Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'AMD Flavor' started by sparks, Jun 29, 2016.
RX 480 Slower than a GTX 970 at all resolutions.
Link, please, you dang tease!
more benchmarks than a full review.
First Radeon RX 480 gaming benchmarks hit the web | VideoCardz.com
posted before already
Actually that thread got deleted
Oh, it's just grainy photos from that article in that Polish (I think) magazine. Old news.
Anyone know if they are even a credible source? Maybe they just made up some numbers to sell their rag ...
Gibbo over at OCUK just stated (this morning) 480 is categorically slower than GTX 980 except perhaps in DX12, and it's close to 970.
not necessarily that the card is bad but once again, everyone had their hopes wayyyyyyyyyyy too high for an AMD card
AMD generally lets people down, whereas Nvidia cards lately have been as good or better than expected
Sooooo Kyle_Bennett wasnt bullshitting us after all!?!?
i have no idea, what did he say?
Yea, right? What most of us level-headed kids have thought all along.
Anyhoo, here's the first real review.
Gets beat in most benches and games by a 390, toasted by an overclocked 970. Overclocking is crap: 1.5% top out on this sample with major heat issues.
Wow, what a mixed bag... i am seriously wondering what determines numbers like for example the Fallout 4 ones, i mean, it usually is slightly behind or on par with the 390, but on FO4 it goes way past it by a great deal. The performance is perfectly nice for 200$ tbh, of course that if you already had a 390-970+ this is a sidegrade at best, but it was widely known since a bit ago.
Haven't been able to pour over those results (a lot of games there), but just guessing 390 is doing a better job in games where traditional AA was turned on.
Yep, looks like a sidegrade at most for anyone with a 970/390/390x/290x (and maybe a downgrade even if the overclocking results are true for most chips). Also, looks like Kyle may have been right on the heat issues.
I expected it to at least match the gtx 980 but it just got pummeled in most games. Even the 390 beat it in most cases. And the temperatures of that thing, especially when a tiny OC is applied is beyond abysmal. I'm curious to see what nvidia does with 1060s release schedule but based on these results I'd say they don't have much to worry about.
Looks like AMD are going to have to compete on price.
There isn't such thing as "generic" performance given the complex systems involved.
For Fallout 4 I'd assume it is because of Polaris 10's "enhanced geometry engine" lends itself very well to the Fallout 4 given the work load resulting in much more effective geometry throughput (eg. through better culling). This is also why Nvidia, who has been stronger in this area, also leads. It is also likely that color compression is comparatively rather effective with Fallout 4 meaning that the raw memory bandwidth advantage of Hawaii is less at play. You can contrast this with say AoTS which from what I've heard favors raw bandwidth over color compression.
This is really just rather fuzzy guess work though. In order to actually explore this would be much more complex.
With all the new effects and techniques gaming has become absurdly complicated >.< >.< >.<
AIB partners are reporting to me this morning that with extremely good custom air coolers the 480 GPUs are seeing from 1480MHz to 1600MHz clocks, but tell me it is a "lottery draw" on GPUs.
It's actually always been this way. That is why one singular benchmark cannot be representative and never has been.
Even in a single game you can have performance variance due to the given scene being asked to be rendered.
How much of a price premium are we looking at with those extremely good coolers?
I know but this is a derivative Chip, in theory performance should have been a little more inline, but like you pointed out they did an improvement on their geometry engine so maybe that is what we are seeing. Ohh well, for the price *it is nice*, specially with warranties and the like.
Probably close to or exceeding $300
Dunno yet, and I don't know if AIBs know yet either. Going to take a lot of culling to pull good OCing CPUs for custom SKUs.
That would quickly kill its value if that was the case.
AMD did say they are targeting the $100 to $300 market. 8GB 480 is $229, and 490 is nowhere to be found...
I assume the discussion here is against Hawaii, but consider the following -
Is Polaris 10 an iterative step over Hawaii? Or is it Pitcairn?
If we compare against Pitcairn then I believe Polaris 10 has improvements across the board.
But if we compare against Hawaii then even looking just at the higher level specs (such as ROP count, memory bandwidth, etc.) we obviously see trade offs. And these differences are where workload differences are going to expose performance differences.
Yeah interesting spread of results depending upon game, seems to do better with the more recent releases.
But interesting it is slightly slower to the 390 in games such as AoTS, Star Wars:Battlefront, where one would expect it to be a bit stronger than 390.
A big positive is some aspects to games where it was really weak historically such as Fallout 4 due to the lighting/AO and in that game it is 16% faster than 390, although this does not reflect with all older games tested where it can be slower than 390.
A solid card IMO for the price, just a shame it is not consistently good across a broad range of games though.
More applicable to 380x Tonga and some aspects possibly from Fiji (this had slight performance increase in terms of geometry/Tessellation throughput, so probably more development of this for Polaris)
Based on AMD track record, I would expect a 20% boost over the next couple of years due to driver updates. For the other cards, which are EOL, I think most performance has already been squeezed out.
My take is AMD 480 for 1080p, nvidia 1070 for 1440p and 1080 for 4k.
It says in the video that 8GB is $239, not $229. I'm expecting "extremely good custom coolers" to push $300.
Can you ask them if they are binning the chips themselves ?
If these chips were not lottery then AMD was sleeping when they decided on the RX 480 at 1266mhz as default megahertz ...
It's not like they can push the clocks much more on that cooler. 1.5% overclock leading to a 8oC jump, are you kidding me.
It matters more how fast the fan is spinning at 80*C.
For example my 1080 won't spin up the fan significantly until I get around 80*C but it's silent and has headroom.
Getting close to the safe design temp != large heat output or poor cooler design
Who are you trying to troll here ?
Custom AIB boards those have better cooling ...
So much for $199. Looks like it will be mostly 8GB at launch. I didn't even get that hyped up and I'm already bummed.
Waiting for 4GB RX 470.
Hoping that 1060 GTX will supersede 980s performance combined with decent acoustics. Need to upgrade my GPU for the HTPC setup.
Nvidia will do that and for less then $200 because they love to sell you premium products at very low price.