AMD RX 480 - First 3DMark results

lazz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2007
Messages
324
I scored P14 461 in 3DMark 11 Performance

Pretty damned impressive for a $199 card. This is about equal to or ever so slightly higher than an average 970 or 390.

The results would be comfortably VR capable too.

Going just by this synthetic benchmark, we've got a card that is 40% cheaper at less than half the wattage than the 390 with the same performance.
 

MrGreg62

Lurker
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
1,099
That's not a $199 video card though only the 4GB variant is that cheap is it not?
 

AgentxofxChaos

Agent of [H] Chaos
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
3,770
So the preliminary results look fairly promising. That's good since I was looking at something within the 970 range to replace my dying card and probably not looking to fork over the money for a 1070. The money saved might be good for some other component upgrades. I'm definitely waiting on a bunch of official reviews/comparisons but so far things are looking good.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,189
Now to see how the highest-end Polaris shows for itself (ie the $250, formerly-known-as-"X", part?). We'll also need to see a variety of benchmarks for different tasks, synthetic and otherwise, as well as the Nvidia 1070...but still, very promising. I wonder if , much like previous AMD cards, that emerging tech like DX12, Vulkan, OpenCL tasks like cryptocurrency mining etc... will all do much better on AMD's hardware this time around, or if Nvidia added enhancements to Pascal for such things. If they can turn a $250 fully-unlocked-shader Polaris into something that meets or beats a 980 Ti, they'll be going far! Hell, with GCN 4.0 and new tech allowing multi-GPU setups to share memory, it will be very curious to see how a CrossFire set of Polaris stacks up.
 

horrorshow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
7,921
It's $229 for the 8GB version?

If so, I'm in.

But one must factor in AIB mark-up etc.

If I can get a 480 8GB for less than $250 before taxes, I'll be SHOCKED.
 

Ocellaris

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
19,055
The real question: Will you even NEED 8GB?

AMD and AMD fans spent the last generation explaining that 8GB was needed for consistent performance and a variety of features. Would seem cheesy for that now to turn into "No one needs 8GB!"
 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
The real question: Will you even NEED 8GB?
We have a few games right now that can use and even in a couple cases require more than 4 GB to play properly on highest textures settings. And vram is the only real limitation not actual gpu power so why not spend 30 bucks more to have games run with best textures?
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,462
The real question: Will you even NEED 8GB?
Yes and probably more in the future.

Reason - DX12 allows more cpu threads to be used, more assets, more draw calls - basically more of everything. Monitor resolution, VR etc. is increasing. All of this needs effective fast memory to work well. I see the biggest issue with AMD Fiji line is the 4gb amount so maybe AMD's first video card that will be very limited a couple of years after launch. Usually AMD video cards have a great life span in performance and usability. For example my HTPC has a 7970 (bios moded to ghz edition without issue) it still tears up most games with high settings at 1080p. My 290x will migrate to that machine on my next major upgrade and will probably last another 2 years before really upgrading the TV to a high dynamic range, higher resolution one. The the computer and everything in it will probably be tossed

Anyways if you are going to keepa video card for a few years or more - 8gb will probably work out well but will be limited probably in that time.
 
Last edited:

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,358
I still think we will never see any difference between the 4GB and 8GB versions. The FuryX manages to keep on a 980Ti's tail and even surpassing it at 4K with 4GB. I'll be damned if something only as powerful as a 390 will benefit at all.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Usually AMD video cards have a great life span in performance and usability.

Generally the well received GPUs from both AMD and nVidia share there characteristics. I was on 3 GTX 680s until last week and while high settings and above were problematic from a lot of newer games in larger part due to only 2 GB of VRAM, at 1080 even all modern games I've bought were playable at some mid to higher range of settings. But pretty much nothing mew was running in 3x 1080P surround.

I know a lot of people don't like surround and have moved on to 4K, but I really still like it and it's was a blast to finally take the latest games, crank up everything to max and get great performance from a single GTX 1080.
 

AgentxofxChaos

Agent of [H] Chaos
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
3,770
The real question: Will you even NEED 8GB?

I never ask that question anymore. I remember having a conversation with a friend of mine long ago when we were talking video cards in which he stated "You'll never need more than *6MB* of video ram" (Yes, that long ago)...and well, we all know how things turned out...
 

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,358
I never ask that question anymore. I remember having a conversation with a friend of mine long ago when we were talking video cards in which he stated "You'll never need more than *6MB* of video ram" (Yes, that long ago)...and well, we all know how things turned out...

What I should haves asked: Will THIS CARD even BE ABLE TO USE 8GB?
 

Daniel_Chang

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
1,313
What I should haves asked: Will THIS CARD even BE ABLE TO USE 8GB?

We saw instances were the GTX 970 was VRAM limited. If this card is on par with or faster than the GTX 970, then >4GB will be useful in some cases. I think that the budget-minded 1080p crowd should focus on the $199 4GB variant. But for those who like to push their games, the 8GB model for $30 more should fit the bill nicely.
 

bAMtan2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
1,480
if you're hardcore then get the 8gb and run crazy skyrim mods or whatever. but normal people who are buying a $199 card to save money should NOT spend more on 8gb
 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
if you're hardcore then get the 8gb and run crazy skyrim mods or whatever. but normal people who are buying a $199 card to save money should NOT spend more on 8gb
So according to you anyone that wants to run the highest textures in every game is not normal?
 

The Fragile

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
284
if you're hardcore then get the 8gb and run crazy skyrim mods or whatever. but normal people who are buying a $199 card to save money should NOT spend more on 8gb
It's barely more for the 8 GB. Both are budget cards. I don't see why they shouldn't spend a little more if that's what they want.
 

Daniel_Chang

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
1,313
Well, Its a minimum of 10% more for ????% performance?

That's the kicker. If the majority of games played by owners of this card don't approach 4GB VRAM usage, it's 15% more ($200 as base) for 0% more performance. Unused RAM is wasted RAM. There is no point in spending an additional $30 if it will net you zero performance. However, the way that I play games, I would absolutely spend the extra $30 based solely on my needs.
 

The Fragile

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
284
That's the kicker. If the majority of games played by owners of this card don't approach 4GB VRAM usage, it's 15% more ($200 as base) for 0% more performance. Unused RAM is wasted RAM. There is no point in spending an additional $30 if it will net you zero performance. However, the way that I play games, I would absolutely spend the extra $30 based solely on my needs.
Although I agree, it's more future-proofing than anything ... and at that price, it's really hard to say no.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,797
Look at 290x vs 390x. Even 290x 4gb vs 8gb. Most cases pretty much the same. Vram limited it all goes out the window though, especially in multi card.

This 290X is a hold me over (7970 died after 1.3GHz rapeage) till I move to 4k, which I may consider dual 480s to tie me over till big Vega/Ti. Don't have time for many games and what I do play will very likely have support.
 

Daniel_Chang

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
1,313
Look at 290x vs 390x. Even 290x 4gb vs 8gb. Most cases pretty much the same. Vram limited it all goes out the window though, especially in multi card.

This made me curious. Based on this: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8 GB Review

@ 2160p - 8GB 390X is 10.5% faster than 4GB 290x
@ 1440p - 8.9%
@ 1080p - 7.1%

So I'll stand by my original assessment. For gamers on a budget, $199 is a steal. For those looking for a little more oomph, it's likely worth the extra 15% cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
AMD and AMD fans spent the last generation explaining that 8GB was needed for consistent performance and a variety of features. Would seem cheesy for that now to turn into "No one needs 8GB!"

Why do you attack people on here , you could make your point without and yet you have to lash out for what reason is that exactly ?
I think the R9 290x was one of the first cards with 4 GB extra and never that I can remember were any of us shouting that you needed 8 GB ....

That AMD was explaining 4 GB was enough is because of the physical limitations of HBM makes sense right if you want to sell your 4 GB product.

It is not that hard to explain why you will run out of 4GB frame buffer if you have high enough resolution and plenty options enabled. Some games have very poor buffering tho.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,797
So I'll stand by my original assessment. For gamers on a budget, $199 is a steal. For those looking for a little more oomph, it's likely worth the extra 15% cost.

Agreed! One thing I'm unsure on, is if the 390X has had additional driver tweaks. I remember when they were both new, there was practically little difference, of course we can't have a 290X and 390X behaving identically with the same GPU and all, it would look a bit stupid for AMD.

Fairest comparison would be the 290X 4Gb and 8Gb unicorn models (that would be very hard to coordinate unless someone with a similar rig to me and an 8Gb card wants to try some benchies) but I'd still agree with you. 4Gb is plenty for most scenarios.

Skyrim modders etc and mGPU though, 8GB will be well worth the extra.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
Agreed! One thing I'm unsure on, is if the 390X has had additional driver tweaks. I remember when they were both new, there was practically little difference, of course we can't have a 290X and 390X behaving identically with the same GPU and all, it would look a bit stupid for AMD.
Fairest comparison would be the 290X 4Gb and 8Gb unicorn models (that would be very hard to coordinate unless someone with a similar rig to me and an 8Gb card wants to try some benchies) but I'd still agree with you. 4Gb is plenty for most scenarios. Skyrim modders etc and mGPU though, 8GB will be well worth the extra.
For knowledgeable people know what they need when looking at ram and for AMD to saturate the VR market the 4 GB models will do :)
 

Ocellaris

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
19,055
For knowledgeable people know what they need when looking at ram and for AMD to saturate the VR market the 4 GB models will do :)

Are people getting in VR really going to skimp $30 to get a 4GB card instead of a 8GB card? Or better yet, do you think people dropping $800 on a Vive are looking at $200 GPUs?

It would all be nice if AMD made a cheap headset. If AMD wants mainstream VR, they need to solve the cost of the headset, not the GPU.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
Are people getting in VR really going to skimp $30 to get a 4GB card instead of a 8GB card? Or better yet, do you think people dropping $800 on a Vive are looking at $200 GPUs?It would all be nice if AMD made a cheap headset. If AMD wants mainstream VR, they need to solve the cost of the headset, not the GPU.

You are not really making a point here?
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,797
I'm not so up to date on VR and ram usage so no comment! That said, if a 290x is VR ready then it should be enough to get started...


But one bit of info on the 290/390 comparison I forgot, which may be of interest, some people managed to flash even later model 4gb 290x to 390x, obviously without the extra ram. The 290x 8gb flashed over to 390x without problems...

So, I really really want to see 290x 8gb vs 390x 8gb.... perhaps it is just drivers bringing differences out now. I have a feeling this might give us a good idea (between 290x 8gb and flashed 290x 8gb to remove possible driver changes), about the difference of the 480 4gb and 8gb...


edit: I'm a fookin idiot and forgot they clocked the 390x 20-50Mhz higher... I bet that's a vast majority of the gains right there. My 290X DCUII is 1050 stock so it's likely the same as a 390X then outside of VRAM saturation.
 
Last edited:

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,670
What I should haves asked: Will THIS CARD even BE ABLE TO USE 8GB?

Yes! Games are already maxing out 8GB of VRAM @1080p. Check out Mirror's Edge Catalyst.
Mirror's Edge Catalyst GPU Benchmark - 1080p, 1440p, 4K at Ultra & Hyper

Mirror's Edge Catalyst – VRAM Consumption
We haven't spent too much time fully validating system RAM and CPU consumption, but had a chance to look at VRAM utilization during our test passes. In just the few minutes tested on each configuration, 1080p / Hyper seems to be nearly maxing-out the GTX 1080 (7455MB consumed). 4K / High had us sitting at 6615MB, with 1080p / Ultra resting more easily at 5020MB.

We'll need to run endurance tests to see if these numbers increase with longer play sessions. For now, that's what we were getting from 5-minute, quick-and-dirty measurements.

First off it seems that AMD needs better drivers for this game. Second observation was that the 390x was still able to run Hyper with a 54 fps average in spite of the broken driver. If they get the driver in a better place for this title then I could see 60 fps+ out this game for the 390x. The RX 480 should be around the same speed as a 390x right?

If anything this is telling me that 8GB cards will last as long as a leaf in the wind before it crashes to the ground. I can't wait for Battlefield 1 with Hyper settings. Guess it's time to retire my R9 290 soon. Luckily I haven't purchased this game yet. ;)

me-catalyst-bench-1080-hyper.png



 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
Shadow of Mordor, Batman Arkham Knight, Doom, Rise of Tomb Raider and Mirror's Edge Catalyst are games that need more than 4 GB of vram on highest texture settings. And there are other games such as Watch Dogs and Dying Light that will shoot WAY past 4 GB too.
 

The Fragile

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 28, 2016
Messages
284
Shadow of Mordor, Batman Arkham Knight, Doom, Rise of Tomb Raider and Mirror's Edge Catalyst are games that need more than 4 GB of vram on highest texture settings. And there are other games such as Watch Dogs and Dying Light that will shoot WAY past 4 GB too.
And there you go. Get the 8 GB.
 

TheBlueChanell

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
4,660
Quite a few games I've played recently will artificially lock-out their highest end settings if they detect a GPU with <4GB of memory, DOOM actually is set for 5GB if I remember. So even if you do actually have ample overall GPU power but are VRAM limited you're unable to play at those settings and not even given a choice like GTA5/Arkham Knight etc offer.

I'd say unless you're on a super budget (which for some people is unavoidable) there would be absolutely no reason not to jump up $29 to the 8GB variant and anyone that chooses not to because they don't think they need it or will use it is probably slightly retarded.
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,400
Quite a few games I've played recently will artificially lock-out their highest end settings if they detect a GPU with <4GB of memory, DOOM actually is set for 5GB if I remember. So even if you do actually have ample overall GPU power but are VRAM limited you're unable to play at those settings and not even given a choice like GTA5/Arkham Knight etc offer.

I'd say unless you're on a super budget (which for some people is unavoidable) there would be absolutely no reason not to jump up $29 to the 8GB variant and anyone that chooses not to because they don't think they need it or will use it is probably slightly retarded.

Might help resale too. I'd think you'd at least get the $29 back. I've seen some games crash with 4GB ( GTX 980, Star Citizen for example ) even though the card wasn't maxed out performance wise. Doubling the memory for $29 seems like a good deal. Might help avoid some loading stutters too.
 

euskalzabe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
1,478
I got burned on my 770 because I bought the 2GB version instead of the 4GB. A year later, suddenly new games were using 4GB+ VRAM and my games slow down to a crawl unless I crank textures way down. So, either I play at 1080p with fuzzy textures or at 720 with very good textures. Lately I'm choosing 720p with good textures, but I'm quite annoyed by knowing that my GPU can do more but the VRAM is being a bottleneck.

I won't repeat the same mistake this time around. No point skimping on 4GB. Get 8GB VRAM and there won't be a problem in the future. Even if the card cannot push all the information - which I doubt - just being able to hold high quality textures on VRAM is an enormous performance advantage over loading them from your hard drive.
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
What I should haves asked: Will THIS CARD even BE ABLE TO USE 8GB?
Of course it'll be able to access all of it, unless AMD screwed something up like nvidia did with the 970. Probably won't happen though.

If you're trying to ask if 8GB of VRAM will be used in such a way to matter for performance then the answer is: depends on the game and its settings. If you game at 1080p I don't think you'll need more than 4GB for a while yet. If you game at 4K 8GB might not be enough in a few years.

Right now very few games really need over 4GB of VRAM. That will change in the future but other factors are just as likely, if not more so, to effect performance in the future too (ie. tessellation, async compute, etc). You might find even with a 8GB card you'll be considering upgrading in a couple of years anyways.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
545
I was comparing the results to a somewhat similar setup to mine and dual 7970s scoring 10-20% higher with a 2600k, and those can be some power hungry cards clocked as high as they are in my rig. (whole system uses between 600-700 watts)

I think I might get two of the 480 8GB variants... But not until I see what the high end card will do for price/perf.

https://i.imgur.com/SDxndfP.png
 
Top