RX 480 post mortem - the good, the bad, and the ugly.

[Bowman15]

Seems to be plenty of people buying up that "lost cause" today.

 

[pcgeekesq]

With the sales that NV has had on the 1070/1080 (assuming based on stock), I could see them coming in with a $240 1060 and beating out the 480 8gb by 10% easy and probably more OC headroom.

I don't think the 1060 has to match the RX 480's price to outsell it. It's likely to be a pretty easy upsell - better performance at lower power for another $25-$50.

 

[Shadohh]

In all reality, 8gb on this card means jack shit. It does not have the power to be effective at larger resolutions so memory is a mute point. It performs near a gimped memory GTX970 so that right there tells you the 8gb model is a pointless card. About the only big draw to this card would be DX12 support but still, price is too high IMO. $199 for 8gb model seems very reasonable and would be an excellent seller.

With the sales that NV has had on the 1070/1080 (assuming based on stock), I could see them coming in with a $240 1060 and beating out the 480 8gb by 10% easy and probably more OC headroom.

Rainbow 6 siege could easily use 6gb ram and this card would push it. I know because I use a 290 4gb on a ultra wide LG and I have to turn some settings down because I pass the 4gb mark.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

Every review I've seen, Linus Tech Tips, TOT ect. the 970 beats the 480. Can you provide me a review that shows me otherwise?

Sure.

AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Review

1080p - 480 beats 970 by 5.3%
1440p = 480 beats 970 by 6.4%
2160p = 480 beats 970 by 9.9%

Now, that's an average over 20+ games. You can definitely cherry pick games where the 970 wins, but the same applies the other way. The 480 is the faster (marginally) card.

The community doesn't care about AMD's label, they will compare to whatever is closest in price and performance.
If you need to play semantic jenga to defend the 480, then it's already a lost cause.

I wasn't using AMD's label nor playing semantics. I was positioning from highest to lowest in cost and performance. These cards also were typically in the same price ranges at launch.

 

[Bowman15]

I don't think the 1060 has to match the RX 480's price to outsell it. It's likely to be a pretty easy upsell - better performance at lower power for another $25-$50.

That is exactly where I think it will land as well.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

I wasn't using AMD's label nor playing semantics. I was positioning from highest to lowest in cost and performance. These cards also were typically in the same price ranges at launch.

Yes you were. If this rose were called by another name: "RX 490", your argument falls to pieces simply by changing one number in the GPU label... It's semantics.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

Yes you were. If this rose were called by another name: "RX 490", your argument falls to pieces simply by changing one number in the GPU label.

I apologize for your confusion. I was using facts and you confused them with semantics. The 490 is a red herring by you.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

I apologize for your confusion. I was using facts and you confused them with semantics. The 490 is a red herring by you.

You artifically assigned the 480 to a "tier" based on its name, a red herring by you.
My post is about the performance tier, not the label tier, since the performance is the only thing that matters in the end.

 

[Krenum]

Sure.

AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB Review

1080p - 480 beats 970 by 5.3%
1440p = 480 beats 970 by 6.4%
2160p = 480 beats 970 by 9.9%

Now, that's an average over 20+ games. You can definitely cherry pick games where the 970 wins, but the same applies the other way. The 480 is the faster (marginally) card.

Hm, Interesting. I really don't know what to believe. Techpowerups numbers are far different than other reviewers.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

You artifically assigned the 480 to a "tier" based on its name, a red herring by you.
My post is about the performance tier, not the label tier, since the performance is the only thing that matters in the end.

380 launched at $199/$229
480 launched at $199/$229

By name, price, and tier, they are the same. One replaces the other. It's not rocket science.

You compared the 290x, 390, and 480. That's like taking the 780ti, the 970, and the 1060 and saying they're in the same tier. They're not. And no, that's not semantics either. Those are the DIRECT equivalents to the AMD cards that you mentioned.

Try backing out of that one.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

Hm, Interesting. I really don't know what to believe. Techpowerups numbers are far different than other reviewers.

They're really not (no offense). Most reviewers only test 3-5 games. It easier to get a batch of games that skew towards one or the other. Hell, if you stopped reading Brent's review after two games, you'd think the 480 won. With TPU, you get 20+ games, so a better chance to find the games that you would play, as well as a more well rounded average. So if you look at TPUs numbers on a per-game basis, you'll find that they match up well with other reviewers, except for RotTR, whcih was run in DX12 mode. That REALLY skewed the 970 results.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

380 launched at $199/$229
480 launched at $199/$229

By name, price, and tier, they are the same. One replaces the other. It's not rocket science.

You compared the 290x, 390, and 480. That's like taking the 780ti, the 970, and the 1060 and saying they're in the same tier. They're not. And no, that's not semantics either. Those are the DIRECT equivalents to the AMD cards that you mentioned.

Try backing out of that one.

I think you're confused. Someone else compared the 780 to the 970 on performance and price drop. I followed up by comparing the 480 to 390, since the 480 falls directly between the 390 and 390X. The 970 falls directly between the 780 and 780 Ti (at launch). Again -- the R9 380 has nothing to do with this discussion.

If I'm not allowed to compare the 480 vs 390 then the other person isn't allowed to compare the 970 vs 780.

 

[Bowman15]

That may tell you that drivers need maturing as well with performance all over the place.

 

[Rizen]

Performance seems pretty consistent to me. I believe some reviews were testing with older drivers, however, but I didn't read any other than the [H] review.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

I think you're confused. Someone else compared the 780 to the 970 on performance and price drop. I followed up by comparing the 480 to 390, since the 480 falls directly between the 390 and 390X. The 970 falls directly between the 780 and 780 Ti (at launch). Again -- the R9 380 has nothing to do with this discussion.

If I'm not allowed to compare the 480 vs 390 then the other person isn't allowed to compare the 970 vs 780.

Ok, let's say that I'm confused. I can be wrong.

You stated that performance has stagnated from the 290x to the 390, to the 480. In terms of price, these are different tiers ($550, $329, $239 and down). So, not the same tier in generational performance, or in price. But ok, let's compare them. You then have to do the same comparison with Nvidia's equivalents, which at the same times were the 780ti, the 970, and the 1060. We only have two of those 3. How do they compare? The 970 fell between the 780 and 780ti in performance (initially closer to the 780). The 390 came closer to the 290x. At worst, NV has stagnated the same. At best, AMD has done a little better. So, you either missed the mark with regards to who you were replying to, or you honestly believed that these 3 cards (290x, 390, 480) were in the same tier and are trying to carefully walk back from that.

 

[LigTasm]

AMD should have just kept selling Hawaii rebadged 3.0. I was ready to buy 1 or 2 of these today, had the money sitting there. Instead, I'll continue to use my used $150 970 on my freesync screen because this card is pointless. It might be worth while if you're still on a 6870 or something, but I don't know anyone who is these days.

This is exactly why it needs to be compared to that turd called the 380/X as well, which barely edged out stock Tahiti while being just as hot and having near zero overclocking ability compared to something years older. I have no hope that an aftermarket cooler will help this thing much (again, just like the 380).

 

[Daniel_Chang]

AMD should have just kept selling Hawaii rebadged 3.0. I was ready to buy 1 or 2 of these today, had the money sitting there. Instead, I'll continue to use my used $150 970 on my freesync screen because this card is pointless. It might be worth while if you're still on a 6870 or something, but I don't know anyone who is these days.

If you got the 970 for $150, keep it. It's not likely worth it to side-grade for FreeSync alone. In my case, I sold my 970 for $200. I can get the 4GB 480 for $199.99 free shipping and no tax. I get ROUGHLY the same performance, and I gain FreeSync. So for me, it's worthwhile, but I don't think that it is for you. Right now I'm just evaluating the cost benefit if paying more than $200 for extra RAM/OC/cooler when I know that I'll be upgrading to the RX 590/GTX 1170 most likely (hopefully by then the market has shifted enough that NV supports VESA Adaptive Sync).

 

[Maori80]

I still wonder how they show it beat 1080 in CF mode, but couldn't touch the regular GTX980, when 980SLI is just little below the 1080, Or maybe I just don't understand the CF or SLI.

 

[disemboweler]

Good - Price and performance. Performance is where it should be, roughly matching the next step up from the prior generation. Price is also exactly where it was last generation, an unexpected plus given the node change. Even Nvidia raised prices. There is no doubt that in terms of price/perf, this is now the best card.

Bad - The temps. Fan spinning while idle, and stock temps >80 under load without an overclock are unacceptable today. Thankfully, there is no reason that custom coolers from AIBs shouldn't be able to fix this.

Ugly - 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.

A Word About VR - Dropping the price of an entry level VR card $50-$100 makes VR affordable in the same sense that dropping g the price of performance tires makes a Corvette affordable.

Conclusion - This is AMD Maxwell. Take a GTX 970, drop the price $130, give it a separate 8GB option, and paint it red. Once we have AIB models with custom cooling and power delivery to fix AMD's engineering faux pas, this card will be highly recommended. Until then, wait patiently.

I disagree - keep in mind value is more than price vs. performance of existing game's benchmarks that don't use the new features of NVIDIA's VR enhancements, and DX12.1, etc. I do agree that it's absurd that the 970 is still priced so highly, but that's because so many vendors paid full price for their existing stock, and the market will correct the 970 price very soon - it is NOT worth $350 now that the new NVIDIA and this AMD card are out, it should be moved down to $250 at MOST, and will be soon I'm sure.

The biggest thing to consider when deciding between NVIDIA and AMD is: how much time and headaches do I want to endure over the lifetime of this card? Is it REALLY worth saving... say even $100-$150... if you're going to spend hours and hours of time over the years troubleshooting issues and using workarounds because AMD still hasn't released a WHQL certified driver that is stabilized and optimized for a certain game MONTHS after the release (and in many cases, NEVER)?

Wait until NVIDIA releases their $200-$250 card in the latest generation (1060 or whatever), which I believe should be anytime now. I guarantee you it will blow this thing out of the water.

DON'T BUY THIS FOR VR unless you are desperately poor and already have a, or got a free, Vive or Rift! Cheaping out on the GPU by spending so much for the other components to be VR ready is crazy. Plus the terrible track record for the quality of AMD driver releases and time to release them or optimize them for new games (if they even do it at all for a particular game) is sure to be a huge problem for new technologies like VR.

 

[Bowman15]

Performance seems pretty consistent to me. I believe some reviews were testing with older drivers, however, but I didn't read any other than the [H] review.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

The biggest thing to consider when deciding between NVIDIA and AMD is: how much time and headaches do I want to endure over the lifetime of this card? Is it REALLY worth saving... say even $100-$150... if you're going to spend hours and hours of time over the years troubleshooting issues and using workarounds because AMD still hasn't released a WHQL certified driver that is stabilized and optimized for a certain game MONTHS after the release (and in many cases, NEVER)?

This is part of the reason why I was so anxious to move. Since the 364 series I've had nothing but issues, and GameStream ceased working to the point where I had to switch to Steam in-home streaming. A side benefit was the removal of GFE. Bottom line is that NV's driver dominance is grossly overblown and may actually be incorrect now. I'm curious to find out.

Wait until NVIDIA releases their $200-$250 card in the latest generation (1060 or whatever), which I believe should be anytime now. I guarantee you it will blow this thing out of the water.

You aren't qualified to make such a guarantee.

 

[disemboweler]

I'm all for the underdog... but I was hoping on par with a gtx 980, and less power consumption than a 1070. It really makes me wonder what kind of magic fairy dust nvidia used to get a 1070 to use less power than a 480, but perform almost 50% better than a 480.
(I wonder if AMD is hamstrung by shitty GLOFO process - they did sign that awful contract years ago and apparently can't break out of it)

You want to know what the magic fairy dust is? (and frankly, this fact is a perfect reason why people should STRONGLY consider moving to or sticking with NVIDIA now, aside from the obvious):

NVIDIA spent about 5 BILLION in R&D on the 1000 series chipsets/design. AMD spent roughly 1/10th that amount on their new GPU chipsets/design. OF COURSE NVIDIA IS GOING TO KEEP BLOWING THEM OUT OF THE WATER, that is a plain ridiculous difference in investment!

 

[Daniel_Chang]

Performance seems pretty consistent to me. I believe some reviews were testing with older drivers, however, but I didn't read any other than the [H] review.

I believe that the Earth is flat, but I really haven't read anything on it except for B.o.B.'s tweets.

EDIT: to be clear, I'm parodying the fact that you read only one source and believe that is enough to make you an authority on multiple sources. I am NOT comparing [H] to that rapper. [H] is actually worth following.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

You want to know what the magic fairy dust is? (and frankly, this fact is a perfect reason why people should STRONGLY consider moving to or sticking with NVIDIA now, aside from the obvious):

NVIDIA spent about 5 BILLION in R&D on the 1000 series chipsets/design. AMD spent roughly 1/10th that amount on their new GPU chipsets/design. OF COURSE NVIDIA IS GOING TO KEEP BLOWING THEM OUT OF THE WATER, that is a plain ridiculous difference in investment!

If spending money was the only measure to success, do you think Americans would hate their government so much?

 

[WorldExclusive]

-Performance jump from x80 to x90
-Power decrease from 250-300w to 150-200w
-Card size decrease
-Cooler temperatures

"Card fails"

If nVidia did this (ie GTX 780 to GTX 970), people would be shitting themselves.

I wonder more and more every day how much nVidia invests in social marketing...

Don't blame Nvidia for being able to manage their customers expectations.
When you show $200 cards in CF beating a GTX 1080 by 10% at 60% usage, people forget about VR and DX12 being in the mix.
AMD fans are thinking this card will dominate all, which is a poor job at managing customer expectations.

 

[disemboweler]

This is part of the reason why I was so anxious to move. Since the 364 series I've had nothing but issues, and GameStream ceased working to the point where I had to switch to Steam in-home streaming. A side benefit was the removal of GFE. Bottom line is that NV's driver dominance is grossly overblown and may actually be incorrect now. I'm curious to find out.



You aren't qualified to make such a guarantee.

Obviously the guarantee isn't based on anything but history, drivers, and R&D spending - I meant "guarantee" more like "I'd bet my salary". And yes, since I manage over 150 PCs, Macs, and servers as part of my career, most of which use NVIDIA or AMD GPUs - I can tell you flat out that NVIDIA's drivers are HANDS DOWN better, as is their reliability - by A LOT. Sure, they both have problems. It's actually amazing how good and stable NVIDIA's drivers are, overall, when they have MORE lines of code in a DRIVER than the ENTIRE Windows OS does!!

None of this is surprising when AMD spends approximately 1/10th of what NVIDIA does on GPU R&D.

I honestly wish AMD was a decent competitor to NVIDIA, competition is great, especially for the consumer. They are not, haven't been for many years now, and probably will never be unless they somehow MASSIVELY change up the company, it's management, and the R&D budget.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

Don't blame Nvidia for being able to manage their customers expectations.
When you show $200 cards in CF beating a GTX 1080 by 10% at 60% usage, people forget about VR and DX12 being in the mix.
AMD fans are thinking this card will dominate all, which is a poor job at managing customer expectations.

That was a very poor demonstration, and I'm with you there. I saw several that, due to 51% utilization in one situation and still beating the 1080, assumed a single 480 would match or beat a 1080. Now, we didn't have those here at [H], but I did see that online. I've said from the beginning that I expect the performance of the 480 to slot around the 970/980/390/390x, and it pretty much has.

 

[disemboweler]

If spending money was the only measure to success, do you think Americans would hate their government so much?

I agree with the general sentiment, sure, but when it's that magnitude of a difference, well, fat chance that AMD will be able to compete. Also, it doesn't help that AMD is in shambles as a company and their have the worst management possible.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

Obviously the guarantee isn't based on anything but history, drivers, and R&D spending - I meant "guarantee" more like "I'd bet my salary". And yes, since I manage over 150 PCs, Macs, and servers as part of my career, most of which use NVIDIA or AMD GPUs - I can tell you flat out that NVIDIA's drivers are HANDS DOWN better, as is their reliability - by A LOT. Sure, they both have problems. It's actually amazing how good and stable NVIDIA's drivers are, overall, when they have MORE lines of code in a DRIVER than the ENTIRE Windows OS does!!

Weird, most of our systems use Intel CPUs with an iGPU. The few that do use a discrete GPU are super old. I guess where you work, everyone games on modern hardware.

But you're certain that the GTX 1060 will offer better performance than the RX 480? Well, you based it on history, right? Let's see how that works out.

GTX 960 vs. R9 380 = 380 was slightly faster
GTX 760 vs. take your pick, R9 270x, 280, 280x, or 285, didn't matter = The GTX 760 was slowest of them all, same link above
GTX 660 vs. HD 7850 = GTX 660 was slightly faster

Based on past history? I'd expect close performance or a slight AMD win. But that's based on numbers, not brand loyalty or marketing.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

I agree with the general sentiment, sure, but when it's that magnitude of a difference, well, fat chance that AMD will be able to compete. Also, it doesn't help that AMD is in shambles as a company and their have the worst management possible.

Agreed. I expect long term that if AMD can't ramp up the R&D, it's going to hurt. You can also argue that it is hurting, with P10 being a 480 and not a 490 or better, leaving the upper echelon to Nvidia undisputed. But it doesn't justify stating that the 1060 WILL be faster than the 480. It may be. It may not be. We'll see

 

[dgz]

I have a feeling Zen would do the same in the CPU market. Performance and power efficiency will be barely on par with years old Intel Sandy Bridge.

I would be quite happy with 8C/16T CPU with Sandy Bridge levels of IPC.

I am still running that 2500k I got back in March 2011 FFS. It's not like Skylake is significantly faster. In fact it's barely faster.

 

[J Macker]

480 isn't in that tier. However, I can't fault you for this. AMD has changed their tiers and it has messed everyone up. Nvidia has done a good job of keeping it simple. x60 = x60 = x60, and so on. With AMD the tiers were:

HD 7970 = R9 290 X = Fury X
HD 7950 = R9 290 = Fury
HD 7870 = R9 280x = R9 390X
HD 7850 = R9 280 = R9 390
HD 7770 = R9 270 = R9 380 = R9 480

um... NO.


390X > 290X >> 280X (see comparison here)

290X > 280X or 380X (see comparison here)
7970 = 280X = 380X
7950 = 280 = 380

7970 != Fury X. What the hell are you smoking?

Please, I will trade you my 280X if you give me a Fury X or 390X.
There ain't no way the 390X is the same performance as a 7870. Jeez.

AMD just can't keep it simple.

True that. But nVidia does it too sometimes (less so than AMD these days)

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

I would be quite happy with 8C/16T CPU with Sandy Bridge levels of IPC.

I am still running that 2500k I got back in March 2011 FFS. It's not like Skylake is significantly faster. In fact it's barely faster.

I want more cores/threads but I'm not sure I'm willing to give up IPC for it.
It looks like my next CPU will be one of the premium Kaby Lake chips ($300+). 6c/6t minimum.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

um... NO.


390X > 290X >> 280X (see comparison here)

290X > 280X or 380X (see comparison here)
7970 = 280X = 380X
7950 = 280 = 380

7970 != Fury X. What the hell are you smoking?

Please, I will trade you my 280X if you give me a Fury X or 390X.
There ain't no way the 390X is the same performance as a 7870. Jeez.

I never said that the 7970 and Fury X had the same performance. That would be preposterous. I was saying that they targeted the same market. IE, the GTX 1080 replaces the 980, which replaced the 780, and the 680. They don't have the same performance either, hence, the replacement.

The Fury X was AMD's top performing single-GPU. Perhaps I'm wrong. Which AMD single GPU product was positioned above the HD7970 for that generation?

 

[Rizen]

I'm not really in the market for this card. I'll probably read Anandtech's review later as they generally go a bit further into depth on the technical aspects of the GPU itself but otherwise I'm not going to spend too much time on other reviews. I'm primarily interested in real world performance and there just aren't many sites that do that well.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

Wow the 390 is actually 5-10% faster than the 480, according to PCGamer's avg.

 

[dgz]

I want more cores/threads but I'm not sure I'm willing to give up IPC for it.
It looks like my next CPU will be one of the premium Kaby Lake chips ($300+). 6c/6t minimum.

Well, I said Sandy level of performance, didn't I? The IPC gains since then are insignificant at best.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

Well, I said Sandy level of performance, didn't I? The IPC gains since then are insignificant at best.

Sandy vs Skylake is pretty huge in some games, also consider we're looking at newer CPUs from Intel by the time Zen launches.

 

[dgz]

Sandy vs Skylake is pretty huge in some games, also consider we're looking at newer CPUs from Intel by the time Zen launches.

Is this comparison done at the same clock speeds for each CPU? Seems a bit fishy but they (is that GTA?) could be using some instructions, I don't know.
Can't watch the video, only judging by the leading image where it doesn't say.

 

[disemboweler]

How come 970 is so bad, i read lots of poster in this tread, say 970 is faster than 480 `?

It's actually a great card with one flaw - it really has 3.5GB of "real" memory and practically every game available optimizes for 4GB or 2GB at the worst.. so you end up "using" 2GB of memory on the card with lower graphics settings, or reducing performance due to swapping when using graphics settings for a 4GB card. However, once the market corrects the 970 price a bit downt o where it should be ($200, maybe up to $250), it will certainly be a better overall choice than the AMD RX 480 4GB. But it's too bad there is no 6GB or 8GB variant of the 970, because games are really starting to need more than 4GB GPU memory, because the current gaming consoles now have 8GB memory which can mostly be used for GPU tasks, and therefore the baseline memory for multi-platform games has increased rapidly as of late.