AMD Announces The Radeon RX 480 Starting At Just $199

{NG}Fidel said:
There will always be people trying to shit on this good news. If you're a pc gamer this should excite you. If it doesn't then somethings up.
Click to expand...


So damn true. We haven't had competition at mid range for so damn long. I think Kaduri is finally doing something right and he is bringing back the old ATI mentality back to gpu game. It used to be bang for your buck and we used to major competition. 8800gt, 4870. Man I can't believe how much I rocked the 8800gt single slot version lol. I held on to that thing like crazy. I almost missed those days and this reminds of those days.

I have to give props to Kaduri and AMD marketing team this time. They suck at presentation but man they are not anything leak and holding on to every spec close to chest until hard launch date.

Dont we miss those days? Where we used to have a date for specs/reviews/on shelf the same day? LOL and some people used to snag them few days before. Man those were fun days.

Retailers messing up and selling them few days before lol.

For once I appreciate a hard launch. They gave as little info as they could and just announced the minimum base card for 199. I don't think we would have even heard that had nvidia not paper launched a few cards, AMD probably did this to just get some attention but it was always a hard launch on the 29th of june.

Specs/Reviews/Launch the same day. Good old days!
 
{NG}Fidel said:
There will always be people trying to shit on this good news. If you're a pc gamer this should excite you. If it doesn't then somethings up.
Click to expand...
That is what I am not liking right now. Every AMD thread here has posters that have nothing good to say and keep trumpeting their negative banter. I want some good info and prefer a less hostile manner in which to read about it. So many posters have already claimed they have no intent on buying AMD, so why the hell do they post here about something they don't care about. I don't post in the Intel or Nvidia subforums for that reason, not interested. This also why I tend to go to OCN for the skinny on most leaks and news because they actual discuss the topic rather than beat a dead horse over and over again.
 
I'm sure this will be a major step forward at this price point, looking forward to the benches.

All we need now is a $200 VR set that performs like the rift / vive and we will have the possibility of a true democratic VR pc rig :)
 
razor1 said:
geometry performance will only show if a particular game is pushing it to be a bottleneck for AMD hardware, which we know what games would that and when, Gameworks titles with tessellation.
Click to expand...
Did I just detect you taking a dig at Nvidia :eek:!?

Let the hate floooow through you! ;)

NKD said:
Its not even what I say. I am speaking from experience and all those years did nothing but help people build systems and I actually loved that part of my job and it was fun but I will always hate retail in general but never under appreciate the people that work there.

The market was 200-300 max. Very rare I saw people spend over that. I would say 1-3% over 400 and around 3-5% over 300. Rest didn't want to go above 250, very hard to stretch that to 300 but it made sense because performance cards were hard to get below 350
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting this... been frustrating seeing people try to lump a <1% 980Ti steam survey result as 'performance sector' with far slower and cheaper cards and that 'performance sector' is bigger than midrange lol...

Then that's without practically having market share parity when combining dGPUs and consoles...

Amd is applying that big picture approach to dGPUs now, so what happens when heaps of games are optimised and coded for GCN/refreshed polaris consoles?

Most just see a race to the bottom. Business focused people see loss leaders and market share gains leading to a healthier ecosystem and software development cycle, with new designs then being easier to sell, to an already familiar public. If this works, it could be a thread like this for Nvidia within the next decade...
 
AMD is claiming the 1080 is actually incorrectly executing a terrain shader in AotS which is why they look different in the bench run on 480. They claim this gives it a performance advantage.

Meanwhile AMD claims the AotS cf demo is at 50% GPU utilization, rofl.

It turns out they mean the benchmark is 50% gpu bound I'm guessing, that's not 50% gpu util. Deceptive marketing! Call the FBI..
 
Actually the terrain shader, is a bug in nV's driver, and from Oxide they said it doesn't change the performance at all.

AMD AOTS, both GPU's are being utilized @151% , so mGPU scaling is fairly typical in this game. 25% of each GPU not being utilized, so yeah Raja was being a bit deceptive there.
 
Last edited:
Raja was no more deceptive then JH was during the 1080 release. I have yet to see any lies (in the last two gens) bigger than 1080FE is a premium product and that the 970 has a fully usable (without causing a perf hit) 4GB of RAM. On the AMD side the biggest lies are 4K gaming and the Fury X being an OCers dream card.
 
razor1 said:
Actually the terrain shader, is a bug in nV's driver, and from Oxide they said it doesn't change the performance at all.

AMD AOTS, both GPU's are being utilized @151% , so mGPU scaling is fairly typical in this game. 25% of each GPU not being utilized, so yeah Raja was being a bit deceptive there.
Click to expand...

isnt't just the % time the GPU is the bottleneck ? So if my GPU runs at @ 90% gpu utilization throughout the entirety of the benchmark it would register as 0% gpu bound ?

so "51% gpu utilization" actually means 99% gpu utilization but 50% of the time
 
well I think with mGPU its read differently, 200% is the base line , at least that is what it sounded like Hallock was stating.

PS the new patch of AOTS apparently drops performance on nV cards by 10% lol. Too much work to do to test this out though, so if anyone else can test it out would be great.
 
razor1 said:
Actually the terrain shader, is a bug in nV's driver, and from Oxide they said it doesn't change the performance at all.

AMD AOTS, both GPU's are being utilized @151% , so mGPU scaling is fairly typical in this game. 25% of each GPU not being utilized, so yeah Raja was being a bit deceptive there.
Click to expand...
Honestly...I wonder if he had any idea what he was talking about? He looked like a nervous wreck (like whatever was on the teleprompter was confusing him) Course if I just read what it said, i would have been confused as well lol. Its pretty much impossible for cards to only get 50% utilization in that game:)...They should know
 
less name calling please......I would hate to put an end to all the fun you're having...:)
 
razor1 said:
well I think with mGPU its read differently, 200% is the base line , at least that is what it sounded like Hallock was stating.

PS the new patch of AOTS apparently drops performance on nV cards by 10% lol. Too much work to do to test this out though, so if anyone else can test it out would be great.
Click to expand...

What are you fucking kidding me ? The last I tested I got a 10% boost xD wtf is going on
 
Sorry if it came off harsh, I use the term pissing contest often haha. But for real monitors are preference. Some people love massive screens. Some love 3d, some love 144HZ some love curved. Its really preference other than resolution.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Sorry if it came off harsh, I use the term pissing contest often haha. But for real monitors are preference. Some people love massive screens. Some love 3d, some love 144HZ some love curved. Its really preference other than resolution.
Click to expand...
Eh, no one is upset. We all have our own opinions. Ieldra. Relax its just a thread about AMD.:)
 
Last edited:
After consulting Steam Chart's, it appears the peak number of players for AotS in the past 30 days was 267.

Why is this game even discussed in regards to graphics capability?

IMO, the RX 480 is a great deal for mainstream graphics users. (ie people who spend $180-250 every 12-18 months)

I reverted back to Team Green after being disappointed in the 300 series powerplay/clockblocker nonsense.

But as long as the drivers are sound, this $200 graphics card is mighty tempting.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
AH, that's why I didn't get it. I ignored Leldra. Been happy ever since.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear I made you unhappy Zion, I realize I upset you 90% of the time we spoke, but 90% is meaningless. It could be one. It could be two...

Ahaha

Imhotep said:
Ok I put respec back to your handle. :)
Click to expand...

Haha thanks man

Waiting for proper testing/performance numbers.

Also Robert hallock posted on r/Amd about the AotS bench

Claims he tested with 368.19

Gtx 1080 isn't even supported 368.19
tmp_30756-Screenshot_20160602-1940051191759814.png


1080 doing less work was proven false by oxide apparently

So using unsupported drivers to test 1080

Weird terrain shading issue, 1080 looks a lot better

Bullshit 51% utilization claims
 
I don't see what is so exciting about this, assuming it hits R390 speeds at $200 with only 4GB of RAM. Looking at some benchmarks that appears to be roughly on par with a GTX 970 which debuted at $330. So Almost two years later we pack this performance down to $200? Not great, but expected. Although I am going off of what others are posting, R390. R390X performance levels would be more interesting.

We'll need real benchmarks, and I do wonder how the ~$300 model will compare.
 
I recommend we move on from the "Ashes" part of the discussion. Weather they were incorrect, lying, or just wrong, who gives a fuck? I dont feel like it adds to the 480 discussion from this point forward.
 
primetime said:
I recommend we move on from the "Ashes" part of the discussion. Weather they were incorrect, lying, or just wrong, who gives a fuck? I dont feel like it adds to the 480 discussion from this point forward.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the only solid benchmark in our possession adds nothing to the discussion? You realize the Ashes benchmark browser is the only source of solid performance data right?
 
primetime said:
Honestly...I wonder if he had any idea what he was talking about? He looked like a nervous wreck (like whatever was on the teleprompter was confusing him) Course if I just read what it said, i would have been confused as well lol. Its pretty much impossible for cards to only get 50% utilization in that game:)...They should know
Click to expand...

Like a deer in headlights lol.
 
Ieldra said:
I'm sorry to hear I made you unhappy Zion, I realize I upset you 90% of the time we spoke, but 90% is meaningless. It could be one. It could be two...

Ahaha



Haha thanks man

Waiting for proper testing/performance numbers.

Also Robert hallock posted on r/Amd about the AotS bench

Claims he tested with 368.19

Gtx 1080 isn't even supported 368.19View attachment 3621

1080 doing less work was proven false by oxide apparently

So using unsupported drivers to test 1080

Weird terrain shading issue, 1080 looks a lot better

Bullshit 51% utilization claims
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, how come 1080 is not supported by 368.19 if 1070 was tested on those drivers? I mean, make no mistake, the whole thing is a disaster, but that's suspect. What is also suspect is that i can't find 368.19 release notes.
 
Flogger23m said:
I don't see what is so exciting about this, assuming it hits R390 speeds at $200 with only 4GB of RAM. Looking at some benchmarks that appears to be roughly on par with a GTX 970 which debuted at $330. So Almost two years later we pack this performance down to $200? Not great, but expected. Although I am going off of what others are posting, R390. R390X performance levels would be more interesting.

We'll need real benchmarks, and I do wonder how the ~$300 model will compare.
Click to expand...
Performance will improve as drivers mature.
 
Flogger23m said:
I don't see what is so exciting about this, assuming it hits R390 speeds at $200 with only 4GB of RAM. Looking at some benchmarks that appears to be roughly on par with a GTX 970 which debuted at $330. So Almost two years later we pack this performance down to $200? Not great, but expected. Although I am going off of what others are posting, R390. R390X performance levels would be more interesting.

We'll need real benchmarks, and I do wonder how the ~$300 model will compare.
Click to expand...
By some benchmarks you mean only benchmark of 3D mark 11 where it's beating the 980? Scratching my head here please enlighten me what other benchmarks you have seen where it's just on par with 970? Of course there are no real benchmarks but then you say from what you seen its on par with 970 and then let's wait for benchmarks. Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
horrorshow said:
After consulting Steam Chart's, it appears the peak number of players for AotS in the past 30 days was 267.

Why is this game even discussed in regards to graphics capability?

IMO, the RX 480 is a great deal for mainstream graphics users. (ie people who spend $180-250 every 12-18 months)

I reverted back to Team Green after being disappointed in the 300 series powerplay/clockblocker nonsense.

But as long as the drivers are sound, this $200 graphics card is mighty tempting.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on power play/clockblocker?
 
I'm excited to see benchmarks, unfortunately the games I care about most are very biased toward nvidia in terms of performance, to the point where two cards that are dead even in most games will have a ~20% nvidia advantage. Still this seems to remind me about way back when I ran dual 4850s in crossfire. That was a great budget setup for it's time and I could see doing something like that again with a secondary rig.

I have a few friends who are using motherboards with only a 16x/4x configuration, which means SLI will not work. Will crossfire still work on a 16x/4x motherboard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top