AMD Radeon RX 480 Video Card Review @ [H]

trandoanhung1991 said:
3% improvement, lol. So they expect the "compatibility" option to be a little bit more than 3% performance drop, since the improvement "substantially" offset the impact.

Seriously, they're just digging deeper holes for themselves. They must know that every site will be testing their claims now.
Click to expand...
Wait for the fix. Give them a fair chance.
 
Olle P said:
GTX970 has less than 50% of the market, so the majority has been unwilling to spend $350!
Click to expand...
They have less than 50% of the installed market according to steam, but in order to reach their current installation rate of 7.5% of DX12 GPU's they had to do substantially more than 7.5% of discrete desktop DX12 GPU sales in the period in which its been on sale. Steam's DX12 breakdown includes a bunch of generations and a bunch of mobile adapters. I wouldn't be surprised if 970 sales represented something closer to 30% or more during that period. What is surprising to me is that the 970 has a bigger install base than the 960 according to steam. I also find it interesting (and have mentioned it elsewhere) that the 960 has a much larger share than R9 290 and HD 7900, bigger than both combined, and those entries presumably contain the R9 300 series as well due to the way AMD's gpus are reported. Just goes to show that AMD's revolutionary giant slaying people's choice GPU's for the masses don't sell well at all in the face of NV competition that supposedly offers less bang for the buck. Theres also clearly a lot more people willing to spend money on GPU's than many seem to think.


Olle P said:
When I buy a new card I expect at least double performance compared to my old one, yes. And I get it!
With a few exceptions each time I've bought a new card it's been three sections up in Tom's Hardware's Hierarchy table. (Once the jumps were first eight sections from Radeon 9800LE to GeForce 7800GT, and then ten sections to Radeon HD5770.)
Click to expand...
Hey, if you wait long enough, you can even get TRIPLE performance! Expecting performance to double in 1 generation at the same stack position is pretty damn optimistic though.
 
Activate: AMD said:
Hey, if you wait long enough, you can even get TRIPLE performance! Expecting performance to double in 1 generation at the same stack position is pretty damn optimistic though.
Click to expand...

No one said 1 generation. It's been 3 generations to get double performance. 7970->290X->390X->Fury X?. The 7970 is 3.5 years old.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
No one said 1 generation. It's been 3 generations to get double performance. 7970->290X->390X->Fury X?. The 7970 is 3.5 years old.
Click to expand...

Your original post about doubling performance isn't particularly clear. And anyway I don't believe your premise to be correct. I went from CF 290X->1080 and am getting ~2x+ performance increases in the real world, depending on the game. Those 290X's were $500 cards at the time.
 
Activate: AMD said:
Your original post about doubling performance isn't particularly clear. And anyway I don't believe your premise to be correct. I went from CF 290X->1080 and am getting ~2x+ performance increases in the real world, depending on the game. Those 290X's were $500 cards at the time.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I normally have the same premise. I normally upgrade when I can get double my current performance within my existing budget. This is usually every 3 generations.
 
Activate: AMD said:
Your original post about doubling performance isn't particularly clear. And anyway I don't believe your premise to be correct. I went from CF 290X->1080 and am getting ~2x+ performance increases in the real world, depending on the game. Those 290X's were $500 cards at the time.
Click to expand...

The 7970's were $500 and fury x is barely 2x's performance (depending on game, resolution, and texture use) and RX480 certainly isn't double the performance.

1080 is a different matter. But it's been 2-3 generations since the 780ti.

If you want someone to upgrade on an uber expensive card, you better give them incentive to do so. 2x's performance will get you a nice 1440p rig. But it's not 4K yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Daniel_Chang said:
To be fair, I normally have the same premise. I normally upgrade when I can get double my current performance within my existing budget. This is usually every 3 generations.
Click to expand...
Understood. I guess the thought I had that I of failed to actually say is that going from 290X's to 1080 delivered that doubling in 2 generations, but I had to switch manufacturers to get it.
 
Activate: AMD said:
Hey, if you wait long enough, you can even get TRIPLE performance!
Click to expand...
A triple increase isn't that much...
Going from the integrated (ATI) Rage XL to GeForce 256 meant a huge leap in performance.
Later on going from GF 7800GT to Radeon HD 5770 was more like a factor nine in performance!
 
Olle P said:
A triple increase isn't that much...
Going from the integrated (ATI) Rage XL to GeForce 256 meant a huge leap in performance.
Later on going from GF 7800GT to Radeon HD 5770 was more like a factor nine in performance!
Click to expand...

Which we'll never see again and basing your future expectations on the "good ol days" is asking to be continually disappointed. 7800GT was 110nm and 5770 was 40nm. How many process upgrades is that? Like... 6 or something including all of the stops nvidia made along the way. (110, 90, 80, 65, 55, 40).... I'd sure HOPE you were getting 9x performance including architecture and memory changes! Comparing Rage XL to GeForce 256 is a similarly irrelevant leap compared to the state of today's market.
 
All in all no matter how this turns out, we are all left again with a feeling that AMD/ATI have not executed as they so desperately needed to. They at least needed to equal Nvidia's execution and unfortunately we are left a bit disappointedLets all hope Vega will be the saving grace, but arnt we getting a bit tired of hoping the next launch will be that ? Im not saying all is lost...just saying that the last several launches have not been that special. AMD/ATI need a homerun and Im still impatiently waiting for it....
 
I need to say this....I was really hoping Kyle was wrong in his editorial. We desperately needed RTG to execute big to bring back the hey days of 50/50 competition but alas we all still need to wait. Although I think the 480 deserves its silver award, especially based on price, I think its not what RTG needs, to get back in the game.
 
Spyhawk said:
All in all no matter how this turns out, we are all left again with a feeling that AMD/ATI have not executed as they so desperately needed to. They at least needed to equal Nvidia's execution and unfortunately we are left a bit disappointedLets all hope Vega will be the saving grace, but arnt we getting a bit tired of hoping the next launch will be that ? Im not saying all is lost...just saying that the last several launches have not been that special. AMD/ATI need a homerun and Im still impatiently waiting for it....
Click to expand...

I am going to go with one of those shitty sayings that you see on the Internet.

Expectations - reality = happiness.

Maybe if we didn't have unrealistic expectations and we'd be happy with 10% less performance for 20% less cost. :cool: In reality you wouldn't notice 10% perf difference anyways.
 
Fix is available now for the power issue, I'd consider it acceptable. The default solution basically makes the card a 8-pin PCI-E board with a 6-pin connector so if you have a 6+2 pin connector the draw is in spec (the two additonal pins are sense and ground). The reducing power option is there too for people with low-end PSUs, that one I'm not as keen on, but it's optional.

AMD Radeon Software Crimson Edition 16.7.1

Now you can go over there to discuss it.
 
Dayaks said:
I am going to go with one of those shitty sayings that you see on the Internet.

Expectations - reality = happiness.

Maybe if we didn't have unrealistic expectations and we'd be happy with 10% less performance for 20% less cost. :cool: In reality you wouldn't notice 10% perf difference anyways.
Click to expand...
Dayaks said:
I am going to go with one of those shitty sayings that you see on the Internet.

Expectations - reality = happiness.

Maybe if we didn't have unrealistic expectations and we'd be happy with 10% less performance for 20% less cost. :cool: In reality you wouldn't notice 10% perf difference anyways.
Click to expand...


Sure but Im not in that consumer bracket. Also Im always hoping for a company to humble Nvidia and that goes back as far as the year 2000. Sixteen years later, Nvidia is still king of the hill. Back when it was ATI vs Nvidia we had a back and forth sorta of competition. Now its all Nvidia and that worries me. I dont want another intell dominated hardware spectrum for obvious reasons.

If only they had as much cash to invest in R&D. That alone has me extremely worried for the future of AMD's discrete video card ambitions. Then there is the poor attractiveness of the company towards new talent. If your top of your class and your looking for a great job and you have a degree in a field that pushes you towards AMD/Nvidia type corps, who would you prefer to work for today between the two ?
 
Last edited:
Spyhawk said:
Back when it was ATI vs Nvidia we had a back and forth sorta of competition. Now its all Nvidia and that worries me. I dont want another intell dominated hardware spectrum for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

ATI had been defeated by Nvidia back then, that's why they sold. They were done. This is just the 2nd time that ATI has been crushed.

The problem as I see it is that AMD kept the same clowns in charge at "ATI" when they brought them in. I saw moves in the right direction, drivers did improve, but overall execution did not. AMD needed to focus on core competencies, which is servers and the consumer market as an afterthought. RTG needs a buyer with deep pockets, that will clean house with an iron fist on whoever the old guard is from ATI that's clearly still there today. It would make sense if AMD and Intel came to an agreement that Intel buys RTG, then licenses their old IP back to AMD to continue their product lineup. With Intel advancing the tech. Makes a lot more sense to me and we'd have a healthier market once RTG as we know it is dead. So a competent competitor can step in their place. That said, Intel may not even be too interested at this point with Xeon Phi taking on the Tesla market.
It's the curse of ATI.
 
The only reason I see Intel interested in RTG is to compete against Nvidia in the HPC area. For desktop graphics/professional graphic there would be chump change for profits and not worth their efforts. Plus if they really competed against Nvidia and collapsed them, they would probably be broken up anyways as a monopoly. Intel has just not innovated beyond x86 and state of the art fabs.
 
Here is some detailed synthetic testing of the RX480, wasn't there meant to be a big improvement in geometry performance ?

qCbemya.png

X0yH3eL.png
 
Been a few years since I last posted here, still remember last time I requested for an apple to apple comparison. Love the new format as it is now easier to directly compare the performance at the same setting.
 
alg7_munif said:
Been a few years since I last posted here, still remember last time I requested for an apple to apple comparison. Love the new format as it is now easier to directly compare the performance at the same setting.
Click to expand...
We have had app2app comparisons for years, just changed up the format a bit here lately. :)
 
xorbe said:
Using that chart, assuming the new TiX is 1.6x faster as advertised, and 1.2x in price, it comes in at (30*1.6/1.2) ... 40%, only beating its old self, heh.
Click to expand...

Heh. You're talking about the cost efficiency of a Pitan as if you're making some kind of astute observation. Heh.
 
MavericK said:
You have to be a little careful with that chart. It shows it being the top or near the top of the price/perf chart at 4K, but if you actually look at performance, it's unplayable in most if not all circumstances.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be careful, you need to need to understand that concept of performance per dollar, if you can't, you probably shouldn't be allowed outside your house :p
 
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but performance per dollar only really matters if the gameplay experience is similar. Just showing FPS versus cost on average doesn't really tell you anything meaningful. If a card performs at 20 FPS in every game, it doesn't matter if it's 50 bucks...I don't want it.
 
MavericK said:
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but performance per dollar only really matters if the gameplay experience is similar. Just showing FPS versus cost on average doesn't really tell you anything meaningful. If a card performs at 20 FPS in every game, it doesn't matter if it's 50 bucks...I don't want it.
Click to expand...

What I mean is, if you managed to navigate to the performance per dollar page of the TPU review, see the RX480 on top of the perf/$ chart at 4K, and think it's performing better because its at the top, something ain't right - with you.
 
MavericK said:
You have to be a little careful with that chart. It shows it being the top or near the top of the price/perf chart at 4K, but if you actually look at performance, it's unplayable in most if not all circumstances.
Click to expand...

TPU only uses "max ultra" settings, unlike [H] reviews. So, don't assume TPU data is the final word on 4K and non-flagship GPUs
 
And the picture changes when looking at the well priced custom AIB to custom AIB rather than say the expensive models, shame MSI is charging such a premium for its 'gaming' models on Pascal, fingers crossed they do not do that for 480.
Although we only have the price so far for the Nitro 480 for Polaris for now.
Cheers
 
EDIT: Moderator accidentally deleted wrong post. THIS post contained incorrect information. The deleted posted contained the correction, retraction, and apology for my error.
 
Last edited:
I am confused, all I got earlier in the day was a notification of a post deletion of mine in this thread, with no indication of WHICH one was deleted, nor what content caused this.

Your post in the thread AMD Radeon RX 480 Video Card Review @ [H] was deleted. Reason: Bad information starts rumors.
Click to expand...

I thought I posted multiple timsd n this thread, and I thought I was pretty accurate. Can anybody give me more insight about why a thread I posted a month ago was suddenly deleted?
 
defaultluser said:
I am confused, all I got earlier in the day was a notification of a post deletion of mine in this thread, with no indication of WHICH one was deleted, nor what content caused this.



I thought I posted multiple timsd n this thread, and I thought I was pretty accurate. Can anybody give me more insight about why a thread I posted a month ago was suddenly deleted?
Click to expand...

A few of us were under the mistaken belief that a review was altered. It wasn't. A moderator removed all related posts. Because it was one action, like selecting and deleting multiple emails, we all got the same notification.

I apologize for my role in it.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
A few of us were under the mistaken belief that a review was altered. It wasn't. A moderator removed all related posts. Because it was one action, like selecting and deleting multiple emails, we all got the same notification.

I apologize for my role in it.
Click to expand...

That's fine, I just wish we'd gotten a more specific notice than "bad information start rumors." A message is worthless without context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top