Radeon RX 480 Competition Poll

jamesgalb said:
Oh man, is this going to be what it is shown next to in the review? I know you guys only choose a couple to compare to for the reviews, but I will list a few more and the reasons.


R9 380x - compare to last generation $200-$230 - compare to last generation on the Tonga arch
GTX 970 - compare to last generation entry-VR
R9 390 - compare to last generation entry-VR
GTX 980 - compare to last generation performance part ($400+)
R9 390x - compare to last generation performance part ($400+)
R9 Nano - compare to last generation GCN 3
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback, but that is not going to happen on this first outing. But there will be lots more RX 480 content from us.
 
Nauseous said:
do you guys have access to any vr equipment? considering these cards are supposed to be "vr ready" would like to see if that claim is true.
Click to expand...
I have HTC here and Occulus will be here in a few days. When I get my hands on some cards, I plan to surely put the 480 to its VR Ready claims....because personally, I don't see that happening. But the only way to find out is to try it out.
 
Nauseous said:
do you guys have access to any vr equipment? considering these cards are supposed to be "vr ready" would like to see if that claim is true.
Click to expand...

You don't necessarily NEED VR equipment (although real life testing is always preferable). You could just run the VR readiness app from Steam on each and compare them. it definitely falls towards he "canned benchmark" side of things though, but it might be better than no VR considerations at all.
 
Brent_Justice said:
New plan I think that makes sense

1 ap2ap graph at 1440p, 480 v 970 v 390X
1 ap2ap graph at 1080p, 480 v 380 (not X) v 960

Thoughts?

I just want everyone to keep in mind, for this inititlal launch this is a PREVIEW, the time does not exist for a flat out full on review out of the gate. We will have certain things tested, but we won't be able to get to everything we would want to initially. More will come, you can bet on that.

BTW, thank you all for the feedback, between our readers, Kyle, and myself this review will target exactly what you are interested in.
Click to expand...

I do think the 390x should be a 390 instead, for the sake of comparing it to last gens entry-level VR cards

Also the 380 being the 380x instead, for the reasons that the 380x was the $229 part last gen, and the 380x is slightly closer in specs. Would give a better view on arch improvements on Tonga and performance improvements at the specific price point... (note: if you are testing the $199 4gb 480, then the $199 380(non-x) makes more sense).

So...

1 ap2ap graph at 1440p, 480 v 970 v 390
1 ap2ap graph at 1080p, 480 v 380x v 960

And if it turns out to be a pleasant surprise at stock speeds, the next one could be the 390x and 980, or Fury and 980 ;)
 
You're looking at the right card set there, IMO (960 and 380 - right around the $200 mark; 970 and 390x - $300-50 range). I might replace the 380 with a 380x to cover upwards towards the $250 mark. Would keep the 390x as it's near parity with the 980. But these are all subtle adjustments: your initial card set is fine, IMO.
 
jamesgalb said:
So...

1 ap2ap graph at 1440p, 480 v 970 v 390
1 ap2ap graph at 1080p, 480 v 380x v 960
Click to expand...
I think this is what we have settled on. Split the resolutions instead of focussing on just one.

It seems that we may not be testing a 4GB card though. Waiting for confirmation.
 
Our 480 is an 8GB card, not a 4GB. Not sure why AMD would not send out its "Less than $200" video card. Oh wait...
 
As they are claiming it's VR ready, we need to put that to the test as well. Is it any better in this department like the 1070/1080?
 
Final final decision....

1 ap2ap graph at 1440p, 480 v 970 v 390-NonX

1 ap2ap graph at 1080p, 480 v 380X v 960

Given this is an 8GB card, splitting the resolution to focus on 1080p with less expensive cards and 1440p with the more expensive cards makes more sense, and will save us time to do other things.
 
Sith'ari said:
Personally i don't believe that the 8GB version will cost less than 250$. Noone would buy the 200$ - 4GB version if the price difference between the 2 versions is less than 50$. ( Everyone would prefer to spend few $ more and buy the version with the double memory.)
Click to expand...

Dude you will be surprised what family will get you for the holidays. What you going to say, "Wasn't I worth the extra $50?" Ha ha!
 
cageymaru said:
Dude you will be surprised what family will get you for the holidays. What you going to say, "Wasn't I worth the extra $50?" Ha ha!
Click to expand...

well, obviously i was talking about a customer that has his own free will, and knows one thing or two about GPUs. I wasn't reffering to some grandpa who will decide to buy a present!! I'm fairly certain that with only a 30$ difference between the 2 models, noone would choose the one with half the memory. Would you......?;)
 
cageymaru said:
Dude you will be surprised what family will get you for the holidays. What you going to say, "Wasn't I worth the extra $50?" Ha ha!
Click to expand...

Burned myself like with the 4870. I skimped out and bought the 512MB card instead of springing for the 1GB. It wasn't terrible, but the stutter was noticeable sometimes. Now I teach my kids If you're going to step up to a certain level, get the bells and whistles so you don't have that nag in the back of your mind about "what if".
 
jbc029 said:
Burned myself like with the 4870. I skimped out and bought the 512MB card instead of springing for the 1GB. It wasn't terrible, but the stutter was noticeable sometimes. Now I teach my kids If you're going to step up to a certain level, get the bells and whistles so you don't have that nag in the back of your mind about "what if".
Click to expand...
I sell shit, and when someone is debating the slightly lower choice, the go-to line is "You dont want to spend $XXXX and regret having spent it, spend the extra $XXX for what you really want and dont feel like you just wasted $XXXX" :)
 
cyclone3d said:
Not sure why they are even bothering with a 4GB variant in the first place.
Click to expand...

The answer is obvious:
purely for marketing reasons to attract everyone's attention with the 200$ price of the 4GB version. Who will buy the 4GB version if the 8GB costs near 230$ is another story! :LOL:
 
Brent_Justice said:
RX 480 is for surely a hot and debatable topic, no doubt it is sparking controversy across the web.

Knowing what is out there, with the price and specs announced already in regards to RX 480, In your opinion list the GPUs you think compare to RX 480 based on the information available. Comparison by Performance? Comparison by Price? What do YOU think is important for RX 480 from a gamers perspective?

I'm interested in your opinions.
Click to expand...

At first, I'll have to say both. It's going to be tricky becuase at that price point its getting crowded. You can get anything from a GTX950/R370 for a little under $200 to a GTX 970/R390 for over $250 and apparently it goes head to head with the GTX980/R390X and just shy of the Fury. That's a lot of ground to cover.

So probably it would be much better to focus on performance, like you did with the 1070 review.
 
BTW please pretty pretty please with sugar on top. Do 1080 benchmarks, (the resolution not the card :p:p) I really couldn't care less about 1440p (my next step will be 4k) and I don't want to extrapolate.
 
Final final decision....

1 ap2ap graph at 1440p, 480 v 970 v 390-NonX

1 ap2ap graph at 1080p, 480 v 380X v 960

These are the games we will be playing and showing runthrough data.

Hitman DX12

Tomb Raider DX11

Fallout 4 DX11

Doom OpenGL

The Witcher 3 DX11

Hitman has been getting regular updates for its DX12 support and seems to be doing very well, so it is our only DX12 game at this time. We are going to stay away from benchmarks for GPU reviews going forward. Back to real gameplay only....thankfully.
 
Seeing the clocks and the pricepoint, I am going to go out on a limb and say GTX 970-980 performance depending on the game. I think the 8gb model will do a little better with 1440p and be closer to the 980 (and maybe edge it out in a few games at 1440), but I dont see it anywhere near the 1070.
 
jamesgalb said:
Now, if the thing blows away the 970 and 390, could we expect another graph with performance parts? :p No sleep for you guys, if so :p
Click to expand...

It's all conjecture at this point, but this strikes me as extremely unlikely.

AMD's own claims (which are to be taken with a pinch of salt, as they are biased after all) are that two 480's in Crossfire are equivalent to GTX 1080 performance in Ashes of the Singularity.

Comparative testing I have seen seems to indicate that two 980's (not ti) are also equivalent to a GTX 1080 in Ashes of the Singularity.

This would suggest that a GTX 980 and R9 480 will perform similarly in Ashes of the Singularity.

This would put the R9 480 at about the same level as an R9 290 (no x), or just behind a GTX 970 in most titles.

Conjecture, yes, but I feel fairly good about this prediction.
 
For me I think for review purposes it would be really nice to have a wide range of cards. AMD are really targeting the "mainstream" so I would like to see from AMD a 370, 380(x) & 390 and from team green a 960, 970 & 980.

Given the rumors I would say it should be around the 390/980 level, but showing what kind of increase from the last generation could be good.

Also if you have time (possibly a follow up article) add a few older gen cards (like 780 from team green) as it will really show if this is worthy of any kind of upgrade at all.

Personally performance wise, if it is around the 390x level for $200 that's not bad at all!
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It's all conjecture at this point, but this strikes me as extremely unlikely.

AMD's own claims (which are to be taken with a pinch of salt, as they are biased after all) are that two 480's in Crossfire are equivalent to GTX 1080 performance in Ashes of the Singularity.

Comparative testing I have seen seems to indicate that two 980's (not ti) are also equivalent to a GTX 1080 in Ashes of the Singularity.

This would suggest that a GTX 980 and R9 480 will perform similarly in Ashes of the Singularity.

This would put the R9 480 at about the same level as an R9 290 (no x), or just behind a GTX 970 in most titles.

Conjecture, yes, but I feel fairly good about this prediction.
Click to expand...

This is all assuming that Polaris 10 performance similarly to Hawaii when it comes to the difference between Direct X 11 and Direct X 12...

I am thinking that the arch changes in Polaris will eliminate some of that difference.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
380 was $199/229 for 2/4GB
380x was the 380/390 tweener card and msrp was $249 (AIB was more, as always)
Click to expand...

AMD’s new R9 380X sweeps its $229 price bracket, offers potent challenge to Nvidia GTX 960 | ExtremeTech

AMD Radeon R9 380X Officially Launched at $229 US - Antigua XT GPU Tackles The 4 GB GTX 960 With 2048 Cores, Custom Models Cost $239+

When the 380 first came out it was $199 and $219 (2gb-4gb), but when the 380x came out a bit later they dropped down below 960 pricing and the 380x came in at $229

AIBs cost more across all models and brands. Not saying you did this, but when other people say "well AIBs will be higher", or "You wont find them at $229", they are be disingenuous on their price evaluation as the same can be said for other cards where the MSRP is used as its price point (i.e. 1070 @ $379)
 
Last edited:
just curious and maybe I missed this.. but does that mean you guys, [H], actually got review samples sent out from AMD? seems a start turn around if so from what has happened the last few years..

or have you gotten an early channel access?
 
They got a review sample. And Kyle even said this could be the best $200 card ever :D (which is kinda funny, as pretty much any new generation should make the "Best card at $xxx ever", if you are the first to release the next gen at that price point :p )
 
As far as testing goes Brent, can we get some games that traditionally don't run well on GCN being tested ?
 
jamesgalb said:
They got a review sample. And Kyle even said this could be the best $200 card ever :D (which is kinda funny, as pretty much any new generation should make the "Best card at $xxx ever", if you are the first to release the next gen at that price point :p )
Click to expand...

Not that I'm keeping track too well, but I think he said it might be the "best performing" $200 card ever, which it sure as heckfire better be as it's a new chip on a new node.
 
jamesgalb said:
This is all assuming that Polaris 10 performance similarly to Hawaii when it comes to the difference between Direct X 11 and Direct X 12...

I am thinking that the arch changes in Polaris will eliminate some of that difference.
Click to expand...

I admire your optimism, but unfortunately I just don't see how this could possibly be the case.

Keep in mind, AMD's current designs don't have an overall DX12 advantage. Their advantage is due to one thing they do very well compared to Nvidia, and that is asynchronous compute, as applied to asynchronous shading. This technique is relatively rare even in DX12. The DX12 advantage over DX11 is really only an advantage in AoTS, not in titles overall.

I don't see it as particularly likely then, that they would make some tweak that would improve overall general purpose rendering, yet leave Asynchronous Compute untouched.

I could be wrong though. It certainly has happened in the past.

If I were wrong - however - I woudl ahve expected AMD to use ANY OTHER example in their PR slides than AoTS, since it is such a well known outlier in AMD's favor, and almost guaranteed to draw scorn.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I admire your optimism, but unfortunately I just don't see how this could possibly be the case.

Keep in mind, AMD's current designs don't have an overall DX12 advantage. Their advantage is due to one thing they do very well compared to Nvidia, and that is asynchronous compute, as applied to asynchronous shading. This technique is relatively rare even in DX12. The DX12 advantage over DX11 is really only an advantage in AoTS, not in titles overall.

I don't see it as particularly likely then, that they would make some tweak that would improve overall general purpose rendering, yet leave Asynchronous Compute untouched.

I could be wrong though. It certainly has happened in the past.

If I were wrong - however - I woudl ahve expected AMD to use ANY OTHER example in their PR slides than AoTS, since it is such a well known outlier in AMD's favor, and almost guaranteed to draw scorn.
Click to expand...

http://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2016/01/AMD-Polaris-Architecture-7.jpg

According to this, the architecture changes are labeled with "New"... New Command processor, geometry processor, GCN cores, Multimedia cores, display engine, l2 cache, and memory controller...

I believe Asynchronous Computing is handled by the unchanged Compute Engine. Either way, I see most of these changes helping BOTH dx12 and dx11, but I think dx11 had more room to improve...

I dont think its overly 'optimistic' to think that a massive change to their architecture could help balance the dramatic difference they have between dx 11 and dx 12.
 
jamesgalb said:
http://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2016/01/AMD-Polaris-Architecture-7.jpg

According to this, the architecture changes are labeled with "New"... New Command processor, geometry processor, GCN cores, Multimedia cores, display engine, l2 cache, and memory controller...

I believe Asynchronous Computing is handled by the unchanged Compute Engine. Either way, I see most of these changes helping BOTH dx12 and dx11, but I think dx11 had more room to improve...

I dont think its overly 'optimistic' to think that a massive change to their architecture could help balance the dramatic difference they have between dx 11 and dx 12 in AoTS.
Click to expand...

*fixed it for you*.

Well, we will see soon enough.
 
Ashcutus said:
In reality given the amount of performance that we can expect from this card, is there going to be much of a difference anyway? By the time you start requiring more than 4gb vram, you're going to be hitting resolutions and settings that are out of this cards performance range?
Click to expand...
It could be a big deal at 1440p. I wish we had a 4GB to test as well, but I am sure we will have one soon.

H-street said:
just curious and maybe I missed this.. but does that mean you guys, [H], actually got review samples sent out from AMD? seems a start turn around if so from what has happened the last few years..

or have you gotten an early channel access?
Click to expand...
AMD did supply a card to us.
 
Yeah, I like apples-to-apples for a launch review.

The 480 is not clearly-defined performance-wise, so the prices of other cards could change pretty drastically in a very short time. I think comparative tests are best for now, and you can test the very limits of each card once prices have settled in a month or two.
 
Nauseous said:
nooooooooooo they wouldnt do that. ;)
Click to expand...

You never know, they might have cut one off right at the edge of the wafer just for Kyle. Hot n' loud and throttling.

I am sure Brent has a feel of the card by now. Wish he can throw us a teaser.
 
jamesgalb said:
I expect a 470 review ofcourse... What im suggesting is that you take some time out of the review and perhaps downclock the card to 380x levels and see how they run side-by-side, for pretty accurate GCN 4 architecture evaluation.

Would give some good insight going towards Vega 11 and Vega 10, which I expect will be re-worked Hawaii and Fiji chips with the same type of improvements... Would be cool to see HardOCP be the first to release some Vega predictions ;) The interest in HardOCPs evaluations of AMD is sky high right now :)
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the "leaks" about Vega so far have pointed to Vega 10 being 4096 ALU, and Vega 11 being 6144, which I don't think is a stretch frankly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top