perform well beyond an OC 980 and very near (if not more than) a Fury X for less than $300 in all likelihood. I get that the power efficiency will plummet from the already underwhelming level of the reference card but that doesn't really matter to most people who just want performance (I bought two 580 Lightning's which were ridiculous with efficiency). Anybody trying to spin this as no big deal are fooling themselves. Fury X performance out of a $300 card with beefy cooling and PCB would easily be a better deal than a 1070 at $450 in terms of p/p though, as stated, Pascal simply kicks Polaris' ass in efficiency no question. Of course if you need 1070 performance the 480 is not your card anyway but if you can only spend up to $300 a 1600MHz 480 would bring unprecedented performance to that price bracket, just as the referecnce card brings to the $200 price bracket (regardless of what the usual suspects would have you believe, hilariously recommending EOL cards that are still no where near $200 and slower)...

EDIT - Admittedly I did forget the silicon lottery comment so we will have to see how likely/unlikely getting these 1600MHz cards ends up being but the silicon lottery has been a thing for as long as their have been computer chips (look at the 1080 FTW's that can't even manage 2GHz)...


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

PowerColor Radeon RX 480 DEVIL
Quote:


> Fully custom PCB, triple-fan design and 8-pin power connector is what PowerColor team is currently working on.
> 
> A friend who took this spy picture told us that PowerColor RX 480 DEVIL will overclock over 1.4 GHz, however the exact specs are not yet finalized.


http://videocardz.com/61769/exclusive-powercolor-radeon-rx-480-devil-pictured


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'm getting whichever AIB 480 is best as soon as they are out to replace my 270X. For the way I use my studio PC the reference would be just fine (and still a huge upgrade) but there's no reason not to go AIB considering how much more fun they are going to be to OC and bench! I can't wait to see the 1600MHz 480 numbers...


----------



## Drake87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> PowerColor Radeon RX 480 DEVIL
> http://videocardz.com/61769/exclusive-powercolor-radeon-rx-480-devil-pictured


Is the board going to be exposed like that in the retail model? I can see myself slicing my hands on that.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drake87*
> 
> Is the board going to be exposed like that in the retail model? I can see myself slicing my hands on that.


Definitely not. It will have a slot cover over the inputs. *Also, do you guys (you know who you are) notice that DVI port????* Hmmmm.


----------



## Drake87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Definitely not. It will have a slot cover over the inputs. *Also, do you guys (you know who you are) notice that DVI port????* Hmmmm.


Good. No cut rate adapter needed.


----------



## bossie2000

At the end of the day this card is going to fly off the shelves.

Why?

1.It's cheap
2.You really don't need the 8 gig at 1080p(most people play here,on pc,tv ext...)
3.This is VR crazy year.People want it and AMD is promoting it with this card(VR will kick of mostly on 1080p more than other res)
4.it's future proof.(budget people mostly buy for several years to come)
5.Nothing from Nvidia in that slot/performace as of now(will soon change)
6.Overclocking(us).Seems like aib with exstra power is going to be fun...


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> At the end of the day this card is going to fly off the shelves.
> 
> Why?
> 
> 1.It's cheap
> 2.You really don't need the 8 gig at 1080p(most people play here,on pc,tv ext...)
> 3.This is VR crazy year.People want it and AMD is promoting it with this card(VR will kick of mostly on 1080p more than other res)
> 4.it's future proof.(budget people mostly buy for several years to come)
> 5.Nothing from Nvidia in that slot/performace as of now(will soon change)
> 6.Overclocking(us).Seems like aib with exstra power is going to be fun...


VR HMD's don't use the same screen ratios as standard monitors do. (vive and oculus are 9:5 (or 9:10 per eye)) Standard monitor resolutions are either 16:9, 4:3, 16:10 or 21:9 on average.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> It's amazing how often that comment has been quoted here. Last week Kyle was an AMD-hating, Nvidia-shilling laughingstock, and this week he is the definitive word on AIB overclocking. All it took was one positive comment about AMD - it's an American rehabilitation success story.


Good one here










http://www.hardware.fr/articles/951-10/nuisances-sonores-temperatures-photos-ir.html

VRM temps are normal, they're well cooled.


----------



## KeepWalkinG

I wanna SApphire Nitro rx 480 !!


----------



## variant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> It's amazing how often that comment has been quoted here. Last week Kyle was an AMD-hating, Nvidia-shilling laughingstock, and this week he is the definitive word on AIB overclocking. All it took was one positive comment about AMD - it's an American rehabilitation success story.


When someone is overly negative, they are generally more likely to be believed when they say something positive.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeepWalkinG*
> 
> I wanna SApphire Nitro rx 480 !!


Rumor has it there will also be Toxics...


----------



## renx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *variant*
> 
> When someone is overly negative, they are generally more likely to be believed when they say something positive.


No, no, no, and no! I totally disagree.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renx*
> 
> No, no, no, and no! I totally disagree.


I find you very believable.


----------



## Zahix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Definitely not. It will have a slot cover over the inputs. *Also, do you guys (you know who you are) notice that DVI port????* Hmmmm.


yess we do







)


----------



## NightAntilli

So... Did anyone bother to actually make a DX12 performance/watt chart? The picture would be quite different I presume... But yeah, of course, it's not nVidia that has the advantage here, so we'll pretend DX12 does not exist nor will ever gain traction.


----------



## Pragmatist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Good one here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.hardware.fr/articles/951-10/nuisances-sonores-temperatures-photos-ir.html
> 
> VRM temps are normal, they're well cooled.












*Gamers Nexus* decided make a hybrid RX480 and he was successful in doing that temp-wise. However, the overclocking gain was less than desirable.

Maby it has been posted already, but it's hard to keep up on these threads.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjIHgq2zBU


----------



## Drake87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> So... Did anyone bother to actually make a DX12 performance/watt chart? The picture would be quite different I presume... But yeah, of course, it's not nVidia that has the advantage here, so we'll pretend DX12 does not exist nor will ever gain traction.


Honestly, not many people care about dx12 right now. There's all but a handful of games and only one comes to mind that is even worth buying (Deus Ex), and it isn't even out.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Actually, there have been one or two reviews showing clock speed drops going from 1080 > 1440 > 4k being ~ 40-60mhz. This issue is likely to be remedied with AIB cards, unfortunate for the reference 480, but that heatsink reminds me of taking apart pentium 3 rigs


which reviews?


----------



## iLeakStuff

GTX 970 cost less than RX 480 in UK now.
Overclockers sell GTX 970 for £199 while RX 480 starts at £229


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeepWalkinG*
> 
> I wanna SApphire Nitro rx 480 !!


Me too... LOL

It will be as fast as 390X w/o throttling, so only about 10% speed bump for me. But still tempted ;p


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drake87*
> 
> Honestly, not many people care about dx12 right now. There's all but a handful of games and only one comes to mind that is even worth buying (Deus Ex), and it isn't even out.


Upcoming titles in the near future:

Battlefield 1
Halo Wars 2
Forza Horizon 3
ReCore
Gears Of War 4
Watch Dogs 2
Deus Ex
Obviously some games are getting patches, and a lot of smaller titles will be using Vulkan/DX12 too.

Total War: Warhammer and Doom are getting patches too, hopefully they do a better job than ROTTR did..

Next year will probably see most titles move towards the new API's, not considering AMD's DX12/Vulkan strengths is bit short sited of people. Whether any of these titles will also be taking advantage of Asynchronous shading i don't know, DICE helped develop Mantel so i think there's a strong chance they play with it a bit.


----------



## sugalumps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> GTX 970 cost less than RX 480 in UK now.
> Overclockers sell GTX 970 for £199 while RX 480 starts at £229


You also need to factor in the price of rma and a new motherboard when you buy the 480. hehehehehehehe


----------



## Drake87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Upcoming titles in the near future:
> 
> Battlefield 1
> Halo Wars 2
> Forza Horizon 3
> ReCore
> Gears Of War 4
> Watch Dogs 2
> Deus Ex
> Obviously some games are getting patches, and a lot of smaller titles will be using Vulkan/DX12 too.
> 
> Total War: Warhammer and Doom are getting patches too, hopefully they do a better job than ROTTR did..
> 
> Next year will probably see most titles move towards the new API's, not considering AMD's DX12/Vulkan strengths is bit short sited of people. Whether any of these titles will also be taking advantage of Asynchronous shading i don't know, DICE helped develop Mantel so i think there's a strong chance they play with it a bit.


Forgot about BF1. Hopefully the adoption rate is better than dx11 was.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drake87*
> 
> Forgot about BF1. Hopefully the adoption rate is better than dx11 was.


Same here, archaic API's like DX11 are holding PC back badly..


----------



## PlugSeven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drake87*
> 
> Forgot about BF1. *Hopefully the adoption rate is better than dx11* was.


It's not unreasonable to expect every major title going forward, to offer both dx 11 and 12 paths, so yeah I suspect it will be.


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pragmatist*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Gamers Nexus* decided make a hybrid RX480 and he was successful in doing that temp-wise. However, the overclocking gain was less than desirable.
> 
> Maby it has been posted already, but it's hard to keep up on these threads.....
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjIHgq2zBU


The stock gpu really isnt meant to be oc'd. The price of the card for the performance should give people some clue on the quality of the card. Its plug & play. The card just gets too hot too fast for any worthwhile oc. We need to wait for the aftermarket variant for solid oc numbers.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drake87*
> 
> Forgot about BF1. Hopefully the adoption rate is better than dx11 was.


DX12 was release in july 2015. I'd say the adoption rate is miles away from DX11. In fact, i still remember getting DX11 patches in 2015 (DX11 luanched in 2011).


----------



## NuclearPeace

By the time DX12 is mainstream both Pascal and Polaris/Vega will be EOL. Its pointless and futile to buy something based on how it will perform 2-3 years in the future, just buy for the now.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> By the time DX12 is mainstream both Pascal and Polaris/Vega will be EOL. Its pointless and futile to buy something based on how it will perform 2-3 years in the future, just buy for the now.


Pascal maybe. Like what happened to the 780.


----------



## ekg84

has this been posted yet?

Official Statement from AMD on the PCI-Express Overcurrent Issue


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ekg84*
> 
> has this been posted yet?
> 
> Official Statement from AMD on the PCI-Express Overcurrent Issue


I dont believe so. Good find.







It'd nice to have this in the OP if a mod wont mind.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> By the time DX12 is mainstream both Pascal and Polaris/Vega will be EOL. Its pointless and futile to buy something based on how it will perform 2-3 years in the future, just buy for the now.


It's not really 2-3 years though is it?

Almost all of the biggest games left to be released this year are DX12. Lets be real for a second, the games we all want DX12 support for are the tripple-A's, and almost all of them are going to be using it in the future.

It doesn't matter if AMD cards "lose" in the smaller games that still use DX11 if those AMD cards still get 100+ fps in them..


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> By the time DX12 is mainstream both Pascal and Polaris/Vega will be EOL. Its pointless and futile to buy something based on how it will perform 2-3 years in the future, just buy for the now.


Games are already out and taking advantage of DX12 and one of the next biggest games (BF1) will have it too... and being that it's being pushed way harder than dx10 or 11 was I'd say taking DX12 results into strong consideration is wise at this point. Not every one upgrades at every new gpu release...


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ekg84*
> 
> has this been posted yet?
> 
> Official Statement from AMD on the PCI-Express Overcurrent Issue


One important thing to take away from that for those that don't fully read articles (unfortunately quite a few)..
Quote:


> We are already testing a driver that implements a fix, and we will provide an update to the community on our progress on Tuesday (July 5, 2016)


Let's see if this hampers performance.


----------



## PlugSeven

Is there any review that specifically tested this thing's tessellation performance?


----------



## formula m

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> GTX 970 cost less than RX 480 in UK now.
> Overclockers sell GTX 970 for £199 while RX 480 starts at £229


Does the 970 have HDMI 2.0b, or Display Port 1.3, or offer HDCP2.2 support..?

Nobody cares about old tech, (even if it is faster in games), when new tech comes out. If building a Home Entertainment system, the RX480 is the only way to go...

One would save ZERO, if they went with a GTX970, because it doesn't do as much and is restricted by being older.

Kinda embarrassing, that you and Slowmo don't understand why people herald the 480.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *formula m*
> 
> Does the 970 have HDMI 2.0b, or Display Port 1.3, or offer HDCP2.2 support..?
> Nobody cares about old tech, (even if it is faster in games), when new tech comes out. If building a Home Entertainment system, the RX480 is the only way to go...
> 
> One would save ZERO, if they went with a GTX970, because it doesn't do as much and is restricted by being older.
> 
> Kinda embarrassing, that you and Slowmo don't understand why people herald the 480.


Your whole post is hilarious because you dont understand that the "old tech" is just as efficient as AMDs "new tech", now cost less in UK and performs the same

But keep on supporting the company that said RX 480 Crossfire would beat 1080 yet only match GTX 1070.
Falls in line with their Fury X marketing where they presented slides that show Fury X to be 20-30% faster than 980Ti. And an overclockers dream.

LOL


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PlugSeven*
> 
> Is there any review that specifically tested this thing's tessellation performance?


tessellation is now at Maxwell Level or so


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Your whole post is hilarious because you dont understand that the "old tech" is just as efficient as AMDs "new tech", now cost less in UK and performs the same


Why should we care about the GTX 970 costing less in the UK when there are 170+ countries in this world?









You keep supporting the company that sells 300 mm2 midrange chips for 600 USD.


----------



## PlugSeven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Your whole post is hilarious because you dont understand that the "old tech" is just as efficient as AMDs "new tech", now cost less in UK and performs the same
> 
> LOL


The 970 is done, it's all but officially announced EOL and is anywhere from 9 -30% slower in dx12. Being found for cheaper than a 480 was inevitable really.


----------



## NaXter24R

I don't know if it was already asked but, has anyone have a 4gb model? Because i've read somewhere that reviewers have 2 bios so they can try the card with both 8 and 4gb.
Now of course you cannot "disable" a memory module, because you will cut the bus, but, i've found the 8gb memory modules: Samsung K4G80325FB-HC025.

That 25 at the end is the speed, so 0.25ns 8000Mhz, and they are rated at 1.5v.

On Samsung's datasheet there is another model working at 1.5v as well and it's the K4G41325FC-HC28. That 28 now stands for 0.28ns 7000mhz, and the interesting thing is that 7000Mhz are rated for 1.55v, so even higher power draw, and only in this model, because on the 8gb that 7mhz is still rated 1.5v.

It would be nice to have an inspection of the card, because there might be a chance that all cards are the same with a bios tweak (i don't know how, still, it's a chance, correct me if i'm wrong) so potentially, we could save some money.

I hope someone have the 4gb model and can check the memory modules, visually or with MemoryInfo.

Here is the datasheet for Samsung's GDDR5 modules: http://www.samsung.com/us/samsungsemiconductor/pdfs/PSG2015_1H_HR_singles.pdf

Here is the VRAM image on the PCB:


----------



## ekg84

PCPer Video: AMD Radeon RX 480 Power Concerns - Detailed Analysis


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> I don't know if it was already asked but, has anyone have a 4gb model? Because i've read somewhere that reviewers have 2 bios so they can try the card with both 8 and 4gb.
> Now of course you cannot "disable" a memory module, because you will cut the bus, but, i've found the 8gb memory modules: Samsung K4G80325FB-HC025.
> 
> That 25 at the end is the speed, so 0.25ns 8000Mhz, and they are rated at 1.5v.
> 
> On Samsung's datasheet there is another model working at 1.5v as well and it's the K4G41325FC-HC28. That 28 now stands for 0.28ns 7000mhz, and the interesting thing is that 7000Mhz are rated for 1.55v, so even higher power draw, and only in this model, because on the 8gb that 7mhz is still rated 1.5v.
> 
> It would be nice to have an inspection of the card, because there might be a chance that all cards are the same with a bios tweak (i don't know how, still, it's a chance, correct me if i'm wrong) so potentially, we could save some money.
> 
> I hope someone have the 4gb model and can check the memory modules, visually or with MemoryInfo.
> 
> Here is the datasheet for Samsung's GDDR5 modules: http://www.samsung.com/us/samsungsemiconductor/pdfs/PSG2015_1H_HR_singles.pdf
> 
> Here is the VRAM image on the PCB:


Anandtech did in their preview. It ranged from the same to about 5% slower, depending on the title, so it was running at 7GHz. It wasn't clear whether they used the BIOS or actually had a 4GB card though.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> Anandtech did in their preview. It ranged from the same to about 5% slower, depending on the title, so it was running at 7GHz. It wasn't clear whether they used the BIOS or actually had a 4GB card though.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview


Since the core clock should be the same across both model, the 8gb draws more power like we can se here

So, again, in theory, if i'm right and those memory modules use 1.55v, they should draw more power and the 4gb model should use more power as well.


----------



## PCIEgate

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> I don't know if it was already asked but, has anyone have a 4gb model? Because i've read somewhere that reviewers have 2 bios so they can try the card with both 8 and 4gb.
> Now of course you cannot "disable" a memory module, because you will cut the bus, but, i've found the 8gb memory modules: Samsung K4G80325FB-HC025.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I hope someone have the 4gb model and can check the memory modules, visually or with MemoryInfo.


It is indeed true that 4GB reference cards are assembled with those 8Gb Samsung ram modules.
See: http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=5298752&postcount=33

Just need someone who can share those reviewer BIOS tools.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PCIEgate*
> 
> It is indeed true that 4GB reference cards are assembled with those 8Gb Samsung ram modules.
> See: http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=5298752&postcount=33
> 
> Just need someone who can share those reference cards BIOS tools.


Guess who is going to save some money?









I also think they won't change the modules, nor AMD and partners because of that 1.55v, because Samsung at least do not have any GDDR5 4gb modules higher than 7ghz


----------



## DweeB0

What's with the pricing of the RX 480?

I don't want to be limited by the 4gb version.
8gb is going for $239 instead of $229...

What does that mean for the 8gb cards without the blower coolers?
Even higher?


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DweeB0*
> 
> What's with the pricing of the RX 480?
> 
> I don't want to be limited by the 4gb version.
> 8gb is going for $239 instead of $229...
> 
> What does that mean for the 8gb cards without the blower coolers?
> Even higher?


AIB's have always been higher priced


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DweeB0*
> 
> What's with the pricing of the RX 480?
> 
> I don't want to be limited by the 4gb version.
> 8gb is going for $239 instead of $229...
> 
> What does that mean for the 8gb cards without the blower coolers?
> Even higher?


Yeah, some rumored prices around $300. The nitro is supposed on pre-order very soon.


----------



## DweeB0

Hype deflated.
Far cry from the initial 200 price tag.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> AIB's have always been higher priced


I know, but by 380x Nitro was maybe $10 above MSRP and now there are rumors that AIBs for the 480 will cost closer to $300. What gives?


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> I know, but by 380x Nitro was maybe $10 above MSRP and now there are rumors that AIBs for the 480 will cost closer to $300. What gives?


Rumors are just that at this point though.. Honestly I think we will see most AIB's in the $250-$260 range which is reasonable if they are performing much faster than the reference 480's. Now of course you will have some "Mega Hyper Turbo Nitro XXX Holy Jeebus" editions out there that will likely be at or near $300 but they are really more like the msi lighnting's, KPE's, etc.

The good news is expect in 3 months or so the 8gb reference will be $199 and the 4gb at $175.. this should allow AIB's to be priced in the low to mid 200's at the highest.


----------



## tkenietz

For $70 over reference the aib cards had better be binned and "1480mhz" better be on the low side. +100mhz oc would be rediculous for that price.

Unless it's stock clocks, 1480mhz stock + oc would be cool, with the big boys like the toxic coming in with 1600mhz clocks but that seems hopeful.


----------



## Themisseble

What about RX 470, it should be great deal.

Since nvidia tech is way to expensive GTX 1060 and GTX 1050 should be like 150$ to compete with AMD, because you will pay for Gsync at least 100-150$ more... SO can see NVIDIA to be ideal for budget games.

RX 480 performs very well with 32ROPs...


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> What about RX 470, it should be great deal.
> 
> Since nvidia tech is way to expensive GTX 1060 and GTX 1050 should be like 150$ to compete with AMD, because you will pay for Gsync at least 100-150$ more... SO can see NVIDIA to be ideal for budget games.
> 
> RX 480 performs very well with 32ROPs...


nobody buying a 1050 should be concerning themselves about a gsync monitor in my opinion.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> nobody buying a 1050 should be concerning themselves about a gsync monitor in my opinion.


Well I have been just looking at budget. I kinda like nvidia, but lately they are not doing well...


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Well I have been just looking at budget. I kinda like nvidia, but lately they are not doing well...


I wouldn't say they're not doing well. The company is increasingly adopting the approach that smartphone companies do. Where older tech just seems to become obsolete much quicker. Though when their products are in the current generation, they generally perform admirably, at good power/heat numbers, albeit at a price premium (which can be argued is due to their infrastructure around their cards and the additional "benefits" of using their drivers, (not counting gameworks))


----------



## mtcn77

That is one disgruntled customer, this editor:
Quote:


> The pain was almost physical.


Tell me these aren't true results, AMD has hit some undiscovered asynchronous compute mother lode with this gpu.


[Source]


----------



## KeepWalkinG

So how Nvidia can make on 28 nm videocard with the same performance and TDP like RX 480.
RX 480 is on 14nm and new architecture ***?


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeepWalkinG*
> 
> So how Nvidia can make on 28 nm videocard with the same performance and TDP like RX 480.
> RX 480 is on 14nm and new architecture ***?


I would like to see some better silicon. I think AMD speed up GloFo and they raised the volgate to keep all cards stable. Still, Nvidia will be more efficient i think


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeepWalkinG*
> 
> So how Nvidia can make on 28 nm videocard with the same performance and TDP like RX 480.
> RX 480 is on 14nm and new architecture ***?


They lack Dx12 gpu-processing capabilities, that is how.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeepWalkinG*
> 
> So how Nvidia can make on 28 nm videocard with the same performance and TDP like RX 480.
> RX 480 is on 14nm and new architecture ***?


a Redesigned architecture, AMD has been using GCN since 2012, and GCN2 is basically the same organization of CU/SE/ACEs/ALUs as latest GPUs, and Porbably the higher clocks and voltages uses a lot of Energy on GCN2, Probably why AMD decided to go with low clocks for higher efficiency with Tahiti,Hawaii and Tonga


----------



## KeepWalkinG

Last hope for us is to wait Sapphire Nitro and easy 1500mhz overclock.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Your whole post is hilarious because you dont understand that the "old tech" is just as efficient as AMDs "new tech", now cost less in UK and performs the same
> 
> But keep on supporting the company that said RX 480 Crossfire would beat 1080 yet only match GTX 1070.
> Falls in line with their Fury X marketing where they presented slides that show Fury X to be 20-30% faster than 980Ti. And an overclockers dream.
> 
> LOL


I take it that you have sold your AMD stock


----------



## Ha-Nocri

970 equals 480. Plz, even your green minds dont think that. It is throttling, drivers are new and as we know they will only get better... and its on another level in dx12. AIB cards will compete with 390X and 980. And is cheaper everywhere (4GB model at least)


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> 970 equals 480. Plz, even your green minds dont think that. It is throttling, drivers are new and as we know they will only get better... and its on another level in dx12. AIB cards will compete with 390X and 980. And is cheaper everywhere (4GB model at least)


Actually RX 480 is faster. It depends in games tested. If you take a lot of games like TechPowerUp!


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> I take it that you have sold your AMD stock


AMD gives CEO pay raise amid rising stock price


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> AMD gives CEO pay raise amid rising stock price


Not much of a pay raise, but deserved.


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drake87*
> 
> Honestly, not many people care about dx12 right now. There's all but a handful of games and only one comes to mind that is even worth buying (Deus Ex), and it isn't even out.


These are current titles that can actually run in DX12 mode;

Rise of the Tomb Raider
Gears of War Ultimate Edition
Hitman
Quantum Break
Forza Motorsport 6: Apex
Total War: Warhammer

And yes, the upcoming ones were mentioned by another poster.... Within one year there will be enough titles to call it important.


----------



## Noufel

What about the sells are they good for the 480?


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> By the time DX12 is mainstream both Pascal and Polaris/Vega will be EOL. Its pointless and futile to buy something based on how it will perform 2-3 years in the future, just buy for the now.


Considering I still have my HD6850, it shows how long a $200 card can really last. Especially since AMD cards tend to be viable a lot longer than nVidia's. Not to mention, these cards get a huge boost in DX12... Which is again an argument for their longevity.

As for the questions why the RX 480 gets a smaller boost in DX12 compared to some older cards, the ACEs have been reduced from 8 to 4.


----------



## ekg84

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> What about the sells are they good for the 480?


sold out pretty much everywhere, so yeah, sales are VERY good


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> Considering I still have my HD6850, it shows how long a $200 card can really last. Especially since AMD cards tend to be viable a lot longer than nVidia's. Not to mention, these cards get a huge boost in DX12... Which is again an argument for their longevity.
> 
> As for the questions why the RX 480 gets a smaller boost in DX12 compared to some older cards, the ACEs have been reduced from 8 to 4.


The developers value consistency across the board more than absolute benefits from what I can tell. They much rather have a fixed gain across the whole range than working their way through troubleshooting.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Your whole post is hilarious because you dont understand that the "old tech" is just as efficient as AMDs "new tech", now cost less in UK and performs the same
> 
> But keep on supporting the company that said RX 480 Crossfire would beat 1080 yet only match GTX 1070.
> Falls in line with their Fury X marketing where they presented slides that show Fury X to be 20-30% faster than 980Ti. And an overclockers dream.
> 
> LOL


I have to ask, what relevance does efficiency have in this particular market segment?

Also by that logic, I hope you start recommending 980 Ti over 1070 to potential buyers once they become $50 cheaper than 1070.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> AMD gives CEO pay raise amid rising stock price
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not much of a pay raise, but deserved.
Click to expand...

wut?

the article mentioned an 80% increase in stock prices in the last year but failed to mention hardly 20% from when she was hired two years ago - less than average stock performance; using 12% annually.

i'd be earning A LOT more money myself if my performance metrics were measured like that.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> wut?
> 
> the article mentioned an 80% increase in stock prices in the last year but failed to mention hardly 20% from when she was hired two years ago - less than average stock performance; using 12% annually.
> 
> i'd be earning A LOT more money myself if my performance metrics were measured like that.


You have to consider AMD like more entities. Gpu, cpu, servers, consoles. Gpu it's ok. Cpu are losing money, this is not new and it's well documented and expected. Servers are doing good, a big commission to China was posted a while ago. Consoles were losing money a while ago, but they managed to get the developers attention and getting a new commission for consoles 2.0, a bit less than 2 billion expected if I'm correct.

I don't like CEOs to earn a lot of money, I think they should earn a lot less, or paid if there is a good results. They are the head of a company, so if the company is not good it's their fault. Still, they have done some good move, like Radeon technology group and the users saw many improvement, first of all drivers.

You can't compare AMD to Intel o nvidia, they have quite a lot more money to spend in marketing and especially in R&D, but I like how AMD put a lot of effort in whatever they're doing,and bare in mind that they have to fight both competitors and many users that are just ignorant. It's not easy.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> wut?
> 
> the article mentioned an 80% increase in stock prices in the last year but failed to mention hardly 20% from when she was hired two years ago - less than average stock performance; using 12% annually.
> 
> i'd be earning A LOT more money myself if my performance metrics were measured like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to consider AMD like more entities. Gpu, cpu, servers, consoles. Gpu it's ok. Cpu are losing money, this is not new and it's well documented and expected. Servers are doing good, a big commission to China was posted a while ago. Consoles were losing money a while ago, but they managed to get the developers attention and getting a new commission for consoles 2.0, a bit less than 2 billion expected if I'm correct.
> 
> I don't like CEOs to earn a lot of money, I think they should earn a lot less, or paid if there is a good results. They are the head of a company, so if the company is not good it's their fault. Still, they have done some good move, like Radeon technology group and the users saw many improvement, first of all drivers.
> 
> You can't compare AMD to Intel o nvidia, they have quite a lot more money to spend in marketing and especially in R&D, but I like how AMD put a lot of effort in whatever they're doing,and bare in mind that they have to fight both competitors and many users that are just ignorant. It's not easy.
Click to expand...

well fortuitously NO ONE is focusing on one aspect or comparing them to other companies.

i'm pretty sure that starving R&D could use 75K a year better - if there is a "spare" 75K.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> I would like to see some better silicon. I think AMD speed up GloFo and they raised the volgate to keep all cards stable. Still, Nvidia will be more efficient i think


Yep,
You can get more efficiency by undervolting RX 480.


----------



## iLeakStuff

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeepWalkinG*
> 
> So how Nvidia can make on 28 nm videocard with the same performance and TDP like RX 480.
> RX 480 is on 14nm and new architecture ***?


You tell me.
Its pretty sad that they have fallen so far behind when they have been working on Polaris and Vega for years now, ready to launch the new cards with the new 14nm. And it match Nvidias older architecture on 28nm.

Somewhere they have messed up or is just incapable of keeping up anymore.
Efficiency for example is EVERYTHING in mobile. It means AMD will never match Nvidias top card since mobile have a watt limit.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noufel*
> 
> What about the sells are they good for the 480?


Yea, that's the important thing to remember. RX 480's are sold out EVERYWHERE, and there was a lot of stock at launch. When was the last time that AMD had this much success with a product launch?


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> You tell me.
> Its pretty sad that they have fallen so far behind when they have been working on Polaris and Vega for years now, ready to launch the new cards with the new 14nm. And it match Nvidias older architecture on 28nm.
> 
> Somewhere they have messed up or is just incapable of keeping up anymore.
> Efficiency for example is EVERYTHING in mobile. It means AMD will never match Nvidias top card since mobile have a watt limit.


What?!
Please use brain... dont let them sleep all the time.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> AMD gives CEO pay raise amid rising stock price


Still a fraction of her 2014 compensation when the company was in worst financial strain


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Yea, that's the important thing to remember. RX 480's are sold out EVERYWHERE, and there was a lot of stock at launch. When was the last time that AMD had this much success with a product launch?


BINGO!

The RX 480 is doing what AMD hoped it would do. Their strategy was not to go head to head with nVIDIA on the highend. Their strategy is entirely focussed on VR (whether that is a good or bad idea is not up to me to decide). The first part of this strategy was LiquidVR and GPU Open followed by the Radeon Pro Duo and now the RX 480. AMD are looking to seed the market with the software solution... the developer hardware as well as a low cost solution in order to takeover the VR market during its onset. Guess what? It is working... and their stock price is in part reflecting the success of this strategy given that Wall St thinks that the VR market (they are betting on it even) will overtake Smartphones in sheer volume by 2020.


----------



## ubbernewb

@ileakstuff, stop TROLLING, the gtx970 is about as driver optimised as its going to get, where as the RX480, will be FAR ahead of it in pretty much every game, when the drivers get more mature and i dont think, i KNOW you know this, so stop the trolling BS


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ubbernewb*
> 
> @ileakstuff, stop TROLLING, the gtx970 is about as driver optimised as its going to get, where as the RX480, will be FAR ahead of it in pretty much every game, when the drivers get more mature and i dont think, i KNOW you know this, so stop the trolling BS


Well GTX 970 stock uses around 160W... but AIB cards might/will use over 200W.
Thats not the point. The point is AMD did reasonable thing... they went for quantity, not quality. So basically you can undervolt RX 480 and probably it will use like 20-30% less power with no performance cost.

- So 160W with undervolt you will get 120-125W. Which is nice.

Thats why they are cheap and thats why stocks are full.


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Well GTX 970 stock uses around 160W... but AIB cards might/will use over 200W.
> Thats not the point. The point is AMD did reasonable thing... they went for quantity, not quality. So basically you can undervolt RX 480 and probably it will use like 20-30% less power with no performance cost.
> 
> - So 160W with undervolt you will get 120-125W. Which is nice.
> 
> Thats why they are cheap and thats why stocks are full.


i know, but Ileakstuff was talking, that the 970 was the better card to get when the drivers for the 970 are about as fine tuned as they can get, where as the RX480 will be trading blows with the gtx980 when the drivers get more mature, soon the RX480 will leave the 970 in the dust


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ubbernewb*
> 
> i know, but Ileakstuff was talking, that the 970 was the better card to get when the drivers for the 970 are about as fine tuned as they can get, where as the RX480 will be trading blows with the gtx980 when the drivers get more mature, soon the RX480 will leave the 970 in the dust


Right.
I also want to see RX 480 AIB OC...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> BINGO!
> 
> The RX 480 is doing what AMD hoped it would do. Their strategy was not to go head to head with nVIDIA on the highend. Their strategy is entirely focussed on VR (whether that is a good or bad idea is not up to me to decide). The first part of this strategy was LiquidVR and GPU Open followed by the Radeon Pro Duo and now the RX 480. AMD are looking to seed the market with the software solution... the developer hardware as well as a low cost solution in order to takeover the VR market during its onset. Guess what? It is working... and their stock price is in part reflecting the success of this strategy given that Wall St thinks that the VR market (they are betting on it even) will overtake Smartphones in sheer volume by 2020.


AMD needs to get DX12 and ASync in as many Games/Game Engines as they can.


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Right.
> I also want to see RX 480 AIB OC...


me to, im waiting for the AIB see how the card performs with higher clock speeds


----------



## Mad Pistol

So just due to the fact that the RX 480 is sold out everywhere, this may signal a turning point for AMD. Regardless of what you believe, they worked the RX 480 launch to perfection.

Remember, the majority of us on this forum are enthusiasts that like to buy expensive hardware. The RX 480 is not aimed at us. Rather, it is aimed at the crowd that wants a cheap, fairly fast card that won't break the bank. In that regard, AMD positioned themselves perfectly.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> So just due to the fact that the RX 480 is sold out everywhere, this may signal a turning point for AMD. Regardless of what you believe, they worked the RX 480 launch to perfection.


It just shows people value performance at lower cost.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Right.
> I also want to see RX 480 AIB OC...


You disagree? You think that rx 480 is as optimized as it will ever be a few days after launch? Or you think the 970 has room to stretch it's legs still after 2 years of optimization?


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Sapphire RX 480 Nitro is looking pretty slick:

















Sapphire RX 480 Nitro Features:


Sapphire Nitro Twin Fan Black Cooler
Removable Fans (Makes cleaning easy)
2x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort & 1x DVI (Perfect for VR Setups)
Overclocked out the box
1x 8-Pin power connector for improved overclocking ability
RGB Sapphire logo with LED Mode switch for different settings (Pick any colour or turn off)
Sapphire Nitro backplate for improved cooling and aesthetics
Black Diamond Chokes for improved power and eliminate potential of coil whine
Nitro Pass through cooling to further improve cooling
Dual BIOS


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> Sapphire RX 480 Nitro is looking pretty slick:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


That backplate is a bit wild compared to the rest of the card, but overall I like it









hopefully reviewers get them in hand sometime soon


----------



## NaXter24R

I think i'm going to buy a 480 even if i have a 290x. I just want to see how much can you push that card because i think there is a good overclocking headroom, potentially it could beat my 290x, i hope so.

EDIT: if you give me some feedback on the memory think it would be much appreciated. If i (and many other people) can save a bit and buy the 4gb model and upgdare it to a 8gb just with a bios flash would be great. Page 214


----------



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> That backplate is a bit wild compared to the rest of the card, but overall I like it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hopefully reviewers get them in hand sometime soon


Reminds me of Transformers. I can dig it though.

Excited to see reviews on the AIB 480's but look more forward to OCN members getting their hands on them.


----------



## Noufel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Yea, that's the important thing to remember. RX 480's are sold out EVERYWHERE, and there was a lot of stock at launch. When was the last time that AMD had this much success with a product launch?


So good work AMD, people here and in other pc enthusiast forums tend to think that the majority of people care aboute 400-600$ gpus, overclocking powerdraw throttling .......... wake up we are the minority


----------



## nagle3092

I am conflicted, I want to return my XFX cards for those nitros but damn I like the look of reference cards. These are also planned to go into a SG05 and node 304 when Vega drops so I know the reference design would help in those cases. Decisions decisions...


----------



## Mahigan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> tessellation is now at Maxwell Level or so


You have 4 Geometry Processors each running at 1266MHz. If you multiply 4x1266MHz you get 5064 or 5.1 Gtris/s. Perfect scaling would deliver that amount of GTris/s and we get 4.7 GTris/s for the List benchmark and surprisingly we get even higher performance for Strip (showing that the Hardware Discard Accelerator is working perfectly). In other words... Tessellation is now on par with Maxwell and Pascal efficiency wise (per Geometry processor).

The R9 380x also had 4 Geometry Processors clocked at 975MHz. If you multiply you get 3900 or 3.9 GTris/s. The list performance of 3.7 GTris/s is thus near perfect scaling but the Strip performance of 2.2 GTris/s shows that the R9 380x (like previous GCN products) suffered from low tessellation performance when triangles were smaller than a pixel.

Evidently... Tessellation is no longer an issue for AMDs new GPUs. All AMD needs now is to add more Tessellation Processors for linear Tessellation scaling performance boosts.

AMDs Tessellation woes were due to the small triangle issue which has been entirely resolved. Had Polaris come with 64 ROPs if likely would have given the GTX 980 Ti a run for its money... and that is at 1266MHz. Polaris has a huge achilles heel as it pertains to pixel fillrate and when using 64-bit textures (half rate performance). There also appears to be a bandwidth related issue with Texture Filtering (likely requiring a newer version of HyperZ in order to boost performance in that respect).


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> which reviews?


Pcgamehardware

Pretty sure there was at least one other, not many sites really seemed to look into sustained clock speeds even though AMD introduced a lot of new power/clock features.


----------



## CrazyElf

Curiously the texture fill rate is unchanged over the 380X:


This is odd because the rx 480 has 144 Texture Mapping Units versus 128 on the 380x and of course, it is clocked higher on boost mode. Something is causing a bottleneck on the int 8.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> You have 4 Geometry Processors each running at 1266MHz. If you multiply 4x1266MHz you get 5064 or 5.1 Gtris/s. Perfect scaling would deliver that amount of GTris/s and we get 4.7 GTris/s for the List benchmark and surprisingly we get even higher performance for Strip (showing that the Hardware Discard Accelerator is working perfectly). In other words... Tessellation is now on par with Maxwell and Pascal efficiency wise (per Geometry processor).
> 
> The R9 380x also had 4 Geometry Processors clocked at 975MHz. If you multiply you get 3900 or 3.9 GTris/s. The list performance of 3.7 GTris/s is thus near perfect scaling but the Strip performance of 2.2 GTris/s shows that the R9 380x (like previous GCN products) suffered from low tessellation performance when triangles were smaller than a pixel.
> 
> Evidently... Tessellation is no longer an issue for AMDs new GPUs. All AMD needs now is to add more Tessellation Processors for linear Tessellation scaling performance boosts.
> 
> AMDs Tessellation woes were due to the small triangle issue which has been entirely resolved. Had Polaris come with 64 ROPs if likely would have given the GTX 980 Ti a run for its money... and that is at 1266MHz. Polaris has a huge achilles heel as it pertains to pixel fillrate and when using 64-bit textures (half rate performance). There also appears to be a bandwidth related issue with Texture Filtering (likely requiring a newer version of HyperZ in order to boost performance in that respect).


Basically this means that we need 8 Geometry Processors for the 4096 Vega and perhaps 12 for the 6144 part.

Assuming they do this, Gameworks will no longer have much of a performance penalty on AMD GPUs - or at least not any more than Nvidia GPUs.

Would more ROPs resolve the weak point with pixel fill rate? I'd want 128 ROPs on Vega 4096 core and ideally 192 ROPs on the 6144 core variant.

Just wondering if there is anything else that more ROPs would have helped address?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> AMD needs to get DX12 and ASync in as many Games/Game Engines as they can.


It will take some time, but it looks like DX12 is getting adopted faster than historically.

There is a huge reason to get this over the GTX 1060, and that is that the typical gamer that buys this GPU is going to have a longer upgrade cycle than enthusiasts. When this GPU becomes replaced, DX12 will be mainstream and the GTX 1060 will have followed the trajectory of Kepler, Maxwell, and now Pascal (after Volta comes out).

They are also working to get GCN shader extensions to Direct3d and Vulkan:
http://gpuopen.com/gcn-shader-extensions-for-direct3d-and-vulkan/

I suspect that if this sees widespread adoption, we will see pretty big performance boosts for AMD for console ports on the PC.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> BINGO!
> 
> The RX 480 is doing what AMD hoped it would do. Their strategy was not to go head to head with nVIDIA on the highend. Their strategy is entirely focussed on VR (whether that is a good or bad idea is not up to me to decide). The first part of this strategy was LiquidVR and GPU Open followed by the Radeon Pro Duo and now the RX 480. AMD are looking to seed the market with the software solution... the developer hardware as well as a low cost solution in order to takeover the VR market during its onset. Guess what? It is working... and their stock price is in part reflecting the success of this strategy given that Wall St thinks that the VR market (they are betting on it even) will overtake Smartphones in sheer volume by 2020.


I think that we can lose sight that we are the elite when we run around with high end setups. The typical gamer does not spend hundreds a year. They want long term performance. I'll assume whoever is making the business strategy at AMD (actually we should say RTG) knows this.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> Sapphire RX 480 Nitro is looking pretty slick:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sapphire RX 480 Nitro Features:
> 
> 
> Sapphire Nitro Twin Fan Black Cooler
> Removable Fans (Makes cleaning easy)
> 2x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort & 1x DVI (Perfect for VR Setups)
> Overclocked out the box
> 1x 8-Pin power connector for improved overclocking ability
> RGB Sapphire logo with LED Mode switch for different settings (Pick any colour or turn off)
> Sapphire Nitro backplate for improved cooling and aesthetics
> Black Diamond Chokes for improved power and eliminate potential of coil whine
> Nitro Pass through cooling to further improve cooling
> Dual BIOS


Well... I know what 480 I'll be getting....sorry gigabyte but that card is too gorgeous to pass up, and nitro has a pretty decent track record


----------



## bmgjet

Getting kind of annoying that no ones doing reviews on the 4GB card.
The only reviews iv been able to find they have only touched on overclocking the vram to 8000mhz like the 8gb which brings it up to the same benchmark scores.
What they are missing is that its pulling 25W less with that overclock. On the core your getting a further 60mhz overclock before getting power limited.


----------



## BulletBait

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bmgjet*
> 
> Getting kind of annoying that no ones doing reviews on the 4GB card.
> The only reviews iv been able to find they have only touched on overclocking the vram to 8000mhz like the 8gb which brings it up to the same benchmark scores.
> What they are missing is that its pulling 25W less with that overclock. On the core your getting a further 60mhz overclock before getting power limited.


But... but... but...

That would take journalistic integrity. *BLASPHEMY!!!!*


----------



## Mahigan

I have figured something out... the reason that Polaris suffers from a texture filtering bottleneck is not due to the amount of Color ROPs (or ROPs for short) but rather due to the amount of Z Stencil ROPs (found in the Render Back End units).

Basically... Polaris could be MUCH more powerful if it moved to 16 RBEs rather than 8 RBEs. In doubling the amount of RBEs you effectively increase the amount of texture filtering performance to an even greater degree. Right now Polaris is stuck at up to 119 GTexel/s when handling int8 texture filtering loads. This figure can be doubled by simply moving to 16 RBEs. Polaris has 128 Z/Stencil ROPs so it really can only function at up to 128 GTexels/s when handling Int8 texture filtering duties. If you move to 16 RBEs you get a boost to 256 GTexels/s. If you move to 24 RBEs (96 Color ROPs and 384 Z/Stencil ROPs) you boost up to 384 GTexel/s and so on and so forth.



See the Fury-X has 16 RBEs and thus can reach 249 GTexels/s (just shy of its 256 GTexel/s maximum).


The RBEs are tied directly to L2 Cache and a memory controller. Therefore the more L2 Cache (or the faster your memory controller as well as Framebuffer) then the least likely you are to bottleneck the theoretical throughput of your Z/Stencil ROPs.


This is likely why AMD have tweaked the cache on Polaris as well as increased the Cache in order to ensure that it delivers near maximum throughput (119/128 is very good tbh).

What this means for Vega... Well if Vega comes with 4096KB of L2 Cache (4MB) then we can expect there to be no Texture Filtering Bottlenecks. One can assume that Vega will have 16 RBEs (like Fury-X before it) and potentially one of the two Vega variants could even have more of these units. If that is the case then we would have grounds for a tough card to beat... it would take a GTX 1080 Ti.

AMD do not even need 1600 or 1800 Mhz at that. At 1266 MHz a Vega GPU with double the RBEs and a healthy increase in terms of CUs (Of course AMD is skipping GDDR5x and going straight to HBM2 for both Vega SKUs) would effectively compete with a GTX 1080 running its ridiculously high clocks (most probably beating it). This is doable.


----------



## Mahigan

Of course Vega would consume more power than Pascal but for high performance... who cares? (plus HBM2 will mitigate some of that extra power usage anyway).

Two RX 480s at 1266 MHz in crossfire are already capable of competing with a GTX 1080 when Crossfire works. As we know... Crossfire replicates texture Data so that means that two RX 480s are not even benefiting from the doubling of Z/Stencil ROPs and/or Texture Units.

If AIB RX 480s are able to clock past 1400MHz and beyond then a Vega GPU stuck at 1200-1300 MHz tops would compete with with a GTX 1080 and beyond.

It looks to me like nVIDIA have also hit a wall in terms of how high they can clock their GPUs (like a Pentium 4 basically). So Pascal going to a GTX 1080 Ti would mean much lower clocks than those currently enjoyed by the GTX 1070 and 1080 GPUs.

My prediction is that AMD will win this round. As unlikely as it sounds... if they effectively do double the RBEs/ROPs and and add a healthy amount of CUs coupled with HBM2 memory. Both high end Vega SKUs are set to give nVIDIA quite the headache if this all turns out to come to fruition.


----------



## motoray

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> Sapphire RX 480 Nitro is looking pretty slick:


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BiG StroOnZ*
> 
> Sapphire RX 480 Nitro is looking pretty slick:


Wow that is pretty, if it clocks like a champ i guess this is the one i will be getting.... tho i just dont think i can keep it air cooled. Time to hop on solidworks and whip up a full cover block


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

AIB 480's can't get here fast enough! Can't wait to bench the crap out of mine! RIP P67 Sabertooth!


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> AIB 480's can't get here fast enough! Can't wait to bench the crap out of mine! RIP P67 Sabertooth!


Careful! I was walking through a shop with a few 480's in stock and my mobile phone exploded.


----------



## Themisseble

Anyone knows when AIB versions will arrive?


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Anyone knows when AIB versions will arrive?


This or next week probably. Sapphire said "July"


----------



## LAKEINTEL

So for someone who doesn't care about power efficiency, should they get an RX480 or get a used 290x/390 (or even just 290) if they're going to keep it for quite a while? it's preferable to buy now over reference waiting for aftermarket...and I'm kind of underwhelmed wither certain aspects of the RX480.

(don't know whether this is completely Off-topic or not)


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LAKEINTEL*
> 
> So for someone who doesn't care about power efficiency, should they get an RX480 or get a used 290x/390 (or even just 290) if they're going to keep it for quite a while? it's preferable to buy now over reference waiting for aftermarket...and I'm kind of underwhelmed wither certain aspects of the RX480.
> 
> (don't know whether this is completely Off-topic or not)


Compare the DX12 performance of these cards and see which one performs better and get that as we will get ever more DX12 and Vulkan games from now on. If their performance is the same then get whatever's cheaper.


----------



## Erick Silver

I'm waiting for the Non Reference models. I'm hoping that a reputable brand will put out something that I just can't live without....


----------



## aDyerSituation

I hope that nitro is real...but I just bought a Tri-x 290x on the cheap...

Oh well







That'll fit my color scheme better


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LAKEINTEL*
> 
> So for someone who doesn't care about power efficiency, should they get an RX480 or get a used 290x/390 (or even just 290) if they're going to keep it for quite a while? it's preferable to buy now over reference waiting for aftermarket...and I'm kind of underwhelmed wither certain aspects of the RX480.
> 
> (don't know whether this is completely Off-topic or not)


A lot of the reviews seem to show the frame-pacing being better on the RX 480


----------



## Erick Silver

https://rog.asus.com/23792016/coming-soon/asus-republic-of-gamers-introduces-strix-rx-480-graphics-card/

Here's to hoping this won't cost me a kidney.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/23792016/coming-soon/asus-republic-of-gamers-introduces-strix-rx-480-graphics-card/
> 
> Here's to hoping this won't cost me a kidney.


Nope, Asus is one if not the worst manifacturer. At least for coolers.



See the standoffs? The just move those and they use basically the same damn cooler for many cards. PCB is ok, cooler is crap

BTW, this is from a GTX 1080 Strix, but they have done the same in the past as well.


----------



## Erick Silver

I had a Asus GT450 DirectCU back when they were new. Phenominal card and cooler. Will have to look into this....


----------



## cainy1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> I had a Asus GT450 DirectCU back when they were new. Phenominal card and cooler. Will have to look into this....


I had a 7950 DCUII, cooler was useless... legit didn't even contact the die properly and had absolutely no VRM cooling at all.

and my last two asus boards (current included) have had major faults.

I personally will be steering far away from all their products for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Erick Silver

I'm currently rocking an Asus CROSSHAIR V FORMULA-Z Board and was hoping to stick with that theme.


----------



## Erick Silver

That and that RGB Backlit LED Backplate is hot stuff.


----------



## NaXter24R

Other companies like MSI, Gigabyte, XFX, Sapphire, EVGA, and so on, use a copper plate (nickel plated or copper, doesn't matter) to spread the heat.
Want another example? Two top tear cards, i mean, elite card, Lightning and Matrix Platinum.
Here's the 780ti:


Here is the 290x:


This instead is MSI's Lightning
780ti:


Here is the 290x:


Now THIS is a custom made cooler, a good one.

Another proof?
Bare with me, R9 380 Strix:


Nice uh? Oh wait, GTX 970 Strix:


Just move the standoffs inward for AMD and outward


----------



## cainy1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> I'm currently rocking an Asus CROSSHAIR V FORMULA-Z Board and was hoping to stick with that theme.


Well at the end of the day its up to you man, the PCB on the 7950 was solid it only just died a couple months ago actually which isn't bad for its age.

Just I personally haven't got too many good things at all to say about them, others haven't had any issues.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cainy1991*
> 
> I had a 7950 DCUII, cooler was useless... legit didn't even contact the die properly and had absolutely no VRM cooling at all.
> 
> and my last two asus boards (current included) have had major faults.
> 
> I personally will be steering far away from all their products for the foreseeable future.


PCB is good, sometimes really good, but the cooler isn't. And about VRMs, you're right, now they seems to have understand that, for example looking at the 290x DCU2 vs DCU3. Still, it's the same damn cooler as the 980ti with inward standoffs and a slightly offset VRM plate. And those Heatpipes are still doing nothing.

290x:


390x:


780:


980 ti:


----------



## Erick Silver

I had a Sapphire VaporX HD 7950 that was a rockstar. I miss that card.


----------



## NaXter24R

I don't think we will see any Vapor-X on RX 480. Maybe on Vega, but Vapor-X it's quite expensive and that chip doesn't need much cooling. I mean, the reference one is ok and it's basically a recycled can, without any offence


----------



## Erick Silver

Right now I am using a EVGA GTX770 Superclocked 4GB. I wanna get my rig back to its all AMD roots. I will wait and see what the other offerrings are from the other companies before deciding. But I still say that the Asus Strix is a great looking card. I only hope they don't screw up the cooling.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Asus 290 was the worst on the market. Hope they learnt their lessons, but I doubt it


----------



## NaXter24R

I bet they are going to use the 1060 cooler








3 heatpipes, one and a half on the GPU die


----------



## cainy1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> I had a Sapphire VaporX HD 7950 that was a rockstar. I miss that card.


Yeah I had a Sapphire 6870 vapor-X was a really solid card.
I have been pretty much strictly powercolor(dat PCS+ cooler







) since the problems with the DCUII but I'm thinking I may take a swing at another sapphire card soon be it 390x or rx 480.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> I bet they are going to use the 1060 cooler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 heatpipes, one and a half on the GPU die


As little heat as the 1060 will give off, I doubt it will matter. My 1070, even with it's "gimped" heatpipe FE cooler, will reach about 84c (fan speed @ 55%) while overclocked w/ power/temp limits maxed. It will not get any hotter than that, period. Compare that to my old 780, which hit 89c (fan speed @ 79%) when overclocked. Pascal may only be slightly faster than Maxwell, but it is very efficient.


----------



## motoray

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> As little heat as the 1060 will give off, I doubt it will matter. My 1070, even with it's "gimped" heatpipe FE cooler, will reach about 84c (fan speed @ 55%) while overclocked w/ power/temp limits maxed. It will not get any hotter than that, period. Compare that to my old 780, which hit 89c (fan speed @ 79%) when overclocked. Pascal may only be slightly faster than Maxwell, but it is very efficient.


Is that what people consider good these days? I have not seen a temp above 33c in 5 years.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> That and that RGB Backlit LED Backplate is hot stuff.


Well you are the perfect Asus customer, bling before quality control.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> As little heat as the 1060 will give off, I doubt it will matter. My 1070, even with it's "gimped" heatpipe FE cooler, will reach about 84c (fan speed @ 55%) while overclocked w/ power/temp limits maxed. It will not get any hotter than that, period. Compare that to my old 780, which hit 89c (fan speed @ 79%) when overclocked. Pascal may only be slightly faster than Maxwell, but it is very efficient.


And people think AMD cards run hot.


----------



## NFL

The more I hear about the Strix, the more I want to buy the Nitro instead


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> As little heat as the 1060 will give off, I doubt it will matter. My 1070, even with it's "gimped" heatpipe FE cooler, will reach about 84c (fan speed @ 55%) while overclocked w/ power/temp limits maxed. It will not get any hotter than that, period. Compare that to my old 780, which hit 89c (fan speed @ 79%) when overclocked. Pascal may only be slightly faster than Maxwell, but it is very efficient.


I know, but it's not about temps here. I know those chips are tiny and they can be cooled easily. But i don't like companies to fool us. I mean, Asus is not a small company and i would like to see some better cooler. Sure, in this way they can save money giving "good enough" products. But many people still believe they are the best, and it's not the case. On R9 380 and even on this card, there won't be any problem, but old 7970, 280x, 290, 290x and 300, they all runs damn hot, and people blame AMD for that. Sure, they use more power and overall they are hotter. But looking at what Sapphire has done with the 390x Nitro, well. It's not magic, it's just a matter of effort and "how much do you care about your customers"


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> I know, but it's not about temps here. I know those chips are tiny and they can be cooled easily. But i don't like companies to fool us. I mean, Asus is not a small company and i would like to see some better cooler. Sure, in this way they can save money giving "good enough" products. But many people still believe they are the best, and it's not the case. On R9 380 and even on this card, there won't be any problem, but old 7970, 280x, 290, 290x and 300, they all runs damn hot, and people blame AMD for that. Sure, they use more power and overall they are hotter. But looking at what Sapphire has done with the 390x Nitro, well. It's not magic, it's just a matter of effort and "how much do you care about your customers"


Sapphire, Gigabyte, MSI and probably more brands had no problems with cooling Tahiti and Hawaii.

Asus just like to cheap out and they charge piles of money whilst focusing on marketing features and bling like RGB.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFL*
> 
> The more I hear about the Strix, the more I want to buy the Nitro instead


Sapphire has a really solid rep, while I've never owned a GPU by them they have a long history of good cards (1ghz 4890 anyone?). They're the benchmark for AMD cards and other AIBs to do better (or worse). The Nitro is gonna be a great card.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> I don't think we will see any Vapor-X on RX 480. Maybe on Vega, but Vapor-X it's quite expensive and that chip doesn't need much cooling. I mean, the reference one is ok and it's basically a recycled can, without any offence


There have been cheaper models with Vapor-X cooling:


----------



## CrazyElf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> I have figured something out... the reason that Polaris suffers from a texture filtering bottleneck is not due to the amount of Color ROPs (or ROPs for short) but rather due to the amount of Z Stencil ROPs (found in the Render Back End units).
> 
> Basically... Polaris could be MUCH more powerful if it moved to 16 RBEs rather than 8 RBEs. In doubling the amount of RBEs you effectively increase the amount of texture filtering performance to an even greater degree. Right now Polaris is stuck at up to 119 GTexel/s when handling int8 texture filtering loads. This figure can be doubled by simply moving to 16 RBEs. Polaris has 128 Z/Stencil ROPs so it really can only function at up to 128 GTexels/s when handling Int8 texture filtering duties. If you move to 16 RBEs you get a boost to 256 GTexels/s. If you move to 24 RBEs (96 Color ROPs and 384 Z/Stencil ROPs) you boost up to 384 GTexel/s and so on and so forth.
> 
> 
> 
> See the Fury-X has 16 RBEs and thus can reach 249 GTexels/s (just shy of its 256 GTexel/s maximum).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> The RBEs are tied directly to L2 Cache and a memory controller. Therefore the more L2 Cache (or the faster your memory controller as well as Framebuffer) then the least likely you are to bottleneck the theoretical throughput of your Z/Stencil ROPs.
> 
> 
> This is likely why AMD have tweaked the cache on Polaris as well as increased the Cache in order to ensure that it delivers near maximum throughput (119/128 is very good tbh).
> 
> What this means for Vega... Well if Vega comes with 4096KB of L2 Cache (4MB) then we can expect there to be no Texture Filtering Bottlenecks. One can assume that Vega will have 16 RBEs (like Fury-X before it) and potentially one of the two Vega variants could even have more of these units. If that is the case then we would have grounds for a tough card to beat... it would take a GTX 1080 Ti.
> 
> AMD do not even need 1600 or 1800 Mhz at that. At 1266 MHz a Vega GPU with double the RBEs and a healthy increase in terms of CUs (Of course AMD is skipping GDDR5x and going straight to HBM2 for both Vega SKUs) would effectively compete with a GTX 1080 running its ridiculously high clocks (most probably beating it).
> 
> 
> This is doable.


To be honest, I stand by what I said, I would like the 4096 part to have 32 RBEs and the 6144 part to have 48 RBEs.

I think that the end result would be no bottlenecks here. This is especially important at for the 6144 part, which could very well be used for 4k multi-monitor setups. At that resolution, that is when the extra memory bandwidth and RBEs are going to really make the difference.

One move that I think AMD could make is to make a revision 2. Kind of like how they did for the 4870, they released a 4890. Maybe release a Rx 481 with double the RBEs?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Of course Vega would consume more power than Pascal but for high performance... who cares? (plus HBM2 will mitigate some of that extra power usage anyway).
> 
> Two RX 480s at 1266 MHz in crossfire are already capable of competing with a GTX 1080 when Crossfire works. As we know... Crossfire replicates texture Data so that means that two RX 480s are not even benefiting from the doubling of Z/Stencil ROPs and/or Texture Units.
> 
> If AIB RX 480s are able to clock past 1400MHz and beyond then a Vega GPU stuck at 1200-1300 MHz tops would compete with with a GTX 1080 and beyond.
> 
> It looks to me like nVIDIA have also hit a wall in terms of how high they can clock their GPUs (like a Pentium 4 basically). So Pascal going to a GTX 1080 Ti would mean much lower clocks than those currently enjoyed by the GTX 1070 and 1080 GPUs.
> 
> My prediction is that AMD will win this round. As unlikely as it sounds... if they effectively do double the RBEs/ROPs and and add a healthy amount of CUs coupled with HBM2 memory. Both high end Vega SKUs are set to give nVIDIA quite the headache if this all turns out to come to fruition.


Yeah but performance per watt would be vastly improved if you think about it on Vega.


They are going to be using HBM2 not GDDR5 (so some power savings right off the bat)
As I said, I'm hoping for 32 and 48 RBEs, not just 8 (versus just 16 on the 4096 part and I presume 24 on the 6144 part)
Polaris will no doubt have other refinements

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> Other companies like MSI, Gigabyte, XFX, Sapphire, EVGA, and so on, use a copper plate (nickel plated or copper, doesn't matter) to spread the heat.
> Want another example? Two top tear cards, i mean, elite card, Lightning and Matrix Platinum.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the 780ti:
> 
> 
> Here is the 290x:
> 
> 
> 
> This instead is MSI's Lightning
> 780ti:
> 
> 
> Here is the 290x:
> 
> 
> Now THIS is a custom made cooler, a good one.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Another proof?
> Bare with me, R9 380 Strix:
> 
> 
> Nice uh? Oh wait, GTX 970 Strix:
> 
> 
> Just move the standoffs inward for AMD and outward


What's interesting about the Lightning is that they do have a those bumps on the VRM to spread heat. Although the VRM is so overkill that it probably is less of an issue anyways.

Even so, I would like better VRM cooling (ideally a heatpipe going directly over the Mosfets).

Another problem with Asus I have found is that their RMA experience has been a mixed bag. MSI and Gigabyte have both been pretty good to me in terms of customer service. The 290X Windforce by Gigabyte was problematic, but we'll see how they are this round. Sapphire seems to be pretty solid, at least product-wise.


----------



## zanardi

Sapphire has made a cheap R7 370 with Vapor-X, so there is a chance for 480.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Sapphire, Gigabyte, MSI and probably more brands had no problems with cooling Tahiti and Hawaii.
> 
> Asus just like to cheap out and they charge piles of money whilst focusing on marketing features and bling like RGB.


I'm ok with that, but i really can't stand when i read "Asus is the best" because people heard it from other dumb people. Ok bling bling, but quality first.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> There have been cheaper models with Vapor-X cooling:


I know
But let's be honest, who would ever buy such a GPU with a Vapor-X? RX 480 is supposed to be a cheap GPU. I just hope to see some Vapor-X on Vega, because they left out Fury's lineup


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> I'm ok with that, but i really can't stand when i read "Asus is the best" because people heard it from other dumb people. Ok bling bling, but quality first.
> I know
> But let's be honest, who would ever buy such a GPU with a Vapor-X? RX 480 is supposed to be a cheap GPU. I just hope to see some Vapor-X on Vega, because they left out Fury's lineup


A lot of people do. If they didn't sell they wouldn't make them.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *motoray*
> 
> Is that what people consider good these days? I have not seen a temp above 33c in 5 years.


With a custom water loop, I would expect that. Nvidia's stock fan design is not the best by any means. AIB partner coolers have proven that.

My GTX 780 temps, btw, are not indicative of what most people will see. That's running a game @ 3440x1440. A 780 was never designed to play games at that res, so its resources are heavily taxed. It's sort of like running furmark with every game (thus the high temperatures). People do not realize that as you increase resolution on your games, the GPU is more heavily stressed and its resources are saturated. This is why many people's temperatures @ 1080P are far lower than those running the cards @ 1440P and 4K.

The 1070, on the other hand, is designed to run at these resolutions. On top of that, the 1070 is a smaller core that uses less power, so it gives off less heat as well.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> I'm ok with that, but i really can't stand when i read "Asus is the best" because people heard it from other dumb people. Ok bling bling, but quality first.


its that brand recognition/loyalty people build just from seeing a name frequently unfortunately

my list (for amd gpu at least) is

Sapphire, HIS, Gigabyte, and PowerColor

Owned GPU by all except Sapphire and theyve been fantastic cards. Ive had to watch a friend continually RMA MSI GPU for years so my faith in them is a little meh, but they have a few good ones (lightning tends to be good)


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> its that brand recognition/loyalty people build just from seeing a name frequently unfortunately
> 
> my list (for amd gpu at least) is
> 
> Sapphire, HIS, Gigabyte, and PowerColor
> 
> Owned GPU by all except Sapphire and theyve been fantastic cards. Ive had to watch a friend continually RMA MSI GPU for years so my faith in them is a little meh, but they have a few good ones (lightning tends to be good)


I'd add XFX too. They are pretty good as well. Even MSI is not bad. I've a 290x Gaming OC, my only complain is the PCB, it's reference like, but with some little difference, so no backplate for me. The cooler was good tho, silent and cool as well.
But if i have to choose one, it's Sapphire, simply amazing. My old 280x holds in summer 73°C on the core and 70ish on the VRM with 1.3v, fans less than 50%, 1250mhz. That, is a cooler.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> A lot of people do. If they didn't sell they wouldn't make them.


I know, but to me it's nonsense. The 250x is the 7770. I still have one (Sapphire ghz edition) and it never went above 60ish in summer, with the old thermal paste. With the new one it's below 60.
Don't get me wrong, it's not about the cooler, but in that price range, every cent count


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> *Well you are the perfect Asus customer, bling before quality control.*
> And people think AMD cards run hot.


Now hold on.
I have had Asus product GPU in the past and it was a great card. I currently run a Asus Motherboard. I have had no issues with their quality.
I also run a Corsair CX750M, supposedly a poor quality PSU, no problems.

Problems and quality issue can and have happened on every major brand of computer part. We all make decisions on what parts we choose to use based on our experiences. You have had a poor experience with Asus, I have had a neutral to good experience. Its not all about the bling, although in this instance it is part of my choice.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> Now hold on.
> I have had Asus product GPU in the past and it was a great card. I currently run a Asus Motherboard. I have had no issues with their quality.
> I also run a Corsair CX750M, supposedly a poor quality PSU, no problems.
> 
> Problems and quality issue can and have happened on every major brand of computer part. We all make decisions on what parts we choose to use based on our experiences. You have had a poor experience with Asus, I have had a neutral to good experience. Its not all about the bling, although in this instance it is part of my choice.


No doubt and I agree with your points, it's just someone showed you an example of a poorly designed cooler but even after you didn't seem to acknowledge it and you were talking about RGB lit backplates and such.

The thing I find a little worrying with asus is they repeatedly do these things with their GPU coolers, whereas other companies seem to try and learn from them.

Ie Gigabyte 290 series problems, then afterward they come out with the G1 series Maxwell cards which could arguably be the best cooling of the series for core and vrm temps.

I personally find ROG products overpriced and the seem (I could be wrong of course) to put looks before quality/function.

Each to their own though and I respect your views and understand that a large majority of asus products are in fact very good.


----------



## Erick Silver

Uh. I did say that I would have to look into it further.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1604421/various-amd-rx-480-review-thread/2210#post_25315257

And yes the Asus Strix Card is sparkleshineyawesomeness, but I will be looking into the cooler design once released and also look into other makers before making my purchase.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1604421/various-amd-rx-480-review-thread/2220#post_25315327

So no, I did not ignore the examples given.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> Uh. I did say that I would have to look into it further.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1604421/various-amd-rx-480-review-thread/2210#post_25315257
> 
> And yes the Asus Strix Card is sparkleshineyawesomeness, but I will be looking into the cooler design once released and also look into other makers before making my purchase.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1604421/various-amd-rx-480-review-thread/2220#post_25315327
> 
> So no, I did not ignore the examples given.


Acknowledged


----------



## NaXter24R

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Asus, i'm against companies moking on customers.
Asus is one of those. Motherboard, they are overpriced BUT they do offer some really good stuff, WS for example or TUF or ROG. They cost quite a lot, there is a significant markup, but overall, they are really good products. Of course there is something i don't like, bios for example, still i can comfortably recommend those products.

On GPU side i have a policy, if someone is going to watercool the GPU, ok, if there is compatibility with the custom PCB, Asus is great. But air cooler, i highly suggest to avoid that brand. When people talk about dead Asus GPUs, it's because (especially on AMD side) the "forgot" to take care of VRMs and with some model, you can't, you simply cannot cool passively VRMs. That's why they died.
Moreover, the GPU cooler itself is shared between many cards, and i'm ok with that, for example, one cooler for Tahiti, one for Tonga, one for Hawaii. In reality is one for Hawaii AND the same for GM200. And this is something i can't stand at all. Moreover if this company claims better cooling with "10mm heatpipe that carries bla bla bla" and better quality, because is not.

IF Asus change its mind, i'll happily suggest Asus GPU to anyone who ask me, till then, they are good on shelves.

The point here is that when i spend my money (or i have to suggest to someone) i want good products, not good enough products.


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Asus, i'm against companies moking on customers.
> Asus is one of those. Motherboard, they are overpriced BUT they do offer some really good stuff, WS for example or TUF or ROG. They cost quite a lot, there is a significant markup, but overall, they are really good products. Of course there is something i don't like, bios for example, still i can comfortably recommend those products.
> 
> On GPU side i have a policy, if someone is going to watercool the GPU, ok, if there is compatibility with the custom PCB, Asus is great. But air cooler, i highly suggest to avoid that brand. When people talk about dead Asus GPUs, it's because (especially on AMD side) the "forgot" to take care of VRMs and with some model, you can't, you simply cannot cool passively VRMs. That's why they died.
> Moreover, the GPU cooler itself is shared between many cards, and i'm ok with that, for example, one cooler for Tahiti, one for Tonga, one for Hawaii. In reality is one for Hawaii AND the same for GM200. And this is something i can't stand at all. Moreover if this company claims better cooling with "10mm heatpipe that carries bla bla bla" and better quality, because is not.
> 
> IF Asus change its mind, i'll happily suggest Asus GPU to anyone who ask me, till then, they are good on shelves.
> 
> The point here is that when i spend my money (or i have to suggest to someone) i want good products, not good enough products.


Asus' Direct CU line of cards have been consistently awful. Who on earth approved the idea touse a heatpipe cooler of which only 1.5-2 of the four heat pipes touch the GPU? Very bad hardware design and management at Asus and the fact that they continue to use that very same terrible design shows they don't care. Thus their GPU's aren't worth buying.

Their motherboards aren't that overpriced as Gigabyte, MSI and others also price their highest end in the same price category. But they are still overpriced to me so I prefer to buy their boards second hand. Quality can't be argued with. These CHV's are amazing and the best motherboards I've ever used.


----------



## PontiacGTX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> You have 4 Geometry Processors each running at 1266MHz. If you multiply 4x1266MHz you get 5064 or 5.1 Gtris/s. Perfect scaling would deliver that amount of GTris/s and we get 4.7 GTris/s for the List benchmark and surprisingly we get even higher performance for Strip (showing that the Hardware Discard Accelerator is working perfectly). In other words... Tessellation is now on par with Maxwell and Pascal efficiency wise (per Geometry processor).
> 
> The R9 380x also had 4 Geometry Processors clocked at 975MHz. If you multiply you get 3900 or 3.9 GTris/s. The list performance of 3.7 GTris/s is thus near perfect scaling but the Strip performance of 2.2 GTris/s shows that the R9 380x (like previous GCN products) suffered from low tessellation performance when triangles were smaller than a pixel.
> 
> Evidently... Tessellation is no longer an issue for AMDs new GPUs. All AMD needs now is to add more Tessellation Processors for linear Tessellation scaling performance boosts.
> 
> AMDs Tessellation woes were due to the small triangle issue which has been entirely resolved. Had Polaris come with 64 ROPs if likely would have given the GTX 980 Ti a run for its money... and that is at 1266MHz. Polaris has a huge achilles heel as it pertains to pixel fillrate and when using 64-bit textures (half rate performance). There also appears to be a bandwidth related issue with Texture Filtering (likely requiring a newer version of HyperZ in order to boost performance in that respect).


Exactly the new index cache for Small instance geometry helps on List or Strip?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> I have figured something out... the reason that Polaris suffers from a texture filtering bottleneck is not due to the amount of Color ROPs (or ROPs for short) but rather due to the amount of Z Stencil ROPs (found in the Render Back End units).
> 
> Basically... Polaris could be MUCH more powerful if it moved to 16 RBEs rather than 8 RBEs. In doubling the amount of RBEs you effectively increase the amount of texture filtering performance to an even greater degree. Right now Polaris is stuck at up to 119 GTexel/s when handling int8 texture filtering loads. This figure can be doubled by simply moving to 16 RBEs. Polaris has 128 Z/Stencil ROPs so it really can only function at up to 128 GTexels/s when handling Int8 texture filtering duties. If you move to 16 RBEs you get a boost to 256 GTexels/s. If you move to 24 RBEs (96 Color ROPs and 384 Z/Stencil ROPs) you boost up to 384 GTexel/s and so on and so forth.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the Fury-X has 16 RBEs and thus can reach 249 GTexels/s (just shy of its 256 GTexel/s maximum).
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RBEs are tied directly to L2 Cache and a memory controller. Therefore the more L2 Cache (or the faster your memory controller as well as Framebuffer) then the least likely you are to bottleneck the theoretical throughput of your Z/Stencil ROPs.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is likely why AMD have tweaked the cache on Polaris as well as increased the Cache in order to ensure that it delivers near maximum throughput (119/128 is very good tbh).
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> What this means for Vega... Well if Vega comes with 4096KB of L2 Cache (4MB) then we can expect there to be no Texture Filtering Bottlenecks. One can assume that Vega will have 16 RBEs (like Fury-X before it) and potentially one of the two Vega variants could even have more of these units. If that is the case then we would have grounds for a tough card to beat... it would take a GTX 1080 Ti.
> 
> AMD do not even need 1600 or 1800 Mhz at that. At 1266 MHz a Vega GPU with double the RBEs and a healthy increase in terms of CUs (Of course AMD is skipping GDDR5x and going straight to HBM2 for both Vega SKUs) would effectively compete with a GTX 1080 running its ridiculously high clocks (most probably beating it). This is doable.


but adding more RBE wouldnt require more power or they arent used simultaneously/all on games?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Pcgamehardware
> 
> Pretty sure there was at least one other, not many sites really seemed to look into sustained clock speeds even though AMD introduced a lot of new power/clock features.


It can be a matter of the P States and AVFS but when the custom cards have a proper power state or different VRM/Mosfet/voltages and cooling
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> Of course Vega would consume more power than Pascal but for high performance... who cares? (plus HBM2 will mitigate some of that extra power usage anyway).
> 
> Two RX 480s at 1266 MHz in crossfire are already capable of competing with a GTX 1080 when Crossfire works. As we know... Crossfire replicates texture Data so that means that two RX 480s are not even benefiting from the doubling of Z/Stencil ROPs and/or Texture Units.
> 
> If AIB RX 480s are able to clock past 1400MHz and beyond then a Vega GPU stuck at 1200-1300 MHz tops would compete with with a GTX 1080 and beyond.
> 
> It looks to me like nVIDIA have also hit a wall in terms of how high they can clock their GPUs (like a Pentium 4 basically). So Pascal going to a GTX 1080 Ti would mean much lower clocks than those currently enjoyed by the GTX 1070 and 1080 GPUs.
> 
> My prediction is that AMD will win this round. As unlikely as it sounds... if they effectively do double the RBEs/ROPs and and add a healthy amount of CUs coupled with HBM2 memory. Both high end Vega SKUs are set to give nVIDIA quite the headache if this all turns out to come to fruition.


but R9 290/x Replacement (RX 490?) is meant to compete with Mid tier GP104? but then this is Polaris 10? or Vega 10 is the Gp100 competitor?


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PontiacGTX*
> 
> Exactly the new index cache for Small instance geometry helps on List or Strip?
> but adding more RBE wouldnt require more power or they arent used simultaneously/all on games?
> It can be a matter of the P States and AVFS but when the custom cards have a proper power state or different VRM/Mosfet/voltages and cooling
> but R9 290/x Replacement (RX 490?) is meant to compete with Mid tier GP104? but then this is Polaris 10? or Vega 10 is the Gp100 competitor?


the RX480 will be as fast or faster then 290x on more mature drivers, every driver for next like 3 drivers going to see a nice little bump up in performance, just like every amd card pretty much does


----------



## nagle3092

Update

One card is dead, didnt take out the pcie slot though. Its still going strong.

I am guessing the card was going to die regardless since it went when the computer was idling. Turned it on this morning and smoke shot out of the card.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Update
> 
> One card is dead, didnt take out the pcie slot though. Its still going strong.
> 
> I am guessing the card was going to die regardless since it went when the computer was idling. Turned it on this morning and smoke shot out of the card.


From this PCIE problem only the card should not be effected.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> From this PCIE problem only the card should not be effected.


Yeah if it was related to power draw my guess is the slot would have went as well. I swapped the other card to the slot this one was in and it works just fine.


----------



## EightDee8D

So it's just the card died ? heavy oc/ mining or something ?


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> So it's just the card died ? heavy oc/ mining or something ?


I was doing alot of benching on them but when the card went the computer was idling last night. Woke up and it was off tried to power on, no go. Opened the side panel, turned off psu for a minute, powered it back on and fired up the pc and smoke shot out of the card.

I really want to open it up but those damn warranty void stickers are on the screws.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> I was doing alot of benching on them but when the card went the computer was idling last night. Woke up and it was off tried to power on, no go. Opened the side panel, turned off psu for a minute, powered it back on and fired up the pc and smoke shot out of the card.
> 
> I really want to open it up but those damn warranty void stickers are on the screws.


Oh damn, well it's RMA time then. try getting a custom version in exchange if you can.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> Oh damn, well it's RMA time then. try getting a custom version in exchange if you can.


Yeah Im gonna return it for a refund at amazon. Then I think I'll wait for the Nitros to come in stock.


----------



## NicksTricks007

Not sure if you guys have been following @Iscaria and his 480 review thread, but so far his power draw numbers seem to contradict what we've seen from a few others.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1604690/rx-480-unboxing-and-initial-review#post_25313173

Granted, it's not overclocked but still. 31 watts @ idle and 105 watts @ load are pretty damn good.

Edit: not sure how accurate gpu-z is when calculating power draw, so a grain of salt I guess.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NicksTricks007*
> 
> Not sure if you guys have been following @Iscaria and his 480 review thread, but so far his power draw numbers seem to contradict what we've seen from a few others.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1604690/rx-480-unboxing-and-initial-review#post_25313173
> 
> Granted, it's not overclocked but still. 31 watts @ idle and 105 watts @ load are pretty damn good.
> 
> Edit: not sure how accurate gpu-z is when calculating power draw, so a grain of salt I guess.


Gpu z only measures the wattage used by the gpu, not entire board load.


----------



## Orthello

I think thats just asic power draw, eg just GPU . I'm not sure if thats good or bad for Asic. I think i have heard 110watts for Asic as the upper end so 105 does seem a bit better. 40 watts to power rest of card theoretically.


----------



## neurotix

I've bought nothing but Sapphire cards since 2009. I had two R9 290 Vapor-X, best GPUs I've ever owned/seen, but sold them while I could get a lot and am holding on to the money for Vega. In the meantime, I have two 380X Nitro and they're great little cards.

The RX 480 Nitro will be an amazing card for sure, if not the best AIB card you can buy. I would strongly recommend it.

If I weren't going to use Sapphire I think I would probably switch to MSI. ASUS makes great motherboards but their GPUs leave a lot to be desired.


----------



## Klocek001

New PowerColor Devil RX480, supposed to have 1.4GHz OC capability


----------



## NicksTricks007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Gpu z only measures the wattage used by the gpu, not entire board load.


Gotcha







still should give a general idea of power draw you would think though.....
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> I think thats just asic power draw, eg just GPU . I'm not sure if thats good or bad for Asic. I think i have heard 110watts for Asic as the upper end so 105 does seem a bit better. 40 watts to power rest of card theoretically.


Thanks for explaining.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NicksTricks007*
> 
> Not sure if you guys have been following @Iscaria and his 480 review thread, but so far his power draw numbers seem to contradict what we've seen from a few others.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1604690/rx-480-unboxing-and-initial-review#post_25313173
> 
> Granted, it's not overclocked but still. 31 watts @ idle and 105 watts @ load are pretty damn good.
> 
> Edit: not sure how accurate gpu-z is when calculating power draw, so a grain of salt I guess.


1.05v. Many review sample went to 1.15v. I think because AMD produced a ton of those card, they overvolted a bit for better yield.

By the way, it seems that overclocking the memory may cause additional power draw from the PCIe slot. vCore is instead connected directly to the 6 pin.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> 1.05v. Many review sample went to 1.15v. I think because AMD produced a ton of those card, they overvolted a bit for better yield.
> 
> By the way, it seems that overclocking the memory may cause additional power draw from the PCIe slot. vCore is instead connected directly to the 6 pin.


I would like to see proper testing done on that to confirm, either way its a pity as memory oc on this card is potent. I have seen 15% memory OC give 7-11 % increases in perf alone. Thats as good as if not better than overclocking the gpu core.

Hopefully amds software fix can do something other than just power limit things, hopefully it can do a bit of tuning also for each gpu eg lower voltages where asic allows (most reports show headroom for this) , maintaining same boost speeds.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> I would like to see proper testing done on that to confirm, either way its a pity as memory oc on this card is potent. I have seen 15% memory OC give 7-11 % increases in perf alone. Thats as good as if not better than overclocking the gpu core.
> 
> Hopefully amds software fix can do something other than just power limit things, hopefully it can do a bit of tuning also for each gpu eg lower voltages where asic allows (most reports show headroom for this) , maintaining same boost speeds.


Moreover, if that is the case, the 4gb model would draw even more power IF the memory modules are different. Check my post on VRAM modules. If they use 4gb modules they are rated 7ghz @ 1.55v instead of 8ghz 1.5v for the 8gb model (and the 8gb could be underclocked to 7ghz as well so potentially, even a lower voltage and consequently lower power draw)


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> Moreover, if that is the case, the 4gb model would draw even more power IF the memory modules are different. Check my post on VRAM modules. If they use 4gb modules they are rated 7ghz @ 1.55v instead of 8ghz 1.5v for the 8gb model (and the 8gb could be underclocked to 7ghz as well so potentially, even a lower voltage and consequently lower power draw)


Half the modules to power though (i think) , overall i don't think it would be much different. 4gb vs 8gb for power draw even with the voltage diff.

Yeah , the way i look at it AMD will fix this issue in the new driver. How much head room remains will be interesting. They can lower GPU voltage and from all reports so far this will not reduce performance ,as its proving to increase it so far. I am not sure if they can lower Vram voltage , i would suspect not. Core throttling will still remain as the PCIE slot power will be soft limited to 75 watts.

Its still going to look like ref cards = undervolt to get better performance. Raise TDP power only if the new driver can split power usage properly to 6pin (doubtfull this is but lets see).

AIB 480s are going to own the ref cards totally unlike with pascal. Better power management (draw more power from 8pin). Better PCBs (slightly as ref is damn good pcb) . Higher TDP due to 8pin (far more oc potential). Better cooling. Higher sustained boost clocks - hopefully across all resolutions.

If AMD end up reducing performance on the ref cards with the new driver (i think even if so it will be 98-99% there) then this only increases perf gap to AIB cards.


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> A lot of people do. If they didn't sell they wouldn't make them.


Vapor-x seems to be discontinued. The last cards made with it are the 2xx series. I had a 390X Nitro for a brief period and it sounded like a jet engine on load. Seems to be that their coolers do cool well, but with expense of extra noise.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> Half the modules to power though (i think) , overall i don't think it would be much different. 4gb vs 8gb for power draw even with the voltage diff.
> 
> Yeah , the way i look at it AMD will fix this issue in the new driver. How much head room remains will be interesting. They can lower GPU voltage and from all reports so far this will not reduce performance ,as its proving to increase it so far. I am not sure if they can lower Vram voltage , i would suspect not. Core throttling will still remain as the PCIE slot power will be soft limited to 75 watts.
> 
> Its still going to look like ref cards = undervolt to get better performance. Raise TDP power only if the new driver can split power usage properly to 6pin (doubtfull this is but lets see).
> 
> AIB 480s are going to own the ref cards totally unlike with pascal. Better power management (draw more power from 8pin). Better PCBs (slightly as ref is damn good pcb) . Higher TDP due to 8pin (far more oc potential). Better cooling. Higher sustained boost clocks - hopefully across all resolutions.
> 
> If AMD end up reducing performance on the ref cards with the new driver (i think even if so it will be 98-99% there) then this only increases perf gap to AIB cards.


Powering half the memory module it's not possible. Well, maybe yes, but you are going to have half the bandwidth then. I don't know what have they done to the bios. I have a reference bios but i'm not into those things. I know you need assembly or something but i really don't know. I only know that is written in hex and some other stuff... I really don't know, would be nice if someone capable of reading a bios could expain us what happens.

Another thing is that from what i have seen so far, only few people encountered issues with the PCIe slot. One guy here with a 3 way Crossfire. And even if it's a lot of power, the motherboard should have some overcurrent protection that failed spectacularly. Another guy had a 750ti before, and as many other before said, that card runs well above the specs and over time, you can potentially decrease the lifespan of the PCIe slot. The 480 just finished the job.
I also think many motherboard manifacturers, due to auxiliary power on the GPU, have skimped on the PCIe slot and only now we are seeing that.

I hope in a driver fix but there is a 10% chance that this is a features built in the card design, let's hope i'm wrong here.

Lastly, VRAM. As i said before, there are two memory modules, one is rater up to 8ghz 1.5v and could be set to 6 or 7 as well and i think, even below that voltage, but i'm not sure (looking at power draw from anandtech, yes), and from what i know, there is no manifacturer out of Samsung that can provide 8ghz VRAM chip (and guess what, those are the same on the 1070). If AMD used some 4gb chip, again, there is only Samsung, and the 4gb are rated 1.55, so even more power draw.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> Vapor-x seems to be discontinued. The last cards made with it are the 2xx series. I had a 390X Nitro for a brief period and it sounded like a jet engine on load. Seems to be that their coolers do cool well, but with expense of extra noise.


No Vapor-X on 480. On their twitch live stream they said that the card don't need the extra cost and cooling from the Vapor-X cooler. The Nitro will use a 3 heatpipe design. They didn't read (or they didn't want to read the Vega part







)


----------



## slavovid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> Powering half the memory module it's not possible. Well, maybe yes, but you are going to have half the bandwidth then. I don't know what have they done to the bios. I have a reference bios but i'm not into those things. I know you need assembly or something but i really don't know. I only know that is written in hex and some other stuff... I really don't know, would be nice if someone capable of reading a bios could expain us what happens.
> 
> Another thing is that from what i have seen so far, only few people encountered issues with the PCIe slot. One guy here with a 3 way Crossfire. And even if it's a lot of power, the motherboard should have some overcurrent protection that failed spectacularly. Another guy had a 750ti before, and as many other before said, that card runs well above the specs and over time, you can potentially decrease the lifespan of the PCIe slot. The 480 just finished the job.
> I also think many motherboard manifacturers, due to auxiliary power on the GPU, have skimped on the PCIe slot and only now we are seeing that.
> 
> I hope in a driver fix but there is a 10% chance that this is a features built in the card design, let's hope i'm wrong here.
> 
> Lastly, VRAM. As i said before, there are two memory modules, one is rater up to 8ghz 1.5v and could be set to 6 or 7 as well and i think, even below that voltage, but i'm not sure (looking at power draw from anandtech, yes), and from what i know, there is no manifacturer out of Samsung that can provide 8ghz VRAM chip (and guess what, those are the same on the 1070). If AMD used some 4gb chip, again, there is only Samsung, and the 4gb are rated 1.55, so even more power draw.


There is a guy on the ATI thread talking about custumizing bios of the RX 480 maybe we could sparkle a discussion about this?


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> No Vapor-X on 480. On their twitch live stream they said that the card don't need the extra cost and cooling from the Vapor-X cooler. The Nitro will use a 3 heatpipe design. They didn't read (or they didn't want to read the Vega part
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


And the reason why was because their heatsink design rivals the vapor chamber design they were using. So they dont want to put a more expensive heatsink on when the could use their other design (nitro) and charge less.


----------



## tkenietz

Have they confirmed if there will be a toxic model?


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slavovid*
> 
> There is a guy on the ATI thread talking about custumizing bios of the RX 480 maybe we could sparkle a discussion about this?


Sure! I would like to learn something about bios in general and i'm curious to see if 'm right with the memory thought


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Have they confirmed if there will be a toxic model?


I've heard a few rumors but nothing official. If they do make a Toxic we won't see it for another 2 months at least


----------



## ekg84

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Have they confirmed if there will be a toxic model?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> I've heard a few rumors but nothing official. If they do make a Toxic we won't see it for another 2 months at least


Damn, i've had two toxic cards, a 4850 and a 5850 and they were awesome. Would be great to see a toxic RX 480 with a nice beefy cooler and a backplate...

remember these bad boys?


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Have they confirmed if there will be a toxic model?


I asked today on the stream and they said it hasnt been ruled out. Thats all they said though so I am kinda doubting it since its a mainstream card. How I loved my 5850 Toxics.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> I asked today on the stream and they said it hasnt been ruled out. Thats all they said though so I am kinda doubting it since its a mainstream card. How I loved my 5850 Toxics.


Did they give out any more info than we already have from Gibbo like US price or more accurate release time frame?


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Did they give out any more info than we already have from Gibbo like US price or more accurate release time frame?


Nope


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Update
> 
> One card is dead, didnt take out the pcie slot though. Its still going strong.
> 
> I am guessing the card was going to die regardless since it went when the computer was idling. Turned it on this morning and smoke shot out of the card.


Yep. Absolutely NO card is ever immune from DOA's...


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Yep. Absolutely NO card is ever immune from DOA's...


I take it that its a sign I am supposed to get Nitros.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

To be honest, you could get a dead Nitro too man. Though the probability of getting two bad cards in a row is pretty low.


----------



## Orthello

From more leaks today at WCCF tech, its look like the 6gb version of the 1060 will be the only 1060 to support SLI. They quote its due to price protection for the 1070/1080 which sounds reasonable.

My pick is two flavours of 1060 , $229 for the 3gb and $280 usd for the 6gb model. Anything higher than $280 usd i think people will just look to the 1070. Being pascall if you can find it at its RRP you might be lucky too. At $300 usd the 1060 is a dead duck i think even in NVs line up with its reported 35% lower performance than 1070.

So now if you are looking at a dual setup around this pricepoint its going to be CFX RX480 AIBs with 8gb vs SLI 1060s with 6gb and that would be pretty close i think in dx11 with the win to amd in dx12. Due to CFX scaling being superior than SLI in many cases it could be its a loss in both dx11 and 12 . Then theres vram to consider and the long legs amd has, particurlarly in dx12.

Be interesting to see when the reviews hit, in fairness i think reviews will compare to the ref 480 , so ofcourse 1060 will shine a bit brighter in dx11 there in the reviews (i guess its like the 980 now) but in reality its going to go head to head with aib 480 and i hope some sites run that comparison to get performance per $ right.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

The 1060 should be a pretty good little card. The big questions remain, when is it going to be *readily* available and how much is it going to cost? The AIB for 80s should be out within the week or so and should still be the best value card in this segment in my opinion.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> I take it that its a sign I am supposed to get Nitros.


You don't get it do you. Your RX 480 selflessly sacrificed itself to save your motherboard. I think you owe the GPU gods a few ritual sacrifices at the very least.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> To be honest, you could get a dead Nitro too man. Though the probability of getting two bad cards in a row is pretty low.


Absolutely but yeah I think this is the first card I ever had that died this fast. Never even had a DOA board.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> You don't get it do you. Your RX 480 selflessly sacrificed itself to save your motherboard. I think you owe the GPU gods a few ritual sacrifices at the very least.


My wallet makes the sacrifices around here.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> My wallet makes the sacrifices around here.


The great thing about the 480 is that your wallet doesn't have to sacrifice that much at all!


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The great thing about the 480 is that your wallet doesn't have to sacrifice that much at all!


2 480s now, then vega and maybe two later this year. It will feel the pain eventually.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> 2 480s now, then vega and maybe two later this year. It will feel the pain eventually.


Can you post some benchmarks of your 480 set up here, you know, before the one crapped out on you?


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Can you post some benchmarks of your 480 set up here, you know, before the one crapped out on you?


All I have is firestrike (yay for web results!), I didnt save anything else unfortunately.

Ultra

extreme

standard

And they are all really crappy comparisons because all I have been doing is playing with power target and some small overclocks.

Crazy to think that a couple years ago I had to spend 2K to get this kind of performance. I miss my OG titans but man I wont ever make an investment like that in gpus again.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> All I have is firestrike (yay for web results!), I didnt save anything else unfortunately.
> 
> Ultra
> 
> extreme
> 
> standard
> 
> And they are all really crappy comparisons because all I have been doing is playing with power target and some small overclocks.


Not bad, I'm quite impressed with the Ultra score for cards with 32 ROP's. Here is a Fury X / Fury crossfire with a 3770k on Ultra // Extreme by way of comparison. 480 graphics score isn't half bad, I'm keen on seeing what the AIB cards can do.


----------



## Fb74

Hi guys,

I just wanted to point out that *Arctic Cooling* updated its page in regard of VGA Coolers:

https://www.arctic.ac/eu_en/products/cooling/vga.html

official compatibility for RX 480 was added (nearly *all models* but Twin Turbo 6990 & 690 - seems obvious- & L2 Plus -low cooling capacity-).

Have a good day.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Not bad, I'm quite impressed with the Ultra score for cards with 32 ROP's. Here is a Fury X / Fury crossfire with a 3770k on Ultra // Extreme by way of comparison. 480 graphics score isn't half bad, I'm keen on seeing what the AIB cards can do.


I'm actually amazed how close my Titans are to those Fury X's!

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/6875677/fs/5764935


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I'm actually amazed how close my Titans are to those Fury X's!
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/6875677/fs/5764935


The OG's are no slouches! The Titans and the 780 Ti had lots of raw horsepower, especially in their prime, but the 6Gb of VRAM on the Titans is keeping them in the game for a while yet.


----------



## Arturo.Zise

Very keen to see the Sapphire Nitro 480 in action. Have owned a 7950 Vapor-x and a 290 Tri-X and both cards were rock solid.

If it beats my 970 by a decent amount then I might have to make the switch.


----------



## Power Drill

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/23792016/coming-soon/asus-republic-of-gamers-introduces-strix-rx-480-graphics-card/
> 
> Here's to hoping this won't cost me a kidney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, Asus is one if not the worst manifacturer. At least for coolers.
> 
> 
> 
> See the standoffs? The just move those and they use basically the same damn cooler for many cards. PCB is ok, cooler is crap
> 
> BTW, this is from a GTX 1080 Strix, but they have done the same in the past as well.
Click to expand...

This happened with the 290X as well, so I had to get rid of the card and say ASUS never again. That company has become super lazy and is just riding on it's former fame.


----------



## Klocek001

from hwluxx rx480 review, this is 1.42GHz OC on RX480



based on maxwell's oc capabilities I'd say RX480 is near 980 performance, but definitely *not* 980 performance.



only 9% advantage over DX11 970 when running DX12 async in what would be the best case scenario for AMD.


----------



## Erick Silver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fb74*
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> I just wanted to point out that *Arctic Cooling* updated its page in regard of VGA Coolers:
> 
> https://www.arctic.ac/eu_en/products/cooling/vga.html
> 
> official compatibility for RX 480 was added (nearly *all models* but Twin Turbo 6990 & 690 - seems obvious- & L2 Plus -low cooling capacity-).
> 
> Have a good day.


I wonder how much of an overclock one could get with a Accelero Hybrid III-120 on a reference model?(As long as it doesn't kill itself.)


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> I wonder how much of an overclock one could get with a Accelero Hybrid III-120 on a reference model?(As long as it doesn't kill itself.)


I think the major issue is the power limit. 1.15v is ok, but you are power limited by the bios.


----------



## Erick Silver

Incoming AMD Hotfix!!

http://www.tech-critter.com/2016/07/incoming-driver-hotfix-amd-responds-to.html
Quote:


> As you know, we continuously tune our GPUs in order to maximize their performance within their given power envelopes and the speed of the memory interface, which in this case is an unprecedented 8Gbps for GDDR5. Recently, we identified select scenarios where the tuning of some RX 480 boards was not optimal. Fortunately, we can adjust the GPU's tuning via software in order to resolve this issue. We are already testing a driver that implements a fix, and we will provide an update to the community on our progress on Tuesday (July 5, 2016).'
> 
> The statement above came from AMD after a number of reviewers who found out that the newly launched RX 480 is drawing more power over the PCIe than the supposed PCIe standard. Which means, you're an inch away from getting your motherboard fried.
> 
> While it has been confirmed that the fix will come in the form of a driver, AMD hasn't disclose any details on what the driver actually does. It could be a fix that limits the power target of the RX 480 to prevent further power draw that goes above the PCIe starndard. If this does happens, existing benchmark result of the RX 480 review that we've seen on the net will no longer be valid as those are the extra numbers on the scores and FPS result of the card over drawing power from the PCIe slot and reviewers might have to revisit the review to get the numbers right.


----------



## hokk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Erick Silver*
> 
> Incoming AMD Hotfix!!
> 
> http://www.tech-critter.com/2016/07/incoming-driver-hotfix-amd-responds-to.html


*hot indeed*


----------



## Klocek001

now plug in another one for CF and you're getting a housefire for less than the price of GTX 1080.


----------



## PlugSeven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> 
> now plug in another one for CF and you're getting a housefire for less than the price of GTX 1080.


This assumes you're at 100% usage both cards which is just happening in X-fire.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> 
> now plug in another one for CF and you're getting a housefire for less than the price of GTX 1080.


Temp will remain similar but fans will go faster.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> 
> now plug in another one for CF and you're getting a housefire for less than the price of GTX 1080.


When did overclock.net become "savetheearth.net" ? The slogan is the pursuit of performance, who cares how you get there in a desktop at this point. I live in Florida, I let my 290x get to it's stock target temp of 94*c and it's even overclocked. Not an issue for the card nor my system and october will make 3 years of running it now as mine is a launch day reference model.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> When did overclock.net become "savetheearth.net" ?.


When Nvidia's p/w beat AMD's p/w.


----------



## hokk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> When did overclock.net become "savetheearth.net" ? The slogan is the pursuit of performance, who cares how you get there in a desktop at this point. I live in Florida, I let my 290x get to it's stock target temp of 94*c and it's even overclocked. Not an issue for the card nor my system and october will make 3 years of running it now as mine is a launch day reference model.


It started changing 2years ago

Now it's just home to flamers and trolls mainly

Rip ocn


----------



## Erick Silver

It seems that most of those that were actually here to learn, be helpful, or enjoy "The Pursuit of Performance" have been overtaken by Reddit Trolls.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PlugSeven*
> 
> This assumes you're at 100% usage both cards which is just happening in X-fire.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> When did overclock.net become "savetheearth.net" ? The slogan is the pursuit of performance, who cares how you get there in a desktop at this point. I live in Florida, I let my 290x get to it's stock target temp of 94*c and it's even overclocked. Not an issue for the card nor my system and october will make 3 years of running it now as mine is a launch day reference model.


lol it's your own personal choice, my common sense tells me it's not worth to go CF RX480 for 10% performance improvement over GTX 1070.

I see no point in your defending a config that is plagued with major power,temperature and game related issues other than you being die-hard amd fanbois


----------



## Cherryblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> lol it's your own personal choice, my common sense tells me it's not worth to go CF RX480 for 10% performance improvement over GTX 1070.
> 
> I see no point in your defending a config that is plagued with major power,temperature and game related issues other than you being die-hard amd fanbois


.. As I see no point in this endless debate with only those stock models from AMD.

Have all the decency to wait for custom models, with real cooling and real chip performance, before comparing the night and the day. This has no meaning as you all want to know what is the most interesting, and not a lot of people end up buying the reference model in the end.

We, at overclock.net, seek the performance. As such, we could care less about reference model. It's just here to give an idea of what the chip is capable, but you all know it will be more capable than that on custom model. So stick to it.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

I'll repeat this here since a lot of you somehow are still missing who the 480 is targeted at..
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> a 2016 14nm 8GB card is only *5%* ahead of a 2014 28nm 3.5GB card and _only_ thanks to DX12 .. in DX11 it would at best be equal or behind that old 28nm card


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> A 2016 card that has a MRSP of _*$199*_.. If AMD targeted the 970's market, at $330 with customs going over $400 + then you might have a point..


All i can say for all of you who have trolled the 480 for the last week better hope the 3GB 1060 outperforms the 980 on day one drivers, at stock, with the reference cooler. And a 3GB card in 2016 better only cost $199.

Although something tells me you'll all defend it even when it doesn't do any of that, and costs at least $249 for 3GB..









We haven't even seen what the AIB's can do but already RIP AMD.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> I see no point in your defending a config that is plagued with major power,temperature and game related issues other than you being die-hard amd fanbois


The words you've chosen already show me you are not capable of a discussion. Fanboi? Man, this is embarrassing for this site at this point. Aside from the apparently overblown power issues, what are these temperature and 'game related' issues you are talking about? I've yet to recommend a reference rx 480 at this point as we all know AIB's are around the corner and then we can properly rate the gpu itself, not the pcb or cooler.

You want to talk about being plagued with all these issues yet you paid a msrp premium for a founders edition 1080? I guess I didn't realize that the reference cooler was magical because I'm not exactly seeing a quiet nor cool card from any of the reviews for it either.

Some of you really need to actually rearch just a bit of GPU history between the two companies. Feel like this site is now over ran with kids born in 2000 and the first card they had was from 2015....

Edit:

And if the game related issues you are talking about are crossfire, well you would be wise to actually read my posts. I don't think I've ever recommended crossfire or SLI for any gpu from either camp, ever. Single GPU is still the best solution unless you absolutely need more power and at which point you should use crossfire or SLI for top end cards only IMO. If anything from a scaling perspective it almost feels like Nvidia is actually slowly getting away from SLI and the fact that they axed 3 / 4 way support solidifies this. It's a small market as is for both companies.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I'll repeat this here since a lot of you somehow are still missing who the 480 is targeted at..
> 
> All i can say for all of you who have trolled the 480 for the last week better hope the 3GB 1060 outperforms the 980 on day one drivers, at stock, with the reference cooler. And a 3GB card in 2016 better only cost $199.
> 
> Although something tells me you'll all defend it even when it doesn't do any of that, and costs at least $249 for 3GB..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't even seen what the AIB's can do but already RIP AMD.


Someone told me $299 for FE and $249 MSRP for AIBs. This is a 6GB model. Knowing Nvidia AIBs most 1060 will cost ~ $300 price range.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I'll repeat this here since a lot of you somehow are still missing who the 480 is targeted at..
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> A 2016 card that has a MRSP of _*$199*_.. If AMD targeted the 970's market, at $330 with customs going over $400 + then you might have a point.. Do you even believe the stuff you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. If a company re-brands a product and relaunches it at a reduced price (GTX 680 --> GTX 770 or HD 7970 --> R9 280X) then the price reduction is warranted but if said company launches a new product with the exact same or inferior performance as the old product at a reduced price then it is a godsend?

Would you feel the same way about AMD re-branding the R9 390 and cutting the price to $200?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Let me get this straight. If a company re-brands a product and relaunches it at a reduced price (GTX 680 --> GTX 770 or HD 7970 --> R9 280X) then the price reduction is warranted but if said company launches a new product with the exact same or inferior performance as the old product at a reduced price then it is a godsend?
> 
> Would you feel the same way about AMD re-branding the R9 390 and cutting the price to $200?


I think people expected more from 14nm and New architecture but most forget how weak 480 is in some regards.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I think people expected more from 14nm and New architecture but most forget how weak 480 is in some regards.


My expectations were based on history. This is the *first* mig-grade *chip that has failed* to meet and/or exceed previous generation flagship products. Given that it was AMD, I wasn't even expecting it to surpass the Fury X but I did expect something higher than the R9 390X... If new tech on a new node can't surpass the performance of a 3 year old product and barely matches the performance per watt of 2 year old Maxwell, how should one describe such a product?


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Let me get this straight. If a company re-brands a product and relaunches it at a reduced price (GTX 680 --> GTX 770 or HD 7970 --> R9 280X) then the price reduction is warranted but if said company launches a new product with the exact same or inferior performance as the old product at a reduced price then it is a godsend?
> 
> Would you feel the same way about AMD re-branding the R9 390 and cutting the price to $200?


Really Slomo, godsend? Where have i said that?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there..


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Let me get this straight. If a company re-brands a product and relaunches it at a reduced price (GTX 680 --> GTX 770 or HD 7970 --> R9 280X) then the price reduction is warranted but if said company launches a new product with the exact same or inferior performance as the old product at a reduced price then it is a godsend?
> 
> Would you feel the same way about AMD re-branding the R9 390 and cutting the price to $200?












Since when did the 770 have the same performance as the 670? Since when did the 970 have the same performance as the 770? Since when did the 1070 have the same performance as the 970?

You just don't get it,keep spamming your mantra all over the forum.

You don't compare the lower tier card to the higher tier card,you compare it to the card from the same tier.

970 > 1070 = 40% jump
380 > 480 = 40% jump


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> My expectations were based on history. This is the *first* mig-grade *chip that has failed* to meet and/or exceed previous generation flagship products. Given that it was AMD, I wasn't even expecting it to surpass the Fury X but I did expect something higher than the R9 390X... If new tech on a new node can't surpass the performance of a 3 year old product and barely matches the performance per watt of 2 year old Maxwell, how should one describe such a product?


So you are now telling me a 1060 is going to "meet and/or exceed previous generation flagship products" by matching a 980ti? Because that is Nvidia's last generation flagship technically. Being that their new flagship oc for oc barely edges one out it's kind of an alarming statement. Even if you move the goal posts here and claim you meant the vanilla 980 you are asking an awful lot of the specs provided at this point.

We will see when the AIB's come out.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> My expectations were based on history. This is the *first* mig-grade *chip that has failed* to meet and/or exceed previous generation flagship products. Given that it was AMD, I wasn't even expecting it to surpass the Fury X but I did expect something higher than the R9 390X... If new tech on a new node can't surpass the performance of a 3 year old product and barely matches the performance per watt of 2 year old Maxwell, how should one describe such a product?


You got to look at the prices. For example back when 28nm rolled a similar chip to RX480 was HD 7870. That GPU was faster then AMDs previews flagship HD 6970. Problem is HD 7870 rolled out $350 beating $375 MSRP HD 6970. Now we are expecting a $200 card to beat $430 MSRP 390X. Not going to happen. As you go lower it hard to match the high end cards. You need to jump ~ $300-400 in order to hope to beat $500+ previews gen cards like GTX 1070 or 970 did. GTX960 for example could not bat GTX770 at launch.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Not you specifically but there are plenty of individuals here that seem to think so. Thinking that AMD has given them the world because they priced this lackluster product in the mainstream segment.
> 
> The sad truth is that AMD is becoming less competitive against Nvidia. As a result, they have opted to compete only in the low price segments with low margins where Nvidia wouldn't play a price wars game. This is how they won the consoles. It may or may not work in the discrete GPU market as very few individuals make rational purchases.


Yeah, well... not really fair to put words in my mouth and lump me in with a handful of red fanboys. I feel like I've been pretty neutral with the 480, i think it's a good card for the money, i can buy my brother a GPU that can more or less compete with mine for half the price.. Though, I'm personally waiting for the AIB's as the reference is a bit of a letdown.

I guess it depends on how you look at it, i don't necessarily disagree with you. But only on the enthusiast-end. AMD compete fine excluding the the Titan/Ti class.

If you look back you can see that AMD fell behind Nvidia with the 680, that's when Nvidia's middle of the road chip was able to compete with AMD's best. So this is nothing new, AMD have just chosen not to compete at that tier, Nvidia have far more money to do so, if AMD ever catch up in marketshare we may see them target that segment in the future.

I see the 480 as a replacement for the 380, that's in fact what it was always meant to do, and imo it delivers.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> My expectations were based on history. This is the *first* mig-grade *chip that has failed* to meet and/or exceed previous generation flagship products. Given that it was AMD, I wasn't even expecting it to surpass the Fury X but I did expect something higher than the R9 390X... If new tech on a new node can't surpass the performance of a 3 year old product and barely matches the performance per watt of 2 year old Maxwell, how should one describe such a product?


What's strange is that the rx480 is in the gtx x60 price range. Let's look at some hostory.

570 = 660
670 > 760
770 > 960

And now the 1060, judging by leaked specs, should be right at the same level as the rx 480, perhaps a few % slower or faster.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Yeah, well... not really fair to put words in my mouth and lump me in with a handful of red fanboys. I feel like I've been pretty neutral with the 480, i think it's a good card for the money, i can buy my brother a GPU that can more or less compete with mine for half the price.. Though, I'm personally waiting for the AIB's as the reference is a bit of a letdown.
> 
> I guess it depends on how you look at it, i don't necessarily disagree with you. But only on the enthusiast-end. AMD compete fine excluding the the Titan/Ti class.
> 
> If you look back you can see that AMD fell behind Nvidia with the 680, that's when Nvidia's middle of the road chip was able to compete with AMD's best. So this is nothing new, AMD have just chosen not to compete at that tier, Nvidia have far more money to do so, if AMD ever catch up in marketshare we may see them target that segment in the future.
> 
> I see the 480 as a replacement for the 380, that's in fact what it was always meant to do, and imo it delivers.


Well HD 7970 is about has high end end as 680,980,1080. The only true high end chip from AMD was Fiji. Even 290X has ~ same size die as GTX 980.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Yeah, well... not really fair to put words in my mouth and lump me in with a handful of red fanboys.


My apologies. It was not my intent and I was using exaggeration for emphasis.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Well HD 7970 is about has high end end as 680,980,1080. The only true high end chip from AMD was Fiji. Even 290X has ~ same size die as GTX 980.


That's true too.









It's all perspective i guess, and how we look at it. AMD have traditionally always made smaller chips. Longevity is a completely different story.. We all know how the 680, 780, even the 980 now fairs against AMD's competition.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> My apologies. It was not my intent and I was using exaggeration for emphasis.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Well HD 7970 is about has high end end as 680,980,1080. The only true high end chip from AMD was Fiji. Even 290X has ~ same size die as GTX 980.


It wasn't so much that the HD 7970 was a high end chip, it was more about AMD pricing it as a high end chip. If AMD had launched the HD 7970 at $300-350 instead of $550 then the GTX 680 would have launched at around $300 instead of $500.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It wasn't so much that the HD 7970 was a high end chip, it was more about AMD pricing it as a high end chip. If AMD had launched the HD 7970 at $300-350 instead of $550 then the GTX 680 would have launched at around $300 instead of $500.


OK AMD did that but what about Titan, GTX780? What about GTX980 and now GTX1080? There was no AMD card. What about GTX780 Ti? AMD cards never really have a effect on what Nvidia prices their cards with the exception of HD 4870 which was price less then half GTX280. Nvidia can get away with $100-150 more expensive cards. At best HD 7970 would have been $450 considering it was on a new node. HD 5870 was $400-450 when it came out. With that price in mine and GTX680 being faster at launch then HD 7970 Nvidia would have still sold it $500 no problem.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> OK AMD did that but what about Titan, GTX780? What about GTX980 and now GTX1080? There was no AMD card. What about GTX780 Ti? AMD cards never really have a effect on what Nvidia prices their cards with the exception of HD 4870 which was price less then half GTX280. Nvidia can get away with $100-150 more expensive cards. At best HD 7970 would have been $450 considering it was on a new node. HD 5870 was $400-450 when it came out. With that price in mine and GTX680 being faster at launch then HD 7970 Nvidia would have still sold it $500 no problem.


Recall that when the Titan was launched, AMD had no products that could compete. Even the announcement for Hawaii came months after the Titan launch. The lack of competition allowed Nvidia to foster in a new age of inflated prices. It is what monopolies do best









To quote Jensen Huang:
Quote:


> The economics of it, of building anything, ultimately comes down to the amount of competition you have. You don't set the price, *the competition sets the price.* The market doesn't set the price, the competition does.


----------



## EightDee8D

Honestly that 550$ price for 7970 actually worth it if you compare that to og titan's 1000$, now looking at how both cards perform nowadays.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Recall that when the Titan was launched, AMD had no products that could compete. Even the announcement for Hawaii came months after the Titan launch. The lack of competition allowed Nvidia to foster in a new age of inflated prices. It is what monopolies do best
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To quote Jensen Huang:


Same thing with HD 7970. No completion from Nvidia.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Same thing with HD 7970. No completion from Nvidia.


The HD 7970 was, in fact, competing directly against the GTX 580 for 3 months. Hence the logic behind the prince inflation from AMD.

The GTX 680 was released on March 22, 2012. Notice the subsequent 7% market share gains by Nvidia? If anything, the HD 7970 was poor competition for the GTX 680 at the time of launch. Yes, the HD 7970 got better with time but does future performance gains ever play a role in present purchase decisions?


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The HD 7970 was, in fact, competing directly against the GTX 580 for 3 months. Hence the logic behind the prince inflation from AMD.
> 
> The GTX 680 was released on March 22, 2012. Notice the subsequent 7% market share gains by Nvidia? If anything, the HD 7970 was poor competition for the GTX 680 at the time of launch. Yes, the HD 7970 got better with time but does future performance gains ever play a role in present purchase decisions?


For a lot of budget minded ppl...yes. That's one of the reasons it keeps coming up that recent past gens of amd cards fair better in the long run. The upgrade fever if you will is more of high end market symptom, so many in the lower segments consider longevity in purchase decisions.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The HD 7970 was, in fact, competing directly against the GTX 580 for 3 months. Hence the logic behind the prince inflation from AMD.
> 
> The GTX 680 was released on March 22, 2012. Notice the subsequent 7% market share gains by Nvidia? If anything, the HD 7970 was poor competition for the GTX 680 at the time of launch. Yes, the HD 7970 got better with time but does future performance gains ever play a role in present purchase decisions?


People should start think in a better way. My 280x served me well for 2 years. I've changed the card only because my second monitor died and I replaced it with a 1440p one, so the 280x wasn't enough for Ultra. Still, more than capable if I turn down some settings.
2 years ago, many people suggest me go with the 770,and I said no, regardless of power draw or temps (by the way, vapor x, so temps is not an issue) because it was faster and bla bla bla. What now? The 280x is on pair with the 780 and sometimes can even match the 780ti. After that card I got the 290x and guess what? 250€. My 280x cost me 120€ (yes I'm a lucky man, still it cost way less than a 770 then and even now). I saved some money doing that. Not because amd is the second choice, but because the offers a better value for money and they only get better over time. If for example, I look to someone in my situation but on the green side, 770,cost more than a 280x and performs worst and is starving with 2gb. Then maybe a 970? Again, is not dying, but is slower than a 290x by a good margin, especially in 1440p.

I think that is worth thinking a bit ahead, because a 280x+290x combo cost me 370€ and a similar combo with 770+970 is at minimum, 50€ more for the 280x and 100€ for the 970 maybe?

So now I'm not only faster but I have more money in my pocket and I was able to buy more stuff like bigger ssd, more ram and so on.

So yes, it's definitely worth it to think a bit ahead even when thinking about gpus


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> For a lot of budget minded ppl...yes.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> I think that is worth thinking a bit ahead, because a 280x+290x combo cost me 370€ and a similar combo with 770+970 is at minimum, 50€ more for the 280x and 100€ for the 970 maybe?
> 
> So now I'm not only faster but I have more money in my pocket and I was able to buy more stuff like bigger ssd, more ram and so on.
> 
> So yes, it's definitely worth it to think a bit ahead even when thinking about gpus












I truly wish this mode of thinking wasn't the minority.


----------



## ekg84

Here is a cool video on the topic of GPU aging


----------



## kaosstar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> For a lot of budget minded ppl...yes. That's one of the reasons it keeps coming up that recent past gens of amd cards fair better in the long run. The upgrade fever if you will is more of high end market symptom, so many in the lower segments consider longevity in purchase decisions.


If that were the case, I'd expect AMD to have a much higher GPU marketshare.


----------



## NaXter24R

And to make it more clear, I saved up quite a lot of money for my first decent build, and my pc is both my gaming pc and my working pc. When it comes to cpu, I can spend money, no problem, they last at least 4 years and it's a good investment. Gpu tho, those are "old" after one year, and I don't like to spend tons of money on something that after less than a year is considered old and overall, with a much lower price if and when you want to resell it.
And because I'm not afraid of 10fps less when I'm doing 70 and I'm able to move some slide to high instead of ultra, I prefer to save some money. Just that. I don't care if it's green or red, I buy whatever gives me the best price to performance ratio and support for the future. Always remember that the 280x aka 7970 is now 4 and a half years old and it's more than enough for 1080p even with filters and all that stuff. And especially today, it cost almost nothing.

I wish some people stop listening reviewers or some site, there is more than pure performance. And especially people with not loads of money, could get much more if they change their mind.
It's not like "guys, all buy used cards" but more "ok, this gives me 3% less but cost 10% less and historically so this brand seems to get better over time".

Unfortunately, those people do not exist, and if exist, they buy consoles


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Same thing with HD 7970. No completion from Nvidia.


Not the same thing.

It's 100% up to the underdog to keep pricing in check. If the market leader did it, they would put the underdog out of business within a year. Below is another post I did on another forum.

You need to look at this from an economic and business perspective.

You base launch pricing on initial performance, not future performance and upon launch the 7970 only beat the gtx 580 by 15%. Basing it on future performance requires hindsight so pricing a card based on future performance is just plain stupid.

Additionally, AMD is the value brand and with this comes certain expectation with launches from consumers, or they will wait and not buy your product. What is universally expected for the value brand is they offer superior price to performance. When the brand recognized for their value discards this characteristic and launches their product at a high price. What do you think is likely to happen when the brand with more prestige launches a product with better performance and generally all around better characteristics, particularly in a duopoly?

And this is why much of the price increases are atleast half AMD fault. Launching their product at 550 when it was only performing 15% better than the competition while being the value brand was an incredibly dumb move on their part. There was little possibility, that Nvidia was not going to do better than that at launch. So when this came true, it was not unexpected for Nvidia to start charging more for their midrange. Thus following AMD leads and increasing their price for their midrange is what is expected and is simply business. This is because Nvidia is the more prestigious brand. The brand with the higher good will with the consumer is allowed and is supposed to charge more for their product.

If the prestige brand didn't, the second brand marketshare and margins would get smaller and smaller until they went bankrupt. We got a preview of this effect at 28nm. This is what kind of happened when the gtx 670 launched with similar performance to a 7970 and a 150 dollar lower price. And what happened when the gtx 970 launched vs the 290x with a 220 dollar lower price point. AMD got the crap smacked out of them as far as profit and marketshare go and if this pattern continues, we know what will happen.

In a duopoly, it's up to the value brand to keep the prestige brand price in check. If they try to raise pricing, this give every right for the prestige brand to increase pricing because the floor pricing for a certain level of pricing is determined by what the value brand is willing to sell it for. This is because at equal pricing/performance, the prestige brand will vastly outsell the value brand. This is the right of the prestige brand. Hence, the concession for the prestige brand is they raise their prices to have higher margins, which allows the value brand to continue to exist or make money at lower margins. Thus when AMD raised pricing, Nvidia did as well and they put pricing on one of their products lower than AMD to get the second effect as well.

Lets take AMD brand out of the equation(since this might be distorting your view of this situation) and put up a similar example. Lets pretend Vizio and Samsung were the only two tv makers. Lets say Vizio next year, decided to raise the pricing of their products to a price above samsung because it had slightly better picture quality than the samsung. Samsung releases a tv with even better picture quality, so what do you expect pricing to be like for this tv considering there is no alternative brands out there?

Prestige brands can get away with certain behavior the value brand cannot. Thus AMD raising the price with their entire initial 28nm line is what doomed pricing for the consumer. It doesn't mean AMD is stuck as the value brand.

The only way AMD can raise pricing, is if they launch an absolutely superior product that the competition has no chance of beating within a reasonable time frame. Do a enough of these in a row and a few marketing trick and they can become the premium brand.

If AMD never raised prices, Nvidia wouldn't of had the same chance to so grossly increase the price of their midrange.

Founders edition pricing today is just as greedy as launching the 7970 at 550 dollars. Both charge a small premium over last gens high end. However launching the 7970 at 550 was not only a greedy move, but a stupid one because AMD was not the prestige brand and Nvidia had not played it hand yet which it would be doing shortly. Price high and people will wait when you the value brand.

Founders edition itself is kind of stupid and confusing but the price increase is not. Anyone that wasn't being a fanboy and was analyzing the situation, could predict that AMD was not going to launch a true high end in time for the 1080 launch and real competition for them. And because of this, AMD for the gp1080 launch essentially gave away the high end market for the next 7 months or so. This gave Nvidia free reign to dictate pricing. Because of their brand superiority, 699 and 449 pricing although greedy, was a smart business move, unlike the 7970 launch price.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> If AMD never raised prices, Nvidia wouldn't of had the same chance to so grossly increase the price of their midrange.


It is refreshing to see someone who has an understanding of economics on these boards


----------



## NaXter24R

To be honest, the main problem here is not amd or nvidia. The problem is the user. People buy things. Titan cost too much? No problem, people bought it anyway. And bare in mind, Kepler titan, great cards. Titan x 1k,all buy titan x even if it's hotter, louder and many times performs worst than a custom 980ti. Founder edition? People buy that too.
So, the problem here is a company, main goal earn money, or the end user that buy things EVEN KNOWING THAT THERE ARE BETTER PRODUCTS?
Again, we, as end user, can decide prices but companies always win BECAUSE OF US.


----------



## PlugSeven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> snip


All AMD did was to drop the 7970 on the 580's price point. At the time there were even $699 custom 580. I also doubt the 7970 was designed as a midrange part even performance wise it's were it ended, it was their top tier.


----------



## NuclearPeace

The 7970 had a die size of around 350mm2. Even when it was AMD's largest GPU at the time, it had the die size of a mid range card. Pricing the card so high was foolish when it didn't beat the 580 by a commanding margin that would justify the price. I have no idea why AMD sold the 7970 for $550 when AMD knew that GK104 would around just as fast and GK110 would obliterate it. Given that it was a new generation and a new node, the 7970 should have been $300-400.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> Again, we, as end user, can decide prices but companies always win BECAUSE OF US.


Consumers exist at all price points. Consumption decreases with increased prices. Considering that the number of discrete GPUs sold annually is less than half of what it was 5 years ago, is it any surprise that Nvidia has created a high price niche market?


----------



## comagnum

@Slomo4shO I don't know how this card didn't meet expectations. I'm enjoying the hell out of it. I have a feeling aib cards will consistently meet and/or exceed 980 performance. Mine overclocked is already there. Either your expectations are unrealistic, or you're a troll. Either way, I'm happy with the 480 and I'm excited about amd's future.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Consumers exist at all price points. Consumption decreases with increased prices. Considering that the number of discrete GPUs sold annually is less than half of what it was 5 years ago, is it any surprise that Nvidia has created a high price niche market?


I know, but it's very simple. If no one buy a 1000 bucks GPU, the company will lower the price.
By the way, PC would gain so much market share with some lower prices. Today with 400€ i can do a good PC without descrete GPU. If i want the GPU, i have to skimp on the CPU. They should reduce the price. Peole listen about 1000$ GPU and they are scared. Of course they're not well informed, but this is a problem, and i like how AMD is trying to overcome this.
Even in laptop, a decent one, again, decent, is 500€ and you don't get any decent GPU. A good one, with GPU and CPU is 1000€. Again, this is not good. Ok, lack of competition but again, what if people refuse to buy high end stuff because of price?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> The 7970 had a die size of around 350mm2. Even when it was AMD's largest GPU at the time, it had the die size of a mid range card. Pricing the card so high was foolish when it didn't beat the 580 by a commanding margin that would justify the price. I have no idea why AMD sold the 7970 for $550 when AMD knew that GK104 would around just as fast and GK110 would obliterate it. Given that it was a new generation and a new node, the 7970 should have been $300-400.


They released the ghz edition. Even now, this 1060 will be faster, becaue with such headrom in OC, Nvidia just needs to make a minor change in bios and voilà, higher boost clock and faster than a 480, stock by stock.
Be the first might be good for sales, but bad for competition because the opponent see what you're doing.
I think AMD is good this time, a faster 1060 was predictable, but the fight is on the aib cards, not the reference.


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PlugSeven*
> 
> All AMD did was to drop the 7970 on the 580's price point. At the time there were even $699 custom 580. I also doubt the 7970 was designed as a midrange part even performance wise it's were it ended, it was their top tier.


You do not price your mid-range sized vs last ranges large high end. If this was the case, videocards would be several thousand dollars today and most of the products we could actually afford would be ant sized.

Only way you can get away with it, if your the luxury brand and your competition has dropped out of the high end space for a decent period of time. And this is why Nvidia is doing it, they are pricing their product at a small premium just like the 7970. A 50 dollar premium vs last gens high end. Because AMD is not going to release a product till 2017 that competes with it. The general market will not wait for vega because polaris was such a let down and because it is too far away from release.

If your the Value brand and you don't value price your product(and they don't offer revolutionary performance), people will wait for the competition to come out with their cards. I.e if polaris 10 was 300 dollars, people would have waited for Nvidia's offerings to be released.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> @Slomo4shO I don't know how this card didn't meet expectations. I'm enjoying the hell out of it. I have a feeling aib cards will consistently meet and/or exceed 980 performance. Mine overclocked is already there. Either your expectations are unrealistic, or you're a troll. Either way, I'm happy with the 480 and I'm excited about amd's future.


It may be due to the fact that I have owned R9 290s since *November 2013* and this card barely keeps up with them. Or it could have been the fact that I bought an R9 290 Vapor -X for my brother back in *November 2014* for $250 and he has been enjoying the same performance at the same price for over a year and half now...

But good for you. I am glad you decided to wait around for over a year and half to get the same performance at the same price. I am sure the extra 4GB of ram was well worth the wait










Spoiler: Proof


----------



## comagnum

Just like anything else, there's room for improvement and things will continue to improve over time. This card was also aimed to replace 280x/380 and under cards. So there's that.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It may be due to the fact that I have owned R9 290s since *November 2013* and this card barely keeps up with them. Or it could have been the fact that I bought an R9 290 Vapor -X for my brother back in *November 2014* for $250 and he has been enjoying the same performance at the same price for over a year and half now...
> 
> But good for you. I am glad you decided to wait around for over a year and half to get the same performance at the same price. I am sure the extra 4GB of ram was well worth the wait
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Proof


To be fair that's Black Friday sale pricing which is not indicative of normal pricing. It would be like using my $.01 K400 as reference pricing for wireless keyboards. Was that price possible? Yes. Is it normally repeatable? No. Ofc not, which is why I wouldn't use it as reference price.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> This card was also aimed to replace 280x/380 and under cards. So there's that.


Why? Because it is named RX *480*? The HD 7970 was launched at $549 in December 2011 and was later re-branded as the R9 280X and was launched at $299 in October 2013 and the R9 380X was the Tonga replacement for Tahiti and was launched at $230 in November 2015.

Tahiti was AMD's flagship product for 2 years until the release of Hawaii... Considering that the RX 480 is likely to discontinue Hawaii, can't it be argued that the RX 480 is replacing Hawaii?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> To be fair that's Black Friday sale pricing which is not indicative of normal pricing.


True, I got my cards for $320 each due to Black Friday pricing. I purchased my brothers card in the beginning of November and there were plenty of sales going around at the time to get the R9 290 from $220 to $270 from October 2014 throughout May 2015. Those prices were easy enough to replicate.

When the R9 390s were introduced in June 2015, lower pricing was even more readily available for the R9 290s and 290X.


----------



## maltamonk

I guess that'll depend on if we get 490s and furies this go round


----------



## julizs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It may be due to the fact that I have owned R9 290s since *November 2013* and this card barely keeps up with them. Or it could have been the fact that I bought an R9 290 Vapor -X for my brother back in *November 2014* for $250 and he has been enjoying the same performance at the same price for over a year and half now...
> 
> But good for you. I am glad you decided to wait around for over a year and half to get the same performance at the same price. I am sure the extra 4GB of ram was well worth the wait
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Proof


So what, and for that kind of perfomance on Nvidia's side you had to pay around 450/500$ up until some weeks/months ago (Gtx 980).

I mean, what do you expect? The 480 to be as fast as a Gtx 980ti at the price point it is? Or the 480 to launch at 150$ at the perfomance it is?

To me it always seems like AMD is expected to hand out incredible gifts for people to buy their cards, while "meh" Nvidia cards are ok because they are "premium".

And yes, it is clearly AMD's midrange card and not high end.

480 is exactly what is was promoted to be from AMD, and I bet the AIB cards that can hold their clock from 1300-1400 Mhz are gonna trade blows with high OC'ed Gtx 980 cards.


----------



## PlugSeven

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> You do not price your mid-range sized vs last ranges large high end. If this was the case, videocards would be several thousand dollars today and most of the products we could actually afford would be ant sized.
> 
> Only way you can get away with it, if your the luxury brand and your competition has dropped out of the high end space for a decent period of time. And this is why Nvidia is doing it, they are pricing their product at a small premium just like the 7970. A 50 dollar premium vs last gens high end. Because AMD is not going to release a product till 2017 that competes with it. The general market will not wait for vega because polaris was such a let down and because it is too far away from release.
> 
> If your the Value brand and you don't value price your product(and they don't offer revolutionary performance), people will wait for the competition to come out with their cards. I.e if polaris 10 was 300 dollars, people would have waited for Nvidia's offerings to be released.


Not sold on the mid range size die you're claiming the 7970 to have been. AMD was still firmly entrenched in their small die stratergy at the time and given that this was their first forray into a GPGPU arch and the fact that Hawaii didn't show up until late 2013, I'm convinced Tahiti was the top dog for AMD, not some 680 masquerading as high end.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PlugSeven*
> 
> Not sold on the mid range size die you're claiming the 7970 to have been. AMD was still firmly entrenched in their small die stratergy at the time and given that this was their first forray into a GPGPU arch and the fact that Hawaii didn't show up until late 2013, I'm convinced Tahiti was the top dog for AMD, not some 680 masquerading as high end.


It was AMDs top dog. But then again, AMDs top dogs never did compete directly with Nvidia's flagships. They had always outdone Nvidia's mid-grade chips on the performance/dollar metric. Tahiti was the break away from that strategy.

Cayman was 10% larger than Tahiti and Tahiti was only 5% larger than Cypress.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PlugSeven*
> 
> Not sold on the mid range size die you're claiming the 7970 to have been. AMD was still firmly entrenched in their small die stratergy at the time and given that this was their first forray into a GPGPU arch and the fact that Hawaii didn't show up until late 2013, I'm convinced Tahiti was the top dog for AMD, not some 680 masquerading as high end.


Tahiti was produced in many variants, but the one on the 7970 (XT, XT2 for the 7979 GHZ and some 280x, and XTL for 280x only) was the full chip. Full Stream processor, full perfomance, even in FP64.
Hawaii on the other hand was cut down because of power draw i think (and cost).
Tahiti is 1/4, Hawaii on the 290x is 1/8, Hawaii on the FirePro W9100 is 1/2. And if you think about the 680 (GK104) 1/24 and the same on Quadro. Even comparing the GK110, you are goin from 1/24 on GeForce to 1/3 on Titans and Quadro.
Again, AMD did it better, way better, it was just late. The 280x is on pair with the 780 now, and use less power, even with full chip enabled. I would really like to see some crippled Tahiti chip, just to see the power consumption against the GK104.
Maxwell forgot what's FP64, so it's not here, still, it's a good architechture in other scenarios.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PlugSeven*
> 
> All AMD did was to drop the 7970 on the 580's price point. At the time there were even $699 custom 580. I also doubt the 7970 was designed as a midrange part even performance wise it's were it ended, it was their top tier.


This is the exact same argument used by those who defend the 1080's ridiculous price. Just change the words "AMD/7970/580" to "nVidia/1080/980 Ti" and you'll see how bad this excuse is.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> You do not price your mid-range sized vs last ranges large high end. If this was the case, videocards would be several thousand dollars today and most of the products we could actually afford would be ant sized.
> 
> Only way you can get away with it, if your the luxury brand and your competition has dropped out of the high end space for a decent period of time. And this is why Nvidia is doing it, they are pricing their product at a small premium just like the 7970. A 50 dollar premium vs last gens high end. Because AMD is not going to release a product till 2017 that competes with it. The general market will not wait for vega because polaris was such a let down and because it is too far away from release.
> 
> If your the Value brand and you don't value price your product(and they don't offer revolutionary performance), people will wait for the competition to come out with their cards. I.e if polaris 10 was 300 dollars, people would have waited for Nvidia's offerings to be released.


Polaris was exactly what it said it was gonna be. If anyone is disappointed it's because they're infinitely dense and thought it was gonna be something AMD never claimed it to be. You can't blame AMD because you expected the moon even though they never promised that.


----------



## brucethemoose

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> You do not price your mid-range sized vs last ranges large high end. If this was the case, videocards would be several thousand dollars today and most of the products we could actually afford would be ant sized.
> 
> Only way you can get away with it, if your the luxury brand and your competition has dropped out of the high end space for a decent period of time. And this is why Nvidia is doing it, they are pricing their product at a small premium just like the 7970. A 50 dollar premium vs last gens high end. Because AMD is not going to release a product till 2017 that competes with it. The general market will not wait for vega because polaris was such a let down and because it is too far away from release.
> 
> If your the Value brand and you don't value price your product(and they don't offer revolutionary performance), people will wait for the competition to come out with their cards. I.e if polaris 10 was 300 dollars, people would have waited for Nvidia's offerings to be released.
> 
> 
> 
> Polaris was exactly what it said it was gonna be. If anyone is disappointed it's because they're infinitely dense and thought it was gonna be something AMD never claimed it to be. You can't blame AMD because you expected the moon even though they never promised that.
Click to expand...

AMD fell short of the power efficiency improvements they promised with Polaris.


----------



## nill

Can i use a HDMI 1.4b cable to plug to the RX480?
Currently there is no sound from my TV. Able to hear sound through headphone (mobo headphone jack). Latest stable Crimson 16.6.2 installed.

OS is Win 10 Pro x64.
I7 3730k, Rampage IV Gene.
XFX Factory OC 480 GB 1328MHz.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nill*
> 
> Can i use a HDMI 1.4b cable to plug to the RX480?
> Currently there is no sound from my TV. Able to hear sound through headphone (mobo headphone jack). Latest stable Crimson 16.6.2 installed.
> 
> OS is Win 10 Pro x64.
> I7 3730k, Rampage IV Gene.
> XFX Factory OC 480 GB 1328MHz.


Yes you can. Make sure you assign the right playback device for sound output if you want sound through your TV.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *julizs*
> 
> I mean, what do you expect?


Some capacity for rational thought. Definitely didn't find it in your post


----------



## ekg84

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brucethemoose*
> 
> AMD fell short of the power efficiency improvements they promised with Polaris.


This ^^

I think most of reasonable people aren't disappointed with RX 480's performance. I personally believe it performs very well for the price and AMD clearly stated that it'll be an affordable VR solution, which puts it around gtx 970 -R9 390. What many people are disappointed with, however, including myself, is poor efficiency. Considering this is a 14nm chip, most people expected it to sip power and overclock like mad. But in those departments,480 is less than stellar. I know, many people don't give a damn about their system's power draw, but efficiency is closely tied with performance these days, inefficient gpu, besides consuming more power, will run hotter and wont OC as well. And I think this is what most people mean when they say that 480 could be a lot better. And yes, AIB cards will likely be a lot better in terms of temps/overclockability, but the fact that 14nm Polaris is about as efficient as a 2 year old 28nm 970 or even AMD's own 28nm NANO will likely remain.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brucethemoose*
> 
> AMD fell short of the power efficiency improvements they promised with Polaris.


As I recall the 970 is rated at 145w but pulls closer to 170w but apparently that's forgivable while the 480 isn't?

Edit :want to clarify not in every day usage but in worst case testing tdp


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ekg84*
> 
> I think most of reasonable people aren't disappointed with RX 480's performance.


Nvidia just released a product that performs 30-43% better than the R9 390X and 40-53% better than the R9 390 for $379. The release MSRP of the R9 390X was $429 and the R9 390 was $329. If AMD didn't have a product ready to launch to replace the R9 390 and 390X, a *reasonable* individual would expect a price break from AMD. Most *reasonable* people would have expected the new price of the R9 390 and 390X to fall in around $199 for the R9 390 and $249 for the R9 390X. Instead, we find a new product positioned at $239 that ends up providing less or similar performance as the R9 390. Who should find such a product *reasonabl*y priced for the performance it delivers?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> As I recall the 970 is rated at 145w but pulls closer to 170w but apparently that's forgivable while the 480 isn't?


The only thing un*forgivable* is your continued use of strawman arguments


----------



## doritos93

man i seriously cannot wait for AIB cards to hit the shelves. i'm dying here with this 7870. it's literally dying too... (as soon as I put it into my machine i see bluescreens everywhere)

that sapphire nitro looks really nice, any word on release dates?


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *doritos93*
> 
> that sapphire nitro looks really nice, any word on release dates?


Sometime between now and Vega's unveiling


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Nvidia just released a product that performs 30-43% better than the R9 390X and 40-53% better than the R9 390 for $379. The release MSRP of the R9 390X was $429 and the R9 390 was $329. If AMD didn't have a product ready to launch to replace the R9 390 and 390X, a *reasonable* individual would expect a price break from AMD. Most *reasonable* people would have expected the new price of the R9 390 and 390X to fall in around $199 for the R9 390 and $249 for the R9 390X. Instead, we find a new product positioned at $239 that ends up providing less or similar performance as the R9 390. Who should find such a product *reasonabl*y priced for the performance it delivers?
> The only thing un*forgivable* is your continued use of strawman arguments


It's not strawman to point out a similar performance/tdp card coming from the competition yet nobody complains, but for some reason nvidia isn't being held to a higher standard. What other "strawman arguement" might you be referring to? Polaris brought 390 level performance, lower tdp for that performance, and during gaming pulls around 160-170w on average which is within the similar range to a 145w tdp 970 yet people continue to say it's a bomb/disappintment for what reason when it delivers?


----------



## boot318

I think some people are forgetting 14 & 16nm is just 20nm with finfet.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> It's not strawman to point out a similar price/performance/tdp card coming from the competition yet nobody complains, but for some reason nvidia isn't being held to a higher standard.


It is when the person you are responding to mentioned nothing about the GTX 970.

In addition to propping up the GTX 970 in the rebuttal, you are analyzing only peak power consumption to strengthen your argument.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boot318*
> 
> I think some people are forgetting 14 & 16nm is just 20nm with finfet.


I thought there was a bit more to it then that. Also doesn't it depend on whose process we're talking about? It's not exactly that simple


----------



## nill

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Yes you can. Make sure you assign the right playback device for sound output if you want sound through your TV.


Yes, already assign TV as playback device.
Not sure if related, if i try to install audio driver, cmd comes out but nothing happens.

If i reboot, audio driver installation starts.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> It is when the person you are responding to mentioned nothing about the GTX 970.
> 
> In addition to propping up the GTX 970 in the rebuttal, you are analyzing only peak power consumption to strengthen your argument.


Then how do you suppose I make a comparison on tdp without an example? If you can come up with an example that doesn't reference another card id love to hear it. Point is there not the only ones to miss the mark now or previously yet it's being brought up as a negative and why it's a disappointment, I can understand the pcie draw problem being brought up even, but everything else the card delivers what it promised. Saying it isn't exactly at or below is rated 150w tdp when others aren't too as being a disappointment is a weak reason for disappointment imo. Now you still haven't told me what other argument you may be referring to as you claimed I've continued to do so, but if the criteria for a strawman in your eyes is that I cant in any way reference anything else beyond the scope of a given comment (this example being anything but the 480 tdp) then dare I say you're guilty also most likely (haven't read many of your comments TBH being just these).

Also might I add those images aren't rated tdp or wattage but performance per Watt (Did you mean to post a different image/s?)

Might I add also that strawman arguments aren't just referring to something outside the original comment, you may bring up something beyond the original content and not venture into strawman territory a strawman argument oversimplifies an opponent point and refutes it incorrectly and without a point of relevance yet maintaining an illusion of relevance


----------



## awdrifter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> I thought there was a bit more to it then that. Also doesn't it depend on whose process we're talking about? It's not exactly that simple


Neither Samsung/GF or TSMC is true 14nm. But Samsung's 14nm is smaller than 20nm.



http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/195897-samsung-and-apple-team-up-on-14nm-chips-expected-in-2015


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> Then how do you suppose I make a comparison on tdp without an example? If you can come up with an example that doesn't reference another card id love to hear it. Point is there not the only ones to miss the mark now or previously yet it's being brought up as a negative and why it's a disappointment, I can understand the pcie draw problem being brought up even, but everything else the card delivers what it promised. Saying it isn't exactly at or below is rated 150w tdp when others aren't too as being a disappointment is a weak reason for disappointment imo.
> 
> Also might I add those images aren't rated tdp or wattage but performance per Watt (Did you mean to post a different image/s?)


Not sure why you keep bringing up TDP. Power efficiency and TDP are not interchangeable... *Thermal* design power is related to *heat dissipation* and has nothing to do with power consumption...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> Now you still haven't told me what other argument you may be referring to as you claimed I've continued to do so


It was an exaggeration and I have no interest in looking through your post history to find other potential examples









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> but if the criteria for a strawman in your eyes is that I cant in any way reference anything else beyond the scope of a given comment (this example being anything but the 480 tdp) then dare I say you're guilty also most likely (haven't read many of your comments TBH being just these).


Again, TDP and power efficiency are NOT interchangeable. Your rebuttal to an argument about power efficiently is based around a metric for heat dissipation. That is definitely a strawman.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Not sure why you keep bringing up TDP. Power efficiency and TDP are not interchangeable... *Thermal* design power is related to *heat dissipation* and has nothing to do with power consumption...
> It was an exaggeration and I have no interest in looking through your post history to find other potential examples
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, TDP and power efficiency are NOT interchangeable. Your rebuttal to an argument about power efficiently is based around a metric for heat dissipation. That is definitely a strawman.


Then why do people bring up tdp rating at all in regards to power consumption? If it's purely a thermal metric then it's largely useless beyond thermal dissipation and the 480 being treated tdp of 150w means nothing and even still doesn't make it a dissapointment because it was a large reduction vs the 390 and we them don't have a baseline for disappointment no? Many will quote the tdp vs measured consumption, if they're seperate as you say then anyone can only reference it regarding is awful cooling (we expected that though).

I'm OK being wrong on a term, I'm wrong all the time, but even still my argument that it delivered on what it said it would stands.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boot318*
> 
> I think some people are forgetting 14 & 16nm is just 20nm with finfet.


This, and the base efficiency improvement for Polaris was always stated to be 1.7x from hawaii, not some crazy thing people here are dreaming up.


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> This is the exact same argument used by those who defend the 1080's ridiculous price. Just change the words "AMD/7970/580" to "nVidia/1080/980 Ti" and you'll see how bad this excuse is.


Yup. It's exactly the same thing. Difference is Nvidia can get away with it because of its brand strength. Amd cannot. Just change 499 dollar price point to 649 and it's the same scenario. Aka 50 dollar price jump over last gen regardless of die size. 599 would have been fair pricing for the gtx 1080 considering its performance and the price per transistor didn't go down. 699 is basically pulling the same greedy move as amd when they initially priced the 7970. The difference is amd won't be competing in the same space till sometime next year. Nvidia is a much better run business and this is just an example of it.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> Then why do people bring up tdp rating at all in regards to power consumption?


Why do people use terms they don't actually understand? Great question.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> my argument that it delivered on what it said it would stands.


What exactly was it that AMD said? The only details provided by AMD about Polaris were vague which provided no real insight into the product. The 1.7X performance claim on a slide titled "RX 480 Built on 14nm FinFET" suggests a direct 70% performance per watt improvement over 28nm tech. The fine print on the same slide for the 2.8X claim suggests that said power efficiency gains were realized when comparing a RX 470 vs a R9 270X based on results from Hitman, Overwatch, Ashes of Singularity, and Fire Strike. Even if one is to believe that the up to 70% claim pertained to the comparison between the RX 480 and the R9 270X, real world power consumption figures suggest that the RX 480 is about 40% more efficient than the R9 270X. Again, vague information with very little details.

These were the only slides that had relevant information:


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Why do people use terms they don't actually understand? Great question.
> What exactly was it that AMD said? The only details provided by AMD about Polaris were vague which provided no real insight into the product. These were the only slides that had relevant information:


Good vr performance (390 level) and lower power for it. That is pretty much it, they said 200$, VR for masses, lower power. They gave us a 390 with lower power consumption which is what anyone who isn't crazy expected of it.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> Good vr performance (390 level) and lower power for it. That is pretty much it, they said 200$, VR for masses, lower power. They gave us a 390 with lower power consumption which is what anyone who isn't crazy expected of it.


At what point did they say 390 level VR performance? They did claim VR for masses starting at $199 and they did state it would be more power efficient without providing much clarity on value.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> At what point did they say 390 level VR performance? They did claim VR for masses starting at $199 and they did state it would be more power efficient without providing much clarity on value.


They never said 390 specifically but the little teasing 1440p performance and such suggested it and they've generally considered the 390 the barrier for entry /recommended entry for VR of their lineup till now.


----------



## 12Cores

Any word on the MSI AIB card release date?


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> This, and the base efficiency improvement for Polaris was always stated to be 1.7x from hawaii, not some crazy thing people here are dreaming up.


When was it ever stated that Plolaris would be 1.7X the performance per watt compared to Hawaii?




Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> They never said 390 specifically but the little teasing 1440p performance and such suggested it and they've generally considered the 390 the barrier for entry /recommended entry for VR of their lineup till now.


What demo are you referring to?


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> When was it ever stated that Plolaris would be 1.7X the performance per watt compared to Hawaii?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What demo are you referring to?


Want to say it was hitman at 1440p?

I'd also like to know where 1.7x came from because I don't recall it either


----------



## TranquilTempest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> It's not strawman to point out a similar performance/tdp card coming from the competition yet nobody complains, but for some reason nvidia isn't being held to a higher standard. What other "strawman arguement" might you be referring to? Polaris brought 390 level performance, lower tdp for that performance, and during gaming pulls around 160-170w on average which is within the similar range to a 145w tdp 970 yet people continue to say it's a bomb/disappintment for what reason when it delivers?


970 had a 225w power connector configuration, which it didn't exceed, even in furmark.


----------



## artemis2307

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TranquilTempest*
> 
> 970 had a 225w power connector configuration, which it didn't exceed, even in furmark.


furmark doesn't load the memory


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ekg84*
> 
> This ^^
> 
> I think most of reasonable people aren't disappointed with RX 480's performance. I personally believe it performs very well for the price and AMD clearly stated that it'll be an affordable VR solution, which puts it around gtx 970 -R9 390. *What many people are disappointed with, however, including myself, is poor efficiency.* Considering this is a 14nm chip, most people expected it to sip power and overclock like mad. But in those departments,480 is less than stellar. I know, many people don't give a damn about their system's power draw, but efficiency is closely tied with performance these days, inefficient gpu, besides consuming more power, will run hotter and wont OC as well. And I think this is what most people mean when they say that 480 could be a lot better. And yes, AIB cards will likely be a lot better in terms of temps/overclockability, but the fact that 14nm Polaris is about as efficient as a 2 year old 28nm 970 or even AMD's own 28nm NANO will likely remain.


Most people in ocn maybe. Can't find anymore 480s here in Bankok. Prolly they have a lot of miners here. But they do have a lot of other gpus . . .



No sign of AIBs yet either. I'll visit the other pc malls later today. They did say that the Ref 480 8GB are going for about $300. lol. I figured the AIBs will cost around $350.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Regardless of the doom and gloom prognostications of team green it's obvious that the RX 480 is selling like absolute gangbusters! As it should, considering that it's the best value in video cards by far at the moment.

By the way, you should snatch up everyone of those 1070s and 1080s on the shelf and flip them on eBay for a profit! Not that I condone such things...


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> Want to say it was hitman at 1440p?


When did AMD present a Hitman demo featuring Polaris?


----------



## hokk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> When did AMD present a Hitman demo featuring Polaris?


few months the back

March I think


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kylzer*
> 
> few months the back
> 
> March I think


Yeah, and apparently it was so efficient back then it didn't even need a fan. Or maybe that was Polaris 11, the same one used in Battlefront demo vs GTX 950.


----------



## artemis2307

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> Yeah, and apparently it was so efficient back then it didn't even need a fan. Or maybe that was Polaris 11, the same one used in Battlefront demo vs GTX 950.


obviously it was polaris 11


----------



## Cherryblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Most *reasonable* people would have expected the new price of the R9 390 and 390X to fall in around $199 for the R9 390 and $249 for the R9 390X. Instead, we find a new product positioned at $239 that ends up providing less or similar performance as the R9 390. Who should find such a product *reasonabl*y priced for the performance it delivers?
> The only thing un*forgivable* is your continued use of strawman arguments


I don't feel like NVIDIA is being reasonable pricing 1070 & 1080 either.

AMD is (for the moment) alone on its "low priced field", and its product seems to be selling well. From their pov, any reason they should lower the price?

.. Don't see any.

Launch price are known to have quite the margin, which will allow them to lower the price when needed. No new nvidia card in this range, means no need to lower the price if it sells already.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cherryblue*
> 
> I don't feel like NVIDIA is being reasonable pricing 1070 & 1080 either.
> 
> AMD is (for the moment) alone on its "low priced field", and its product seems to be selling well. From their pov, any reason they should lower the price?
> 
> .. Don't see any.
> 
> Launch price are known to have quite the margin, which will allow them to lower the price when needed. No new nvidia card in this range, means no need to lower the price if it sells already.


The GTX 1060 is imminent though, launching in as little as a few days if you believe some rumours. I think it will be launched by the middle of the month, so hey won't be alone in this lower-priced segment.

Because of Nvidia's quite strange choice of a 192-bit bus width on the memory they're left with 3GB and 6GB. The 3GB 1060 I expect to cost $250 and this is a bit of a lifeline for AMD as that is drastically less memory than the similarly priced 480.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> The GTX 1060 is imminent though, launching in as little as a few days if you believe some rumours. I think it will be launched by the middle of the month, so hey won't be alone in this lower-priced segment.
> 
> Because of Nvidia's quite strange choice of a 192-bit bus width on the memory they're left with 3GB and 6GB. The 3GB 1060 I expect to cost $250 and this is a bit of a lifeline for AMD as that is drastically less memory than the similarly priced 480.


Well they've had lower vram/bus width before and been successful in sales over AMD so it probably won't stop them this time, although most enthusiasts that keep track of a cards longevity in the market will concede that in recent history an AMD mid range card will age much better than the Nvidia counterpart.

I still think the 480 may do as well as the 1060 but then again Nvidia has the superior image so who knows.


----------



## fatmario

Interesting video about custom 480 oc potential as estimate.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fatmario*
> 
> Interesting video about custom 480 oc potential as estimate.


what stable 24/7 OC range does that video put air cooled 8-pin AIB cards at ?


----------



## Orthello

Hmm interesting video I'm impressed with how they bypassed the ref card issues , they paid little credence to the overdraw power issue which was really interesting and unlike the founders edition cards they have way overspecced pcbs - not even cooling the vrms lol. It does seem like like mid to high 1400s vs 1500s is where it's likely to come out. Unless there is heavy binning going on.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> Hmm interesting video I'm impressed with how they bypassed the ref card issues , they paid little credence to the overdraw power issue which was really interesting


He referred to the fix for the PCIE issue as being something that will shut the media up, it appeared that he didn't think it's a huge problem at all.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> He referred to the fix for the PCIE issue as being something that will shut the media up, it appeared that he didn't think it's a huge problem at all.


I think the problem are the motherboard manifacturer. Only now we are seeing problems. I think most manifacturer underestimate the PCIe slot in general because "why do you want to pull 75w when you have auxiliary power?" and here are the consequences.

The only issue i saw on the interner came from a guy who crossfire 3 of those and killed his audio (again, "audio separated on the PCB" that is BS) and another guy who burned his PCIe slot, but he used a 750ti before and as we know, that card can pull much more than 75w so potentially, he weakened the slot over time.

I'm not saying that motherboards in general are out of spect, but when it comes to PCIe slot, since they are not used like CPU VRM, they might skimp on that a bit, and only now we are seeing that


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> I think the problem are the motherboard manifacturer. Only now we are seeing problems. I think most manifacturer underestimate the PCIe slot in general because "why do you want to pull 75w when you have auxiliary power?" and here are the consequences.
> 
> The only issue i saw on the interner came from a guy who crossfire 3 of those and killed his audio (again, "audio separated on the PCB" that is BS) and another guy who burned his PCIe slot, but he used a 750ti before and as we know, that card *can pull much more than 75w* so potentially, he weakened the slot over time.
> 
> I'm not saying that motherboards in general are out of spect, but when it comes to PCIe slot, since they are not used like CPU VRM, they might skimp on that a bit, and only now we are seeing that


Yeah, nah.... If it doesn't have a 6pin it's your own damn fault for going over 65W with a modified BIOS (which has a power target of 37.5W by default), if it has a 6pin, and is pulling close to a 100W, lolwhocares.


----------



## Themisseble

Does GPU-Z shows total GPU power usage?


----------



## jellybeans69

GPU-Z itself only shows asic power usage, you can safely add ~10-20% to that.


----------



## Cherryblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> ...launching in as little as a few days if you believe some rumours.


Heard that too, but I suspect a paper launch, which gives AMD a lot of time to sell its units.

Time will tell !


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jellybeans69*
> 
> GPU-Z itself only shows asic power usage, you can safely add ~10-20% to that.


So RX 480 GPU-Z is showing around max 110W = 120-130W max?


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> So RX 480 GPU-Z is showing around max 110W = 120-130W max?


That's the GPU only. Board with memory and other stuff aren't read there.

By the way, it seems that i was 100% right, 4gb is the same as 8gb, just need a bios flash


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> what stable 24/7 OC range does that video put air cooled 8-pin AIB cards at ?


He said around 1400 and with some luck 1450mhz and the 1450 figure in particular is water territory.

He wouldn't run 1480 as a 24/7 overclock he said.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NaXter24R*
> 
> That's the GPU only. Board with memory and other stuff aren't read there.
> 
> By the way, it seems that i was 100% right, 4gb is the same as 8gb, just need a bios flash


Ammm? messed up?

RX 480 stock uses on GPU Z around = 135-150W *1.5 = around 155W = actually RX 480 power. With undervolt some managed to get it around 100W (avg) on GPUZ.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Ammm? messed up?
> 
> RX 480 stock uses on GPU Z around = 135-150W *1.5 = around 155W = actually RX 480 power. With undervolt some managed to get it around 100W (avg) on GPUZ.


Yes, but that value on GPU-Z is the core only.


----------



## julizs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Some capacity for rational thought. Definitely didn't find it in your post


Thats a very good argument, very factual.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Nvidia just released a product that performs 30-43% better than the R9 390X and 40-53% better than the R9 390 for $379. The release MSRP of the R9 390X was $429 and the R9 390 was $329. If AMD didn't have a product ready to launch to replace the R9 390 and 390X, a *reasonable* individual would expect a price break from AMD. Most *reasonable* people would have expected the new price of the R9 390 and 390X to fall in around $199 for the R9 390 and $249 for the R9 390X. Instead, we find a new product positioned at $239 that ends up providing less or similar performance as the R9 390. Who should find such a product *reasonabl*y priced for the performance it delivers?
> The only thing un*forgivable* is your continued use of strawman arguments


Reasonable/Sane people would know that you cannot sell a complex/expensive product like the Hawaii cards for 199 Dollars and make a profit at it. So they designed a cheaper product _that is the successor of the 380X_ with good profit margin and with slightly better performance than a 390 that they can sell to the masses for a very attractive price.

Also, quoting the MSRP price of the 1070 ist just nonsense. In most countries it sells for about 500$, and that for weeks. If Nvidia had set the MSRP at 299$ people would still quote that price point even if it would still sell at 500$, so I guess their marketing tricks work for some simpler minded people


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *julizs*
> 
> Thats a very good argument, very factual.
> *Reasonable/Sane people would know that you cannot sell a complex/expensive product like the Hawaii cards for 199 Dollars and make a profit at it.* So they designed a cheaper product _that is the successor of the 380X_ with good profit margin and with slightly better performance than a 390 that they can sell to the masses for a very attractive price.
> 
> Also, quoting the MSRP price of the 1070 ist just nonsense. In most countries it sells for about 500$, and that for weeks. If Nvidia had set the MSRP at 299$ people would still quote that price point even if it would still sell at 500$, so I guess their marketing tricks work for some simpler minded people


It would be better to sell them at a slight loss (if it's even a loss) than to not sell them at all.


----------



## Lee Patekar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> It would be better to sell them at a slight loss (if it's even a loss) than to not sell them at all.


Stores / retailers won't want to sell them at a loss just yet. AMD aren't producing or selling these products anymore.


----------



## rudyae86

Man...AIBs are taking long to be released. If nothing shows up by next week, I'm going to purchase a used 980 Ti


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rudyae86*
> 
> Man...AIBs are taking long to be released. If nothing shows up by next week, I'm going to purchase a used 980 Ti


980ti is the faster card either way


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> 980ti is the faster card either way


Shouldn't it be in past tense?


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *julizs*
> 
> Thats a very good argument, very factual.
> Reasonable/Sane people would know that you cannot sell a complex/expensive product like the Hawaii cards for 199 Dollars and make a profit at it. So they designed a cheaper product _that is the successor of the 380X_ with good profit margin and with slightly better performance than a 390 that they can sell to the masses for a very attractive price.
> 
> Also, quoting the MSRP price of the 1070 ist just nonsense. In most countries it sells for about 500$, and that for weeks. If Nvidia had set the MSRP at 299$ people would still quote that price point even if it would still sell at 500$, so I guess their marketing tricks work for some simpler minded people


P10 is about as, if not more than, complex as Hawaii.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> When did AMD present a Hitman demo featuring Polaris?


It was around march, id find the video but the one i had is removed from youtube and i have to work so cant search atm (sorry about late reply)


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolfail9001*
> 
> P10 is about as, if not more than, complex as Hawaii.


Can't really get behind that considering that Fiji is actually more efficient than P10 if we take out the 14nm advantage, just look at the R9 Nano.


----------



## NaXter24R

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Can't really get behind that considering that Fiji is actually more efficient than P10 if we take out the 14nm advantage, just look at the R9 Nano.


Nano are binned chips, with a different pcb layout and they also use HBM that needs much more power compared to GDDR5.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Can't really get behind that considering that Fiji is actually more efficient than P10 if we take out the 14nm advantage, just look at the R9 Nano.


For one Fiji has HBM which in turn reduces power usage due to removal of a traditional memory interface, and Fiji also lacks hardware (Hardware Schedulers are a completely new addition componenet wise) in comparison to Polaris. Now if you take a look at the nano which is a binned chip with reduced voltage and a cut down pcb, your comparison is a terrible one. Users on OCN have already shown you can remain at the 1266 boost clock while undervolting and keeping temps under control, on top of cutting ~20-30w off of stock.

*Hardware Schedulers were in fact introduced with Fiji.


----------



## lolfail9001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> For one Fiji has HBM which in turn reduces power usage due to removal of a traditional memory interface, and Fiji also lacks hardware (Hardware Schedulers are a completely new addition componenet wise) in comparison to Polaris. Now if you take a look at the nano which is a binned chip with reduced voltage and a cut down pcb, your comparison is a terrible one. Users on OCN have already shown you can remain at the 1266 boost clock while undervolting and keeping temps under control, on top of cutting ~20-30w off of stock.


I am fairly positive all GCN chips have hardware schedulers, that's like main diversion between GCN and Fermi-based arches.

Also, you are not cutting power consumption unless you rise the power limit, on default power limit the thing simply throttles less after undervolt.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Can't really get behind that considering that Fiji is actually more efficient than P10 if we take out the 14nm advantage, just look at the R9 Nano.


I reference transistor counts, the actual measure of complexity.


----------



## C2H5OH

@Mahigan The idea comes from another user on S|A forum but the guy has a point. Looking at previous GCN the memory controller on Polaris 10 looks like a 512bit. What do you think?

It could be disabled for several reasons, like future card, PS4, power, price but...I don't trully understand it.

GCN Tonga MC 384bit

GCN Hawaii MC 512bit
GCN Polaris MC 256bit

Kudos to Optimus from S|A for spotting this - I totally missed it


----------



## poii

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auMsWIeWeu4 (german)

der8auer with some I²C OC results to bypass the 150w powertarget.

1500MHz with 1.35V (1.15V is standard), higher Volts do not get you higher clocks with liquid cooling.

The card pulled 300W with 1500MHz and 1.35V









The 1600+ MHz some showed in GPUZ were either fake or bugged.

16.6k FSU graphics score with 1480MHz, lower with 1500MHz (idk why, maybe throtteling again), der8auer didn't mention anything about it.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poii*
> 
> 16.6k FSU graphics score with 1480MHz, lower with 1500MHz (idk why, maybe throtteling again), der8auer didn't mention anything about it.


There's two scores there, one with and one without the tessellation tweaks that will increase the score.

The accurate *graphics* score without cheats/tweaks is 15300 iirc.


----------



## ChevChelios

15000+ in FS graphics score is between stock Fury level and stock Fury X level









is it games stable ?

300W though Oo


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 15000+ in FS graphics score is between stock Fury level and stock Fury X level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is it games stable ?
> 
> 300W though Oo


Toooooo much voltage.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 15000+ in FS graphics score is between stock Fury level and stock Fury X level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is it games stable ?
> 
> 300W though Oo


Possibly game stable (drop 20mhz or so and it would be) but only a fool would push the architecture that hard for long periods.

It's also hard to know exactly how they'll do off one sample but it gives a rough idea I guess, people who are optimistic will see his as a bad sample, and pessimistic will probably see it as a good one







In reality it's probably average.

People might be lucky and hit 1450mhz on an AIB on a reasonable amount of voltage, others might not be able to hit 1400mhz on the same amount.

Might find that there's a wall of diminishing returns ie get 1400mhz+ using 200W but to really push it will just be ludicrous from a power/perf perspective

Seems to be a fair bit of variance on the chips looking at OC's in the reviews of the 480, as with the 1080. I was browsing that thread and someone couldn't get over 2000mhz on an MSI gaming, whilst others are hitting 2100mhz on the same card. Reviews of the 480 show anything from 1300>1380 iirc

A little disappointing but the variance may be due to the smaller manufacturing process.

Just have to wait for the AIB reviews which I'm getting a little impatient for


----------



## spyshagg

Tess disabled on the 16k run iirc

same perf as my oced 290x, while consuming maybe 80watts less.

The chip clearly beats the 290x when both are inside their ideal perf/watts window. But once they are out, the rx480 hogs almost as much power the oced 290x for the same 16k score.

Clearly not designed to be scalable.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Tess disabled on the 16k run iirc
> 
> same perf as my oced 290x, while consuming maybe 80watts less.
> 
> The chip clearly beats the 290x when both are inside their ideal perf/watts window. But once they are out, the rx480 hogs almost as much power the oced 290x for the same 16k score.
> 
> Clearly not designed to be scalable.


What's the exact graphics score on your 290X at max OC?

Yeah efficiency really flies out the window at a certain point.


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> Tess disabled on the 16k run iirc
> 
> same perf as my oced 290x, while consuming maybe 80watts less.
> 
> The chip clearly beats the 290x when both are inside their ideal perf/watts window. But once they are out, the rx480 hogs almost as much power the oced 290x for the same 16k score.
> 
> Clearly not designed to be scalable.


GCN really is designed to be a slow clocked wide GPU, not a small high clocked GPU like pascal is. Which baffles me as to why AMD didnt make it a bigger 40CU chip and clock it lower, the performance per watt sweet spot for GCN is under 1000MHz.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GamerusMaximus*
> 
> GCN really is designed to be a slow clocked wide GPU, not a small high clocked GPU like pascal is. Which baffles me as to why AMD didnt make it a bigger 40CU chip and clock it lower, the performance per watt sweet spot for GCN is under 1000MHz.


Would not surprise me if they went 40CU for the RX 485.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GamerusMaximus*
> 
> GCN really is designed to be a slow clocked wide GPU, not a small high clocked GPU like pascal is. Which baffles me as to why AMD didnt make it a bigger 40CU chip and clock it lower, the performance per watt sweet spot for GCN is under 1000MHz.


That is the million dollar question. Though there is talk that it was intended to have 45CU and 2880 shaders, would have likely needed more other units to really use the extra CUs though. The block diagram also looks like it was going have 512b memory. Makes me wonder if it was supposed to be a 1 or 2 stack HBM2 chip that was redesigned for GDDR5.


----------



## poii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> There's two scores there, one with and one without the tessellation tweaks that will increase the score.
> 
> The accurate *graphics* score without cheats/tweaks is 15300 iirc.


"stock" drivers aka no tesselation tweaks etc.

Game stable? Yes. max 66°C core temp under water.


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> That is the million dollar question. Though there is talk that it was intended to have 45CU and 2880 shaders, would have likely needed more other units to really use the extra CUs though. The block diagram also looks like it was going have 512b memory. Makes me wonder if it was supposed to be a 1 or 2 stack HBM2 chip that was redesigned for GDDR5.


It very well could have been. It could also be that those controllers are only 32 bit apiece, not 64 bit like they used to be. Either way, it seems polaris is not what it was first intended to be when development started.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Would not surprise me if they went 40CU for the RX 485.


That would require a new die, which AMD doesnt have yet. They could develop one, but it would take awhile to come to market.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GamerusMaximus*
> 
> It very well could have been. It could also be that those controllers are only 32 bit apiece, not 64 bit like they used to be. Either way, it seems polaris is not what it was first intended to be when development started.
> That would require a new die, which AMD doesnt have yet. They could develop one, but it would take awhile to come to market.


I will have to link the GPU die analysis I had seen. It shows that there are 45 CU's pn the existing P10 die. They could only be for redundancy though.

--edit--

Found it...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38336220&postcount=40

Looks like we have another Tonga on our hands. Chip with more capacity than will ever be exposed to the public.


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> I will have to link the GPU die analysis I had seen. It shows that there are 45 CU's pn the existing P10 die. They could only be for redundancy though.
> 
> --edit--
> 
> Found it...
> http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38336220&postcount=40


Man, if AMD had a 2880 core 512 bit polaris chip, why on earth wouldnt they release it? That sounds much more tantalizing then the 480 turned out to be.

EDIT: reading the rest of that forum, the extra blocks are most likely TMUs, and the memory controllers are most likely 32 bit, not 64 bit like the older GCN cards.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GamerusMaximus*
> 
> Man, if AMD had a 2880 core 512 bit polaris chip, why on earth wouldnt they release it? That sounds much more tantalizing then the 480 turned out to be.


Well, from those shots it looks like 384b. Tonga met the same fate.

Lots of disabled units to salvage yields.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GamerusMaximus*
> 
> Man, if AMD had a 2880 core 512 bit polaris chip, why on earth wouldnt they release it? That sounds much more tantalizing then the 480 turned out to be.


Because they've hit the low/mid market and are selling by the thousand. I'm sure they are pushing their next release asap.


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> What's the exact graphics score on your 290X at max OC?
> 
> Yeah efficiency really flies out the window at a certain point.


1180mhz
16005 graphics score

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7865089



I was maybe using 350 watts at those low clocks (1180). So, not far off from RX480 (300)


----------



## spyshagg

and to be fair, watercooling drops consumption by 50 watts on my 290x. But that rx480 was also watercooled and the same benefit applies.


----------



## KarathKasun

NVM, looks like those other units are the TMUs. JPEG compression kinda destroyed the detail in the image. The memory controllers are also eight groups of three units, 8x32=256.

My bad.


----------



## sugarhell

Iirc the 1500 overclock was with 105C vrms. The efficiency is way out of normal conditions.

I think with proper temps on vrms the gpu will scale better


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> and to be fair, watercooling drops consumption by 50 watts on my 290x. But that rx480 was also watercooled and the same benefit applies.


Nice score. That's above the 1500mhz 480.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Iirc the 1500 overclock was with 105C vrms. The efficiency is way out of normal conditions.
> 
> I think with proper temps on vrms the gpu will scale better


True if those VRMs could be kept cool it could make quite a difference.


----------



## poii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Iirc the 1500 overclock was with 105C vrms. The efficiency is way out of normal conditions.
> 
> I think with proper temps on vrms the gpu will scale better


You're right, VRMs were around 105°C

der8auer said they work flawlessly up to 120°C so he didn't bother much.


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poii*
> 
> You're right, VRMs were around 105°C
> 
> der8auer said they work flawlessly up to 120°C so he didn't bother much.


They'll work just like my car can _technically_ go 120MPH. Yes it can do that, but there is no guarantee on the longevity of the vehicle being driven like that.

Full waterblock cooling on a 480 will help that, but AIB cards will probably be stuck at 1.4GHz or so, if watercooling is needed to hit 1.5.


----------



## poii

I'm not debating that GamerusMaximus, I'm just translating der8auer









Anyway we got a reference from a known overclocker with numbers now, not some stream or screen showing false GPUZ numbers.


----------



## Slomo4shO

[/quote]
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C2H5OH*
> 
> @Mahigan The idea comes from another user on S|A forum but the guy has a point. Looking at previous GCN the memory controller on Polaris 10 looks like a 512bit. What do you think?
> 
> It could be disabled for several reasons, like future card, PS4, power, price but...I don't trully understand it.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: die configuration images
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos to Optimus from S|A for spotting this - I totally missed it


Definitely odd seeing 8 64-bit 2-way memory controllers on the die configuration snapshot.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Nice score. That's above the 1500mhz 480.
> True if those VRMs could be kept cool it could make quite a difference.


Not so much. Temps, if within the spec, are not an issue. The only problem with high temps would be longevity of the parts.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Not so much. Temps, if within the spec, are not an issue. The only problem with high temps would be longevity of the parts.


No. Vrms lose a lot of efficiency as the temps go up.

Gcn was always temp sensitive especially now with glofo


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> No. Vrms lose a lot of efficiency as the temps go up.
> 
> Gcn was always temp sensitive especially now with glofo


The VRM is rated at 40a/phase and 66a/phase at 125c. Temps of 110c are not an issue.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> The VRM is rated at 40a/phase and 66a/phase at 125c. Temps of 110c are not an issue.


What you dont understand that you lose efficiency and it affects the stability of the core or the memory if you overvolt with so high temps?

Do you even overclock at all? With gcn was not possible to get a high overclock on 7970 with >70C on vrms.

The same with 290x










The vrms will not going to die but the clocks will not going to scale correctly


----------



## GamerusMaximus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> The VRM is rated at 40a/phase and 66a/phase at 125c. Temps of 110c are not an issue.


OK, yes, it is rated for that, but it doent pull that much under full load.

What it DOES do is pull more power when it gets warm. Nobody is saying they wont perform, they are saying they would be more efficient at cooler temperatures, which is correct.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> What you dont understand that you lose efficiency and it affects the stability of the core or the memory if you overvolt with so high temps?
> 
> Do you even overclock at all? With gcn was not possible to get a high overclock on 7970 with >70C on vrms.
> 
> The same with 290x
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vrms will not going to die but the clocks will not going to scale correctly


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GamerusMaximus*
> 
> OK, yes, it is rated for that, but it doent pull that much under full load.
> 
> What it DOES do is pull more power when it gets warm. Nobody is saying they wont perform, they are saying they would be more efficient at cooler temperatures, which is correct.


The first quote is pretty much saying that. Multiple people have been able to hit 1500 without even having heatsinks on the VRM because it so stupidly overspeced ([email protected] VRM on 120w chip). R9 290 VRM was nowhere NEAR as overspeced.


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> The first quote is pretty much saying that. Multiple people have been able to hit 1500 without even having heatsinks on the VRM because it so stupidly overspeced ([email protected] VRM on 120w chip). R9 290 VRM was nowhere NEAR as overspeced.


Well it's still a fact the cooler you keep them the better they perform afaik.

Let's hope he got a bad chip and others can do 1400-1500mhz on lower voltages.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> The first quote is pretty much saying that. Multiple people have been able to hit 1500 without even having heatsinks on the VRM because it so stupidly overspeced (600w VRM on 120w chip). R9 290 VRM was nowhere NEAR as overspeced.


Ok this is useless.

There is a difference between yeah i hit 1500 clocks and yeah i hit 1500 and the clocks scales correctly. With high temps on vrms everything is worse from stability to voltage rippling etc etc.

It's okay to run the vrms close to their safety max temps. But their efficiency is way off so close to their max SAFETY temps.

But okay i know already your answer "but this is specced for 120C"


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> Well it's still a fact the cooler you keep them the better they perform afaik.
> 
> Let's hope he got a bad chip and others can do 1400-1500mhz on lower voltages.


I dont think we will see above 1500 as commonplace. 1400-1450 will likely be average with 1500 being a far hope for air cooling. 1600 will be a far hope for watercooling.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Ok this is useless.
> 
> There is a difference between yeah i hit 1500 clocks and yeah i hit 1500 and the clocks scales correctly. With high temps on vrms everything is worse from stability to voltage rippling etc etc.
> 
> It's okay to run the vrms close to their safety max temps. But their efficiency is way off so close to their max SAFETY temps.
> 
> But okay i know already your answer "but this is specced for 120C"


Yep, stuff does change as you approach the upper limit of a devices operational range. But in this case you are not going to see much if any difference, I would put money on that.


----------



## spyshagg

you will notice it at the wall socket. From air to water my 290x dropped 50 watts at same mhz/vcore


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> you will notice it at the wall socket. From air to water my 290x dropped 50 watts at same mhz/vcore


And will just cooling the mosfets of the VRM give you more OC headroom? Will it allow better voltage scaling on this card? These claims have yet to be proven for this card.

This is also not a 290x, so a 50w at the wall (45w at the PSU) benefit may be an inflated expectation. That is also taking into account the GPU core temp reduction which will further reduce load wattage.


----------



## C2H5OH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Definitely odd seeing 8 64-bit 2-way memory controllers on the die configuration snapshot.


Yep, looks similar to the other GCN...


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> And will just cooling the mosfets of the VRM give you more OC headroom? Will it allow better voltage scaling on this card? These claims have yet to be proven for this card.
> 
> This is also not a 290x, so a 50w at the wall (45w at the PSU) benefit may be an inflated expectation. That is also taking into account the GPU core temp reduction which will further reduce load wattage.


I'm no engineer, but with with some basic knowledge higher temps/lower efficiency should cause higher ripple in the current. The greater the ripple, the worse stability will be as with more jumps in current and subsequently vcore, the more likely you are to artifact or be right on the wall of stability due to higher fluctuation.

How much better power delivery and better cooled vrms will help is yet to be seen.


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> And will just cooling the mosfets of the VRM give you more OC headroom? Will it allow better voltage scaling on this card? These claims have yet to be proven for this card.
> 
> This is also not a 290x, so a 50w at the wall (45w at the PSU) benefit may be an inflated expectation. That is also taking into account the GPU core temp reduction which will further reduce load wattage.


I' am not trying to prove anything. Just making it very clear that cooling has a dramatic effect on power consumption when I compared what my card consumed VS the rx480 with the same 16k score.

My card consumed ~360watts with full cover WC with vrm's at ~45ºc while that rx480 had them at 105ºc, making the comparison skewed towards the 290x.

Meaning, under the same vrm temps my 290x would have consumed ~410 watts VS 300w of the rx480.

And yes, vrm temp affects overall gpu clock assuming there isn't a bottleneck elswwhere.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> I'm no engineer, but with with some basic knowledge higher temps/lower efficiency should cause higher ripple in the current. The greater the ripple, the worse stability will be as with more jumps in current and subsequently vcore, the more likely you are to artifact or be right on the wall of stability due to higher fluctuation.
> 
> How much better power delivery and better cooled vrms will help is yet to be seen.


That is pretty much my point. The increase in ripple is usually only apparent at the far end of the available power delivery capability of the VRM. At lower loads the effect is much less. This is why I do not expect superior VRM cooling to make much of a difference in achievable clocks on the RX 480.

You may get 10-20% better VRM efficiency, which means 30w when you are at the upper end of what the chip itself is capable of.


----------



## keikei

Gentlemen, any news on a Nitro release date?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> Gentlemen, any news on a Nitro release date?


Nothing other than "July" as far as anyone has reported.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spyshagg*
> 
> 1180mhz
> 16005 graphics score
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7865089
> 
> 
> 
> I was maybe using 350 watts at those low clocks (1180). So, not far off from RX480 (300)


Just curious how your 290x at 1180 / 1600 is scoring just shy of 2k graphics score points higher than my 290x at 1150 / 1500... ?

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/12990964?

Edit:

Oh.. I see you are using much older drivers and have changed settings in them such as tesselation... Can you do a run on recent drivers without changing settings for comparisons sake to the rx480?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Do you even overclock at all? With gcn was not possible to get a high overclock on 7970 with >70C on vrms.


My XFX Double D 7970ghz ran at 1225mhz / 1600mhz despite pretty high vrm temps - had no stability issues and is still being used overclocked in another machine to this day.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> That is pretty much my point. The increase in ripple is usually only apparent at the far end of the available power delivery capability of the VRM. At lower loads the effect is much less. This is why I do not expect superior VRM cooling to make much of a difference in achievable clocks on the RX 480.
> 
> You may get 10-20% better VRM efficiency, which means 30w when you are at the upper end of what the chip itself is capable of.


Either way it should help, whether its by 15mhz or by 50 is yet to be seen.

High ripple before filtering won't just disappear, the effects will be less, but still there as efficency gets worse due to temps.


----------



## spyshagg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Just curious how your 290x at 1180 / 1600 is scoring just shy of 2k graphics score points higher than my 290x at 1150 / 1500... ?
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/12990964?
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Oh.. I see you are using much older drivers and have changed settings in them such as tesselation... Can you do a run on recent drivers without changing settings for comparisons sake to the rx480?


Yes it was without tess, with old drivers. Today that score would be around 16400.

Heres one from last month with 1150/1450 with tess on. (my 24/7 settings)

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8750578

Modded bios + strap timing tweaks,


----------



## Waitng4realGPU

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Just curious how your 290x at 1180 / 1600 is scoring just shy of 2k graphics score points higher than my 290x at 1150 / 1500... ?
> 
> Oh.. I see you are using much older drivers and have changed settings in them such as tesselation... Can you do a run on recent drivers without changing settings for comparisons sake to the rx480?
> My XFX Double D 7970ghz ran at 1225mhz / 1600mhz despite pretty high vrm temps - had no stability issues and is still being used overclocked in another machine to this day.


Those scores did look rather high. Yours look more along the lines of the average 290X. The 480 at 1350-1400mhz should be around that level.

That is a nice 7970 chip if it ran 1225/1600 game stable with high vrm temps.


----------



## spyshagg

well yeah my scores are high but any 290x on the market today can have that performance. The bios mods are available to anyone.


----------



## Mc'zee

It looks like the next days will be decisive for all the people (like me) looking for a graphic card upgrade soon. 1060 unveiling, custom RX480's, new drivers...


----------



## specopsFI

Since you're comparing Fire Strike results... Here's my 290 (non-X):

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9023780

That's 13 586 graphics score, using a 390 BIOS (no mods on mem timings though) and clocked at 1110/1500MHz. I consider that an excellent score for two reasons. One: it's done with no driver tweaks whatsoever (that is to say absolutely nothing changed in Catalyst settings, to assure best possible repeatability and comparability). Two: it's run with my perf/W balanced 24/7 settings, so definitely not a suicide run. GPU-Z reported max power at 278W for that run.

I did consider changing for the RX 480, if for nothing else then for the fact that I've been running this 290 for 13 months straight which seems like forever. But no, I just can't be bothered. I'm getting old, I suppose. Also, I paid less for this 290 (brand new) over a year ago than what the cheapest 480 here goes for now.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Just curious how your 290x at 1180 / 1600 is scoring just shy of 2k graphics score points higher than my 290x at 1150 / 1500... ?
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/12990964?
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Oh.. I see you are using much older drivers and have changed settings in them such as tesselation... Can you do a run on recent drivers without changing settings for comparisons sake to the rx480?
> My XFX Double D 7970ghz ran at 1225mhz / 1600mhz despite pretty high vrm temps - had no stability issues and is still being used overclocked in another machine to this day.


1225 mhz is not a big deal on a 7970. If you want to do 1350 then we talk again


----------



## ChevChelios

so 1400-1450 are the realistic 24/7 OC expectations for AIB air cooled cards


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> so 1400-1450 are the realistic 24/7 OC expectations for AIB air cooled cards


1350-1400 I think.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 1350-1400 I think.


Yeah, I'm counting more on 1400 since that's around a 10% increase.
1450 would be around 15% which would be real nice, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Yeah, I'm counting more on 1400 since that's around a 10% increase.
> 1450 would be around 15% which would be real nice, but I'm not holding my breath.


I mean if destroys p/w for extra 5% I would not bother.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I mean if destroys p/w for extra 5% I would not bother.


Exactly, and we've already seen how much power these things guzzle when pushed.


----------



## Themisseble

AMD made mistake!
They should go for low quantity and highly binned chip for their reference cards...
If I look at power on GTX 1080 AIB
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/geforce-gtx-1080-partnerkarten-vergleich-test/4/#abschnitt_so_viel_watt_kosten_die_hoeheren_taktraten
+40-100W for 10-15% more = nice.

This is how should they do it. Just like nvidia...


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I mean if destroys p/w for extra 5% I would not bother.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and we've already seen how much power these things guzzle when pushed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> AMD made mistake!
> They should go for low quantity and highly binned chip for their reference cards...
> If I look at power on GTX 1080 AIB
> https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/geforce-gtx-1080-partnerkarten-vergleich-test/4/#abschnitt_so_viel_watt_kosten_die_hoeheren_taktraten
> +40-100W for 10-15% more = nice.
> 
> This is how should they do it. Just like nvidia...


Pretty sure the 480 will be the same. 100ish w for 10% OC


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*


+1
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Pretty sure the 480 will be the same. 100ish w for 10% OC


That was not my point.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*


FYI OCN was bought by Dell and is now being converted to Dell OEM pc support forums. Please do not post about non Dell products.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 1350-1400 I think.


Really? If you replace the reference cooler with no other changes, most are getting close to 1400.

Give the video everyone has been talking about a watch, Der8auer is saying he thinks aib cards will do 1400-1450. His reference card is hard modded with EVC and water cooled to eliminate power/thermal restrictions and it runs 1480mhz "infinitely" stable.

The reference board is very overbuilt. The cooler is the main limitation, replace the cooler and 1380+mhz becomes possible. The second limitation is voltage, 1.15v max on reference. If the aibs just make a card with sufficient cooling, and allow voltage up to 1.3v-1.35v, 1400-1450 is possible, add in an 8pin connector so you're within spec and you're good to go. AIBs don't even really have much of a need to make a custom pcb even.

1390mhz with aio cooler http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2499-diy-amd-rx-480-hyrbid-results-with-bigger-overclocking
1425mhz with arctic accelero (best of 4 cards he has) http://hwbot.org/submission/3251198_lucky_n00b_3dmark___fire_strike_radeon_rx_480_12668_marks


----------



## ChevChelios

oc benchmarks for 1390:


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Oh sweet! Our new logo.


----------



## hjacob

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> oc benchmarks for 1390]


here are some other benchmarks of the rx 480 at 1400mhz vs the 970 and 980 at 1080p and 1440p, plus FS extrema and ultra , google translate is not so good
either is a custom reference card ( white + red)

https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1613126-1-1.html

https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1612713-1-1.html

if custom AIB does 1450-1500 + drivers optimizations...should be a good card for the $.


----------



## Delphi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waitng4realGPU*
> 
> He referred to the fix for the PCIE issue as being something that will shut the media up, it appeared that he didn't think it's a huge problem at all.


That is because it really isn't. It is being blown way out of proportion.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Delphi*
> 
> That is because it really isn't. It is being blown way out of proportion.


No, it is. You see, when it comes to AMD, people show who they really are. "480-PTSD" that is what it is.


----------



## ekg84

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hjacob*
> 
> here are some other benchmarks of the rx 480 at 1400mhz vs the 970 and 980 at 1080p and 1440p, plus FS extrema and ultra , google translate is not so good
> either is a custom reference card ( white + red)
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1613126-1-1.html
> 
> https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1612713-1-1.html
> 
> if custom AIB does 1450-1500 + drivers optimizations...should be a good card for the $.


Dunno man, I actually kinda like the way it looks


----------



## 12Cores

Don't know if this has already been posted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq47qmwcus8


----------



## GorillaSceptre

That video is a lie.. We all already know even the AIB boards with vastly superior power delivery will never be able to reach 1500 (They aren't out yet, but just trust me.).. Let alone the reference, not to mention they destroy all motherboards @ stock, there's no way one could survive an overclock.










Edit:

On a serious note, i always like new GPU launches, members always end up sharing really great small channels. Their quality and effort put most of the big ones to shame.


----------



## phenom01

So from all the prehype of AIB 480's they will be infernos pulling tons of power for their clocks over reference but amazing performance for the price? Am I reading this wrong?

O wait no one knows


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> That video is a lie.. We all already know even the AIB boards with vastly superior power delivery will never be able to reach 1500 (They aren't out yet, but just trust me.).. Let alone the reference, not to mention they destroy all motherboards @ stock, there's no way one could survive an overclock.


I would like to see the fumes coming out of the fan, though(my personal favourite projection). AMD should make such a fireball-fan themed ad: cards blowing left and right, vrms going off one after the other. "We did it, so that you wouldn't" sort of hyperbole. Someone needs to relieve people of what they are displacing towards this card. Mine is fumes and glory. Melting fans are scary, too. Need more fantasies...
PS: Cannot have emotional breakdown, digital hardware is so unimaginative.


----------



## 12Cores

It's a good video for those considering putting these cards under water, which is something that is not a wise move due the cost of full cover water blocks. That being said if you are able to unlock the voltage of the card through software the best you can expect is around 1.4-1.5ghz under water. He did allude to the fact that the 8 pin connector on the AIB cards might not do too much for overclocking which I find interesting.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Either way, it does show that the AIB models should be able to reach at least 1400.. 1450 might even be the norm, who knows. At 1500 this thing will probably match a Fury or even exceed it in some titles, if the only way to reach those speeds was a block and water, well... That would still be cheaper than a Fury cost less than a year ago, and with 8GB of vram to boot.

Not the card for me as I'm waiting for the enthusiast lineup from AMD/Nvidia, but if i was looking for a midrange card i know it would be a custom 480.


----------



## Blackops_2

I think for kepler users it's a decent jump for a lower price while waiting for Vega or big pascal.


----------



## HarrisLam

Are there any news on when the custom designs are coming out? You know, MSI twin frozer, Asus CUII, etc

Looks like this card might finally be an option (for me) if those versions improve the card's current stats.....


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> Are there any news on when the custom designs are coming out? You know, MSI twin frozer, Asus CUII, etc
> 
> Looks like this card might finally be an option (for me) if those versions improve the card's current stats.....


20-23 july for sapphire nitro.


----------



## julizs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> 20-23 july for sapphire nitro.


Where does it say so? Was hoping for 14th


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *julizs*
> 
> Where does it say so? Was hoping for 14th


I read it on oc.uk somewhere. it's up for preorder already.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18738486


----------



## axiumone

Was at the local microcenter yesterday. They had a few of them, if anyone is still looking.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axiumone*
> 
> Was at the local microcenter yesterday. They had a few of them, if anyone is still looking.


That picture almost makes the 1060 irrelevant for the next few months since

a) they won't be in that stock anywhere
b) the price will be much higher than MSRP.


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> 20-23 july for sapphire nitro.


thanks

just searched for Asus to find that they do have an introduction page for the 480 strix card, but in the description, it outright says that it will be paired with 8G of memory. This might mean that they won't even consider a 4GB model.

MSI also has its variant coming out "soon," but no word on whether they will release for both models or not


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> That picture almost makes the 1060 irrelevant for the next few months since
> 
> a) they won't be in that stock anywhere
> b) the price will be much higher than MSRP.


NEVER underestimate nvidias mind share...
also the lack of stock will pretty sure skyrocket the price well above 400...


----------



## julizs

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> NEVER underestimate nvidias mind share...
> also the lack of stock will pretty sure skyrocket the price well above 400...


True, never underestimate the mindshare, but also never underestimate the "8Gb card is 5x superior to a 6Gb card" mindshare in this customer price range.


----------



## lolerk52

Was this posted here? http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9133138
Posted by Kaapstad.

That's slightly higher than stock Fury X.


----------



## ChevChelios

^ 4280 FSU graphics score is pretty insane compared to stock ~2800

what was the OC clock and how was it achieved ?


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> ^ 4280 FSU graphics score is pretty insane compared to stock ~2800
> 
> what was the OC clock and how was it achieved ?


I'm going to assume [email protected]+


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> ^ 4280 FSU graphics score is pretty insane compared to stock ~2800
> 
> what was the OC clock and how was it achieved ?


No idea, I just had someone over on the AMD discord post this result.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> No idea, I just had someone over on the AMD discord post this result.


A bit (a lot) off topic. But why does everyone INSIST on using discord. It's a *terrible* VOIP option.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> A bit (a lot) off topic. But why does everyone INSIST on using discord. It's a *terrible* VOIP option.


Works just as well as Skype, dont have to install a client, better group chat functionality, better permissions, etc etc etc.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Works just as well as Skype, dont have to install a client, better group chat functionality, better permissions, etc etc etc.


Except the latency is pretty crappy from what I've experienced. Especially if you're using the browser one.


----------



## Particle

Anything works better than Skype. I tried to run it for years, but after fighting with constant memory leaks, application crashes, slow load times, and no option to launch minimized I gave up.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> Anything works better than Skype. I tried to run it for years, but after fighting with constant memory leaks, application crashes, slow load times, and no option to launch minimized I gave up.


Meh, I've used it for years, and have had no issues what so ever. It was always my go to VOIP in small groups. Larger groups becomes a hassle for obvious reasons though.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> Anything works better than Skype. I tried to run it for years, but after fighting with constant memory leaks, application crashes, slow load times, and no option to launch minimized I gave up.


Does it still have ads?


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> Anything works better than Skype. I tried to run it for years, but after fighting with constant memory leaks, application crashes, slow load times, and no option to launch minimized I gave up.


QFT

I moved my circles of friends onto Discord, and kissed Skype goodbye. May I never have to use that dreaded thing ever again.


----------



## the9quad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Except the latency is pretty crappy from what I've experienced. Especially if you're using the browser one.


Not been my experience, and it pretty much destroys other options, and its free and easy to use.


----------



## the9quad

duplicate post


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *the9quad*
> 
> Not been my experience, and it pretty much destroys other options, and its free and easy to use.


Hmm... maybe I'm biased because I saw that dbag Martin Shkreli advertising Discord.


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Hmm... maybe I'm in love because I saw my hero Martin Shkreli advertising Discord.


Fixed


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> Fixed


Hahahahaa... I can't imagine how anyone would consider that man anything but a disease.


----------



## lolerk52

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13020456 - 16.6.2
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13020712 - 16.7.1
From the AMD discord. Exactly as AMD claimed.
Edit:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13020910 - 16.7.1 with Compatibility on


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13020456 - 16.6.2
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13020712 - 16.7.1
> From the AMD discord. Exactly as AMD claimed.
> Edit:
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13020910 - 16.7.1 with Compatibility on


I know gpu tests are gpu tests in Firestrike... but really it's paired with a X3 435? Guy should be worrying about that cpu far before considering this card..


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Hahahahaa... I can't imagine how anyone would consider that man anything but a disease.


I admire him personally.


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> I know gpu tests are gpu tests in Firestrike... but really it's paired with a X3 435? Guy should be worrying about that cpu far before considering this card..


It's his crappy test bench, he doesn't actually game on that lol


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> I admire him personally.


I'm sorry to hear that.


----------



## bigjdubb

This thing would go well with an RX480

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824025112&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=IGNEFL070716&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL070716-_-EMC-070716-Index-_-LCDLEDMonitors-_-24025112-S0G


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that.


A man after shekels is a man after my own heart.


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> A man after shekels is a man after my own heart.


Well... I live where the currency is called shekels...


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> This thing would go well with an RX480
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824025112&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=IGNEFL070716&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL070716-_-EMC-070716-Index-_-LCDLEDMonitors-_-24025112-S0G


I like your taste.


----------



## cainy1991

As far as I can tell still no release dates for the 480 aib cards?


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cainy1991*
> 
> As far as I can tell still no release dates for the 480 aib cards?


The only info that's known was the OCUK page for the Sapphire Nitro 480 is tagged as 7/22


----------



## cainy1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dudewitbow*
> 
> The only info that's known was the OCUK page for the Sapphire Nitro 480 is tagged as 7/22


Yeah that was all I could find too, I was really hoping for sooner but it looks like the 22nd may be the soonest.


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> the progress is on the perf/die cost, are you so short sighted as to not see this as progress?


No, that's happening because node shrink and not because architecture. a ~350mm chip can give you 90% performance of 232mm chip (at same frequency) of this 4 architecture revisions and a almost 2 node shrinks , that's not even half of it. i don't see that as any improvement from amd side.

at the same time look at gtx 660 to gtx 1060, how much improvement it got. and that's with only 33% more cores, at least they are able to achieve much higher clocks.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cainy1991*
> 
> As far as I can tell still no release dates for the 480 aib cards?


Well we've known since the 29th that the AIB's would be at least "middle July" so I would guess we will hear something about them next week.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> No, that's happening because node shrink and not because architecture. a ~350mm chip can give you 90% performance of 232mm chip (at same frequency) of this 4 architecture revisions and a almost 2 node shrinks , that's not even half of it. i don't see that as any improvement from amd side.
> 
> at the same time look at gtx 660 to gtx 1060, how much improvement it got. and that's with only 33% more cores, at least they are able to achieve much higher clocks.


Tuning for frequency is actually the best thing NVidia could have done. Since we already know that we are approaching the limits of fast node advancements.

When nodes were moving along at a good pace the clocks didnt matter because you could just throw 2x the transistors at the problem every couple of years. Now we have the node cadence slowing to ~5 years, the only way up is with frequency and NV exploited this situation by staying fairly "narrow" in their design and just cranking up the clock potential of their designs. The fab isnt the only one responsible for the resulting clockspeed capability, the basic design of the architecture also determines this.


----------



## keikei

Are people really looking at Fury performance with these aftermarket RX 480's? If so, i'll pick one up just for the summer.


----------



## the9quad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *keikei*
> 
> Are people really looking at Fury performance with these aftermarket RX 480's? If so, i'll pick one up just for the summer.


I think they are more 290x/970 level. Still good though.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I thought stock 480 pretty much matched 290x?


----------



## the9quad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I thought stock 480 pretty much matched 290x?


Ah yeah, thought he was talking stock.my bad


----------



## Bauxno

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> No, that's happening because node shrink and not because architecture. a ~350mm chip can give you 90% performance of 232mm chip (at same frequency) of this 4 architecture revisions and a almost 2 node shrinks , that's not even half of it. i don't see that as any improvement from amd side.
> 
> at the same time look at gtx 660 to gtx 1060, how much improvement it got. and that's with only 33% more cores, at least they are able to achieve much higher clocks.


Whats the point of higher clocks if amd get close to same performance with lower clocks. For me AMD its been caution cause that idea the higher clock its better didnt work for then with their cpu line.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bauxno*
> 
> Whats the point of higher clocks if amd get close to same performance with lower clocks. For me AMD its been caution cause that idea the higher clock its better didnt work for then with their cpu line.


GPU's are so low in clocks that they have tons of room to improve. We are also not seeing node advancements every 2 years anymore, you cant make wider GPU's every two years as a result. The only major advancement will be clocks as you cant make infinitely more efficient and wide GPU's.


----------



## Bauxno

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> GPU's are so low in clocks that they have tons of room to improve. We are also not seeing node advancements every 2 years anymore, you cant make wider GPU's every two years as a result. The only major advancement will be clocks as you cant make infinitely more efficient and wide GPU's.


I dont think thats true due to the way gpu consume power. A 2000mhz gpu use 180watts while a 4.0ghz cpu consume only 100 watt. The idea that we will see a 10000mhz is so far on the future that I dont think aiming for that is a smart thing to do specially now that node shrinking is slowing down by a lot. Increasing mhz by each generation will need to stop a some point cause today the only way NVidia has gain more clock speed since maxwell was cause of node shrink and not by IPC improvements. I mean what we will need to reach 10k mhz 1nm?

Sry for my english XD


----------



## EightDee8D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bauxno*
> 
> Whats the point of higher clocks if amd get close to same performance with lower clocks. For me AMD its been caution cause that idea the higher clock its better didnt work for then with their cpu line.


because there are 3 ways to increase performance -
1. increase ipc.
2. increase frequency.
3. increase amount of cores.

now , 1 is pretty much same for last 5 years on GCN, so you get 2 another ways left either increase frequency and/or increase no. of cores. if they increase amount of cores they will hit a die size wall. because you can't just keep increasing die size it costs alot of money. so all they are left with is frequency. and they are having problems increasing frequency at same power.

that's why i think it's time to ditch gcn or do a pretty major rework. otherwise they won't really survive when finally nvidia fixes their dx12 performance.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bauxno*
> 
> I dont think thats true due to the way gpu consume power. A 2000mhz gpu use 180watts while a 4.0ghz cpu consume only 100 watt. The idea that we will see a 10000mhz is so far on the future that I dont think aiming for that is a smart thing to do specially now that node shrinking is slowing down by a lot. Increasing mhz by each generation will need to stop a some point cause today the only way NVidia has gain more clock speed since maxwell was cause of node shrink and not by IPC improvements. I mean what we will need to reach 10k mhz 1nm?
> 
> Sry for my english XD


Well, a NV GPU uses ~250w for 2ghz while AMD is using ~250w for only 1.4ghz.

The point is that there is quite a bit of untapped frequency potential left on the table.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EightDee8D*
> 
> because there are 3 ways to increase performance -
> 1. increase ipc.
> 2. increase frequency.
> 3. increase amount of cores.
> 
> now , 1 is pretty much same for last 5 years on GCN, so you get 2 another ways left either increase frequency and/or increase no. of cores. if they increase amount of cores they will hit a die size wall. because you can't just keep increasing die size it costs alot of money. so all they are left with is frequency. and they are having problems increasing frequency at same power.
> 
> that's why i think it's time to ditch gcn or do a pretty major rework. otherwise they won't really survive when finally nvidia fixes their dx12 performance.


Honestly I think NV is getting stupid high clocks from the experience they have with using multiple clock domains on the same card (started with 8800GTX shaders being clocked higher than the GPU core). AFAIK, AMD is using a single clock domain, meaning that some parts are eating way more power than they need to.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Honestly I think NV is getting stupid high clocks from the experience they have with using multiple clock domains on the same card (started with 8800GTX shaders being clocked higher than the GPU core). AFAIK, AMD is using a single clock domain, meaning that some parts are eating way more power than they need to.


Yup, which is why AMD's overclocks tend to scale better too. Since when you overclock, everything goes. With NVidia, that's not the case (at least not by default, though you can do it manually)


----------



## mtcn77

People: your average fps has no relevance. Minimum fps rates determine your level of "smooth v-sync" performance which is the most you will take out of your monitor - G-Sync, or otherwise. You can overclock you monitor so that you can extend the smooth range upwards of your regular 30 Hz, but will never work faster than your minimum fps rating(in this case, 40Hz, where the latency slope ends)


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Yup, which is why AMD's overclocks tend to scale better too. Since when you overclock, everything goes. With NVidia, that's not the case (at least not by default, though you can do it manually)


Yep, I had pointed that out in one of the other threads. Scaling does not really matter, just overall performance at the intended clocks.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Yep, I had pointed that out in one of the other threads. Scaling does not really matter, just overall performance at the intended clocks.


I wouldn't go as far as saying that scaling doesn't matter. People were pretty openly bashing the 1080 for its mediocre FPS increases, despite hitting High 19s all the way into high 20s on OC. (As far as I can see, the best 1080 is usually only 4-5 FPS better than FE). Overclockability and the "free" performance you can (or can't) get from a card is a selling point for most people on this forum (which can be considered as "enthusiasts").

The scaling also matters when it comes to pricing. When the Reference, OC, and super OC variants of a card all perform within 3-6% of each other, yet the price difference is $50-$100, scaling does come into play. Just my


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> I wouldn't go as far as saying that scaling doesn't matter. People were pretty openly bashing the 1080 for its mediocre FPS increases, despite hitting High 19s all the way into high 20s on OC. (As far as I can see, the best 1080 is usually only 4-5 FPS better than FE). Overclockability and the "free" performance you can (or can't) get from a card is a selling point for most people on this forum (which can be considered as "enthusiasts").
> 
> The scaling also matters when it comes to pricing. When the Reference, OC, and super OC variants of a card all perform within 3-6% of each other, yet the price difference is $50-$100, scaling does come into play. Just my


Totally valid points, but if you have the right tools you can oc all of the clock domains that matter and make scaling much better. Since AMD is pushing "control of your card" they could add sliders for all of the subdomains in RSC too. They could always do clock doubling for specific portions of the chip as an alternative, just a few blocks of transistors in strategic locations that need the extra grunt. Simplify the circuit and run it at double the core clock.

Something has to change if they cant keep pace.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Totally valid points, but if you have the right tools you can oc all of the clock domains that matter and make scaling much better. Since AMD is pushing "control of your card" they could add sliders for all of the subdomains in RSC too.
> 
> Something has to change if they cant keep pace.


I'd have to agree with you. With the right tools, one could push an Nvidia card much harder if they had access to the other clock domains. I'm reluctant to say the same about AMD cards however. Given the fact that the GCN architecture doesn't particularly like high clocks (unless someone is okay with dealing with a lot more heat/noise/power consumption) this isn't really an option that would give that great of a result (IMO)

I was hoping for more IPC gain (Since we can see that it's minimal compared to last generation of cards)
Which means that architecturally, the new GCN hasn't changed much, and is still hamstrung in the same ways older generations were.

In conclusion, yes... Something has to happen, because they apparently cannot keep pace.


----------



## formula m

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iLeakStuff*
> 
> Your whole post is hilarious because you dont understand that the "old tech" is just as efficient as AMDs "new tech", now cost less in UK and performs the same
> 
> But keep on supporting the company that said RX 480 Crossfire would beat 1080 yet only match GTX 1070.
> Falls in line with their Fury X marketing where they presented slides that show Fury X to be 20-30% faster than 980Ti. And an overclockers dream.
> 
> LOL


But that is a false argument.

Nobody cares about old tech, when buying today (ie THIS MONTH). You keep bringing it up as some sort of thing with "performance". Yet, that performance doesn't support current newer standards, then the people shopping for a new build will not be shopping old tech.

Ur bias, is so dumb..

Matter of fact (old standards) is the reason nVidia is coming out with a 1060, uno... because of "new tech".

Do understand, I am talking about reality, you are yammering about has-been marketing strategies.

We live in the real world and understand the value of a RX480. (It is perfect for a new home build, or HTPC.)


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *formula m*
> 
> But that is a false argument.
> 
> Nobody cares about old tech, when buying today (ie THIS MONTH). You keep bringing it up as some sort of thing with "performance". Yet, that performance doesn't support current newer standards, then the people shopping for a new build will not be shopping old tech.
> 
> Ur bias, is so dumb..
> 
> Matter of fact (old standards) is the reason nVidia is coming out with a 1060, uno... because of "new tech".
> Do understand, I am talking about reality, you are yammering about has-been marketing strategies.
> 
> We live in the real world and understand the value of a RX480. (It is perfect for a new home build, or HTPC.)


You are wasting time. ILeakStuff actually believes people who buy AMD gpu's are less educated(dumb) than Nvidia purchasers. Somehow ILeakStuff made this conclusion claiming since AMD brand costs less. Ignoring the fact Nvidia makes cheap gpu's also. He is a hardware user profiler, and has all the answers!


----------



## tice03

When are the custom RX 480 AIB cards rumored to be released?


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tice03*
> 
> When are the custom RX 480 AIB cards rumored to be released?


a day after the paper launch of 1060


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tice03*
> 
> When are the custom RX 480 AIB cards rumored to be released?


one - on july 22 IIRC

others - no idea


----------



## looniam




----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Oh lala, hopefully this means we will be seeing reviews early next week!


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Dont forget the LED switch.


----------



## NFL

Unless XFX wows me, I'm probably getting the Nitro; that is one good looking card


----------



## aDyerSituation

I thought it was white but it seems silver from other pictures...


----------



## Slomo4shO

The Sapphire Nitro was a cheese grater and a hover board when it was silver but is awesome now that it is black?










Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The Sapphire Nitro was a cheese grader and a hover board when it was silver but is awesome now that it is black?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


But of course, because black is super cool and totally 'metal'.


----------



## Themisseble

reviews are quite disappointing.. no comparison between RX 480 and R9 380X (bandwith/FPU).
How much different Polaris is ? GCN3 vs GCN4? Well I can see better tessellation...

Also RX 480 has only 32ROPs and it is performing really well.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> reviews are quite disappointing.. no comparison between RX 480 and R9 380X (bandwith/FPU).
> How much different Polaris is ? GCN3 vs GCN4? Well I can see better tessellation...
> 
> Also RX 480 has only 32ROPs and it is performing really well.


Where do you see specific tessellation results? I have been wanting to see the polaris results against Hawaii/Fiji myself


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The Sapphire Nitro was a cheese grader and a hover board when it was silver but is awesome now that it is black?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


See now this would be the perfect situation for Facepalm Tiger. And tbh I was expecting that in the spoilers LOL


----------



## Drake87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The Sapphire Nitro was a cheese grader and a hover board when it was silver but is awesome now that it is black?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Is that someone that ranks cheese?


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drake87*
> 
> Is that someone that ranks cheese?


----------



## aDyerSituation

I said the silver one looked nice too


----------



## SlackerITGuy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> I said the silver one looked nice too


According to the rumor mill, the silver one is supposed to be the TOXIC version.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Where do you see specific tessellation results? I have been wanting to see the polaris results against Hawaii/Fiji myself


http://techreport.com/review/30328/amd-radeon-rx-480-graphics-card-reviewed/5
http://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed/4

Did they intentionally forgot about tessmark extreme

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/11/#diagramm-tessmark-tessellation


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The Sapphire Nitro was a cheese grader and a hover board when it was silver but is awesome now that it is black?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Nothing a paint won't save right?









All this, white, silver, black, it's not pink, get a spray can people








If you're worried about warranty get a damn plasti dip and stop complaining about colors


----------



## magnek

Or just tape over the windows on your case. Bonus points if your case has no windows then no extra work required.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drake87*
> 
> Is that someone that ranks cheese?


Yes, they work with the house Somalian who recommends the wines.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> I said the silver one looked nice too


Respec! Honestly it didn't bother me at all but I did enjoy the reactions. 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Or just tape over the windows on your case. Bonus points if your case has no windows then no extra work required.


I prefer a more Sisyphean solution..



I would actually love to do up a case like that.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*


This post reminded me that I don't believe I can remember a launch of a $200 segment video card that had so many beefy and premium designed AIB options available. Could just be that I don't typically pay much attention to the budget sector (mostly because parts from that price range up until now have largely been a performance wasteland) but I did buy an MSI R9 270X Gaming back in 2014 and it is definitely not the caliber of card that this MSI 480 looks to be (certainly no backplate for example). Now I only paid around $190 for my 270X back then iirc and this card will obviously be far more expensive but it is interesting to see the AIB's launching such over-engineered products for what is a $200 reference card.


----------



## cainy1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> This post reminded me that I don't believe I can remember a launch of a $200 segment video card that had so many beefy and premium designed AIB options available. Could just be that I don't typically pay much attention to the budget sector (mostly because parts from that price range up until now have largely been a performance wasteland) but I did buy an MSI R9 270X Gaming back in 2014 and it is definitely not the caliber of card that this MSI 480 looks to be (certainly no backplate for example). Now I only paid around $190 for my 270X back then iirc and this card will obviously be far more expensive but it is interesting to see the AIB's launching such over-engineered products for what is a $200 reference card.


My little brother has a couple R7 370's that have backplates and nice coolers (powercolor for reference purposes)
And they where only $180 AUD each.

But I do get what you are saying, some times these lower cards really do give off an over engineered vibe.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> This post reminded me that I don't believe I can remember a launch of a $200 segment video card that had so many beefy and premium designed AIB options available. Could just be that I don't typically pay much attention to the budget sector (mostly because parts from that price range up until now have largely been a performance wasteland) but I did buy an MSI R9 270X Gaming back in 2014 and it is definitely not the caliber of card that this MSI 480 looks to be (certainly no backplate for example). Now I only paid around $190 for my 270X back then iirc and this card will obviously be far more expensive but it is interesting to see the AIB's launching such over-engineered products for what is a $200 reference card.


Things have changed. Because prices have gone up they have justified more expensive coolers. We still do not know the price of AIB cards though. If they are close to $300 it would be a big fail. $10-20 MAX really.


----------



## Bryst

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> This post reminded me that I don't believe I can remember a launch of a $200 segment video card that had so many beefy and premium designed AIB options available. Could just be that I don't typically pay much attention to the budget sector (mostly because parts from that price range up until now have largely been a performance wasteland) but I did buy an MSI R9 270X Gaming back in 2014 and it is definitely not the caliber of card that this MSI 480 looks to be (certainly no backplate for example). Now I only paid around $190 for my 270X back then iirc and this card will obviously be far more expensive but it is interesting to see the AIB's launching such over-engineered products for what is a $200 reference card.


I think it somewhat has to do with the fact that the RX480 is really the only card they can make anything for right now. What other AMD card is really being produced? The RX470 is probably going to have the more basic coolers while the RX480 is treated more like a x90 series card. They probably did this too so if a x85 or x90 series comes out they dont have to make a new cooler or modify it.


----------



## bossie2000

So everything good and well with new driver power fix from AMD.Wonder how the driver team miss that one?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> This post reminded me that I don't believe I can remember a launch of a $200 segment video card that had so many beefy and premium designed AIB options available. Could just be that I don't typically pay much attention to the budget sector (mostly because parts from that price range up until now have largely been a performance wasteland) but I did buy an MSI R9 270X Gaming back in 2014 and it is definitely not the caliber of card that this MSI 480 looks to be (certainly no backplate for example). Now I only paid around $190 for my 270X back then iirc and this card will obviously be far more expensive but it is interesting to see the AIB's launching such over-engineered products for what is a $200 reference card.


GTX 750 Ti ACX, GTX 960 ACX, R9 265 Dual-X, HD 6850 Dual-X, the list goes on and on.

Back plates are cheap to make too.


----------



## provost

With regards to the 2016 releases so far, 480x is the best "future proof" card on the table given its DX12 compatibility and async compute capability. The whole pcie thingy was a failed "hit job". As far as the informed consumers go, they may look at Nvidia, but all Nvidia cards have planned obsolescence practically stamped all over them right from the start; DX 12 gimped, no async compute, sli shenanigans, GeForce login crap. To me it looks like Nividia is getting more desperate to monetize whatever remains of its customer base, to feed other non PC gaming initiatives, before Nvidia's gaming brand is completely diluted.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Deleted


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Things have changed. Because prices have gone up they have justified more expensive coolers. We still do not know the price of AIB cards though. If they are close to $300 it would be a big fail. $10-20 MAX really.


Historically, how much did AIBs tack on to MSRP?


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> With regards to the 2016 releases so far, 480x is the best "future proof" card on the table given its DX12 compatibility and async compute capability. The whole pcie thingy was a failed "hit job". As far as the informed consumers go, they may look at Nvidia, but all Nvidia cards have planned obsolescence practically stamped all over them right from the start; DX 12 gimped, no async compute, sli shenanigans, GeForce login crap. To me it looks like Nividia is getting more desperate to monetize whatever remains of its customer base, to feed other non PC gaming initiatives, before Nvidia's gaming brand is completely diluted.


looking at the broken DX12 in RotR / Hitman, WH DX12 still being in beta more than a month after launch, no Vulkan still for Doom and the terribad X1 WinStore DX12 ports, Im very glad to still be able to play on the tried and true DX11









and, 1060 is allegedly faster than 480, why buy a slower card if you want it to last ?

Quote:


> whatever remains of its customer base,


you mean their 75%+ of the market ?


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> With regards to the 2016 releases so far, 480x is the best "future proof" card on the table given its DX12 compatibility and async compute capability. The whole pcie thingy was a failed "hit job". As far as the informed consumers go, they may look at Nvidia, but all Nvidia cards have planned obsolescence practically stamped all over them right from the start; DX 12 gimped, no async compute, sli shenanigans, GeForce login crap. To me it looks like Nividia is getting more desperate to monetize whatever remains of its customer base, to feed other non PC gaming initiatives, before Nvidia's gaming brand is completely diluted.
> 
> 
> 
> looking at the broken DX12 in RotR / Hitman, WH DX12 still being in beta more than a month after launch, no Vulkan still for Doom and the terribad X1 WinStore DX12 ports, Im very glad to still be able to play on the tried and true DX11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *and, 1060 is allegedly faster than 480, why buy a slower card if you want it to last ?*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever remains of its customer base,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean their 75%+ of the market ?
Click to expand...

That logic worked so well for Kepler and Maxwell owners. 7870s match 680s these days ya know.

No comment on the rest of his concerns, most of it is irrelevant at this point in time, and the rest is just annoying, not harmful.


----------



## black96ws6

Well one good thing, the release of the 480 is causing prices to drop. If you would've told me just 6-8 months ago that you could soon get a brand new GTX 970 for $219 I would've said you were crazy


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> Well one good thing, the release of the 480 is causing prices to drop. If you would've told me just 6-8 months ago that you could soon get a brand new GTX 970 for $219 I would've said you were crazy


With 4GB.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> If you would've told me just 6-8 months ago that you could soon get a brand new GTX 970 for $219 I would've said you were crazy


I would have replied that you are ignorant of price trends


----------



## black96ws6

hehe







. And the 4GB has to be in quotes with an asterisk: "4 GB*"


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> That logic worked so well for Kepler and Maxwell owners.


well Maxwell owns big time (even more so when OCed), so yeah it very much did


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> well Maxwell owns big time (even more so when OCed), so yeah it very much did


780ti isn't exactly looking too good these days considering it came out after the 290x... and the fact that the older 290x is nipping on the heels of a 980 and sometimes pulls ahead? A 390x is just a 50mhz core oc on a 290x with a bandwidth bump due to a fairly easy to achieve memory speed bump ... and we've seen it's pretty clear where it stands these days.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> 290x is nipping on the heels of a 980 and sometimes pulls ahead?


https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html it doesnt

and thats _before_ you OC the 980 and add a further 20% gap between them


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html it doesnt
> 
> and thats _before_ you OC the 980 and add a further 20% gap between them


Because 290X can't OC too?


----------



## AmericanLoco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html it doesnt
> 
> and thats _before_ you OC the 980 and add a further 20% gap between them


So you're telling me less than 7% difference isn't "nipping on the heels" of a 980?


----------



## Klocek001

why do we even have to mention it for the 1000th time, can't people read something once and then just know it for the future ?

980 only 3% faster than 290x @4K



AIB 980 +10% over reference 980.



another +12-15% from overclocking

and we're looking at 25-30% at 4K now (resolutions favors AMD so that you don't complain I'm cherry picking, though I wonder how many ppl run 4K on 980). Doubt 290X can touch that. I had three 290 TriX cards, only one could do 1150MHz stable.
1500MHz on 980 is 30% over the reference clocks, can 290X even come close to that ?


----------



## iTurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html it doesnt
> 
> and thats _before_ you OC the 980 and add a further 20% gap between them


The point isn't that it can extend it's lead, it's the fact that the 290x stock is competing with a 900 series card where 780 has been left in the dust.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Because 290X can't OC too?


Don't allow him to change the original argument, Nvidia are notorious for bad driver support after their new series are released.

Yes the 1060 might have the performance edge currently, but for those that don't buy GPUs often the rx 480 looks like the better card.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> why do we even have to mention it for the 1000th time, can't people read something once and then just know it for the future ?


Probably because individuals like yourself continue to spread misinformation and it takes 10 posts to counterbalance the misinformation presented in one post...









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Because 290X can't OC too?


Hawaii isn't exactly known for its overclock potential. Then again, the OC capacities of Maxwell are typically exaggerated as well.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Probably because individuals like yourself continue to spread misinformation and it takes 10 posts to counterbalance the misinformation presented in one post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawaii isn't exactly known for its overclock potential. Then again, the OC capacities of Maxwell are typically exaggerated as well.


lol that's 20% on air with no extra voltage.
still not satysfying enough for an individual who coincidentally runs four 290X's


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> why do we even have to mention it for the 1000th time, can't people read something once and then just know it for the future ?
> 
> 980 only 3% faster than 290x @4K
> 
> 
> 
> AIB 980 +10% over reference 980.
> 
> 
> 
> another +12-15% from overclocking
> 
> and we're looking at 25-30% at 4K now (resolutions favors AMD so that you don't complain I'm cherry picking, though I wonder how many ppl run 4K on 980). Doubt 290X can touch that. I had three 290 TriX cards, only one could do 1150MHz stable.
> 1500MHz on 980 is 30% over the reference clocks, can 290X even come close to that ?


First of all, those charts aren't even from the same time frame and look a good deal older. As the first chart shows a 290x as 16% faster than a 780ti at 4k and the second chart only shows the 290x as 1% faster at 4k? Also the 980 is 3% faster in the first chart and 7% in the older second one. Use some logic here and stop picking out random benchmarks as apples to apples.

Now if you look at your first chart which is clearly the more current of the two (as it includes the titan x, 1070, 1080, etc.) you will see that the 390x is *8%* faster than the 980 at 4k.

So, again considering a 390x is literally a 290x with 50mhz more on the core and 1500mhz memory vs 1250mhz memory I'd say even a 290x is again, nipping on the heels of a 980 and sometimes surpassing it.

My reference 290x does 1150 core and 1500mhz memory with only +100mv and slightly higher fan speeds. If I had one of the many much better AIB cards it wouldn't be surprising to be in heavily oc'ed 980 territory at 4k considering the 390x is already a ahead with such a minor clock bump over a 290x. I mean, even a 390x is only 18% behind a 980ti at 4k.

*The point most people are missing is this though:*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> The point isn't that it can extend it's lead, it's the fact that the 290x stock is competing with a 900 series card where 780 has been left in the dust.


The 290x was meant to compete with the original 780 and Titan... then came the big 780ti... which beat it in most titles by an ok amount. Now it's competing and sometimes surpassing a 980? 290x's are 3 years old in october. I'd say any who bought them got a lot more of their money's worth.

And as far as scaling goes, it's pretty obvious GCN scales far better performance wise clock for clock than a 980. 30% core clock increase on a 980 will not actually result in nearly the performance increase percent as it would on GCN. So regardless of a 290x not hitting 1300mhz (30%) even 15% for them is going to show substantial gains. Look how much is gained adding 50mhz on the core from a 290x and a small memory bump
The 390x is a good deal faster in many titles and that's an easy to achieve oc speed for anyone with a 290x.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> lol that's 20% on air with no extra voltage.


Considering that you were claiming a 30% OC at 1500 MHz








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> 1500MHz on 980 is 30% over the reference clocks


----------



## sugarhell

Even a good 290 can match a 980 easily









http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13073390

Hawaii is so strong after 3 years.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> lol that's 20% on air with no extra voltage.
> still not satysfying enough for an individual who coincidentally runs four 290X's


Lol. 980 will not do any more. 20% OC. My 290 gets more then 20%. My 290X get 1225MHz OC and much more then 980 in memory going from 5GHz to almost 7GHz.


----------



## looniam

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8031176
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/10598106
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7529481
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7805771










http://www.overclock.net/t/1586140/3d-fanboy-competition-2016-nvidia-vs-amd/0_50


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8031176
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/10598106
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7529481
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7805771
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1586140/3d-fanboy-competition-2016-nvidia-vs-amd/0_50


Stock one !

When winter is here and this card can do 1400 maybe it will be close

Except if this is not going to me !


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> That logic worked so well for Kepler and Maxwell owners.
> 
> 
> 
> well Maxwell owns big time (even more so when OCed), so yeah it very much did
Click to expand...

Mmm...

Where is the 390X on your lineup? And the FuryX vs 980ti as well. They didn't look like that when the FuryX launched. Sure ain't looking good for Maxwell, and Pascal's only been out for a month.









I said it before, which you ignored, and I'll say it again. 7870 (lol) now beats the 680. 290X now beats the 780ti. FuryX now ties with the 980ti. If the 1060 is even close to 480, it's going to lose within 9 months, and it'll have less VRAM the entire time.


----------



## Malinkadink

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Only the GPU score matter. Its not effected by the CPU.


I compared my results to a lot of other 970 postings and found that all the ones using i7s especially ones clocked 4.4ghz or higher got north of 11k for their scores, so CPU does help a bit for the overall score. I am of course comparing a 1.5ghz 970 to a 290 @ 1290mhz which is a golden 290 if it can hit that figure. Most are between 1100-1200 and that's considered a good OC on them. Still benchmarks don't tell the whole story, as its the gaming performance that matters.

Between the 290/390 and the 970 they still trade blows here and there i would say, and neither leads the other by huge margins in neutral titles. I'd still prefer my 970 for its better efficiency however


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Only the GPU score matter. Its not effected by the CPU.


The CPU does have an effect on the GPU score... Just run the benchmark at reference CPU clocks and then again at your 4.6 GHz overclock. Tell me there is no difference in GPU scores between the two scenarios.

Only difference was the CPU clock speeds:

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/2176301/fs/2176288#


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> The CPU does have an effect on the GPU score... Just run the benchmark at reference CPU clocks and then again at your 4.6 GHz overclock. Tell me there is no difference in GPU scores between the two scenarios.
> 
> Only difference was the CPU clock speeds:
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/2176301/fs/2176288#


Thats 4 cards. Not even the same thing.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Thats 4 cards. Not even the same thing.


Would you care to bench it yourself? Or are you just going to stick to your claim without providing support?


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Even a good 290 can match a 980 easily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13073390
> 
> Hawaii is so strong after 3 years.


Never really needed any bios tweaks 'cause i have 2. Here is with a 390 bios 290 . . .

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7734087


----------



## The-Beast

I really hope someone puts out a card with the reference ports. I don't want that dvi clogging up the exhaust.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The-Beast*
> 
> I really hope someone puts out a card with the reference ports. I don't want that dvi clogging up the exhaust.


Centrifugal type fans have high enough static pressure that the DVI port is pretty much providing little resistance to air flow. In axial fans used in most AIB designs it also matters little because maybe 10% of the exhaust goes out through the back.


----------



## The-Beast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Centrifugal type fans have high enough static pressure that the DVI port is pretty much providing little resistance to air flow. In axial fans used in most AIB designs it also matters little because maybe 10% of the exhaust goes out through the back.


It's about the aesthetics too.


----------



## Malinkadink

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The-Beast*
> 
> It's about the aesthetics too.


Do you seriously see the I/O ports on the back of your PC on a daily basis? I don't, and a lot of folks value a DL-DVI port still, especially those using those OCable Korean displays that use that interface. Buy a reference RX 480 if the DVI bothers you


----------



## Gunderman456

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> why do we even have to mention it for the 1000th time, can't people read something once and then just know it for the future ?
> 
> 980 only 3% faster than 290x @4K
> 
> 
> 
> AIB 980 +10% over reference 980.
> 
> 
> 
> another +12-15% from overclocking
> 
> and we're looking at 25-30% at 4K now (resolutions favors AMD so that you don't complain I'm cherry picking, though I wonder how many ppl run 4K on 980). Doubt 290X can touch that. I had three 290 TriX cards, only one could do 1150MHz stable.
> 1500MHz on 980 is 30% over the reference clocks, can 290X even come close to that ?


I bought two 290, one could do 1200MHz the other 1160MHZ, in crossfire, had to keep both at 1160MHz - stable in everything!


----------



## Malinkadink

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The-Beast*
> 
> Where did I ask for every single non reference board design to discontinue dvi? I said I hope someone does. If I wanted a reference cooler I wouldn't have cancelled my order from newegg.


Where did i say every AIB should contain DVI?







I'm well aware that the reference cooler is awful, but as it stands it looks like all AIB 480s will have DVI, and its better for it.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Another test. Throttling 480 beating OC'ed 970 in Far Cry Primal @1080p ultra:


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> Another test. Throttling 480 beating OC'ed 970 in Far Cry Primal @1080p ultra:


lol on i7 6700K









Meaning chances of a budget gamer getting the same fps as in the video are 0% since rx480 is plaugued with dx11 overhead problems, which amd can't sort out for years, that's why they use 4K resolution in their marketing benchmarks even for a $200 card

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/premiera_amd_radeon_rx_480_polaris_test_karty_graficznej?page=0,16

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/premiera_amd_radeon_rx_480_polaris_test_karty_graficznej?page=0,17

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/premiera_amd_radeon_rx_480_polaris_test_karty_graficznej?page=0,18

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/premiera_amd_radeon_rx_480_polaris_test_karty_graficznej?page=0,19

btw if that post was supposed to prove something then it just proved how desperate the situation is when you need an i7 6700K to beat a two-year old GTX 970 in AMD sponsored game by mere 5 fps on average.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

its funny because amd is doing rather well on this game in general...
but as always you just "forgot about that"


----------



## Klocek001

that's objectivity, running RX480 benchmark on CPU that costs twice as much and DDR4 memory, cause that's relatable for gamers who count every penny and take this site/thread as a means of getting advice... then they plug their 480 and wonder why they're getting 30% lower fps than all the reviews measure...
cause out of 3000 posts there's one mentioning cpu scaling problems on low-end cpus paired with amd cards and it gets ridiculed by amd fanboys


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> Another test. Throttling 480 beating OC'ed 970 in Far Cry Primal @1080p ultra:


I dont understand one thing. Nvidia cards are not fully utilitized and cpu is calculating something rather heavly comparing to AMD. Does nvidia drop something on to cpu?


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> that's objectivity, running RX480 benchmark on CPU that costs twice as much and DDR4 memory, cause that's relatable for gamers who count every penny and take this site/thread as a means of getting advice... then they plug their 480 and wonder why they're getting 30% lower fps than all the reviews measure...
> cause out of 3000 posts there's one mentioning cpu scaling problems on low-end cpus paired with amd cards and it gets ridiculed by amd fanboys


Its funny that you bring it now, not in some other release or dont mention that ALL REVIEWERS were, are and will be doing that to fully test without anny system bottlenecks.

This guy is my nation finest troll... sadly.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> Its funny that you bring it now, not in some other release or dont mention that ALL REVIEWERS were, are and will be doing that to fully test without anny system bottlenecks.
> 
> This guy is my nation finest troll... sadly.


yeah its funny how they bring "use casual systems" NOW cant imagine what damage control we are about to see when vega comes lol


----------



## Ha-Nocri

The result wouldn't change much, if at all, if the guy was using any i5 SkyLake CPU. Some ppl and their excuses.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> The result wouldn't change much, if at all, if the guy was using *any i5 SkyLake CPU*. *Some ppl and their excuses*.


wasn't this card intended for masses ?
yup, back out of another claim..... denial is the easiest way


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> wasn't this card intended for masses ?
> yup, back out of another claim..... denial is the easiest way


Yes, so? Someone who is making a budget configuration now is likely to get an i5 for $200 and 480 for $200+. What's so strange there?


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> I dont understand one thing. Nvidia cards are not fully utilitized and cpu is calculating something rather heavly comparing to AMD. Does nvidia drop something on to cpu?


Yes, the scheduling is done in hardware on AMD, and in software for NVIDIA.
That means AMD requires less CPU power, but has issues with multithreaded rendering, since the hardware scheduler itself can't do it.

This is the main reason AMD cards age better. NVIDIA had to constantly create profiles and adjust drivers for their cards, while AMD needs relatively minimal work to get near full performance. So as NVIDIA drops support, their cards no longer recieve the software optimization they NEED, while AMD cards don't really care either way.

That's not to say there isn't improvement headroom in drivers, but it's far less necessary than for NVIDIA.

That's also the main cause for the power efficiency, clocks, and die size difference. The hardware schedulers are hard to clock high, they eat around 1/3rd of the chip's power, and they take up valuable die space.
That's the main reason for the jump between Kepler and Maxwell, in addition to the removal of DP.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph10446/82412.png

Looking at total system power consumption, despite the 1070 by itself taking less system power (as can be seen in Techpowerup's review), the total system power is higher on the 1070, since the CPU is working harder. And if you think that's just because the 1070 is stronger, hence stressing the CPU more, you can look at the 970 as well. Clearly taking more total system power than the 480, and yet it's still below the 480 in power consumption from the TPU review.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> wasn't this card intended for masses ?
> yup, back out of another claim..... denial is the easiest way


Wake up buddy,a Skylake i5 is 180-200 bucks and the i7 has nothing on the i5 on most games.


----------



## tkenietz

Good thing the 'counting every penny' super budget gamer can always turn to the $300 1060.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Good thing the 'counting every penny' super budget gamer can always turn to the $300 1060.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Wake up buddy,a Skylake i5 is 180-200 bucks and the i7 has nothing on the i5 on most games.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> Yes, so? Someone who is making a budget configuration now is likely to get an i5 for $200 and 480 for $200+. What's so strange there?


lol just what I expected to hear.....








you want maximum performance of our $200 card - just buy yourself a $200 cpu and ddr4 cause we're not gonna do it through drivers like nvidia did


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> lol just what I expected to hear.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you want maximum performance of our $200 card - just buy yourself a $200 cpu and ddr4 cause we're not gonna do it through drivers like nvidia did


And what do you expect to pay for a CPU? 50 bucks? Budget gamer or not the foundation is always necessary.

I fail to see why is DDR4 relevant,you can get 8 GB for like 40 bucks.

Try harder.


----------



## Klocek001

lol so I'm so wrong thinking that GPU should perform as well on i3's or FX4/6/8 series
you're just proving my points. both about amd's means of resolving cpu overhead (or a lack of those, precisely) and about the fact that some ppl here are in massive denial
lol there's 5 of you attacking me, I haven't seen any factual response yet though


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> lol so I'm so wrong thinking that GPU should perform as well on i3's or FX4/6/8 series
> you're just proving my points. both about amd's means of resolving cpu overhead (or a lack of those, precisely) and about the fact that some ppl here are in massive denial


I couldn't care less about your claims. What i care though is your flawed logic.

Your logic is "buy gtx 1060 because it has lower overhead (but is 100 bucks more) and pair it with a cheaper CPU (but disregard the other games where overhead is not present)"

Disregard also that DX12 was built for lower CPU overhead and will be the primary API within one year.

Also learn some reading comprehension will ya? I haven't done any of the things you have said,kthnx.

I think the only one in denial here is you,can't accept the 1060 is a turd compared to the RX 480,offers what maybe 10% additional performance over RX 480 with no real async hardware and costs 100 bucks more.

Once again,my standard motto for people like you: Enjoy your midrange 300 mm2 GPU's and price gouging.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> you want *maximum performance* of our $200 card - just buy yourself a $200 cpu and ddr4 cause we're not gonna do it through drivers like nvidia did





Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







Ahem.

They're doing something through drivers alright.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Wake up buddy,a Skylake i5 is 180-200 bucks and the i7 has nothing on the i5 on most games.


Well, at this level of gpu (980) both gpus are fine for an i5.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1587616/i5-4690k-100-usage-gaming-temps-fine-windows-10

1060 especially 'cause it will not allow sli.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> Another test. Throttling 480 beating OC'ed 970 in Far Cry Primal @1080p ultra:
> 
> -Snip-


They're both throttling really, and most aftermarket GTX 970s rarely run at reference clocks, I'm not even sure if that's a manual overclock or just GPU boost.

From the GTX 970 Strix reviews I've seen they've been boosting to around 1250-1280MHz out of the box.


----------



## LAKEINTEL

They boost to 1316 Mhz.

source: I own one and that's the shown speed (OSD) when I turn off the afterburner OC.

for some reason...this one's running a tad bit faster.


----------



## Arturo.Zise

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> They're both throttling really, and most aftermarket GTX 970s rarely run at reference clocks, I'm not even sure if that's a manual overclock or just GPU boost.
> 
> From the GTX 970 Strix reviews I've seen they've been boosting to around 1250-1280MHz out of the box.


My 970 Strix runs at 1329mhz boost with stock settings.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

There was definitely something running in the background on that test with the nvidia cards. Even gaming you wouldn't have a single core running at 100% with just the game playing. My gtx970 strix boosted to 1266mhz but it also had a 56%asic so that's why. I could easily get 1450mhz with no voltage bump. Sounds to me like the 480 battle is up against a 980 at overclocked settings and is pretty even with a 970 at stock.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> Yes, the scheduling is done in hardware on AMD, and in software for NVIDIA.
> That means AMD requires less CPU power, but has issues with multithreaded rendering, since the hardware scheduler itself can't do it.
> 
> This is the main reason AMD cards age better. NVIDIA had to constantly create profiles and adjust drivers for their cards, while AMD needs relatively minimal work to get near full performance. So as NVIDIA drops support, their cards no longer recieve the software optimization they NEED, while AMD cards don't really care either way.
> 
> That's not to say there isn't improvement headroom in drivers, but it's far less necessary than for NVIDIA.
> 
> That's also the main cause for the power efficiency, clocks, and die size difference. The hardware schedulers are hard to clock high, they eat around 1/3rd of the chip's power, and they take up valuable die space.
> That's the main reason for the jump between Kepler and Maxwell, in addition to the removal of DP.
> 
> http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph10446/82412.png
> 
> Looking at total system power consumption, despite the 1070 by itself taking less system power (as can be seen in Techpowerup's review), the total system power is higher on the 1070, since the CPU is working harder. And if you think that's just because the 1070 is stronger, hence stressing the CPU more, you can look at the 970 as well. Clearly taking more total system power than the 480, and yet it's still below the 480 in power consumption from the TPU review.


Thx for clearing that for me. Now as you say that it makes me wonder what kind of chip would be when nvidia would add hardware sheluder for pascal. Fail or not. Who knows XD


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> They're doing something through drivers alright.


can't see no more than two results being marginally worse than before, and that's within 1-2 fps. it's no news nvidia cards don't gain that much over time, they're pretty much squeezed out at launch, that and a lot of attention paid to power/thermal efficiency figures,which in turn allows for things like turbo boost, makes nvidia cards nail pretty much every new launch of a GPU or a release of a latest game benchmark.
some ppl prefer that if they're on a yearly upgrade cycle, others will *take poor launch performance as a basis for claiming huge benefits over time*. well, 290X gains a lot more performance over those three years that this chart presents, but still most of those go 780Ti way (8 won by 780Ti to 5 won by 290X).
The question is: *shouldn't 290X have performed like that from the beginning if it was clearly capable of doing so* ? Are you gonna hold on playing 2012/13 titles for three or four years to get that optimal performance or are those gains just irrelevant cause those games are pretty much forgotten now.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> can't see no more than two results being marginally worse than before, and that's within 1-2 fps. it's no news nvidia cards don't gain that much over time, they're pretty much squeezed out at launch, that and a lot of attention paid to power/thermal efficiency figures,which in turn allows for things like turbo boost, makes nvidia cards nail pretty much every new launch of a GPU or a release of a latest game benchmark.
> some ppl prefer that if they're on a yearly upgrade cycle, others will *take poor launch performance as a basis for claiming huge benefits over time*. well, 290X gains a lot more performance over those three years that this chart presents, but still most of those go 780Ti way (8 won by 780Ti to 5 won by 290X).
> The question is: *shouldn't 290X have performed like that from the beginning if it was clearly capable of doing so* ? Are you gonna hold on playing 2012/13 titles for three or four years to get that optimal performance or are those gains just irrelevant cause those games are pretty much forgotten now.


If that were valid then the 780ti would be considered less than acceptable by comparison.


----------



## Drake87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> can't see no more than two results being marginally worse than before, and that's within 1-2 fps. it's no news nvidia cards don't gain that much over time, they're pretty much squeezed out at launch, that and *a lot of attention paid to power/thermal efficiency figures*,which in turn allows for things like turbo boost, makes nvidia cards nail pretty much every new launch of a GPU or a release of a latest game benchmark.
> some ppl prefer that if they're on a yearly upgrade cycle, others will *take poor launch performance as a basis for claiming huge benefits over time*. well, 290X gains a lot more performance over those three years that this chart presents, but still most of those go 780Ti way (8 won by 780Ti to 5 won by 290X).
> The question is: *shouldn't 290X have performed like that from the beginning if it was clearly capable of doing so* ? Are you gonna hold on playing 2012/13 titles for three or four years to get that optimal performance or are those gains just irrelevant cause those games are pretty much forgotten now.


I had both a gtx 470 and 480. They sure paid a lot of attention to the ability to double as a heater.


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> can't see no more than two results being marginally worse than before, and that's within 1-2 fps. it's no news nvidia cards don't gain that much over time, they're pretty much squeezed out at launch, that and a lot of attention paid to power/thermal efficiency figures,which in turn allows for things like turbo boost, makes nvidia cards nail pretty much every new launch of a GPU or a release of a latest game benchmark.
> some ppl prefer that if they're on a yearly upgrade cycle, others will *take poor launch performance as a basis for claiming huge benefits over time*. well, 290X gains a lot more performance over those three years that this chart presents, but still most of those go 780Ti way (8 won by 780Ti to 5 won by 290X).
> The question is: *shouldn't 290X have performed like that from the beginning if it was clearly capable of doing so* ? Are you gonna hold on playing 2012/13 titles for three or four years to get that optimal performance or are those gains just irrelevant cause those games are pretty much forgotten now.


Your argument assumes that AMD cards aren't competitive in their price bracket at launch. Hawaii was a competitive card for the price in Q4 2013.

The fact that AMD cards improve over time don't need to factor into a day one purchase. Product improvement over time is a consumer-positive attitude. It doesn't matter who it is; long-term support makes me want to stick with a brand. And graphics APIs haven't been moving any faster than GCN or Maxwell since the platforms define the API.

Maybe a long-term customer support attitude is the wrong call for the market it's in, but I don't think so, nor do most of my gamer friends and family. GPUs are expensive.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drake87*
> 
> I had both a gtx 470 and 480. They sure paid a lot of attention to the ability to double as a heater.


I wasn't really referring to six years ago, maxwell v1 and up


----------



## FLCLimax

Goal posts


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> They're doing something through drivers alright.


awesoke find. This easly proves somethig i was saying







proves that gimpvidia is gimping performance their cards.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> awesoke find. This easly proves somethig i was saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proves that gimpvidia is gimping performance their cards.


How have you come to that conclusion?


----------



## cranfam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> Your argument assumes that AMD cards aren't competitive in their price bracket at launch. Hawaii was a competitive card for the price in Q4 2013.
> 
> The fact that AMD cards improve over time don't need to factor into a day one purchase. Product improvement over time is a consumer-positive attitude. It doesn't matter who it is; long-term support makes me want to stick with a brand. And graphics APIs haven't been moving any faster than GCN or Maxwell since the platforms define the API.
> 
> Maybe a long-term customer support attitude is the wrong call for the market it's in, but I don't think so, nor do most of my gamer friends and family. GPUs are expensive.


I tend to agree with you. I believe the majority of gamers are not on an annual upgrade cycle, but hold on to their cards as long as possible. AMD appears to support their cards for a longer period of time. As a consumer, I would rather buy a card that will continue to receive support. As for games from 3-4 years ago, I still play older games. Hell, I still play TIE FIghter every now and again!


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prznar1*
> 
> awesoke find. This easly proves somethig i was saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proves that gimpvidia is gimping performance their cards.


Read the whole graph including driver versions. NV performance goes up just slightly with driver versions.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> They're doing something through drivers alright.


is it me or did they mess up the year sections on the titan? it looks like its accidentally reversed?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> is it me or did they mess up the year sections on the titan? it looks like its accidentally reversed?


Also, Titan is using overall older drivers than the 780Ti. NVM, misread the driver versions. The years are swapped though.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Also, Titan is using overall older drivers than the 780Ti. NVM, misread the driver versions. The years are swapped though.


Also, wasn't the 290x right after the 780? I thought the 290x was against the 780 and OG titan, not the 780ti.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Also, wasn't the 290x right after the 780? I thought the 290x was against the 780 and OG titan, not the 780ti.


I believe the R9 290x came before or at the same time as the Titan and 780Ti came a bit later. Its main competition at the time was indeed the 780 as the 780 Ti and Titan were quite a bit more expensive.


----------



## looniam

hey guys, i got this *GREAT IDEA!*

i'll take _one sample_ of an old driver and compare it to _one sample_ of a new driver to draw a universal conclusion about driver performance increases!


----------



## aDyerSituation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> hey guys, i got this *GREAT IDEA!*
> 
> i'll take _one sample_ of an old driver and compare it to _one sample_ of a new driver to draw a universal conclusion about driver performance increases!


I'm not sure what you are implying?









Every modern review that has benchmarks shows the 290x handily beating the 780 Ti and more on par with a 980


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> hey guys, i got this *GREAT IDEA!*
> 
> i'll take _one sample_ of an old driver and compare it to _one sample_ of a new driver to draw a universal conclusion about driver performance increases!


Someone's jimmies have been rustled.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> hey guys, i got this *GREAT IDEA!*
> 
> i'll take _one sample_ of an old driver and compare it to _one sample_ of a new driver to draw a universal conclusion about driver performance increases!


Not sure whats wrong with it, take it with a grain of salt? Also, I think it would also interesting to see results in new games. Maybe i didn't look hard enough at the chart, but you could argue on AMD's side two points.

1. They had piss poor drivers and made some optimizations which look like "better long term support" and they still have bad driver optimizations?

2. They have improved performance gradually by keeping support up, and you potentially have performance gains coming over long duration of time.

I like AMD but the DX11 driver overhead is real, and way way worse in crossfire. I tend to believe option one more because they are looking for the forest beyond the trees.(dx12)


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Jimmies rustled.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


improvements in most games for both Ti and the Titan










there goes red bois little mantra about gimping


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Eh my Titans definitely do better now than a few years ago. Haven't seen gimping so much as lack of performance increase on par with Maxwell. To be expected on an older architecture.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Read the whole graph including driver versions. NV performance goes up just slightly with driver versions.


Yes i did. Sry but i also had nvidia cards and this graph is showing things ive experienced. Lower performance with newer drivers. I dont care if its myth or not. For me its a fact, now i have someone else proving that i wasnt just seeing things. Now i am sure that this sudden lack of performance is not something ive been imagining.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> I'm not sure what you are implying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every modern review that has benchmarks shows the 290x handily beating the 780 Ti and more on par with a 980


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> Someone's jimmies have been rustled.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Not sure whats wrong with it, take it with a grain of salt? Also, I think it would also interesting to see results in new games. Maybe i didn't look hard enough at the chart, but you could argue on AMD's side two points.
> 
> 1. They had piss poor drivers and made some optimizations which look like "better long term support" and they still have bad driver optimizations?
> 
> 2. They have improved performance gradually by keeping support up, and you potentially have performance gains coming over long duration of time.
> 
> I like AMD but the DX11 driver overhead is real, and way way worse in crossfire. I tend to believe option one more because they are looking for the forest beyond the trees.(dx12)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCLimax*
> 
> Jimmies rustled.


thank you to those of that are paying attention to or interested in my jimmes.









but the point is if you are trying to look at driver optimizations; you would be better served using several samples over a given time. _you'll very likely see peaks and valleys for most any given game/benchmark *for both AMD and nVidia.*_

but hey, don't let science get in the way of spinning an agenda for either side.

carry on.


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> thank you to those of that are paying attention to or interested in my jimmes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but the point is if you are trying to look at driver optimizations; you would be better served using several samples over a given time. _you'll very likely see peaks and valleys for most any given game/benchmark *for both AMD and nVidia.*_
> 
> but hey, don't let science get in the way of spinning an agenda for either side.
> 
> carry on.


By request, some science.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/more-evidence-shows-nvidia-gpus-losing-performance-32925136/


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> By request, some science.
> 
> http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/more-evidence-shows-nvidia-gpus-losing-performance-32925136/


How is a game patch hurting performance the same as a driver hurting performance? That some kind of science you got going on there


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> By request, some science.
> 
> http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/more-evidence-shows-nvidia-gpus-losing-performance-32925136/


thanks for fulfilling . . . wait i didn't request anything.

however, an editorial ≠ science.


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> By request, some science.
> 
> http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/more-evidence-shows-nvidia-gpus-losing-performance-32925136/


Science? Science needs to be based on fact.

That video you linked used a benchmark from Fallout 4 patch that was replaced just days after release because it was so bad.

That video, at least on the Fallout 4 part, was based on nothing but speculation. Confirmed by the fact that no other source ever reported the same results.


----------



## infranoia

Driver updates don't happen in a vacuum. Hawaii performance today is better because of *game patches* as well as the Crimson updates, which in most cases *optimize specific games*. In some cases these game updates only occurred after backlash from AMD users.

You guys above-- I don't understand your argument. Are you putting up a straw man that the drivers alone are supposed to be responsible for the AMD improvements over time, and then trying to debunk that by saying it's the game patches that do it?

Because the improvements over time are incontrovertible. Just look at any DX11 bench for the 7970 and 290x from 2013 compared to 2016, for the same title, compared to similar benches for Maxwell / Kepler.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> thank you to those of that are paying attention to or interested in my jimmes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but the point is if you are trying to look at driver optimizations; you would be better served using several samples over a given time. _you'll very likely see peaks and valleys for most any given game/benchmark *for both AMD and nVidia.*_
> 
> but hey, don't let science get in the way of spinning an agenda for either side.
> 
> carry on.


Not sure why you lumped me in on those responses. I actually criticized AMD but beyond that this crap is all off topic. This is a RX 480 review thread, not sure how the 290x or nvidia cards from 2013 have any place. Anyways you guys enjoy your off topic stuff, i am moving on.


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Not sure why you lumped me in on those responses. I actually criticized AMD but beyond that this crap is all off topic. This is a RX 480 review thread, not sure how the 290x or nvidia cards from 2013 have any place. Anyways you guys enjoy your off topic stuff, i am moving on.


It's not off-topic if we're addressing potential long-term value of the 480. But who knows? Maybe Tahiti and Hawaii were complete flukes and performance has topped out for Polaris. I don't believe that for a second though, since game updates and developer experience are critical to architecture performance.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Driver updates don't happen in a vacuum. Hawaii performance today is better because of *game patches* as well as the Crimson updates, which in most cases *optimize specific games*. In some cases these game updates only occurred after backlash from AMD users.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys above-- I don't understand your argument. Are you putting up a straw man that the drivers alone are supposed to be responsible for the AMD improvements over time, and then trying to debunk that by saying it's the game patches that do it?
> 
> Because the improvements over time are incontrovertible. Just look at any DX11 bench for the 7970 and 290x from 2013 compared to 2016, for the same title, compared to similar benches for Maxwell / Kepler.


its called methodology.

its NOT appropriate to take one sample from 2013 and one from 2016 to draw a conclusion for overall performance increase/decrease. you could very well be basing your conclusion from picking a "bad driver" as older sample and compare it to a "good driver" from a recent release. too much _chance_ is on the table.

this is a better example of what to do:
2012 AMD Video Card Driver Performance Review

6 samples for 12 months would give a better demonstration of what to expect.


----------



## one-shot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> Science? Science needs to be based on fact.
> 
> That video you linked used a benchmark from Fallout 4 patch that was replaced just days after release because it was so bad.
> 
> That video, at least on the Fallout 4 part, was based on nothing but speculation. Confirmed by the fact that no other source ever reported the same results.


Science isn't based on "facts." Science is based on observation and independently verifiable, evidence derived through rigorous testing. Many things that were called "science" were shown to be not consistent with newly discovered evidence.


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> its called methodology.
> 
> its NOT appropriate to take one sample from 2013 and one from 2016 to draw a conclusion for overall performance increase/decrease. you could very well be basing your conclusion from picking a "bad driver" as older sample and compare it to a "good driver" from a recent release. too much _chance_ is on the table.
> 
> this is a better example of what to do:
> 2012 AMD Video Card Driver Performance Review
> 
> 6 samples for 12 months would give a better demonstration of what to expect.


Yes, well-- I suppose if I made money from clicks I'd have some methodology for you, but I'll let others do that work and make my own evaluation of the data. As it is my experience is anecdotal and I have no requirement or benefit for you to believe it or not.

Hopefully Kyle can update that article with-- oh wait-- no, he's not likely to do that, is he? Not exactly a cold, impartial scientist these days.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> its called methodology.
> 
> its NOT appropriate to take one sample from 2013 and one from 2016 to draw a conclusion for overall performance increase/decrease. you could very well be basing your conclusion from picking a "bad driver" as older sample and compare it to a "good driver" from a recent release. too much _chance_ is on the table.
> 
> this is a better example of what to do:
> 2012 AMD Video Card Driver Performance Review
> 
> 6 samples for 12 months would give a better demonstration of what to expect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, well-- I suppose if I made money from clicks I'd have some methodology for you, but I'll let others do that work and make my own evaluation of the data. As it is my experience is anecdotal and I have no requirement or benefit for you to believe it or not.
> 
> Hopefully Kyle can update that article with-- oh wait-- no, he's not likely to do that, is he? Not exactly a cold, impartial scientist these days.
Click to expand...

ah, you want to be lazy and self centered. nothing wrong with that.

since you want others to do the work for you; kyle had nothing to do with that article:
Quote:


> Date:
> Monday , February 18, 2013
> Author: Grady McKinney
> Editor: Brent Justice


do you even look bro?


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> ah, you want to be lazy and self centered. nothing wrong with that.


Careful, kettle. I'm not the one stomping on the ground calling for science. My effort wouldn't have the method you're demanding, since it would look only at the 290x, a sample of one-- and a watercooled one at that.

If you're asking me to drop coin on multiple obsolete Nvidia and AMD cards and spend a few days running trials just to provide *you* with raw data, then yes, I suppose that makes me "lazy", but it sure doesn't make me the most "self-centered" one in the room.









As far as the 480 driver improvements go, well, I think that's played out. Can't talk about something that hasn't happened yet, and @looniam would have a stronger argument to state that past driver improvements with other GCN architectures don't in any way imply that Polaris will experience the same thing.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> Careful, kettle. I'm not the one stomping on the ground calling for science. My effort wouldn't have the method you're demanding, since it would look only at the 290x, a sample of one-- and a watercooled one at that.


it seems you don't understand; i didn't say anything about one piece of hardware but to use several samples of drivers. anecdotal evidence aside, it would have been much better data to draw a conclusion from than comparing just two drivers; *the point of discussion is drivers.*

and after you edit:

don't get so touchy. letting others to do the work for you is letting yourself get spoonfed data that would be most appealing for you. simply not looking at who wrote the driver review article is a decent example. not questioning testing methods or looking at ways to improve them is another.

assumption much?


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> it seems you don't understand; i didn't say anything about one piece of hardware but to use several samples of drivers. anecdotal evidence aside, it would have been much better data to draw a conclusion from than comparing just two drivers; *the point of discussion is drivers.*


Actually no, the point of discussion is the 480 and Polaris. We're going to need either 1. another year, or 2. another thread to have the discussion you'd like to have.

I'm definitely interested in that other conversation though. Namely, what would the methodology be, since games are constantly patched, and drivers have specific game optimizations that work together with game patches? Tough to patch games incrementally over time, as they would do over Steam, to test the corresponding driver releases.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Anyone who keeps up with gpu benchmarks should notice many of cards pulling ahead of kepler.

I don't understand your argument. Go look at some 480 reviews if you need benchmarks. Or continue denying the apparent


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> You guys above-- I don't understand your argument. Are you putting up a straw man that the drivers alone are supposed to be responsible for the AMD improvements over time, and then trying to debunk that by saying it's the game patches that do it?


I wasn't even talking about AMD. But since you've brought it up, they've been doing a great job of both working with game developers for patches and upping driver performance.

My one and only issue is the source that you used as "science."

That video takes a single website result from a beta patch and presents it as evidence that Nvidia is losing performance.

It doesn't mention the fact that the patch was so bad it was replaced almost immediately. Released Friday January 15th and replaced Tuesday 19th.

It also doesn't mention the fact that when the official patch was released on February 1st, all Nvidia performance had been restored and then some.

Was there a followup video explaining that they were wrong or was the video removed? No.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to present something as true, we need more reputable sources than that to do it.


----------



## cainy1991

Slightly OT from current debates...

But can someone link me to a 3dm11-performance bench for a stock 480?

I can only seem to find pre release benches, and 3DM hasn't added the 480 to their hardware list yet.

I'm just wanting to do a direct comparison to some of my saved results from my last couple cards.

Thanks in advance

EDIT: nevermind the guru 3d review had one.... wish I had checked the reviews top to bottom rather than bottom to top LOL


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> I wasn't even talking about AMD. But since you've brought it up, they've been doing a great job of both working with game developers for patches and upping driver performance.
> 
> My one and only issue is the source that you used as "science."
> 
> That video takes a single website result from a beta patch and presents it as evidence that Nvidia is losing performance.


Project Cars, Batman, Crysis, and Witcher 3 are all discussed. I didn't claim it's the last word, but it is data and does qualify, pure and simple, and raises important points, since those titles are all benchmark titles.

More sources:
http://www.babeltechreviews.com/nvidia-forgotten-kepler-gtx-780-ti-vs-290x-revisited/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/70125-gtx-780-ti-vs-r9-290x-rematch.html


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cainy1991*
> 
> Slightly OT from current debates...
> 
> But can someone link me to a 3dm11-performance bench for a stock 480?
> 
> I can only seem to find pre release benches, and 3DM hasn't added the 480 to their hardware list yet.
> 
> I'm just wanting to do a direct comparison to some of my saved results from my last couple cards.
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> EDIT: nevermind the guru 3d review had one.... wish I had checked the reviews top to bottom rather than bottom to top LOL


http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.65886381.201643081.1463837974

If you use the advanced search part, you can find 480 results.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> it seems you don't understand; i didn't say anything about one piece of hardware but to use several samples of drivers. anecdotal evidence aside, it would have been much better data to draw a conclusion from than comparing just two drivers; *the point of discussion is drivers.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no, the point of discussion is the 480 and Polaris. We're going to need either 1. another year, or 2. another thread to have the discussion you'd like to have.
> 
> I'm definitely interested in that other conversation though. Namely, what would the methodology be, since games are constantly patched, and drivers have specific game optimizations that work together with game patches? Tough to patch games incrementally over time, as they would do over Steam, to test the corresponding driver releases.
Click to expand...

welp if you didn't notice i am discussing drivers _and so was my post that you replied to._ but it's all good if you don't want to continue. i'll however point out the link in my sig to a discussion for further exploration.

cheers


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> Anyone who keeps up with gpu benchmarks should notice many of cards pulling ahead of kepler.
> 
> I don't understand your argument. Go look at some 480 reviews if you need benchmarks. *Or continue denying the apparent*


who is denying anything?


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> welp if you didn't notice i am discussing drivers _and so was my post that you replied to._ but it's all good if you don't want to continue.


I'm not sure you understand. Are you aware that GPU drivers contain game optimizations, and game patches contain GPU optimizations, and these work together?


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> Project Cars, Batman, Crysis, and Witcher 3 are all discussed. I didn't claim it's the last word, but it is data and does qualify, pure and simple, and raises important points, since those titles are all benchmark titles.
> 
> More sources:
> http://www.babeltechreviews.com/nvidia-forgotten-kepler-gtx-780-ti-vs-290x-revisited/
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/70125-gtx-780-ti-vs-r9-290x-rematch.html


I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here.

The AMD side shows improvement exactly like we know it is.

The Nvidia side shows that the driver regression that people here keep talking about is a myth as well.

The Titan OG weird results? I have no idea honestly. But there are only two explanations given that the 780 Ti does not share them.

Something happened with Babeltech's results. Or

Someone inside Nvidia's driver team is crippling specific games for Titan OG while leaving other games and the 780 Ti out of it.

Which one is more realistic?


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here.
> 
> The AMD side shows improvement exactly like we know it is.
> 
> The Nvidia side shows that the driver regression that people here keep talking about is a myth as well.
> 
> The Titan OG weird results? I have no idea honestly. But there are only two explanations given that the 780 Ti does not share them.
> 
> Something happened with Babeltech's results. Or
> 
> Someone inside Nvidia's driver team is crippling specific games while leaving other games and the 780 Ti out of it.
> 
> Which one is more realistic?


False dichotomy. We cannot flip a coin whenever deciding upon guesswork.


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here.
> 
> The AMD side shows improvement exactly like we know it is.
> 
> The Nvidia side shows that the driver regression that people here keep talking about is a myth as well.
> 
> The Titan OG weird results? I have no idea honestly. But there is only two explanations given that the 780 Ti does not share them.
> 
> Something happened with Babeltech's results. Or
> 
> Someone inside Nvidia's driver team is crippling specific games while leaving other games and the 780 Ti out of it.
> 
> Which one is more realistic?


LOL! I guess everyone is assumed to have a fanboy argument.







Don't take me for one, though-- I don't believe in a Kepler or Maxwell driver regression, based on the evidence. Based on that same evidence, however, I *do* believe in a huge AMD improvement, beyond what Nvidia has been able to provide for past architectures.

It's why that 7970 is still loitering around at the bottom of all these new benches, and why Hawaii / Grenada is still throwing punches.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infranoia*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> welp if you didn't notice i am discussing drivers _and so was my post that you replied to._ but it's all good if you don't want to continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you understand. Are you aware that GPU drivers contain game optimizations, and game patches contain GPU optimizations, and these work together?
Click to expand...

yes, i read both driver AND patch notes.









what i don't understand is why you want to talk about game patches when you wanted to frame the discussion about the RX 480.


----------



## cainy1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.65886381.201643081.1463837974
> 
> If you use the advanced search part, you can find 480 results.


Ahh thanks very handy for future reference.


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> yes, i read both driver AND patch notes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what i don't understand is why you want to talk about game patches when you wanted to frame the discussion about the RX 480.


Because rabbit holes. Someone started to talk about drivers and testing methodology, which leads into game patches being an overlooked part of that methodology, which needs to circle back to 480 somehow. Honestly it's all just off-topic, although interesting.


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> Another test. Throttling 480 beating OC'ed 970 in Far Cry Primal @1080p ultra:


480 only one no cores hit 100% in dx11 as well. I'm actually impressed with that.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hueristic*
> 
> 480 only one no cores hit 100% in dx11 as well. I'm actually impressed with that.


Yeah but its on an i7. Restest the cards on an i3 system (you know, the type of CPU that would more likely be used with a $200 480) and the 970 will drop a few frames whereas the 480's performance will fall off a cliff.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Yeah but its on an i7. Restest the cards on an i3 system (you know, the type of CPU that would more likely be used with a $200 480) and the 970 will drop a few frames whereas the 480's performance will fall off a cliff.


That's a bit of an exaggeration. They are more likely paired with I-5s and even with I-3s the differences between the cards would be negligible.


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Yeah but its on an i7. Restest the cards on an i3 system (you know, the type of CPU that would more likely be used with a $200 480) and the 970 will drop a few frames whereas the 480's performance will fall off a cliff.


Really? Why would you say that? The Green side is the one maxing cores. It looks to me like the 480 will perform more with less. And how about we see this on DX12 and watch the 970 blow chunks.


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Yeah but its on an i7. Restest the cards on an i3 system (you know, the type of CPU that would more likely be used with a $200 480) and the 970 will drop a few frames whereas the 480's performance will fall off a cliff.


Hey, sorry @NuclearPeace, but OCN seems to have eaten your link where you show the proof. Can you repost it?


----------



## NuclearPeace

Source.


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Source.


Noted, there is a big dropoff there. Interesting that this video shows the 480 at around 30% less CPU on an i3 in Overwatch. The 970 absolutely pegs the cores in Tomb Raider, while the 480 is a good 15 to 30% less processor-bound. Other titles they're pretty comparable in CPU load. I wish we could see the graphs though.


----------



## NuclearPeace

I guess you have way more evidence so hopefully the DX11 overhead issue on Polaris/next gen GCN is fixed. Meanwhile, I just gotta hope that DX12 games come hard and fast because I dont expect AMD to going around fixing it on GCN 1.2 cards or older.


----------



## infranoia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> I guess you have way more evidence so hopefully the DX11 overhead issue on Polaris/next gen GCN is fixed. Meanwhile, I just gotta hope that DX12 games come hard and fast because I dont expect AMD to going around fixing it on GCN 1.2 cards or older.


Personally I don't care if my CPU cores are pegged, if the card is faster. I guess more room on the CPU is more room for other stuff, but if it's all being rendered, I don't see the point. If it means more frames, then peg my cores. Do it. There's gotta be a reason for all this cooling hardware.









If the 480 is slower than the 970 across the board and 30% lighter on the CPU in some games, I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from that other than, "the 480 is slower than a 970 on slow CPUs."


----------



## Dudewitbow

Sitting here watching people argue about testing an i7 with a 200$ gpu, when I got my i7-3770k on here for 150$, and paired it with a 220$ r9 290


----------



## The Robot

Here's some gas for the flame food for thought.
https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls3/comments/4efemc/if_you_are_using_a_500_series_nvidia_card/


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> Here's some gas for the flame food for thought.
> https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls3/comments/4efemc/if_you_are_using_a_500_series_nvidia_card/


But AMD Drivers sucks!


----------



## comagnum

After doing some aferburner work and utilizing the stilts ellismere backdoor I've been able to reach 1415mhz stable @1240mv http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9254211


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> Here's some gas for the flame food for thought.
> https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls3/comments/4efemc/if_you_are_using_a_500_series_nvidia_card/


Too close from 320.18.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> I believe the R9 290x came before or at the same time as the Titan and 780Ti came a bit later. Its main competition at the time was indeed the 780 as the 780 Ti and Titan were quite a bit more expensive.


Just as a timeline..

AMD 7970 - December 22, 2011

GeForce GTX 680 - March 22, 2012

GeForce GTX Titan - February 19, 2013

GeForce GTX 780 - May 23, 2013

AMD R9 290x - October 24th, 2013

Geforce 780ti - November 7, 2013

I think the real winner here is the 7970... it's still a very formidable card to this day. Especially considering where it stands in most games compared to a vanilla 780 these days.

Sadly just goes to show how slow GPU progression really has been these past few years...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> I wasn't even talking about AMD. But since you've brought it up, they've been doing a great job of both working with game developers for patches and upping driver performance.
> 
> My one and only issue is the source that you used as "science."
> 
> That video takes a single website result from a beta patch and presents it as evidence that Nvidia is losing performance.
> 
> It doesn't mention the fact that the patch was so bad it was replaced almost immediately. Released Friday January 15th and replaced Tuesday 19th.
> 
> It also doesn't mention the fact that when the official patch was released on February 1st, all Nvidia performance had been restored and then some.
> 
> Was there a followup video explaining that they were wrong or was the video removed? No.
> 
> All I'm saying is that if we're going to present something as true, we need more reputable sources than that to do it.


As I said above, my Titans have not lost any performance over time and in fact have gained performance since release (though a driver update alone hasn't increased my performance for a quite a while now). I personally see no evidence of Nvidia "gimping" Kepler performance on my end, just abandoning performance optimizations since Maxwell launched whereas AMD cards like cards like the 290X are still getting performance increases to this day. There is simply no question that AMD cards are better long term prospects than Nvidia ones considering that they don't immediately begin ignoring oprimizations for their architectures the second they release a new one. That said, AMD has used iterations of GCN since late 2011 so it makes sense that GCN cards would continue to see increases as long as they use it as a basis for their architectures. Nvidia, OTOH, wants you to buy a new card every time they release a new series. The flip side of this is that Nvidia cards enjoy better day-one performance than AMD cards, which have to wait over time to reach their ultimate potential.

The TL;DR of this post is that Nvidia is NOT sabotaging performance of their older cards but simply ignoring them so that their performance is pretty much static at this point whereas AMD cards continue to get improvements even generations later. If you keep cards for 3 years or more AMD is the way to go (think of somebody who bought a 780Ti on release which was significantly faster than a 290X at the time but now has a card that is significantly slower).


----------



## epic1337

any follow up reviews after the power fix?


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> any follow up reviews after the power fix?


My overclocking potential went up, I'm able to push 1.25v to the core, stable at 1400mhz 1200mv, scores and frames improved, power consumption down. That's about the jist of my experience so far.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> My overclocking potential went up, I'm able to push 1.25v to the core, stable at 1400mhz 1200mv, scores and frames improved, power consumption down. That's about the jist of my experience so far.


thats a good sign, since you mentioned that the power consumption went down despite having a high stable clock, what would happen if the card was further undervolted?


----------



## ChevChelios

no AIB reviews yet ?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> no AIB reviews yet ?


technically all RX480 reviews are AIB reviews, AMD doesn't manufacture their own cards.

but on the other hand, theres too few non-ref cards so its pretty much unlikely to get a review at the moment.


----------



## Klocek001

https://translate.google.pl/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=pl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.purepc.pl%2Fkarty_graficzne%2Fradeon_rx_480_vs_geforce_gtx_970_test_na_kilku_procesorach&edit-text=&act=url

GTX 970 21% faster than RX480 on i3 4170 3.7GHz in CPU bound scenarios
Quote:


> In the case of the Radeon RX 480, nothing changes, so like before, card AMD needs a much faster processor than the GeForce GTX 970, that in critical moments provide the same liquidity.


Quote:


> If anyone expected that, with the launch of the AMD architecture Polaris programmers removed through the problem of overhead or optimize the work of the driver, especially on the weak processors, DirectX 11, you may delete it from your dream list. Improvement probably never see again. Reds investing heavily in the promotion of low-level DirectX 12 and Vulkan, which (simplifying) the main idea is to squeeze the maximum out of graphics chips, while offloading the CPU. Too bad, because most games still intends to use DirectX 11, so the owners of Radeons may experience declines in pefrormance.


sorry for the google translation, but you get the idea...

the author says he'll repeat the tests on 1060 as soon as NDA is lifted

edit: I remembered our yesterday's "discussion" on how Skylake i5 with DDR4 is very affordable for every RX480 buyer, so I decided to comapre both on a high-end CPU. Turns out that even if we compare GTX970 and RX480 both on i7 4790K 4.5GHz, RX480 is slower in CPU bound parts of games. 3% slower on avg. including dx12 Hitman, 8% on avg. including dx11 games only.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

keep digging you might find more cherry picked benches


----------



## Artikbot

Jesus lord still going on? You guys have some serious dedication.

I swear every time I skim through this thread for anything interesting it's the same three people arguing the exact same points day and day again.


----------



## ChevChelios

what, you expect anything other than "AMD vs Nvidia" from this thread ?









especially while we're waiting for custom 480 reviews/OC results

Quote:


> keep digging you might find more cherry picked benches


so its only cherry-picked if it doesnt favor AMD ?


----------



## Artikbot

You just proved my point


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> what, you expect anything other than "AMD vs Nvidia" from this thread ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> especially while we're waiting for custom 480 reviews/OC results
> so its only cherry-picked if it doesnt favor AMD ?


we should talk about rx480 objectively, so only positive comments are allowed.
meanwhile ppl who ignore these results as "cherry picked" talk *aots* in 1060 thread all the friggin time









that's just hypocritical.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> what, you expect anything other than "AMD vs Nvidia" from this thread ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> especially while we're waiting for custom 480 reviews/OC results
> so its only cherry-picked if it doesnt favor AMD ?


http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9258776 - 14743 gfx score - 1400mhz @ 1200mv / 2200mhz @ 975mv / 60% power target (The Stilts backdoor mod)


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> we should talk about rx480 objectively, so only positive comments are allowed.
> meanwhile ppl who ignore these results as "cherry picked" talk aots in 1060 thread all the time. that's just hypocritical.


You're right, we should talk about the alternatives, the thread needs more hyperbole.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> GTX 970 21% faster than RX480 on i3 4170 3.7GHz in CPU bound scenarios.


isn't this well known since a number of years ago? it isn't only RX480 who has this problem.

AMD's drivers in general is seriously bad in DX11, to the point that in CPU bound games they're as much as one tier slower than Nvidia.
this is because AMD's DX11 driver overhead is massive, massive enough that the CPU chokes on it.


----------



## daviejams

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/powercolor-radeon-rx-480-devil-13-8192mb-gddr5-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-188-pc.html

Powercolor Devil 13 RX480 up for preorder on overclockers.uk

clock speed TBC

Looks nice


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9258776 - 14743 gfx score - 1400mhz @ 1200mv / 2200mhz @ 975mv / 60% power target (The Stilts backdoor mod)


14750 GFX score thats ~stock Fury level ?


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 14750 GFX score thats ~stock Fury level ?


yup.


----------



## ChevChelios

I see

so 1400Mhz (non throttling) 480 = stock Fury

a 1450Mhz (if possible for 24/7 stable) would be a bit above stock Fury

a ~2100 Mhz 1060 should hit about thereabouts as well ? either at 1400Mhz 480 level or between 1400 & 1450Mhz


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> I see
> 
> so 1400Mhz (non throttling) 480 = stock Fury
> 
> a 1450Mhz (if possible for 24/7 stable) would be a bit above stock Fury
> 
> a ~2100 Mhz 1060 should hit about thereabouts as well ? either at 1400Mhz 480 level or between 1400 & 1450Mhz


I suspect not, GeForce cards tend to do worse in benchmarks and better in games, AMD always have high bench figures which don't always trasfer to gaming.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9258776 - 14743 gfx score - 1400mhz @ 1200mv / 2200mhz @ 975mv / 60% power target (The Stilts backdoor mod)


Hey, have you got any games to benchmark? I would love to see how much faster that is than my GTX 970 at 1550MHz.

I've been looking for RX 480 owners to run benchmarks with as there isn't many overclocked gaming benchmarks going around.


----------



## HackHeaven

Why is there no amd cpu test? what about us folk who have amds?!

It would only make sense to test an amd gpu on and amd cpu no?


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HackHeaven*
> 
> Why is there no amd cpu test? what about us folk who have amds?!
> 
> It would only make sense to test an amd gpu on and amd cpu no?


when they get out of the hole AMD dug for them


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HackHeaven*
> 
> Why is there no amd cpu test? what about us folk who have amds?!
> 
> It would only make sense to test an amd gpu on and amd cpu no?


that's what the author of the article wrote in the comment


Quote:


> I beg you, don't ask for the possibility of adding FX-6300 or FX-8300, we all know what results it would have with RX480


Lol respect for a guy who has balls to call a spade a spade

point 2. " the test includes the newest RoTR and Hitman patches "


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> we should talk about rx480 objectively, so only positive comments are allowed.
> meanwhile ppl who ignore these results as "cherry picked" talk *aots* in 1060 thread all the friggin time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's just hypocritical.


Well, you could throw out all of the outliers for both cards.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Hey, have you got any games to benchmark? I would love to see how much faster that is than my GTX 970 at 1550MHz.
> 
> I've been looking for RX 480 owners to run benchmarks with as there isn't many overclocked gaming benchmarks going around.


I have gtav, doom, csgo, dota, witcher 3, bf4, aots, forza. Just don't know how to go about getting average frames. I also have dual 1600x900 monitors, [email protected], and 16gigs ddr3-1600 ram, for comparison purposes.

Edit:
I realize and cpus blow, but it would make sense to do a benchmark utilizing at least a 8320/8350 seeing as a lot of gamers are still on the am3 platform.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> isn't this well known since a number of years ago? it isn't only RX480 who has this problem.
> 
> AMD's drivers in general is seriously bad in DX11, to the point that in CPU bound games they're as much as one tier slower than Nvidia.
> this is because AMD's DX11 driver overhead is massive, massive enough that the CPU chokes on it.


This has nothing to do with drivers but with HW architecture, duh.

Who has an AMD CPU, do yourself a favor and buy a 2nd hand Ivy Bridge or better. Unless you are waiting and hoping for Zen to save you.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> This has nothing to do with drivers but with HW architecture, duh.


I thought the 480 was supposed to have HW to address that. Could drivers improve it now that it's been added?


----------



## JackCY

AMD drivers usually increase performance of cards over time as they tweak god knows what, probably the mistakes of DX11 game devs and trying to remove them on driver level.
The whole high vs low level APIs and AMD vs NV in those has been explained numerous times over the years. Just search what ever article about it you find reputable.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> This has nothing to do with drivers but with HW architecture, duh.
> 
> Who has an AMD CPU, do yourself a favor and buy a 2nd hand Ivy Bridge or better. Unless you are waiting and hoping for Zen to save you.


I'm waiting for zen/kaby lake.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> AMD drivers usually increase performance of cards over time as they tweak god knows what, probably the mistakes of DX11 game devs and trying to remove them on driver level.
> The whole high vs low level APIs and AMD vs NV in those has been explained numerous times over the years. Just search what ever article about it you find reputable.


I understand the whole deal in years past, but th 480 which wasn't around then was supposed to address this via hardware. So info from years past is of no use.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> This has nothing to do with drivers but with HW architecture, duh.
> 
> Who has an AMD CPU, do yourself a favor and buy a 2nd hand Ivy Bridge or better. Unless you are waiting and hoping for Zen to save you.


whats up with you?


----------



## C2H5OH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> I thought the 480 was supposed to have HW to address that. Could drivers improve it now that it's been added?


If you mean the primitive discard accelerator in Polaris, it's meant for culling non visible triangles - avoid rendering of what's not visible on screen.

The CPU scaling is dealt by DX12 and Vulcan.
DirectX 11


DirectX 12


Edit:
Traditionally AMD CPUs employs more cores, so you should see gains when switching to the newer APIs and I don't see a need to go and buy a cheap 2nd hand Ivy Bridge...and mobo especially if it's an i3.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> https://www.overclockers.co.uk/powercolor-radeon-rx-480-devil-13-8192mb-gddr5-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-188-pc.html
> 
> Powercolor Devil 13 RX480 up for preorder on overclockers.uk
> 
> clock speed TBC
> 
> Looks nice


Hmm... i thought the devil 13 cards were dual gpus.


----------



## comagnum

Will someone point me in the right direction for calculating average frames when in game?


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Hmm... i thought the devil 13 cards were dual gpus.


Some yes but not all off them. I think they done a 390x one recently and it was just a single card overclocked with the nice cooler

I want to see what these boost at though. If it's 1400mhz or so ..


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Will someone point me in the right direction for calculating average frames when in game?


There are lots of programs for frame counting

I use msi afterburner and rivatuner


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> I have gtav, doom, csgo, dota, witcher 3, bf4, aots, forza. Just don't know how to go about getting average frames. I also have dual 1600x900 monitors, [email protected], and 16gigs ddr3-1600 ram, for comparison purposes.
> 
> Edit:
> I realize and cpus blow, but it would make sense to do a benchmark utilizing at least a 8320/8350 seeing as a lot of gamers are still on the am3 platform.


Awesome!

You can use Fraps to benchmark, using one of the hot keys in Fraps it can spit out the min, max and average frame rate in a document which you can open up in a program like Excel, you can then make a graph out of this data, but I've forgotten what other programs you can use.


----------



## C2H5OH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Awesome!
> 
> You can use Fraps to benchmark, using one of the hot keys in Fraps it can spit out the min, max and average frame rate in a document which you can open up in a program like Excel, you can then make a graph out of this data, but I've forgotten what other programs you can use.


I thought that Fraps isn't working with DX12 and probably Vulkan.
...and it appears that Vulkan for Doom is out
http://radeon.com/doom-vulkan/


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Some yes but not all off them. I think they done a 390x one recently and it was just a single card overclocked with the nice cooler
> 
> I want to see what these boost at though. If it's 1400mhz or so ..


Weird, I can only find a devil branded 390x, not the devil 13. It looks like the last time a devil 13 wasn't a dual core was the 6970. They made a devil 13 dual core 7970, 290x, 390 from what I can see.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C2H5OH*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the primitive discard accelerator in Polaris, it's meant for culling non visible triangles - avoid rendering of what's not visible on screen.
> 
> The CPU scaling is dealt by DX12 and Vulcan.
> DirectX 11
> 
> 
> DirectX 12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> Traditionally AMD CPUs employs more cores, so you should see gains when switching to the newer APIs and I don't see a need to go and buy a cheap 2nd hand Ivy Bridge...and mobo especially if it's an i3.


No need at all, LoL. With what I have around the house I've tested 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3820x2160 with several Kepler, Maxwell, and GCN cards in solo and SLI/Xfire with: i3 6320, 3770k, 4790k, 6700k, FX 8320, FX 8370, and X4 860k. At 1920x1080 the Intel processors provide an appreciable bonus to minimum FPS and smooth the experience out. At 1440 it's far less noticeable to the point of being negligible vs AMD FX processors, and at 4k you're basically wasting money on Intel unless you've a really compelling need for it or just want that sheer epeen factor.


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> No need at all, LoL. With what I have around the house I've tested 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3820x2160 with several Kepler, Maxwell, and GCN cards in solo and SLI/Xfire with: i3 6320, 3770k, 4790k, 6700k, FX 8320, FX 8370, and X4 860k. At 1920x1080 the Intel processors provide an appreciable bonus to minimum FPS and smooth the experience out. At 1440 it's far less noticeable to the point of being negligible vs AMD FX processors, and at 4k you're basically wasting money on Intel unless you've a really compelling need for it or just want that sheer epeen factor.


which would more or less make sense, as lower resolutions tend to be more CPU bound, and higher resolutions tend to be more GPU bound


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Will someone point me in the right direction for calculating average frames when in game?


The cheap route is FRAPS or any other software injector that usually shows current FPS and has the ability to record/benchmark. That is for games that do not have built in benchmark or average FPS counter themselves.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dudewitbow*
> 
> which would more or less make sense, as lower resolutions tend to be more CPU bound, and higher resolutions tend to be more GPU bound


Exactly. Point being, it's silly the way that some people dismiss X or Y hardware when it's more cost-effective for a given application.


----------



## JambonJovi

Any reviews of the Sapphire Nitro out yet ?
Best looking card out of the lot IMO.


----------



## KarathKasun

i3's have pretty terrible minimum FPS last I checked. If you are already on an FX-6300 or better AMD platform with ~4.6ghz clocks you really need an i5 to do much better overall. Unless you only play the handful of games that really prefer the i3 its mostly a sidegrade.

A used i5-2500k ($100 in the states) would likely be a much better option.


----------



## C2H5OH

Tested with RX 480
DOOM Gets Vulkan Implementation



If most Vulkan implementations are that good, we all gain.

Guru3d test (RX 480 and GTX 1070)
RX 480


GTX 1070 (368.69)


Unfortunately, he is not specifying what preset was used in the benchmarks.


----------



## tkenietz

Idk if it's already been posted, but I seen a tweet last night saying the sapphire 480 nitro will be out on the 13th.


----------



## slavovid

Just about 10 posts ago comagnum posted a great result with an AMD CPU and now
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Idk if it's already been posted, but I seen a tweet last night saying the sapphire 480 nitro will be out on the 13th.


I can't stand waiting anylonger.







My Birthday is on 13-th so am thinking about getting a nitro ... i don't even want to OC it just want it quiet, cool, stable and durable.


----------



## SlackerITGuy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Idk if it's already been posted, but I seen a tweet last night saying the sapphire 480 nitro will be out on the 13th.


Source?


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SlackerITGuy*
> 
> Source?


https://twitter.com/BlazeK_AMDRT/status/752533594959187968?s=09


----------



## comagnum

Can't wait to see reviews


----------



## sugarhell

There seems to be a leaked bench with the nitro :


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> There seems to be a leaked bench with the nitro :


Now i was never good at math, but that looks like it's scaling over 100% with the higher clock... much salt.


----------



## FLCLimax

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> There seems to be a leaked bench with the nitro :


That's nice but i will bet the Fury is faster still at higher resolutions and on Vulkan/DX12 as well. The difference in ROPS, bandwidth and Shaders is huge.


----------



## EightDee8D

wait ...more than 1500mhz ? what ? lol


----------



## FLCLimax

I doubt the authenticity of that.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> There seems to be a leaked bench with the nitro :


30.7% gain with 21.6% core OC and 12.5% mem OC.









I call banenigans


----------



## 12Cores

1590mhz, that I would love to see, people with hybrid water coolers are well under that number on the reference cards. This must be a benchmark for the RX 485







.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 30.7% gain with 21.6% core OC and 12.5% mem OC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I call banenigans


The memory is OC'd the same on them as well lol


----------



## sugarhell

I dont know fam i just saw that picture on reddit.

I will believe it if i read all the review !


----------



## Orthello

I doubt it unless a crapload of binning has been going on at saphire.

Best i've seen is 1420 mhz with the ref cooler.

The default boost clocks for the nitro that have been reported for the card (low 1300s) would not suggest there is this sort of potential .

As others have pointed out the scaling is wonky too. At that 1540 clock it would get to just under 50 fps with perfect scaling, not 54 fps.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> The memory is OC'd the same on them as well lol


*EL OH EL*

What a fail. I'll believe that benchmark when Hell invades Earth


----------



## Bauxno

See people overhyping againg the same card two time in less than a month. If it can do 1400 or 1450 I think is a success for a saphire.


----------



## infranoia

I think I spent 5 minutes looking in the middle of that graph for the Nitro. When I finally saw it I think I broke a blood vessel in my eye.

Someone should call the doctor.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> There seems to be a leaked bench with the nitro :


If its that fast I am getting one right away lol.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> Now i was never good at math, but that looks like it's scaling over 100% with the higher clock... much salt.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 30.7% gain with 21.6% core OC and 12.5% mem OC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I call banenigans


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> The memory is OC'd the same on them as well lol


Man when will you guys learn to stop overhyping stuff or take faith in obviously fake/flawed benchmarks?

Seriously it does nothing except raise expectations to unreasonable levels only to cause disappointment later.


----------



## sammkv

So better pcb and 8 pin makes this overclock like a beast







.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Man when will you guys learn to stop overhyping stuff or take faith in obviously fake/flawed benchmarks?
> 
> Seriously it does nothing except raise expectations to unreasonable levels only to cause disappointment later.


They will never learn. RX 480 1.6GHz confined.


----------



## magnek

Very well, carry on then.

RX 480 _will_ reach 1600 MHz and match Fury X performance for <$300.

it'll also burn a hole through your motherboard and fry your PSU


----------



## tkenietz

I bet that 1540 is the base clock too. 1700+ oc inc









With that cooler it'll render parmigiano so fast it'll have your plate of spaghetti like


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> There seems to be a leaked bench with the nitro :


So after some quick searching through their reference review, it's a fake. Someone shopped the card name/info over the OC'd 980 result, the right aligned text gives it away.



Shame, I got excited for a second


----------



## magnek

If it's too good to be true...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Very well, carry on then.
> 
> RX 480 _will_ reach 1600 MHz and match Fury X performance for <$300.
> 
> it'll also burn a hole through your motherboard and fry your PSU


To be fair, you have absolutely no proof that it won't. I admit it is more on the far side of plausible considering reference but we have not gotten confirmation of ultimate clock potential/OC performance from the 480 with aftermarket power and cooling from the AIB's so its still in the realm of possibility. You don't need to help the Nvidia fanboys out with jumping all over how crappy the 480 is man, they got that covered just fine!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> So after some quick searching through their reference review, it's a fake. Someone shopped the card name/info over the OC'd 980 result, the right aligned text gives it away.
> 
> 
> 
> Shame, I got excited for a second


Doesn't really matter, OC'd 980 performance out of a 1500+ MHz 480 is still well within the realm of possibility for this card. How common OC's like that are going to be is still the big question but we don't know they can't do it yet...


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> To be fair, you have absolutely no proof that it won't. I admit it is more on the far side of plausible considering reference but we have not gotten confirmation of ultimate clock potential/OC performance from the 480 with aftermarket power and cooling from the AIB's so its still in the realm of possibility. You don't need to help the Nvidia fanboys out with jumping all over how crappy the 480 is man, they got that covered just fine!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't really matter, OC'd 980 performance out of a 1500+ MHz 480 is still well within the realm of possibility for this card. How common OC's like that are going to be is still the big question but we don't know they can't do it yet...


1500 will definitely be water territory imo, a couple golden cards may get that close on air. At that point it will definitely be very close with the Fury and 980, so I don't disagree, was merely pointing out the imaged was shopped.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> 1500 will definitely be water territory imo, a couple golden cards may get that close on air. At that point it will definitely be very close with the Fury and 980, so I don't disagree, was merely pointing out the imaged was shopped.


I dunno, I think cards like the Strix may have cooling that will easily allow 1500MHz+ clocks. The question remains how the silicon lottery will play out? Will golden chips be unicorn like in rarity or will they be more plentiful? We just don't know yet as all we have had tested so far are reference cards with all of their inherent limitations. But yes, it would seem the 480 should be a card that actually benefits from water cooling unlike Maxwell and Pascal...


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I dunno, I think cards like the Strix may have cooling that will easily allow 1500MHz+ clocks. The question remains how the silicon lottery will play out? Will golden chips be unicorn like in rarity or will they be more plentiful? We just don't know yet as all we have had tested so far are reference cards with all of their inherent limitations. But yes, it would seem the 480 should be a card that actually benefits from water cooling unlike Maxwell and Pascal...


Well none of this is stopping me from buying the Nitro the second it's out to check for myself! This 1080, while fast, is probably the most boring GPU I've ever owned. The 480 will be undoubtedly more fun to bench/tweak.


----------



## Slomo4shO

You are putting your faith in ASUS to deliver a quality cooling solution?



You must like being disappointed


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> You are putting your faith in ASUS to deliver a quality cooling solution?
> 
> 
> 
> You must like being disappointed


Eh, it's kind of flat right?


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> To be fair, you have absolutely no proof that it won't. I admit it is more on the far side of plausible considering reference but we have not gotten confirmation of ultimate clock potential/OC performance from the 480 with aftermarket power and cooling from the AIB's so its still in the realm of possibility. You don't need to help the Nvidia fanboys out with jumping all over how crappy the 480 is man, they got that covered just fine!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't really matter, OC'd 980 performance out of a 1500+ MHz 480 is still well within the realm of possibility for this card. How common OC's like that are going to be is still the big question but we don't know they can't do it yet...


I'm trying to stop the hype train from pulling into station lol. You're right I have no proof it won't, but I just fail to see how tooting the "480 will reach 1600 with AIB cards just you wait" horn will do anything except raise unnecessary expectations that will just lead to disappointment if it doesn't pan out. I mean, it's much better to just take a "wait and see" approach without making grand predictions IMHO.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> Well none of this is stopping me from buying the Nitro the second it's out to check for myself! This 1080, while fast, is probably the most boring GPU I've ever owned. The 480 will be undoubtedly more fun to bench/tweak.


Is actually really disappointing to see AIB model after AIB model in the 1080s released with NO improvement from the Ref cards Max OC vs Max OC apart from Noise.

If you look at it , the 1080 is the first card in quite a while from NV that overclocks this poorly. 780 ti , 980 , 980 ti, titan x .. all overclock miles better than the 1080 does. Probably have to go back to Fermi days to see such a low overclock result from NV. So yeah the enthusiast fun is very limited. Even with LN2 its pretty much summed up by "meh" in the stable OC department. With my TX under ambient water at 1540mhz core i think i'm within 10% of most of the 1080 max OC results - so yeah no fun for me with a 1080.

With the 480 however there is a lot of fun to be had with tweaking. Even undervolting and increasing power target = more fps in most cases.Then there is the elmor back door thing which sounds pretty cool + 60% power targets etc .. 1500mhz ocs on water (albeit high volts) on ref card with mods. AIBs might get there on air - might. The top end of them will be pretty close i suspect.


----------



## magnek

1080 is boring to tweak because

a) nVidia used up most of the headroom in order to make it look more impressive
b) GPU Boost 3.0 = auto overclocking if thermals/power allow
c) suffers even more than Maxwell in its absolute inability to voltage scale worth a damn on air/water (and even LN2 apparently)

Honestly, nVidia could've just clocked the 1080 at 1600 and still have it end up about 25% faster than 980 Ti, then that 2100 overclock would suddenly start looking a lot more appealing.


----------



## svenge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 1080 is boring to tweak because
> 
> a) nVidia used up most of the headroom in order to make it look more impressive


At least NVIDIA kept the PCIe slot power draw for the 1080 within specifications...


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 1080 is boring to tweak because
> 
> a) nVidia used up most of the headroom in order to make it look more impressive
> b) GPU Boost 3.0 = auto overclocking if thermals/power allow
> c) suffers even more than Maxwell in its absolute inability to voltage scale worth a damn on air/water (and even LN2 apparently)
> 
> Honestly, nVidia could've just clocked the 1080 at 1600 and still have it end up about 25% faster than 980 Ti, then that 2100 overclock would suddenly start looking a lot more appealing.


Yeah reality is though a 980 ti AIB or titan x are faster than 1070 ref / aib , and not far behind 1080 (max ocs). That might change in time with NVs lack of focus on Maxwell drivers but i suspect they will need to treat maxwell owners better than keplar owners with Dx12 / vulkan performance where it is for NV.

Owning maxwell now it just feels like i need to upgrade to something that's going to gain in performance , not go backwards or get no gains relative to the competition. 1080 is a sidegrade at best. Really need Vega or the next NV chips .


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I'm trying to stop the hype train from pulling into station lol. You're right I have no proof it won't, but I just fail to see how tooting the "480 will reach 1600 with AIB cards just you wait" horn will do anything except raise unnecessary expectations that will just lead to disappointment if it doesn't pan out. I mean, it's much better to just take a "wait and see" approach without making grand predictions IMHO.


There's an important difference between prediction and speculation. I too am doubtful that we will see 1500MHz+ AIB 480's on the reg but its not impossible. Given the reference card's performance we have seen thus far 1400MHz seems to be almost a given for AIB's but how much more can they get out of it? 1450? 1500? Should find out soon enough...


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *svenge*
> 
> At least NVIDIA kept the PCIe slot power draw for the 1080 within specifications...


HAHA oh man you got him so good. The RX480 power draw was so high that I don't even have one and it destroyed my computer.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I clicked on a Google image of a reference 480 and my motherboard caught on fire! You've been warned, stay away from this thing!


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *svenge*
> 
> At least NVIDIA kept the PCIe slot power draw for the 1080 within specifications...


Well that was easy wasn't it.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *svenge*
> 
> At least NVIDIA kept the PCIe slot power draw for the 1080 within specifications...






pcie power draw
never talks about what really matters


----------



## flippin_waffles

Why are some websites, like Anandtec forums and this one, turning a blind eye to posts stating it as a fact that the 1060 is faster than 480. At least OC makes that easy to do as they can just be posted as fact in the rumor section. Those types of posts were removed rather conveniently in retrospect to the Polaris launch (i wonder if it will mysteriously be changed now). Where could this evidence possibly be considering NV hasnt launched the card. Why the double standards? I havent seen any evidence that is the case, maybe it isnt, but convincing as mainy people of it as possible before launch would sure be a great benefit to them.

Anyway, just some general muzings about something i found interesting.









The RX480 does look pretty good though. NV may not have anything to battle it until a lot of time has passed and what about the AIB cards.


----------



## Cherryblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> Why are some websites, like Anandtec forums and this one, turning a blind eye to posts stating it as a fact that the 1060 is faster than 480. At least OC makes that easy to do as they can just be posted as fact in the rumor section. Those types of posts were removed rather conveniently in retrospect to the Polaris launch (i wonder if it will mysteriously be changed now). Where could this evidence possibly be considering NV hasnt launched the card. Why the double standards? I havent seen any evidence that is the case, maybe it isnt, but convincing as mainy people of it as possible before launch would sure be a great benefit to them.
> 
> Anyway, just some general muzings about something i found interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RX480 does look pretty good though. NV may not have anything to battle it until a lot of time has passed and what about the AIB cards.


Correct me if I wrong, but I believe 1060 is still no where to see, no where to test, and no where to know if perf gain over rx 480 is real. And we still don't even know on dx12.

There is nothing to say for website reviewers, as they still don't have the card. They are not here to buzz, but to add real information to the table.

Giving false hope or wrong hope to the people is something that (I believe) we don't need on OC.net.

We have plenty of that already.

1060 wil be tested and probably better than rx 480 when it's released. It will also probably be more expensive as usual. Nothing new. But for the moment, RX 480 is alone on the market, has no more power consumption problem, and has its price lowering everyday (saw 225€ in France for 8go model). It's its time to shine on the market.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cherryblue*
> 
> Correct me if I wrong, but I believe 1060 is still no where to see, no where to test, and no where to know if perf gain over rx 480 is real. And we still don't even know on dx12.
> 
> There is nothing to say for website reviewers, as they still don't have the card. They are not here to buzz, but to add real information to the table.
> 
> Giving false hope or wrong hope to the people is something that (I believe) we don't need on OC.net.
> 
> We have plenty of that already.
> 
> 1060 wil be tested and probably better than rx 480 when it's released. It will also probably be more expensive as usual. Nothing new. But for the moment, RX 480 is alone on the market, has no more power consumption problem, and has its price lowering everyday (saw 225€ in France for 8go model). It's its time to shine on the market.


there are some 1060 runs on aots on high preset using low settings(guru3d tactics to shill) even using them its behind a 480


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *flippin_waffles*
> 
> Why are some websites, like Anandtec forums and this one, turning a blind eye to posts stating it as a fact that the 1060 is faster than 480. At least OC makes that easy to do as they can just be posted as fact in the rumor section. Those types of posts were removed rather conveniently in retrospect to the Polaris launch (i wonder if it will mysteriously be changed now). Where could this evidence possibly be considering NV hasnt launched the card. Why the double standards? I havent seen any evidence that is the case, maybe it isnt, but convincing as mainy people of it as possible before launch would sure be a great benefit to them.
> 
> Anyway, just some general muzings about something i found interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RX480 does look pretty good though. NV may not have anything to battle it until a lot of time has passed and what about the AIB cards.


Probably because if it is faster it is going to be more expensive, and if it is comparable or even slightly slower, it will still be more expensive lol


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> 1080 is boring to tweak because
> 
> b) GPU Boost 3.0 = auto overclocking if thermals/power allow


good

tweaking and benching "for fun" is for nerds









I love that I barely have to do anything to get the max performance out of my 1080 .. installed it, OCed it by pushing a few sliders in Afterburner and quickly checking stability and forgot about it


----------



## magnek

LOL as if that hasn't been the case since Kepler Tesla or probably even earlier.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> good
> 
> *tweaking and benching "for fun" is for nerds*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love that I barely have to do anything to get the max performance out of my 1080 .. installed it, OCed it by pushing a few sliders in Afterburner and quickly checking stability and forgot about it


Welcome to OCN good sir.

Not that there's anything wrong with plug 'n play mind you, but some people still enjoy the hobby of OC'ing as an end in itself rather than simply the means to one.


----------



## sugarhell

It seems that the guys on the polaris games has some good news.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1604567/polaris-bios-mod-rx480/180#post_25335023

Someone just hit 1500 stable on fs. Now i am excited to see the custom one.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pcie power draw
> never talks about what really matters


NV master race optimizations, pay extra $200-$300 to get that old movie stutter effect.


----------



## hsjj3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Honestly, nVidia could've just clocked the 1080 at 1600 and still have it end up about 25% faster than 980 Ti, then that 2100 overclock would suddenly start looking a lot more appealing.


So what's the difference? You folks are angry that Nvidia is making full use of overclocking headroom to give the average user who knows nuts about overclocking the best possible performance? As enthusiasts it's disappointing, sure, but you've got to command Nvidia for this. Unlike a certain other company, Nvidia's rated boosts are ALWAYS exceeded while gaming, while the other company's is the MAX possible boost that throttles downwards when necessary.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hsjj3*
> 
> So what's the difference? You folks are angry that Nvidia is making full use of overclocking headroom to give the average user who knows nuts about overclocking the best possible performance? As enthusiasts it's disappointing, sure, but you've got to command Nvidia for this. Unlike a certain other company, Nvidia's rated boosts are ALWAYS exceeded while gaming, while the other company's is the MAX possible boost that throttles downwards when necessary.


Its the marketing i have issues with , 1070 is not faster than 980 ti or Titan X when overclocks are accounted for but its touted as such , 1070 the titan x killer my #$%$. They do that by overclocking it a good degree more compared to previous gen cards aka boost 3.0 out of the box. So apart from the marketing i don't have an issue with this.

Re the boost thing i think it just makes it hard to compare overclocking gains vs amd and nv, i mean typcially because NV overboost by default and they reportedly get less % increase from the oc , i think some of this is due to the fact the default boosting was higher than its reported to be etc but when oc % are reported its against the ref boost statistic nvidia gives which is never real its always higher. Where as with AMD you compare the boost ref to the overclock and you near enough get that % gain or more once you sort the throttling out etc as you know thats the max boost and its likely under if power limited etc.

480 AIB cards will be a good example of this where they stand to gain a LOT of performance, i mean i've read reviews where the card is not holding anywhere near 1266 mhz clocks in 4k .. its like averaging 1160 .. and people are referring to the rops as the primary issue. well if you loose over 100 mhz in 4k off standard boost due to power throttling etc its not exactly all the rop structure is it.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> 1070 is not *faster* than 980 ti or Titan X when overclocks are accounted for but its *touted as such*


WHEN was 1070 stated to be *faster* then them by Nvidia ?

show me


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> WHEN was 1070 stated to be *faster* then them by Nvidia ?
> 
> show me


Took me all of a min to find .

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/nvidia-gtx-1080-1070-pascal-specs-pricing-revealed/

"the company claims that both cards are significantly faster than its current flagships, the GTX Titan X and GTX 980 Ti, which retail for $1000 (£800) and $650 (£550) respectively"


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> Took me all of a min to find .
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/05/nvidia-gtx-1080-1070-pascal-specs-pricing-revealed/


I just see some site claiming that and possibly mixing up VR vs non-VR again

meanwhile

https://twitter.com/nvidia/status/728773098661543936

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1070/24.html

and it is actually a bit faster than stock Titan X


----------



## C2H5OH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hsjj3*
> 
> So what's the difference? You folks are angry that Nvidia is making full use of overclocking headroom to give the average user who knows nuts about overclocking the best possible performance? As enthusiasts it's disappointing, sure, but you've got to command Nvidia for this. Unlike a certain other company, Nvidia's rated boosts are ALWAYS exceeded while gaming, while the other company's is the MAX possible boost that throttles downwards when necessary.


[OT]
This has been discussed already, so I will not derail the RX 480 thread. It's simply not always true.
Here is a link, you can find other reviews yourself:
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-05/geforce-gtx-1080-test/6/


----------



## Sonikku13

Looking at DX12 comparisons between the Nano and the 480, the Nano is faster... now the $240 price point is very tempting, but I already have a Nano, so why pounce for what is pretty much a slight downgrade or sidegrade unless it's for my brother? My brother currently is on Intel HD Graphics from the Ivy Bridge era. Heck, in DX12, my Nano is competitive, within spitting distance, with a 1070 in average frame rates in Ashes, which is a title that is favorable to AMD, but not so much in DX11 comparisons... Just need some DX12 games now.

All comparisons based on stock settings.

Right now, all I play are Final Fantasy XIV and Skyrim. The only games I'm concerned about not being playable on max settings at 60 FPS at 1080p are Battlefield 1 and FIFA 17 (rumored to be using the Frostbite engine).

http://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-gpu-review-hitting-the-sweet-spot?page=6


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> good
> 
> tweaking and benching "for fun" is for nerds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love that I barely have to do anything to get the max performance out of my 1080 .. installed it, OCed it by pushing a few sliders in Afterburner and quickly checking stability and forgot about it


This post might as well be a bannable offense on a site named overclock.net


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> This post might as well be a bannable offense on a site named overclock.net


thank god you're not a mod then


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> NV master race optimizations, pay extra $200-$300 to get that old movie stutter effect.


That actually surprised me how bad it was. I wonder what the cause is?


----------



## Ha-Nocri

480 @1350MHz matching 970 @1550MHz @1080p in The Division:


----------



## JackCY

Problem is reference RX 480 has poor reference cooler and won't hold max boost clock as older AMD cards do. Making the stock reference RX 480 slower in about everything. The custom cards should remedy this.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Problem is reference RX 480 has poor reference cooler and won't hold max boost clock as older AMD cards do. Making the stock reference RX 480 slower in about everything. The custom cards should remedy this.


I have two of them and they have no problems holding their max boost. All you have to do is increase the power target. The stock fan profile maxes out at like 50% fan speed so there is plenty of room to increase that and improve cooling.


----------



## 12Cores

When can we expect the AIB cards?


----------



## aDyerSituation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> 480 @1350MHz matching 970 @1550MHz @1080p in The Division:


Ok so the 970 is at an overclock most cards won't ever see and the 480 is only at 1350?

lmao


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> Ok so the 970 is at an overclock most cards won't ever see and the 480 is only at 1350?
> 
> lmao


ayyyy

Seriously though, where are these 1550MHz 970's coming from? I've got one lying around here somewhere that was decent, ~79% or so ASIC quality. It reacted like a live lobster tossed into a boiling pot somewhere around 1505MHz. It games well enough at 1450-75, depending.


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> ayyyy
> 
> Seriously though, where are these 1550MHz 970's coming from? I've got one lying around here somewhere that was decent, ~79% or so ASIC quality. It reacted like a live lobster tossed into a boiling pot somewhere around 1505MHz. It games well enough at 1450-75, depending.


I just sold one on FleaBay that did 1620. Still a piece of crap. I'd take a 480 any day. But I don't need to bother. Waiting on the 490x


----------



## aDyerSituation

My 970 couldn't even get to 1400. I was highly disappointed in that card for various reasons


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> ayyyy
> 
> Seriously though, where are these 1550MHz 970's coming from? I've got one lying around here somewhere that was decent, ~79% or so ASIC quality. It reacted like a live lobster tossed into a boiling pot somewhere around 1505MHz. It games well enough at 1450-75, depending.


So it spontaneously ejected from the PCIe slot?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *battleaxe*
> 
> I just sold one on FleaBay that did 1620. Still a piece of crap. I'd take a 480 any day. But I don't need to bother. Waiting on the 490x


That's a damn good sample if you could game on those clocks. I pushed both of my 970 G1's to 1600 but that was with a modded bios pumping 1.28V or 1.32V to the core, voltage table hacked so a constant voltage is provided instead of the voltage/boost bin dropping nonsense, and watercooled so the VRMs don't blow up. Both cards also drew *200W each* under load so yeah lol.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> ayyyy
> 
> Seriously though, where are these 1550MHz 970's coming from? I've got one lying around here somewhere that was decent, ~79% or so ASIC quality. It reacted like a live lobster tossed into a boiling pot somewhere around 1505MHz. It games well enough at 1450-75, depending.


I have one sitting here that can do 1550 stable (with a modded bios that is), one of my 480s is faster though.


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *12Cores*
> 
> When can we expect the AIB cards?




feel free to interpret it as what you think it means


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So it spontaneously ejected from the PCIe slot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a damn good sample if you could game on those clocks. I pushed both of my 970 G1's to 1600 but that was with a modded bios pumping 1.28V or 1.32V to the core, voltage table hacked so a constant voltage is provided instead of the voltage/boost bin dropping nonsense, and watercooled so the VRMs don't blow up. Both cards also drew *200W each* under load so yeah lol.


Mine was on stock BIOS/volts. All 970's sucked though. Completely pissed about ever spending $400 on that piece of crap. Only to have the 290x's beat the crap out of them a short few months later.

I'm done with Nvidia until they clean up their act and start treating us like their bread and butter (which we are). But I won't hold my breath, don't worry.

Just gonna buy AMD for a while now as a result of their crappy shenanigans. AMD is plenty good, and plenty competitive IMO. Looking forward to what next gen brings us.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dudewitbow*
> 
> 
> 
> feel free to interpret it as what you think it means


deleted because I was half asleep and drank too much wine...


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *battleaxe*
> 
> Mine was on stock BIOS/volts. All 970's sucked though. Completely pissed about ever spending $400 on that piece of crap. Only to have the 290x's beat the crap out of them a short few months later.
> 
> I'm done with Nvidia until they clean up their act and start treating us like their bread and butter (which we are). But I won't hold my breath, don't worry.
> 
> Just gonna buy AMD for a while now as a result of their crappy shenanigans. AMD is plenty good, and plenty competitive IMO. Looking forward to what next gen brings us.
> And will it be cheaper than a 480? No it won't.
> 
> But people will buy it anyway just because its made by Nvidia.


Wat? It's alluding to AIB Sapphire RX480 release.


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hueristic*
> 
> Wat? It's alluding to AIB Sapphire RX480 release.


It's late and I'm tired. LOL


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hueristic*
> 
> Wat? It's alluding to AIB Sapphire RX480 release.


Be nice to see a review before the 1060 reviews land .. have some comparisons on day 1 etc. Its a slight fail in the timing i think otherwise - eg throttling ref 480 vs 1060 - aib 1060s even.


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *battleaxe*
> 
> It's late and I'm tired. LOL


Never been there!
















Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> Be nice to see a review before the 1060 reviews land .. have some comparisons on day 1 etc. Its a slight fail in the timing i think otherwise - eg throttling ref 480 vs 1060 - aib 1060s even.


Meh, It's getting old watching each new generation released on both sides is just like watching a tv show repeat endlessly.


----------



## provost

Well, my Fury was supposed to be a stopgap, but this little card continues to surprise me. No matter what I throw at it (different resolutions, settings, etc), I still have a smooth playing experience; Witcher 3 being the ultimate litmus test, since that's what broke the camel's back, when it came to leaving my four Titans for this Fury. I don't know if it's the game patches, or AMD drivers, nor do I care, as long as I have an enjoyable stutter free gaming experience. With DX12/Vulkan built in future proofing, I no longer have to think about gimping drivers or what not, so there is that... a little peace of mind... Lol

I don't want to give AMD to much credit, as the card can get a bit loud since I don't have it under water, but it's not annoying. Anyway, as long as AMD keeps doing what it's doing, I don't have a reason to jump ship, and also picked up a Freesync ultrawide recently to evaluate. Not sure if I am going to stick with it or go for another model, a larger 4K, etc.

Anyway, to conclude my little soliloquy here, I just want to know when would AMD be coming out with the big chip Vega? 480 RX is a great little card, but I am looking for a single card to drive high setting on 4K and be done with it, or keep striving for more... Lol ( my only concern would be Nvidia screwing with the developers to implement some middleware on future games, well of that happens, there would always be consoles... lol)

Sorry for OT


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *battleaxe*
> 
> It's late and I'm tired. LOL


Put down the wine lol

Seriously waiting on AIB has been painstaking i feel like. Can't really get a frame of reference for how well they're going to OC until AIB.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Well, my Fury was supposed to be a stopgap, but this little card continues to surprise me. No matter what I throw at it (different resolutions, settings, etc), I still have a smooth playing experience; Witcher 3 being the ultimate litmus test, since that's what broke the camel's back, when it came to leaving my four Titans for this Fury. I don't know if it's the game patches, or AMD drivers, nor do I care, as long as I have an enjoyable stutter free gaming experience. With DX12/Vulkan built in future proofing, I no longer have to think about gimping drivers or what not, so there is that... a little peace of mind... Lol
> 
> I don't want to give AMD to much credit, as the card can get a bit loud since I don't have it under water, but it's not annoying. Anyway, as long as AMD keeps doing what it's doing, I don't have a reason to jump ship, and also picked up a Freesync ultrawide recently to evaluate. Not sure if I am going to stick with it or go for another model, a larger 4K, etc.
> 
> Anyway, to conclude my little soliloquy here, I just want to know when would AMD be coming out with the big chip Vega? 480 RX is a great little card, but I am looking for a single card to drive high setting on 4K and be done with it, or keep striving for more... Lol ( my only concern would be Nvidia screwing with the developers to implement some middleware on future games, well of that happens, there would always be consoles... lol)
> 
> Sorry for OT


Vega is likely a Q1 2017 release, and current best guesses seem to peg it +/- 10% of 1080's performance, so it should be good for 4K60 on high settings (assuming high means high and not ultra).


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Vega is likely a Q1 2017 release, and current best guesses seem to peg it +/- 10% of 1080's performance, so it should be good for 4K60 on high settings (assuming high means high and not ultra).


which vega 10 or 11?


----------



## HackHeaven

Will the 460/70 have AIBs when they release since its about the same time as the ones for 480?


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *maltamonk*
> 
> which vega 10 or 11?


The one with 4096 shaders.


----------



## flippin_waffles

How about a dual Polaris 11 for $300? Polaris 11 is a different chip, maybe this is the starting point of what Raja was refering to when talking about RTG's focus on multiple small die strategy. I wonder if there are some surprises about the small die Polaris. So woudnt a dual Polaris 11 be the ultimate choice for a card at $300? Especially when Vulkan and DX12 are designed with full support of parallelism. It would make a killer card. It will be interesting to see if they did anything like that.

Forgot about the Apple AMD relationship. I wonder what relationship AMD has
with Metal.

Or not, but that would make things very interesting.


----------



## JackCY

I'm all for multiple small dies but they didn't design current chips that way. Maybe, maaaaybe Navi.


----------



## DoktorCreepy

Powercolor is suggesting the Devil RX480 is releasing on the 21st on their a new devil is born page.

Seems like next week then, since Sapphire suggested next week too.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DoktorCreepy*
> 
> Powercolor is suggesting the Devil RX480 is releasing on the 21st on their a new devil is born page.
> 
> Seems like next week then, since Sapphire suggested next week too.


Good , really interested in the powercolor devil version. Hope it's clocked 1400mhz ish


----------



## prznar1

I want to see the reviews finally.


----------



## ChevChelios

is any custom 480 expected to be out on 19-th July ?

Is there any July date 100% confirmed for customs ?


----------



## prznar1

19th is 1060 premiere, but no sales. Dunno about 19th for AMD. I think nothing special will be on that day for red team.


----------



## Hueristic

meh already posted.


----------



## ChevChelios

1060 does start selling on 19-th, customs too

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/new-product/pc-components/gtx-1060-uk-release-date-nvidia-gtx-1060-uk-price-geforce-gtx-1060-specs-gtx-1070-gtx-1080-price-ansel-3639751/
Quote:


> the cards go on sale 19 July 2016. Cards from partners including Asus and MSI will be available at the same time.
> 
> Third-party variants are planned to be priced at £239; these cards are expected to be released on 19 July 2016.


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 1060 does start selling on 19-th, customs too
> 
> http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/new-product/pc-components/gtx-1060-uk-release-date-nvidia-gtx-1060-uk-price-geforce-gtx-1060-specs-gtx-1070-gtx-1080-price-ansel-3639751/


3.5g mem flashed to 4? j/k









ADDED:
Quote:


> GTX 1060 UK price: How much does the GTX 1060 cost?
> 
> UK pricing has yet to be announced, but we know the GTX 1060 will cost $249 in the US and it has since been confirmed that it will launch at *£275 in the UK for the Founders Edition*, effectively the reference design.


Ouch.


----------



## ChevChelios

no point in buying founders, just get (if you want) custom for the same price as custom 480 (or for only 10-20 more)


----------



## Slomo4shO

Card seems like it might be under 9" in length:


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Card seems like it *might be under 9" in length:*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


ayyyyyy! I would like to see some decent SFF horsepower though. I'll be looking at everything from 460's to 1060's for best £/perf/cm to replace the 7870 XT in my workputer. Though, the roaring on the box of this particular model doesn't suggest quiet performance.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> ayyyyyy! I would like to see some decent SFF horsepower though. I'll be looking at everything from 460's to 1060's for best £/perf/cm to replace the 7870 XT in my workputer. Though, the roaring on the box of this particular model doesn't suggest quiet performance.


I am also on the search for a SFF GPU. Contemplating between the 1070 Nano, Fury X, and the RX lineup. Want to step up to 3 or 5 4K displays so need a card that can output accordingly. Not for gaming obviously









Right now, the Zalman CNPS8900 Quiet and the single Nocuta NF-F12 running with LNA in my Silverstone SG05BB-LITE are whisper quite. The 600W PSU remains on standby mode on load. Not looking to add a noisy GPU to the mix.


----------



## magnek

So uh is Nano still the king of perf/inch these days?


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So uh is Nano still the king of perf/inch these days?


gigabyte's releasing a 1070 mini iirc


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So uh is Nano still the king of perf/inch these days?


Probably won't be downclocked like the Nano


----------



## magnek

oh snap

But at least Nano could be converted to single slot with a waterblock, so I guess it's still the most powerful single slot solution.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> oh snap
> 
> But at least Nano could be converted to single slot with a waterblock, so I guess it's still the most powerful single slot solution.


Yes, in case you need to run 7 GPUs in a single rig


----------



## CrazyElf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Yes, in case you need to run 7 GPUs in a single rig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


It's been done before.



Although not for gaming, but rather for rendering. Multi-GPU gaming like that would be immensely complex.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *provost*
> 
> Well, my Fury was supposed to be a stopgap, but this little card continues to surprise me. No matter what I throw at it (different resolutions, settings, etc), I still have a smooth playing experience; Witcher 3 being the ultimate litmus test, since that's what broke the camel's back, when it came to leaving my four Titans for this Fury. I don't know if it's the game patches, or AMD drivers, nor do I care, as long as I have an enjoyable stutter free gaming experience. With DX12/Vulkan built in future proofing, I no longer have to think about gimping drivers or what not, so there is that... a little peace of mind... Lol
> 
> I don't want to give AMD to much credit, as the card can get a bit loud since I don't have it under water, but it's not annoying. Anyway, as long as AMD keeps doing what it's doing, I don't have a reason to jump ship, and also picked up a Freesync ultrawide recently to evaluate. Not sure if I am going to stick with it or go for another model, a larger 4K, etc.
> 
> Anyway, to conclude my little soliloquy here, I just want to know when would AMD be coming out with the big chip Vega? 480 RX is a great little card, but I am looking for a single card to drive high setting on 4K and be done with it, or keep striving for more... Lol ( my only concern would be Nvidia screwing with the developers to implement some middleware on future games, well of that happens, there would always be consoles... lol)
> 
> Sorry for OT


It's not a perfect card by any stretch of imagination. The Fury and Fury X are bottlenecked - otherwise we'd see 45% better performance with 45% more shdaers. It's most likely the triangle output and the rest of the front end. Doubling the RBEs would have also been good. Still when you factor in how well the GCN architecture has aged, it's pretty impressive.

With any luck, they will rectify this in Vega. We should see some pretty decent leaps in Vega and hopefully a much better GPU overall.

Edit: By the 45% I am referring to compared to the 290X and 390X. In practice, it is within 20% at times, which is underwhelming considering the bandwidth of HBM (especially when combined with color compression), the 45% more shaders, and texture mapping units. For that reason I assert that there is a bottleneck or else we'd see linear scaling with more shaders (at least where VRAM isn't a bottleneck anyways).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> As I said above, my Titans have not lost any performance over time and in fact have gained performance since release (though a driver update alone hasn't increased my performance for a quite a while now). I personally see no evidence of Nvidia "gimping" Kepler performance on my end, just abandoning performance optimizations since Maxwell launched whereas AMD cards like cards like the 290X are still getting performance increases to this day. There is simply no question that AMD cards are better long term prospects than Nvidia ones considering that they don't immediately begin ignoring oprimizations for their architectures the second they release a new one. That said, AMD has used iterations of GCN since late 2011 so it makes sense that GCN cards would continue to see increases as long as they use it as a basis for their architectures. Nvidia, OTOH, wants you to buy a new card every time they release a new series. The flip side of this is that Nvidia cards enjoy better day-one performance than AMD cards, which have to wait over time to reach their ultimate potential.
> 
> The TL;DR of this post is that Nvidia is NOT sabotaging performance of their older cards but simply ignoring them so that their performance is pretty much static at this point whereas AMD cards continue to get improvements even generations later. If you keep cards for 3 years or more AMD is the way to go (think of somebody who bought a 780Ti on release which was significantly faster than a 290X at the time but now has a card that is significantly slower).


A lot of it comes down the GCN architecture. In theory, its a much more powerful architecture, but in practice, the real world performance has been short of the theoretical specs.

Over time, it's gotten a lot closer to its true potential and has made massive relative gains compared to the Nvidia cards of its generation. Plus AMD was quite forward thinking when they made a hardware scheduler + ACEs, even if there were power consumption penalties in DX11.

I suspect that this will continue even with Vega being released because Vega will just be a major upgrade of GCN and not a leap like saw VLIW to GCN was.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CrazyElf*
> 
> It's been done before.


Wasn't the argument









Unless it is a low profile ITX case, there will be two available expansion slots in the case and only a single PCIE slot on the board









I suppose you can make a case for Mini-DTX but we first need boards outside embedded solutions.


----------



## Hueristic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> Card seems like it might be under 9" in length:


Yup, Definitely asian.


----------



## provost

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CrazyElf*
> 
> It's been done before.
> 
> 
> 
> Although not for gaming, but rather for rendering. Multi-GPU gaming like that would be immensely complex.
> It's not a perfect card by any stretch of imagination. The Fury and Fury X are bottlenecked - otherwise we'd see 45% better performance with 45% more shdaers. It's most likely the triangle output and the rest of the front end. Doubling the RBEs would have also been good. Still when you factor in how well the GCN architecture has aged, it's pretty impressive.
> 
> With any luck, they will rectify this in Vega. We should see some pretty decent leaps in Vega and hopefully a much better GPU overall.
> A lot of it comes down the GCN architecture. In theory, its a much more powerful architecture, but in practice, the real world performance has been short of the theoretical specs.
> 
> Over time, it's gotten a lot closer to its true potential and has made massive relative gains compared to the Nvidia cards of its generation. Plus AMD was quite forward thinking when they made a hardware scheduler + ACEs, even if there were power consumption penalties in DX11.
> 
> I suspect that this will continue even with Vega being released because Vega will just be a major upgrade of GCN and not a leap like saw VLIW to GCN was.


I am sure it's not, as I have seen some of the staunchest AMD fans post something similar (not that I really understand what front end/back end , rasterizers, etc mean...but, I assume it's not a good thing ...lol). However, I have yet to come across a scenario where this card didn't provide me a smooth experience; 1440p, 4K 27 inch, ultrawide, albeit at a lower fps.
Either my previous experience with Nvidia had completely jaded me because I had stuttering in a number of newer games with Titans, or game patches fixed the games when I got around to finally trying the same games with Fury, or AMD drivers really are better than what I initially perceived them to be, or my expectations bar was not set too high to begin with- perhaps a combination of all of the above.. Lol..

But, here is the thing, what card is perfect? 980 Ti doesn't seem to have dx12/vulkan capability, 1080 only provides incremental gains in dx11 games over the 980ti, and I am not entirely convinced of its dx12/vulkan capability inspite of that synthetic benchmark. My guess is that synthetic benchmark was developed by Nvidia and handed over to Futuremark for distribution (ok, just being facetious here... Lol)

So, the way I look at it is this: Fury is good enough in DX 11 to hang close enough to 980ti, from my perspective anyway. But, what has been a nice surprise is to see Fury do really well in vulkan/ and may be dx12 too down the road. I don't have time to play new games the moment they come out, but whenever I do have little bit of time to play, hopefully this "future proofing" will continue to provide an enjoyable experience on both current and future games. I am not certain if I would have felt the same way had I purchased a 980 Ti or TitanX at the time.

I guess what I am saying is that I tried to look for reasons to dump the Fury to satisfy my "pursuit of perfection itch".. Lol , but my experience doesn't make it easy, nor do the current options available in the market today ... Lol


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hueristic*
> 
> Yup, Definitely asian.


HSI is based out of Hong Kong


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> HSI is based out of Hong Kong


to be fair, almost every gpu aib partner is based in asia, except like EVGA


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> I'm about to start running a set of benchmarks, synthetic and games, comparing stock clocks to my max clock. I do have an aftermarket cooler(arctic mono plus) so I'm not too focused on temps but I will note the max temps for each benchmark. Are there any additional games/benchmarks/settings anyone would like to see?
> 
> Current games:
> Doom
> Tomb Raider
> BF4
> Star Wars: Battlefront
> Witcher 3
> Metro Last Light redux
> Project Cars
> AotS
> Forza 6
> Csgo
> Dota2
> Crysis 3
> GTAv
> Overwatch
> 
> Synthetics:
> 3Dmark
> 3Dmark11
> Uengine Valley
> Furmark
> 
> Programs/tweaks being used:
> GpuZ
> Hwinfo
> De8auer's edited bios
> The Stilts ellismere backdoor(because I can't get the extended power level settings with just the bios for some reason)
> Fraps
> Asus GpuTweak II
> Default driver settings
> Stock clocks of 1266/2000
> OC clocks of 1405(1.205mv)/2200(.975mv) with 165% power level
> 
> Any help with suggested settings, areas, or resolutions would be much appreciated. I have dual 1600x900 monitors but I can set extended resolutions for games/benchmarks that'll allow it.


----------



## Roerbakei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*


Would be awesome if you could test 1440p no AA with the games you've listed


----------



## Themisseble

Well this is very said for AMD. Raja Koduri actually disappointed me.. where are AIB cards? Raja? WHERE?!

I mean.. who will buy retail cards? WHO? few people that cannot wait?... almost 20 days after the launch of RX 480 and still no AIB cards... really sad.

Massage to AMD - We do not need your retail cards! All we need is AIB cards from ASUS, MSI, POWER COLOR, SAPPHIRE, XFX, GIGABYTE and so on...
Nobody almost nobody cares about retail cards! When will you learn it?!


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Well this is very said for AMD. Raja Koduri actually disappointed me.. where are AIB cards? Raja? WHERE?!
> 
> I mean.. who will buy retail cards? WHO? few people that cannot wait?... almost 20 days after the launch of RX 480 and still no AIB cards... really sad.
> 
> Massage to AMD - We do not need your retail cards! All we need is AIB cards from ASUS, MSI, POWER COLOR, SAPPHIRE, XFX, GIGABYTE and so on...
> Nobody almost nobody cares about retail cards! When will you learn it?!


Plenty of people do considering they're sold out.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Plenty of people do considering they're sold out.


I know... but I am mad because there is still no AIB cards.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> they're sold out.


supply issues ?


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I know... but I am mad because there is still no AIB cards.


Go shout at the AIBs then.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Go shout at the AIBs then.


1

Anyone know release dates?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Well this is very said for AMD. Raja Koduri actually disappointed me.. where are AIB cards? Raja? WHERE?!
> 
> I mean.. who will buy retail cards? WHO? few people that cannot wait?... almost 20 days after the launch of RX 480 and still no AIB cards... really sad.
> 
> Massage to AMD - We do not need your retail cards! All we need is AIB cards from ASUS, MSI, POWER COLOR, SAPPHIRE, XFX, GIGABYTE and so on...
> Nobody almost nobody cares about retail cards! When will you learn it?!


Having reference cards in stock will be nice too.

Even the reference ones are either out of stock or very low stock everywhere.


----------



## slavovid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Having reference cards in stock will be nice too.
> 
> Even the reference ones are either out of stock or very low stock everywhere.


I haven't seen OC UK to run out of cards anytime i check for AIB cards being in stock there are always several of the reference models in stock ... ALWAYS even now.

There are even watercooled RX 480 in there ...


----------



## Orthello

The Asus strix , although likely the latest of the lot sounds interesting. Totally bypassing PCIE power from the mobo slot - Dual pin connector. They quote some pretty impressive % gains too from very small OC %s .

At this rate we will see 1060 AIB land before 480 AIB .. which is a sad thing. Looking forward to some AIB vs AIB reviews in few weeks time.


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahigan*
> 
> You have 4 Geometry Processors each running at 1266MHz. If you multiply 4x1266MHz you get 5064 or 5.1 Gtris/s. Perfect scaling would deliver that amount of GTris/s and we get 4.7 GTris/s for the List benchmark and surprisingly we get even higher performance for Strip (showing that the Hardware Discard Accelerator is working perfectly). In other words... Tessellation is now on par with Maxwell and Pascal efficiency wise (per Geometry processor).
> 
> The R9 380x also had 4 Geometry Processors clocked at 975MHz. If you multiply you get 3900 or 3.9 GTris/s. The list performance of 3.7 GTris/s is thus near perfect scaling but the Strip performance of 2.2 GTris/s shows that the R9 380x (like previous GCN products) suffered from low tessellation performance when triangles were smaller than a pixel.
> 
> Evidently... Tessellation is no longer an issue for AMDs new GPUs. All AMD needs now is to add more Tessellation Processors for linear Tessellation scaling performance boosts.
> 
> AMDs Tessellation woes were due to the small triangle issue which has been entirely resolved. Had Polaris come with 64 ROPs if likely would have given the GTX 980 Ti a run for its money... and that is at 1266MHz. Polaris has a huge achilles heel as it pertains to pixel fillrate and when using 64-bit textures (half rate performance). There also appears to be a bandwidth related issue with Texture Filtering (likely requiring a newer version of HyperZ in order to boost performance in that respect).


Something tells me AMD didn't hit clock speed targets.

It would make sense for them to target similar geometry performance to a 970, a card they were targeting to obsolete.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slavovid*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Having reference cards in stock will be nice too.
> 
> Even the reference ones are either out of stock or very low stock everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen OC UK to run out of cards anytime i check for AIB cards being in stock there are always several of the reference models in stock ... ALWAYS even now.
> 
> There are even watercooled RX 480 in there ...
Click to expand...

Didn't realize there are so much stock in Europe.

Mostly out of stock in North America if you want to pay MSRP.

Edit: There seem to be plenty of stock in Asia too.


----------



## HarrisLam

Everyone is just hopelessly waiting for custom cards (myself included)

This might be going into the conspiracy theory territory, but is it possible that even the AIB manufacturers aren't happy with the gains they get from their dual fans or even tri-fans designs? Maybe that's why there's barely any news about it?


----------



## Farih

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> Everyone is just hopelessly waiting for custom cards (myself included)
> 
> This might be going into the conspiracy theory territory, but is it possible that even the AIB manufacturers aren't happy with the gains they get from their dual fans or even tri-fans designs? Maybe that's why there's barely any news about it?


Look how AIB's solved the heat problems on the 290x and also made better PCB's for it, i dont think this RX 480 is any problem for them.

Why its taking so long though i dont know.
I am waiting for a good AIB RX 480 to.


----------



## sugarhell

This looks like an AIB card?

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/16288/spy/17096/spy/15835#

Is it a good score?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> This looks like an AIB card?
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/16288/spy/17096/spy/15835#
> 
> Is it a good score?


AIB my ass. It's someone who claims to be a chick on Chiphell. It's a reference RX 480. Some say the card came in white, some say it was spray painted white.


----------



## lolerk52

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/asus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test/

STRIX 480 review.
Looks fantastic, reference really made the 480 look bad compared to a 1060.


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/asus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test/
> 
> STRIX 480 review.
> Looks fantastic, reference really made the 480 look bad compared to a 1060.


Agreed.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolerk52*
> 
> https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/asus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test/.




Quote:


> Übertaktbarkeit
> 
> Die Polaris-10-GPU der Asus Radeon RX 480 Strix lässt sich um 40 MHz auf 1.370 MHz übertakten, bevor es zu ersten Grafikfehlern kommt. Das sind rund 100 MHz mehr als der Standard-Takt der Referenzkarte, aber nur geringe zusätzliche 40 MHz im Vergleich zur Strix selbst. Der acht Gigabyte große GDDR5-Speicher lässt sich um 400 MHz auf 4.400 MHz übertakten. Die Referenzkarte lässt oft 4.500 MHz zu, allerdings hat Asus auch die Speicherspannung um 0,25 Volt auf 0,975 Volt reduziert.
> Dennoch sind es die zusätzlichen 400 MHz beim Speicher, die noch ein Plus an Performance aus der Grafikkarte herausholen. Je nach Spiel steigt die Performance um vier bis sechs Prozent an. Die reine GPU-Übertaktung würde dagegen nur zusätzliche drei Prozent an Leistung ermöglichen.


Quote:


> overclockability
> 
> The Polaris-10 GPU to the Asus Radeon RX 480 Strix can be around 40 MHz to 1,370 MHz overclock, before it comes to the first graphic errors. That is about 100 MHz more than the standard clock of the reference card, but only minor additional 40 MHz compared to Strix itself. The eight gigabyte of GDDR5 memory can be overclocked to 400 MHz to 4,400 MHz. The reference card does often 4.500 MHz, however, Asus has also reduced the memory voltage to 0.25 volts to 0,975 volts.
> Nevertheless, there are the additional 400 MHz in the memory, bring out the still a plus in performance from the graphics card. Depending on the game, the performance increases by four to six percent. The pure GPU overclocking, however, would only allow an additional three percent of power


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*


I don't know how they reached such a low overclock with an AIB card. Users here have done over 1400mhz stable.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> I don't know how they reached such a low overclock with an AIB card. Users here have done over 1400mhz stable.


silicon lottery ?


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> silicon lottery ?


Possibly, but this is with a reference cooler.


----------



## sugarhell

They just dont have time to overclock better and learn how the card react. Reviews need to meet a deadline. Overclocking needs time thats why you see users here pushing their ref 480 up to 1500 on water.


----------



## Themisseble

That OC benchmark looks fishy. Doesnt RX 480 stock run around 1200MHz...?


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> Possibly, but this is with a reference cooler.


Silicon is the bigger limiting factor in the case of the rx480. It's power delivery system is good enough for a 250watt system. Since most of the best overclocks using the reference cooler were done using 100% fan speed, the improvements over reference using an AIB using it's standard settings was never going to be that impressive.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> They just dont have time to overclock better and learn how the card react. Reviews need to meet a deadline. Overclocking needs time thats why you see users here pushing their ref 480 up to 1500 on water.


That's with bench volts(1.35 volts), water and bench clocks(not an indicator for stability), which is hardly representative of 24/7 gaming clocks.

With normal air, that's going to be 300watts of power(due to leakage) and considering the die size, is dangerous. That's like a 600watt 290x.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

ASUS is on the roll again











I could bet now that 2 fanned Nitro will beat it in noise and cooling


----------



## sugarhell

That's only 3 heatpipes... Wow


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Also, they needed to increase Power Target for the card not to throttle. Now, can AIB cards increase PT on hardware level? Cause if not all 480's will throttle if PT is not increased in drivers by users.


----------



## DaaQ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> That's only 3 heatpipes... Wow


Looking at the chip print left in the thermal paste, more like 2 heatpipes.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DaaQ*
> 
> Looking at the chip print left in the thermal paste, more like 2 heatpipes.


More like 2 heatpipes and 1/3


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> Also, they needed to increase Power Target for the card not to throttle. Now, can AIB cards increase PT on hardware level? Cause if not all 480's will throttle if PT is not increased in drivers by users.


Yes that's possible, from the computerbase 1060 review about the MSI Gaming X:

Quote:


> MSI takes a different approach in the GeForce GTX 1060 Gaming X 6G. The manufacturer sets the target power to high, so that the graphics card is not slowed down by this parameter.


https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2016-07%2Fgeforce-gtx-1060-test%2F3%2F%23abschnitt_taktraten_der_founders_edition_und_msi_gaming


----------



## Ha-Nocri

yes, wouldn't be surprised that ASUS are just lazy and don't care. We'll see Nitro soon.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> ASUS is on the roll again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could bet now that 2 fanned Nitro will beat it in noise and cooling


No memory cooling and reduced memory voltage to 0.975V is probably why the memory will overclock like ass no matter what on the 480 Strix.

Man it's almost as if Asus is trying its damned hardest to convince me to NOT buy their GPUs ever.


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> No memory cooling and reduced memory voltage to 0.975V is probably why the memory will overclock like ass no matter what on the 480 Strix.
> 
> Man it's almost as if Asus is trying its damned hardest to convince me to NOT buy their GPUs ever.


They definitely succeeded with that with me, a long time ago... Sapphire is the one to get. Although I'm curious towards XFX also.


----------



## ChevChelios

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/26.html
Quote:


> Maximum overclock of our sample is 2250 MHz on the memory (13% overclock), which is limited by the adjustment limit in AMD's drivers. GPU overclocking works slightly better than the AMD reference design, reaching 1355 MHz (3% overclock).
> 
> Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 3.0%.


thats second review now of the 480 Strix with underwhelming OC

ze germans got 1370 & TPU got 1355


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> ASUS is on the roll again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could bet now that 2 fanned Nitro will beat it in noise and cooling


It's cool lads Rev. 1.1 will have 10 heatpipes.










Nitro all the way.


----------



## fatmario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/26.html
> thats second review now of the 480 Strix with underwhelming OC
> 
> ze germans got 1370 & TPU got 1355


I am not impress with asus 480 STRIX review either and isn't asus strix supposed to be highest priced AIB partner model ?


----------



## fatmario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JambonJovi*
> 
> It's cool lads Rev. 1.1 will have 10 heatpipes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nitro all the way.


what makes you think nitro will do any better then asus strix ?


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fatmario*
> 
> I am not impress with asus 480 STRIX review either and isn't asus strix supposed to be highest priced AIB partner model ?


Yes, which is ironic because they are the worst in quality.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/26.html
> thats second review now of the 480 Strix with underwhelming OC
> 
> ze germans got 1370 & TPU got 1355


I wonder if they altered the power target ? it just seems to me either they had a great 480 that did not throttle, maybe a very good card or in an open air review bench , or the strix was throttling.

Its not the reviewers job to test power target and sustained boost clocks for an "out of the box" review i know but there was a video i watched of the XFX non ref 480 throttling its 1328 boost down to 1266 mhz until they upped the power target to about 20% i think it was and then it held its 1328 boost in the Witcher3 . That game seems to bring out the throttling well .

You can also up the power target on reference too , however the aibs are better at cooling and supplying the power via 8 pin. Do we know if they played with the power target at techpower up ? If they didn't then i kind of would expect this result , especially with variability in review samples / gpu asics etc.

"Overclocking results listed in this section are achieved with the default fan and voltage settings as defined in the VGA BIOS. We choose this approach as it is the most realistic scenario for most users."

Hmm doesnt seem like they pushed it at all .. no extra voltage ? You buy a strix and don't up power target - fans or voltage .. weak attempt at overclocking in my opinion.

Give me 80% fans, full voltage, max power target .. then lets see 1400+ clocks more like it.


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fatmario*
> 
> what makes you think nitro will do any better then asus strix ?


The Nitro+ OC's boost clock (1342MHz) is already close enough to the OC results that we've seen so far.
Now fair enough, I'm not saying that they're the MAX achievable overclocks (nowhere near that), depends on
individual chips, but surely the Nitro has _at least_ another 50-60MHz that can be squeezed out of it.

Oh, ye of little faith









And if I'm wrong... well... then I'll be wrong. Not gonna lose any sleep over it.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JambonJovi*
> 
> The Nitro's boost clock (1342MHz) is already close enough to the OC results that we've seen so far.
> Now fair enough, I'm not saying that they're the MAX achievable overclocks (nowhere near that), depends on
> individual chips, but surely the Nitro has _at least_ another 50-60MHz that can be squeezed out of it.
> 
> Oh, ye of little faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if I'm wrong... well... then I'll be wrong. Not gonna lose any sleep over it.


The techpowerup review of the strix 480 overclocking one is a pretty weak attempt at overclocking IMHO , from what i can see no PT increase, no voltages increases, no fan rpm increases.

I don't like what i'm seeing on the quality side of the strix howwever . That heatpipe sitting on the gpu like that is just terrible however , and no ram cooling etc .. i would pass the strix by looking at that.


----------



## daviejams

That techpowerup review , they do the tomb raider test in DX12 but not hitman because they say its full of bugs ? And where is doom ?

hmmm , waiting on reviews off the powercolour devil version - £249.99 on overclockers uk. Says the boost is 1330mhz , interested in how that will overclock


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> That techpowerup review , they do the tomb raider test in DX12 but not hitman because they say its full of bugs ? And where is doom ?
> 
> hmmm , waiting on reviews off the powercolour devil version - £249.99 on overclockers uk. Says the boost is 1330mhz , interested in how that will overclock


Meanwhile the developers of tomb raider said that the dx12 version is still on beta...


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> That techpowerup review , they do the tomb raider test in DX12 but not hitman because they say its full of bugs ? And where is doom ?
> 
> hmmm , waiting on reviews off the powercolour devil version - £249.99 on overclockers uk. Says the boost is 1330mhz , interested in how that will overclock


Yeah , if you read the overclocking method they used its amazing the card did not perform worse than default too . Force it to use more power and not increase power target







... amazing it didn't throttle more. Hitman full of bugs ? first i have heardof it. Guru3D surprised me too, testing doom in openGl still . You can see some real let-downs in the reviews at present.


----------



## ChevChelios

germans increased PT because they actually list core clock results with and without PT

they got 15 Mhz more than TPU


----------



## lolerk52

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robenger*
> 
> I don't know how they reached such a low overclock with an AIB card. Users here have done over 1400mhz stable.


No mention of increasing voltage.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Meanwhile the developers of tomb raider said that the dx12 version is still on beta...


Yeah the tech press have been pretty disappointing recently

I have no idea where they get that about hitman - they say about the DX12 version of the game (that runs beautifully) " too riddled with bugs to be integrated into our test bench for now"


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> germans increased PT because they actually list core clock results with and without PT
> 
> they got 15 Mhz more than TPU


At least they seem to know what they are doing then. There will be good Asics and bad still , so i guess the one they got was not that special if that's the case. Did they increase voltage ?

I have yet to read that review, it will be interesting to see the increase over ref they achieve with the PT tuned.

I dont think i'm been extreme here , if you want to get max oc you go 80% fan (so you can live with noise) , max voltage and max powertune .. am i not right ?? before we make the supposed disappointing conclusions about the AIB cards lets make sure the basics are in place anything less is failed attempt at pushing the limits.


----------



## Semel

So.. another overclocker's dream huh?


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Semel*
> 
> So.. another overclocker's dream huh?


In the hands of a decent overclocker i'm sure its very nice. If you want to leave at default voltage / default power targets / default fan do us a favour , buy the ref cards.


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> The techpowerup review of the strix 480 overclocking one is a pretty weak attempt at overclocking IMHO , from what i can see no PT increase, no voltages increases, no fan rpm increases.


Of course lol. God forbid an RX 480 getting a few more fps over the 1060.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> That techpowerup review , they do the tomb raider test in DX12 but not hitman because they say its full of bugs ? *And where is doom ?*


Obviously not worth testing. It's only bloody DOOM. Amirite ?


----------



## daviejams

I reckon the powercolour devil one will oc to 1400mhz , its at 1330mhz out the box and as a nice bonus it has a DVI port


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JambonJovi*
> 
> Obviously not worth testing. It's only bloody DOOM. Amirite ?


They would probably have tested it in openGL


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JambonJovi*
> 
> Of course lol. God forbid an RX 480 getting a few more fps over the 1060.
> Obviously not worth testing. It's only bloody DOOM. Amirite ?


Normally i don't buy into sabotage type conspiracies but i really have to wonder, i mean these are made to overclock cards - ripe for pushing hard and you don't touch voltage ? or PT ? or fans ? i just can't believe it , you push the mhz sliders and that's it ?? . Any overclocking guide will go through those basics.

I'm not saying if you do all that , that all samples will hit 1400+ , but without doing all the above tweaks don't tell me the card could not get there . Some Ref cards got there doing those same tweaks .

Wake me up please when we see a real reviewer who knows what he's doing with overclocking.


----------



## prznar1

Check it out


----------



## comagnum

I don't understand how these people are getting their "max oc" values. I can get 100% stable at 1360 @ 1150mv (stock bios max) with 2200 memory @ 975mv with a hackjob aftermarket cooler set up on a chepo budget motherboard and barely passable psu (rosewill arc 650w). There are many other users here that have achieved the same if not better.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> I don't understand how these people are getting their "max oc" values. I can get 100% stable at 1360 @ 1150mv (stock bios max) with 2200 memory @ 975mv with a hackjob aftermarket cooler set up on a chepo budget motherboard and barely passable psu (rosewill arc 650w). There are many other users here that have achieved the same if not better.


Failed attempts at overclocking sums it up. At least the TPU review that's a very fair summation of it.

For those that do buy the strix there is also GPUtweak2 with the asus card that allows voltages beyond 1.150 i hear . Still that might be taking it a bit far for most reviews admittedly. Nice for the enthusiast however.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> I don't understand how these people are getting their "max oc" values. I can get 100% stable at 1360 @ 1150mv (stock bios max) with 2200 memory @ 975mv with a hackjob aftermarket cooler set up on a chepo budget motherboard and barely passable psu (rosewill arc 650w). There are many other users here that have achieved the same if not better.


Ill repost myself.




A lot of info coming from real deal overclockers.


----------



## Orthello

Yeah , i'd love to have a play with a ref card seeing that 1500mhz vid lol.

Put two of them in the chilled rig , get to 1600 maybe







Would be a bit of fun.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> germans increased PT because they actually list core clock results with and without PT
> 
> they got 15 Mhz more than TPU


Why is everyone so optimistic with RX480 overclocking? Maybe Rx480s aren't great clockers.


----------



## the9quad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> Why is everyone so optimistic with RX480 overclocking? Maybe Rx480s aren't great clockers.


It's like this with every new CPU and GPU.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> Why is everyone so optimistic with RX480 overclocking? Maybe Rx480s aren't great clockers.


There is the silicon lottery in everything , some ref cards do 1420 mhz , others 1330 mhz etc. The excitement also comes from getting rid of the throttling which helps just as much as the overclocking.

With some mods and voltage tweaks , liquid cooling etc you are in the realm of high 1400s or early 1500s. That's been done on reference cards.

What i do like about this GPU from what i have seen is , it does seem to scale with cooling and voltage .. a bit anyhow. Its not a Tahiti for sure - wringed 1400 mhz out of those with the lightnings (chilled) but its still something. If you look across the fence as an overclocker at pascal overclocking (even compared to maxwell) you just can't get excited about that in comparison.


----------



## prznar1

Seeing how complex polaris architecture is, and what performance it shows i think its a great overclocker. But we are just missing the proper tools to play with it. Wait for custom bios, some custom card with better voltage control over consumer software and ofc seriously good thermal solution it will be possible to reach 1.5 ghz.


----------



## JackCY

When the hell will they unlock the memory OC? They still limit it to 2250 only when in fact 2400 is doable with these chips on other cards.
The power consumption is poor though it's definitely a Maxwell level like consumption for the performance it has. Considering the size and transistor count it's doing ok but it's perf/power ratio poor.

They need to start a price war. This STRIX certainly doesn't convince me to buy a 480 over 1060 at equal price.

AMD GPUs almost never OC well, it's like +100MHz over reference, maximum. So with 480 that's about 1366MHz.


----------



## blue1512

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> When the hell will they unlock the memory OC? They still limit it to 2250 only when in fact 2400 is doable with these chips on other cards.
> The power consumption is poor though it's definitely a Maxwell level like consumption for the performance it has. Considering the size and transistor count it's doing ok but it's perf/power ratio poor.
> 
> They need to start a price war. This STRIX certainly doesn't convince me to buy a 480 over 1060 at equal price.
> 
> AMD GPUs almost never OC well, it's like +100MHz over reference, maximum. So with 480 that's about 1366MHz.


Have you seen a 975MHz 7970 clocked at 1300MHz, or a 850MHz 7850 clocked at 1350MHz on air? They are great clockers, mate. Hawaii and Fiji don't clocked well, but they were on the end of 28nm uarch.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blue1512*
> 
> Have you seen a 975MHz 7970 clocked at 1300MHz, or a 850MHz 7850 clocked at 1350MHz on air? They are great clockers, mate. Hawaii and Fiji don't clocked well, but they were on the end of 28nm uarch.


Hawaii was not all that bad. My 290X can do an easy 15% core (1150 up from 1000). It can probably go higher but it is just not worth the extra heat in my book.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blue1512*
> 
> Have you seen a 975MHz 7970 clocked at 1300MHz, or a 850MHz 7850 clocked at 1350MHz on air? They are great clockers, mate. Hawaii and Fiji don't clocked well, but they were on the end of 28nm uarch.


I always hear about these magical 7970s when 280x were lucky to do 1200MHz, which is around +150MHz compared to stock AIB. There sure were some nice clockers but the newer the less they seem to clock over what AMD sets them at reference.
And the heat indeed goes nuts especially with higher volts with AMD.


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> I always hear about these magical 7970s when 280x were lucky to do 1200MHz, which is around +150MHz compared to stock AIB. There sure were some nice clockers but the newer the less they seem to clock over what AMD sets them at reference.
> And the heat indeed goes nuts especially with higher volts with AMD.


my 280x can't hit 1200mhz that's for sure. my oc was 1120mhz if I remember correctly


----------



## comagnum

I had mine at 1150/1600 for a long time.


----------



## blue1512

Sweet old 7970 lightning. Just can't find the 1300MHz picture at this moment. This old thread doesn't have the picture though
http://www.overclock.net/t/1272968/7970-lightning-brickwall-at-1300mhz


----------



## Blackops_2

Benched on air with my 7970 at 1200/1700 just had to turn the AC down and the blower up lol. I ran 1125/1575 on a day to day basis. The 7970 is probably one of my favorite GPUs of all time. Really loved that card. I have a block on it now but haven't put it in a loop to see what i could do. I'm willing to bet i could hit 1200/1700 on water.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Keep in mind that the CPUs being used in the tests are as old as dirt but its pretty telling. Its a shame to see AMD GPUs still struggle on slower CPUs. Even on Doom Vulkan the 480 gets murdered by the 1060 on the older CPUs.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the CPUs being used in the tests are as old as dirt but its pretty telling. Its a shame to see AMD GPUs still struggle on slower CPUs. Even on Doom Vulkan the 480 gets murdered by the 1060 on the older CPUs.


Even some newer cpus will struggle with these gpus. I have not seen many 980s paired with older systems, have you?

Sandys maybe but not even an i3. Nubs will be the ones who will pair these things to older systems simply because they are affordable.

Heck, i would not even recommend pairing these gpus with an A10. lol


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blue1512*
> 
> Sweet old 7970 lightning. Just can't find the 1300MHz picture at this moment. This old thread doesn't have the picture though
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1272968/7970-lightning-brickwall-at-1300mhz
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Fond memories .. set myself a world record with those on 12/8/2012 . 7970 lightnings at 1400/1850 CFX. 3D Mark 2011 xtreme. Running about -10c on GPUs.

Post #293
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=363597&page=15

Lightnings were just sick cards. I can only hope for a vega lightning to come


----------



## specopsFI

I wouldn't call Hawaii a bad clocker. Grenada, sure, since those were already pushed beyond their optimum range at stock, but a very doable 24/7 OC of 1150MHz was +21% over a reference 290. Personally, I'm not too keen on suicide runs with non-plausible tweaks, so I consider 15-20% over stock pretty good.

It's looking more and more like 14/16nm aren't especially great for OC, but at least with 480 there is some variation from chip to chip so you might get lucky. With Pascal, it is what it is no matter what.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Well, default 290's clock is 947MHz. Mine runs @1125 24/7

Only Hawaii and Fiji are bad clockers rly.


----------



## AliNT77

ran my 7950 @1200-1700 for almost a year for gaming... ref. was 800-1250 BTW









now i have r9 290 @1135-1700 ...


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> Even some newer cpus will struggle with these gpus. I have not seen many 980s paired with older systems, have you?
> 
> Sandys maybe but not even an i3. Nubs will be the ones who will pair these things to older systems simply because they are affordable.
> 
> Heck, i would not even recommend pairing these gpus with an A10. lol


Problem is, a lot of people do pair these GPU's with i3's and even A10's.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Problem is, a lot of people do pair these GPU's with i3's and even A10's.


Like I said, noobs who can't decipher benchmark reviews. Can't even recommend an i3 with a 1060.

Well, at least the 1060 owners will not have this issue . . .

http://www.overclock.net/t/1587616/i5-4690k-100-usage-gaming-temps-fine-windows-10


----------



## Glottis

Just checked 480 STRIX review. *Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 3.0%.* LOL

I can only facepalm at fanboys who kept saying how reference 480 is throttling and how custom will make night and day difference, in reality, reference 480 running stock VS STRIX 480 overclocked to the max has only 5.8% difference, according to TPU review. that's pathetic.


----------



## ChevChelios

they gonna make Pascals OC gains of 10-12% more fps look good lol


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> they gonna make Pascals OC gains of 10-12% more fps look good lol


They have that and the high dpc latency all in one package.lol


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Just checked 480 STRIX review. *Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 3.0%.* LOL
> 
> I can only facepalm at fanboys who kept saying how reference 480 is throttling and how custom will make night and day difference, in reality, reference 480 running stock VS STRIX 480 overclocked to the max has only 5.8% difference, according to TPU review. that's pathetic.


ASUS card is throttling too if you didn't notice. It's running below 1266MHz most of the time. Power Targer needs to be raised


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> ASUS card is throttling too if you didn't notice. It's running below 1266MHz most of the time. Power Targer needs to be raised


Power Target was raised in this benchmark if I'm reading it correctly:

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/asus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test/2/

As the card does not throttle in their "MAX" category.


----------



## Popple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Problem is, a lot of people do pair these GPU's with i3's and even A10's.


What's wrong with i3s?


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Popple*
> 
> What's wrong with i3s?


They've only got two cores


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Power Target was raised in this benchmark if I'm reading it correctly:
> 
> https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/asus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test/2/
> 
> As the card does not throttle in their "MAX" category.


Yes, in that review you have the MAX setting and that's the only one that should be considered


----------



## Popple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> They've only got two cores


So what GPU would you pair with a 6300?


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Popple*
> 
> So what GPU would you pair with a 6300?


Anything mid range I guess

I wouldn't buy an i3 for gaming though , i5 for the four cores


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the CPUs being used in the tests are as old as dirt but its pretty telling. Its a shame to see AMD GPUs still struggle on slower CPUs. Even on Doom Vulkan the 480 gets murdered by the 1060 on the older CPUs.


Yes dx11, but no for vulkan


----------



## Popple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Anything mid range I guess
> 
> I wouldn't buy an i3 for gaming though , i5 for the four cores


A 1060/480 is not midrange?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Popple*
> 
> A 1060/480 is not midrange?


no, midrange is GTX1050 / RX470.
cards that performs faster than GTX950 or R9-370, but slower than GTX970 or R9-390.


----------



## airfathaaaaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> no, midrange is GTX1050 / RX470.
> cards that performs faster than GTX950 or R9-370, but slower than GTX970 or R9-390.


480 is midrange its replacing the 380


----------



## ivymaxwell

when the heck is rx 480 aib gonna show up? get it together AMD!


----------



## JackCY

Sapphire Nation:


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *airfathaaaaa*
> 
> 480 is midrange its replacing the 380


not quite, they're reshuffling the tier listing, technically RX480 is meant to sit at where R9-390 is, but its too cheap to be labelled as RX490.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> not quite, they're reshuffling the tier listing, technically RX480 is meant to sit at where R9-390 is, but its too cheap to be labelled as RX490.


???

RX 480 is the 380 replacement. Expect an RX 485 for the 380x, RX 490 for 390, and RX 495 for 390x


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> ???
> 
> RX 480 is the 380 replacement. Expect an RX 485 for the 380x, RX 490 for 390, and RX 495 for 390x


i'm saying that they're going the same route as Nvidia's naming sense, x80 (e.g. 580,780,980) is their top mainstream card.

RX 485? what die are they gonna use for that?
RX480 is their biggest full polaris die.


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i'm saying that they're going the same route as Nvidia's naming sense, x80 (e.g. 580,780,980) is their top mainstream card.
> 
> RX 485? what die are they gonna use for that?
> RX480 is their biggest full polaris die.


No one knows, but that's what everything is pointing to. If anything I'd expect it to be just a die revision with some GDDR5X if anything.


----------



## Themisseble

Reral comparison between architectures will be shown with RX 470 vs R9 380X.

Both 256Bit (we will have to clock it down), both 32 ROPs and both 32 CUs. We will finally see good comparisoin between Tonga and Polaris in bandwidth efficiency, compute performance and so on.

Well I think that RX 480 is ROP limited and RX 470 will be just few % behind it.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Reral comparison between architectures will be shown with RX 470 vs R9 380X.
> 
> Both 256Bit (we will have to clock it down), both 32 ROPs and both 32 CUs. We will finally see good comparisoin between Tonga and Polaris in bandwidth efficiency, compute performance and so on.
> 
> Well I think that RX 480 is ROP limited and RX 470 will be just few % behind it.


RX470 should be faster, technically due to clock speed advantage, but also due to improved compression algorithms.

RX480 isn't exactly ROP limited, rather bandwidth limited, theres an indication of this when RX480 had it's VRAM OCed by 10%.


----------



## tice03

Where are you RX 480 AIB cards? I need options to choose from. Anybody want theorize what the hold up could be. Starting to get the feeling that this isn't a good sign for the RX 480 overall.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> No one knows, but that's what everything is pointing to. If anything I'd expect it to be just a die revision with some GDDR5X if anything.


i don't think they'd gonna be extending their 400 series with another chip SKU.

rather, they'd probably gonna launch a refreshed 500 series instead, with Vega at the enthusiast section.
something like 540~560 polaris11 refresh, 570~580 polaris10 refresh, 590 vega11, fury? vega10.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> RX470 should be faster, technically due to clock speed advantage, but also due to improved compression algorithms.
> 
> RX480 isn't exactly ROP limited, rather bandwidth limited, theres an indication of this when RX480 had it's VRAM OCed by 10%.


Well more rops or more bandwidth.. both would give RX 480 more performance.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Well more rops or more bandwidth.. both would give RX 480 more performance.


not quite, more rops on the same 256GB/s bandwidth is pointless.
but the same 32 rops on a higher bandwidth (e.g. 320GB/s) will result to a better performance.

on either case, 256bit GDDR5 is too narrow for RX480, they'll either have to fatten it up to 320bit or use GDDR5X.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> not quite, more rops on the same 256GB/s bandwidth is pointless.
> but the same 32 rops on a higher bandwidth (e.g. 320GB/s) will result to a better performance.
> 
> on either case, 256bit GDDR5 is too narrow for RX480, they'll either have to fatten it up to 320bit or use GDDR5X.


I will disagree with you. I think that more rops would give RX 480 more performance.


----------



## ChevChelios

GDDR5 + 256-bit looks to be enough for 1070, how is it not enough for 480 ?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> GDDR5 + 256-bit looks to be enough for 1070, how is it not enough for 480 ?


different architecture.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I will disagree with you. I think that more rops would give RX 480 more performance.


uhhh, no.
rops needs bandwidth to work on their share of resource, they're raster engines that requires enormous bandwidth.
adding more workhorse but not supplying the needed resource would only starve them, meaning each and every rop will be running at less than full capacity.

its like the difference between 2cores at 100% load and 4cores at 50% load.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> GDDR5 + 256-bit looks to be enough for 1070, how is it not enough for 480 ?


Different arch. and OC limited at 2250MHz because someone at AMD is a dumbo.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> different architecture.
> uhhh, no.
> rops needs bandwidth to work on their share of resource, they're raster engines that requires enormous bandwidth.
> adding more workhorse but not supplying the needed resource would only starve them, meaning each and every rop will be running at less than full capacity.
> 
> its like the difference between 2cores at 100% load and 4cores at 50% load.


I still disagree with you.
You can compare R9 380X vs R9 280X and you will see that extra bandwidth usually does not help.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Different arch. and OC limited at 2250MHz because someone at AMD is a dumbo.


to be fair AMD's ROPs are more powerful per unit, this means AMD needs less ROPs to do the same workload as Nvidia's ROPs.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I still disagree with you.
> You can compare R9 380X vs R9 280X and you will see that extra bandwidth usually does not help.


380X is a different architecture than 280X, i don't understand what you're implying?

or perhaps you forgot about this?



( Tahiti PRO ) 1792:112:32 933Mhz/1250Mhz 384bit @ 240GB/s
( Tonga PRO ) 1792:112:32 918Mhz/1250Mhz 256bit @ 176GB/s +40% (246GB/s theoretical)


----------



## NightAntilli

Sapphire RX 480 Nitro+ 4GB Review

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3098825/components-graphics/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-review-polaris-rethought-and-refined.html


----------



## Slomo4shO




----------



## NuclearPeace

Only 1,342 on the core from PC World. It seems like unless you go under water or luck out you aren't going to get more than 1,350 MHz out of the 480. PC world review said to also expect Nitros to hit selves a week from now.


----------



## NightAntilli

Also remember that it's the 4GB version, which has a much lower memory clock speed than the 8GB version. The 8GB version should perform even better.


----------



## mkmitch

All this talk and publicity is nice to read but where in the USA can I buy a AIB 8GB version? At this point is this AIB card paperware?


----------



## ChevChelios

did any of the reviews do manual OC of the Nitro ?


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Seems to perform about 10% better than the reference in games. Wonder if it's throttling, or did Sapphire increase the Power Target on hardware level.


----------



## Themisseble

What about Gigabyte gaming G1.. doesnt looks as good as sapphire, but cooler looks amazing? Anyone have clock numbers?


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> Seems to perform about 10% better than the reference in games. Wonder if it's throttling, or did Sapphire increase the Power Target on hardware level.


There's a dual BIOS... One is the quiet mode that maintains the 1266MHz, and the other one is the Boost mode. I can assume they increased the power target for boost mode, but I can't confirm it yet.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> to be fair AMD's ROPs are more powerful per unit, this means AMD needs less ROPs to do the same workload as Nvidia's ROPs.


Yes but it still doesn't seem to help them overall performance wise despite having better IPC.

MKMITCH: paperware.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Yes but it still doesn't seem to help them overall performance wise despite having better IPC.


probably because AMD's GPUs are more inclined to be used as compute units.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!








unlike compute workloads however, AMD's GPUs has issues when it comes to game workloads.


----------



## Blackops_2

I assume this has already been posted?
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Only 1,342 on the core from PC World. It seems like unless you go under water or luck out you aren't going to get more than 1,350 MHz out of the 480. PC world review said to also expect Nitros to hit selves a week from now.


Many members here have done over 1400mhz. This card should find it easier to maintain.


----------



## NightAntilli

Yes, and the interest is the Asus STRIX is quite low. They have a track record of slapping one cooler on everything despite it being a less than optimal setup, to put it mildly, and that hasn't changed with the RX 480.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NuclearPeace*
> 
> Only 1,342 on the core from PC World. It seems like unless you go under water or luck out you aren't going to get more than 1,350 MHz out of the 480. PC world review said to also expect Nitros to hit selves a week from now.


Uh.. Not the case. All that's needed is voltage and power adjustments. I'm able to get 1425 to the core stable. I've benched and played games at 1405/2200.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> I assume this has already been posted?
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/


not yet.

but wow, look at that temperature difference.


----------



## ivymaxwell

wow another week for aib 480's.... whyyyyy when gtx 1060 was on same day


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> probably because AMD's GPUs are more inclined to be used as compute units.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unlike compute workloads however, AMD's GPUs has issues when it comes to game workloads.


I asked you one thing.
Why is R9 380X still faster than R9 280X?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I asked you one thing.
> Why is R9 380X still faster than R9 280X?


clock speed, R9 380X is clocked higher than R9 280X.

plus, this implies that theres plenty of room in ROP throughput.
which is why they could squeeze in 12.5% more SPs without increasing ROP count in RX480, though they had to increase bandwidth.


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> clock speed, RX 380X is clocked higher than R9 280X.
> plus, this implies that theres plenty of room in ROP throughput.


The R9 380X is GCN 1.2, while the R9 280X is GCN 1.0


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> clock speed, RX 380X is clocked higher than R9 280X.
> plus, this implies that theres plenty of room in ROP throughput.


really?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDeHG4HCEVU


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> really?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDeHG4HCEVU


you're contradicting yourself.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> you're contradicting yourself.


Me?

tell me why is R9 280X slower while having higher bandwidth? Can someone please explain this?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Me?
> 
> tell me why is R9 280X slower while having higher bandwidth? Can someone please explain this?


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*


Do you realize this is only color compression right? And thats the main reason why R9 380X is faster than R9 280X.

I would really like to see R9 380X 256Bit vs 384Bit


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Do you realize this is only color compression right? And thats the main reason why R9 380X is faster than R9 280X.
> 
> I would really like to see R9 380X 256Bit vs 384Bit


you'd have to bios hack the R9 380X, plus whats the point? you could just downclock VRAM to get the same result.

this just tells us that color compression is working brilliantly.


----------



## Horsemama1956

You're unlikely to notice a gameplay difference between a 380X and 280X unless a game locks out features because of the VRAM difference.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> you'd have to bios hack the R9 380X, plus whats the point? this just tells us that color compression is working brilliantly.


I still say that RX 480 is ROP limited, it really shows up in older games.


----------



## NightAntilli

Sapphire Nitro+ RX 480 OC 8GB review;

http://www.eteknix.com/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-oc-8gb-graphics-card-review/

_*Pros*

0dB fan mode
8GB model provides an affordable VR-compliant GPU
Beautiful RGB illumination
Decent memory overclocking
Dual BIOS
Exceptional value
Gorgeous backplate
Innovative design
Premium cooling solution
Sleek and sophisticated aesthetic
Superb performance
Thrives when using latest APIs
Wonderful build quality

*Cons*

GTX 1060 is less power hungry_


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I still say that RX 480 is ROP limited, it really shows up in older games like BF3.


no, color compression can't keep up, it is bandwidth starved.
not every workload can be compressed.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> no, color compression can't keep up, it is bandwidth starved.
> not every workload can be compressed.


Sure. Stop it.
R9 270X shows its power and efficiency with much less shaders, lower memory bandwith.

R9 280X has 60% shader and 50% higher memory bandwidth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=235lvLa35lE

ROPs and tessellation.
http://techreport.com/review/30328/amd-radeon-rx-480-graphics-card-reviewed/5

R9 290 is actually x2 R9 270X


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> Sapphire Nitro+ RX 480 OC 8GB review;
> 
> http://www.eteknix.com/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-oc-8gb-graphics-card-review/
> 
> _*Pros*
> 
> 0dB fan mode
> 8GB model provides an affordable VR-compliant GPU
> Beautiful RGB illumination
> Decent memory overclocking
> Dual BIOS
> Exceptional value
> Gorgeous backplate
> Innovative design
> Premium cooling solution
> Sleek and sophisticated aesthetic
> Superb performance
> Thrives when using latest APIs
> Wonderful build quality
> 
> *Cons*
> 
> GTX 1060 is less power hungry_


yes indeed, cheese grater for the win.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> I assume this has already been posted?
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/


That's yesterday's news.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> That's yesterday's news.


wait what, i hadn't seen it posted, or was it buried?
rather its not on the main post yet.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> wait what, i hadn't seen it posted, or was it buried?
> rather its not on the main post yet.


I don't know, I try to post stuff around here but half the time someone is faster








Plus it's all on r/AMD or videocardz, which are the two places to look for since Google doesn't index reviews fast enough to show them up in searches.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> Sapphire Nitro+ RX 480 OC 8GB review;
> 
> http://www.eteknix.com/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-oc-8gb-graphics-card-review/
> 
> _*Pros*
> 
> 0dB fan mode
> 8GB model provides an affordable VR-compliant GPU
> Beautiful RGB illumination
> Decent memory overclocking
> Dual BIOS
> Exceptional value
> Gorgeous backplate
> Innovative design
> Premium cooling solution
> Sleek and sophisticated aesthetic
> Superb performance
> Thrives when using latest APIs
> Wonderful build quality
> 
> *Cons*
> 
> GTX 1060 is less power hungry_


Now that's a much better review than techpowerup's review of the asus card yesterday

Seems that they've tried a bit harder with the overclocking , included doom and used dx12 hitman

Now we wait on the powercolour versions review


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> ROPs and tessellation.
> http://techreport.com/review/30328/amd-radeon-rx-480-graphics-card-reviewed/5


you know this link just proves my point?



RX480's 32ROPs had an increased raster throughput compared to R9-380X's 32ROPs, this is mostly attributed to the clock difference.
but look at Fury X, RX480's 32ROPs easily surpasses it's raster throughput yet its still slower due to less SP and TMU count, this indicates that theres plenty of ROP headroom.

on a side note, R9-380X should have a 182.4GB/s bandwidth, the chart lists it wrong.


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> I don't know, I try to post stuff around here but half the time someone is faster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus it's all on r/AMD or videocardz, which are the two places to look for since Google doesn't index reviews fast enough to show them up in searches.


The results weren't that impressive on the Strix review from Techpowerup. It was lagging behind the 1060 in a considerable amount of benchmarks.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Now that's a much better review than techpowerup's review of the asus card yesterday
> 
> Seems that they've tried a bit harder with the overclocking , included doom and used dx12 hitman
> 
> Now we wait on the powercolour versions review


Yes that review seemed better but disappointing:

Power
custom 1060: 202W
custom 480 OC: 302W
Which is for the same performance more or less the 480 needs +50% power, ... AMD fail at performance/power all over again

Temperature
custom 1060: 63C
custom 480 OC: 75C

Even my damn 280x did 70-75C. They show even a damn Sapphire 390x Tri-X at 68C. So WTH Sapphire.

Blackops_2: yeah I know, I think the card was throttled on power or something, I would have to read it again. And they left out 1060 from some of it's charts, one has to open a 1060 review side by side when reading it.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> The results weren't that impressive on the Strix review from Techpowerup. It was lagging behind the 1060 in a considerable amount of benchmarks.


It's a terrible review - they even tested hitman in dx11


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> It's a terrible review - they even tested hitman in dx11


Not everyone has windows 10, so the DX11 version is still relevant.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Yes that review seemed better but disappointing:
> 
> Power
> custom 1060: 202W
> custom 480 OC: 302W
> Which is for the same performance more or less the 480 needs +50% power, ... AMD fail at performance/power all over again
> 
> Temperature
> custom 1060: 63C
> custom 480 OC: 75C
> 
> Even my damn 280x did 70-75C. They show even a damn Sapphire 390x Tri-X at 68C. So WTH Sapphire.
> 
> Blackops_2: yeah I know, I think the card was throttled on power or something, I would have to read it again.


Temps seem alright to me - my 7970 was oc to 1075mhz (I think) and hit into the high 80s under load and my 290x ... well it's not shy of 94c most of the time

At least they tested hitman in DX12 and included doom in vulcan which is what we should be looking at more than DX11 games from 3 years ago that all the other sites tested


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Not everyone has windows 10, so the DX11 version is still relevant.


They said it was because it's full of bugs

They did test rise of the tomb raider in DX12

The dx12 of that game is in beta


----------



## Blackops_2

Will be interesting to see how the rest of the AIBs fair. The one sapphire review i read they only got to 1360mhz. Still like the card a lot.


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> Will be interesting to see how the rest of the AIBs fair. The one sapphire review i read they only got to 1360mhz. Still like the card a lot.


PCWorld got to 1405 MHz but didn't receive a significant performance boost anyway...
http://www.itworld.com/article/3098825/components-graphics/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-review-polaris-rethought-and-refined.html?page=9


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Sure. Stop it.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Yes that review seemed better but disappointing:
> 
> Power
> custom 1060: 202W
> custom 480 OC: 302W
> Which is for the same performance more or less the 480 needs +50% power, ... AMD fail at performance/power all over again
> 
> Temperature
> custom 1060: 63C
> custom 480 OC: 75C
> 
> Even my damn 280x did 70-75C. They show even a damn Sapphire 390x Tri-X at 68C. So WTH Sapphire.
> 
> Blackops_2: yeah I know, I think the card was throttled on power or something, I would have to read it again. And they left out 1060 from some of it's charts, one has to open a 1060 review side by side when reading it.


You can push GTX 1060 for 10% more and you will get 50% more power.
But I dont get where did they got 100W more? and HOW?


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> PCWorld got to 1405 MHz but didn't receive a significant performance boost anyway...
> http://www.itworld.com/article/3098825/components-graphics/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-review-polaris-rethought-and-refined.html?page=9


Was it with Mem OC? Because the 4GB only has 1750MHz while you can OC the 8GB to 2200MHz or even 2250MHz and iirc Mem OC with Polaris gives you a decent performance boost.


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> Was it with Mem OC? Because the 4GB only has 1750MHz while you can OC the 8GB to 2200MHz or even 2250MHz and iirc Mem OC with Polaris gives you a decent performance boost.


Memory was increased by 100 MHz, so it was still slightly slower than stock 8GB.

BUT, if that is true, this means the GPU is actually bandwidth limited... You have to have more memory bandwidth to get more out of the GPU... So the Polaris GPU actually has more performance potential at those clocks than can be extracted from it with the current GPU setup.

Will we see the RX 485 with more memory bandwidth to improve the GPU's performance...?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> You can push GTX 1060 for 10% more and you will get 50% more power.
> But I dont get where did they got 100W more? and HOW?


the power consumption of RX480 is from the contributions of power saving features.
overclocking may have caused this feature to have less of an effect, hence a drastic power consumption increase.

e.g. at low clock and low voltage, the card is forced to power throttle in a nanosecond scale, thus reducing power consumption.
at a high clock and high voltage however, the card's power throttling is hindered, thus drastically increasing power consumption.


----------



## Xuper

Dunno How ! Nano is 28nm, RX 480 is 14nm but here

http://www.eteknix.com/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-oc-8gb-graphics-card-review/11/

Nano = 267w vs RX 480 = 302w

What the hell is going on ?


----------



## Disharmonic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Didn't realize there are so much stock in Europe.
> 
> Mostly out of stock in North America if you want to pay MSRP.
> 
> Edit: There seem to be plenty of stock in Asia too.


Well they're selling them for 300+€ here. Though Germany and the UK seem to have more reasonable prices.


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> PCWorld got to 1405 MHz but didn't receive a significant performance boost anyway...
> http://www.itworld.com/article/3098825/components-graphics/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-review-polaris-rethought-and-refined.html?page=9


I wonder why the gains in clock speed aren't really translating to much performance?


----------



## comagnum

Because they're not overclocking it correctly. Anything over 1360mhz needs a boost in power level to compensate. 50% won't show gains at those speeds. Alternately, anything over 1.15v also needs a boost in power level%

To get optimal performance with my card at 1405/2200 (1.2v and .975v respectively) I needed 160%. At 1.25v and 1425 it required 165%.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xuper*
> 
> Dunno How ! Nano is 28nm, RX 480 is 14nm but here
> 
> http://www.eteknix.com/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-oc-8gb-graphics-card-review/11/
> 
> Nano = 267w vs RX 480 = 302w
> 
> What the hell is going on ?




Well RX 480 silent mode looks quiet efficient.


----------



## epic1337

reference RX480 is also efficient, i think Asus did something to the card itself, bumping the power profile for example.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> stock RX480 is also efficient, i think Asus did something to the card itself, bumping the power profile for example.


RX 470 might have better efficiency.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> RX 470 might have better efficiency.


it should be, RX470 will have disabled parts compared to RX480.
at the very least 10% more efficient at the same clock and voltage.


----------



## comagnum

I like that we debate efficiency on an overclocking forum. /s


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> I like that we debate efficiency on an overclocking forum. /s


its now a trend, plus power consumption also affects temperature.
meaning, a card that is more efficient even when overclocked will also be much cooler.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> I like that we debate efficiency on an overclocking forum. /s


Its very common for AMD GPUs.


But every guy from NVIDIA will probably buy ZOTAC AMP extreme.


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Because they're not overclocking it correctly. Anything over 1360mhz needs a boost in power level to compensate. 50% won't show gains at those speeds. Alternately, anything over 1.15v also needs a boost in power level%
> 
> To get optimal performance with my card at 1405/2200 (1.2v and .975v respectively) I needed 160%. At 1.25v and 1425 it required 165%.


I'm not sure how safe it is to run these cards at 1.25v.


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> I like that we debate efficiency on an overclocking forum. /s


Efficiency discussions belong on an overclocking forum. When you start off with a card that isn't that efficient to begin with, like the 480, it makes overclocking more difficult.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> I'm not sure how safe it is to run these cards at 1.25v.


I'm actually really shocked with how much voltage are running through these cards. My 380x only consumes 1.06V at 1040MHz and its just on 28nm.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> I'm not sure how safe it is to run these cards at 1.25v.


As long as temperatures are kept in check I don't think it would harm it short term. I wouldn't suggest 24/7 speeds to utilize that much voltage. I've kept mine at 1380 @ 1.175 for a while now, though.


----------



## NightAntilli

So can we conclude that if it wasn't for AMD's wish to be power efficient, we could get a heck of a lot more performance out of a Polaris GPU?

I simply want performance. Couldn't care less about power consumption of GPU's. 100W will not be notable on a power bill, and if an R9 390X can be kept cool, so can a Polaris graphics card.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> As long as temperatures are kept in check I don't think it would harm it short term. I wouldn't suggest 24/7 speeds to utilize that much voltage. I've kept mine at 1380 @ 1.175 for a while now, though.


the issue isn't only heat, but also semiconductor degradation.
each transistor has a voltage limit to be wary of, this is known as semiconductor breakdown voltage.
too much voltage can erode or even puncture the semiconductor, destroying the transistor as a result.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> So can we conclude that if it wasn't for AMD's wish to be power efficient, we could get a heck of a lot more performance out of a Polaris GPU?
> 
> I simply want performance. Couldn't care less about power consumption of GPU's. 100W will not be notable on a power bill, and if an R9 390X can be kept cool, so can a Polaris graphics card.


yes, including Tonga and Fiji.
and no, clock speed to voltage ratio is still limited.


----------



## NightAntilli

In other news;


----------



## NuclearPeace

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> So can we conclude that if it wasn't for AMD's wish to be power efficient, we could get a heck of a lot more performance out of a Polaris GPU?
> 
> I simply want performance. Couldn't care less about power consumption of GPU's. 100W will not be notable on a power bill, and if an R9 390X can be kept cool, so can a Polaris graphics card.


Yes, but the 480 is designed to fit a mid range role where people won't be having cases with amazing airflow or the strongest PSUs.

The reason why the 480 has problems is because of its low efficiency. If you have to search around on the internet for mods to increase the power limit past +50% to do any decent overclocking, then something is seriously wrong.


----------



## bossie2000

The RX 480 is indeed a awesome piece of hardware.Allready smoking the 1060 with early drivers. Lol my ash off!!








Say goodbye 1060 DX12!!


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> The RX 480 is indeed a awesome piece of hardware.Allready smoking the 1060 with early drivers. Lol my ash off!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say goodbye 1060 DX12!!


Where exactly are you seeing it "smoking" the 1060? Sorry, but the 1060 out performs the 480 in 80% of games. And the AIBs are pretty much the same price. So for DX11 $/perf is actually in Nvidia's favor.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> The RX 480 is indeed a awesome piece of hardware.Allready smoking the 1060 with early drivers!




https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q4VT3AzIBXSfKZdsJF94qvlJ7Mb1VvJvLowX6dmHWVo/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0
Quote:


> Average % Increase from 480 to 1060 13.47%


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> So can we conclude that if it wasn't for AMD's wish to be power efficient, we could get a heck of a lot more performance out of a Polaris GPU?
> 
> I simply want performance. Couldn't care less about power consumption of GPU's. 100W will not be notable on a power bill, and if an R9 390X can be kept cool, so can a Polaris graphics card.


Efficiency. If AMD would wanted to be efficient they would sell 4GB cards only with little lower clock and better chips.... but would they have to delay and more cost? quantity over quality? You choose.

Well RX 480 is not that bad and if you want efficiency just undervolt it and clock it around 1150MHz/4000MHz - you will probably get around 120W.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q4VT3AzIBXSfKZdsJF94qvlJ7Mb1VvJvLowX6dmHWVo/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0


How interesting that Doom is sitting at the Directx 12 end of the table. This graph needs a chronology.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q4VT3AzIBXSfKZdsJF94qvlJ7Mb1VvJvLowX6dmHWVo/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0


Well isnt RX 480 faster in wicther 3? and DOOM VULKAN only 14%? Should be Rx 480 faster in ashes DX12? should I go on?


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Well isnt RX 480 faster in wicther 3?


nope
Quote:


> Should be Rx 480 faster in ashes DX12?


nope

they're about equal in both of those in all reviews I saw (Witcher 3 _mostly_ goes to 1060)

was surprised myself about Ashes


----------



## rv8000

Quite hilarious, why did reviewers only get 4GB versions with downclocked memory. Big mistake for sapphire on their part.

It appears that within the nvidia trend for overclocking, most reviewers dont have the time or know how to clock this card properly. Reviews are getting worse and worse...


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> they're about equal in both of those in all reviews I saw (Witcher 3 _mostly_ goes to 1060)
> 
> was surprised myself about Ashes


----------



## bossie2000

Ooh man!!







you spoiled my fanboy night out


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*


thats just 1 review with a 1 fps difference ref vs ref

other reviews/test runs show a lead for 1060 or a parity

the avg is in that googledoc I linked


----------



## scorch062

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*


These Witcher 3 numbers look lower than the usual 1080p. As well as, 390x beating a 980 in Witcher 3?


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> nope
> nope
> 
> they're about equal in both of those in all reviews I saw (Witcher 3 _mostly_ goes to 1060)
> 
> was surprised myself about Ashes


Computerbase.de
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/geforce-gtx-1060-test/3/#diagramm-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-1920-1080_2
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-pascal,4679-5.html

Actually looking at benchmark and comparison and you can see some controversies


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> How interesting that Doom is sitting at the Directx 12 end of the table. This graph needs a chronology.


It HAS chronology. From biggest lead, to biggest deficit


----------



## rv8000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Listen, if you want to lie to yourself and say that the RX480 is faster in DX11 (Which represents 99% of games out today), go right ahead. I'm buying an RX 480 *knowing* that it's slower in DX11 (I'm not even on Win10).


Not really trying to be a pain, but dx11 does not account for 99% of the pc game base. Many titles are still dx9, dx10, OGL, and a small mix of dx12/mantle/vulkan. If I had to guess it would be closer to 60%


----------



## Lass3

480 seems to overclock/scale quite bad compared to 1060. Asus RX 480 Strix is like 40dB under load?! Uhm..


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> 480 seems to overclock/scale quite bad compared to 1060. Asus RX 480 Strix is like 40dB under load?! Uhm..


Cause Asus f*cked up, the temp target for the strix is 65°C @default that's why the card is "way too loud"


https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2016-07%2Fasus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test%2F4%2F%23abschnitt_manuelle_lueftersteuerung_ruhe_ohne_nachteile


----------



## sammkv

MSI > ASUS. MSI really stepped up their game when it comes to aftermarket coolers


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> Cause Asus f*cked up, the temp target for the strix is 65°C @default that's why the card is "way too loud"
> 
> 
> https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2016-07%2Fasus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test%2F4%2F%23abschnitt_manuelle_lueftersteuerung_ruhe_ohne_nachteile


I see, but overclocking seems really bad either way. Even with temp target 65C / massive RPM it can't even hit 1360 MHz stable?

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/26.html

3% performance gained? That is pretty bad. I hope it's something with the wattman app? Or did AMD max out these chips?

I think the MSI 1060 Gaming gained more than 15% performance after overclocking, which means close to 20% better performance compared to Founders Edition.

Nonetheless, Custom RX 480 4GB is good value, might get my brother one.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> I see, but overclocking seems really bad either way. Even with temp target 65C / massive RPM it can't even hit 1360 MHz stable?
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/26.html
> 
> 3% performance gained? That is pretty bad. I hope it's something with the wattman app? Or did AMD max out these chips?
> 
> I think the MSI 1060 Gaming gained more than 15% performance after overclocking, which means close to 20% better performance compared to Founders Edition.
> 
> Nonetheless, Custom RX 480 4GB is good value, might get my brother one.


I think that compared to the 1060 (which have AIB prices similar to 480 AIB prices) the value for performance is still quite a bit better, especially when considering overclocking headroom. None the less, I will still be getting myself a 480 (or whatever AMD comes up with by the time I upgrade)


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q4VT3AzIBXSfKZdsJF94qvlJ7Mb1VvJvLowX6dmHWVo/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0






Adored takes a lot of the review samples and compiles them, he ends up with an average 5.7% lead to the 1060, throwing out some he considers just inept if you will, like Toms.. Some sites are way more varied than others. Especially when you look at Tom's who had 6 out of 9 titles that were Gameworks titles. He also includes that Doom is most reviews is benched on OpenGL instead of Vulken, which to his defense all the cards have had an increase on vulken not just the 480. Of course the 480 substantially more than say the 1060 or 980 but they did see an increase compared to OpenGL.


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> I see, but overclocking seems really bad either way. Even with temp target 65C / massive RPM it can't even hit 1360 MHz stable?
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/26.html
> 
> 3% performance gained? That is pretty bad. I hope it's something with the wattman app? Or did AMD max out these chips?
> 
> I think the MSI 1060 Gaming gained more than 15% performance after overclocking, which means close to 20% better performance compared to Founders Edition.
> 
> Nonetheless, Custom RX 480 4GB is good value, might get my brother one.


you have to increase the PT for more performance, for example MSI increased the PT for the 1060 Gaming cause without it wouldn't hit the OCed boost clock.









And the Strix has 3 different modes. "Silent", "Gaming" and "OC".

TPU tested the Strix with "Gaming" (marked in the img below), that's the one out of the box. With OC-Mode you'll gain another ~4% performance.



https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2016-07%2Fasus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test%2F2%2F%23abschnitt_taktraten_unter_last

"Max" just means with maximized PT so the Strix can hit the 1330MHz stable



https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2016-07%2Fasus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test%2F2%2F%23abschnitt_taktraten_unter_last


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adored takes a lot of the review samples and compiles them, he ends up with an average 5.7% lead to the 1060, throwing out some he considers just inept if you will, like Toms.. Some sites are way more varied than others. Especially when you look at Tom's who had 6 out of 9 titles that were Gameworks titles. He also includes that Doom is most reviews is benched on OpenGL instead of Vulken, which to his defense all the cards have had an increase on vulken not just the 480. Of course the 480 substantially more than say the 1060 or 980 but they did see an increase compared to OpenGL.


Makes absolutely no sense to throw out results just because it's gameworks considering those are games people play. Throwing out results because it doesn't fit his agenda is a joke.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Makes absolutely no sense to throw out results just because it's gameworks considering those are games people play. Throwing out results because it doesn't fit his agenda is a joke.


Aside from that, In gameworks titles, one can simply turn off the gameworks features. So leaving out Gameworks titles but leaving something like Hitman in is just not an accurate representation of the actual performance.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Listen, if you want to lie to yourself and say that the RX480 is faster in DX11 (Which represents 99% of games out today), go right ahead. I'm buying an RX 480 *knowing* that it's slower in DX11 (I'm not even on Win10).


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> you have to increase the PT for more performance, for example MSI increased the PT for the 1060 Gaming cause without it wouldn't hit the OCed boost clock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Strix has 3 different modes. "Silent", "Gaming" and "OC".
> 
> TPU tested the Strix with "Gaming" (marked in the img below), that's the one out of the box. With OC-Mode you'll gain another ~4% performance.
> 
> 
> 
> https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2016-07%2Fasus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test%2F2%2F%23abschnitt_taktraten_unter_last
> 
> "Max" just means with maximized PT so the Strix can hit the 1330MHz stable
> 
> 
> 
> https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2016-07%2Fasus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test%2F2%2F%23abschnitt_taktraten_unter_last


Just leave Anno 2205 out and GTX 1060 is slower. Nobody add QB/Forza in the benchmarks...

http://www.golem.de/news/geforce-gtx-1060-vs-radeon-rx-480-das-bringen-direct3d-12-und-vulkan-1607-122214.html


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exeed Orbit*
> 
> Aside from that, In gameworks titles, one can simply turn off the gameworks features. So leaving out Gameworks titles but leaving something like Hitman in is just not an accurate representation of the actual performance.


gameworks titles were developed with help from nvidia to ensure they would run optimally on nvidia hardware. Turn gameworks features off and you still have a game built with nvidia in mind.
Idk why I'm bothering explaining this to someone who thought MSI, Asus, and Gigabyte were nvidia exclusive partners..

edit: Reread in context, point still stands but I agree that you shouldn't remove any titles, gameworks or gaming evolved. Including dx12/Vulcan results as well


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Makes absolutely no sense to throw out results just because it's gameworks considering those are games people play. Throwing out results because it doesn't fit his agenda is a joke.


He said in the video disregarding Toms the difference was 5.7%. Reviewing with a majority of gameworks titles does leave the view skewed in favor of the 1060. Just as if they published a 1060 review with majority of gaming evolved titles. I share his sentiment on doom as biased as that sounds, considering vulken gave a performance boost across the board. I see your point though. To be honest the review variance is somewhat widespread. Go to one site and the 480 is slightly behind the 1060 go to the next and the 1060 is substantially leading.


----------



## cranfam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Makes absolutely no sense to throw out results just because it's gameworks considering those are games people play. Throwing out results because it doesn't fit his agenda is a joke.


He threw out the two "outlier" reviews, it made sense to me. Did he throw out all Gameworks games? I do not believe so. He threw THAT specific review out because it showed a clear bias (I thought, at least) toward the Nvidia card. He then threw out the review showing the RX480 beating the GTX 1060 because it was very different from the other reviews. Should RX480 fans be up in arms that he threw that review out as well?


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Makes absolutely no sense to throw out results just because it's gameworks considering those are games people play. Throwing out results because it doesn't fit his agenda is a joke.


Are you really that blind?

Tomshardware results included Project Physx for Christ sake, there never have been any game as biased as this one. No serious reviewer should ever even consider using something like Project Cars when comparing AMD vs Nvidia.

You suggesting to not throw that result out really shows your joke of an agenda.


----------



## SuperZan

Honestly, using PCars as part of a benchmark suite is like using a Roy quote and awarding it 200 FPS. It's just not objective or representative of anything.

Sent from my PC with a 1070 in it.


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Honestly, using PCars as part of a benchmark suite is like using a Roy quote and awarding it 200 FPS. It's just not objective or representative of anything.
> 
> Sent from my PC with a 1070 in it.


I have a G1 1070 and I approve this message.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Honestly, using PCars as part of a benchmark suite is like using a Roy quote and awarding it 200 FPS. It's just not objective or representative of anything.
> 
> Sent from my PC with a 1070 in it.


I have a 980 Ti and I *VERY STRONGLY DISAPPROVE* of this post.

Two thumbs down.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I have a 980 Ti and I *VERY STRONGLY DISAPPROVE* of this post.
> 
> Two thumbs down.


Oh no! The Huang-bots are deep-learning at an incredible rate!


----------



## magnek

I'm not a bot. I mean can bots post stuff like ಠ_ಠ or ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) or







?


----------



## SuperZan

I just don't know any more! Maybe that's why all those AI-assisted cars keep crashing, they're texting emoticons to message-boards for Nvidia's ad campaigns.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Are you really that blind?
> 
> Tomshardware results included Project Physx for Christ sake, there never have been any game as biased as this one. No serious reviewer should ever even consider using something like Project Cars when comparing AMD vs Nvidia.
> 
> You suggesting to not throw that result out really shows your joke of an agenda.


He threw out all of Toms/HardOCP, he didn't just throw out Project Cars unless I heard that wrong.

What agenda do I have?


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I just don't know any more! Maybe that's why all those AI-assisted cars keep crashing, they're texting emoticons to message-boards for Nvidia's ad campaigns.


Probably because the Tesla used in those Teslas didn't get the DPC latency update. As you can imagine lag can quite literally kill if you're on the move.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> He threw out all of Toms/HardOCP, he didn't just throw out Project Cars unless I heard that wrong.
> 
> What agenda do I have?


If he threw out both Toms and HardOCP's results then I think that's fair. I mean Toms tried their best to make the 480 look bad in their suite but HardOCP tried to make the 1060 look bad so it cancels out lol.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Probably because the Tesla used in those Teslas didn't get the DPC latency update. As you can imagine lag can quite literally kill if you're on the move.
> If he threw out both Toms and HardOCP's results then I think that's fair. I mean Toms tried their best to make the 480 look bad in their suite but HardOCP tried to make the 1060 look bad so it cancels out lol.


Don't you think it would be better to just throw out Pcars? PCars is the only big outlier on Toms Hardware review unless I missed something else. Definitely understand what you're saying though as majority of the games they used were GameWorks titles, but isn't that reality? There are a lot of games in the future that will be GameWorks titles....

Not sure on HardOCP's as I haven't looked at their benchmark yet, to see why their results are also vastly different from the majority.

EDIT: Seems like HARDOCP's review had only 4 games which is why their results are so different. Quite odd they didn't even test games like GTA V considering just about every review has that. GTA V seems pretty vendor neutral from what I've seen.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> So can we conclude that if it wasn't for AMD's wish to be power efficient, we could get a heck of a lot more performance out of a Polaris GPU?
> 
> I simply want performance. Couldn't care less about power consumption of GPU's. 100W will not be notable on a power bill, and if an R9 390X can be kept cool, so can a Polaris graphics card.


^this and so long as these cards do not have those crazy dpc latency issue.

But, where are the AIBs. At least NVidia have 1060 AIBs out, though, out of stock.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> ^this and so long as these cards do not have those crazy dpc latency issue.
> 
> But, where are the AIBs. At least NVidia have 1060 AIBs out, though, out of stock.


Ya I can't seem to find any available/for sale. I thought the STRIX/NITRO were released? Was looking to grab one for a friend as they've been wanting to build a Gaming PC for awhile now.


----------



## KarathKasun

With how much the RX 480 gains from memory clocks alone I wonder if we will have an HD 4850(DDR3)/4870(DDR5) split again. Launch RX 485 with GDDR5-X when availability is better for the memory.


----------



## Gdourado

I just saw the techpowerup review of the strix. In most titles at 1080p and 1440p it is still behind the 390x.
The air-cooled fury is also ahead.
Do you think that with future drivers the 480 will jump ahead? Or for the same price is the 390x a better buy? Or even a fury for a bit more but not much more money?


----------



## OneB1t

polaris will prolly never skip 390X as 390X is much better equiped (stock vs stock)
but its not that effective

so it depends if you want only performance or also little effectivity


----------



## Exilon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> I just saw the techpowerup review of the strix. In most titles at 1080p and 1440p it is still behind the 390x.
> The air-cooled fury is also ahead.
> Do you think that with future drivers the 480 will jump ahead? Or for the same price is the 390x a better buy? Or even a fury for a bit more but not much more money?


It probably won't catch a Fury. Maybe a 390X in some games. I see it behind Hawaii significantly in frostbite, which is strange. GCN hasn't changed all that much, so the 480 shares much of the optimizations that went to the previous architectures, but it obviously could use some work.


----------



## NightAntilli

If it wasn't for the 4GB of RAM I would actually get a Fury over the RX 480...


----------



## OneB1t

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exilon*
> 
> It probably won't catch a Fury. Maybe a 390X in some games. I see it behind Hawaii significantly in frostbite, which is strange. GCN hasn't changed all that much, so the 480 shares much of the optimizations that went to the previous architectures, but it obviously could use some work.


under dx12/vulkan hawaii is pretty strong (sometime even little under 980ti/GTX1070)


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Honestly, using PCars as part of a benchmark suite is like using a Roy quote and awarding it 200 FPS. It's just not objective or representative of anything.
> 
> Sent from my PC with a 1070 in it.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> I have a G1 1070 and I approve this message.


Pretty much...


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gdourado*
> 
> I just saw the techpowerup review of the strix. In most titles at 1080p and 1440p it is still behind the 390x.
> The air-cooled fury is also ahead.
> Do you think that with future drivers the 480 will jump ahead? Or for the same price is the 390x a better buy? Or even a fury for a bit more but not much more money?


No-one should take ASUS seriously for AMD cards. Cooling solution has 5 heat-pipes, only 2 of them are being used, fans are loud and it's *throttling* as ASUS don't care to increase Power Target via hardware. We need some real Sapphire Nitro 480 reviews tho as it fixed all above.


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Don't you think it would be better to just throw out Pcars? PCars is the only big outlier on Toms Hardware review unless I missed something else. Definitely understand what you're saying though as majority of the games they used were GameWorks titles, but isn't that reality? There are a lot of games in the future that will be GameWorks titles....
> 
> Not sure on HardOCP's as I haven't looked at their benchmark yet, to see why their results are also vastly different from the majority.
> 
> EDIT: Seems like HARDOCP's review had only 4 games which is why their results are so different. Quite odd they didn't even test games like GTA V considering just about every review has that. GTA V seems pretty vendor neutral from what I've seen.


Every reviewer averaged the 1060 being 5% faster than the RX 480, tomshardware averaged 3 times that in favor of the 1060 and HardOCP averaged almost 3 times in favor of the RX 480.

No reviewer tested Vulkan, which mind you is being used with the most popular game on steam, DOTA, that have more players than all of Gameworks games combined, and what about Doom Vulkan?

So were you saying? Why they don't test games that the majority of people play, instead of Gameworks titles? See how you shot your self in the foot with your comment?

tomshardware had the guts to include games like Hitman and not use DirectX 12 but had no problem using games like Metro Last Loght and cranking all the Gameworks effects, using Project Nvidia maxed out, and they even used Battlefield 4 and didn't used Mantle......?

Tomshardware review is absolute garbage, and it saddens me the fact hat you can't see that.


----------



## OneB1t

also dota II have vulkan and AMD cards do pretty well under win 10 + dota II vulkan


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Every reviewer averaged the 1060 being 5% faster than the RX 480, tomshardware averaged 3 times that in favor of the 1060 and HardOCP averaged almost 3 times in favor of the RX 480.
> 
> No reviewer tested Vulkan, which mind you is being used with the most popular game on steam, DOTA, that have more players than all of Gameworks games combined, and what about Doom Vulkan?
> 
> So were you saying? Why they don't test games that the majority of people play, instead of Gameworks titles? See how you shot your self in the foot with your comment?
> 
> tomshardware had the guts to include games like Hitman and not use DirectX 12 but had no problem using games like Metro Last Loght and cranking all the Gameworks effects, using Project Nvidia maxed out, and they even used Battlefield 4 and didn't used Mantle......?
> 
> Tomshardware review is absolute garbage, and it saddens me the fact hat you can't see that.


I assume you don't play DOTA as nearly no one is actually using Vulkan on DOTA 2. The performance is absolutely terrible compared to DX11.

I never said they don't test games that the majority of people play. Why are you saying things I didn't say?

I'm going to also assume you don't play BattleField 4 because Mantle doesn't even work anymore unless you go back to much older drivers (16.5.2 or before). People would then complain that Reviewers are using old drivers.









You really need to stop assuming things.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OneB1t*
> 
> also dota II have vulkan and AMD cards do pretty well under win 10 + dota II vulkan


Have you played DOTA2 on Vulkan? It runs poorly compared to DX11. Constant crashing for some people, or just plain poor performance.


----------



## ChevChelios

yeah Dota 2 Vulkan is mostly an experiment, to show - here we have Vulkan

game still runs best on its primary API

Doom on GCN is the first (and so far only) real relevant implementation of Vulkan


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> I assume you don't play DOTA as nearly no one is actually using Vulkan on DOTA 2.


You assume?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> You really need to stop assuming things.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Slomo4shO*
> 
> You assume?


If he played DOTA2 he would know the performance is poor compared to DX11 and wouldn't be bringing it up








Vulkan on the Source engine is still in its infancy and will most likely be in it's infancy for quite sometime. Just loaded up DOTA2 on Vulkan (haven't in about 2 weeks). Performance is still poor and there's still UI issues.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> If he played DOTA2 he would know the performance is poor compared to DX11 and wouldn't be bringing it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just loaded up DOTA2 on Vulkan (haven't in about 2 weeks). Performance is still poor and there's still UI issues.


The key to hypocrisy is subtlety.


----------



## Blackops_2

If Nvidia is on board with Vulken we're to assume this is the future API to become standard?


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Idk why I'm bothering explaining this to someone who thought MSI, Asus, and Gigabyte were nvidia exclusive partners..


Yeah, that was a pretty silly blunder on my part. Last time I had really paid attention to AIBs was when I bought my GTX 670, and I don't recal havingl seen MSI and GIgabyte vendors for AMD cards.


----------



## Exeed Orbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Honestly, using PCars as part of a benchmark suite is like using a Roy quote and awarding it 200 FPS. It's just not objective or representative of anything.
> 
> Sent from my PC with a 1070 in it.


I respectfully disagree. I agree the fact that statistically, it is an exception, in that its performance on Nvidia hardware decimates AMD hardware. But then it begs the question, at what point, should a game be excluded from benchmark suites?

Right now, a game like ANNO 2205 sees performance differences in the 20-30% range between the GTX1060 and the RX 480. Does that mean it should be excluded? In some benchmarks, Overwatch shows 20% difference. Should that be included?

Point is, when you start to cherry pick benchmarks, it starts becoming less and less representative of what to expect. Even if the reason for the performance difference IS because Nvidia lined their pockets, paid them off, helped them code... What have you. Point is, if NVidia somehow managed to line the pockets of 80% of developers, or managed to convince them to use Nvidia technology, it would still mean that 80% of games would likely perform better on Nvidia hardware, regardless of whether or not the performance is due to the hardware, or the games being optimized for Nvidia.


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> I assume you don't play DOTA as nearly no one is actually using Vulkan on DOTA 2. The performance is absolutely terrible compared to DX11.


With no one you mean AMD users?

Atrocious? So it is atrocious when it benefits AMD but not so much Nvidia I see.



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> I'm going to also assume you don't play BattleField 4


Amusing, I'll quote your own words for this one.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> You really need to stop assuming things.


I was top #50 in the skill bracket in BF4 with over a thousand hours played on Mantle, even with the latest drivers. The only problem with mantle happen with cards with less than 2GB of VRAM, even at low settings because of an increased VRAM usage compared to DX11, when playing with maxed out settings on 4GB cards the API works much better than DX11 with my 290.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> yeah Dota 2 Vulkan is mostly an experiment, to show - here we have Vulkan
> 
> game still runs best on its primary API
> 
> Doom on GCN is the first (and so far only) real relevant implementation of Vulkan


Why is it an experiment, because AMD gains more performance than Nvidia?










Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> game still runs best on its primary API


Here let me correc that for you!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> game still runs best on its primary API.... For Nvidia.


Now that's more like it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> Doom is the first (and so far only) real relevant implementation of Vulkan


HA!! Dota have exponentially more players than Doom will ever have, making it exponential a more relevant game, but DOTA's Vulkan implementation doesn't count because it only benefits AMD.









Although I agree that Doom is exponentially more polished with Vulkan.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> With no one you mean AMD users?
> 
> Atrocious? So it is atrocious when it benefits AMD but not so much Nvidia I see.
> 
> 
> Amusing, I'll quote your own words for this one.
> I was top #50 in the skill bracket in BF4 with over a thousand hours played on Mantle, even with the latest drivers. The only problem with mantle happen with cards with less than 2GB of VRAM, even at low settings because of an increased VRAM usage compared to DX11, when playing with maxed out settings on 4GB cards the API works much better than DX11 with my 290.
> Why is it an experiment, because it doesn't run as good on Nvidia as it does on AMD?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here let me correc that for you!
> Now that's more like it.
> HA!! Dota have exponentially more players than Doom will ever have, making it exponential a more relevant game, but DOTA's Vulkan implementation doesn't count because it only benefits AMD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I agree that Doom is exponentially more polished with Vulkan.


Again, go actually play DOTA2 on Vulkan. The performance is awful compared to DX11. UI issues is another big thing.

Please load up BattleField on the latest drivers as it doesn't work on ANY of my AMD cards, nor does it work for anyone I know. 7970 / Fury

EDIT:

https://community.amd.com/message/2723595

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/threadview/2955064805431320977/

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/threadview/2955064805445762210/


----------



## fatmario





good information regarding 480 vs 1060


----------



## the9quad

Mantle crashes on BF4 after a bit then has issues if you continue to use it. Used to work well though. Anyone saying it still works is an outlier. That is not even up for debate.


----------



## OneB1t

just use 15.12 dlls for battlefield 4 and it will be fine


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Again, go actually play DOTA2 on Vulkan. The performance is awful compared to DX11.


Should I take your word above real benchmarks?



because it looks to me that Vulkan DOTA runs great on AMD.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Should I take your word above real benchmarks?
> 
> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2473990
> 
> be wise it looks to me that Vulkan runs great on AMD.


Don't need to take my word for it, that's why I continually tell you to actually try it yourself. Again, runs poorly on my 7970 and Fury card.

How are you running BF4 on the latest drivers using Mantle?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *the9quad*
> 
> Mantle crashes on BF4 after a bit then has issues if you continue to use it. Used to work well though. Anyone saying it still works is an outlier. That is not even up for debate.


Mantle never worked all that great on my Fury. Worked good on my 7970 however, and I've heard nothing but great experience for those who own 290/290x prior of the Driver breaking Mantle.


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Don't need to take my word for it, that's why I continually tell you to actually try it yourself. Again, runs poorly on my 7970 and Fury card.
> 
> How are you running BF4 on the latest drivers using Mantle?


I haven't played BF4 months before Overwatch launch, so I believe that's a legitimate issue, although I won't download Dota to test an API because I trust Computerbase enough to say you're wrong about Vulkan running worse than DX11 for AMD cards.


----------



## OneB1t

dota is not working perfectly fine with vulkan this test is 2 months old


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OneB1t*
> 
> dota is not working perfectly fine with vulkan this test is 2 months old


Exactly, I know i'm not the only AMD GPU owner who has had issues for a long time with Vulkan.

In fact you can even go to GitHub and look at all the issues with Vulkan on DOTA2 It's all public!


----------



## OneB1t

Quote:


> Known Issues
> 
> The first time you run with Vulkan you may experience short stutters while the engine caches shaders on disk. After playing through or watching a match, these stutters should go away.
> There is a known issue on Linux with NVIDIA GPUs where tearing can be observed even when vertical sync is enabled. NVIDIA is aware of the issue and it will be fixed in the future through a driver update.


this is maybe what computerbase got on their frametime graph
https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Dota-2-Vulkan


----------



## Themisseble

How good is AMD VULKAN CPU overhead?


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> How good is AMD VULKAN CPU overhead?


If properly coded, nonexistent.

Even FX processors fare decently in Vulkan and Dx12 applications.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> If properly coded, nonexistent.
> 
> Even FX processors fare decently in Vulkan and Dx12 applications.


Well this benchmark from hardwareunboxed is really showing unprofessional work or nvidia biased site


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> If properly coded, nonexistent.
> 
> Even FX processors fare decently in Vulkan and Dx12 applications.


how about driver overhead? theoretically Vulkan and DX12 can bypass driver overhead.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> how about driver overhead? theoretically Vulkan and DX12 can bypass driver overhead.


Yeah,
I was looking at this and It made no sense to me


----------



## OneB1t

i think there is something wrong with how they tested this..


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OneB1t*
> 
> i think there is something wrong with how they tested this..


ToT Elric tested it too. It was pretty close, I trust the guy.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> ToT Elric tested it too. It was pretty close, I trust the guy.


Well... if I test and it is not true you owe me 20$ ok?


----------



## OneB1t

yes please someone retest this im really interested if there is some sort of single thread bottleneck
(if possible test with process hacker to see threads)


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OneB1t*
> 
> yes please someone retest this im really interested if there is some sort of single thread bottleneck
> (if possible test with process hacker to see threads)


Well hardwareunboxed is trying to tell us that VULKAN has still bigger overhead than OPENGL on AMD GPUs?! I am pretty sure that both AMD and NVIDIA have pretty much same overhead on VULKAN +- few %.


----------



## OneB1t

hard to say not going to buy doom just to retest














(demo does not have vulkan active :-/)


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> yeah Dota 2 Vulkan is mostly an experiment, to show - here we have Vulkan
> 
> game still runs best on its primary API
> 
> Doom on GCN is the first (and so far only) real relevant implementation of Vulkan


The denial is strong with this one.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OneB1t*
> 
> hard to say not going to buy doom just to retest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (demo does not have vulkan active :-/)


Well probably they lie.
OpenGL


And I think that i7 6700K 4.5GHz should give us 2x performance of i5 750 2.6-3.2 GHz.

So no I do not believe that benchmark


----------



## OneB1t

patched vulkan in dota II @ 1080p


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Well... if I test and it is not true you owe me 20$ ok?


There is one way to find out: how about you take your 20$, become a PcPer Patreon and ask them to report back with fcat measurements? Mean fps averages aren't telling enough, it would be best to know how the whole spectrum of frametimes are affected by cpu overhead.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> There is one way to find out: how about you take your 20$, become a PcPer Patreon and ask them to report back with fcat measurements? Mean fps averages aren't telling enough, it would be best to know how the whole spectrum of frametimes are affected by cpu overhead.


That bench is a lie.

What would happen if he would OC that phenom II x4 3.2GHz to 5GHz? Beat i7 6700K at 4.5GHz? Cmon, money is everywhere


----------



## OneB1t

like old phenom at 3.2ghz is maybe not enough to run RX480 at full speed
but so much FPS with GTX1060? i dont think so...

from 3dmark API test we allready know that both cards can do about same amount of draw calls with same CPU under mantle/DX12


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> That bench is a lie.
> 
> What would happen if he would OC that phenom II x4 3.2GHz to 5GHz? Beat i7 6700K at 4.5GHz? Cmon, money is everywhere


Not said that. Yet, it could be _the best_ 71FPS in test with zero frame variance, or the worst 81-121 FPS with constant dips and frame variance. Overhead could be still present in the gpu pipeline and extra cpu power might have augmented it. We just don't know it for certain.


----------



## OneB1t

not explaining how GTX1060 have such advantage... (i expect to hardwareunboxed to use same metric for both systems)

all DX12/vulkan tests i seen before this the RX480 had better minimal fps


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Not said that. Yet, it could be _the best_ 71FPS in test with zero frame variance, or the worst 81-121 FPS with constant dips and frame variance. Overhead could be still present in the gpu pipeline and extra cpu power can augment it.


I think that vulkan has lower overhead than DX12. Mybe it was bug, but that bench does not tell us truth and AMD VULKAN cpu overhead is much better than showed by hardwareunboxed.


----------



## OneB1t

i feel the same as i seen mantle(renamed vulkan) running @2.0ghz with 100% gpu load with huge amount of draw calls on scene in star swarm


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I think that vulkan has lower overhead than DX12. Mybe it was bug, but that bench does not tell us truth and AMD VULKAN cpu overhead is much better than showed by hardwareunboxed.


The bench _definitely_ doesn't tell us the whole story. If you noticed, the gpu frametime counter is broken.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> The bench _definitely_ doesn't tell us the whole story. If you noticed, the gpu frametime counter is broken.


And here is DX12 overhead

_I see R9 390 having higher avg. fps than GTX 1080 both on i3_

So you agree that its a big lie or unprofessional work(newbie at work).


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> And here is DX12 overhead
> 
> _I see R9 390 having higher avg. fps than GTX 1080 both on i3_
> 
> So you agree that its a big lie or unprofessional work(newbie at work).


My first response was an objection to the methodology, as you can see this chart has minimum frametimes whereas HwU Matt's doesn't.


----------



## NightAntilli

AIB XFX, it's in german though;


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> AIB XFX, it's in german though;


No hardware power target increase, so it's throttling....

... unless there are 2 bioses and he didn't use the good one... which is very unlikely.

Nitro is still the way to go.


----------



## OneB1t

i dont really understand why XFX not increased PL with such cooler


----------



## Blackops_2

Went through 4 7970s with XFX...never again.


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> Went through 4 7970s with XFX...never again.


IMO the one thing that XFX used to have that was going for them was a limited lifetime warranty(basically single card replacement lifetime as long as nothing series had happened to it, basically natural death), but since removal of that(ended with r# 200 series), option because lukewarm


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dudewitbow*
> 
> IMO the one thing that XFX used to have that was going for them was a limited lifetime warranty(basically single card replacement lifetime as long as nothing series had happened to it, basically natural death), but since removal of that(ended with r# 200 series), option because lukewarm


XFX was putting out about the best 390x cards that could be bought. I bought four that all went over 1220mhz which wasn't very common. Both of mine now do over 1240mhz and one does 1270mhz. So XFX does a good job every now and then.

They also honored an RMA no trouble when one blew up on me. Return card did 1245mhz.

Every one of these cards also did 1750 on mem too... but not much more.

Edit: how that translates to 480's I have no idea. But seems a good sign to me.


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dudewitbow*
> 
> IMO the one thing that XFX used to have that was going for them was a limited lifetime warranty(basically single card replacement lifetime as long as nothing series had happened to it, basically natural death), but since removal of that(ended with r# 200 series), option because lukewarm


I used XFX for a 4890 that was great, but their 7970s that weren't reference were terrible. I'll probably go Sapphire this time around. But yeah the warranty was a good thing while it lasted.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dudewitbow*
> 
> IMO the one thing that XFX used to have that was going for them was a limited lifetime warranty(basically single card replacement lifetime as long as nothing series had happened to it, basically natural death), but since removal of that(ended with r# 200 series), option because lukewarm


XFX still has Lifetime warranty, but the card must be bought through BestBuy. Bought one the other day for a friend as a gift.

For everyone not in the USA however, this won't matter.


----------



## Themisseble

Anyone see any comparison between R9 380X and RX 480 in tessmark x64


----------



## mkmitch

Still running my XFX 6870 in my second machine till Tuesday. Finally gave up on waiting for a good 480 and bought a 1070. G3258 will also be replaced with a 4790K. First time I will ever not have an AMD GPU running in on of my machines. Anyway the XFX has been a great card, never an issue.


----------



## Bryst

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> yes indeed, cheese grater for the win.


While i dont agree with the description you quoted, i do think its simple and appealing on the eyes. Besides the backplate it would git in just fine in any build. Which helps sell.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkmitch*
> 
> Still running my XFX 6870 in my second machine till Tuesday. Finally gave up on waiting for a good 480 and bought a 1070. G3258 will also be replaced with a 4790K. First time I will ever not have an AMD GPU running in on of my machines. Anyway the XFX has been a great card, never an issue.


the 1070 is like twice as fast as the 480. About eight times as fast as the 6870.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Anyone see any comparison between R9 380X and RX 480 in tessmark x64


I think Anandtech did, but you have to go to their GPUBench results page to see it.

Edit: it is 2240 to 1698.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> the 1070 is like twice as fast as the 480. About eight times as fast as the 6870.


1070 twice as fast as a 480? By what metric, multiplication of the model numbers?


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> 1070 twice as fast as a 480? In what universe?


Right? I love how +50% becomes "twice as fast"


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Right? I love how +50% becomes "twice as fast"


It's actually more than that: 1070/480 = 222%, is it is in fact +122%










---

On a more serious note, no new reviews hey?
So far only some crap reviews of 4GB versions have showed up and that's it. Rest is all waiting for being released as always, nothing in shops, nothing stock, bad AMD and it's AIBs.


----------



## Forceman

Wonder why it is taking so long for AIB cards? Doesn't seem like an intentional exclusivity deal like the FE - maybe they weren't able to get samples to AIB early enough? Or some kind of engineering issues with the AIB cards? How long did it take for custom 290X's, I can't remember?


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Forceman*
> 
> I think Anandtech did, but you have to go to their GPUBench results page to see it.
> 
> Edit: it is 2240 to 1698.
> 1070 twice as fast as a 480? By what metric, multiplication of the model numbers?


Thanks
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph10325/82897.png

Well... 7970 vs RX 480 on 64x tess? Waaauuu, 3x... well done AMD.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> It's actually more than that: 1070/480 = 222%, is it is in fact +122%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> On a more serious note, no new reviews hey?
> So far only some crap reviews of 4GB versions have showed up and that's it. Rest is all waiting for being released as always, nothing in shops, nothing stock, bad AMD and it's AIBs.


Where do you pull these bs metrics from? There isn't a single game on the TPU review that has it as twice as fast.


----------



## Forceman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Where do you pull these bs metrics from? There isn't a single game on the TPU review that has it as twice as fast.


It's a joke about the model number being twice as fast.


----------



## rdr09

My bad. I think that is the 1080 that is about twice as fast as the 480.









In any case, mkmitch might fall off his/her chair upon using the 1070 coming from the 6870.lol


----------



## epic1337

technically GTX1070 is 50% faster than RX480.
where as GTX1080 is 20% faster than GTX1070.
and comparatively speaking, GTX1070 is roughly 6times faster than HD6870.

or to put it on a numerical scale:
HD6870 = 100%
RX480 = 400%
GTX1070 = 600%
GTX1080 = 720%

we've come a loooong way.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bryst*
> 
> While i dont agree with the description you quoted, i do think its simple and appealing on the eyes. Besides the backplate it would git in just fine in any build. Which helps sell.


thats what i'm implying, its not that i'm saying its a bad design.

rather were they being sarcastic?
the design is basic and simple so it wasn't really sophisticated.
furthermore they've used a similar design before so it wasn't innovative either.


----------



## guttheslayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> technically GTX1070 is 50% faster than RX480.
> where as GTX1080 is 20% faster than GTX1070.
> and comparatively speaking, GTX1070 is roughly 6times faster than HD6870.
> 
> or to put it on a numerical scale:
> HD6870 = 100%
> RX480 = 400%
> GTX1070 = 600%
> GTX1080 = 720%
> 
> we've come a loooong way.


The 1080 should be at least 4x the performance 580.

Titan X would safetly put it above 5x. (OCed Tx should get >5X of 670 as well.)


----------



## kittysox

After 3 weeks usage of my gigabyte reference 480 I am still just blown away by how quiet it is. I actually used it to replace a nano that had coil whine for days. It's also much quieter than the 980ti golden edition in my other rig. Quickly becoming my favorite card since my 5870.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> After 3 weeks usage of my gigabyte reference 480 I am still just blown away by how quiet it is. I actually used it to replace a nano that had coil whine for days. It's also much quieter than the 980ti golden edition in my other rig. Quickly becoming my favorite card since my 5870.


You should try a 1060 MSI Gaming then. 0dB idle, 28dB load.

Reference RX 480 is 29dB idle, 41dB load. Not exactly what I consider quiet.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/23.html

*"Quoting from the AMD reviewer's guide, "a lot of work has gone into reducing noise levels for the Radeon™ RX 480." Sorry, but no, gaming noise levels are bad. The reference card is noisier than every single card released in recent times, and it runs at well above 80°C too. We confirmed the temperature and noise levels with other reviewers, so it's not only our sample."*


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> You should try a 1060 MSI Gaming then. 0dB idle, 28dB load.
> 
> Reference RX 480 is 29dB idle, 41dB load. Not exactly what I consider quiet.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/23.html
> 
> *"Quoting from the AMD reviewer's guide, "a lot of work has gone into reducing noise levels for the Radeon™ RX 480." Sorry, but no, gaming noise levels are bad. The reference card is noisier than every single card released in recent times, and it runs at well above 80°C too. We confirmed the temperature and noise levels with other reviewers, so it's not only our sample."*


0db idle is such a marketing gimmick. Idle fan noise on any modern card is about the same (or very close to it) to any decent case fan.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> You should try a 1060 MSI Gaming then. 0dB idle, 28dB load.
> 
> Reference RX 480 is 29dB idle, 41dB load. Not exactly what I consider quiet.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/23.html
> 
> *"Quoting from the AMD reviewer's guide, "a lot of work has gone into reducing noise levels for the Radeon™ RX 480." Sorry, but no, gaming noise levels are bad. The reference card is noisier than every single card released in recent times, and it runs at well above 80°C too. We confirmed the temperature and noise levels with other reviewers, so it's not only our sample."*


The fan ramp is pretty steep in every card. If I can run my 6870 @1900rpm versus 3100 rpm at stock settings, surely we can all do the same.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

If you don't care about warranty try to repaste the RX 480.

I didn't bother because I actually needed the warranty.


----------



## sammkv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> You should try a 1060 MSI Gaming then. 0dB idle, 28dB load.
> 
> Reference RX 480 is 29dB idle, 41dB load. Not exactly what I consider quiet.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/23.html
> 
> *"Quoting from the AMD reviewer's guide, "a lot of work has gone into reducing noise levels for the Radeon™ RX 480." Sorry, but no, gaming noise levels are bad. The reference card is noisier than every single card released in recent times, and it runs at well above 80°C too. We confirmed the temperature and noise levels with other reviewers, so it's not only our sample."*


if you mentioning the twin frozr cooler yeah those are great cooling...full load gaming at 30% fan while keeping it at 60-65 max temps.


----------



## FLaguy954

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> You should try a 1060 MSI Gaming then. 0dB idle, 28dB load.
> 
> Reference RX 480 is 29dB idle, 41dB load. Not exactly what I consider quiet.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/23.html
> 
> *"Quoting from the AMD reviewer's guide, "a lot of work has gone into reducing noise levels for the Radeon™ RX 480." Sorry, but no, gaming noise levels are bad. The reference card is noisier than every single card released in recent times, and it runs at well above 80°C too. We confirmed the temperature and noise levels with other reviewers, so it's not only our sample."*


I briefly had an XFX RX 480 at launch and I can confirm that the thing is very quiet. You really have to actually experience it. It's about as loud as one of my case fans (which are also silent) at full load.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> 0db idle is such a marketing gimmick. Idle fan noise on any modern card is about the same (or very close to it) to any decent case fan.


No it's not, 0dB = disabled fans. My 980 Ti has it. Complete silence when I'm working. Other fans are 5v/400RPM Noctua's. My PSU is semi-fanless. All SSD's. That's what I consider quiet.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLaguy954*
> 
> I briefly had an XFX RX 480 at launch and I can confirm that the thing is very quiet. You really have to actually experience it. It's about as loud as one of my case fans (which are also silent) at full load.


I have already tried one, and it's by no means quiet compared to good custom solutions. If you think it's quiet, your PC must be noisy..
*
"We confirmed the temperature and noise levels with other reviewers, so it's not only our sample"* Nuff said.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Where do you pull these bs metrics from? There isn't a single game on the TPU review that has it as twice as fast.


You didn't get the joke, sarcasm.
1070/480 = 222%, +122%, 1070 as a name, 480 as a name, get it?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> You should try a 1060 MSI Gaming then. 0dB idle, 28dB load.
> 
> Reference RX 480 is 29dB idle, 41dB load. Not exactly what I consider quiet.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/23.html
> 
> *"Quoting from the AMD reviewer's guide, "a lot of work has gone into reducing noise levels for the Radeon™ RX 480." Sorry, but no, gaming noise levels are bad. The reference card is noisier than every single card released in recent times, and it runs at well above 80°C too. We confirmed the temperature and noise levels with other reviewers, so it's not only our sample."*


For me anything above about 1250rpm for a 10cm fan is noticeable. These new GPU coolers aren't doing any better than the beefier 2 year old coolers on more power hungry cards and do stay below 1500rpm.

I'm always like WTH is this when they show 2000rpm+ for a custom 480 under load... disappointing aeroplane noise.
I know there are some issues on many cards with messed up fan curves. But still anything over 40dB is a nono for me.


----------



## FLaguy954

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> No it's not, 0dB = disabled fans. My 980 Ti has it. Complete silence when I'm working. Other fans are 5v/400RPM Noctua's. My PSU is semi-fanless. All SSD's. That's what I consider quiet.
> I have already tried one, and it's by no means quiet compared to good custom solutions. If you think it's quiet, your PC must be noisy..
> *
> "We confirmed the temperature and noise levels with other reviewers, so it's not only our sample"* Nuff said.


My PC is pretty quiet, especially since all I use are fluid dynamic bearing fans. I also have an SSD like you. That being said, I can barely hear the fans really at full load.


----------



## NuclearPeace

I have a 0db card. Its an obvious gimmick but on the other hand its not really doing anything bad. I undervolted my card to 1.06V so even on full tilt I cant tell the difference between idle especially with the amount of background noise in my home.


----------



## kittysox

I'm sorry man I have an msi golden edition 980ti as well as the 480. The Radeon card is significantly quieter at load speeds. Not trying to start a fight just saying that I was pleasantly surprised, especially considering my last Radeon card was a nano that was loud as hell, unbearably so in fact.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> You didn't get the joke, sarcasm.
> 1070/480 = 222%, +122%, 1070 as a name, 480 as a name, get it?


No I didn't until forceman pointed it out. I thought these were going to the similar to your $40/year power consumption metrics.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> I'm sorry man I have an msi golden edition 980ti as well as the 480. The Radeon card is significantly quieter at load speeds. Not trying to start a fight just saying that I was pleasantly surprised, especially considering my last Radeon card was a nano that was loud as hell, unbearably so in fact.


Your 980 Ti w/ Twin Frozer 5 must be faulty if RX 480 reference is significantly quieter







Just saying.


----------



## kittysox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Your 980 Ti w/ Twin Frozer 5 must be faulty if RX 480 reference is significantly quieter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying.


Obviously not at idle when the fans aren't even spinning. And it could easily be the fault of my Lian li PC-o5 cases liking a blower style better. But the whoosh of air on the 980ti under load is very loud


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> Obviously not at idle when the fans aren't even spinning. And it could easily be the fault of my Lian li PC-o5 cases liking a blower style better. But the whoosh of air on the 980ti under load is very loud


Probably the case, since it's a small one with bad airflow. Blower fan is generally doing better under those circumstances.. But that does not make the RX 480 a quiet card. If you really think that, you can't have heard a good custom card. Many custom cards are around 30dB load, which is pretty much RX 480 reference's idle noise output..

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/23.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X/23.html



*
MSI 1060 Gaming is 1dB less during LOAD, than RX 480 during IDLE.*


----------



## kittysox

Looks good. One my guild mates has an msi 1070 gaming and he is very pleased with it. I'll try a pascal card for sure as soon as prices come down to earth.


----------



## slavovid

Still waiting for those AIB cards to get out get taken apart benched reviewed and compared to one another so i can pick the best one.







I just don't even want to play stuff knowing what the difference will be given i am on an GTX 650.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nakano2k1*
> 
> 0db idle is such a marketing gimmick. Idle fan noise on any modern card is about the same (or very close to it) to any decent case fan.


MSI GTX 900 and 1000 gaming series cards disable its fans when the GPU is idle.

Not a gimmick. Doesn't MSI AMD gaming series cards disable its fans at idle? Or do they just run too hot even at idle?


----------



## ChevChelios

G1 1080 also disables fans at idle


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> MSI GTX 900 and 1000 gaming series cards disable its fans when the GPU is idle.
> 
> Not a gimmick. Doesn't MSI AMD gaming series cards disable its fans at idle? Or do they just run too hot even at idle?


Many custom cards turns off the fans below 60C or so. Not a MSI specific feature.
I've tried a XFX 390 DD which claimed "0dB" mode too, but it ramped up every 10-20sec to 900-1000RPM because it was getting too hot. Very annoying.
Most Nvidia custom cards after 700 series are fanless in 2D. Some AMD cards are too (mostly non-Hawaii/Granada).


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Many custom cards turns off the fans below 60C or so. Not a MSI specific feature.
> I've tried a XFX 390 DD which claimed "0dB" mode too, but it ramped up every 10-20sec to 900-1000RPM because it was getting too hot. Very annoying.
> Most Nvidia custom cards after 700 series are fanless in 2D. Some AMD cards are too (mostly non-Hawaii/Granada).


Yea didn't mean to imply it was a MSI specific feature. Just wondering if AMD custom cards exhibited similar behavior. I had a 390X Gaming 8G before I upgraded to a 980ti Gold edition, the 390x Gaming eve though it was 3 slots ran pretty warm and its fans were never idle (don't recal if they advertised idle fans).


----------



## ubbernewb

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131694


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ubbernewb*
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131694


$280

now they are pushing to the limit where there is almost no improvement in 2 years since GTX 970

All these delays and crazy prices are driving me more and more towards 1060


----------



## orlfman

asus strix oc 480 is up for $299 preorder on amazon.... the non oc version is $289.

not sure if asus is out of their mind or amazon is price gouging.


----------



## NFL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> $280
> 
> now they are pushing to the limit where there is almost no improvement in 2 years since GTX 970
> 
> All these delays and crazy prices are driving me more and more towards 1060


Think I'm going to wind up grabbing a used 980 instead


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NFL*
> 
> Think I'm going to wind up grabbing a used 980 instead


You guys will enjoy Doom with nightmare textures.


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> $280
> 
> now they are pushing to the limit where there is almost no improvement in 2 years since GTX 970
> 
> All these delays and crazy prices are driving me more and more towards 1060


thats the NEW price, i think will settle to like 249 in 3 or 4 weeks and after a couple driver updates it will be fighting with the 980 not the 970


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> You guys will enjoy Doom with nightmare textures.


980 runs Doom excellent under OpenGL since day 1, whats the problem ?


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> 980 runs Doom excellent under OpenGL since day 1, whats the problem ?


Glad you asked







:


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Glad you asked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :


i see

well its no big loss if he can get that used 980 for really cheap

Id still get a 1060 though


----------



## mtcn77




----------



## TheLAWNOOB

I supported AMD and I lost. gg


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*


Mirrors edge is filled with all kinds of issues that still need to be fixed.

There's no difference between 4GB and 8GB on it anymore since that was fixed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjTUtUF6gxg&feature=youtu.be&t=323


----------



## mtcn77

@dmasteR Something is wrong, I cannot watch it.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> @dmasteR Something is wrong, I cannot watch it.


Link works fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjTUtUF6gxg go to 5:23

Mirrors Edge should never be ran in Hyper for benchmarking with all the issues the game has with the Hyper Settings.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> so asking a fair question and getting it answered means "losing" ?
> 
> sure buddy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if it makes you feel better
> 
> with the state of AMD these days I guess you guys really need any small "win" you can get
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw this mean 290X or 4GB 480 cant run Doom nightmare textures either ?


You need 6GB or more to enable it. But relax, the difference is none-existing, just like Rise of the Tomb Raider with best textures.
And do people remember the Shadows of Morder Texture Pack that required 6GB VRAM? Did not look any better either. Pretty much impossible to see a difference.

Sometimes I think it's AMD/Nvidia that forces/pays the dev's to put stuff like this in the games...

I would take a RX 480 4GB for 199$ dollars over 8GB for 249$, if I needed a cheap decent 1080p card.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> You need 6GB or more to enable it. But relax, the difference is none-existing, just like Rise of the Tomb Raider with best textures.
> And do people remember the Shadows of Morder Texture Pack that required 6GB VRAM? Did not look any better either. Pretty much impossible to see a difference.
> 
> Sometimes I think it's AMD/Nvidia that forces/pays the dev's to put stuff like this in the games...
> 
> I would take a RX 480 4GB for 199$ dollars over 8GB for 249$, if I needed a cheap decent 1080p card.


You can replicate 8K shadow resolution with 2K conservative shaders, though there is no mention about the performance implications of such an alternative.


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dmasteR*
> 
> Mirrors edge is filled with all kinds of issues that still need to be fixed.
> 
> There's no difference between 4GB and 8GB on it anymore since that was fixed.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjTUtUF6gxg&feature=youtu.be&t=323


Not at 1080p but at 1440p it's still there.


----------



## mkmitch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> My bad. I think that is the 1080 that is about twice as fast as the 480.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, mkmitch might fall off his/her chair upon using the 1070 coming from the 6870.lol


Yeah hope so even hoping it kills the 770 in my main rig which will now become the not so main one


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> I would take a RX 480 4GB for 199$ dollars over 8GB for 249$, if I needed a cheap decent 1080p card.


if that was the MSRP of the 8GB, I would have done the same thing, but IIRC, the MSRP of the 8GB was $229, it's the goddamn manufacturers jacking up the prices.

That said, I probably wouldn't have chosen this card at its current state anyway, very good deal at 200 bucks, but I dont want the high temp and power consumption

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ubbernewb*
> 
> thats the NEW price, i think will settle to like 249 in 3 or 4 weeks and after a couple driver updates it will be fighting with the 980 not the 970


point 1 : ya I can get what you are saying, however, since even the vanilla RX 480s are still out of stock everywhere, expect new custom cards to have price drops are not realistic, don't you think? 3-4 weeks *after stock stabilizes* maybe, but when will that be really, even for the original 480?

point 2 :
I've heard the driver update stuff since day 1 of my disappointment, and let's be honest, that's really the last straw of hope for this card right now. The question is, how reliable is this expectation?

when it was discovered that performance was just a slight bit better than 970, and temperatures and power efficiency were awful, people (myself included) started looking towards custom cards, hoping that AIB would solve at least some of these problems.

Now that some custom cards are announced (still not realistically released), and the prices imo are far from fair.

$50 extra for custom for a $400 card = well, I guess....
$50 extra for custom for a $300 card = .....seriously?
but not even that, we are talking about a $50 raise for custom RX 480 that originally cost $230-240, that's outright ridiculous.


----------



## yesitsmario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> I would take a RX 480 4GB for 199$ dollars over 8GB for 249$, if I needed a cheap decent 1080p card.


Ya, I'm hoping to grab a decent AIB 4gb 480 for around $200 down the road as I'm still on 1080p. Hope prices come down in a couple of weeks.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> Now that some custom cards are announced (still not realistically released), and the prices imo are far from fair.
> 
> $50 extra for custom for a $400 card = well, I guess....
> $50 extra for custom for a $300 card = .....seriously?
> but not even that, we are talking about a $50 raise for custom RX 480 that originally cost $230-240, that's outright ridiculous.


knowing how they use parts, e.g. reuse top-end parts and just slap it on another card.

e.g. using the GTX980 Lightning cooler which is ~$100 or so more expensive than reference.
then a GTX960 Lightning using the exact same cooler would also cost ~$100 or so more than reference.
obviously they'd have an identical increase in price, even if it ends up with the lower-end card becoming ridiculously more expensive.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> if that was the MSRP of the 8GB, I would have done the same thing, but IIRC, the MSRP of the 8GB was $229, it's the goddamn manufacturers jacking up the prices.


MSRP is 239$









I see Newegg has a few for that price, but they are all out of stock. I guess custom cards was meant to cost more, they are 279$.

Personally I think AMD should lower the price to counter 1060. Most people want custom cards, and 279$ is too much, when custom 1060 can be had for 250$ and is ~10% faster:



https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1060/26.html

*Newest reference card review


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> knowing how they use parts, e.g. reuse top-end parts and just slap it on another card.
> 
> e.g. using the GTX980 Lightning cooler which is ~$100 or so more expensive than reference.
> then a GTX960 Lightning using the exact same cooler would also cost ~$100 or so more than reference.
> obviously they'd have an identical increase in price, even if it ends up with the lower-end card becoming ridiculously more expensive.


sounds perfect in terms of math, but I don't think that sound very workable at a marketing point of view. Even lowing the final price (just for the cheaper card) in the expense of profit margin would make more practical sense than trying to convince the customers that the low tier cards are this much more expensive because the custom design just costs that much

(i know you are right, I hope you understand where I'm going with that)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> MSRP is 239$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think AMD should lower the price to counter 1060. Most people want custom cards, and 279$ is too much, when custom 1060 can be had for 250$ and is ~10% faster:


where do you see 239? I got my lazy ass to search around for a bit and I'm still seeing 229

Ya, I agree custom 1060 for 250-270 is really a killer. RX480 already has too many nails on the coffin at this point

I just checked my local prices, stock 8GB RX 480 costs around 2300-2450. The MSI 1060 costs 2600.

Seeing these numbers, it wouldn't surprise me if this MSI 1060 could be cheaper than custom MSI RX 480 that is coming out god-knows-when.

AMD supports now talking about getting back ahead through driver updates and their architecture currently better in DX12.....personally.....not a big fan of things I can't see....there are just so many advantages on the 1060 right now.....


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> sounds perfect in terms of math, but I don't think that sound very workable at a marketing point of view. Even lowing the final price (just for the cheaper card) in the expense of profit margin would make more practical sense than trying to convince the customers that the low tier cards are this much more expensive because the custom design just costs that much
> 
> (i know you are right, I hope you understand where I'm going with that)
> where do you see 239? I got my lazy ass to search around for a bit and I'm still seeing 229
> 
> Ya, I agree custom 1060 for 250-270 is really a killer. RX480 already has too many nails on the coffin at this point
> 
> I just checked my local prices, stock 8GB RX 480 costs around 2300-2450. The MSI 1060 costs 2600.
> 
> Seeing these numbers, it wouldn't surprise me if this MSI 1060 could be cheaper than custom MSI RX 480 that is coming out god-knows-when.
> 
> AMD supports now talking about getting back ahead through driver updates and their architecture currently better in DX12.....personally.....not a big fan of things I can't see....there are just so many advantages on the 1060 right now.....


It says 239$ here, not sure if AMD already lowered the price?

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/

TPU's newest RX 480 review also says 199 / 239$: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> sounds perfect in terms of math, but I don't think that sound very workable at a marketing point of view. Even lowing the final price (just for the cheaper card) in the expense of profit margin would make more practical sense than trying to convince the customers that the low tier cards are this much more expensive because the custom design just costs that much
> 
> (i know you are right, I hope you understand where I'm going with that)


thats right, its also why they don't really make beefy entry cards, its simply not worth the cost.
imagine what would a GTX950 lightning would be, utterly overpriced for it's worth.


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> thats right, its also why they don't really make beefy entry cards, its simply not worth the cost.
> imagine what would a GTX950 lightning would be, utterly overpriced for it's worth.


Yes, but the problem is, RX 480 really has those problems of heat and power that need custom designs to fix. If those problems get fixed with an expensive solution, card price gonna be very far from what it's worth. If they don't get fixed......then we gotta just live with the problems (which I don't want to)

Meanwhile, 1060 sitting here with none of those problems, don't even need over-the-top custom designs, and having a reasonable price tag.

If nothing special happens in the coming 1-2 months, I think I already have my final decision. I don't know how AMD got themselves cornered like this, but I really don't see how this can work well for them.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> It says 239$ here, not sure if AMD already lowered the price?
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/
> 
> TPU's newest RX 480 review also says 199 / 239$: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/


Seems half and half online. If you would just google RX 480 msrp you will see half of the links say 229 and the other half 239

Anyway, at the current state, in my opinion the only 480 worth risking is the $199 one. The card is not that powerful, probably wouldnt need the extra 4G for "high" settings in upcoming games anyway, and good custom designs with 4 extra GB is like $80 away. Might as well just suck it up with all those problems and go with the cheap original. The card starts losing its advantage to 1060 after $240


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

I like that the Asus card has PWM fan headers, that's actually really smart!

Too bad the cooler seems to suck.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I like that the Asus card has PWM fan headers, that's actually really smart!
> 
> Too bad the cooler seems to suck.


Would still pick it over sapphire, I just do not trust their basic models AT ALL. I have seen far too many cards of theirs failing.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I like that the Asus card has PWM fan headers, that's actually really smart!
> 
> Too bad the cooler seems to suck.
> 
> 
> 
> Would still pick it over sapphire, I just do not trust their basic models AT ALL. I have seen far too many cards of theirs failing.
Click to expand...

I prefer MSI and Gigabyte, but isn't the Gigabyte one gimped on VRMs?


----------



## motoray

Is there any reviews showing difference between the 4gb and 8gb in solidworks? Because im not leaving 1080p for a while and the 4gb tends to clock better. Would i be better of with a water block on a 4gb cranked up?


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Personally I think AMD should lower the price to counter 1060. Most people want custom cards, and 279$ is too much, when custom 1060 can be had for 250$ and is ~10% faster:


Yes, I say the same. They have lowered prices in India, has been posted on r/AMD but no word about other markets. They do need to bring the prices down below custom 1060s which start at $249. 8GB versions in $200-250, not $250-300. They don't have to add tons of crap like backplates and LED lights, just slap on a nice 2x100mm fan cooler and also cool the VRMs and VRAM and call it a day. The GPUs don't have to be super complex and expensive.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Yes, I say the same. They have lowered prices in India, has been posted on r/AMD but no word about other markets. They do need to bring the prices down below custom 1060s which start at $249. 8GB versions in $200-250, not $250-300. They don't have to add tons of crap like backplates and LED lights, just slap on a nice 2x100mm fan cooler and also cool the VRMs and VRAM and call it a day. The GPUs don't have to be super complex and expensive.


They will come.

As for AMD lowering the price, my only issue is +$39 for the 8gb card is steep. $220-230 makes more sense, imo.

Asus charging $300 (+$60) has nothing to do with AMD, Sapphire charging $280 (+$40) has nothing to do with AMD. I'll agree that tho, the prices are a bit outrageous. Asus especially has lost their minds.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> They will come.
> 
> As for AMD lowering the price, my only issue is +$39 for the 8gb card is steep. $220-230 makes more sense, imo.
> 
> Asus charging $300 (+$60) has nothing to do with AMD, Sapphire charging $280 (+$40) has nothing to do with AMD. I'll agree that tho, the prices are a bit outrageous. Asus especially has lost their minds.


It's almost as if Nvidia is paying ASUS, Gigabyte, and MSI to charge a lot for the RX 480 so people would buy the ASUS/Gigabyte/MSI 1060's instead lol. Then Sapphire goes, "Omg, if they can charge that price, then I can too!".









My bite point for an AIB 480 is $260. Give me the non factory OCed ones. I find it unecessary to get charged $20 for a simple overclock I could do myself.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> It's almost as if Nvidia is paying ASUS, Gigabyte, and MSI to charge a lot for the RX 480 so people would buy the ASUS/Gigabyte/MSI 1060's instead lol. Then Sapphire goes, "Omg, if they can charge that price, then I can too!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My bite point for an AIB 480 is $260. Give me the non factory OCed ones. I find it unecessary to get charged $20 for a simple overclock I could do myself.


Except the Asus 1060 strix models are $310 and $330 lol so still $60-$80 over starting price.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Except the Asus 1060 strix models are $310 and $330 lol so still $60-$80 over starting price.


Hey, hey! Buy you get the idea! I mean, what I said speaks more towards EVGA and Zotac on newegg, But more impressive OCs for the 1060, with better performance and watts, and at a similar price to the 480, man...


----------



## ivymaxwell

1060 and 480's aib are approaching 300 after taxes...... at this price its really not that great.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Asus especially has lost their minds.


that has happened awhile ago IMO


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> that has happened awhile ago IMO


me i just wait when they clean out the suckers, prices will go down in 2 or 3 weeks.....


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ivymaxwell*
> 
> 1060 and 480's aib are approaching 300 after taxes...... at this price its really not that great.


Indeed, you can buy a 980Ti for that price.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Indeed, you can buy a 980Ti for that price.


Where? I've tried finding one but most Nvidia 2nd hand sellers are crazy and want for 980Ti the same price a new 1070 sells for lol. Plus being a high end product the amount of 2nd hand offers is quite low, on top of that only 1080 and Titan XP beats 980Ti in performance, making 980Ti owners keep their cards and not sell them. Even on eBay they sell for ridiculous 400 EUR which is some 40 EUR less than a new 1070.


----------



## tkenietz

What gets me about the aib 480s is they're likely saving money on the custom pcb over reference, and then charging a ridiculous amount for the cooler. I just don't see any reason for them to cost over $250-$260.

I also don't see the 1060 having decent quantities of stock in the near future, and that could help to save AMD from their air headed partners.

I too would love to know where you can get a 980ti for $300. Going off previous posts, I hope you aren't referring to an auction in progress on eBay. Lol


----------



## NightAntilli

I personally think the Sapphire Nitro price is justified, due to the RGB LED, Dual BIOS, removable fans and backplate. No other card has all those things right now. If you don't care for these things, it's understandable that you'd prefer a cheaper card without these features.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> I personally think the Sapphire Nitro price is justified, due to the RGB LED, Dual BIOS, removable fans and backplate. No other card has all those things right now. If you don't care for these things, it's understandable that you'd prefer a cheaper card without these features.


Those things are nice, but imo they don't increase the value of the card that much. The dual bios would be cool if it were oc and uber oc, but it's quiet and oc. Imo should be quiet in either mode.the only rgb I know of on the card is the branding logo. And I've removed the fans on several cards without taking them fully apart. May be an exception rather than a rule but I don't see the big deal about that


----------



## NightAntilli

Understandable, but it does cost them money to put those things on the card.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> I personally think the Sapphire Nitro price is justified, due to the *RGB LED*, Dual BIOS, removable fans and backplate. No other card has all those things right now. If you don't care for these things, it's understandable that you'd prefer a cheaper card without these features.


LED was sooo 2009 with enthusiasts, now it's mainstream. I'll pass. Everything else is sweet, but RGB LED, I'll take $10 off to not have it lol.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Those things are nice, but imo they don't increase the value of the card that much. The dual bios would be cool if it were oc and uber oc, but it's quiet and oc. Imo should be quiet in either mode.the only rgb I know of on the card is the branding logo. And I've removed the fans on several cards without taking them fully apart. May be an exception rather than a rule but I don't see the big deal about that


Yeah, it was possible back then too. The removable fans isn't special, but it does simplify it more. Then agaiin, you still gotta get under the shround to clean out the dust from the HS fins.


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Where? I've tried finding one but most Nvidia 2nd hand sellers are crazy and want for 980Ti the same price a new 1070 sells for lol. Plus being a high end product the amount of 2nd hand offers is quite low, on top of that only 1080 and Titan XP beats 980Ti in performance, making 980Ti owners keep their cards and not sell them. Even on eBay they sell for ridiculous 400 EUR which is some 40 EUR less than a new 1070.


There are a 8 different auctions on eBay that will end in 7 hours, they're currently going for 275$ to 290$ and they're all 980Tis reference, if you're lucky you might snag one for 300$!

At this point so late in the game I think an AMD fury non X would be a better card though, I was blown away to see the Fury X beat the GTX 1080 on Doom with Vulkan when using Async Shaders (TSSAA X8), the Fury Non X should be 5-8% behind the Fury X making it much faster than a GTX 1070 on Vulkan games like Doom.

This late in the game AMD cards do tend to shine, and Nvidia doesn't have a good history of optimizing older architectures, especially now when DX12 and Vulkan are the APIs used for every game that's coming out now, be it at launch or a patch.

If I hadn't bought a 1070 G1 when it came out I'd be buying a Fury Non X right now, which by the way goes for cheaper, I've seen them sold as low as 280$!


----------



## Horsemama1956

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> There are a 8 different auctions on eBay that will end in 7 hours, they're currently going for 275$ to 290$ and they're all 980Tis reference, if you're lucky you might snag one for 300$!
> 
> At this point so late in the game I think an AMD fury non X would be a better card though, I was blown away to see the Fury X beat the GTX 1080 on Doom with Vulkan when using Async Shaders (TSSAA X8), the Fury Non X should be 5-8% behind the Fury X making it much faster than a GTX 1070 on Vulkan games like Doom.
> 
> This late in the game AMD cards do tend to shine, and Nvidia doesn't have a good history of optimizing older architectures, especially now when DX12 and Vulkan are the APIs used for every game that's coming out now, be it at launch or a patch.
> 
> If I hadn't bought a 1070 G1 when it came out I'd be buying a Fury Non X right now, which by the way goes for cheaper, I've seen them sold as low as 280$!


There is no guarantee the performance is going to be there just because a few games now get nice "gains" on AMD. Unless you REALLY really enjoy Doom, then I wouldn't worry about it. I don't see proper DX12 games showing up much in the next year or so.


----------



## slavovid

And i don't think propper games coming out this or next year will not be sporting DX12 or Vulkan. If they don't it's like they are already old and poorly codded. DX12 is out for more than an year now and Vulkan is said to not be too hard to be added if the game is already made with Dx12 in mind.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guttheslayer*
> 
> The 1080 should be at least 4x the performance 580


Yep.

GTX480 Vs GTX1080 = ~426%



http://www.hardware.fr/articles/948-11/fermi-vs-kepler-vs-maxwell-vs-pascal.html


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horsemama1956*
> 
> There is no guarantee the performance is going to be there just because a few games now get nice "gains" on AMD. Unless you REALLY really enjoy Doom, then I wouldn't worry about it. I don't see proper DX12 games showing up much in the next year or so.


No guarantees is right , you can only go off past history with the improvements drivers and support bring. We have Volta coming next year on 16 FF pascal will soon be on legacy support by NV.

History :
7970/280X vs GTX680. We know the story there. Even the 780 is losing now to 280x in some games / benches.
290X vs 780/780ti/980. The venerable hawai core with a mild oc which is granada just keeps on going. 290x owners must be smiling with every driver update.

DX12 will get more and more prominent as will vulkan.

I guess if you are buying a card for a year , 1060 not much risk there - performs great now in dx11 , dx12 titles and longer support go with rx480.


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horsemama1956*
> 
> There is no guarantee the performance is going to be there just because a few games now get nice "gains" on AMD. Unless you REALLY really enjoy Doom, then I wouldn't worry about it. I don't see proper DX12 games showing up much in the next year or so.


There are incredible developers on DICE and they have proven to care about their game optimizations, I personally believe Battlefield 1 will be as optimized if not more than Doom, Battlefield 1 is a game that do matter, so much for me and many other people that it's worth to upgrade our GPUs just for it, I did back in Battlefield 4 with a 290 with Mantle and if history repeats I will do it again with Battlefield 1 and DX12, and if the game make use of Async Shaders in any way then that will be a huge bonus, not a necessary one but a bonus no doubt.

Believing this, I can't stop recommending a Fury over a 980Ti this late in the game as I recommended the 980Ti over a Fury X early in the same game.

And let's be real, from now on how many games are coming up after this month without support for the new APIs?

If you want a GTX 980Ti for 6 months from now then yes, a 980Ti should be awesome, but if you want to buy a GPU for 1 year or more I can't recommend the 980Ti but a Fury in its place.


----------



## tkenietz

Agreed, performance in battlefield will be THE deciding factor for me. Blizzard games and battlefield are my main titles and blizzard games run well on nearly anything, idc about 110fps vs 150fps in wow. Lol


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> There are a 8 different auctions on eBay that will end in 7 hours, they're currently going for 275$ to 290$ and they're all 980Tis reference, if you're lucky you might snag one for 300$!
> 
> At this point so late in the game I think an AMD fury non X would be a better card though, I was blown away to see the Fury X beat the GTX 1080 on Doom with Vulkan when using Async Shaders (TSSAA X8), the Fury Non X should be 5-8% behind the Fury X making it much faster than a GTX 1070 on Vulkan games like Doom.
> 
> This late in the game AMD cards do tend to shine, and Nvidia doesn't have a good history of optimizing older architectures, especially now when DX12 and Vulkan are the APIs used for every game that's coming out now, be it at launch or a patch.
> 
> If I hadn't bought a 1070 G1 when it came out I'd be buying a Fury Non X right now, which by the way goes for cheaper, I've seen them sold as low as 280$!


Yeah maybe on eBay from USA where prices are much lower but in EU, it's 400+ EUR. Lemme check eBay.com, yeah 300+ USD, which after shipping and customs/taxes is gonna be as bad as 400 EUR.


----------



## HackHeaven

I find it funny people say to use high and not ultra when you ***** about FPS and 4k as if you want the best but then say dont use ultra

It must be better if its harder to run maybe your eye just cant see it? like going from 60 fps to 144 you still want the 144 even if you cant tell the difference but not the ultra textures?


----------



## Ozk1




----------



## Popple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ozk1*


Looks like the 460 is too hot for passive cooling.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Popple*
> 
> Looks like the 460 is too hot for passive cooling.


I'm sure you could put a passive cooler on the RX 460 if you wanted to, but that would probably cost more than a smaller heatsink w/ fan.


----------



## Slomo4shO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Popple*
> 
> Looks like the 460 is too hot for passive cooling.


The RX 460 reference cooler isn't very impressive and the WX4100 will come in SFF so I see no reason why it can't be passively cooled...


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Popple*
> 
> Looks like the 460 is too hot for passive cooling.


its just not economical. the hottest AIB passive cooled card that i can recall was sapphire's ultimate 7770. the 7770 had 640 stream processors on 28nm. The 460 is 896 on 14nm FF. the 7770 was also a 150w card, and the 460 specs as a 75w card (meaning that it doesnt use a 6 pin pci-e connector). I wouldn't be surprised if the 460 could be passively cooled, it's just that there isn't any demand for it.


----------



## Popple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dudewitbow*
> 
> its just not economical. the hottest AIB passive cooled card that i can recall was sapphire's ultimate 7770. the 7770 had 640 stream processors on 28nm. The 460 is 896 on 14nm FF. the 7770 was also a 150w card, and the 460 specs as a 75w card (meaning that it doesnt use a 6 pin pci-e connector). I wouldn't be surprised if the 460 could be passively cooled, it's just that there isn't any demand for it.


Didn't that require a lot of case fans? That wouldn't have worked inside a fanless case regardless of how good the ventilation is.


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HackHeaven*
> 
> I find it funny people say to use high and not ultra when you ***** about FPS and 4k as if you want the best but then say dont use ultra
> 
> It must be better if its harder to run maybe your eye just cant see it? like going from 60 fps to 144 you still want the 144 even if you cant tell the difference but not the ultra textures?


First of all, I'm not one of the people you described, I hope.

But even a newbie (namely me) could tell you that high / ultra textures is about how *pretty* the game looks, and 60 vs 144 fps is about how *smooth* the game will run, which for some people is the major factor to decide whether the game is enjoyable

If no one can see the difference between 60 and 100, why would 120-144hz monitors have any market share? I don't think everyone out there is buying for e-peen.


----------



## Cherryblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> First of all, I'm not one of the people you described, I hope.
> 
> But even a newbie (namely me) could tell you that high / ultra textures is about how *pretty* the game looks, and 60 vs 144 fps is about how *smooth* the game will run, which for some people is the major factor to decide whether the game is enjoyable
> 
> If no one can see the difference between 60 and 100, why would 120-144hz monitors have any market share? I don't think everyone out there is buying for e-peen.


While I agree with pretty much all you said, I beg to differ on the last sentence.

Not sure if 50K DPI mouse actually improves your gamer performance. Yet Very High DPI mouse have market share.
Not sure Iphone has better phone call quality.. ect..

I personally don't see a lot of use in very high frequency screens, I think pretty much anything over 100Hz doesn't have a meaning for humans.

The good ones of us see < 60 fps, more is only useful if it's to erase a weird behavior in all the graphic chain, from graphic card to user seeing the result. If you want 60fps effective, you might need a higher frequencies screen taking into account all the talk about sync, freesync, gsync and vertical synchro.

But once you got one of these things garanteeing the same frequency end to end, over 100hz has no meaning to me.


----------



## Blackops_2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cherryblue*
> 
> While I agree with pretty much all you said, I beg to differ on the last sentence.
> 
> Not sure if 50K DPI mouse actually improves your gamer performance. Yet Very High DPI mouse have market share.
> Not sure Iphone has better phone call quality.. ect..
> 
> I personally don't see a lot of use in very high frequency screens, I think pretty much anything over 100Hz doesn't have a meaning for humans.
> 
> The good ones of us see < 60 fps, more is only useful if it's to erase a weird behavior in all the graphic chain, from graphic card to user seeing the result. If you want 60fps effective, you might need a higher frequencies screen taking into account all the talk about sync, freesync, gsync and vertical synchro.
> 
> But once you got one of these things garanteeing the same frequency end to end, over 100hz has no meaning to me.


Play CS GO at on a 60hz monitor then do the same at 144hz, there is a huge difference in feeling and fluidity. You couldn't pay me to go back to my 60hz monitors.


----------



## Cherryblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blackops_2*
> 
> Play CS GO at on a 60hz monitor then do the same at 144hz, there is a huge difference in feeling and fluidity. You couldn't pay me to go back to my 60hz monitors.


There are two factors here:
- The number of images you get in one second
- The delay between what you did and the screen showing you the action processed.

As I told, I believe synchronization of the screen plays a role on the two points. A 60Hz screen which hasn't got G-sync or F-sync or adaptive sync shows 60 images per second of what it has in the buffer. If it's not well sync'd with computer, you may have less than 60 real images.

This also may add a (small) lag, taking into account the time of synchro of the screen and the moment the image is readied by the GPU.

What I'm suggesting, is that having a 60Hz monitor doesn't automatically implies you really play at 60Hz without lag between monitor & gpu.

I believe, that 60 "real" hz, would be sufficient for anyone.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cherryblue*
> 
> There are two factors here:
> - The number of images you get in one second
> - The delay between what you did and the screen showing you the action processed.
> 
> As I told, I believe synchronization of the screen plays a role on the two points. A 60Hz screen which hasn't got G-sync or F-sync or adaptive sync shows 60 images per second of what it has in the buffer. If it's not well sync'd with computer, you may have less than 60 real images.
> 
> This also may add a (small) lag, taking into account the time of synchro of the screen and the moment the image is readied by the GPU.
> 
> What I'm suggesting, is that having a 60Hz monitor doesn't automatically implies you really play at 60Hz without lag between monitor & gpu.
> 
> I believe, that 60 "real" hz, would be sufficient for anyone.


I played at 60hz since I got into computers (which is coming up on 10 years). Turned off v-sync, had a bit of tearing and what have you, but I thought it was pretty good, and didn't really hinder me playing FPS games like cod, CS, battlefield etc................

*Then I got a 144hz monitor.*

It is seriously like a whole new world, the fluidity is mind blowing. Even with freesync turned off (it has freesync as well), if the frames are up past like 120, it looks and feels amazing. It really is one of those things that you just can't fully grasp until it's right up in front of your face.


----------



## Cherryblue

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> ...
> *Then I got a 144hz monitor.*
> ...
> It really is one of those things that you just can't fully grasp until it's right up in front of your face.


Which doesn't mean you see 144hz.

Maybe it's just 10 fps ahead of what a 60hz screen gives you for real, and it makes this sensation you feel.

I'm saying, 60Hz monitors probably don't really give you 60. My bet is 75hz monitor is enough.

But then, you got what you need and I got what I need







.


----------



## NightAntilli

144 Hz is such a weird number to me... 120 Hz makes sense, but why 144 Hz and not 150 Hz? Is the multiple of 24 suddenly more important than the multiple of 30?


----------



## Dudewitbow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> 144 Hz is such a weird number to me... 120 Hz makes sense, but why 144 Hz and not 150 Hz? Is the multiple of 24 suddenly more important than the multiple of 30?


because movie standards are 24 fps


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dudewitbow*
> 
> because movie standards are 24 fps


well its related to that, they're using a multiple of 30p, 25p or 24p.
its the standard framerate for video recording.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
Quote:


> There are three main frame rate standards in the TV and digital cinema business: 24p, 25p, and 30p.


on the other hand, both 120Hz and 144Hz scales effectively with 24fps.
120 / 24 = 5
144 / 24 = 6

and on a side note, 144 is much more preferable for 48p content.
120 / 48 = 2.5
144 / 48 = 3


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dudewitbow*
> 
> its just not economical. the hottest AIB passive cooled card that i can recall was sapphire's ultimate 7770. the 7770 had 640 stream processors on 28nm. The 460 is 896 on 14nm FF. the 7770 was also a 150w card, and the 460 specs as a 75w card (meaning that it doesnt use a 6 pin pci-e connector). I wouldn't be surprised if the 460 could be passively cooled, it's just that there isn't any demand for it.


7770 only drew around 75w but max draw was probably a little over pcie spec so it came with a 6pin. Im not crazy about Rx460 not having a 6pin, could limit oc potential because we know if it draws over 75w while oc'd then the internet will be in an uproar lol


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> I played at 60hz since I got into computers (which is coming up on 10 years). Turned off v-sync, had a bit of tearing and what have you, but I thought it was pretty good, and didn't really hinder me playing FPS games like cod, CS, battlefield etc................
> 
> *Then I got a 144hz monitor.*
> 
> It is seriously like a whole new world, the fluidity is mind blowing. Even with freesync turned off (it has freesync as well), if the frames are up past like 120, it looks and feels amazing. It really is one of those things that you just can't fully grasp until it's right up in front of your face.


Those with 144hz or 120 hz monitors, if your fps is at like 41 fps, would the usage STILL be better than a regular 60hz monitor? Some people swear that the 144hz will still make gameplay a lot smoother even if the fps isn't 144fps or even 60 fps for that matter. Is this true?

Been playing with 60 hz monitors with vsync off my whole life. Some games with fps under 60, some i cap to 60, others i let it run wildly to 100+


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> Those with 144hz or 120 hz monitors, if your fps is at like 41 fps, would the usage STILL be better than a regular 60hz monitor? Some people swear that the 144hz will still make gameplay a lot smoother even if the fps isn't 144fps or even 60 fps for that matter. Is this true?


You see 36Hz and 40Hz with a 144 Hz and 120Hz monitor at 41FPS, respectively. Consequently it looks smoother.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> You see 36Hz and 40Hz with a 144 Hz and 120Hz monitor at 41FPS, respectively. Consequently it looks smoother.


how does that work?


----------



## the9quad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> Those with 144hz or 120 hz monitors, if your fps is at like 41 fps, would the usage STILL be better than a regular 60hz monitor? Some people swear that the 144hz will still make gameplay a lot smoother even if the fps isn't 144fps or even 60 fps for that matter. Is this true?
> 
> Been playing with 60 hz monitors with vsync off my whole life. Some games with fps under 60, some i cap to 60, others i let it run wildly to 100+


I can say that with vsync off the difference between 60hz and 120hz when playing at low frame rates is pretty big. Tearing is way more noticeable at 60hz.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> how does that work?


V-sync.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aDyerSituation*
> 
> how does that work?


Partially because of the lower input lag on 120hz/144hz monitors compared to 60Hz/75Hz.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> Those with 144hz or 120 hz monitors, if your fps is at like 41 fps, would the usage STILL be better than a regular 60hz monitor? Some people swear that the 144hz will still make gameplay a lot smoother even if the fps isn't 144fps or even 60 fps for that matter. Is this true?
> 
> Been playing with 60 hz monitors with vsync off my whole life. Some games with fps under 60, some i cap to 60, others i let it run wildly to 100+


it does, albeit marginally.
most of the contribution are due to the monitor's input latency.

furthermore, the speed at which the monitor refreshes affects the time needed to post a frame, obviously faster refresh rate means faster frame post.
now if we look at the root cause of tearing, you could see that the reason is because the frame hadn't finished posting before being replaced by another frame part-way.
so if you draw the connection between the two, higher refresh rate = faster frame post = less tearing.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.computerbase.de/&prev=search



Polaris an efficiency monster?









'Quiet Mode' actually offers 93% the performance of the 1060. Shows the Polaris GPU is very efficient when not clocked 'over-spec' to match 1060 performance levels. Those that tried to claim Polaris was a disaster efficiency-wise are wide of the mark.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> 'Quiet Mode' actually offers 93% the performance of the 1060. Shows the Polaris GPU is very efficient when not clocked 'over-spec' to match 1060 performance levels. Those that tried to claim Polaris was a disaster efficiency-wise are wide of the mark.


any card could be efficient if it wasn't overly drawn out, RX480 can be a <100W card if its clocked 1Ghz @ ~0.9v for example.
the same thing applies to GTX1060 too, if you downclock and undervolt it to match RX480 performance, you'd get a <100W card.


----------



## Orthello

Interesting that RX480 red devil german review , without Anno that review would have to give slight performance advantage to rx480 as its a sizeable lead in Anno so affects the average result hugely over the 5 games tested , other 4 games would have averaged in the RX480s favour.

Also looking at the power numbers for 16% more power for the OC bios vs ref 1060 not as large as some would make you think , in some games you are getting quite a bit more performance too , COD 3 for example.

A lot of these reviews could swing either way in overall percentages over one game been included or not , i mean the number of sites reviewing doom in open gl vs vulcan (where nvidia and amd win vs open gl so i don't see the reason for this other than bias) etc then claiming overall win to the 1060 is a bit disingenuous.

So yeah it looks like the power numbers are quite good with this card compared to nitro. Only downer is currently no overclocking due to a 5% PT lock in the bios which they are addressing.


----------



## dmasteR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.computerbase.de/&prev=search
> 
> 
> 
> Polaris an efficiency monster?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Quiet Mode' actually offers 93% the performance of the 1060. Shows the Polaris GPU is very efficient when not clocked 'over-spec' to match 1060 performance levels. Those that tried to claim Polaris was a disaster efficiency-wise are wide of the mark.


That's one game. I'd like to see results from multiple games to see if that still holds true.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cherryblue*
> 
> Which doesn't mean you see 144hz.
> 
> Maybe it's just 10 fps ahead of what a 60hz screen gives you for real, and it makes this sensation you feel.
> 
> I'm saying, 60Hz monitors probably don't really give you 60. My bet is 75hz monitor is enough.
> 
> But then, you got what you need and I got what I need
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Not really sure what you are getting at. I play at medium for Overwatch, and low on blackops3 at 1440p (only 2 games I'm playing right now) in order to keep my frames in the 120+ range. When i played with 60hz i kept v-sync off and usually would try and keep my frames 70+... So I don't really know what to tell you other than it is a hell of a lot smoother, with very little blur.

Oh and as a little aside, the games look vastly better, even with reduced settings. The immersion is crazy.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Polaris an efficiency monster?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Quiet Mode' actually offers 93% the performance of the 1060. Shows the Polaris GPU is very efficient when not clocked 'over-spec' to match 1060 performance levels. Those that tried to claim Polaris was a disaster efficiency-wise are wide of the mark.


2.8X better than 200 serie. What a lie.
And yes, Polaris is a real efficiency disaster compared to Pascal. You got to deal whit it.




http://www.hardware.fr/articles/952-11/consommation-efficacite-energetique.html


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> 2.8X better than 200 serie. What a lie.


Cause only the 480 is Polaris? Sure.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

2.8x was 110W RX470 vs 180W R7 270.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> Cause only the 480 is Polaris? Sure.


You mean 480 is a bad Polaris chip regardinf efficiency but others are OK ?
Maybe massively downclocked, at console clocks type. AMD really love PC gamers !
Thanks red team !


----------



## Robenger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> You mean 480 is a bad Polaris chip regardinf efficiency but others are OK ?
> Maybe massively downclocked, at console clocks type. AMD really love PC gamers !
> Thanks red team !


What are you like 13? Why do you keep using exclamation points over and over?


----------



## Olivon

Your certainly the last person I will trust sorry. Your argumentory is just bad and full of bad informations.Like a bad PR.


----------



## mtcn77

Obviously trust issues. Have faith, reviewers are playing slow until you catch up.


----------



## Olivon

470 and 460 will be out soon. We will see who is wrong.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> I agree, little to no progress in Directx 12 has left you in despair.


Pascal made plenty of progress on DX12 compared to Maxwell and it didnt even need to tank its efficiency with HWS / ACEs like GCN to do so


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> 470 and 460 will be out soon. We will see who is wrong.


AMD is basing the 2.8x efficiency off of the 180W R9 270.

I did some estimate and the math checks out.

Although, using a 180W R9 270X instead of a 275W R9 290X is CEO math level.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Might be so when you cannot see


might be, all I see are *game fps improvements on Pascal* including in DX12 games


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> might be, all I see are game fps improvements on Pascal *pre*cluding in DX12 games


I thought you meant preclude - sorry. Let's roll the tape:


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> might be, all I see are *game fps improvements on Pascal* including in DX12 games


And a fury X as fast as a GTX 1080 on Doom Vulkan when using Async TSSAA and Ultra graphics not nightmare that consumes more than 4GB of VRAM.

I repeat, a Fury X as fast as a GTX 1080, but hey, ACEs tank efficiency I hear.


----------



## ChevChelios

Quote:


> And a fury X as fast as a GTX 1080 on Doom Vulkan when using Async TSSAA and Ultra graphics not nightmare that consumes more than 4GB of VRAM.


in 1 game, on specific AA settings, on specific (non max, bc Fury X cant handle max) texture settings only

but sure









just keep on playing that Doom, but make sure never to touch the settings lest Fury X falls behind or cant run the game anymore


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> in 1 game, on specific AA settings, on specific (non max, bc Fury X cant handle max) texture settings only
> 
> but sure


Which we call a benchmark for the industry, don't forget that part, or were you interested in Directx 12 and Vulkan only for the titles in retrospect? No troll...


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChevChelios*
> 
> in 1 game, on specific AA settings, on specific (non max, bc Fury X cant handle max) texture settings only
> 
> but sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just keep on playing that Doom, but make sure never to touch the settings lest Fury X falls behind or cant run the game anymore


That's what a game looks like when it make good use of ACEs which disproves what you said about "tanking efficiency" when talking about ACEs.

We're at a point where Async Shaders are barely being scratched, Doom on Vulkan offload the entirety of the best Temporal Super Sampling AA there is into the ACEs, making literally no performance difference, thanks to ACEs a Super Sampling effect drops the performance by a whooping 0 FPS, TSSAA is 100% offloaded so the GPU can use this freed up performance in boosting FPS or other graphical presets.

ACEs can be used to offload much more, it's a matter of time before developers begin to use this more extensively, Nvidia's implementation of Async Compute is mediocre at best, how much efficiency are they wasting by using a serial GPU method with fast context switching to process TSSAA when they could have used ACEs instead for a mere 5W more power usage?

And the fury can't handle nightmare settings because it's got 4GBs of VRAM while nightmare needs 6GB, but I'm not talking about the card here but the technology that can be implemented into future products which will obviously have more VRAM than we need making your point moot.

Nvidia is probably losing efficiency for not using ACEs, Maxwell was incredibly efficient and that's what's carrying Pascall through their lack of ACEs, although a RX 480 close up to a GTX 1070 when using Vulkan on Doom thanks to Async Shaders, this is a 232mm2 card coming close to a 312mm2 card.

Saying that ACEs tank efficiency is ridiculous at best, when they're used properly they're a huge boost for performance, 5W extra power consumption for 20% extra performance (20 FPS) seems extremely efficient to me, and this is with Doom, a game that is as neutral as they get, used in Nvidia's own presentations, but not on AMD's, a game that still doesn't exploit Async Compute anywhere near its max.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Poor comparison since RX480 is full die while 1070 is cut die. 1080 is also 312mm2 card lol. In terms of usable transistors, 480 and 1070 should be pretty close. Not to mention 14nm GF chips are slightly smaller than 16nm TSMC chips to begin with.


Probably, but bear in mind the RX 480 is a card stretched out of its "comfort zone" regarding its performance bracket.

Just see how the RX 470 have 12% less cores and 5% less boost frequency compared to a RX 480 and yet the RX 470 have a WHOOPING 40% less TDP, where the hell did that extra efficiency came from? It even looks like an entire different chip!

It's obvious that Polaris gets incredibly efficient at the lower ends and proves my theory about the RX 480 being stretched out of its intended performance bracket, and goes in line with what Raja said in that PCPer interview, that Polaris focus was on P11.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Nvidia is probably losing efficiency for not using ACEs, Maxwell was incredibly efficient but a RX 480 close up to a GTX 1070 when using Vulkan on Doom thanks to Async Shaders, this is a 232mm2 card coming close to a 312mm2 card.
> .


Poor comparison since RX480 is full die while 1070 is cut die. 1080 is also 312mm2 card lol. In terms of usable transistors, 480 and 1070 should be pretty close. Not to mention 14nm GF chips are slightly smaller than 16nm TSMC chips to begin with.


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> AMD is basing the 2.8x efficiency off of the 180W R9 270.
> 
> I did some estimate and the math checks out.
> 
> Although, using a 180W R9 270X instead of a 275W R9 290X is CEO math level.


One thing I am wondering is in what world is the r9 270 or 270x a 180 watt card. The 380x is a 180w card. Not the 270x.



The 270 and 270x is 120 watts or less.

Maybe in furmark unthrottled, but that an artificial condition.


----------



## STEvil

Its like I said earlier, asyncronous compute could be as big as hardware transform and lighting.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> One thing I am wondering is in what world is the r9 270 or 270x a 180 watt card. The 380x is a 180w card. Not the 270x.
> 
> 
> 
> The 270 and 270x is 120 watts or less.
> 
> Maybe in furmark unthrottled, but that an artificial condition.


It has 180W TDP. I knew something was wrong when AMD used that in their comparison rather than actual power draw.


----------



## the9quad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *STEvil*
> 
> Its like I said earlier, asyncronous compute could be as big as hardware transform and lighting.


Remember before that, 3dfx had a strangle hold on the market? Along came nvidia with hardware transform and lighting and bam. Fortunes changed.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Yeah the 270 was a typo. 270 have 150W TDP but 270X definately have 180W TDP. And if you use the 180W TDP as baseline, you get 2.8 times efficiency.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7503/the-amd-radeon-r9-270x-270-review-feat-asus-his/16


----------



## Ha-Nocri

AMD claims 1.7x perf/watt...

2.8x is with some conditions met, VR probably, I forgot/didn't pay attention.


----------



## dmasteR




----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> AMD claims 1.7x perf/watt...
> 
> 2.8x is with some conditions met, VR probably, I forgot/didn't pay attention.


What you need to look at is same size chip.

You cannot compare GTX 1060 vs GTX 970 vs RX 480 efficiency. GTX 970 is larger chip... mostly you can compare GTX 960 vs R7 370 vs RX 480 vs GTX 1060.
GTX 160 in gaming mode use around 120W while GTX 1070 use 150W in gaming... GTX 1070 is 45% faster and use only 25% more W.

You cannot compare P/W architecture vs architecture.. while chip are different, clock are different. Everyone could hit much better efficiency on desktop...

Why we are talking about efficiency if every one here is going to OC GPU? Just do not tell that GTX 1060 OC wont use more than 200W.. because if you will hit OC limit you will probably have also problem with power deliver on 8 pin connector.

If everyone wants P/W Just get GTX 1060 or RX 480 and clock it down for like 10-20% (RX 480) and you will probably hit really good P/W and on both cards.

*Every one is saying that async are not important. Why is nvidia implementing async? I bet we will see some kind of async hardware implementation in next gen. Thats why I wont buy Pascal, Pascal is lagging behind GCN4... Even on OC.net people mostly do not carer about hardware changes GCN1,GCN2,GCN3 and GCN4. Please NVIDIA fanboys or somebody explain me why is NVIDIA promoting async shader?*


----------



## VegetarianEater

correct me if i'm wrong but at 175W isn't the r9 nano still the most efficient AMD card? and it's a 28nm part...

I imagine the 14nm version of the r9 nano (hopefully the 490) would be very power efficient if that's the case...

I wish techpowerup would include that card in their per/watt graphs


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VegetarianEater*
> 
> correct me if i'm wrong but at 175W isn't the r9 nano still the most efficient AMD card? and it's a 28nm part...
> 
> I imagine the 14nm version of the r9 nano (hopefully the 490) would be very power efficient if that's the case...
> 
> I wish techpowerup would include that card in their per/watt graphs


depends? RX 480 is very efficient also.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> depends? RX 480 is very efficient also.


r9 nano is definitely amd''s best performance per watt card.
btw it's a really sweet card I would really like to have in my rig for multi adapter with my 1080 if only that worked in more than one game.


----------



## OneB1t

use same powerlimit as nano have on fury / fury x or 290X and it will also be much more power effective

its just how AMD cards works now


----------



## SwishaMane

Got my RX 480 on the newest 16.7.3 driver, +5% core in WattMan, which is about 1325-1330Mhz, and its stable. Apparently wattman opnly adjusts by 5% increments now when it was 0.5%, whats up with that?


----------



## Mr.N00bLaR

The newest driver doesn't seem to hot, might wanna try with 16.7.2: http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/desktop/previous/detail?os=Windows%2010%20-%2064&rev=16.7.2


----------



## lolerk52

Reduce power target by 25%, reduce performance by 5%. Undervolt and it's free power savings.

480 pushed way out of its comfort zone. GPU Boost 3.0 keeps NVIDIA's GPU's at the comfort zone at all times.


----------



## epic1337

polaris10 chip itself seems to be meant as a 200W chip.

and furthermore, the VRM are scorching hot, which indicates that they're being stressed out.
i mean, both RX480 and GTX1060 uses 6phase VRM, yet RX480 is a lot more power hungry.


----------



## VeritronX

I'm running 16.7.3 (16.30.2311) installed onto a fresh install of windows 10 with my XFX RX480 Core 8GB and I don't have any crashing problems or restrictions on ram clocks.. I'm not sure about the percentage based frequency increases as I've just typed in the numbers for mine manually.

I have noticed that it doesn't apply the custom voltage setting on boot, it applies the default until you change it in wattman and click apply. GTAV does seem to run a lot smoother on this new driver than it did before.


----------



## HarrisLam

I settled with a MSI 1060 gaming at the end.

I do not care for DX12 and wanted a cool and power saving card.

local prices and availability wasn't in AMD's favor either. 4GB 480 not in sight. Any reference 8GB 480 = 2300 unit price. MSI 1060 gaming = 2500-2600

Good luck to whoever that's still waiting


----------



## kittysox

I was at least able to get a nitro 470 ordered for 179$. Guess I'll just skip the aib 480 altogether and rock the 470 until vega comes along. Then it'll make a great 1080 minecraft PC for my daughter


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> I settled with a MSI 1060 gaming at the end.
> 
> I do not care for DX12 and wanted a cool and power saving card.
> 
> local prices and availability wasn't in AMD's favor either. 4GB 480 not in sight. Any reference 8GB 480 = 2300 unit price. MSI 1060 gaming = 2500-2600
> 
> Good luck to whoever that's still waiting


i was supposed to be waiting for 4GB 480, but now that i see 470 being not much slower, now i'm waiting for 470 to save a few bucks.








can't really blame myself for wanting to save some money though, those ridiculous price gouging pushes it above my ideal budget.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Just see how the RX 470 have 12% less cores and 5% less boost frequency compared to a RX 480 and yet the RX 470 have a WHOOPING 40% less TDP, where the hell did that extra efficiency came from? It even looks like an entire different chip!
> 
> It's obvious that Polaris gets incredibly efficient at the lower ends and proves my theory about the RX 480 being stretched out of its intended performance bracket, and goes in line with what Raja said in that PCPer interview, that Polaris focus was on P11.


Well, your talks are really different from the reality.
RX 470 is a little more efficient than RX 480 but not so much and the 2.8X cake is a lie. The 470 is not even 2X but around 1.7-1.9X on games like Ryse and TW3 vs a 270X.
2.8X is 1060 territory and we're very far from it.



http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/articles/cartes-graphiques/32133-test-radeon-rx-470.html?start=17

Worst, your Polaris 11 "incredbly power efficient" is a joke too.
RX460 beats 750Ti by a little in performance and have almost the same power efficiency. GM107 (28nm HP) is a Q1 2014 chip, P11 (14nm FF LPP) is almost Q3 2016.

http://videocardz.com/63033/gigabyte-radeon-rx-460-windforce-2x-performance-leaked

I don't know what happen at AMD but Polaris is indeed a big failure, barely able to face the old Maxwell arch from nVidia, a total waste.
nVidia got a free highway regarding laptops (GP107 will slaugther this thing) thanks to not having a real competitor again.

And this, (BF4 and TW3)





http://www.hardware.fr/articles/953-8/consommation-efficacite-energetique.html
http://www.hardware.fr/focus/118/rx-480-sapphire-nitro-vs-gtx-1060-gainward-match-280.html

Waow. Around the same power consumption, with a 2X bigger die in size, more than 2X trannies and still around 2.2X performance, It's quite shocking.
AMD is late, really late...


----------



## Ha-Nocri

AMD said 1.7x more power efficient.

2.8x was for VR or something.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> AMD said 1.7x more power efficient.
> 
> 2.8x was for VR or something.


compute, they were mostly looking at synthetic benchmarks too.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> AMD said 1.7x more power efficient.
> 
> 2.8x was for VR or something.


No :



1.9X was vs. a 290 :



And it's wrong too.


----------



## tkenietz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> compute, they were mostly looking at synthetic benchmarks too.


Also they based the 270x numbers off of tdp I would assume. The 270x during gaming was like 120w not 180w. 470 during gaming is 120w, so would still work out to about 1.7x perf/watt

If you used the 180w tdp for 270x and 120w typical gaming consumption for 470, that would get you closer to the 2.8x, but again I think it was under special circumstances. The slide did say 1.7x, 2.8x using AMD technologies or something along those lines

Edit: still nowhere near what marketing tried to make us believe. I don't get marketing like that, hype up a product as if when it launches people won't know better


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> AMD said 1.7x more power efficient.
> 
> 2.8x was for VR or something.
> 
> 
> 
> No :
> 
> 
> 
> 1.9X was vs. a 290 :
> 
> 
> 
> And it's wrong too.
Click to expand...

If you assume 480 is 7% faster than 290, use their TDP, and ignore their actual power draw, then a 150W TDP 480 is 1.9x more efficient than a 275W TDP 290.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Also they based the 270x numbers off of tdp I would assume. The 270x during gaming was like 120w not 180w. 470 during gaming is 120w, so would still work out to about 1.7x perf/watt
> 
> If you used the 180w tdp for 270x and 120w typical gaming consumption for 470, that would get you closer to the 2.8x, but again I think it was under special circumstances. The slide did say 1.7x, 2.8x using AMD technologies or something along those lines
> 
> Edit: still nowhere near what marketing tried to make us believe. I don't get marketing like that, hype up a product as if when it launches people won't know better




1.7X is for the "alleged" process gain itself.

edit : And contrary to what the endnotes said, RX 470 is not a 110W but a 120W card :


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tkenietz*
> 
> Edit: still nowhere near what marketing tried to make us believe. I don't get marketing like that, hype up a product as if when it launches people won't know better


i wonder, can they be filed with a "false advertising" lawsuit? or are disclaimers "subjected to change without notice" or "results may vary" make them immune to this law?


----------



## AmericanLoco

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i wonder, can they be filed with a "false advertising" lawsuit? or are disclaimers "subjected to change without notice" or "results may vary" make them immune to this law?


No, because it's not like they were advertising the RX480 as a 90 watt card when it uses 150 watts. They advertised it as a 150 watt card, which it more or less is.

I love AMD, have them in almost all my builds, but even I have to admit Polaris is a failure. Literally the only thing going for it, is that it's cheap. It's not even as power efficient as the 28nm Fury Nano, which is absurd. Their Shanghai design team isn't inspiring much confidence in me, so I don't have high hopes for Vega. Makes me wonder what the 1000+ original Canadian guys are still working on; APUs?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AmericanLoco*
> 
> No, because it's not like they were advertising the RX480 as a 90 watt card when it uses 150 watts. They advertised it as a 150 watt card, which it more or less is.


well i'm not talking about polaris specifically, but the marketing teams in general.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AmericanLoco*
> 
> I love AMD, have them in almost all my builds, but even I have to admit Polaris is a failure. Literally the only thing going for it, is that it's cheap. It's not even as power efficient as the 28nm Fury Nano, which is absurd.


its not really cheap when you look at the price gouging thats going on.
i mean my local store sells their MSI RX480 GAMING X 8GB for $350? who're they kidding?


----------



## tkenietz

Anything is better than the 460, if the most recent leaks are true then it's .99 improvement in perf/watt over Bonaire


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i was supposed to be waiting for 4GB 480, but now that i see 470 being not much slower, now i'm waiting for 470 to save a few bucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can't really blame myself for wanting to save some money though, those ridiculous price gouging pushes it above my ideal budget.


Hey, they gotta justify the $30 increase over AIB MSRP with supposed "batching" and a measly 20 Mhz OC to core and 25 Mhz OC to memory that everyone can do with little effort! Lol. Just new methods of squeezing out every dollar with little to no gain.

I mean, see how every AIB is NOT releasing a regular spec'ed clocked 480 or a regular spec'ed clocked 470? I bet if they did, and gave us their AIB coolers, we could OC and get to the OC levels they offered and save $30, and even OC higher, easily. Of course, until there's legitimate batching like what's done with Nvidia cards in the MSI Lightning, or Kingpin line and equivalent, it's all bogus crap to squeeze us.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> Hey, they gotta justify the $30 increase over AIB MSRP with supposed "batching" and a measly 20 Mhz OC to core and 25 Mhz OC to memory that everyone can do with little effort! Lol. Just new methods of squeezing out every dollar with little to no gain.
> 
> I mean, see how every AIB is NOT releasing a regular spec'ed clocked 480 or a regular spec'ed clocked 470? I bet if they did, and gave us their AIB coolers, we could OC and get to the OC levels they offered and save $30, and even OC higher, easily. Of course, until there's legitimate batching like what's done with Nvidia cards in the MSI Lightning, or Kingpin line and equivalent, it's all bogus crap to squeeze us.


right, its a good thing that RX470 didn't have a reference design.
atm RX470 is priced more reasonably, the decent AIB cards are hovering around $200, about $20 more than MSRP.
if what i'd expect is correct, if RX470 lands here locally it'll be priced around $250, which is within my ideal budget.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> right, its a good thing that RX470 didn't have a reference design.
> atm RX470 is priced more reasonably, the decent AIB cards are hovering around $200, about $20 more than MSRP.
> if what i'd expect is correct, if RX470 lands here locally it'll be priced around $250, which is within my ideal budget.


No kidding. I think this will be the new thing, as it may already has been. AMD lists reference clocks, then AIBs just clock them 20 Mhz without breaking a sweat, then throw on a new cooler to charge much more. If it means paying 194.99 instead of 199.99, for stock clocks with a AIB cooler, I'll take it. That's money saved in the end.









There is one card I'm looking at, and it's the new Gigabyte 470 G1. Not sure where you're located, but for reference: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125896

Small card (need 240mm, this is 232mm), looks better than the old G1 designs. Kinda hoping to see what the offer price for the 480 8GB version though. If anything, it might be $280 like Sapphire and Asus.

There's a deal with VISA checkout here for the site, $15 off $200, but of course, the card is $199.99 lol. It's almost as if VISA and Newegg are feeling sorry for us and wanting to help us pay regular AIB prices. /sarcasm


----------



## epic1337

a well designed RX470 even for $200 MSRP is worth it, at least its much better than a reference 4GB RX480 for $199 MSRP.
it would be great if we could get an 8GB RX470 for not much more, theoretically it'll be a lot cheaper than a reference 8GB RX480.

for the record, my local store sells a reference XFX 8GB RX480 for $300, seriously.
"look, cheap polaris cards are here!"


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> a well designed RX470 even for $200 MSRP is worth it, at least its much better than a reference 4GB RX480 for $199 MSRP.
> it would be great if we could get an 8GB RX470 for not much more, theoretically it'll be a lot cheaper than a reference 8GB RX480.
> 
> for the record, my local store sells a reference XFX 8GB RX480 for $300, seriously. "look, cheap polaris cards are here!"


My reference 4GB RX480 unlocks to 8GB and can do 2200mhz on mem.

How is that worse than a 4GB 470 for the same price?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> My reference 4GB RX480 unlocks to 8GB and can do 2200mhz on mem.
> 
> How is that worse than a 4GB 470 for the same price?


heat and noise? why else would we want a non-reference cooler for our cards?
plus power constraints if you want to remain within board spec.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> "look, cheap polaris cards are here!"


They are cheap if you order 100 of them as a miner.
Of course getting 1 as a gamer from a retail shop is difficult









I hope the AIBs will enjoy all those RMAs 6 months from now.


----------



## Malinkadink

I wouldn't put too much hope into the 470 g1, i had the 1070 g1 and its just not as solidly built as the 970 g1 was, tried a zotac amp extreme 1070 and it was crazy good. Ended up returning it anyway though because of latency problems. This puts me back on the 970, and theres no reason to get a 480 as my 970 matches or exceeds it, so i'm stuck waiting on vega.

I know the benefits associated with non ref designs, but i'm contemplating doing a very small mini itx build with zen and vega, so i'll need a ref card for its blower. It is really gross seeing the price gouging on these "affordable" gpus. Miners are surely partly to blame, theres definitely a lot of demand and just not enough supply right now, well that and the fact that retailers are purposely marking it up even if there is stock.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malinkadink*
> 
> I wouldn't put too much hope into the 470 g1, i had the 1070 g1 and its just not as solidly built as the 970 g1 was, tried a zotac amp extreme 1070 and it was crazy good. Ended up returning it anyway though because of latency problems. This puts me back on the 970, and theres no reason to get a 480 as my 970 matches or exceeds it, so i'm stuck waiting on vega.
> 
> I know the benefits associated with non ref designs, but i'm contemplating doing a very small mini itx build with zen and vega, so i'll need a ref card for its blower. It is really gross seeing the price gouging on these "affordable" gpus. Miners are surely partly to blame, theres definitely a lot of demand and just not enough supply right now, well that and the fact that retailers are purposely marking it up even if there is stock.


Hmm, I will wait for reviews then.

The 480 Reference would've been perfect for me if my case was a bit longer. A blower style would've been perfect.


----------



## epic1337

blower style would've been perfect for 480 if it used a bigger heatsink, i mean really, whats up with that tiny heatsink?

 *VS* 

and thats while excluding the power constraints of the 6pin PCI-E, they could've used 8pin PCI-E and it would still be a 150W card.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> blower style would've been perfect for 480 if it used a bigger heatsink, i mean really, whats up with that tiny heatsink?
> 
> *VS*
> 
> and thats while excluding the power constraints of the 6pin PCI-E, they could've used 8pin PCI-E and it would still be a 150W card.


Lower air resistance? It is pretty quiet at stock.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> blower style would've been perfect for 480 if it used a bigger heatsink, i mean really, whats up with that tiny heatsink?
> 
> *VS*
> 
> and thats while excluding the power constraints of the 6pin PCI-E, they could've used 8pin PCI-E and it would still be a 150W card.


Cost, they could have made the heatsink almost twice the size but they wouldn't because a tiny heatsink and a power throttled card is fine for OEMs.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Lower air resistance? It is pretty quiet at stock.


Good joke. Ever had a dual 100mm axial fan cooled GPU with a big whole card heatsink? That is quiet until about 1250-1400rpm.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mtcn77*
> 
> Lower air resistance? It is pretty quiet at stock.


air resistance is mostly due to fin density, you can still get a larger surface area by using a longer heatsink with less fin density.
yes cost of the card will increase, but whats $10~$20 more for a more satisfactory card? hell most of us are willing to get a better AIB card just for this point.

but the temp to noise ratio is horrible, at stock and low-load its very quiet, but once you put a bit more load it starts ramping up to 40+ dB.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Well, your talks are really different from the reality.
> RX 470 is a little more efficient than RX 480 but not so much and the 2.8X cake is a lie. The 470 is not even 2X but around 1.7-1.9X on games like Ryse and TW3 vs a 270X.
> 2.8X is 1060 territory and we're very far from it.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/articles/cartes-graphiques/32133-test-radeon-rx-470.html?start=17
> 
> Worst, your Polaris 11 "incredbly power efficient" is a joke too.
> RX460 beats 750Ti by a little in performance and have almost the same power efficiency. GM107 (28nm HP) is a Q1 2014 chip, P11 (14nm FF LPP) is almost Q3 2016.
> 
> http://videocardz.com/63033/gigabyte-radeon-rx-460-windforce-2x-performance-leaked
> 
> I don't know what happen at AMD but Polaris is indeed a big failure, barely able to face the old Maxwell arch from nVidia, a total waste.
> nVidia got a free highway regarding laptops (GP107 will slaugther this thing) thanks to not having a real competitor again.
> 
> And this, (BF4 and TW3)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.hardware.fr/articles/953-8/consommation-efficacite-energetique.html
> http://www.hardware.fr/focus/118/rx-480-sapphire-nitro-vs-gtx-1060-gainward-match-280.html
> 
> Waow. Around the same power consumption, with a 2X bigger die in size, more than 2X trannies and still around 2.2X performance, It's quite shocking.
> AMD is late, really late...


+1

Really eye opening. In terms of efficiency, pretty much a failure.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Good joke. Ever had a dual 100mm axial fan cooled GPU with a big whole card heatsink? That is quiet until about 1250-1400rpm.


Have I? You can see the cards I have from my sig. 5770 is a high pitched reference card, but when dialed low it is more silent than 6870 which generates 30 watts more heat. Also, axial fan cooled cards aren't meant for installation into case slots, unless you want to replace them soon.


----------



## mtcn77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> air resistance is mostly due to fin density, you can still get a larger surface area by using a longer heatsink with less fin density.
> yes cost of the card will increase, but whats $10~$20 more for a more satisfactory card? hell most of us are willing to get a better AIB card just for this point.
> 
> but the temp to noise ratio is horrible, at stock and low-load its very quiet, but once you put a bit more load it starts ramping up to 40+ dB.


Sure, but they are generating good pressure which moves the air. With axial fans, you just get more tip velocity ripping through the air that is generating the noise which is not what you need. You can get away with wider gapped lower resistance fins and a centrifugal fan with a smaller rotor. Plus, they _purr_.


----------



## tkenietz

While it's disappointing, of all the things AMD may regret, I doubt the size of the heatsink on the 480 is one of them. Sells out every time, cost less, I'm sure they consider it a win. They should have done a reference 470. The cooler would have been more capable and we could have gotten cards at msrp


----------



## slavovid

Guys, I've been following Polaris 10 release and Radeon RX 480 coming to the market, but could have probably missed this.

Have been waiting for all AIB cards to get tested and reviewed in order to set my mind on the card to buy.
I usually go with low end GPU so this time buying and RX 480 non reference is the max i can use and the max i could afford (playing on a 1050p and on a budget)

The question i have is about the MSI RX 480 gaming X - It hasn't had it's own thread around here even thou some reviews have popped out over at Nexus, techpowerup and Guru3D.

Between the MSI Gaming X the Nitro+ Asus and the Devil the MSI is using bigger radiator and bigger fans. According to the test it's a very quiet card.

That's the main thing i want but since i want it to be a purchase for several (3+) years i am hoping for some notes on the quality of MSI and in particular what has been changed improved or not over the reference model in terms of the PCB. I know it has an 8pin power connector but on the other cards i saw discussion about changed power phases ? C-caps etc. etc.

I wanted to see a review on Kit Guru because the other 3 are up there and this makes for a better comparison due to test mechanics being identical. But there is no review there.
Also found an youtube video discussing the PCB but translating it to english via the subtitles and with my limited understanding of those things i can't rly understand what exactly has been upgraded over the reference model.

If someone could shed some more light on the subject that would be great as i rly want to order and get in my hands an RX 480 before the end of the month. Yet i prefer to figure out the best of them all before i order.


----------



## ArchieGriffs

All these reviews have done is shown me how lucky I am to have a 290, it's still holding up after a few years, but all I want is a (or multiple) 490/490x(s) that will make me forget 4k has low fps. First world problems...


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> +1
> 
> Really eye opening. In terms of efficiency, pretty much a failure.


Whaat?!


----------



## orlfman

here's a really good youtube review of a 480 with a AIO cooler attached to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePpsT9fhpQ

he was able to overclock it into the 1500mhz+ range but didn't feel comfortable with the voltage so he settled on 1470mhz for 24/7 and he benched it against a 2.1ghz 1060.

pretty amazing how much more head room water gave the 480.


----------



## Buris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *orlfman*
> 
> here's a really good youtube review of a 480 with a AIO cooler attached to it:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePpsT9fhpQ
> 
> he was able to overclock it into the 1500mhz+ range but didn't feel comfortable with the voltage so he settled on 1470mhz for 24/7 and he benched it against a 2.1ghz 1060.
> 
> pretty amazing how much more head room water gave the 480.


The issue is that silicon lottery played a large part in that massive overclock...

I'm sure there will be a second stepping that hits 1.5ghz but as of now we are stuck with some cards being limited to the high 1300's not due to voltage or heat issues, but simply due to the GPU not being able to sustain such clocks!


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *orlfman*
> 
> here's a really good youtube review of a 480 with a AIO cooler attached to it:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePpsT9fhpQ
> 
> he was able to overclock it into the 1500mhz+ range but didn't feel comfortable with the voltage so he settled on 1470mhz for 24/7 and he benched it against a 2.1ghz 1060.
> 
> pretty amazing how much more head room water gave the 480.


Lottery luck and water cooling. The consumption must be getting nuts.


----------



## Orthello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Lottery luck and water cooling. The consumption must be getting nuts.


I'm not sure about the lottery luck as its well cooled with considerably higher than stock voltages.

Not everyones going to bother to watercool these cards so until we get a few people doing it we won't know what the average is under water for the higher voltages. I've seen reviews of stock voltage at 1430mhz RX480s with ref cooler , so this is watercooled and only 40mhz higher.

This is the 2nd you tube video i've seen where cards can clock over 1500mhz with enough voltage.

Consumption is something i'd like to see , the performance per watt could still be respectable in vulkan etc. That's going to depend on the game.

Consumption aside , atleast there is voltage scaling which makes it ideal to play around with for enthusiasts.


----------



## mutatedknutz

Guys im so confused. Planning to get a new card as my r9 280 feels under powered at times.
But im so confused with amd vs nvidia.

Like rx 480 and rx 470 do way better in dx12 and vulkan, Like dx 12 is the future and many games will support dx12.
Nvidia cards gtx 1060 performs good in dx11 and falls behind in dx12 and vulkan.
Im confused between rx 480 (330$) , rx 470 (254$) and gtx 1060 (330$) , yes prices in my country are high.
Might even consider getting gtx 1070 (550$) if its worth it and future proof or should i wait for the rx 490?

I mainly play dota 2 competitive and csgo casually and i might play battlefield 1 and such AAA games. Ill be getting an 144hz monitor upgrade in 2 months.
Ill play on 1080p only, might consider getting 4k tv later.
Dint want to make a new thread cause ill be getting the graphic card at end of this month.

I overall like the gtx 1060, but nvidia's poor future support makes me re think, as in a year theyll make it legacy.
Amd cards have always been good to go for minimum 3 years i guess?
Thank you


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mutatedknutz*
> 
> Guys im so confused. Planning to get a new card as my r9 280 feels under powered at times.
> But im so confused with amd vs nvidia.
> 
> Like rx 480 and rx 470 do way better in dx12 and vulkan, Like dx 12 is the future and many games will support dx12.
> Nvidia cards gtx 1060 performs good in dx11 and falls behind in dx12 and vulkan.
> Im confused between rx 480 (330$) , rx 470 (254$) and gtx 1060 (330$) , yes prices in my country are high.
> Might even consider getting gtx 1070 (550$) if its worth it and future proof or should i wait for the rx 490?
> 
> I mainly play dota 2 competitive and csgo casually and i might play battlefield 1 and such AAA games. Ill be getting an 144hz monitor upgrade in 2 months.
> Ill play on 1080p only, might consider getting 4k tv later.
> Dint want to make a new thread cause ill be getting the graphic card at end of this month.
> 
> I overall like the gtx 1060, but nvidia's poor future support makes me re think, as in a year theyll make it legacy.
> Amd cards have always been good to go for minimum 3 years i guess?
> Thank you


If I were you, I would probably get a rx 470 if it is indeed that cheap in your country, and get an adaptive sync 144hz 1080p... then if you feel like you need a better GPU, sell the rx 470 and grab a vega in a few months.


----------



## slavovid

I am looking for information of the VRM on the Sapphire Nitro and Nitro+ OC 8 GB versions and i can't find accurate information. Have we seen details on the PCB ?
I am only finding 1 review with a 4Gb version that shows 6 phases but states that Sapphire have said that it is 5 phases and 1 of them is disabled in the bios ???


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Olivon spouting a lot of nonsense about Polaris again.

The performance of these cards is largely based on the benchmark of reviews (obviously) but it depends on what review you are looking at to judge the cards. The true performance of the 480/470 and even the 460 exposed in Vulkan and DX12 does show the cards are extremely power efficient and hugely more efficient compared to last gen.



The 470 here, an AIB one to boot (so slightly more power consumption than ref), has the same power consumption as a 1060 and offers 85-90% of the performance. How that is a disaster, or shows that AMD are 'a generation behind Nvidia' truly beats me. They've actually brought themselves right back into the game with Polaris arch. If you do power consumption - performance in DX12/Vulkan only, the picture is even more positive.


----------



## Dudewitbow

power consumption this generation is pretty hard to talk about, as this gen sort of shows; at least compared to 28nm, that power consumption is heavily tied to voltage. increasing voltage on the new nodes makes power consumption go up rapidly, and the opposite is true, which decreasing voltage drastically decreased power consumption and hit performance a lot less. I feel this generation generally has bad overclocks (very heavily silicon lottery based), but have great undervolts. The undervolting nature of the current nodes is what will allow laptop gaming to be more competitive (basically desktop chips can go into laptops, as long as its clocked lower and voltage is lower with it as well)


----------



## mejobloggs

I just installed a 470









What benchmark program do people use these days to make sure everything's running ok?

Just want to test to make sure everything is as expected and getting the correct performance etc


----------



## Dargonplay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mejobloggs*
> 
> I just installed a 470
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What benchmark program do people use these days to make sure everything's running ok?
> 
> Just want to test to make sure everything is as expected and getting the correct performance etc


Since I'm a cheap bastard, Unigine Heaven and Unigine Valley are the ones I use









If you want something behind a paywall then Firestrike is a very extensive benchmark.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Olivon spouting a lot of nonsense about Polaris again.
> 
> The performance of these cards is largely based on the benchmark of reviews (obviously) but it depends on what review you are looking at to judge the cards. The true performance of the 480/470 and even the 460 exposed in Vulkan and DX12 does show the cards are extremely power efficient and hugely more efficient compared to last gen.
> 
> 
> 
> The 470 here, an AIB one to boot (so slightly more power consumption than ref), has the same power consumption as a 1060 and offers 85-90% of the performance. How that is a disaster, or shows that AMD are 'a generation behind Nvidia' truly beats me. They've actually brought themselves right back into the game with Polaris arch. If you do power consumption - performance in DX12/Vulkan only, the picture is even more positive.


So a cherry picked DX12 benchmark is the "true" performance because you said so?


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Orthello*
> 
> I'm not sure about the lottery luck as its well cooled with considerably higher than stock voltages.
> 
> Not everyones going to bother to watercool these cards so until we get a few people doing it we won't know what the average is under water for the higher voltages. I've seen reviews of stock voltage at 1430mhz RX480s with ref cooler , so this is watercooled and only 40mhz higher.
> 
> This is the 2nd you tube video i've seen where cards can clock over 1500mhz with enough voltage.
> 
> Consumption is something i'd like to see , the performance per watt could still be respectable in vulkan etc. That's going to depend on the game.
> 
> Consumption aside , atleast there is voltage scaling which makes it ideal to play around with for enthusiasts.


I wanted to AIO an RX 480 but didn't win a giveaway and it got ruined by others who entered but didn't want the items they won








Most reviews top OC out at 1360-1370. Anything more is luck on 480s and not to be counted on. Where as almost all 10xx from NV do 2050 and some do up to 2150 on default cooling no AIOs needed...
He's like 100MHz higher with the AIO than what one can expect on average with reference or custom aircooled card.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mutatedknutz*
> 
> Guys im so confused. Planning to get a new card as my r9 280 feels under powered at times.
> But im so confused with amd vs nvidia.
> 
> Like rx 480 and rx 470 do way better in dx12 and vulkan, Like dx 12 is the future and many games will support dx12.
> Nvidia cards gtx 1060 performs good in dx11 and falls behind in dx12 and vulkan.
> Im confused between rx 480 (330$) , rx 470 (254$) and gtx 1060 (330$) , yes prices in my country are high.
> Might even consider getting gtx 1070 (550$) if its worth it and future proof or should i wait for the rx 490?
> 
> I mainly play dota 2 competitive and csgo casually and i might play battlefield 1 and such AAA games. Ill be getting an 144hz monitor upgrade in 2 months.
> Ill play on 1080p only, might consider getting 4k tv later.
> Dint want to make a new thread cause ill be getting the graphic card at end of this month.
> 
> I overall like the gtx 1060, but nvidia's poor future support makes me re think, as in a year theyll make it legacy.
> Amd cards have always been good to go for minimum 3 years i guess?
> Thank you


10xx suffers from unsolved DPC high latency issue as part of one of it's 8 issues I know about some of which were fixed or hacks exist.
470 is overpriced and so is 480 due to low availability as AIBs rather shipped many cards to miners than to retailers where gamers shop.
Here a Nitro+OC 480 is now available at one shop for about $279 (excl. tax, I convert local prices to USD to check them against MSRP).
Cheap equivalent 1060 goes for $259.

Sapphire is nuts with the pricing and so are most other AMD AIBs right now. The reference is down at price but I don't have an AIO to cool it








And even the cheapest new AIO here costs way too much.

For 1440p you're best with 980Ti, 1070, Fury X or similar performance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slavovid*
> 
> I am looking for information of the VRM on the Sapphire Nitro and Nitro+ OC 8 GB versions and i can't find accurate information. Have we seen details on the PCB ?
> I am only finding 1 review with a 4Gb version that shows 6 phases but states that Sapphire have said that it is 5 phases and 1 of them is disabled in the bios ???


Reviews show the VRMs. There are many.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> Olivon spouting a lot of nonsense about Polaris again.
> 
> The performance of these cards is largely based on the benchmark of reviews (obviously) but it depends on what review you are looking at to judge the cards. The true performance of the 480/470 and even the 460 exposed in Vulkan and DX12 does show the cards are extremely power efficient and hugely more efficient compared to last gen.
> 
> 
> 
> The 470 here, an AIB one to boot (so slightly more power consumption than ref), has the same power consumption as a 1060 and offers 85-90% of the performance. How that is a disaster, or shows that AMD are 'a generation behind Nvidia' truly beats me. They've actually brought themselves right back into the game with Polaris arch. If you do power consumption - performance in DX12/Vulkan only, the picture is even more positive.


P10 is on par with Maxwell but not Paxwell in performance/power ratio. Sure if you compare only AMD optimized programs/games AMD will be on par with Paxwell but on average they are 1 generation behind when you include a wide sample of programs.

85% performance at the same consumption gives you 117% better efficiency for Paxwell. But I think from TPU it showed even higher than that.
1060 - 480 the difference is like 50W for system power on load at stock while 480 on average wide sample is slightly slower. Even if you count in only the few better, newer games it's gonna be a tie.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dargonplay*
> 
> Since I'm a cheap bastard, Unigine Heaven and Unigine Valley are the ones I use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want something behind a paywall then Firestrike is a very extensive benchmark.


I run Heaven but games are where it's at really, especially games that eat all the VRAM to test VRAM issues.
3DMark is a system hog and installs background services that then run always, hate that intrusive crap. Heaven is bloatware free compared to 3DWannaBeMark.


----------



## Menta

Some test results, Bought this for my sons PC...My last AMD card was a 1900xtx









CPU i3 6100 overclocked 4200. MISSING After burner though, wattsman is crap i dont like it.


----------



## slavovid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Reviews show the VRMs. There are many.


The thing about the "many" reviews is they show different data or no data at all.

The most accurate i can assume is true shows a 6+1 phase model and states that Sapphire have told them that 1 of the VRM is disabled and the release model will have 5+1 VRM
MSI state 4+2 VRM on most review but one that is stating 6+2 and a member here confirmed that MSI have decided 6+2 in the end.

Can't find descent reviews on the XFX 2 fan model showing VRM's nor the EvilDevil one ...







Gigabyte doesn't even have a review on much like the XFX 2 fans option with or without backplate.


----------



## itomic

I dont see much reviews of 4GB model. Did someone hier tested does properly ? I would assume that there is no much of a difference for 1080p gaming, espacially if memory on 4GB model gets speed bump trough overclocking.


----------



## keikei

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *itomic*
> 
> I dont see much reviews of 4GB model. Did someone hier tested does properly ? I would assume that there is no much of a difference for 1080p gaming, espacially if memory on 4GB model gets speed bump trough overclocking.





Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slavovid*
> 
> The thing about the "many" reviews is they show different data or no data at all.
> 
> The most accurate i can assume is true shows a 6+1 phase model and states that Sapphire have told them that 1 of the VRM is disabled and the release model will have 5+1 VRM
> MSI state 4+2 VRM on most review but one that is stating 6+2 and a member here confirmed that MSI have decided 6+2 in the end.
> 
> Can't find descent reviews on the XFX 2 fan model showing VRM's nor the EvilDevil one ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gigabyte doesn't even have a review on much like the XFX 2 fans option with or without backplate.


Not sure it matters if they are copies of the reference VRM. Reference RX 470 with 4+1 can hit 1400+ @ 1.2v.


----------



## softskiller

Ordered a ASUS DUAL-RX480-O4G (just 4GB) for 212,10 €.
I think a pretty good price for a custom model?

http://geizhals.eu/asus-radeon-rx-480-dual-oc-90yv09i0-m0na00-a1494469.html

Specification from ASUS says: Power Connectors 1 x 6-pin
But pictures show 8-pin!


----------



## itomic

Write your impressions when u get it, espacialy about temps and noise


----------



## Newbie2009

The 480 must be selling well, I see a good bit of price gouging. More expensive than when launched.


----------



## Olivon

Or maybe stocks are really low...

In my country, Polaris is kind of a fail with reference model on stock but nobody want them and customs are extremly rare and really expensive.
On the other side, they're plenty of 1060 available with a lot of customs cards available with better price/performance than RX 480 customs really rare to find.
And when I see that castrated 1060 3G is ~ same performance than RX 480 8G reference, I'm worry about the way how AMD make chips.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Or maybe stocks are really low...
> 
> In my country, Polaris is kind of a fail with reference model on stock but nobody want them and customs are extremly rare and really expensive.
> On the other side, they're plenty of 1060 available with a lot of customs cards available with better price/performance than RX 480 customs really rare to find.
> And when I see that castrated 1060 3G is ~ same performance than RX 480 8G reference, I'm worry about the way how AMD make chips.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/


If stocks are low it's because they re selling like crazy because every store said they have a very good supply. OCUK sold nearly a thousand cards in 24 or 48 hours for example.

As for comparing to nvidia, it will depend on the game.


----------



## Olivon

To be out of stock means that you have been on stock and that's not the case with most of the 480 customs in my country.
Customs cards were expected during august but almost nothing was delivered but on the other hand a lot of 1060 custom cards were/are available.
Looks like a supply problem to me.


----------



## momonz

Depends on where you live.

Sapphire Nitro+ RX 480 4gb is cheaper than MSI 1060 3gb in one store in Manila.

About TPU review

0 1 Anno DX11
0 1 Ass Creed DX11
0 1 BF4 DX11
1 0 Batman DX11
1 0 COD DX11
1 0 Dues Ex DX11
1 0 Doom Vulkan
1 0 F1 2016 DX11
0 1 Fallout 4 DX11
0 1 Far Cry DX11
0 1 GTA V DX11?
1 0 Hitman DX12
1 0 Just Cause 3 DX11?
0 1 No Man's Sky OpenGL
0 1 Rainbow Six DX11
1 0 Rise of the Tomb Raider DX12
0 1 The Witcher 3 DX11
1 0 Total War DX12

9 9

RX 480 8gb and 1060 3gb (custom) are tied. The better option here is RX 480, cause it wins in DX12 and Vulkan games


----------



## un-nefer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> About TPU review
> RX 480 8gb and 1060 3gb (custom) are tied. The better option here is RX 480, cause it wins in DX12 and Vulkan games


Unless they retested the RX480, TPU's RX480 numbers are still based the early beta driver result , so performance is not exactly what it should be compared to if they used the more recent drivers


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *un-nefer*
> 
> Unless they retested the RX480, TPU's RX480 numbers are still based the early beta driver result , so performance is not exactly what it should be compared to if they used the more recent drivers


Feel free to read the review before posting :
Quote:


> This is our first review of this SKU because we had to do a full rebench with new games on the latest drivers.


http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/31.html

And yes, it's on par on 1080p and 1440p compared to reference RX 480 8G. Overclocking results look good too. P10 is not really interesting compared to GP106 and only real weapon for AMD is the price but in my country that's even not an advantage, the same for the US though.


----------



## fail of truth

I´ve read, that the Rx480 only supports 2-way XDMA?-Crossfirex.

Will there be an enthusiast bios for 3and 4-way crossfirex, or could that be a firstsecret info that maybe shows, that a RX 490 with 2x480 GPU´s and 2x8GB.

Maybe its the first card that uses two PCIe slots, for one PCb or maybe two like the 9800GX2.

No thats a joke, or should be.

But when i look at the 8 GB higher clocked referenzedesign RX480, i get a feeling that there willbe many broken cards, because users who have a very good knowledge about PC-hardware, and build their 10th PC all by themself, don´t think, that changing, ?? overlock?? the power with is getted over the PCIe slot, is a thing like a haunting or so.

Sorry for my bad english, i need a few days , and then its getting much better.

Everytime the "black peter" was falling on me, ok i had to configure this two times, for people who bought a relativley to real expensive gamer Pc, which in both times had a MSI M Power from the Z87 generation.
No one time it was the next smaller model to the XPower .

Nothing against these mainboards i am using such a Z87 XPower for mxself( with was given back...







)

But in both times it was something far from fun making work.

The people who bought this PC´s, i remind one time with a dual-GPU GTX 760 with 2 x 2GB, and one time it was an a GTx 780 with referenceclock and cooler, which was quite expensive.

Don´t know wich devi lrode them to touch the bios for something else to raise the coremultiplikators and ringbus-multis, maybee,and how they landet at the configurations for the PCIe slot energy., and the " Spannung" of the PLX chips!!s were raised so much that one of it, didn´t work anymore without, or so much that the raised slot of this chip didn´t work bugfree.

Oh know, i remind, that it was one MSI Z87 M Power, and one gigabyte Z87 wich was the only board from gigabytelike that under much which didn´t supported the plx thing.

This was the board that how whe say or said 150 years ago " mich das fürchten lehrte"!!!!!!

Long text, but the only thing i wanted to say, that changing the PCIe slot energy, or the energy which the card can get over the slot, which shouldn´t be more than if or highest and dangerouses configurations, should not be more than max!!!.80-82 V.

The one and only thing which doesn´t makes a bad feeling is <75-76 V!

First i thought, that if i reset every uefi settings to optimized, the thing would be fixed, but that wasn´t the case. A bug, produced by the higly overvolted slot??

I gave the Pc back with a part of an Asus Sabertooth in it ( the slot), being happy that it wasn´t theone with the 780 in it, and the information, that he was a very lucky boy , because he didn´t broke his whole system, and that a biosupdate, next year or later, would be maybe able to fix the slot he would only need, if he would want to make 4-way SLI, or 3-way SLi with an Intel 910 series or something like that , showing him a photo of the 4GB version with the price much over 5000€.

The boy with the MSI M Power and the goddamn GTX 760 dual GPU-card, i can´t remember how this card was named, hadn´t build as much brownies,
He only configured, that the slot wasn´t working anymore, but when i chose between PCIe 1,2,3, PCIe 3 it was shown that nothing destructive had happend.

The card, i looked a few minutes ago was the Asus ROG 760 Mars which costed over 650€!!!

But the framerates at this time where very good, almost higher than a GTX 780ti( even not the performance???, every time max. 10% beneath the GTX 690, or the HD 7990 malta.

Sometimes with much higher framerates than the 7990.

It wasn´t more dekadent or wrong chosen thant he great GTx 690, which also had 2x2GB.

The GTX 760 mars was much better and solid, with the best alloy phasen-kondensators japan made, cherry picked, a real expensive plx chip with connected every GPu with its memoryinterface and v-ram with electronicly supported full 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes!

What could this card have been as an GTX 770 Mars with 2x 4GB.

The end for the GTx 690, and an even better choice than the dicusting and " peinliche" titan x.

Today its not even more than a collector card, which i wouldn´t use anymore to keep it new, for a good collector price in the box....

I think every GTx 970 would beat this card. every card to its time.
Only a few cards like the HD 7970 are made for the future.

A very long text for wanting to say: be very carefull by changing anything on the power with goes to the PCIe slot. one time i had luck and the other time luck that it was a board with 3 more pCie 3.0 slots than being needed.
Ok thats enough


----------



## smithydan

Where did all that come from for a first post lol


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

That was a very informative post.


----------



## fail of truth

thanks, but i think one of fully the same don´t has to be:wheee:


----------



## Axon14

Post of the year 2016


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fail of truth*
> 
> I´ve read, that the Rx480 only supports 2-way XDMA?-Crossfirex.
> 
> Will there be an enthusiast bios for 3and 4-way crossfirex, or could that be a firstsecret info that maybe shows, that a RX 490 with 2x480 GPU´s and 2x8GB.
> 
> Maybe its the first card that uses two PCIe slots, for one PCb or maybe two like the 9800GX2.
> 
> No thats a joke, or should be.
> 
> But when i look at the 8 GB higher clocked referenzedesign RX480, i get a feeling that there willbe many broken cards, because users who have a very good knowledge about PC-hardware, and build their 10th PC all by themself, don´t think, that changing, ?? overlock?? the power with is getted over the PCIe slot, is a thing like a haunting or so.
> 
> Sorry for my bad english, i need a few days , and then its getting much better.
> 
> Everytime the "black peter" was falling on me, ok i had to configure this two times, for people who bought a relativley to real expensive gamer Pc, which in both times had a MSI M Power from the Z87 generation.
> No one time it was the next smaller model to the XPower .
> 
> Nothing against these mainboards i am using such a Z87 XPower for mxself( with was given back...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> But in both times it was something far from fun making work.
> 
> The people who bought this PC´s, i remind one time with a dual-GPU GTX 760 with 2 x 2GB, and one time it was an a GTx 780 with referenceclock and cooler, which was quite expensive.
> 
> Don´t know wich devi lrode them to touch the bios for something else to raise the coremultiplikators and ringbus-multis, maybee,and how they landet at the configurations for the PCIe slot energy., and the " Spannung" of the PLX chips!!s were raised so much that one of it, didn´t work anymore without, or so much that the raised slot of this chip didn´t work bugfree.
> 
> Oh know, i remind, that it was one MSI Z87 M Power, and one gigabyte Z87 wich was the only board from gigabytelike that under much which didn´t supported the plx thing.
> 
> This was the board that how whe say or said 150 years ago " mich das fürchten lehrte"!!!!!!
> 
> Long text, but the only thing i wanted to say, that changing the PCIe slot energy, or the energy which the card can get over the slot, which shouldn´t be more than if or highest and dangerouses configurations, should not be more than max!!!.80-82 V.
> 
> The one and only thing which doesn´t makes a bad feeling is <75-76 V!
> 
> First i thought, that if i reset every uefi settings to optimized, the thing would be fixed, but that wasn´t the case. A bug, produced by the higly overvolted slot??
> 
> I gave the Pc back with a part of an Asus Sabertooth in it ( the slot), being happy that it wasn´t theone with the 780 in it, and the information, that he was a very lucky boy , because he didn´t broke his whole system, and that a biosupdate, next year or later, would be maybe able to fix the slot he would only need, if he would want to make 4-way SLI, or 3-way SLi with an Intel 910 series or something like that , showing him a photo of the 4GB version with the price much over 5000€.
> 
> The boy with the MSI M Power and the goddamn GTX 760 dual GPU-card, i can´t remember how this card was named, hadn´t build as much brownies,
> He only configured, that the slot wasn´t working anymore, but when i chose between PCIe 1,2,3, PCIe 3 it was shown that nothing destructive had happend.
> 
> The card, i looked a few minutes ago was the Asus ROG 760 Mars which costed over 650€!!!
> 
> But the framerates at this time where very good, almost higher than a GTX 780ti( even not the performance???, every time max. 10% beneath the GTX 690, or the HD 7990 malta.
> 
> Sometimes with much higher framerates than the 7990.
> 
> It wasn´t more dekadent or wrong chosen thant he great GTx 690, which also had 2x2GB.
> 
> The GTX 760 mars was much better and solid, with the best alloy phasen-kondensators japan made, cherry picked, a real expensive plx chip with connected every GPu with its memoryinterface and v-ram with electronicly supported full 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes!
> 
> What could this card have been as an GTX 770 Mars with 2x 4GB.
> 
> The end for the GTx 690, and an even better choice than the dicusting and " peinliche" titan x.
> 
> Today its not even more than a collector card, which i wouldn´t use anymore to keep it new, for a good collector price in the box....
> 
> I think every GTx 970 would beat this card. every card to its time.
> Only a few cards like the HD 7970 are made for the future.
> 
> A very long text for wanting to say: be very carefull by changing anything on the power with goes to the PCIe slot. one time i had luck and the other time luck that it was a board with 3 more pCie 3.0 slots than being needed.
> Ok thats enough


I just can't read that much without getting a splitting headache. Sorry man. Too much cowbell on the wall of text. Lost me on the 13th line.


----------



## KarathKasun

There are no 2-way CFX limitations as far as I am aware. That would be the 1080/1070, they have SLI limitations this time around.


----------



## Themisseble

WHICH RX 480 has best aftermarket cooling?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> WHICH RX 480 has best aftermarket cooling?


absolute temps or absolute value?

if its absolute temps then ROG STRIX should be the best one out there, 2nd best would be Red Devil.
as for value, Nitro+ should have the most reasonable cost to temps ratio.


----------



## itomic

Red Devil second best and it gets up to 80C ?? MSI Gaming X overall is widely considered to be the best one out there. Theres also XFX GTR and Gigabyte G1 Gaming wich is fine (G1 needs custom fan managment to be both silent and under 80C). Asus is overpriced.


----------



## Themisseble

Yep xfx or gigabyte or msi, but which one is the best. Gigabyte is pretty small but can it keep up with msi?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *itomic*
> 
> Red Devil second best and it gets up to 80C ?? MSI Gaming X overall is widely considered to be the best one ot there. Theres also XFX GTR and Gigabyte G1 Gaming wich is fine (G1 needs custom fan managment to be both silent and under 80C). Asus is overpriced.


ohh, now that you mentioned it, its worse under OC.


----------



## itomic

MSI is the best one. But, if its too big then grab G1.


----------



## comagnum

My msi is quite cool, especially when you override the stupid 60c fan trigger.


----------



## ahnafakeef

Paired with an i5-6500, would this card run games at 60FPS at 1080p at maximum graphics settings (barring asinine levels of AA, of course)? Or would a 970 be a better bet, assuming they're priced similarly to me?


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ahnafakeef*
> 
> Paired with an i5-6500, would this card run games at 60FPS at 1080p at maximum graphics settings (barring asinine levels of AA, of course)? Or would a 970 be a better bet, assuming they're priced similarly to me?


It's faster than a 970, and will only get faster in comparison over time.


----------



## ahnafakeef

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> It's faster than a 970, and will only get faster in comparison over time.


That's great! Thanks for the prompt response.


----------



## comagnum

If I had the option of a previous gen card, or a current gen card at similar price brackets, I'd go current every time. You can't go wrong with a 470/480/1060 at this price segment.


----------



## ahnafakeef

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> If I had the option of a previous gen card, or a current gen card at similar price brackets, I'd go current every time. You can't go wrong with a 470/480/1060 at this price segment.


Does the 1060 outperform the 480? The TPU review suggests so. I'd rather stick to Nvidia if possible, hence the query.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ahnafakeef*
> 
> Does the 1060 outperform the 480? The TPU review suggests so. I'd rather stick to Nvidia if possible, hence the query.


They're back an forth. I've had both and found the 1060 to do a little better. But I also don't try to max out my games. I shoot for 144hz most of the time so I'm dialing down settings and that's when I think the Nvidia cards do better. Better DX11 driver CPU overhead shows up more when I use the PC the way I do.


----------



## Ultracarpet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ahnafakeef*
> 
> Does the 1060 outperform the 480? The TPU review suggests so. I'd rather stick to Nvidia if possible, hence the query.


If you are wanting to stick to NVidia in this price bracket, the 1060 is probably your best bet.


----------



## ahnafakeef

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> They're back an forth. I've had both and found the 1060 to do a little better. But I also don't try to max out my games. I shoot for 144hz most of the time so I'm dialing down settings and that's when I think the Nvidia cards do better. Better DX11 driver CPU overhead shows up more when I use the PC the way I do.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultracarpet*
> 
> If you are wanting to stick to NVidia in this price bracket, the 1060 is probably your best bet.


Thank you both very much. Really appreciate the help.


----------



## itomic

Does anyone hier has XFX GTR RX 480 ??


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ahnafakeef*
> 
> Does the 1060 outperform the 480? The TPU review suggests so. I'd rather stick to Nvidia if possible, hence the query.


Well RX would be my bet. depends on the price.
But right know RX are getting cheaper... so I would suggest you to wait a little bit.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Well RX would be my bet.


Yes we know, I don't think I have seen you give a green light to green team yet


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Yes we know, I don't think I have seen you give a green light to green team yet


LoL, ... sure. I do have green card here... but personally I wont support NVIDIA anymore... dont want next papple in PC. Sorry.


----------



## nolive721

i will be soon in the market to upgrade from my 750ti

considering either a AIB RX480 8gb or AIB 1060 6Gb

tech of tomorrow posted a week ago that he managed to push OCing far beyond what I had seen so far, although without making much comments about fans at 100% (lol, thanks to a new BIOS revision for the card

if that card is becoming a better OCer then it would move my decision towards AMD since prices in Japan for both cards type are comparable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zLlf8E3Skg

can people here comment on the OCing validity of this BIOS update?


----------



## prjindigo

I have enjoyed the release of the RX400 series cards from the standpoint of an observer. They're apparently quite reliable little boxes that work well within specifications on motherboards that meet current PCIe 2.0/3.0 standards and give nearly full Dx12 feature set performance including asynchronous compute. So as an observer with a 295x2 I'm quite pleased with them overall as a product.

Would I say no to a free 1070? Nope. But I wouldn't say no to a free RX480 either.

This ends my review.


----------



## Smanci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nolive721*
> 
> can people here comment on the OCing validity of this BIOS update?


Would wait for trustworthy reviews and user experiences.


----------



## nolive721

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smanci*
> 
> Would wait for trustworthy reviews and user experiences.


sure, hence my post here.....


----------



## HeliXpc

I have both this card and the 1060, both are great products for the price, the 1060 is faster, and overclocks like a beast, the 480 does not overclock well


----------



## nolive721

Thanks, which 1060 card if I may ask?


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeliXpc*
> 
> I have both this card and the 1060, both are great products for the price, the 1060 is faster, and overclocks like a beast, the 480 does not overclock well


How high can you OC?


----------



## MadOver

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nolive721*
> 
> i will be soon in the market to upgrade from my 750ti
> 
> considering either a AIB RX480 8gb or AIB 1060 6Gb
> 
> tech of tomorrow posted a week ago that he managed to push OCing far beyond what I had seen so far, although without making much comments about fans at 100% (lol, thanks to a new BIOS revision for the card
> 
> if that card is becoming a better OCer then it would move my decision towards AMD since prices in Japan for both cards type are comparable
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zLlf8E3Skg
> 
> can people here comment on the OCing validity of this BIOS update?


I got one just a wk ago and the thing is amazing. Wisper quiet.
With the unlocked bios I can get it all the way to 1410Mhz (locked clocks with higher power limit) stable.
I gone for the RX480 because in my eyes it might be better suited for future titles , Dx12 / Vulkan... we will see now with the new titles coming in oct how that plays.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeliXpc*
> 
> I have both this card and the 1060, both are great products for the price, the 1060 is faster, and overclocks like a beast, the 480 does not overclock well


1060 does not "overclock like a beast".

The card will, under default configuration, boost into the 1800's. 1800 -> 2000 is only a bit more than 10%. (there are cards that will go higher, but 2000 is a good 'most will be able to hit this' speed)

Most RX 480's will hit 1400 if you are patient and know what tools to use. 1266 -> 1400 is, again, just a bit more than 10%. (again, some cards will go higher. Most P10 based cards I have seen do or can hit 1400 with more advanced tweaking. Main thing being powerlimit=off and vcore up to 1.2-1.25v, easily doable on air for most people)

Because the Pascal cards start off clocked so high, you have to push even more mhz to get a good percentage difference.


----------



## nolive721

@madover

thanks that seems good

can you confirm whats your fan curve profile and temps under gaming that the card is reaching.The youtube reviewer had set a 100%fan speed during his OCing and is not mentioning anything about noise thats the part which makes me worried on top of temp levels with a more reasonable fan speed profile.

appreciate your feedback

olivier


----------



## iRUSH

Jay put an EK block on a reference 480. Awesome results!

https://youtu.be/wstG14DmZVk


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Jay put an EK block on a reference 480. Awesome results!
> 
> https://youtu.be/wstG14DmZVk


Great results vs the review of the G1 RX-480.


----------



## sinholueiro

As the video says, the air that the G1 pulls off is not that hot. My 480 Nitro also blows not that hot air outside the case. It is true that never reaches 70C at 1300Mhz, but it seems that is something wrong. Could it be that the die package has something wrong or that the cooler is not so well touching the core? The watercooled temperature seems fine for the setup.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sinholueiro*
> 
> As the video says, the air that the G1 pulls off is not that hot. My 480 Nitro also blows not that hot air outside the case. It is true that never reaches 70C at 1300Mhz, but it seems that is something wrong. Could it be that the die package has something wrong or that the cooler is not so well touching the core? The watercooled temperature seems fine for the setup.


Exactly! Which is why I asked "why does the RX480 run so hot" in a separate thread.

IMO something is just not right.


----------



## Final8ty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> There are no 2-way CFX limitations as far as I am aware. That would be the 1080/1070, they have SLI limitations this time around.


Indeed no 2-way CFX limitation on the 480, Kaapstad over @OCUK forum is running 4way.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 1060 does not "overclock like a beast".
> 
> The card will, under default configuration, boost into the 1800's. 1800 -> 2000 is only a bit more than 10%. (there are cards that will go higher, but 2000 is a good 'most will be able to hit this' speed)
> 
> Most RX 480's will hit 1400 if you are patient and know what tools to use. 1266 -> 1400 is, again, just a bit more than 10%. (again, some cards will go higher. Most P10 based cards I have seen do or can hit 1400 with more advanced tweaking. Main thing being powerlimit=off and vcore up to 1.2-1.25v, easily doable on air for most people)
> 
> Because the Pascal cards start off clocked so high, you have to push even more mhz to get a good percentage difference.


NV is volt etc. limited.
Where as AMD is sort of unlocked core wise but more locked memory wise. On the other hand most AIB cards sell with 1300+MHz so you're not really getting that much more performance from the OC plus you need to bump the voltage and power high to get the 1400+. I don't know of a cheap well cooled 480 with 1266MHz, hell even 1300+ versions have subpar coolers such as Nitro. AMD is more tweakable but harder to OC. NV is easier from my POV to OC eventhough the overboost 3.0 can be a downside to how I would like the OC clocks and it's limits be done.

Isn't the max without moded VBIOS 1.15V? I count the VBIOS and VRM tricks into extreme OC category and not really worth doing for everyday OC. With that in mind most cards seem to max out 1360-1400MHz.

1060s overclock like any other card, there are golden chips and there are poor chips too, difference up to 10% in OC. Sure +20% core OC chips exist but are rare especially when one buys the non binned or lowest bin cheapest versions. +10% is normal though, on stock volts. Which can be said about 480 reference too but anymore about the AIB cards that are OC from factory to be more closer to 1060 and not lag behind so much. Both cards are decent with very different archs. and targets.


----------



## Rei86

I don't know how AdoredTV got so many fans on this forum for some odd reason... I mean dude doesn't say anything new at all but all of you seems to love him.

But this GUY gets ZERO love




Explains why the G1 RX 480 is a card you should avoid.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 1060 does not "overclock like a beast".


It kind of does though.



Average increase is 16.8% over reference, in other words, 94-95% of reference 980 Ti performance. For aftermarket cards, it's more like 96%. It's a fast card.

For comparison, the best TPU-reviewed RX 480 is 12% faster than reference, which makes it 86% as fast as a 980 Ti, and the average overclock is much lower.

My formula is simple - it's the average gain in the Battlefield 3 benchmark times the card's place in the performance summary section of the latest review at 1440p. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Gaming_Z/26.html

I really wanted the 480 to kick ass, but as of right now, it just isn't the better option over the 1060. It loses in every metric - performance/dollar, performance/watt, performance, noise, temperature and overclocking headroom (the comparison for noise and temperature being the highest rated, by techpowerup, custom versions of each - the MSI Gaming X in both cases).


----------



## Sonikku13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> 1060 does not "overclock like a beast".
> 
> 
> 
> It kind of does though.
> 
> 
> 
> Average increase is 16.8% over reference, in other words, 94-95% of reference 980 Ti performance. For aftermarket cards, it's more like 96%. It's a fast card.
> 
> For comparison, the best TPU-reviewed RX 480 is 12% faster than reference, which makes it 86% as fast as a 980 Ti, and the average overclock is much lower.
> 
> My formula is simple - it's the average gain in the Battlefield 3 benchmark times the card's place in the performance summary section of the latest review at 1440p. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Gaming_Z/26.html
> 
> I really wanted the 480 to kick ass, but as of right now, it just isn't the better option over the 1060. It loses in every metric - performance/dollar, performance/watt, performance, noise, temperature and overclocking headroom (the comparison for noise and temperature being the highest rated, by techpowerup, custom versions of each - the MSI Gaming X in both cases).
Click to expand...

For ETH mining, my MSI Radeon RX 480 8 GB Gaming X in stock "OC mode" settings, 1316 MHz core, 2025 MHz (8100 MHz effective) memory, I get 25.0 MH/sec. Looking for comparable stock 1060 6 GB MH/sec numbers, but I think a 1060 6 GB would be comparable to my 480.

I'd rather have the AIB 480s for ETH mining, personally, although now-a-days, NVIDIA cards are more versatile for mining.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> It kind of does though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average increase is 16.8% over reference, in other words, 94-95% of reference 980 Ti performance. For aftermarket cards, it's more like 96%. It's a fast card.
> 
> For comparison, the best TPU-reviewed RX 480 is 12% faster than reference, which makes it 86% as fast as a 980 Ti, and the average overclock is much lower.
> 
> My formula is simple - it's the average gain in the Battlefield 3 benchmark times the card's place in the performance summary section of the latest review at 1440p. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Gaming_Z/26.html
> 
> I really wanted the 480 to kick ass, but as of right now, it just isn't the better option over the 1060. It loses in every metric - performance/dollar, performance/watt, performance, noise, temperature and overclocking headroom (the comparison for noise and temperature being the highest rated, by techpowerup, custom versions of each - the MSI Gaming X in both cases).


Yep, that's why I bought a 1060, available, cheaper, faster, less power hungry, better temps and noise as a result, ...

And even though the chip on my card is no golden sample it's rather below average or average, it does 14760 graphics score in Firestrike at 2012MHz. The good cards with 2100MHz+ do up to +1000 points in FS especially with faster VRAM. I can only push about +1100MHz on VRAM to 9.1GHz which is kind of nuts anyway when looking at previous especially AMD cards that used GDDR5 memories from crappy Elpida and Hynix that did 5-6GHz only and even now do about 7GHz max at stock.

You can mine on NV cards in Linux fine, which is what you should be running for mining anyway. But hey at least someone buys and uses the AMD cards because so far it's certainly not many gamers at all when the availability is this tragic with pricing hiked by lack of supply.


----------



## iRUSH

Sapphire RX 480 Nitro+ 1342 edition reporting in with a non working fan. I had this dialed in with a nice under-volt too. Then I started to get lock ups. So after monitoring temps I was hitting 90c with ease. Even after cranking up the fan curve. So I have a visual peek and sure enough, the fan furthest from the IO is dead lol.

If I'm being completely honest, this is the cheapest feeling $250+ GPU I have ever held. Even the backplate is plastic. It aesthetically looks nice and it you can dial in an under-volt the temps and noise are average at best (which is fine) but man is it light and just plain chincy lol.

I can't recommend the card based on how cheaply it is made and feels. It performed well enough like a RX 480 should be its shortcomings are a real turnoff.

However, the current TRIXX software version 6.1x is super solid and I love it!


----------



## Diogenes5

TLDR of this whole thread.

480 had a 2 month window to sell well after which the 1060 edged it out in value and performance. It makes sense since Pascal is a shrink of Maxwell and GCN 3.0 is a shrink of GCN 2.0. The 480 had larger relative gains since the whole 290/390 line ran super hot and power-hungry but Nvidia is still superior.

AMD had an edge in Performance to $ but thanks to miners, prices are way too high right now. It's basically a repeat of what happened with the 290's before. Prices will be too high for a long time and then they will crash as miners dump their cards. AMD is charging high prices to begin with because the last time they never benefitted from miners.

AMD is selling all their cards and forced Nvidia to produce the GTX 1060 at probably a price point $50 lower than they wanted so they did good for the consumer.

I just have a feeling with the way things are shaking out that Vega will struggle to compete with just the 1070 and Nvidia basically owns the high end now for the next 2 years.


----------



## BulletBait

You could tldr the whole history then where the 480 will probably catch the 1060 in a year and be the far better purchase in 2 years, probably actually in spitting distance of the 1070.

Or we can all care about now and buy nV because instant gratification is all we care about which is why we upgrade nV every generation.

Did I cover the future based on previous generations correctly for you? If it turns out wrong, I'll eat my words and buy you a Titan.


----------



## maltamonk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BulletBait*
> 
> You could tldr the whole history then where the 480 will probably catch the 1060 in a year and be the far better purchase in 2 years, probably actually in spitting distance of the 1070.
> 
> Or we can all care about now and buy nV because instant gratification is all we care about which is why we upgrade nV every generation.
> 
> Did I cover the future based on previous generations correctly for you? If it turns out wrong, I'll eat my words and buy you a Titan.


And I think we could also add that the 1060 naming scheme is working out very well as the majority of 1060 mentions do not make any distinction between the 3GB and the 6GB models.


----------



## nolive721

crystal ball question then.

how do you see prices evolution of RX480 cards in your respective markets? In Japan AIB 1060 6GB models go from 28,000JPY to around 37,000JPY for air cooled cards

the rx480 8GB equivalent from 32 to 38,000JPY so really comparable where 1060 seems to be the best choice TODAY.

If says for Xmas/New year period RX480 prices drop by 15-20% I will move to AMD. Will that happen?


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BulletBait*
> 
> You could tldr the whole history then where the 480 will probably catch the 1060 in a year and be the far better purchase in 2 years, probably actually in spitting distance of the 1070.
> 
> Or we can all care about now and buy nV because instant gratification is all we care about which is why we upgrade nV every generation.
> 
> Did I cover the future based on previous generations correctly for you? If it turns out wrong, I'll eat my words and buy you a Titan.


or you can think of it this way.

The numbers don't matter that much as it's relative. Let's say "AMD : better down the road" is true for RX 480 as well. Then assume 1060 is 10% faster TODAY, just for easy calculation.

*IF* RX 480, needs 1 year to catch up to 1060, AND another 1 to 1.5 years to be 10% faster than the 1060, this doesn't just mean that RX 480 would be a better buy a year later, this also means that if you already have the 1060, it will take RX 480 a total of 2 - 2.5 years to completely offset what you enjoyed ahead of time. So, if 2.5 years is a range that you tend to upgrade your GPU, you lose absolutely nothing even if RX 480 really catches up after a year.

but let's review the conditions needed to make this case work :
1) AMD *REALLY* is better down the road, all the time
2) you are going DX12 (I'm not by the way, that's why I made my decision to go for 1060 a lot earlier)
3) you don't care much about power consumption and heat emission, etc

If any of the above conditions are false, it would make 1060 an even better buy.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nolive721*
> 
> crystal ball question then.
> 
> how do you see prices evolution of RX480 cards in your respective markets? In Japan AIB 1060 6GB models go from 28,000JPY to around 37,000JPY for air cooled cards
> 
> the rx480 8GB equivalent from 32 to 38,000JPY so really comparable where 1060 seems to be the best choice TODAY.
> 
> If says for Xmas/New year period RX480 prices drop by 15-20% I will move to AMD. Will that happen?


Cheapest 1060 $262, single fan, available all the time for a long time.
Cheapest 480 $265, reference blower, never available.
1060 $268, dual fan, available in batches every week or two, most sold card so the supply can't keep up but when a batch arrives these days it stays stock for a few days not just few minutes or hours like 480s liked to.
480 $268, dual fan, sporadically available lately but not available for 2 months after launch.
And then there the more expensive better cooler and factory OC cards, their prices are way too high for the performance increase they offer, available here and there mostly because they are not as popular and retailers don't order many to stock them either.

I bought a dual fan 1060 for $259 before retailers or distributors jacked up prices on 1060s due to the crazy demand and low stock. That's for a card that should retail at $259. Overall there is a +$10 or more overcharge at retailers on all the cheapest mid range cards now, way more on the better models.

Comparable quality products cost about the same between 1060 and 480 now but the 1060 still has way better availability and many more cheaper options that the 480 never had in EU. I'm sure all the $199 4GB reflashers are happy campers but those cards were never shipped to central EU, not even reference 8GB models showed up here in any reasonable volume at $239 or even close to it, most reference 480 8GB retailed at $290+. Meanwhile 1060s dual fan custom versions were offered as low as $255 shipped, delivered within a week not a month+ preorder wait list.

I've had many cards over the years from many brands probably except 3dfx. I want to use what I buy, now, enjoy the performance it offers and not have to wait 2 years for it to become a competitive product vs it's respective competition. In 2 years the cards are dated and start to struggle.

From my POV there is a premium on the current AMD RX of about +10% in price to get anywhere near the performance of what 1060 offers. And that's not counting the power consumption difference into pricing.
The P10 ship is bigger, more expensive to make, requires more VRAM chips, better VRM, overall the cost and complexity of the cards is higher but it doesn't deliver the performance the x80 series used to anymore. The AMD line up is also more confusing and has way too many products and also from different architectures and nodes at once, they don't refresh the whole line up at once but instead focus only one part, which right now was making a small more efficient chip and the P10 is as big as they dared to go. For me Polaris is a Maxwell competitor and can't keep up with the improvements done in Pascal. They needed to clock the Polaris +10% higher at the least but the frequency bump didn't seem to be a focus other than a node shrink gain. As such it is back to the AMD needs new APIs to be able to show the power of it's architecture where as NV runs fast no matter what. The new APIs are great but it will still take them 2 years to get to market in properly designed engines. All we see in 2016 are still DX11/OGL to DX12/Vulkan conversions.

The 480 is a good buy for anyone with a FreeSync monitor sure and I am in no way a fan of the proprietary crap NV is pushing everywhere.


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Yep, that's why I bought a 1060, available, cheaper, faster, less power hungry, better temps and noise as a result, ...
> 
> And even though the chip on my card is no golden sample it's rather below average or average, it does 14760 graphics score in Firestrike at 2012MHz. The good cards with 2100MHz+ do up to +1000 points in FS especially with faster VRAM. I can only push about +1100MHz on VRAM to 9.1GHz which is kind of nuts anyway when looking at previous especially AMD cards that used GDDR5 memories from crappy Elpida and Hynix that did 5-6GHz only and even now do about 7GHz max at stock.
> 
> You can mine on NV cards in Linux fine, which is what you should be running for mining anyway. But hey at least someone buys and uses the AMD cards because so far it's certainly not many gamers at all when the availability is this tragic with pricing hiked by lack of supply.


Or you can wait a few months and the 480 will once again be beating out the 1060. Happens every time.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *battleaxe*
> 
> Or you can wait a few months and the 480 will once again be beating out the 1060. Happens every time.


I've waited 2 and half months for AMD to pull their supply chain together, wrote to retailers and distributors few times a week. The pricing is not gonna drop on 480s, not here nor is availability gonna get better than it is right now.
Beating this or that in 2 months or 2 years... speculations. With 770 vs 280x it was clear that 280x is the better card, more bandwidth, more VRAM, better even in reviews at launch. 290/390 a crazy power hog with only 390 being a decent card today due to the oversized VRAM it was rereleased with.
By the time current AMD cards catch up to the competition due to driver and newer APIs being more used there will a batch of new cards not just from AMD being released as well.

And personally I am fine with paying less for more performance now even if 2 years later the other card would have offered more performance at the cost of what +25% power consumption?
AMD has good architecture feature wise and good chips as long as they do not overvolt them and improve the efficiency. This goes for CPU and GPU, both Intel and NV pushed hard for efficiency and adopted even some of the mobile efficiency features and are stomping AMD since. Sure before that it was the other way when AMD had better efficiency than both. Funny isn't it, better efficiency product wins, as for the same power/heat you get more performance.

The poor efficiency and lack of releasing new chips not just rehashes is killing AMD. Sure they do try to fill in the empty spots on the market, that's nice, and push new open features but hardware performance wise... improve the damn performance/power ratio and in turn their products will be so much more competitive.

Let me know in 2 months when a $259 480 8GB will be beating a 1060. I really wanna see that, how they magically whip out +10%...
1060 @ 2012MHz/9102MHz does 14760 score in Firestrike. Stock reference closk is 13307. The only time AMD is beating the NV counterparts is with an AMD optimized application or rather poorly optimized AMD favoring engine like the trash in Hitman and DeusEx. Doom Vulkan is great but that's about the only game that seems to use most GPUs to their max and running at decent performance unlike the Hitman/DX trash engine. How many more games or apps like Doom Vulkan will there be this year? I would say zero. By the time these newer APIs are finally used properly, NV will release a new or updated enough architecture that supports all the features well and fast and it's gonna be a time to upgrade anyway.

AMD and Vega... will see but I think it's not gonna be good, probably a Fiji remake with too high price and power needs again.
Navi maybe finally a properly designed architecture and the APIs being ready and used for it.

Nvidia, dunno, don't care, I buy what ever offers me the best performance/price, where performance for me is speed+power consumption+noise, regardless of brand.

AMD can pull it off, they have the people and money but no they always have to mess something up.


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> I've waited 2 and half months for AMD to pull their supply chain together, wrote to retailers and distributors few times a week. The pricing is not gonna drop on 480s, not here nor is availability gonna get better than it is right now.
> Beating this or that in 2 months or 2 years... speculations. With 770 vs 280x it was clear that 280x is the better card, more bandwidth, more VRAM, better even in reviews at launch. 290/390 a crazy power hog with only 390 being a decent card today due to the oversized VRAM it was rereleased with.
> By the time current AMD cards catch up to the competition due to driver and newer APIs being more used there will a batch of new cards not just from AMD being released as well.
> 
> And personally I am fine with paying less for more performance now even if 2 years later the other card would have offered more performance at the cost of what +25% power consumption?
> AMD has good architecture feature wise and good chips as long as they do not overvolt them and improve the efficiency. This goes for CPU and GPU, both Intel and NV pushed hard for efficiency and adopted even some of the mobile efficiency features and are stomping AMD since. Sure before that it was the other way when AMD had better efficiency than both. Funny isn't it, better efficiency product wins, as for the same power/heat you get more performance.
> 
> The poor efficiency and lack of releasing new chips not just rehashes is killing AMD. Sure they do try to fill in the empty spots on the market, that's nice, and push new open features but hardware performance wise... improve the damn performance/power ratio and in turn their products will be so much more competitive.
> 
> Let me know in 2 months when a $259 480 8GB will be beating a 1060. I really wanna see that, how they magically whip out +10%...
> 1060 @ 2012MHz/9102MHz does 14760 score in Firestrike. Stock reference closk is 13307. The only time AMD is beating the NV counterparts is with an AMD optimized application or rather poorly optimized AMD favoring engine like the trash in Hitman and DeusEx. Doom Vulkan is great but that's about the only game that seems to use most GPUs to their max and running at decent performance unlike the Hitman/DX trash engine. How many more games or apps like Doom Vulkan will there be this year? I would say zero. By the time these newer APIs are finally used properly, NV will release a new or updated enough architecture that supports all the features well and fast and it's gonna be a time to upgrade anyway.
> 
> AMD and Vega... will see but I think it's not gonna be good, probably a Fiji remake with too high price and power needs again.
> Navi maybe finally a properly designed architecture and the APIs being ready and used for it.
> 
> Nvidia, dunno, don't care, I buy what ever offers me the best performance/price, where performance for me is speed+power consumption+noise, regardless of brand.
> 
> AMD can pull it off, they have the people and money but no they always have to mess something up.


Well, two months might be a bit short.

But see in six months what is happening. Before long the 480 will be beating it. I get what you are saying and you have a point. The 1060 is fine, the 480 is also fine. Both good cards.

But its not just AMD drivers that get stronger. Nvidia will slowly gimp the drivers as they always do and the performance will end up going down, not up.

We've seen this happen with how many generations now? AMD gets stronger, Nivida weaker as the drivers mature - for whatever reason. And in the long run, same cards, AMD ends up winning. 290 series, 390 series, Fury's all the same deal. Fury is only stronger on 4k but that is the new benchmark if you ask me. 1080p is old news and the fact that the 980ti is more powerful on 1080p seems wasted IMO on 1080p. Where the FuryX shines and easily holds its own. This doesn't even take into account new titles on Vulcan and DX12.

There's a reason AMD is gaining market share. Even Nvidia diehards are getting annoyed by the shanigans they have been up to.

But rest assured I'm not saying the 480 is a better card than a 1060. Its not. But long run it almost certainly will beat it out.


----------



## JackCY

Yep, until then I will enjoy a 1060 and then get rid of it like I would if AMD had better supply and I bought a 480.
Even with AMD I had to keep previous driver versions due to new drivers being broken. I have no problem keeping an older NV driver to avoid potential gimping or whatever may be going on sometimes.

I've seen the gimping comparisons tossed around but so far it seems more like they collected data from different reviews than actually run it themselves, so there is more difference than a mere driver change.
But sure NV may not be optimizing for previous generation of cards anymore especially when the architectures differ in some important way. Where as AMD is sitting on GCN for half a decade or more and even they stopped supporting 1.0 aka 280x/7970/... it doesn't last forever and the newer drivers released with RX were actually problematic on the 1.0 cards from my experience.

I would say they both improve the drivers but for AMD the changes affect their products more into past. Where as NV older don't gain after a new series is launched with different arch.


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Yep, until then I will enjoy a 1060 and then get rid of it like I would if AMD had better supply and I bought a 480.
> Even with AMD I had to keep previous driver versions due to new drivers being broken. I have no problem keeping an older NV driver to avoid potential gimping or whatever may be going on sometimes.
> 
> I've seen the gimping comparisons tossed around but so far it seems more like they collected data from different reviews than actually run it themselves, so there is more difference than a mere driver change.
> But sure NV may not be optimizing for previous generation of cards anymore especially when the architectures differ in some important way. Where as AMD is sitting on GCN for half a decade or more and even they stopped supporting 1.0 aka 280x/7970/... it doesn't last forever and the newer drivers released with RX were actually problematic on the 1.0 cards from my experience.
> 
> I would say they both improve the drivers but for AMD the changes affect their products more into past. Where as NV older don't gain after a new series is launched with different arch.


Yes. the DX11 overhead is an issue for AMD. It will be interesting seeing what happens with DX12 since it works better for GCN overall. I'm hoping for more market-share going to AMD over time. Need some competition in this field for sure to keep prices down for all of us after all.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> I don't know how AdoredTV got so many fans on this forum for some odd reason... I mean dude doesn't say anything new at all but all of you seems to love him.
> 
> But this GUY gets ZERO love
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explains why the G1 RX 480 is a card you should avoid.


If this is true, then that kinda sucks. Since they're the only ones that have a short card.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> If this is true, then that kinda sucks. Since they're the only ones that have a short card.


You could just get the reference since that seems to be a pretty short PCB.


----------



## BulletBait

Wasn't the reference only a half inch or so shorter then the normal cards? At least that's what I remember when I bought one for testing when it released before reselling it for like $10 less then I bought it for a few weeks later. Wasn't much shorter then my 290Xs.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> You could just get the reference since that seems to be a pretty short PCB.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BulletBait*
> 
> Wasn't the reference only a half inch or so shorter then the normal cards? At least that's what I remember when I bought one for testing when it released before reselling it for like $10 less then I bought it for a few weeks later. Wasn't much shorter then my 290Xs.


The reference card is short, but the cooler is long. The G1 comes under 240mm with the cooler.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> The reference card is short, but the cooler is long. The G1 comes under 240mm with the cooler.


Ah I see.

Well from Jayz review of the card, owners reports and Actually Hardcore Overclocking report. The Gigabyte G1 RX 480 should be taken off of peoples purchasable 480 GPU.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rei86*
> 
> Ah I see.
> 
> Well from Jayz review of the card, owners reports and Actually Hardcore Overclocking report. The Gigabyte G1 RX 480 should be taken off of peoples purchasable 480 GPU.


Any reason why? I've read that the backplate was actually a hard plastic that felt like aluminum, and the card was better off without it. Makes me wonder if the Gigabyte equivalent for the 1060 has these issues too, or does Gigabyte not put in effort for AMD cards?

Some have reported hissing from both Gigabyte AMD and Nvidia cards.

It seems like card prices are coming down, slowly. MSI is offering rebates to their AMD cards. Yeah, it's a rebate, but it's a sign of things to come. There's a deal on the 1060 too, and a deal on the MSI RX 480 on Jet.com with the MSI rebate.

https://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-GeForce-1060-WINDFORCE-GV-N1060WF2OC-6GD/dp/B01JNUO6BG/?tag=slickdeals&ascsubtag=8a103f8e843011e69f3ba64e72c827e50INT

http://slickdeals.net/f/9139127-new-jet-customers-msi-radeon-rx-480-gaming-x-8g-graphics-card-230-or-less-after-20-rebate-free-s-h

except tax kills the Amazon deal.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> Any reason why? I've read that the backplate was actually a hard plastic that felt like aluminum, and the card was better off without it. Makes me wonder if he Gigabyte equivalent for the 1060 has these issues too, or does Gigabyte not put in effort for AMD cards?
> 
> Some have reported hissing from both AMD and Nvidia cards.
> 
> It seems like card prices are coming down, slowly. MSI is offering rebates to their AMD cards. Yeah, it's a rebate, but it's a sign of things to come. There's a deal on the 1060 too, and a deal on the MSI RX 480 on Jet.com with the MSI rebate.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-GeForce-1060-WINDFORCE-GV-N1060WF2OC-6GD/dp/B01JNUO6BG/?tag=slickdeals&ascsubtag=8a103f8e843011e69f3ba64e72c827e50INT
> 
> http://slickdeals.net/f/9139127-new-jet-customers-msi-radeon-rx-480-gaming-x-8g-graphics-card-230-or-less-after-20-rebate-free-s-h
> 
> except tax kills the Amazon deal.


Have a look at the video in post #3399

The G1 is much worse than reference apparently.

He also has a few other videos showing how the Asus Strix and the XFX AIB cards are the ones to get as far as how overbuilt they are PCB and component quality wise.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> Any reason why? I've read that the backplate was actually a hard plastic that felt like aluminum, and the card was better off without it. Makes me wonder if he Gigabyte equivalent for the 1060 has these issues too, or does Gigabyte not put in effort for AMD cards?
> 
> Some have reported hissing from both AMD and Nvidia cards.


/shrug. From the PCB video they use components that are worse than the reference design.
Only other thing I could think of was when Jayztwocents took the heat sink off it the pipes might not be making good contact with the chip itself.


----------



## BulletBait

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> The reference card is short, but the cooler is long. The G1 comes under 240mm with the cooler.


Yeah, that's what I meant, the card itself is super short. I remember being surprised when I took the cooler off to replace the TIM like I always do before using it. So I suppose replace the reference cooler, which might be a pain, depends on how much effort you want to put in it.


----------



## nolive721

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Cheapest 1060 $262, single fan, available all the time for a long time.
> Cheapest 480 $265, reference blower, never available.
> 1060 $268, dual fan, available in batches every week or two, most sold card so the supply can't keep up but when a batch arrives these days it stays stock for a few days not just few minutes or hours like 480s liked to.
> 480 $268, dual fan, sporadically available lately but not available for 2 months after launch.
> And then there the more expensive better cooler and factory OC cards, their prices are way too high for the performance increase they offer, available here and there mostly because they are not as popular and retailers don't order many to stock them either.
> 
> I bought a dual fan 1060 for $259 before retailers or distributors jacked up prices on 1060s due to the crazy demand and low stock. That's for a card that should retail at $259. Overall there is a +$10 or more overcharge at retailers on all the cheapest mid range cards now, way more on the better models.
> 
> Comparable quality products cost about the same between 1060 and 480 now but the 1060 still has way better availability and many more cheaper options that the 480 never had in EU. I'm sure all the $199 4GB reflashers are happy campers but those cards were never shipped to central EU, not even reference 8GB models showed up here in any reasonable volume at $239 or even close to it, most reference 480 8GB retailed at $290+. Meanwhile 1060s dual fan custom versions were offered as low as $255 shipped, delivered within a week not a month+ preorder wait list.
> 
> I've had many cards over the years from many brands probably except 3dfx. I want to use what I buy, now, enjoy the performance it offers and not have to wait 2 years for it to become a competitive product vs it's respective competition. In 2 years the cards are dated and start to struggle.
> 
> From my POV there is a premium on the current AMD RX of about +10% in price to get anywhere near the performance of what 1060 offers. And that's not counting the power consumption difference into pricing.
> The P10 ship is bigger, more expensive to make, requires more VRAM chips, better VRM, overall the cost and complexity of the cards is higher but it doesn't deliver the performance the x80 series used to anymore. The AMD line up is also more confusing and has way too many products and also from different architectures and nodes at once, they don't refresh the whole line up at once but instead focus only one part, which right now was making a small more efficient chip and the P10 is as big as they dared to go. For me Polaris is a Maxwell competitor and can't keep up with the improvements done in Pascal. They needed to clock the Polaris +10% higher at the least but the frequency bump didn't seem to be a focus other than a node shrink gain. As such it is back to the AMD needs new APIs to be able to show the power of it's architecture where as NV runs fast no matter what. The new APIs are great but it will still take them 2 years to get to market in properly designed engines. All we see in 2016 are still DX11/OGL to DX12/Vulkan conversions.
> 
> The 480 is a good buy for anyone with a FreeSync monitor sure and I am in no way a fan of the proprietary crap NV is pushing everywhere.


very clear thanks.my 750ti will hit 2years in January so this is the timing I have in mind to upgrade. I will monitor how prices go in Japan and also any further findings on the RX480 thermal/power behavior but I hate to say on this thread,if I had to make choice now I would go with 1060 indeed (I am running dual 1080p monitors set-up without Gsync or freesync)


----------



## momonz

For people saying 1060 is the better buy, please are you STILL going to play those old DX11 games again (where 1060 is faster). I'm talking to games like Crysis 3, BF3 and the likes. Yes they might still matter for benchmarks but in practical sense I don't think so.

RX 480 is the better buy here as the trend is towards DX12 and that card would be faster eventually.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> For people saying 1060 is the better buy, please are you STILL going to play those old DX11 games again (where 1060 is faster). I'm talking to games like Crysis 3, BF3 and the likes. Yes they might still matter for benchmarks but in practical sense I don't think so.
> 
> RX 480 is the better buy here as the trend is towards DX12 and that card would be faster eventually.


I think many will still continue to play DX11 games. I bounce back and forth between the same few games now for years with the addition of one. All of these are DX11 titles. I can't see not playing them for the next few years either.

That's just me, but based on the amount of people playing with me online suggests that DX11 titles will be played for some time to come.


----------



## JackCY

Yes, I did not play that many games with my 280x as I didn't have the time or the card would not run them good enough or I did not even have the card. So yes I will play some of the DX9-11 games indeed and most games these days are DX11 anyway. The amount of games running well and fast in DX12 or Vulkan in Q3 2016 can be counted on fingers of one hand. I would say Doom is about the only game IMHO that runs well, the rest are pure hacks that barely run as fast as their DX11/OGL counterparts.

Eventually... I've heard that before, like eventually the AMD cards would be stock, or eventually the prices would drop, nah, 2 months nothing. Eventually AMD will get their tech, supply chain and management together and when that happens I'm happy to consider recommending and buying their products again, until then there are better products from the competition.

Even many new games are Nvidia supported and geared toward Nvidia cards and that has been so for quite some time now, the amount of pure unbiased or optimized engines for AMD cards but running fast overall is low. In realistic rendering AMD is being hammered too due to better support from devs for NV cards. Hell even in mining NV actually caught up to AMD in mining performance with Pascal. AMD is falling behind everywhere so far, the cards they sell sure are OK and should keep them afloat especially when most of them endup in mining farms where AMD is popular. In gaming PCs I don't expect AMD to gain much % at all until they are able to sell a well priced competitive product that is actually available in retail shops.


----------



## momonz

The DX9 arguement is so pointless. Also I am referring to old DX 11 games like Crysis 3 and BF3 (2011 game really?). I doubt 280x can't run this game at least high settings.

It is true and tested that AMD drivers age well than NVIDIA counterparts. Moreover, AMD has always been competitive at mid-range and below. Problem is NVIDIA has a good branding ala Apple.

Even according to TPU, RX 480 is now faster than 1060 in Rise of Tomb Raider:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/21.html

And NO, the fingers on one hand is not enough to count number of DX12 games. There are handful of DX12 games now and that would continue to grow.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> For people saying 1060 is the better buy, please are you STILL going to play those old DX11 games again (where 1060 is faster). I'm talking to games like Crysis 3, BF3 and the likes. Yes they might still matter for benchmarks but in practical sense I don't think so.
> 
> RX 480 is the better buy here as the trend is towards DX12 and that card would be faster eventually.


What DX12 titles are you talking about ?!? DX12 is an ultra minority and you will still have new games with DX11 in the next 2 years.
For the moment, DX12 is just a marketing gimmick (no new effect, only performance, it's not a game changer at all) and when DX12 will be really revelant, your 480X will already be in the trash.
Polaris is really a big disappointment, power efficiency is just a shame :
Quote:


> "We have two versions of these FinFET GPUs. Both are extremely power efficient," said Koduri.


Well, words are words and facts are facts. Polaris is not extremely power efficient at all and everybody now know that. Kudos Raja ! Continue to smoke and partying, your products are garbage.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> What DX12 titles are you talking about ?!? DX12 is an ultra minority and you will still have new games with DX11 in the next 2 years.
> For the moment, DX12 is just a marketing gimmick (no new effect, only performance, it's not a game changer at all) and when DX12 will be really revelant, your 480X will already be in the trash.
> Polaris is really a big disappointment, power efficiency is just a shame :
> Well, words are words and facts are facts. Polaris is not extremely power efficient at all and everybody now know that. Kudos Raja ! Continue to smoke and partying, your products are garbage.


The products are on par in efficiency down at the metal level (transistors), so transistor count and dia size wise the consumption is comparable at 14FF to 16FF, the problem is performance/power is still poor and one generation behind.

---

I don't trust reviews like TPU their setups are messy and not really comparable. But hey if you want to run a bench on 480 in ROTR, if it has a built in benchmark, I will run it on my 1060 and lets see. I've been offering that for ages. The reviews of 480s are so messed up because many only did the throttled down reference card with terrible cooler and as such comparing 480 using reviews to other cards is a major PITA if they do no state what cards at what clocks are used in their graph comparisons.
If there are so many well made fast running DX12 and Vulkan games what are their names beside Doom? Games that run faster in DX12/Vulkan on any hardware than they do in DX11/OGL. Even Doom can barely pull that off and the gain of using Vulkan is mostly or only shown on AMD cards which are otherwise limited on older APIs, on NV though the use of newer API doesn't seem to bring almost any advantage from using a lower level API and as such the needed optimizations from developers are missing. If a game runs slower in DX12/Vulkan on NV cards than in DX11/OGL then that new API implementation is messed up and not as fast as it should be at all. Currently there are zero pure DX12/Vulkan games and all that is being released are just conversions from DX11/OGL that sure it's nice they make the effort to implement the new APIs but it's more of a marketing gimmick at this point because the engine is not optimized for these new APIs at all or enough. It's gonna take a while before they invest the money and time to rewrite the engines from scratch in new APIs only and learn the optimization tricks needed to surpass DX11/OGL where these tricks were done by NV/AMD on driver level.
Overall the new APIs have better potential for gains but also for losses depending on who uses them and how well.

And on top of that what is your average unlimited FPS in game consumption with an 480 8GB stock and OCed? From what I have seen it is kind of ridiculous and where 1060 stops with it's max power consumption the 480 starts with it's minimum... The 480 is more like a 1070/980 in power consumption. And yes I do notice the differences in power consumption on my power bill.


----------



## kittysox

I recently parted with my two 1342 480 nitros. I can't even understand how sapphire can sleep at night selling those things for 279$. They gave me nothing but trouble, almost every single time they would turbo up whatever game I happened to be playing would crash and burn. I've read a few comments on how cheap the card feels overall and I will second that, as a longtime sapphire fan I am genuinely disappointed in the Polaris nitro line.


----------



## momonz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> What DX12 titles are you talking about ?!? DX12 is an ultra minority and you will still have new games with DX11 in the next 2 years.
> For the moment, DX12 is just a marketing gimmick (no new effect, only performance, it's not a game changer at all) and when DX12 will be really revelant, your 480X will already be in the trash.
> Polaris is really a big disappointment, power efficiency is just a shame :


Polaris is not a disappointment. You know for the fact that AMD didn't put much effort on DX11 thus it applies to all its AMD cards. If you look at its DX12 point of view, you'd think otherwise. That's where I am looking at.

DX12 is the next standard and you know that even if RX 480 would be replaced next year, you can't deny the fact that it would gain more performance than the 1060 (AMD drivers and DX12). If RX 480 can gain 10-20 fps or more when using DX12 or Vulkan, this card is pretty much far from being trash like what you are saying.


----------



## Rei86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> Polaris is not a disappointment. You know for the fact that *AMD didn't put much effort on DX11 thus it applies to all its AMD cards.* If you look at its DX12 point of view, you'd think otherwise. That's where I am looking at.


Wut? Did you forget the kappa /s?


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> I recently parted with my two 1342 480 nitros. I can't even understand how sapphire can sleep at night selling those things for 279$. They gave me nothing but trouble, almost every single time they would turbo up whatever game I happened to be playing would crash and burn. I've read a few comments on how cheap the card feels overall and I will second that, as a longtime sapphire fan I am genuinely disappointed in the Polaris nitro line.


Lol they're chincy aren't they? Man Sapphire is my go-to, but their RX series cards are cheaply made.

On hand I have a 380x 4gb and a Fury. Both Nitro cards and their build quality is miles ahead of their RX480. To be expected on the Fury, but it's clear just how cheap they went when holding its replacement card in hand, the 380x.

I have more to complain about regarding the RX 480 in general as well as that particular model. As I said before, this card in particular would be fine at $199. But then that would throw off their whole RX line.

Save yourself the time of trail and error with this one and skip the RX480 Nitro people. When you've had as many GPUs as I have, you know the difference.


----------



## paulerxx

So which RX 480s aren't going to fry my motherboard and which one don't throttle and reach 80c? I'm having a tough time deciding between a 1060 6gb and a RX 480 8GB. I'm leaning towards the RX 480 because I know a year from now it's going to be faster than the 1060. But I keep hearing the RX480 runs hot and kills motherboards... so


----------



## battleaxe

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> I've waited 2 and half months for AMD to pull their supply chain together, wrote to retailers and distributors few times a week. The pricing is not gonna drop on 480s, not here nor is availability gonna get better than it is right now.
> Beating this or that in 2 months or 2 years... speculations. With 770 vs 280x it was clear that 280x is the better card, more bandwidth, more VRAM, better even in reviews at launch. 290/390 a crazy power hog with only 390 being a decent card today due to the oversized VRAM it was rereleased with.
> By the time current AMD cards catch up to the competition due to driver and newer APIs being more used there will a batch of new cards not just from AMD being released as well.
> 
> And personally I am fine with paying less for more performance now even if 2 years later the other card would have offered more performance at the cost of what +25% power consumption?
> AMD has good architecture feature wise and good chips as long as they do not overvolt them and improve the efficiency. This goes for CPU and GPU, both Intel and NV pushed hard for efficiency and adopted even some of the mobile efficiency features and are stomping AMD since. Sure before that it was the other way when AMD had better efficiency than both. Funny isn't it, better efficiency product wins, as for the same power/heat you get more performance.
> 
> The poor efficiency and lack of releasing new chips not just rehashes is killing AMD. Sure they do try to fill in the empty spots on the market, that's nice, and push new open features but hardware performance wise... improve the damn performance/power ratio and in turn their products will be so much more competitive.
> 
> Let me know in 2 months when a $259 480 8GB will be beating a 1060. I really wanna see that, how they magically whip out +10%...
> 1060 @ 2012MHz/9102MHz does 14760 score in Firestrike. Stock reference closk is 13307. The only time AMD is beating the NV counterparts is with an AMD optimized application or rather poorly optimized AMD favoring engine like the trash in Hitman and DeusEx. Doom Vulkan is great but that's about the only game that seems to use most GPUs to their max and running at decent performance unlike the Hitman/DX trash engine. How many more games or apps like Doom Vulkan will there be this year? I would say zero. By the time these newer APIs are finally used properly, NV will release a new or updated enough architecture that supports all the features well and fast and it's gonna be a time to upgrade anyway.
> 
> AMD and Vega... will see but I think it's not gonna be good, probably a Fiji remake with too high price and power needs again.
> Navi maybe finally a properly designed architecture and the APIs being ready and used for it.
> 
> Nvidia, dunno, don't care, I buy what ever offers me the best performance/price, where performance for me is speed+power consumption+noise, regardless of brand.
> 
> AMD can pull it off, they have the people and money but no they always have to mess something up.






If this is true (IF), then we can expect the gimping to come along a whole lot faster than I had thought. Current gen will be gimped to make room for this gen for sure... http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-volta-gpu-leaked-2017-2018/

But likely its not coming as soon as they say it is. IF its true at all. Probably next release date more than likely...


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> So which RX 480s aren't going to fry my motherboard and which one don't throttle and reach 80c? I'm having a tough time deciding between a 1060 6gb and a RX 480 8GB. I'm leaning towards the RX 480 because I know a year from now it's going to be faster than the 1060. But I keep hearing the RX480 runs hot and kills motherboards... so


None will kill your motherboard. All will throttle and hit 80c if you just drop it into your case and go. Those who say otherwise either do not have a RX 480 or their tolerance for a loud PC is better than mine lol









You have to move the power limit to its max to keep it from throttling as well as set a fan curve.

The Gaming X has shown to offer the best cooling at 73c-ish and of course in an open test bench (stock). Stick this in a case and add 10c easily.

If you fiddle with this particular GPU it'll do well. It really likes to be undervolted for example. I could do -20mv and clocks at 1400 mhz on my last Nitro+

It would still hit mid 70's with a loud fan curve, but it performed its best around there. With a more sensible fan curve (not as loud) it would heat up to 83c in minutes. You're pushing the limit there.

Of the RX480 and GTX1060 cards I've tested, I would recommend the GTX.

They both perform well and I'd give the edge to the 1060 today, but my recommendation isn't because it does a few frames more here and there. It is because it's so quiet and a cinch to keep cool.


----------



## bucdan

What's the consensus for the xfx models?


----------



## Sonikku13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> So which RX 480s aren't going to fry my motherboard and which one don't throttle and reach 80c? I'm having a tough time deciding between a 1060 6gb and a RX 480 8GB. I'm leaning towards the RX 480 because I know a year from now it's going to be faster than the 1060. But I keep hearing the RX480 runs hot and kills motherboards... so
> 
> 
> 
> None will kill your motherboard. All will throttle and hit 80c if you just drop it into your case and go. Those who say otherwise either do not have a RX 480 or their tolerance for a loud PC is better than mine lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to move the power limit to its max to keep it from throttling as well as set a fan curve.
> 
> The Gaming X has shown to offer the best cooling at 73c-ish and of course in an open test bench (stock). Stick this in a case and add 10c easily.
> 
> If you fiddle with this particular GPU it'll do well. It really likes to be undervolted for example. I could do -20mv and clocks at 1400 mhz on my last Nitro+
> 
> It would still hit mid 70's with a loud fan curve, but it performed its best around there. With a more sensible fan curve (not as loud) it would heat up to 83c in minutes. You're pushing the limit there.
> 
> Of the RX480 and GTX1060 cards I've tested, I would recommend the GTX.
> 
> They both perform well and I'd give the edge to the 1060 today, but my recommendation isn't because it does a few frames more here and there. It is because it's so quiet and a cinch to keep cool.
Click to expand...

My MSI Radeon RX 480 8 GB Gaming X doesn't throttle and stays at 60C with a fan at 2400 RPM during Ethereum mining.


----------



## VeritronX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> The products are on par in efficiency down at the metal level (transistors), so transistor count and dia size wise the consumption is comparable at 14FF to 16FF, the problem is performance/power is still poor and one generation behind.
> 
> ---
> 
> I don't trust reviews like TPU their setups are messy and not really comparable. But hey if you want to run a bench on 480 in ROTR, if it has a built in benchmark, I will run it on my 1060 and lets see. I've been offering that for ages. The reviews of 480s are so messed up because many only did the throttled down reference card with terrible cooler and as such comparing 480 using reviews to other cards is a major PITA if they do no state what cards at what clocks are used in their graph comparisons.
> If there are so many well made fast running DX12 and Vulkan games what are their names beside Doom? Games that run faster in DX12/Vulkan on any hardware than they do in DX11/OGL. Even Doom can barely pull that off and the gain of using Vulkan is mostly or only shown on AMD cards which are otherwise limited on older APIs, on NV though the use of newer API doesn't seem to bring almost any advantage from using a lower level API and as such the needed optimizations from developers are missing. If a game runs slower in DX12/Vulkan on NV cards than in DX11/OGL then that new API implementation is messed up and not as fast as it should be at all. Currently there are zero pure DX12/Vulkan games and all that is being released are just conversions from DX11/OGL that sure it's nice they make the effort to implement the new APIs but it's more of a marketing gimmick at this point because the engine is not optimized for these new APIs at all or enough. It's gonna take a while before they invest the money and time to rewrite the engines from scratch in new APIs only and learn the optimization tricks needed to surpass DX11/OGL where these tricks were done by NV/AMD on driver level.
> Overall the new APIs have better potential for gains but also for losses depending on who uses them and how well.
> 
> And on top of that what is your average unlimited FPS in game consumption with an 480 8GB stock and OCed? From what I have seen it is kind of ridiculous and where 1060 stops with it's max power consumption the 480 starts with it's minimum... The 480 is more like a 1070/980 in power consumption. And yes I do notice the differences in power consumption on my power bill.


There are two free demo type and 1 full game from Microsoft studios that are dx12 only: Halo 5 Forge, Forza motorsport 6 Apex and Forza Horizon 3.

Horizon 3 actually runs about 50% faster on Pascal and Polaris than it does on Maxwell and Hawaii/Fiji amazingly.


----------



## comagnum

Just to chime in, the msi gamer x seems to be a solid aib 480, I still believe the reference cards with an aftermarket cooling solution are the better buy, though.


----------



## Sonikku13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Just to chime in, the msi gamer x seems to be a solid aib 480, I still believe the reference cards with an aftermarket cooling solution are the better buy, though.


IMO... not when they're $250 or lower with promo code! I got mine for $243 a pop, NIB. Well, not the first one... but the three I bought on Monday.

Ofc, I love air cooling, so YMMV.

http://slickdeals.net/f/9139127-new-jet-customers-msi-radeon-rx-480-gaming-x-8g-graphics-card-230-or-less-after-20-rebate-free-s-h


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> For people saying 1060 is the better buy, please are you STILL going to play those old DX11 games again (where 1060 is faster). I'm talking to games like Crysis 3, BF3 and the likes. Yes they might still matter for benchmarks but in practical sense I don't think so.
> 
> RX 480 is the better buy here as the trend is towards DX12 and that card would be faster eventually.


what you said is unbelievable. If DX12 isn't bound to just windows 10, I'm sure an extra billion people would love to try it, but at its current state, some people don't want windows 10, some people don't buy new games at full price (wait for steam sales), too little games with DX12 features for people to care.

I just found it funny that you added "in practical sense" in your statement. I mean seriously, do you actually think that you are the majority?

What you said will eventually be right, but now is not the time. DX12 is too far away from widely implemented for you to say that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VeritronX*
> 
> There are two free demo type and 1 full game from *Microsoft studios* that are dx12 only: Halo 5 Forge, Forza motorsport 6 Apex and Forza Horizon 3.
> 
> Horizon 3 actually runs about 50% faster on Pascal and Polaris than it does on Maxwell and Hawaii/Fiji amazingly.


are there any other studios or devs you can use as an example

I don't know, when I read "microsoft studios", all I can think of is windows 10 update spam.


----------



## konoii

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HarrisLam*
> 
> what you said is unbelievable. If DX12 isn't bound to just windows 10, I'm sure an extra billion people would love to try it, but at its current state, some people don't want windows 10, some people don't buy new games at full price (wait for steam sales), too little games with DX12 features for people to care.
> 
> I just found it funny that you added "in practical sense" in your statement. I mean seriously, do you actually think that you are the majority?
> 
> What you said will eventually be right, but now is not the time. DX12 is too far away from widely implemented for you to say that.
> are there any other studios or devs you can use as an example
> 
> I don't know, when I read "microsoft studios", all I can think of is windows 10 update spam.




i don't know, according to steam august 2016 survey, which is a pretty accurate survey to use to measure the gaming community, it seems like gamer's are embracing windows 10. it has the highest market share on steam now with near 50%. it's dethroned windows 7 down to 28% share.


----------



## HarrisLam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *konoii*
> 
> 
> 
> i don't know, according to steam august 2016 survey, which is a pretty accurate survey to use to measure the gaming community, it seems like gamer's are embracing windows 10. it has the highest market share on steam now with near 50%. it's dethroned windows 7 down to 28% share.


total share of windows 10 is 47.5 + 1.5 = 49%

windows 7 is 28.7 + 5.9 = ~34.5%

I get what you are saying, but it's not just 1 factor, it's all the listed factors (in my post) adding up. The 34.5% of those windows 7 guys are limited to their windows, and not all the 49% of the windows 10 guys care about DX12 more than their money (only new games have DX12 which roughly = full price games)

etc etc


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sonikku13*
> 
> My MSI Radeon RX 480 8 GB Gaming X doesn't throttle and stays at 60C with a fan at 2400 RPM during Ethereum mining.


Lol I have no idea what type of load mining does to a GPU or how you have this setup. IF any RX 480 ran at 60c for gamers that card would be all over the internet.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VeritronX*
> 
> There are two free demo type and 1 full game from Microsoft studios that are dx12 only: Halo 5 Forge, Forza motorsport 6 Apex and Forza Horizon 3.
> 
> Horizon 3 actually runs about 50% faster on Pascal and Polaris than it does on Maxwell and Hawaii/Fiji amazingly.


I don't play console ports or count trash engines like Forza locked to 30fps and barely doing 60fps on Titan XP etc. The fact that the newer cards run so much faster is a clear sign of MS screwing something up in a major way.
All the decent racing sims are in DX11 and none I know of even announced developing DX12 or Vulkan engine yet, no need to really as they run 100fps+ for years, unlike MS crap.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> Just to chime in, the msi gamer x seems to be a solid aib 480, I still believe the reference cards with an aftermarket cooling solution are the better buy, though.


Only if you can find a second hand cheap enough cooler. I've tried but finding an RX 480 reference at MSRP is an impossible task in central Europe and getting a decent second hand cooler pretty much the same this time due to shipping costs being high and people bidding crazy $ on second hand GPU coolers. Tried for 2 months, still monitoring for a cheap cooler but nothing yet.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sonikku13*
> 
> IMO... not when they're $250 or lower with promo code! I got mine for $243 a pop, NIB. Well, not the first one... but the three I bought on Monday.
> 
> Ofc, I love air cooling, so YMMV.
> 
> http://slickdeals.net/f/9139127-new-jet-customers-msi-radeon-rx-480-gaming-x-8g-graphics-card-230-or-less-after-20-rebate-free-s-h


That's nice the RX are popular in cheap electricity USA where the cards are actually sold for decent prices and used for mining purposes. Meanwhile elsewhere AMD cards were a rip off until mid September, about a week ago. Now the same card costs about $290 excluding 21% tax. I'm sure it would be a hit in US if you had to pay $346 incl. tax for it, that's the cheapest found on market here. At the same time 1060 6GB sells custom versions as low as $310 incl. tax, that's about $35+ cheaper, since mid July. Yep 10% cheaper, for 10% more performance, using 15% less power and being available 2 months sooner. The AMD offers are not competitive on all markets, maybe in US but certainly not in central Europe.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Lol I have no idea what type of load mining does to a GPU or how you have this setup. IF any RX 480 ran at 60c for gamers that card would be all over the internet.


If you stuck it into an open bench and run the fan twice as fast as it does by default that card with the 1060 cooler on it can run sub 70C. Though I doubt it's gonna do pure 60.0C when pushing 100% game load or Firestrike on it. Maybe the 1060 would with fans maxed out to what ever the max is, 3000rpm?


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VeritronX*
> 
> Horizon 3 actually runs about 50% faster on Pascal and Polaris than it does on Maxwell and Hawaii/Fiji amazingly.


Where are you getting this 50% number from? When I look at the Forza Horizon 3 benchmarks I'm seeing like 5-10 fps difference between comparable cards across generations...

ie @4k - 1070 gets 55avg/49min while the 980Ti gets 49avg/44min


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> Where are you getting this 50% number from? When I look at the Forza Horizon 3 benchmarks I'm seeing like 5-10 fps difference between comparable cards across generations...
> 
> ie @4k - 1070 gets 55avg/49min while the 980Ti gets 49avg/44min


The performance and optimization is horrible:






If you mess up the settings on that crappy engine you can get some crazy results at certain scenes.


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Lol they're chincy aren't they? Man Sapphire is my go-to, but their RX series cards are cheaply made.
> 
> On hand I have a 380x 4gb and a Fury. Both Nitro cards and their build quality is miles ahead of their RX480. To be expected on the Fury, but it's clear just how cheap they went when holding its replacement card in hand, the 380x.
> 
> I have more to complain about regarding the RX 480 in general as well as that particular model. As I said before, this card in particular would be fine at $199. But then that would throw off their whole RX line.
> 
> Save yourself the time of trail and error with this one and skip the RX480 Nitro people. When you've had as many GPUs as I have, you know the difference.


Dang. I was so close to buying the RX 480 Nitro... I still think the RX 480 Nitro is the best looking card in a long time. The only thing that made me skip it is the R9 Fury Nitro at $310. I would never have expected Sapphire to have a card that feels cheap, especially if it looks so good. But then again, they likely were forced to keep the costs down in order to have a card that does not reach the $300 mark.

Miners really killed Polaris...


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> Dang. I was so close to buying the RX 480 Nitro... I still think the RX 480 Nitro is the best looking card in a long time. The only thing that made me skip it is the R9 Fury Nitro at $310. I would never have expected Sapphire to have a card that feels cheap, especially if it looks so good. But then again, they likely were forced to keep the costs down in order to have a card that does not reach the $300 mark.
> 
> Miners really killed Polaris...


I bought a Nitro 480 (non-OC 1306Mhz stock clock version) and tried it for a week but mine didn't overclock past 1350Mhz and the fan was loud so I returned it. I bought it for £237 as I had £13 credit on Amazon. I then got a deal on a Nitro 390X for £210 open-box but like-new and I jumped on that. The 390X obviously draws more power but the 3-fan Nitro 390X is much quieter than the Nitro 480 and is about 5-10% faster. Mine also overclocks to 1150Mhz with base clock being 1080Mhz and I'm very happy with it. It even beats the Nitro 480 for looks imo too.

If only the Nitro 480 had a better cooler I would have kept it but the two-fan solution is not the best. MSI's Gaming is clearly superior.


----------



## kittysox

I've been in love with sapphire since the day I took that baby home. But the rx480 nitro 1342mhz is simply the worst card I've bought probably ever. The thing feels so cheap and at 279$ that is just insane I mean you can buy a nitro fury for 299$ at micro center. I still have my sapphire nano but honestly after my experiences with the 480 nitro I'll for sure think about another brand for my next Radeon purchase. The 480 nitro is honestly just a 300$ piece of garbage.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> 
> I've been in love with sapphire since the day I took that baby home. But the rx480 nitro 1342mhz is simply the worst card I've bought probably ever. The thing feels so cheap and at 279$ that is just insane I mean you can buy a nitro fury for 299$ at micro center. I still have my sapphire nano but honestly after my experiences with the 480 nitro I'll for sure think about another brand for my next Radeon purchase. The 480 nitro is honestly just a 300$ piece of garbage.


I agree 100%. That Fury at $299 is where it's at!


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Lol I have no idea what type of load mining does to a GPU or how you have this setup. IF any RX 480 ran at 60c for gamers that card would be all over the internet.


I have my 480's in crossfire and neither card goes above 70c, ever. The Gamer X is a very cool running card. The Mono plus does a fantastic job, as well.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *comagnum*
> 
> I have my 480's in crossfire and neither card goes above 70c, ever. The Gamer X is a very cool running card. The Mono plus does a fantastic job, as well.


So you put an aftermarket cooler on it?


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> Miners really killed Polaris...


Amen.

The 4xx Nitro has about the same cooler size and heatpipes as the cheapest $259 dual fan 1060s, I've compared those two on purpose since they are the cheapest cards to buy from 480s and 1060s.
MSI 480 GX is the one to get or try other with oversized cooler and not messed up VRMs while not costing as much as a new Fury.


----------



## comagnum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> So you put an aftermarket cooler on it?


On the reference card, yeah.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Amen.
> 
> The 4xx Nitro has about the same cooler size and heatpipes as the cheapest $259 dual fan 1060s, I've compared those two on purpose since they are the cheapest cards to buy from 480s and 1060s.
> MSI 480 GX is the one to get or try other with oversized cooler and not messed up VRMs while not costing as much as a new Fury.


Sapphire Nitro 480 isn't great, you are right. I am surprised by Sapphire. From looking at pictures of the card online, it looks kinda sexy. But when you have it in your hands in real life, it looks cheapish. There's this cheap sprayed on writing on the side 'VBIOS Switch' which I immediately didn't like. Front looks nice though. As I said, the biggest kicker is the cooling solution is quite frankly pants. Doesn't perform well and is noisey compared to other Sapphire cards or the MSI Gaming.


----------



## epic1337

still much better than reference though, at the very least its a decent card, albeit a mediocre one.

i wish they made an RX480 or RX470 Nano, its not like Polaris is anymore power hungry than a Fiji die.
if they could make a 275W Fiji die perform well on a 175W TDP profile, then they sure as heck can do it on a 150W Polaris die.


----------



## Bdonedge

So what's the consensus between this and a 1060? Building a second comp and idk which route to go


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> still much better than reference though, at the very least its a decent card, albeit a mediocre one.
> 
> i wish they made an RX480 or RX470 Nano, its not like Polaris is anymore power hungry than a Fiji die.
> if they could make a 275W Fiji die perform well on a 175W TDP profile, then they sure as heck can do it on a 150W Polaris die.


Again, you're stuck with 1060s which do come in the small short variants from many brands. EVGA 1060 SC probably the best of them.
I have not seen a short 480/70, only way to get one is a rare reference and mod it which gets way too expensive unless you already own a small powerful cooler or AIO.

I don't know how well the Nano did temperature wise, I would say it cooked, all I know is most of them coil whined and while it was a Fury X full chip it was limited down. It's like taking a Titan chip putting it on a tiny board and limiting it's power consumption to 50% lol, what a waste, sure works, but not cost effective.
Most of the 4xx cards are cut down on cost and it shows, metal shrouds replaced with cheaper easier to manufacture molded plastic, coolers downsized when they shouldn't be, less heatpipes, VRMs cheaper and worse than reference card, ... buying a decent 480 is like navigating a minefield.

*Bdonedge:*
What ever you like or want. They both work and it depends on your personal preferences.
Power consumption: 480 > 1060, 15% ==> Noise: 480 > 1060, [email protected] ==> Temperature: 480 > 1060
Performance DX11: 480 < 1060, 10%
Performance DX12: 480 = 1060, 0%
Price: 480 > 1060, varies depending on market and model you want but cheapest decent dual fan versions it usually goes that way, +$20+
Sync: 480 FreeSync/VESAAdaptiveSync, 1060 GSync+FastSync, GSync monitors cost more but every one of them has the same features unlike FreeSync where it's what ever the manufacturer wants and some are better some worse.

FastSync works well as advertised but for me I prefer the lower latency of no sync at all since most games won't run past 120fps minimum and at such high FPS any tearing is invisible already anyway so FastSync is kind of useless but it does work.

If you already have a FreeSync monitor or want one then buy AMD GPU, unless all you need is integrated graphics, then Intel should come out with VESAAdaptiveSync iGPUs in next generation if it hasn't already.
For around 60fps yes do get FreeSync or Gsync monitor. Personally though I play 80fps minimum at which point any sync is almost not noticeable anymore and 120fps noSync vs 120fps Free/GSync no difference IMHO.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bdonedge*
> 
> So what's the consensus between this and a 1060? Building a second comp and idk which route to go


Despite my experience with the Nitro I would choose a 480 over a 1060 all day long. If you want to play new games mostly, the 480 is going to be the faster card and will mature better. If you want to play mostly DX11 games, 1060 is good but imo won't age too well comparatively.


----------



## momonz

Plus one. That's exactly what I'm saying about rx 48 vs 1060. Some people keeps downplaying its dx 12 advantage.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bdonedge*
> 
> So what's the consensus between this and a 1060? Building a second comp and idk which route to go


Except if you only buy AMD cards, 1060 is a way better card than RX480, no doubt.
Hypothetical future gains are hypotetical and 1060 offers 8-9% better performance than RX480, way better power consumption/efficiency, more silence, better overclocking and entry customs cards are even cheaper than RX 480 custom cards in my country.DX12 is such a fail that I don't think it is a relevant argument, especially when you see that nVidia cards perform around the same in DX12.
To me, you need to be an AMD fan only to be interested with Polaris, Pascal is just simply better and the press reviews did confirm it.


----------



## ubbernewb

not taking sides, BUT if you are thinking of doing crossfire/sli Rx480 can do it the 1060 can not or last i heard anyway


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ubbernewb*
> 
> not taking sides, BUT if you are thinking of doing crossfire/sli Rx480 can do it the 1060 can not or last i heard anyway


That's an important consideration IMO. If you only ever run single-card and upgrade regularly the 1060 suits. If you are the sort who buys midrange so that you can hold onto the card for a while and add another when prices drop a bit, 480's your choice. Most midrange buyers fall into one of these camps, IME.


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> That's an important consideration IMO. If you only ever run single-card and upgrade regularly the 1060 suits. If you are the sort who buys midrange so that you can hold onto the card for a while and add another when prices drop a bit, 480's your choice. Most midrange buyers fall into one of these camps, IME.


well Also Nvidia has the habit of actualy making performance only VERY slightly better each driver update or even making it same/slightly worse, where as Amd has shown over and over, their cards get better and better with drivers over time so the 1060 has advantage now, but will it, say 3 driver updates down the road? i Doubt it


----------



## Bdonedge

Price is a factor here, is the 8gb a significant improvement of performance at 1080p cause that's the resolution I'll be playing at


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bdonedge*
> 
> Price is a factor here, is the 8gb a significant improvement of performance at 1080p cause that's the resolution I'll be playing at


4gb is fine for 1080p resolution at the moment

Can't say how long that will last though , if I were going to buy one I'd buy the 8gb version


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bdonedge*
> 
> Price is a factor here, is the 8gb a significant improvement of performance at 1080p cause that's the resolution I'll be playing at


not really, with all the games that uses more than 4GB of VRAM, most of them are only pre-caching more resource.
meaning, even if that game where to be restricted to less than it's ideal VRAM usage it'll still run just as good.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ubbernewb*
> 
> not taking sides, BUT if you are thinking of doing crossfire/sli Rx480 can do it the 1060 can not or last i heard anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an important consideration IMO. If you only ever run single-card and upgrade regularly the 1060 suits. If you are the sort who buys midrange so that you can hold onto the card for a while and add another when prices drop a bit, 480's your choice. Most midrange buyers fall into one of these camps, IME.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't recommand CF. 2 R9 290 OCed to 1200/1500 in CF with fullcover block drawing way over 300W each is only about 20 to 30% faster in NFS 2016 than a 2Ghz GTX 1060 in 4k. It can be upto 70% faster in other games but GTX 1070 is a better buy than CF 290 or 480. Gigabyte even has a mItx 1070.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I wouldn't recommand CF. 2 R9 290 OCed to 1200/1500 in CF with fullcover block drawing way over 300W each is only about 20 to 30% faster in NFS 2016 than a 2Ghz GTX 1060 in 4k. It can be upto 70% faster in other games but GTX 1070 is a better buy than CF 290 or 480. Gigabyte even has a mItx 1070.


Obviously I agree as I'm sat here with a 1070. I was speaking more to how I see those two cards (1060 and 480) relative to one another in their target market. For people who can't or won't move up to the 1070 bracket, a 1060 single-card or a 480 now and a 480 later might be more appealing.


----------



## momonz

Based on what I read from recent posts here. I would stay away from RX 480 Nitro+


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> Based on what I read from recent posts here. I would stay away from RX 480 Nitro+


Basically:

MSI's Gaming X is the best overall.

Gigabyte G1 is the shortest card, but hottest running.

Sapphire is the "premier" partner.

ASUS slacked on the 480's cooling, "half-butt" effort card.

XFX is a decent second choice with their GTR behind MSI..

PowerColor tried, but still fell short with cheaper components.

That pretty much sums up the RX 480 cards.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> Basically:
> 
> MSI's Gaming X is the best overall.
> 
> Gigabyte G1 is the shortest card, but hottest running.
> 
> Sapphire is the "premier" partner.
> 
> ASUS slacked on the 480's cooling, "half-butt" effort card.
> 
> XFX is a decent second choice with their GTR behind MSI..
> 
> PowerColor tried, but still fell short with cheaper components.
> 
> That pretty much sums up the RX 480 cards.


I would second this except for the Asus Strix. I had this for a short period of time and found it to be the best card overall only falling short a few C compared to the MSI X.

I will say that it was a very short time I had with it so I could have overlooked something very important.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I would second this except for the Asus Strix. I had this for a short period of time and found it to be the best card overall only falling short a few C compared to the MSI X.
> 
> I will say that it was a very short time I had with it so I could have overlooked something very important.


Everyone said that ASUS neglected to put decent cooling on the memory chips, and the cooler was just a repurposed cooler that did not even fit the 480 correctly.


----------



## STEvil

Almost every Asus cooler since they started doing "DCU" has been pretty crap.


----------



## PunkX 1

Guys if you brick the RX 480 with an incorrect bios flash does the fan stop working ? Does it also not get recognized in windows anymore?


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> Basically:
> 
> MSI's Gaming X is the best overall.
> 
> Gigabyte G1 is the shortest card, but hottest running.
> 
> Sapphire is the "premier" partner.
> 
> ASUS slacked on the 480's cooling, "half-butt" effort card.
> 
> XFX is a decent second choice with their GTR behind MSI..
> 
> PowerColor tried, but still fell short with cheaper components.
> 
> That pretty much sums up the RX 480 cards.


It seems that the cooler itself of the Nitro is made of cheap plastic, but the PCB is fine;





And despite Asus' mediocre cooler, it actually has the best PCB;




Gigabyte runs the hottest because the MOSFETs are too packed onto each other;


----------



## momonz

Too bad my eyes are locked on RX 480 Nitro+ 4gb as that's the best valued card available. I would probably go with XFX GTR 8gb as it fits my black and white theme.


----------



## NightAntilli

On second thought I don't really think you can go wrong with the Nitro... The cooler feels cheap due to the plastic body, but, the PCB is more than fine, the heatsink itself is good as well, and the fans are good/quiet enough and are easily replaceable if there's something wrong. The Dual Bios and LED are nice additions too. The MSI might be better, but it's not as if it's a total failure either. That category is for the Red Devil.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> On second thought I don't really think you can go wrong with the Nitro... The cooler feels cheap due to the plastic body, but, the PCB is more than fine, the heatsink itself is good as well, and the fans are good/quiet enough and are easily replaceable if there's something wrong. The Dual Bios and LED are nice additions too. The MSI might be better, but it's not as if it's a total failure either. That category is for the Red Devil.


Does any of the manufacturers use an aluminum backplate? Or did everyone take the backplate fad too far and cheapened it out with a plastic backplate like Gigabyte to make it look "premium" and super cool looking, yet does nothing?

I can't remember the last time a card actually had an AL backplate.


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> Too bad my eyes are locked on RX 480 Nitro+ 4gb as that's the best valued card available. I would probably go with XFX GTR 8gb as it fits my black and white theme.


If the 390X series are any indication of quality on the RX480's I would say they should be at least as good as the MSI versions. At the end of its product life XFX 390x cards were about the best clockers out there. I had four of them (now only two) and all could do over 1220/1725 core/memory. Just a thought.


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> Does any of the manufacturers use an aluminum backplate? Or did everyone take the backplate fad too far and cheapened it out with a plastic backplate like Gigabyte to make it look "premium" and super cool looking, yet does nothing?
> 
> I can't remember the last time a card actually had an AL backplate.


The Nitro claims to use an aluminum backplate... See here;

http://sapphirenitro.sapphiretech.com/en/480-8.html#design


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> The Nitro claims to use an aluminum backplate... See here;
> 
> http://sapphirenitro.sapphiretech.com/en/480-8.html#design


Having owned one, I can't say that is aluminum. Felt like plastic and sounded like plastic.


----------



## tajoh111

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Having owned one, I can't say that is aluminum. Felt like plastic and sounded like plastic.


Not a surprise.

It seemed all the partners took a chopping block to the real retail version of cards before they got to retail. The nitro lost some power circuitry and MSI literally removed a third of its phases and its obvious by the empty spots on the PCB. And gigabyte and power devil went super cheap on the PCB compared to the reference.


----------



## Bdonedge

Decided to go with the 1060 - got a killer deal on one and it's a small form factor that I was working with - so heat could potentially would be an issue so I went with the cooler running card. Thanks for all the help


----------



## NightAntilli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tajoh111*
> 
> Not a surprise.
> 
> It seemed all the partners took a chopping block to the real retail version of cards before they got to retail. The nitro lost some power circuitry and MSI literally removed a third of its phases and its obvious by the empty spots on the PCB. And gigabyte and power devil went super cheap on the PCB compared to the reference.


To be fair, even though the Nitro card physically had six power phases, the sixth one was already disabled in the BIOS on all final cards, including review cards. So even though you're physically getting a five phase card, it will not perform differently from the ones that had six phases.


----------



## Digitalwolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Having owned one, I can't say that is aluminum. Felt like plastic and sounded like plastic.


Well the 480 Nitro+ I have in my MSI build... the backplate is most definitely not plastic and is some sort of metal. I would assume it's aluminum but it's not like I can say for sure. Opposed to the fan shroud which is obviously plastic.

The card goes well with my MSI Titanium color scheme due to the back plate.

I don't know why it feels cheap to some... The only thing that bothers me is when I have to handle it my fingers end up in the fans too easily. The fans feel like they would be easy to damage (the only cheap feel I get from the card) and it seems to weigh a decent amount (more than I would expect looking at it).

Perhaps there is some variance in manufacturing.. I don't know.

I have an Asus Strix version as well, but I haven't tried that yet... because it's long enough that it won't fit in that case with the Radiator I currently have in the front.


----------



## KarathKasun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Having owned one, I can't say that is aluminum. Felt like plastic and sounded like plastic.


The RX 470 Platinum backplate is definitely aluminum, it probably feels like plastic because of the thick paint and the fact that it is a cheaply done casting.

Just get a razor and scratch it deeply in a non-obvious location to check.


----------



## geoxile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> The RX 470 Platinum backplate is definitely aluminum, it probably feels like plastic because of the thick paint and the fact that it is a cheaply done casting.
> 
> Just get a razor and scratch it deeply in a non-obvious location to check.


Aluminous just isn't a hard metal.


----------



## NuclearPeace

My 380x Nitro has an aluminum backplate.

If its true that the 480 Nitro has a plastic backplate then its pretty disappointing. My 380X costed less than a lot of the AIB 480s and yet it has a far beefier heatsink and a functioning metal back plate.


----------



## EastCoast

This is a video of the 480 on a FULL waterblock. Not only does it clock higher, stay's cooler but the overall power consumption is much lower.








Although he doesn't recommend it I would if that's what your are going for.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EastCoast*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a video of the 480 on a FULL waterblock. Not only does it clock higher, stay's cooler but the overall power consumption is much lower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although he doesn't recommend it I would if that's what your are going for.


Even better XFX Air Cooled card:


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Even better XFX Air Cooled card:


I'm telling you.. XFX has been on a roll lately with AMD cards. I've had 4 390x's and they were all fantastic cards. Best of the barrel so to speak as far as 390x series is concerned. So I would be shocked if they cut corners on the new RX480 series...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *battleaxe*
> 
> I'm telling you.. XFX has been on a roll lately with AMD cards. I've had 4 390x's and they were all fantastic cards. Best of the barrel so to speak as far as 390x series is concerned. So I would be shocked if they cut corners on the new RX480 series...


1# Rule for AMD cards. Avoid Dual Vendor cards. Stuff like MSI, Gigabyte, ASUS and stick to AMD brands only. Sadly RX 480 Nitro, RX 480 Devil are very average.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 1# Rule for AMD cards. Avoid Dual Vendor cards. Stuff like MSI, Gigabyte, ASUS and stick to AMD brands only. Sadly RX 480 Nitro, RX 480 Devil are very average.


Sort of throws that #1 rule out the window lol.

Kidding aside I typically agree. However, the MSI Gaming X cards have been pretty solid solutions for this and last gen for the most part.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Sort of throws that #1 rule out the window lol.
> 
> Kidding aside I typically agree. However, the MSI Gaming X cards have been pretty solid solutions for this and last gen for the most part.


Nope. Gaming X RX 480 is garbage compared to Nvidia equivalent.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Nope. Gaming X RX 480 is garbage compared to Nvidia equivalent.


Are we talking about the Gaming X RX480? It's the best cooler Polaris has I think.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Are we talking about the Gaming X RX480? It's the best cooler Polaris has I think.


Yes. The cooler is not as good as the Gaming X GTX1060. PCB is also much lower quality compared to even reference card.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Yes. The cooler is not as good as the Gaming X GTX1060. PCB is also much lower quality compared to even reference card.


Oh man I thought they were the exact same lol. The 1060 Gaming X cooler is beastly.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Oh man I thought they were the exact same lol. The 1060 Gaming X cooler is beastly.


As of right now a lot of conspiracies going on. How can reference RX 480 have better components than aftermarket cards lol.


----------



## BradleyW

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> As of right now a lot of conspiracies going on. How can reference RX 480 have better components than aftermarket cards lol.


XFX 4890 was an example of that. One of their revisions of the aftermarket version performed worse due to poorer design. Most likely to save money. Customers were able to get an RMA including myself. XFX sent me a different revision and the performance was were it should be.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NightAntilli*
> 
> It seems that the cooler itself of the Nitro is made of cheap plastic, but the PCB is fine;
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPwsLOX7Y_k
> 
> And despite Asus' mediocre cooler, it actually has the best PCB;
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3QDevWleVY
> 
> Gigabyte runs the hottest because the MOSFETs are too packed onto each other;
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdYzPEK9A30


That's a great channel.

One thing to note is Sapphire produces AMD's workstation cards. So they definitely know how to produce good cards power delivery wise, it's just the coolers are iffy.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BradleyW*
> 
> XFX 4890 was an example of that. One of their revisions of the aftermarket version performed worse due to poorer design. Most likely to save money. Customers were able to get an RMA including myself. XFX sent me a different revision and the performance was were it should be.


My Sapphire 4870 1GB where terrible lol. Run Hot and the cooler was super loud. Since than its been reference for me.


----------



## Phoenixlight

Looks like the XFX RX480 GTR could be the best model, high clocks + low temperatures https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWASNajSdpg


----------



## poii

I think that is either cherry-picking the card on XFX side or the 14nm process maturing rapidly.
Would not surprise me to see other XFX 480 GTR owners saying their cards are not nearly as good.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poii*
> 
> I think that is either cherry-picking the card on XFX side or the 14nm process maturing rapidly.
> Would not surprise me to see other XFX 480 GTR owners saying their cards are not nearly as good.


I 100% agree! For science I might have to pick one of these up in a few weeks


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poii*
> 
> I think that is either cherry-picking the card on XFX side or the 14nm process maturing rapidly.
> Would not surprise me to see other XFX 480 GTR owners saying their cards are not nearly as good.


For starters the VRM in GTR are same as Fury X. It can do more than 500W which is insane. This means that VRM will run very cool since even with overvolting 480 will hit like 300W.


----------



## Blaze051806

glad i bought my RX 480 early lol i have AMD Reference card lol my card runs really cool i put my fan to 2800rpm when gaming and i stay around 60c at load


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> For starters the VRM in GTR are same as Fury X. It can do more than 500W which is insane. This means that VRM will run very cool since even with overvolting 480 will hit like 300W.


I like the sound of that! This particular RX480 looks promising then. I wonder if we'll see what's basically version 2.0 of Polaris with all AIBs?

I have used a few and of course watched/read nearly every worthy review out. This "GTR" seems like the best version of the RX 480 currently.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phoenixlight*
> 
> Looks like the XFX RX480 GTR could be the best model, high clocks + low temperatures https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWASNajSdpg


That card is insane. 60c max @stock, 65c @1475MHz.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> That card is insane. 60c max @stock, 65c @1475MHz.


Honestly that performance, clock and temp is what I expected these to be like from all AIB in the very beginning.


----------



## Marios145

Well...maybe oojo was right and polaris had validation issues after all...it's October and we're seeing higher clocks/lower power


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marios145*
> 
> Well...maybe oojo was right and polaris had validation issues after all...it's October and we're seeing higher clocks/lower power


Lol that would be great if true.


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Lol that would be great if true.


not saying will happen but we may see higher and higher clocks to a degree as the process matures, i hope so anyways


----------



## Phoenixlight

There's an in-depth look at PCB for the XFX GTR card here: https://youtu.be/GBWs_7vRWkA
The guy explaining it prefers it over all the other 480 models.


----------



## battleaxe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phoenixlight*
> 
> There's an in-depth look at PCB for the XFX GTR card here: https://youtu.be/GBWs_7vRWkA
> The guy explaining it prefers it over all the other 480 models.


I'm not surprised by this at all. Toward the end of their run the XFX 390X was about the best cards going.


----------



## Xuper

Rich Review of RX 480.

www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Tests/RX-480-Test-1199839/


----------



## poii

TL;DR: RX 480 gained 8% over the last 4 month.
Edit to clarify: That's for throtteling stock RX 480.


----------



## JackCY

Everyone basing their XFX opinion on a cherry picked XFX promo card sent to JayZ... come one people, you won't get a cherry picked golden card when you buy it in a retail store. It's decent but nowhere near that crazy performance and cooling of the rare chip they cherry picked.


----------



## aliquis

Maybe the card wasn't cherry picked but with a new process improved chip.

This article claims that amd is currently rolling out new revisioned polaris chips with improved efficiency etc.

http://wccftech.com/amd-polaris-revisions-performance-per-watt/


----------



## Marios145

Five days earlier
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marios145*
> 
> Well...maybe oojo was right and polaris had validation issues after all...it's October and we're seeing higher clocks/lower power


^WCCFTECH journalism


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Everyone basing their XFX opinion on a cherry picked XFX promo card sent to JayZ... come one people, you won't get a cherry picked golden card when you buy it in a retail store. It's decent but nowhere near that crazy performance and cooling of the rare chip they cherry picked.


I can see the card is cherry picked but temps should be same for all cards. Overclocking might not.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Everyone basing their XFX opinion on a cherry picked XFX promo card sent to JayZ... come one people, you won't get a cherry picked golden card when you buy it in a retail store. It's decent but nowhere near that crazy performance and cooling of the rare chip they cherry picked.
> 
> 
> 
> I can see the card is cherry picked but temps should be same for all cards. Overclocking might not.
Click to expand...

XFX still has the best 4GB 470 since they are the only one useing better VRAM that I'm aware of.

Gigabyte and ASUS 4GB cards can only do 1800 stable at 0.92V. XFX can do 1900 on VRAM at same voltage. XFX use about 10% more power though.


----------



## KarathKasun

The reference Sapphire 470 I have sitting in my main rig will do [email protected] I think that is with the 1500 strap as well.


----------



## IRobot23

Did anyone tried all AIB cards? Since I do not want to read 350+ pages.... I would beg someone to tell me which one is the best RX 480, cooling and PCB (need to be strong only for air, 24/7).
ASUS seems to be little expensive.
MSI, GIGABYTE, XFX, Powercolor, HIS or NITRO?

Please help and many thanks in advance.


----------



## Digitalwolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Did anyone tried all AIB cards? Since I do not want to read 350+ pages.... I would beg someone to tell me which one is the best RX 480, cooling and PCB (need to be strong only for air, 24/7).
> ASUS seems to be little expensive.
> MSI, GIGABYTE, XFX, Powercolor, HIS or NITRO?
> 
> Please help and many thanks in advance.


I don't have all of them. I do have the Asus Strix and the Sapphire Nitro+ (1342 core version).

Just from an out of the box on Air perspective.... I am not running my Strix in OC mode so it's default core is 1310 versus the 1342 of my Sapphire which was also quite a bit cheaper. My Strix has a lot of variance in its core speed (it might sit at 1310 for a while but it bounces down to 1280's and back a LOT) and it's loud. It does maintain a temp under 75 while being loud out of the box but it's also downclocking some.

My Nitro will sit at 1342 for as long as I'm in a game. It does go up a bit more in temp (say 77/78 max) but you never hear it. I have heard what the fans sound like because I had the fans to 100% bug that was going around (with both cards) but I fixed that.

Between the two cards I have... the Nitro would be my personal choice. I think it looks better and personally I like the location of the 8 pin on the end of the card instead of the normal location. The Strix is nice with the LED's and I have heard it has a better build if you go water... but there aren't any full cover blocks (like from EK) that you can buy for it and I'm not going water on my 480's so that's a moot point for me.

I would like to try one of the XFX GTR's.. that's the only other model that interests me but I don't think I'm going to get one. Too many things coming up in the next few months that I'm going to be buying.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Digitalwolf*
> 
> I don't have all of them. I do have the Asus Strix and the Sapphire Nitro+ (1342 core version).
> 
> Just from an out of the box on Air perspective.... I am not running my Strix in OC mode so it's default core is 1310 versus the 1342 of my Sapphire which was also quite a bit cheaper. My Strix has a lot of variance in its core speed (it might sit at 1310 for a while but it bounces down to 1280's and back a LOT) and it's loud. It does maintain a temp under 75 while being loud out of the box but it's also downclocking some.
> 
> My Nitro will sit at 1342 for as long as I'm in a game. It does go up a bit more in temp (say 77/78 max) but you never hear it. I have heard what the fans sound like because I had the fans to 100% bug that was going around (with both cards) but I fixed that.
> 
> Between the two cards I have... the Nitro would be my personal choice. I think it looks better and personally I like the location of the 8 pin on the end of the card instead of the normal location. The Strix is nice with the LED's and I have heard it has a better build if you go water... but there aren't any full cover blocks (like from EK) that you can buy for it and I'm not going water on my 480's so that's a moot point for me.
> 
> I would like to try one of the XFX GTR's.. that's the only other model that interests me but I don't think I'm going to get one. Too many things coming up in the next few months that I'm going to be buying.


I've been flip flopping my opinion it may seem to some who have seen my previous posts. But I saw a deal (£190 after my discount) on a 8GB *1342 Nitro 480* and got it. I had previously bought and then returned a standard 8GB 1306 Nitro 480 because it overclocked like a dog. Wouldn't get much past 1350 without artefacts.

Now this new one - boy it's completely changed my opinion. Maybe I'm just lucky but so far this one does 1400Mhz core 2180 memory STABLE with +42 mv and the fan set at 50%. It could go higher but I've not tested it yet. This keeps the temp at 59 C max in Firestrike 1.1 and Heaven benchmark. And I mean stable as in there is zero artefacts in benchmark tests. Best I got was *11928 overall score in Firestrike 1.1* but curiously, this was when overclocked 1360/2075. At 1400 I got a score of *1824 in Heaven.*

The important takeaway for me is this - I always used to think what was the point of cards that were the same as a cheaper model that was clocked lower out of the box. I thought this was pointless as the lower clocked cheaper card (the 1306Mhz Nitro 480 in this case) could simply be overclocked to match the more expensive card (1342 Nitro). But it seems obvious that my 1342Mhz Nitro has a much better chip inside it than the one I returned. It also seems more stable as the 1306 Nitro crashed my computer after overclocking a fair few times. Anyone else had both versions of the Nitro cards? Did you notice a night and day difference between them?


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Did anyone tried all AIB cards? Since I do not want to read 350+ pages.... I would beg someone to tell me which one is the best RX 480, cooling and PCB (need to be strong only for air, 24/7).
> ASUS seems to be little expensive.
> MSI, GIGABYTE, XFX, Powercolor, HIS or NITRO?
> 
> Please help and many thanks in advance.


MSI is universally considered the best as it runs cool and very quiet but it is a little more expensive.

No concrete conclusions on the XFX or Gigabyte but out of the rest, the Nitro 1342Mhz is the best pick at its RRP. Read my post above - I would personally avoid the lower clocked 1306Mhz Nitro though. But the 1342Mhz versions are quality. Just make sure you get the right model as the boxes are identical.

11260-07-20G Nitro 480 is the 1306Mhz version
11260-01-20G Nitro 480 is the better 1342Mhz version.


----------



## iRUSH

The XFX GTR is one to look at too. Not the RS model. Lame car naming scheme lol


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Deus Ex got multi GPU support... only for AMD tho. 480 (CF) vs 1060 (x2)


----------



## momonz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Did anyone tried all AIB cards? Since I do not want to read 350+ pages.... I would beg someone to tell me which one is the best RX 480, cooling and PCB (need to be strong only for air, 24/7).
> ASUS seems to be little expensive.
> MSI, GIGABYTE, XFX, Powercolor, HIS or NITRO?
> 
> Please help and many thanks in advance.


I'm in the same scenario. Basically here's my summary of all based on what I learned:

Asus - best power delivery
MSI - coolest
Sapphire Nitro - best looking
XFX GTR - jack of all trades

Of the four above, I am going to pick XFX GTR with Sapphire Nitro 2nd. Barring no changes until next week. =)

I didn't try to learn about HIS, PC and Gigabyte as I don't find them interesting.


----------



## iRUSH

I snagged the XFX GTR for $229 shipped at Jet today. Should be an easy 1400+mhz no problem.


----------



## nolive721

to US people here, sorry unusual request

I live in Japan and planning a business trip to US by End this month, in Woodridge area.
Since the XFX RX480 is utterly expensive here and I can not order in US since I cant show obviously an address and US credit card, I was planning to visit a physical store there to buy

http://www.microcenter.com/product/468967/Radeon_RX_480_8GB_GDDR5_Video_Card_w-_Dual_Dissipation_HeatSink

I found this offer from Microcenter but located in Chicago, any alternative suggestions closer to Woodridge?

thansk so much

Olivier


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nolive721*
> 
> to US people here, sorry unusual request
> 
> I live in Japan and planning a business trip to US by End this month, in Woodridge area.
> Since the XFX RX480 is utterly expensive here and I can not order in US since I cant show obviously an address and US credit card, I was planning to visit a physical store there to buy
> 
> http://www.microcenter.com/product/468967/Radeon_RX_480_8GB_GDDR5_Video_Card_w-_Dual_Dissipation_HeatSink
> 
> I found this offer from Microcenter but located in Chicago, any alternative suggestions closer to Woodridge?
> 
> thansk so much
> 
> Olivier


Is Best Buy close to that area? They carry the XFX rs model 470 and 480.


----------



## Marios145

Ok, a friend of mine got the Sapphire Nitro+ 480 4GB, runs stable 1400/1900 and that's at 1.11V Vcore. GPU-Z power draw is ~135W
I guess yields are improving a lot now.


----------



## nolive721

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Is Best Buy close to that area? They carry the XFX rs model 470 and 480.


seems so but seems also more expensive than microcenter
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?cp=1&searchType=search&st=xfx%20radeon%20rx%20480%208gb&_dyncharset=UTF-8&id=pcat17071&type=page&sc=Global&nrp=&sp=&qp=storepickupstores_facet%3DStore~316&list=n&af=true&iht=y&usc=All%20Categories&ks=960&keys=keys


----------



## nolive721

just realising this pricing at Microcenter the standard RS version not tripleX or even better the GTR i was after...I am reading on reddit that RS has worse heatsink,4 phase instead of 6 and wouldnt be such a good OCer vs the GTR


----------



## momonz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marios145*
> 
> Ok, a friend of mine got the Sapphire Nitro+ 480 4GB, runs stable 1400/1900 and that's at 1.11V Vcore. GPU-Z power draw is ~135W
> I guess yields are improving a lot now.


Just curious, how's his gpu average temp and ambient/room temperature?


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Nitro aims @75c, adjusting fan speed accordingly


----------



## momonz

More major DX12 games are being released and it's showing RX 480 > 1060. Where are those people downplaying RX 480's DX12 advantage.


----------



## Pro3ootector

And Polaris crushed GTX 1070. Can't wait for VEGA.



https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_wydajnosci_titanfall_2_pc_titan_nie_jest_wymagany?page=0,7


----------



## iRUSH

I took delivery of a XFX 480 GTR yesterday. The same model Jayz Two Cents was able to hit 1500 with.

No such luck with mine. Reference model aside, literally every RX480 I've tested hit in the 1400 mhz range and temps around 80c with a sensible fan profile (60-70%) and an uncapped frame-rate.

There's a post on Reddit about this card and a XFX rep chimed in stating there's no binned cards. It's the luck of the draw as usual.

Jay may have gotten lucky, or he may have gotten "lucky".

I will say that this particular model is far better built than I expected. It's large, but sturdy, does not sag after 24 hours and many temp changes. There's no coil whine what so ever. The LED while unfortunately not RGB like some of their competitors, it's very nice looking. Oh the backplate is actually metal. I've sadly seen a few plastic backplates lately.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pro3ootector*
> 
> And Polaris crushed GTX 1070. Can't wait for VEGA.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne/test_wydajnosci_titanfall_2_pc_titan_nie_jest_wymagany?page=0,7


PL benchmarks; LOL

Guru3d.com

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_infinite_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,6.html


----------



## bossie2000

Seems like AMD Buldozer was years ahead at he time of Intel.Just no software to take advantache of it back then.


----------



## Pro3ootector

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> PL benchmarks; LOL
> 
> Guru3d.com
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_infinite_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,6.html


----------



## bossie2000

RX 480 year from now = gtx 1070


----------



## bossie2000

I like the way AMD is releasing there drivers these days. 16(year),11(month),2(number of release in that month).


----------



## ubbernewb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> RX 480 year from now = gtx 1070


YEP! sad thing for 1070 owners is if history is any indicater the Rx480 drivers will get better and the 1070 Drivers will be gimped....


----------



## momonz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ubbernewb*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> RX 480 year from now = gtx 1070
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YEP! sad thing for 1070 owners is if history is any indicater the Rx480 drivers will get better and the 1070 Drivers will be gimped....
Click to expand...

Probably in some games but not overall. But what's really funny is that's possible.


----------



## JackCY

It's all about what the apps/games are made for. Sadly there are not many games that run well on both architectures or ones that have multiple path optimizations to take advantage of both architectures to their full potential.
Throw an AMD optimized game on NV it sucks. Throw an NV optimized game on AMD it sucks.


----------



## mattass

How's the xfx RMA these days, I had a xfx 5870 back in the day it was riddidled with artifacts so I swapped it and it's left me with a bad taste in my mouth for xfx, so this whole GTR things thrown in a curve ball for me as I was looking st the nitro 480


----------



## JackCY

RMA always depends on your local service center that the brand has or has authorized, it's all up to them, sometimes you can push 'em from above, such as ASUS via ASUS forum. Other than that you are at mercy of the seller to do something about the case when service center denies it, rarely if ever happens that retailer would want to eat the cost.
The only decent RMA I have heard of or experienced are with business product brands such as HP or DELL. With all the "entertainment" brands you are always in for a "treat" when doing an RMA a lengthy process, they don't pick up the goods, ...
Not that business brands are any better at resolving issues or giving you back from RMA a flawless product, but they usually pay or do a pick up & delivery at/to your door and it doesn't take 3-6 weeks but 1 week for them to process the RMA.

It really doesn't matter if you buy GB, MSI, ASUS, EVGA, Sapphire, XFX, or what ever other brand, and RMA is always going to be an unpleasant long hassle.


----------



## mattass

Yeah true, luckly my go too place is good for RMA, I guess I was just digging for some good feedback on xfx, seems like no one's has mentioned anything bad about them in the thread that I've seen, seems like my impression is wrong I always concidered them abit cheap


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Good news for future VR games, with AMD GPU's at least:


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> PL benchmarks; LOL
> 
> Guru3d.com
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_infinite_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,6.html


?

Strange post. That's a totally different game to the benchmarks you quoted. And then, it still shows the RX 480 notably faster than the 1060. Which is the case in DOOM, Deus Ex, TitanFall 2 etc etc etc as well as the new COD you quoted.


----------



## paulerxx

*I planned on getting a RX 480 for MONTHS until I relizeded the GTX 1060 was superior in nearly every game...Even the 3GB model was besting the RX 480 8GB.
*
Brand new $200 vs $265
Better performance in most games on the 3gb model...I would of gotten the 6GB model but I'm currently running 1680x01050 so not necessary. Still maxing every game I [email protected] 60fps, including AA and such.

Just curious, how and why are people saying the RX 480 is better? I'm confused...
GTX 1060 requirements way less power, far less CPU overheatm overclocks far better and runs a lot cooler... And gets higher frames in most games. Except un-optimized ones with tacked on DX12, (what game has real DX12 yet?)
RX 480 is only superior in...Hitman and Forza. Titanfall 2, Call Of Duty -Halo Edition (who plays this on PC still? lol)

Whatever game RX 480 wins, it's barely winning...Low CPU usage, far less power draw and runs quieter/cooler > 4 frames per second in less than 16% of new games.
Whatever game the GTX 1060 wins...It's destroying.

http://www.144hzmonitors.com/best-graphics-card-2016/

Best Value For Money GPU

"The best graphics card for the money is, as you might have guessed, the new Pascal GPU from NVIDIA, the incredible NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060. It is just an incredible card with good performance for a fair price. There is a reason that it is the one of the best selling graphics card on Amazon with over 100 user reviews since the end of July 2016 with an average customer rating of 4.8/5 on Amazon.com! This incredible GPU from NVIDIA is definitely the best value GPU on the market right now. It supports DirectX 12, is VR ready and has a good 6GB GDDR5 memory. As of November 2016, this GPU costs roughly $300, although that price might have changed when you view this GPU on Amazon. We recommend that you have at least a 400W PSU to supply power to this beast."

GTX 1060 ($200) vs RX 480 ($270)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOB3-4LV-S4 So...Why waste money on a RX 480 gentlemen? I'm actually quite sad the RX 480 ended up being a bust compared to what it was hyped up to be. " GTX980 performance."
You know what card does have GTX 980 performance? Take a guess now..


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Don't forget that in most of those reviews they are using reference 480 which hardly anyone buys and shouldn't buy. It is running below 1200MHz most of the time. An AIB 480 is the better choice than an AIB 1060. NV only significantly wins in titles that use old, single-threaded, DX11 engines. The future is clearly on AMD's side in this case. Even newer, better codded DX11 games, that have no game gimp-works, 480 often wins. You mentioned some, CoD, Titanfall 2, Battlefield 1...

And about OC, an 2050MHz 1060 is not faster than ~1400-1420MHz 480


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> Don't forget that in most of those reviews they are using reference 480 which hardly anyone buys and shouldn't buy. It is running below 1200MHz most of the time. An AIB 480 is the better choice than an AIB 1060. NV only significantly wins in titles that use old, single-threaded, DX11 engines. The future is clearly on AMD's side in this case. Even newer, better codded DX11 games, 480 often wins. You mentioned some, CoD, Titanfall 2, Battlefield 1...
> 
> And about OC, an 2050MHz 1060 is not faster than ~1400-1420MHz 480


Can you prove it man? No offense, I researched this a lot. I have seen ONE good AIB RX 480 Didn't overclock to 1400 unless it had crazy fan mods.. Only one. And it still was weaker than a fully overclocked GTX 1060...I mean you can clearly see the 8GB model RX 480 losing to a stock GTX 1060 3GB.... What RX 480 overlooks that much? Maybe 2% of people who own a RX 480 can run those stocks stable...My GTX 1060 overclocked to 2150 first try, Not throttling issues, no bull****...8900 on the memory. Never goes above 60c.

Honestly can you link me up to this RX 480? It's not anyone's fault but AMD's for creating a card that constantly throttles..I posted videos that prove you wrong, AMD won 2 out of 13 games...That's pathetic. uses more power, runs cooler, on average over clocks worse. What DX11 titles use one core nowadays? What are you talking about lol









match the videos I posted, like I said I was going to get a RX 480 until I couldn't deny the GTX 1060 is just obviously better if you're not biased.

If you think the RX 480 is "clearly superior" You are flat out delussional...Even in DX12 they take blows from one another, in DX11 titles? Nvidia is better 97% of the time (excluding Black Ops 3 and Infinity Ware fare, not like it matters though..GTX 1060 easily hits 60fps maxed out, I doubt anyone with a 144mz monitor would buy a GTX 1060 or RX480)


----------



## Ha-Nocri




----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*


You're grasping for straws, custom built hybrid RX 480 (the crazy fan mods I mentioned earlier) vs standard AIB GTX 1060. That's totally biased. and it STILL loses in half those benchmarks man.







Don't get me wrong, they're both great cards.

*It's just this.
Why get a card that's more expensive, uses far more energy, uses more CPU cycles, is far hotter and usually overclocks worse.*

That first video though man, that overclock is incredible. I must admit, just still not worth it imo man. That why I picked the GTX 1060.

_*That The XFX RX480 GTR is truly a beautiful card, I must say my PC brothers.*_


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Reference 480 is faster in DX12 already, and don't forget that it's really cheap cooler that can't cool the card properly. Also equal to 1060 in new DX11 games. If I was buying card today would definitely pick it over 1060. But to each his/her own.

It also isn't much hotter. 20W difference is not that much. MSI 480 is running 65c under load:


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> Reference 480 is faster in DX12 already, and don't forget that it's really cheap cooler that can't cool the card properly. Also equal to 1060 in new DX11 games. If I was buying card today would definitely pick it over 1060. But to each his/her own


Faster in some games.. How many games are out in DX 12, and AMD only wins in half of them? Vs 97% of DX11, DX10 DX9 games? I just don't understand why someone would say this is better than a GTX 1060, when nearly every benchmark I see it just flat out isn't. Don't kill me guys, just trying to help out future buyers (like me, checking out this and the GTX 1060 threads constantly before I upgraded)


----------



## Ha-Nocri

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73040-nvidia-gtx-1060-6gb-review-21.html




Again, reference 480. So, you can expect 1060 to be ~10% faster in older DX11 titles mostly, and ~10% slower in DX12


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73040-nvidia-gtx-1060-6gb-review-21.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, reference 480. So, you can expect 1060 to be ~10% faster in older DX11 titles mostly, and ~10% slower in DX12


Cherry picked...What games, what game, what system? I posted several videos, showing several games running in real time. You show me some random graph of god knows what, obviously you left out the link because you know the RX480 just simply isn't as good.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> Cherry picked...What games, what game, what system? I posted several videos, showing several games running in real time. You show me some random graph of god knows what, obviously you left out the link because you know the RX480 just simply isn't as good.


I also left the link where you can see what DX12 (and DX11) games were tested. Are you arguing with me that 1060 is faster even in DX12/Vulkan games? Cause most ppl know it's not true.


----------



## sinholueiro

Let's see how much improve the 7970 since launch:
http://imgur.com/a/2NGfL

Now, let's see the 580, 680, 780, 980...


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ha-Nocri*
> 
> I also left the link where you can see what DX12 (and DX11) games were tested. Are you arguing with me that 1060 is faster even in DX12/Vulkan games? Cause most ppl know it's not true.


Where are you getting 10% slower? It says 3%? And in several games...the GTX 1060 is better, pay attention to the videos I posted!! It's simple!







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sinholueiro*
> 
> Let's see how much improve the 7970 since launch:
> http://imgur.com/a/2NGfL
> 
> Now, let's see the 580, 680, 780, 980...


And now that GCN has already catched on, I doubt there will be as much of an increase. How well did the R9 390 age vs a GTX970?


----------



## Artikbot

Nobody remembers the 970 anymore. Like any other midrange from nVidia.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Nobody remembers the 970 anymore. Like any other midrange from nVidia.










touche brother hahaha


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> *I planned on getting a RX 480 for MONTHS until I relizeded the GTX 1060 was superior in nearly every game...Even the 3GB model was besting the RX 480 8GB.
> *
> Brand new $200 vs $265
> Better performance in most games on the 3gb model...I would of gotten the 6GB model but I'm currently running 1680x01050 so not necessary. Still maxing every game I [email protected] 60fps, including AA and such.
> 
> Just curious, how and why are people saying the RX 480 is better? I'm confused...
> GTX 1060 requirements way less power, far less CPU overheatm overclocks far better and runs a lot cooler... And gets higher frames in most games. Except un-optimized ones with tacked on DX12, (what game has real DX12 yet?)
> RX 480 is only superior in...Hitman and Forza. Titanfall 2, Call Of Duty -Halo Edition (who plays this on PC still? lol)
> 
> Whatever game RX 480 wins, it's barely winning...Low CPU usage, far less power draw and runs quieter/cooler > 4 frames per second in less than 16% of new games.
> Whatever game the GTX 1060 wins...It's destroying.
> 
> http://www.144hzmonitors.com/best-graphics-card-2016/
> 
> Best Value For Money GPU
> 
> "The best graphics card for the money is, as you might have guessed, the new Pascal GPU from NVIDIA, the incredible NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060. It is just an incredible card with good performance for a fair price. There is a reason that it is the one of the best selling graphics card on Amazon with over 100 user reviews since the end of July 2016 with an average customer rating of 4.8/5 on Amazon.com! This incredible GPU from NVIDIA is definitely the best value GPU on the market right now. It supports DirectX 12, is VR ready and has a good 6GB GDDR5 memory. As of November 2016, this GPU costs roughly $300, although that price might have changed when you view this GPU on Amazon. We recommend that you have at least a 400W PSU to supply power to this beast."
> 
> GTX 1060 ($200) vs RX 480 ($270)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOB3-4LV-S4 So...Why waste money on a RX 480 gentlemen? I'm actually quite sad the RX 480 ended up being a bust compared to what it was hyped up to be. " GTX980 performance."
> You know what card does have GTX 980 performance? Take a guess now..


Well that is your opinion.
I can tell you that XFX RX 480 use much less power - around 110-120W (whole card), and also GTX 1060 some AIB cards will use over 150W.
An example why power consumption should matter a lot.
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/geforce-gtx-1080-partnerkarten-vergleich-test/4/#abschnitt_so_viel_watt_kosten_die_hoeheren_taktraten

Yep 100W difference between stock GTX 1080 and AIB OC - still efficient?

If you check out some gamepplay with RX 470 4GB you will that their MSI AB is showing only 70-80W = whole card around 85-95W.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Well that is your opinion.
> I can tell you that XFX RX 480 use much less power - around 110-120W (whole card), and also GTX 1060 some AIB cards will use over 150W.
> An example why power consumption should matter a lot.
> https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/geforce-gtx-1080-partnerkarten-vergleich-test/4/#abschnitt_so_viel_watt_kosten_die_hoeheren_taktraten
> 
> Yep 100W difference between stock GTX 1080 and AIB OC - still efficient?
> 
> If you check out some gamepplay with RX 470 4GB you will that their MSI AB is showing only 70-80W = whole card around 85-95W.


The RX470 is the true winner from AMD imo, just wish they didn't price gauge the card at Microcenter. (still $200, decent amount worse when compared to GTX1060...The RX470 overclocks really well too last time I checked, not sure what happened on the RX 480. I know the newer ones are better. I have never seen a RX 480 uses less power though. I've seen GTX 1060 on 250 watt PSus...NEVER seen a RX 480 on one.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> Where are you getting 10% slower? It says 3%? And in several games...the GTX 1060 is better, pay attention to the videos I posted!! It's simple!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now that GCN has already catched on, I doubt there will be as much of an increase. How well did the R9 390 age vs a GTX970?


There's no way I'd get a 1060 over a 480 right now. Any sensible gamer looking to play new games and those upcoming should get a 480 no question. Look at the biggest PC releases recently - DOOM, Deus Ex, COD, Titanfall - 480 is faster in all of them, sometimes significantly, and sometimes in DX11 mode let alone DX12.


----------



## paulerxx

Tomb Raider?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shatun-Bear*
> 
> There's no way I'd get a 1060 over a 480 right now. Any sensible gamer looking to play new games and those upcoming should get a 480 no question. Look at the biggest PC releases recently - DOOM, Deus Ex, COD, Titanfall - 480 is faster in all of them, sometimes significantly, and sometimes in DX11 mode let alone DX12.


4 games....


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> The RX470 is the true winner from AMD imo, just wish they didn't price gauge the card at Microcenter. (still $200, decent amount worse when compared to GTX1060...The RX470 overclocks really well too last time I checked, not sure what happened on the RX 480. I know the newer ones are better. I have never seen a RX 480 uses less power though. I've seen GTX 1060 on 250 watt PSus...NEVER seen a RX 480 on one.


Why do you need to be like this? talking nonsense all day long.
I have seen GTX 1060 on 1000W PSU...

And also RX 480 wil beat GTX 1060 when both OCed (someone on youtube did test), DX12 is not game changer... RX 480 is also winning in DX11 games, especially in newer titles.


----------



## paulerxx

And also RX 480 wil beat GTX 1060 when both OCed (someone on youtube did test), DX12 is not game changer... RX 480 is also winning in DX11 games, especially in newer titles.[/quote] I meant 350 watt... >_> lol


----------



## IRobot23

Doesnt matter what you meant... doesnt matter if you are using RX 480 or GTX 1060, both are good and both are bad which one is better = depends on what you wanna see in your case. All I can say is that AMD improved on driver a lot while nvidia actually went worse.

So RX 480 or GTX 1060 is your choice and I would recommend both? Why AMD for me? Simple - just getting better, liked ATI, free standards - technologies, driver support last longer, cool features pushing MANTLE for low lvl API on PC

Right now DX12/VULKAN are pretty much useless but after few years... (same thing was DX11, at first it was worse....)


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Doesnt matter what you meant... doesnt matter if you are using RX 480 or GTX 1060, both are good and both are bad which one is better = depends on what you wanna see in your case. All I can say is that AMD improved on driver a lot while nvidia actually went worse.
> 
> So RX 480 or GTX 1060 is your choice and I would recommend both? Why AMD for me? Simple - just getting better, liked ATI, free standards - technologies, driver support last longer, cool features pushing MANTLE for low lvl API on PC
> 
> Right now DX12/VULKAN are pretty much useless but after few years... (same thing was DX11, at first it was worse....)


yea. I said that all already.
just saying why would anyone, with no bias. Buy a more expensive GPU that uses more power, CPU cycles, runs hotter? Overclocks worse on average, and throttles sometimes? Because it might be better in 2-3 years?

No one has answered this yet... AMD bias? Trying to keep them int he race maybe? That's noble.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> yea. I said that all already.
> just saying why would anyone, with no bias. Buy a more expensive GPU that uses more power, CPU cycles, runs hotter? Overclocks better on average? Because it might be better in 2-3 years?


I am saying you that that is incorrect - MSI RX 480 will run at full load only 900-1100 RPMs, XFX will be little louader... please understand it depends on chip and PCB and cooler. Some chip may use 10-20W more some 10-20w less, why AMD undervolts so nice it is because they could afford to sell only good ...

can you understand that? can you?

Why do you think that gigabyte made bigger larger, heavier cooler for GTX 1060? why is RX 480 windforce so small?
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_radeon_rx_480_g1_gaming_review,2.html
vs
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1060-g1-gaming-review,2.html

Well this RX 480 runs quiet but it is hot... RX 480 runs at 1250-1300rpms, while GTX 1060 runs at 1600rpms... but GTX 1060 is quieter, right? Who are we kidding?

Did you ever try to hold RX 480 sapphire? Yeah, it was very heavy... sure sure, THE lightest RX 480 I ever hold.

You can watch Jayz2cents and you will that his example showed 20-30W difference.


----------



## Ricwin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> *I planned on getting a RX 480 for MONTHS until I relizeded the GTX 1060 was superior in nearly every game...Even the 3GB model was besting the RX 480 8GB.
> *
> Brand new $200 vs $265
> Better performance in most games on the 3gb model...I would of gotten the 6GB model but I'm currently running 1680x01050 so not necessary. Still maxing every game I [email protected] 60fps, including AA and such.
> 
> Just curious, how and why are people saying the RX 480 is better? I'm confused...
> GTX 1060 requirements way less power, far less CPU overheatm overclocks far better and runs a lot cooler... And gets higher frames in most games. Except un-optimized ones with tacked on DX12, (what game has real DX12 yet?)
> RX 480 is only superior in...Hitman and Forza. Titanfall 2, Call Of Duty -Halo Edition (who plays this on PC still? lol)
> 
> Whatever game RX 480 wins, it's barely winning...Low CPU usage, far less power draw and runs quieter/cooler > 4 frames per second in less than 16% of new games.
> Whatever game the GTX 1060 wins...It's destroying.
> 
> http://www.144hzmonitors.com/best-graphics-card-2016/
> 
> Best Value For Money GPU
> 
> "The best graphics card for the money is, as you might have guessed, the new Pascal GPU from NVIDIA, the incredible NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060. It is just an incredible card with good performance for a fair price. There is a reason that it is the one of the best selling graphics card on Amazon with over 100 user reviews since the end of July 2016 with an average customer rating of 4.8/5 on Amazon.com! This incredible GPU from NVIDIA is definitely the best value GPU on the market right now. It supports DirectX 12, is VR ready and has a good 6GB GDDR5 memory. As of November 2016, this GPU costs roughly $300, although that price might have changed when you view this GPU on Amazon. We recommend that you have at least a 400W PSU to supply power to this beast."
> 
> GTX 1060 ($200) vs RX 480 ($270)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOB3-4LV-S4 So...Why waste money on a RX 480 gentlemen? I'm actually quite sad the RX 480 ended up being a bust compared to what it was hyped up to be. " GTX980 performance."
> You know what card does have GTX 980 performance? Take a guess now..


Not sure if this guy is trolling or genuinely thinks the 3Gb 1060 is a worthwhile investment.


----------



## Artikbot

3GB isn't even enough VRAM to play games at the detail level the 1060 is capable of pushing.

It's more of a SKU to try and not leave the 4GB 480 alone in the market if anything.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> 3GB isn't even enough VRAM to play games at the detail level the 1060 is capable of pushing.
> 
> It's more of a SKU to try and not leave the 4GB 480 alone in the market if anything.


I max every game out with over 60fps..so you're obviously wrong lol


----------



## paulerxx

GTX 1060 better in the official DX12 benchmark? (is this the only REAL Direct X 12 application currently? Not a tack-on? Like how Crysis had DX10 tacked on, Crysis 2 having DX11 tacked on)

(From the link you provided showing the huge power usage due to **** production value. )




Does it hurt to see your 8GB card be worse than a 3GB video card? Nearly $80 cheaper. 1080, 1440..
GTX 1060 being better In DX12 as well? The only reason anyone would even think of buying this card in this price bracket. "Future proofing"


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> I max every game out with over 60fps..so you're obviously wrong lol


At what resolution, 1280x720? 1080p is a stretch, and certainly not 1440p and above. Those 'maxed out' settings must differ from everyone else's.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> At what resolution, 1280x720? 1080p is a stretch, and certainly not 1440p and above. Those 'maxed out' settings must differ from everyone else's.


... you have no idea what you're talking about.









http://s120.photobucket.com/user/paulerxx/slideshow/

Just realized you had a Sapphire HD 6950 2GB, you should know better. I bet you're thinking you can't play newer games on higher settings because your 2GBs of ram, in reality it's because the card is just trash nowadays. The card is on GTX 750ti/HD7850 level.


----------



## momonz

You "maxed out every game over 60fps" at 1080p with your 3gb VRAM. OK. Enjoy.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> You "maxed out every game over 60fps" at 1080p with your 3gb VRAM. OK. Enjoy.


Yep. enjoy being in the dark. Memory compression, it's a thing you know. And Nvidia's memory compression is FAR superior to AMD's. Nvidia's 3GB is comparable to AMD's 4GB*


----------



## Ricwin

The 3Gb 1060 isnt a full 1060 though. The core is gimped slightly, the card is inferior. Like 90% of tests show this.
You can hand pick test results all you want to justify your purchase, but frankly the 3gb model is a waste of money now and will be nothing but a paperweight in twelve months time.


----------



## paulerxx

2-3frames most games.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> ... you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://s120.photobucket.com/user/paulerxx/slideshow/
> 
> Just realized you had a Sapphire HD 6950 2GB, you should know better. I bet you're thinking you can't play newer games on higher settings because your 2GBs of ram, in reality it's because the card is just trash nowadays. The card is on GTX 750ti/HD7850 level.


Oh, you're a funny man. Your assumptions are quite funny, too. Ridiculously far away from the truth, but funny nonetheless.


----------



## amlett

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> Yep. enjoy being in the dark. Memory compression, it's a thing you know. And Nvidia's memory compression is FAR superior to AMD's. Nvidia's 3GB is comparable to AMD's 4GB*


I think you should review what is compression used for, regarding this thread discussion. (Bandwidth)

"Nvidia's 3GB is comparable to AMD's 4GB"

this sentence is signature worth.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amlett*
> 
> I think you should review what is compression used for, regarding this thread discussion. (Bandwidth)
> 
> "Nvidia's 3GB is comparable to AMD's 4GB"
> 
> this sentence is signature worth.



explain this then, read up on Nvidia's delta compression




Even has a small bud width...So how does it not bottleneck itself? Oh that's right...Their delta compression is that advanced.


----------



## poii

color compression only decreses the memory bandwidth needed, not (or barely) the memory space needed.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Tests/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/ (scroll down to red text)
Quote:


> Update from 13.10.16: Gaming performance after four months
> With AMD it is worthwhile to look at the following driver development after the introduction of a new architecture generation. Frequently, not all improvements can be exploited optimally, so the performance can go up months, sometimes even years later. In the case of the Radeon RX 480, this behavior can be observed almost four months after publication. We improved the bench clock from 1,150 to 1,190 MHz by an improved boost behavior - an increase of 3.5 percent.
> 
> However, this is not enough to explain the average increase in performance as compared to the graphics card index from the PCGH edition 08/2016, which contained the Radeon RX 480 for the first time, the performance has risen by eight percent. At the time, before the presentation of the Titan X (Pascal), the GeForce GTX 1080 represented the 100 per cent mark. The RX 480 had an index value of 50.1 per cent. Now it is compared to the GTX 1080 54.1 percent. In other words: Positioned the Polaris 10 GPU to the release just behind an R9 290, it now just before an R9 290X.


Add this 8% to all tests basically.

And you play Doom on a modern API (Vulkan) with AMD graphics cards.


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> 
> explain this then


explain this then



same game







doesn't matter if 1080 or 1440p in this case


----------



## momonz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amlett*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> Yep. enjoy being in the dark. Memory compression, it's a thing you know. And Nvidia's memory compression is FAR superior to AMD's. Nvidia's 3GB is comparable to AMD's 4GB*
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should review what is compression used for, regarding this thread discussion. (Bandwidth)
> 
> "Nvidia's 3GB is comparable to AMD's 4GB"
> 
> this sentence is signature worth.
Click to expand...

This is way better.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> I max every game out with over 60fps..so you're obviously wrong lol


----------



## Artikbot

It shall be mentioned that the 1060 3GB is also a cut down die from the 6GB version, too.

And I'm not saying that makes it a lesser value option, it is a very good card especially given the MSRP, but it is to be taken into consideration that you're not only buying an amount of memory with dubious future-proofing, you are also buying a slower core.


----------



## paulerxx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJXcLPyJunA

how many games does the RX 480 do better in? 2 and time spy? and only compared to the 3GB version....lmao


----------



## momonz

DX11: 1060 > 480
DX12: 480 > 1060

I'm pretty sure I gonna enjoy being in the dark.


----------



## momonz

Someone's trying hard to defend his mistake. LOL!

Goodnight OCN


----------



## amlett

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> explain this then, read up on Nvidia's delta compression


I see you're an expert in this subject. You know what? I belive you. No need to read useless papers talking about delta compression and it's benefits regarding bandwidth. You're right.

The key point is that I this morning I woke up with a 6 NvidiaGB memory 980Ti, and I'll go to bed this evening with a total badass 8 amdGB 980Ti. 2GB I didn't know I had!!!!!!

THANKS buddy. You made me a happy man.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amlett*
> 
> I see you're an expert in this subject. You know what? I belive you. No need to read useless papers talking about delta compression and it's benefits regarding bandwidth. You're right.
> 
> The key point is that I this morning I woke up with a 6 NvidiaGB memory 980Ti, and I'll go to bed this evening with a total badass 8 amdGB 980Ti. 2GB I didn't know I had!!!!!!
> 
> THANKS buddy. You made me a happy man.


haaha the delta compression isn't as good on the 980ti...still very good though


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> haaha the delta compression isn't as good on the 980ti...still very good though


I think you missed the sarcasm.


----------



## IRobot23

Did he just compare RX 480 vs GTX 1060 in OPENGL?


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> DX11: 1060 > 480
> DX12: 480 > 1060
> 
> I'm pretty sure I gonna enjoy being in the dark.


You're trying very hard to justify your purchase to everyone else. If you're enjoying your card, then that's good. Not sure why you're trying to pick a fight with everyone else in this thread. I myself would much rather buy the RX 480 8GB than the 1060 3GB or a 1060 6GB.

People fighting over frames less than 5fps is silly. It's gotta be clear cut in every scenario to be considered the "better card' imo. It's basically a dick measuring contest where you grasp at straws from every angle to build up a case of which is better, really.


----------



## Alex132

This thread is golden. So many amazing statements.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Did he just compare RX 480 vs GTX 1060 in OPENGL?


Did he just compare GTX 1060 to a RX 480 in Vulkan?


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> Did he just compare GTX 1060 to a RX 480 in Vulkan?


OpenGL:


Vulkan:


ofc you're using vulkan and not OpenGL, everything else is bs cause it runs better on both amd and nvidia.


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> ofc you're using vulkan and not OpenGL, everything else is bs cause it runs better on both amd and nvidia.


It's true, and I really hope people aren't running OpenGL DOOM out of spite/regret.


----------



## Alex132

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lipos*
> 
> ofc you're using vulkan and not OpenGL, everything else is bs cause it runs better on both amd and nvidia.
> 
> 
> 
> It's true, and I really hope people aren't running OpenGL DOOM out of spite/regret.
Click to expand...

Purposefully playing a game in a worse condition just so that you have 'piece of mind' that the evil competition couldn't 'enjoy' the game in that state that you are? Nah, no ways. An OCN user would never do that - right?


----------



## xzamples

When people show Doom vulkan benchmarks to make a point, it's funny because what other games out there are using Vulkan? not many at all... so when people show doom vulkan #s i'm just like ok, so can you show other games? nope, just doom...


----------



## Lipos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xzamples*
> 
> When people show Doom vulkan benchmarks to make a point, it's funny *because what other games out there are using Vulkan*? not many at all... so when people show doom vulkan #s i'm just like ok, so can you show other games? nope, just doom...


Huh?
He used Doom @OpenGL to compare two GPUs while there is Vulkan which runs better on *both* amd and nvidia. That was it.


----------



## momonz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> DX11: 1060 > 480
> DX12: 480 > 1060
> 
> I'm pretty sure I gonna enjoy being in the dark.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying very hard to justify your purchase to everyone else. If you're enjoying your card, then that's good. Not sure why you're trying to pick a fight with everyone else in this thread. I myself would much rather buy the RX 480 8GB than the 1060 3GB or a 1060 6GB.
> 
> People fighting over frames less than 5fps is silly. It's gotta be clear cut in every scenario to be considered the "better card' imo. It's basically a dick measuring contest where you grasp at straws from every angle to build up a case of which is better, really.
Click to expand...

Yeah and you quoted the wrong post


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> *I planned on getting a RX 480 for MONTHS until I relizeded the GTX 1060 was superior in nearly every game...Even the 3GB model was besting the RX 480 8GB.
> *
> Brand new $200 vs $265
> Better performance in most games on the 3gb model...I would of gotten the 6GB model but I'm currently running 1680x01050 so not necessary. Still maxing every game I [email protected] 60fps, including AA and such.
> 
> Just curious, how and why are people saying the RX 480 is better? I'm confused...
> GTX 1060 requirements way less power, far less CPU overheatm overclocks far better and runs a lot cooler... And gets higher frames in most games. Except un-optimized ones with tacked on DX12, (what game has real DX12 yet?)
> RX 480 is only superior in...Hitman and Forza. Titanfall 2, Call Of Duty -Halo Edition (who plays this on PC still? lol)
> 
> Whatever game RX 480 wins, it's barely winning...Low CPU usage, far less power draw and runs quieter/cooler > 4 frames per second in less than 16% of new games.
> Whatever game the GTX 1060 wins...It's destroying.
> 
> http://www.144hzmonitors.com/best-graphics-card-2016/
> 
> Best Value For Money GPU
> 
> "The best graphics card for the money is, as you might have guessed, the new Pascal GPU from NVIDIA, the incredible NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060. It is just an incredible card with good performance for a fair price. There is a reason that it is the one of the best selling graphics card on Amazon with over 100 user reviews since the end of July 2016 with an average customer rating of 4.8/5 on Amazon.com! This incredible GPU from NVIDIA is definitely the best value GPU on the market right now. It supports DirectX 12, is VR ready and has a good 6GB GDDR5 memory. As of November 2016, this GPU costs roughly $300, although that price might have changed when you view this GPU on Amazon. We recommend that you have at least a 400W PSU to supply power to this beast."
> 
> GTX 1060 ($200) vs RX 480 ($270)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOB3-4LV-S4 So...Why waste money on a RX 480 gentlemen? I'm actually quite sad the RX 480 ended up being a bust compared to what it was hyped up to be. " GTX980 performance."
> You know what card does have GTX 980 performance? Take a guess now..
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is your opinion.
> I can tell you that XFX RX 480 use much less power - around 110-120W (whole card), and also GTX 1060 some AIB cards will use over 150W.
> An example why power consumption should matter a lot.
> https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/geforce-gtx-1080-partnerkarten-vergleich-test/4/#abschnitt_so_viel_watt_kosten_die_hoeheren_taktraten
> 
> Yep 100W difference between stock GTX 1080 and AIB OC - still efficient?
> 
> If you check out some gamepplay with RX 470 4GB you will that their MSI AB is showing only 70-80W = whole card around 85-95W.
Click to expand...

Both afterburner and HWMonitor says my 480 uses 60W when underclocked, but according to my kill-a-watt its using at least double.


----------



## xartic1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Both afterburner and HWMonitor says my 480 uses 60W when underclocked, but according to my kill-a-watt its using at least double.


Is your kill-a-watt directly hooked up to the 480??

What you see from the wall isn't what is being pulled from the system, due to conversion inefficiencies.


----------



## bucdan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> Yeah and you quoted the wrong post


Not this time! Lol. Nice catch.


----------



## kubac4

Wake up! Take a look at latest releases like these...  
Not vulkan and not even dx12


----------



## Peanuts4

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kubac4*
> 
> Wake up! Take a look at latest releases like these...
> Not vulkan and not even dx12


Can anyone even read that titanfall 2 chart. Super tiny.


----------



## BURGER4life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Peanuts4*
> 
> Can anyone even read that titanfall 2 chart. Super tiny.


Super big: http://cdn.overclock.net/2/2c/2c166182_image.jpeg


----------



## momonz

1060 with 3gb is a step backwards. But just back read the guy who went nuts yesterday is not on 1080p but is on 1050. Anyway, it will take time before he realize he made a mistake of not buying at least a 4gb VRAM graphics card. He's still enjoying his purchase.


----------



## kubac4

Another game


Here you can see 1060 ahead in 1080p dx11 but 480 wins in dx12 and 1440p both dx12 and 11 Rx is better so 3 out of 4 for rx 480 here.


----------



## Shatun-Bear

That Paulerxx guy is a massive troll, don't engage with him.


----------



## amlett

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> 1060 with 3gb is a step backwards. But just back read the guy who went nuts yesterday is not on 1080p but is on 1050. Anyway, it will take time before he realize he made a mistake of not buying at least a 4gb VRAM graphics card. He's still enjoying his purchase.


You should know that 1680x1050 Nvidia pixels are equivalent to 1920x1080 AMD pixels thanks to delta pixel uncompression.

Tipically OCN, someone comes arguing facts, and OCN bashes him.


----------



## momonz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amlett*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> 1060 with 3gb is a step backwards. But just back read the guy who went nuts yesterday is not on 1080p but is on 1050. Anyway, it will take time before he realize he made a mistake of not buying at least a 4gb VRAM graphics card. He's still enjoying his purchase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should know that 1680x1050 Nvidia pixels are equivalent to 1920x1080 AMD pixels thanks to delta pixel uncompression.
> 
> Tipically OCN, someone comes arguing facts, and OCN bashes him.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip about the resolution. Didn't know that it even exists.

In fairness, the 1060 3gb guy literally trolls the thread when some people tried to correct him. And when he can't accept the answers he then began mocking RX 480 owners. Do you think he deserves respect?

His initial post should have been moved to 1060 review thread than here.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xartic1*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Both afterburner and HWMonitor says my 480 uses 60W when underclocked, but according to my kill-a-watt its using at least double.
> 
> 
> 
> Is your kill-a-watt directly hooked up to the 480??
> 
> What you see from the wall isn't what is being pulled from the system, due to conversion inefficiencies.
Click to expand...

I subtract the total wattage with 6 cards with the total wattage of 1 card and divided it by 5. As far as I know AMD cards under report power consumption in software.

I used to have overclocked R9 290 in CF, and HWMonitor decides the 290s are only using 180W per card. That includes memory power consumption.


----------



## amlett

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> Thanks for the tip about the resolution. Didn't know that it even exists.
> 
> In fairness, the 1060 3gb guy literally trolls the thread when some people tried to correct him. And when he can't accept the answers he then began mocking RX 480 owners. Do you think he deserves respect?
> 
> His initial post should have been moved to 1060 review thread than here.


I was joking. pixels are pixels.


----------



## JackCY

Enjoy your cards, both the 480 8GB in a decent usually expensive AIB version and almost any 1060 6GB even the cheapest single tiny fan AIB are all fine. The pricing is killing AMD in Europe though along with their typical poor availability in this region, getting an XFX GTR from a retail store was only possible after about 2+ months since custom 1060s were being sold, AMD simply slept with the launch way too much, reference cards almost unavailable in central and eastern EU, I don't know what AMD suppliers are doing but with every release it's the same poor experience, lack of supply, hiked up prices and that doesn't even end later on. Nvidia didn't have such big problems with getting custom 1060s to shops and customers while pricing was more than competitive, sometimes outright ridiculously low for the cheapest models thanks to changes in PCB version probably.


----------



## Superplush

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Enjoy your cards, both the 480 8GB in a decent usually expensive AIB version and almost any 1060 6GB even the cheapest single tiny fan AIB are all fine. The pricing is killing AMD in Europe though along with their typical poor availability in this region, getting an XFX GTR from a retail store was only possible after about 2+ months since custom 1060s were being sold, AMD simply slept with the launch way too much, reference cards almost unavailable in central and eastern EU, I don't know what AMD suppliers are doing but with every release it's the same poor experience, lack of supply, hiked up prices and that doesn't even end later on. Nvidia didn't have such big problems with getting custom 1060s to shops and customers while pricing was more than competitive, sometimes outright ridiculously low for the cheapest models thanks to changes in PCB version probably.


Could it have been your area? I picked up a MSI RX480 for £230 brand new just off the shelf, websites didn't seem to have a problem with stock on many of the other brands?

.. although now I re-read your paragraph you did mention "Central and Eastern EU" I can't say I've had a problem with AMD / ATI cards as far back as I've used them ... well, ther Fury cards









Although Nvidia have had problems with stock lately but there are rumours abound that it's intentional for price-gouging reasons.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Enjoy your cards, both the 480 8GB in a decent usually expensive AIB version and almost any 1060 6GB even the cheapest single tiny fan AIB are all fine. The pricing is killing AMD in Europe though along with their typical poor availability in this region, getting an XFX GTR from a retail store was only possible after about 2+ months since custom 1060s were being sold, AMD simply slept with the launch way too much, reference cards almost unavailable in central and eastern EU, I don't know what AMD suppliers are doing but with every release it's the same poor experience, lack of supply, hiked up prices and that doesn't even end later on. Nvidia didn't have such big problems with getting custom 1060s to shops and customers while pricing was more than competitive, sometimes outright ridiculously low for the cheapest models thanks to changes in PCB version probably.


I have to agree with this. I asked about the lack of Polaris and its high price on OCN and the response was "miners". I wasn't aware that was a thing like it was a few years ago.

My 2 cents on these two cards. I have had in hand several RX 480's and 1060's over the last few months. From my experience the 1060 was the overall better card for *my needs*. I'm a 144 hz 1080p gamer that prefers no AA, low ambient occlusion High-ish settings to ensure high fps and minimum input lag. Both the 480 and 1060 were used with a 6600k at 4.8 and a 6700k at 4.7. With the 1060 it didn't matter what CPU I used and whatever clock from stock on up, my gameplay was smooth without hitching and minimum FPS was great. The 480 really needed to i7 to get the same "feeling" of smoothness in a few titles I play. Overwatch being one of them. Surprisingly this even held true in BF1 multiplayer where the CPU gets hammered. For BF1, DX12 ran poorly for me on any solution sadly. I'm sure it'll get sorted out or perhaps it already has.

By no means would I attempt to sell any of you on a 1060 solely based on the fact that I play my games the way I do. Many here seem to prefer as much eye candy as possible. I just find Nvidia typically offers a smoother gamplay experience and can do so with a slightly inferior CPU at times.

Now peg everything to their max and shift the load to a different degree while targeting 60 fps, and perhaps we're singing a different tune. I just wanted to add my personal usage and experience with the solutions I have used. I'm sure I'm not the only one who plays their games this way as niche as it may be


----------



## blue1512

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amlett*
> 
> You should know that *1680x1050 Nvidia pixels are equivalent to 1920x1080 AMD pixels thanks to delta pixel uncompression*.
> 
> Tipically OCN, someone comes arguing facts, and OCN bashes him.


Best joke I ever heard for awhile :rofl:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I have to agree with this. I asked about the lack of Polaris and its high price on OCN and the response was "miners". *I wasn't aware that was a thing like it was a few years ago.*
> 
> My 2 cents on these two cards. I have had in hand several RX 480's and 1060's over the last few months. From my experience the 1060 was the overall better card for *my needs*. I'm a 144 hz 1080p gamer that prefers no AA, low ambient occlusion High-ish settings to ensure high fps and minimum input lag. Both the 480 and 1060 were used with a 6600k at 4.8 and a 6700k at 4.7. With the 1060 it didn't matter what CPU I used and whatever clock from stock on up, my gameplay was smooth without hitching and minimum FPS was great. The 480 really needed to i7 to get the same "feeling" of smoothness in a few titles I play. Overwatch being one of them. Surprisingly this even held true in BF1 multiplayer where the CPU gets hammered. For BF1, DX12 ran poorly for me on any solution sadly. I'm sure it'll get sorted out or perhaps it already has.
> 
> By no means would I attempt to sell any of you on a 1060 solely based on the fact that I play my games the way I do. Many here seem to prefer as much eye candy as possible. I just find Nvidia typically offers a smoother gamplay experience and can do so with a slightly inferior CPU at times.
> 
> Now peg everything to their max and shift the load to a different degree while targeting 60 fps, and perhaps we're singing a different tune. I just wanted to add my personal usage and experience with the solutions I have used. I'm sure I'm not the only one who plays their games this way as niche as it may be


GPU mining has become relevant again recently, unfortunately.


----------



## momonz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amlett*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *momonz*
> 
> Thanks for the tip about the resolution. Didn't know that it even exists.
> 
> In fairness, the 1060 3gb guy literally trolls the thread when some people tried to correct him. And when he can't accept the answers he then began mocking RX 480 owners. Do you think he deserves respect?
> 
> His initial post should have been moved to 1060 review thread than here.
> 
> 
> 
> I was joking. pixels are pixels.
Click to expand...

LOL! I honestly didn't get it.


----------



## mattass

What the hell happened to this thread lol just checked back after a week flame war of hell, on a side note I think it's going to be the sapphire nitro 480 or the gtr for my next purchase, and you can clearly see the future proofing with the 480 its the best option per/price,

But I was wondering if anyone can confirm if I'm right in thinking the sapphire has better longevity but higher temps and the worse cooling doesnt matter because the components have higher thermal properties from what I understand 90 watt (gtr) vs 125 (sapphire) on the Vrms is that right?


----------



## momonz

If you care more about temps probably go with the gtr which I did. I live in a tropical country. Played witcher 3 and ROTR both ultra high and my temps average is below 70deg. GPU power consumption avg is below 90w, max is below 150w. By default gtr fans are loud because fan profile is targeted to 3k RPM max. In my case (H440), I lowered target to 2500 RPM and I can't no longer hear the fan noise. Ofcourse this is when case is closed.

I never had a sapphire card. This is my 2nd xfx card. First one was XFX 7870 DD (which has a non-performant cooler) but it lasted for 3 years until it overheatead when I mishandled replacing thermal paste for the firs time.


----------



## mattass

Thanks for that, seems like they do run cool, I've had a similar experience with sapphire my 5870 I've had it almost 6 years I think, and before that an xfx 5870 but it died so I'm like the other side of the coin







I can get a Red Devil for £240 8gb but they seem abit naff, gtr xxx is 260 and the sapphire oc is 265 Hard discussions too make!


----------



## kittysox

I was able to grab a reference overclocked xfx 480 8gb at microcenter for 220$ today. I had been looking at 470's but this one was close enough that I just jumped at it


----------



## monohouse

are the Asus RX 480 and XFX RX 480 the best 480 from electronic component point of view ?
which is beter ? the XFX has directFET MOSFETs but only 6-pin (75W) power while the Asus has DIGI+ which increases power efficiency by turning off unnecessary phases and has 8-pin (150W) power ?
they both have 6+2 core/mem power delivery phases


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kittysox*
> 
> I was able to grab a reference overclocked xfx 480 8gb at microcenter for 220$ today. I had been looking at 470's but this one was close enough that I just jumped at it


They have the Gaming X 4gb RX 480 for $209. Wouldn't that have been a better buy? Perhaps you're going h2O! 8gb is nice too if you need it ☺


----------



## mattass

You guys are so lucky in the usa everything's so cheap!


----------



## mattass

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monohouse*
> 
> are the Asus RX 480 and XFX RX 480 the best 480 from electronic component point of view ?
> which is beter ? the XFX has directFET MOSFETs but only 6-pin (75W) power while the Asus has DIGI+ which increases power efficiency by turning off unnecessary phases and has 8-pin (150W) power ?
> they both have 6+2 core/mem power delivery phases


From what I've researched it looks like Asus has the best overall PCB, and the xfx GTR edition, if you havnt seen it already 'actually hardcore overclocking' on YouTube he's got some breakdowns, although I felt the components on the xfx were abit cheap but that's my opinion


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mattass*
> 
> You guys are so lucky in the usa everything's so cheap!


I'll admit if I wasn't living here and especially close to Microcenter, this hobby would be left behind.


----------



## Nameless1988

Hi guys, which is the best overall RX 480 about cooling and PCB quality ?
Seems like the Strix and the MSI are the coolest and have best PCB.
And which is the quietest with fans at 2500 RPM fan ?????? (something that it's difficult to get from reviews)


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nameless1988*
> 
> Hi guys, which is the best overall RX 480 about cooling and PCB quality ?
> Seems like the Strix and the MSI are the coolest and have best PCB.
> And which is the quietest with fans at 2500 RPM fan ?????? (something that it's difficult to get from reviews)


I've had the Reference, XFX GTR, Strix, Gaming X and the Nitro+. The Gaming X was the coolest and quietest. In fact it's the one I kept for that reason.

I can't comment on its overclocking but temps are in the mid 60's and I keep a quiet fan profile with max fan speed at 1750rpm.


----------



## Ricwin

Personally i wish i'd gone with Sapphire rather than MSI at this point.

Bought an MSI 480 Gaming X 8Gb and had to return it straight away due to severe artifacts all over the screen and it had some nasty coil whine / buzzing under load.
The replacement of the same model whines as well when under load.

The MSI Gaming X may be the best performer out of the box, but this quality control is pretty bad.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ricwin*
> 
> Personally i wish i'd gone with Sapphire rather than MSI at this point.
> 
> Bought an MSI 480 Gaming X 8Gb and had to return it straight away due to severe artifacts all over the screen and it had some nasty coil whine / buzzing under load.
> The replacement of the same model whines as well when under load.
> 
> The MSI Gaming X may be the best performer out of the box, but this quality control is pretty bad.


I guess you just never know anymore. One version of the same card can go either way. My Gaming X is absolutely perfect. But with experiences like you it makes it hard to recommend it.

On my side of the coin the Nitro was one of the cheapest GPUs I have ever laied my hands on. Weightless, chincy, has massive sag considering its weight was unacceptable and one of its fans died in about 1 week.


----------



## Ricwin

In the UK, the Sapphire Nitro is the cheapest decent branded one you can get at £199 for 4Gb or £235 for 8Gb. Only ones cheaper than this are Powercolor 4Gb for £190.
This 8Gb MSI Gaming X was £270 and the most expensive one available lol


----------



## Nameless1988

Sent back my 390 XFX BE, i just ordered the MSI Gaming X 480 8GB smile.gif

N.B.
This upgrade costs me 0 €
If you have to pay to change from a 390 to a 480, is no sense. (hey perform the same).

Seem like the MSI Gaming X is the best 480 out there: coolest, quietest, great OC potential.


----------



## IRobot23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nameless1988*
> 
> Sent back my 390 XFX BE, i just ordered the MSI Gaming X 480 8GB smile.gif
> 
> N.B.
> This upgrade costs me 0 €
> If you have to pay to change from a 390 to a 480, is no sense. (hey perform the same).
> 
> Seem like the MSI Gaming X is the best 480 out there: coolest, quietest, great OC potential.


No true. RX 480 is usually as fast as RX 390/X.. but sometimes its like 20-30% faster.


----------



## Nameless1988

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IRobot23*
> 
> No true. RX 480 is usually as fast as RX 390/X.. but sometimes its like 20-30% faster.


Really? So the latest driver have improved rx480 performance?


----------



## KarathKasun

Yeah, ~5% or so.

In some instances the RX 480 pulls ahead of the 290/390/X cards anyway because of the optimization that was done in the schedulers in the chip.


----------



## Nameless1988

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> Yeah, ~5% or so.
> 
> In some instances the RX 480 pulls ahead of the 290/390/X cards anyway because of the optimization that was done in the schedulers in the chip.


better than 1060 too?


----------



## KarathKasun

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review.html

Thats 480 vs 1060 with December drivers. Both reference and overclocked models.


----------



## Ricwin

The 480 vs 1060 debate will rumble on until nVidia release a new product and gimp the 1060








Essentially though it seems to depends more on what you play; DX11 or DX12 titles.


----------



## AlphaC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ricwin*
> 
> The 480 vs 1060 debate will rumble on until nVidia release a new product and gimp the 1060
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially though it seems to depends more on what you play; DX11 or DX12 titles.


It really depends on the title.

However, the GTX 1060 6GB tends to be more expensive than a RX 480 4GB , so if you can deal with 4GB rather than 8GB VRAM the RX 480 becomes a much better value (a RX 480 4GB can be had for $170-190 while a GTX 1060 6GB requires at least $240) . The price difference between a RX 480 8GB from a brand that also does Nvidia cards and a GTX 1060 6GB is less.

For example:
MSI RX 480 8GB ARMOR = $230 ... MSI GTX 1060 6GB ARMOR = $260-270
MSI RX 480 8GB GAMING X = $250 ... MSI GTX 1060 6GB GAMING X = $285
Gigabyte G1 Gaming RX 480 8GB = $230 ... Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 1060 6GB = $250
ASUS STRIX RX 480 8GB = $260 ... ASUS DUAL GTX 1060 6GB = $260-270 , ASUS STRIX GTX 1060 6GB $290-300


----------



## Nameless1988

Installed today my MSI Gaming X 480 8gb i love it! Awesome quality, awesome aesthetics, incredible temps under firestrike 1080p , stock clock +50% power limit, 40% fans (ONLY 1480 rpm/min) my max temp is 56C !!!

MSI is by far the most silent and the coolest on the market! Their cards are just incredibile!


----------



## Newbie2009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KarathKasun*
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review.html
> 
> Thats 480 vs 1060 with December drivers. Both reference and overclocked models.


Added to title page


----------



## AlphaC

revisited right before RX 580/RX 570 launches http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-graphics-card-roundup,4962.html
RX 480 ASUS STRIX w/ IR3555 (60A)

RX 480 HIS IceQX2 w/ IR DirectFETs (XFX GTR uses this PCB AFAIK)

MSI Gaming X w/ regular mosfets & supposedly best cooler

Sapphire Nitro+ w / IR3553 (40A) and poor cooler


----------



## mattass

well those sapphire 480 results made me sad, I've never seen much over 60 though personally but maybe the vrms are like 5 billion degrees :|


----------



## artemis2307

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mattass*
> 
> well those sapphire 480 results made me sad, I've never seen much over 60 though personally but maybe the vrms are like 5 billion degrees :|


Sapphire had underdeliver this time, big plastic shroud but tiny heatsink
remember their tri X, Vapor X, and Nitro 300 lineup? legendary
this time? total ricer


----------



## Loladinas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artemis2307*
> 
> Sapphire had underdeliver this time, big plastic shroud but tiny heatsink
> remember their tri X, Vapor X, and Nitro 300 lineup? legendary
> this time? total ricer


Board design is pretty solid. Even though TH article mistakenly lists MOSFETs as IR3555, when it's IR3553, which are worse, they're still fine. Heatsink itself contacts everything it should contact, it just seems kind of... small. In Sapphires (and I guess THs too) defense there's a huge variance between samples. My particular Nitro+ consumes roughly a quarter less power than theirs, temps differ accordingly.


----------



## artemis2307

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Loladinas*
> 
> Board design is pretty solid. Even though TH article mistakenly lists MOSFETs as IR3555, when it's IR3553, which are worse, they're still fine. Heatsink itself contacts everything it should contact, it just seems kind of... small. In Sapphires (and I guess THs too) defense there's a huge variance between samples. My particular Nitro+ consumes roughly a quarter less power than theirs, temps differ accordingly.


the temps differ is most likely due to silicon lottery, most gigabyte G1s are trash with high pw usg and high temps, but some only goes to low 70s on load


----------



## JackCY

Yep the 480/70 was a bit of a flop on many levels.

poor availability
poor custom designs from many vendors, VRM worse than reference, tiny coolers
initially lacking performance
worse perf/power than competition although equal when compared in chip size/power, as such more die area for equal performance which is not necessarily bad since it does offer more HW features than competition
quite a big variability in production quality, some chips would clock high some not at all, some would eat like dogs some just sip power
crazy pricing for many months after launch especially for the well designed cards with good cooler, getting beaten by competition in both availability and pricing on top of that even in performance at the time
Good cards but the execution not so smooth.

The 580/570 might just be what 480/470 should have been, will see.


----------



## momonz

Flop?

I never heard about it. Have you guys heard about RX 470/480 being flopped?

Probably from another dimension.


----------



## Wolfeshaman

Quick question.

Has anyone successfully flashed a MSI Gaming X 8G with the new 580 bios?


----------



## AVATARAT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wolfeshaman*
> 
> Quick question.
> 
> Has anyone successfully flashed a MSI Gaming X 8G with the new 580 bios?


Is it safe to be done ?
I mean are the both card the same as PSB, cooling system etc ? And if I do the same do this break a warranty ?


----------



## Wolfeshaman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AVATARAT*
> 
> Is it safe to be done ?
> I mean are the both card the same as PSB, cooling system etc ? And if I do the same do this break a warranty ?


I would imagine that anything other than the official bios is breaking the warranty of the card unless you can successfully flash it back before sending it out.

if it is like other cards they will end up nearly the same since it isn't more than just a refresh.


----------



## Nameless1988

Is this thread dead?!


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nameless1988*
> 
> Is this thread dead?!


No, we post here everyday. "Here's your sign". ?

What comedian am I quoting?


----------



## Nameless1988

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> No, we post here everyday. "Here's your sign". ?
> 
> What comedian am I quoting?


Oh, a clown quoted me.
No need to be so rude.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> Yep the 480/70 was a bit of a flop on many levels.
> 
> poor availability
> poor custom designs from many vendors, VRM worse than reference, tiny coolers
> initially lacking performance
> worse perf/power than competition although equal when compared in chip size/power, as such more die area for equal performance which is not necessarily bad since it does offer more HW features than competition
> quite a big variability in production quality, some chips would clock high some not at all, some would eat like dogs some just sip power
> crazy pricing for many months after launch especially for the well designed cards with good cooler, getting beaten by competition in both availability and pricing on top of that even in performance at the time
> Good cards but the execution not so smooth.
> 
> The 580/570 might just be what 480/470 should have been, will see.


+Rep. This video was shared in another thread. It compared the 390 vs the 970 but what i think what stood out was the 480. Note: They used low AA in most to accommodate (i think) the 970 . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5H_1ZFN2EE&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Newbie2009

What is the story with amd 580 series being sold out? AMD supply issues?


----------



## p4inkill3r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Newbie2009*
> 
> What is the story with amd 580 series being sold out? AMD supply issues?


Mining, as always.


----------



## awdrifter

Is GPU mining still profitable?


----------



## nakano2k1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *awdrifter*
> 
> Is GPU mining still profitable?


Now that bitcoin is way back up in price, yeah.


----------



## skline00

Just put a reference Sapphire RX480 8 g under water with an EK block.

Using MSI afterburner was able to get the core clock to 1460 and memory to 2200 with max power. VRM never exceeded 61C and core never went over 42C!


----------

