AMD Radeon RX 480 Video Card Review @ [H]

Like pcgeekesq said, they could face issues with P10 if they cannot get the pci-e spec fixed.

It's probably better for AMD if, hypothetically, they just sent tweaked cards to reviewers that draw 40% more power than the PCI Express-compliant retail stock they shipped.

Sure, it's deceptive, and we've seen the like before (though not this bad), but it's probably less damaging to the bottom line than either of
1) having the cards banned from being imported, or
2) having reviews posted about an underwheling RX 480s that only use the 110W TDP that, if what I read is correct, AMD has altered the specs to recite.
Here to seeing reviews of retail cards - I'm relying on you, Kyle!


 
This new format is god awful, no optimization, no apples to apples. I don't see any useful information in this review.

Thanks [H] I now have to become fluent in German to read a decent GPU review.
 
the rx480 was supposed to be AMD's new 4870, compared to the 1070. AMD failed to get there.

No it wasn't. It was clear from everything AMD said they were aiming this card at the mainstream market ($200), even before the price was revealed it was clear from the die size they were aiming downmarkt.

1070 is selling > $400, this is a $200 card, in no reality should anyone expect similar performance.
 
It's not meant to compete on price. But if you look at the power consumption, it's not pretty. That means WHEN the 1060 comes down the pipe it will be considerably MORE efficient for the same power. This also means that AMD when it scales up to NVIDIA's level is going to have power issues AGAIN.

So, better perf/Watt than the 970 (according to TPU at least) is bad now?
 
I guess the RX 480 is okay, but it's hard to get excited about. The $199 4GB is probably the more interesting one for the average 1080 user?
 
It's not meant to compete on price. But if you look at the power consumption, it's not pretty. That means WHEN the 1060 comes down the pipe it will be considerably MORE efficient for the same power. This also means that AMD when it scales up to NVIDIA's level is going to have power issues AGAIN.

And on this point Kyle was absolutely right about "hot". A 1080 consumes about 10% more power for nearly double the performance.
 
This new format is god awful, no optimization, no apples to apples. I don't see any useful information in this review.

Thanks [H] I now have to become fluent in German to read a decent GPU review.

?? The entirety of the new format is based around A2A comparison. The review card is dialed into its best settings and then competing cards are put through the same tests at the same settings. How is that not apples to apples?
 
It's probably better for AMD if, hypothetically, they just sent tweaked cards to reviewers that draw 40% more power than the PCI Express-compliant retail stock they shipped.

I doubt that's the case. Discrepancies would show up almost immediately and people would be going WTF. And if they did something so swarmy, AMD would get their tail handed to them by every fan and tech review. It would be such a scandal of epic proportions that would definitively be the end of RTG.

It wouldn't be the first time companies did something questionable (send cherry picked samples that lead to high overclocks) But to modify the physical specs over retail versions is a whole another level of swarmy.
 
No it wasn't. It was clear from everything AMD said they were aiming this card at the mainstream market ($200), even before the price was revealed it was clear from the die size they were aiming downmarkt.

1070 is selling > $400, this is a $200 card, in no reality should anyone expect similar performance.
But if you look at power consumption, it is bad that it consume as much power as a 1070. They still improve in efficiency over their last generation, but still haven't caught up with nVidia over performance power efficiency. So IMO, something gone bork, whether it is design or fabbing of the chip, and that is not good.
 
[RE: AMD sending tweked over-power cardss to reviewers]
I doubt that's the case. Discrepancies would show up almost immediately and people would be going WTF. And if they did something so swarmy, AMD would get their tail handed to them by every fan and tech review. It would be such a scandal of epic proportions that would definitively be the end of RTG.
It would be a desperate move by them, to be sure. But a history of corporate scandals shows that pretty often, the eventual legal downside of fraud (e.g. $7 per consumer class action settlements) is far smaller than the profits made as a result of the fraud.

I trust Kyle to settle this issue for us within the next week. But if I was the type to invest in option contracts, I'd short AMD.
 
This new format is god awful, no optimization, no apples to apples. I don't see any useful information in this review.
Can you please be more specific? I am a bit confused.

Every single graph we showed you was "Apples to apples." We took the RX 480 and dialed in our normal best playable settings. Then we used those 480 best IQ settings and tested all cards at those exact settings.
 
The smaller nvidia chips are never as efficient (perf/watt) as the mid-high range (1070/1080) sized and larger stuff. Jury is still out until 1060 is released.

Yeah but dude the 1070 is at 150 watts right now lol, the 1060 has to be lower its a much smaller chip.
 
The smaller nvidia chips are never as efficient (perf/watt) as the mid-high range (1070/1080) sized and larger stuff. Jury is still out until 1060 is released.
Back read N4CR. The RX480 is close to consuming at much as the 1070. Now are you going to tell me the 1060 will consume as much as the 1070?
 
Would be nice to test the 4GB version next and compare it to 8GB. Some sites show there is a visible difference between the performance of the two (1 or 2 frames, but still quantifiable).
 
Great review, I wish it had a little more to offer 1440 gaming, but it seems this card is aimed at the 90% of PC gamers at 1080p. Not a bad strategy.

I hope drivers mature a little more for this card, I know NVIDIA is always optimizing their drivers which help alot. Plus--given it's size (ignoring the fan shroud) and the power requirements, this architecture could have massive potential for the 4K audience if AMD really added some guns to it. Obviously the chip has more to give than what AMD's surrounded it with.

I'm playing the waiting game--mostly for personal reasons, but it wouldn't surprise me if I skipped the 480 and went the route of the 1070 just for a little longer life in my gaming machine. Time will tell.
 
Kyle I don't get this review...you said you are testing it against 4 other cards but all your charts only show the 380X and 960. Where is the 390 and 970 on the charts? Ofc it will look good when only compared to a 960. Why not put it side by side with a 1070 as well?
 
Glad to see the RX480 met expectations.
I'm a 1080p gamer and I don't expect to delve into VR any time soon. I game on a 32" 3D HDTV and that suits me fine. It will likely be the next generation of VR with about half the current pricing.
I've switch over to linux gaming primarily mainly because I don't have a lot of time for gaming so I migrated my FX 8 core to workstation duties for big transcoding projects.
The old HD7870 has hit the wall with no support from AMD with their latest AMDGPU-PRO driver scheme for linux. But support for the RX480 is already there.
For the generic open source AMDGPU open source driver (kernel driver) the card works well on some things; not at all on other and I can't seem to find any solutions.
Time to upgrade.
 
Kyle I don't get this review...you said you are testing it against 4 other cards but all your charts only show the 380X and 960. Where is the 390 and 970 on the charts? Ofc it will look good when only compared to a 960. Why not put it side by side with a 1070 as well?

look at the 1440p results.
 
I have to also admit that I was wrong and Kyle was right. He calls it like it is, which is why I keep coming back here. Lesson learned.
Well we have hope that AMD may come thru, and in some respect, they did, great 1080p card over 960 or 380 and decent 1440p card against 970 or 390. But, the failure is the power consumption. I still believe AMD original goal for Polaris 10 is Fury X performance.
 
Well I took a lot of time to read and re-read the review couple of times and I have to say it's great!... loved the new review format the fully pass to Apples 2 Apples of maximum playable game settings it's good, it's the end user what have to care about per game and card optimization, because every user at the end it's looking for an entirely different gaming experience, some are fine with more settings at 30FPS and some are looking 50FPS as minimums and are willing to sacrifice settings to reach those extra frames.. so im positive at this new methodology..

Only issue with the review so far it's the fact that in the test setup page brent mention to utilize an Enermax MaxRevo 1350W PSU, while in the Power and Temp is stated to be using a Corsair CX850M (that I hope just not due the crap is that PSU).

About the card, nothing new.. this is what originally intended to deliver in terms of performance, in fact the first leaks pointed to R9 390 Performance at 380X price points which it's exactly what this card achieved.. So congratulations Kyle for once again being right with your articles, it keep the trust on you for all of those fanboys who decide to bash everytime you talk, now the good point, you are more famous than ever :bag:.. I only have to say, after read every commentary here, Im terribly laughing of all AMD fanboys who are mouth shut and quietly trying to defend the indefensible of this card, that are going to be stomped with the launch of the GTX 1060... so AMD while did good things with this card, it's still the certainly looser here since the beginning unable to compete with any other than themselves older cards.

WoW base on all review I just look over the RX 480 will be a Pocket Rocket with performance gains 2x to 3x over my HD 7870 that petty sweet. even know the GTX 1070 is 35%+ faster, but it's also way more expensive as well and I sure the same will be with GTX 1060
After look over a few other review it look like two different memory capacities of the RX 480 4GB vs 8GB, for the moment I leaning strongly towards the 8GB card as it only cost $40 more even it has some performance gains even if I used 1080p anandtech showing a 1 to 5fps gain depend on the game
The let down is the reference onboard cooler

Correction, You really mean 70% faster at least... (y) ;)..
 
Quiet during normal gaming, but can scream when very hot or at maximum RPM. :)

Seems like a good budget DX12 card. Not bad.

It was said only during overclocks that was the case not on stock speeds.
 
I have to also admit that I was wrong and Kyle was right. He calls it like it is, which is why I keep coming back here. Lesson learned.
Thank you sir. I don't bullshit you guys.

And I would like to note that if you did not start calling names and accusing me of taking bribes, you did not get banned. Even when some suggested, "The problem with Kyle is his ego and his emotions, my actions were "really cheap," my editorial was "rubbish," and that HardOCP was now "a laughing stock on the internet with its Editor in chief the butt of many jokes." Wait till you see what else in my editorial comes to pass. ;)
 
Well we have hope that AMD may come thru, and in some respect, they did, great 1080p card over 960 or 380 and decent 1440p card against 970 or 390. But, the failure is the power consumption. I still believe AMD original goal for Polaris 10 is Fury X performance.

Hell no not fury x. Not with frickin 2300 shaders and 32 ROPs, may be in between 390x and regular fury at higher clock speeds like 1500 or so.
 
So the main complaints seem to be over power consumption or price drops of the 970. True, the 480 fails at power efficiency against Pascal. No two ways about it.

The 480 is more power efficient than all of the mid-range and performance Maxwell line, though. So if power efficiency is such an important metric, the 970 is already a non-issue in comparison. Same performance for 30% more power? No, the 970 is a waste, even now.

The 970 argument is the same argument for a 980ti instead of a 1070 right now. If you can't find the new card you want, there's one from last generation that performs almost identically, eats a lot more power and will not age nearly as well over the next couple of years.
 
Yeah but dude the 1070 is at 150 watts right now lol, the 1060 has to be lower its a much smaller chip.

Not always the case. 960 was way worse than 970 and 980 when it came to performance per watt. Because Nvidia likes to shit on the x60 series for last few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muxr
like this
So the main complaints seem to be over power consumption or price drops of the 970. True, the 480 fails at power efficiency against Pascal. No two ways about it.

The 480 is more power efficient than all of the mid-range and performance Maxwell line, though. So if power efficiency is such an important metric, the 970 is already a non-issue in comparison. Same performance for 30% more power? No, the 970 is a waste, even now.

The 970 argument is the same argument for a 980ti instead of a 1070 right now. If you can't find the new card you want, there's one from last generation that performs almost identically, eats a lot more power and will not age nearly as well over the next couple of years.

Hmm no it matches or edges out the 970 in perf/watt, it doesn't match the 980 in perf/watt though
 
It will take reading a few [H] reviews to fully get used to the new format. Initial impressions are good though.
 
I'm not sure if I am being "fair" because I am a high end enthusiast, but I'm really surprised that we still haven't seen a video card that can max out more games at 1440p yet in the mid-$200 price range. I've been on a 1440p screen for about 4 years now, and there still isn't a mainstream card powerful enough for 1440p. I was hoping that 14nm would make that a reality, but it doesn't appear to have happened yet.

Maybe my expectations are simply off.
 
Last edited:
Not always the case. 960 was way worse than 970 and 980 when it came to performance per watt. Because Nvidia likes to shit on the x60 series for last few years.


It was worse in perf/watt but it doesn't consume more power than those two cards.......

Come on the 1060 all the have to do is drop the wattage by 10% and its performance will be stellar, nV really has to lay a goose egg to screw up the 1060.
 
I like the new format a lot though. Especially how you compared the card against both the 960/380X as well as the 390/970. Makes it a much better comparison.
 
Great review, conclusion was exactly as expected including silver reward.

Only surprise was that performance was slightly below several of the leaks-- I expected to see GTX980/390x-class performance, but got GTX970/390-class. Still an amazing deal for the money.
 
I am disappointed with Polaris as AMD knew what they were up against given how good Maxwell was and the hammering that Nvidia gave them in market share. AMD are at all time historical lows in market share and yet their response is so pathetic.
They're fighting for the bottom and that has proven a losing strategy in the past, but they delivered an AMAZING value with the RX-480. It's all about that incredibly low price.

From a strategic level, my primary concern right now is that they aren't talking mobile. I want to see 480-class performance in thin/light notebooks.
 
Kyle I don't get this review...you said you are testing it against 4 other cards but all your charts only show the 380X and 960. Where is the 390 and 970 on the charts? Ofc it will look good when only compared to a 960. Why not put it side by side with a 1070 as well?
You need to look at the 1440p pages. There was no reason to test the 380X and 960 at 1440p, since they "fail" there. And certainly the 390 and 970 are "overpowered" for 1080p, hence 1440p. We needed to find out where the true talents of the RX 480 lined up....and that is 1080p, which perfectly acceptable for a $200 card IMO. I did finally see a $199.99 card for sale this morning, and I think 4GB will be fine for 1080p.

Only issue with the review so far it's the fact that in the test setup page brent mention to utilize an Enermax MaxRevo 1350W PSU, while in the Power and Temp is stated to be using a Corsair CX850M (that I hope just not due the crap is that PSU).
Yeah, that 1350w came off an old template. That PSU failed in the last few weeks and we had to replace it and the CX850M was all that the Best Buy had close to him and we did not want to loose a day of testing waiting for Next Day Air from my office.
 
I am disappointed with Polaris as AMD knew what they were up against given how good Maxwell was and the hammering that Nvidia gave them in market share. AMD are at all time historical lows in market share and yet their response is so pathetic. As a consumer I hate to see one company become a dominant monopoly and the other company being totally marginalized in what is a two player GPU market. I also think AMD has to rethink their relationship with GF. AMD has to use GF for manufacturing console and semi-custom APUs, entry level GPUs (100-110 sq mm) and low end desktop APUs (<= 100 sq mm die size). For everything else which requires high performance and good yields they need to go with TSMC. But its easier said than done because AMD are stuck in WSA. AMD faced the problem in CPUs where Intel had vastly superior architecture and vastly superior process nodes. Now its creeping into AMD GPUs too. In past generations atleast AMD had access to the same process node that Nvidia had. Now even that is gone and the results are very bad.

Look at it this way, it takes time, money, resources to make these products, they don't come out of thin air or at a turn of a dime. AMD did the best they could with all these restriction. I think TIME was the major thing that was against them, when their competition makes a product that really overwhelms the perf/watt catagory it takes time to change your designs to reflect in your response. And this is something that we probably won't even seen in Vega (maybe some of it) but Navi will probably be the real change that we will see from AMD's design point of view.
 
Back
Top