Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
And that is not a problem at the right price. Were still talking mid range cards here , even overclocked I would not expect it to reach 980TI levels ...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
First gaming benchmarks up
- Thread starter sparks
- Start date
And that is not a problem at the right price. Were still talking mid range cards here , even overclocked I would not expect it to reach 980TI levels ...
Wow !!, the new & highly anticipated Polaris card, managed to compete performance-wise with NV's previous generation mainstream/entry level high-end GPUs (GTX970)
(*and the review was about the 240$ RX480 8GB version so we can imagine how will perform the highly advertised RX480 4GB <200$ ) I'm so "proud" for AMD for what they managed to accomplish!, that was indeed quite a feat!!
Of course, pricing dictates everything. However, they have to be careful, because increasing it too much and it loses the appeal of the card.
If some cards do end up close to $300, I'd rather recommend saving and get a $399 1070. You're paying 30% more for 75% more performance.
Now that I think about it, the $399 Gigabyte Windforce 1070 is still the better deal compared to the 480 8GB, if you can afford it. 66% higher price for 75% more performance.
Well my initial inclination was towards the 480x but seeing that it's no where to be found at 199$ and being on par with the 290 just doesn't cut it. The blower seems atrocious for an htpc.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Well good change that you can buy a RX 480 that GTX 1060 might be further away then you think.
Not at the current price point.
What you're missing is that the $240 RX 480 is good enough at 1080p, so the extra performance of the 970 is wasted.
That's nonsense if we are talking about 1080p@144Hz, which plenty of monitor owners have today.
Around GTX970 performance with a 5% headroom is not good enough at all in this day and age.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,185
Well, the AIBs will be forced to bin aggressive for "premium" versions with higher clocks.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,837
That's exactly what I'm thinking. I'm still running a 4GB GTX670 so you'd think that I'm exactly who AMD would be targeting with this card BUT I want a GPU that will allow me to skip a generation or two. Instead I'll save up for a couple more months and snag something that might last a bit longer ala 980ti/1070/(490 whatever it is if it turns out alright).
The temps are not surprising, have you seen what cooler the stock cards use?
There are a few tests with some custom cooling mods and temps are more than pleasing, but what bothers me is the power draw. Don't confuse that with the TDP, that's for temps.
How fast Radeon RX 480 can be? | VideoCardz.com
I am talking strictly about the power consumption and load on the PSU.
That's where I am personally let down so far, unless the AIB can one up with a better solution there.
A guy was saying that was the case with GCN, even a little overclock and the draw goes beyond the roof. I guess he was right and that this applies to the new card too.
Still this doesn't look that bad.
I'm not so sure about that. Anyway, I don't think they're the target market for this card. This seems to be a card aimed solidly at the mainstream purchaser who will have a standard 60 Hz monitor on their desk or will want to play on their 60 Hz TV. Now, here in the UK the 8 GB RX 480 costs about the same as the 4 GB GTX 970 and the latter does perform significantly better, so AMD will have to lower their prices. But once they're lowered, why pay more?
Are you joking? Significantly better? The 480 is beating the 970 in both perf/watt and perf.
In addition, according to HC the 480 beats the 970 by a wide margin (27%) on DX12 games (@1080p)
source: The Radeon RX480 8GB Performance Review - Page 24
This is only going to be more significant in the future, when there will be more DX12 games. If you're a lower-end buyer - the future is important as you do not buy cards very often. Not to mention the 3.5GB memory on the 970, and the fact that nvidia will focus more on Pascal (see 780ti vs 290/x).
If you want to compare ref 480 to aib 970 - I suggest you wait for aib 480, we'll see how things work out.
Buying a 970 now is a very foolish decision. It's basically EOL. Either buy a 480 or wait for a 1060.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,837
This is only going to be more significant in the future, when there will be more DX12 games. If you're a lower-end buyer - the future is important as you do not buy cards very often. Not to mention the 3.5GB memory on the 970, and the fact that nvidia will focus more on Pascal (see 780ti vs 290/x).
Looking at the benchmark numbers it seems like the 480 isn't exactly great for DX12 either as it has problems reaching 1080/60 in some of the DX12 games right now. I definitely wouldn't buy a 970 over it though; I'd wait fur the 1060 or save up for a bit longer and grab a 1070 or Vega.
Are you joking? Significantly better? The 480 is beating the 970 in both perf/watt and perf.
In addition, according to HC the 480 beats the 970 by a wide margin (27%) on DX12 games (@1080p)
source: The Radeon RX480 8GB Performance Review - Page 24
This is only going to be more significant in the future, when there will be more DX12 games. If you're a lower-end buyer - the future is important as you do not buy cards very often. Not to mention the 3.5GB memory on the 970, and the fact that nvidia will focus more on Pascal (see 780ti vs 290/x).
If you want to compare ref 480 to aib 970 - I suggest you wait for aib 480, we'll see how things work out.
Buying a 970 now is a very foolish decision. It's basically EOL. Either buy a 480 or wait for a 1060.
Beating a reference 970 by 5% is meaningless. A 970 can gain 30-40% more performance from it's reference clocks with an OC. The fact that the 480 is only equivalent perf/watt of GM204 despite the die being 100mm^2 smaller and on a newer process is just proof that AMD has designed a dud architecture that is basically just another rehash of GCN 1.1/1.2/1.3.
JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
Granted they have some power issues (maybe overvolting) But no amount of OC on that 970 is gonna save its behind down the road. In DX11 it will falter behind the AMD cards as time goes on and in DX12 it will completely disappear. So don't fool yourself with overglorified notions here.
A 970 clocked to 1500-1550mhz boost is on the same level as a stock 980 or 390x. What exactly makes you think it's going to fall off outside of the usual AMD FUD?
JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
Rational reason. Look at the 780Ti/290X. Then look at any DX12 benchmark/Game. The writing is on the wall. It is in fact common knowledge, you upgrade once a year Nvidia is a good go to, 2 or more years AMD is the go to. More than enough data to prove this.
It's already been two years and the 970 is still beating AMD's newest GPUs.
JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
First you have just proven you lack any real knowledge and second proven that you are an Nvidia fanboi, which is fine but not conducive to debate. The only new card from AMD it could beat is the 480 and only after OC. Pretty much all of AMDs 390 and up cards consistently beat the 970. And keeping in mind the longevity of AMD performance that 480 is likely to pull ahead and that 970 will require that huge OC just to keep up.
Plain BS. Pushed to its limits (ie bios mod + watercooled) a 970 can eek out maybe an extra 20% performance, and end up matching or at most a few % faster than a stock 980. I know because I had two.
Refuting your AMD marketing FUD = 'lacking any real knowledge'? LOL.
Not even close to a fanboy, I've actually owned more AMD GPUs than NVIDIA GPUs in the last ~15 years. I usually buy whats best based on value. In fact, my current system even has an AMD GPU. But that doesn't mean I won't call out AMD's BS when I see it.
This isn't a debate. All you've done is make assertions that you haven't backed up (because you can't). Cards like the 390 and 480 are objectively weaker than the 970, both in perf/watt and raw performance. An OCed 970 will always beat out an OCed 390 and 480.
This is more marketing FUD. AMD's cards do not have longevity, especially the older hawaii rebrands. They used to be flagships, now they are barely mid-range products.
AMD cards have the illusion of more longevity because objectively they should be.
If you look at raw specs you will see that last gen pretty much all AMD cards have much higher theoretical performance than Nvidia's counterpart.
Example: GTX 980 - 4.6TFLOPs vs r9 290x - 5.6TFLOPs vs r9 390x - 5.9TFLOPS. Fury X - 8.6TFLOPS vs 980Ti - 5.6TFLOPS.
Looking at raw numbers AMD should be wiping the floor at pretty much every tier. The reality looks to be that AMD drivers seem to struggle to extract maximum performance in many games, especially upon the release of the cards. The longevity illusion is simply AMD getting better and better at utilizing existing performance on their cards.
If you look at raw specs you will see that last gen pretty much all AMD cards have much higher theoretical performance than Nvidia's counterpart.
Example: GTX 980 - 4.6TFLOPs vs r9 290x - 5.6TFLOPs vs r9 390x - 5.9TFLOPS. Fury X - 8.6TFLOPS vs 980Ti - 5.6TFLOPS.
Looking at raw numbers AMD should be wiping the floor at pretty much every tier. The reality looks to be that AMD drivers seem to struggle to extract maximum performance in many games, especially upon the release of the cards. The longevity illusion is simply AMD getting better and better at utilizing existing performance on their cards.
You need to decide. Is it an illusion or not? You're claiming that it's an illusion but then giving a reason for it.
If the last part is true, then AMD cards really do have longevity, you just claim that the starting drivers aren't that good. It doesn't change the fact that they have longevity.
Indeed, this is just another reason to buy a 480. You're claiming that it'll have even better performance in the future.
Just look at who the 290/x was fighting in 2013, and who it's fighting today. Where are the 780ti and 780?
Any sources? The best AIB 970 I've seen can get around 20% more performance.
Here's a review of gaming G1:
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970 G1 Gaming review
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Review: Featuring EVGA
Showing at most ~20% increase, and not in every game.
That's not bad, BTW, but we still have to see how AIB 480 perform. That 20% performance would still put it behind the 480 in DX12 games, according to hardware canucks, which I've linked before.
Here are two other DX12 games that they don't test:
Total War WARHAMMER DX12: PC graphics performance benchmark review
The 390 is beating the 980 @ 1080p and 1440p.
The AMD Radeon RX 480 Preview: Polaris Makes Its Mainstream Mark
The rx 480 is beating the 970 by almost 30% at 1440p in Hitman.
I don't really see the debate here. The 480 is a better buy than a 970, and as dx12 will become even more common - we will see the 480 dominate the 970.
As trandoanhung1991 said the rx 480 will only get better in the future thanks to driver updates. In addition, 970 will also receive less driver optimizations, as the focus is now on Pascal (just look at nvidia 7 series vs the amd 2 series).
Regarding the 1060 - that's a different story. We just don't know yet, although it will provide much better perf/watt without a doubt. We'll have to wait and see how the performance pans out.
However, as my first post was pointing out, between the 970 and rx 480 - rx 480 without a doubt, especially for newer games.
Again, that's due to the fact that the RX 480 at stock is almost 6TFLOPs, while the 970 is only around 4TFLOPs. The better comparison would be to the 980, of which the 480 trails in pretty much every scenario, despite the 980 having only 5TFLOPs theoretical perf.
If AMD keeps doing this, they're screwing themselves. Their cards are very underutilized, and that's not a good thing. To consumers, it doesn't matter, since perf/price dictates feedback. But this under-utilization forces AMD to release cards at lower price points. It also forces them to have bigger dies relative to Nvidia just to be at performance parity.
The [H] article indicated otherwise.
To be clearer, at 1080p the 480 beats the 970 at both perf/watt and perf (as shown by my images, they are all about 1080p).
[h] only compares the 480 and 970 at 1440p, and I was talking about 1080p, which IMO is more important for a ~200$ card.
However, even at 1440p (according to [h]), the 970 beats the 480 in 2 games (marginally), loses in two games (one of them marginally), and in the dx12 test the 970 loses by 21%.
I wish [h] would test more dx12 games. Its amazing that there's a game where the 970 loses by 21% and [h] says that both cards perform equally. DX12 will only become more important in the future.
As already shown in previous posts, in most dx12 games the gap can be huge (15%-30%), for example Total war, hitman, ashes, quantum break.
It is also showing promise with Vulkan:
AMD Radeon RX 480 On Linux Review - Phoronix
Also, even according to [h]:
So they also think that it has better perf/watt.
Seriously, it is a much more future proof card.
Only someone with a large bias would say that the 970 is more future proof or a better card than the 480 at 1080p.
The 480 has better perf/watt, better perf, much better perf at dx12 and probably assuredly driver optimizations in the future.
Once the 1060 comes out, I assume things will look differently, but currently at that price point the 480 is the best decision.
I have nothing more to add, and will not comment on this further.
But right now the 970 won't burn your motherboard, the RX480 might. Until a fix is implemented, judgement should not be made.
It is plausible that AMD will lower performance in order to stay in spec. Also, the 970 has around 10% more overclocking headroom, while the RX480 depending on the fix might not have any headroom to overclock at all, especially if you're on a budget motherboard.
Until we know for sure what the fix will be and how the aftermath will look, you should not choose one over the other just yet.
JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
That doesn't make a lot of sense. Forget the power issue for now as it will be fixed. If both cards are equal (for now) and cost roughly the same amount, why get the older card? Especially seeing the progress in DX12 and AMD. Sorry but the 480 is the winner hands down.
Now bring back the power issue, it is best to wait and see how it pans out or even so much as to wait for AIB cards. But by then it will be more obvious to get the 480 over the 970.
Yes, that's why I said right now.
Besides, in a few days we will get to see the showdown between the 1060 and 480. The 970 shouldn't even really be in contention at this point.
If the rumours of the GTX 1060 having only 6 GB VRAM are correct, that could be a big disadvantage against the 8GB RX 480.
At that performance tier I doubt it. The 1060 looks to be about 980-equivalent in performance, so I think having 6GB for that kind of performance is overkill IMO.
It could be, but it is unlikely as the difference between a 4Gb 290x and an 8Gb 290x is pretty much nothing. I don't think this tier of cards have the power to utilise the extra memory. Even 6Gb at this time will more than likely be overkill. Still never know what requirements VR has.
DX12 is shit atm still.
All cards does worse than in DX11 in 99.99% of the tests of games that "supports" both DX12 and DX11.
Besides, Vulkan.
DX12 is only available in Win10 and I have no plans ever installing that shit.
I'd rather go to Linux, but either way I wouldn't have to as Vulkan is supported on almost anything else other than MacOS and iOS.
But either way, the situation is that atm DX11 is the standard and neither DX12, nor Vulkan are here yet.
As for the 970 vs 480 debate, atm we've only seen the reference card ad that's compared vs custom and SSC versions of the 970. It's like if you compared the FE to some of the custom SC versions of the Titan. Or the 980 Ti for that matter. Benches wouldn't have looked so "tasty".
So I've seen very varying results, so you can judge either way.
Maybe some reviewers have pumped the 480 benches, maybe others have done the opposite.
For me it only matters what results will my card (whatever brand) is going to get.
Did you just used TFLOPs to compare different cards?
First off TFLOP measurements seem to differ from model to model, let alone from nVidia to AMD.
But either way, even if it's the way you say with drivers, still what matters in the end is whether you get a better performance when they mature their drivers. It can be annoying that sometimes you have to wait a week or more to get better drivers for a new game, but honestly it's not like they take 5 years or anything to fix it. nVidia has better support, but they also has bigger budget, mostly bcs they inflate their price/perf. so it's a matter of what you prefer. Better price/perf or better driver support and stuff like that.
he longevity is also dependent on what you'\ll do with that card.
If your main use will be HTPC f.e., you can have a card last you 10 years if you're only gonna use it for watching movies and stuff.
For games it also depends on what settings you play.
Some ppl wants the latest and greatest. Highest fps and highest resolution. Although as is the case atm you can't really have it all. Most 4k monitors support 60Hz at best, anything higher is really hard to find/obtain and honestly you'll have other short comings in the overall performance.
There are some ppl who like to play it balanced, 1080/1440 @ 60 avr.
While others as Steam reports show are playing 1080 and below.
So for the most ppl it is get what you can afford now, upgrade later.
That's pretty much the rule for almost any gamer, even if you have a high end card.
So it depends on the type of person you are when it comes to upgrading, do you sell your card or do you just store it away or bin it in the trash. And whether the card is worth bothering selling in the first place.
So it really depends on your preference.
The end situation is getting the best deal in your opinion. Any GPU won't last you a life time, so it comes down to how good a deal you can get.
Did you just used TFLOPs to compare different cards?
First off TFLOP measurements seem to differ from model to model, let alone from nVidia to AMD.
But either way, even if it's the way you say with drivers, still what matters in the end is whether you get a better performance when they mature their drivers. It can be annoying that sometimes you have to wait a week or more to get better drivers for a new game, but honestly it's not like they take 5 years or anything to fix it. nVidia has better support, but they also has bigger budget, mostly bcs they inflate their price/perf. so it's a matter of what you prefer. Better price/perf or better driver support and stuff like that.
he longevity is also dependent on what you'\ll do with that card.
If your main use will be HTPC f.e., you can have a card last you 10 years if you're only gonna use it for watching movies and stuff.
For games it also depends on what settings you play.
Some ppl wants the latest and greatest. Highest fps and highest resolution. Although as is the case atm you can't really have it all. Most 4k monitors support 60Hz at best, anything higher is really hard to find/obtain and honestly you'll have other short comings in the overall performance.
There are some ppl who like to play it balanced, 1080/1440 @ 60 avr.
While others as Steam reports show are playing 1080 and below.
So for the most ppl it is get what you can afford now, upgrade later.
That's pretty much the rule for almost any gamer, even if you have a high end card.
So it depends on the type of person you are when it comes to upgrading, do you sell your card or do you just store it away or bin it in the trash. And whether the card is worth bothering selling in the first place.
So it really depends on your preference.
The end situation is getting the best deal in your opinion. Any GPU won't last you a life time, so it comes down to how good a deal you can get.
Yes, I did use TFLOPs to compare maximum theoretical performance. And no, TFLOPs calculation is the same across cards. ALUs * 2 * Clock. That's the maximum throughput the card is capable of.
Over the last few gens, Nvidia has typically been better at realizing theoretical performance. It's only up until recently where games start to use more compute that AMD cards start showing what they're truly capable of.
Whether you go Nvidia or AMD performance is pretty much comparable per dollar, however for future performance it depends. Theoretically AMD cards still have more "headroom" whereas Nvidia cards look to be more fully utilized, so driver optimizations won't help as much.
The rest of your points are pretty irrelevant. Longevity in this context means the ability to play games at a certain level. If you have to keep dropping that level then that longevity is artificial. For example: GTX 970. When it was released, it was a 1440p/1080p card. If you bought it for 1080p, you can still max out games and get 60FPS today. Therefore it has longevity for 1080p/60. However, if you bought it for 1440p, you would not have gotten the same longevity and would have to compromise either settings or accept <60FPS.
Equating async compute with DX12 is like saying DX11 was only about tessellation. Fact is we have zero games that utilize a significant amount of DX12 features. Sadly, even the upcoming 3dmark DX12 test seems to be just about async.
On the whole longevity thing it's probably a combination of AMD's cards having higher potential and that AMD spends much more time extracting performance because the cards stay in the market much longer. Tahiti and Hawaii sold for much longer than GK104 and GK110 under the guise of 7970/280x and 290x/390x. Is the 390x even EOL yet?
On the whole longevity thing it's probably a combination of AMD's cards having higher potential and that AMD spends much more time extracting performance because the cards stay in the market much longer. Tahiti and Hawaii sold for much longer than GK104 and GK110 under the guise of 7970/280x and 290x/390x. Is the 390x even EOL yet?
Exactly.
That's why I would warn against blindly buying AMD hardware just because of possible longevity. You really have to look at the raw specs, and then look at where the card lands. You'll also have to take in account whether you're willing to wait for the performance to come.