rx 480 Asus strix review @ Techpowerup and bad rx 480 overclocking and power usage

Last edited:
It all about your interest and priority's really. I can buy a rx480 and feel comfortably it will outperform the 980 and or 1060 in vulkan or DX12 buy up to 20% in some cases. (and thats where my interest is) Games on my list to play are Hitman, Doom, Dues ex, BF1 and such. I rarely buy the games at full price, so AMD has time to polish the drivers in each case anyway. Honestly my current card will hold me over for a little while till the prices and retail inventory stabilize better. Sooner or latter the XFX RX 480 DD will be selling for no more than $250. (maybe even less)
 
MavericK said:
I don't know about you guys, but I don't buy a card because of what might happen with drivers or DX12 performance.
Click to expand...
If I did, I would be fine with buying AMD video cards. But I jumped off that bandwagon 2 generations ago, ponied up the money for the better performing card and brand, and have not looked back.

When AMD introduces a high end product again with excellent performance, I will be interested. [Cue the "Oh just WAIT until the such and such uses such and such from AMD" crowd]
 
MavericK said:
I don't know about you guys, but I don't buy a card because of what might happen with drivers or DX12 performance.
Click to expand...
Many do actually try to maximize their investment, so looking at the trends of "existing" DX12 titles makes sense to them, especially when its not some far off trend but a current direction most new titles are heading.
 
gordon152 said:
Many do actually try to maximize their investment, so looking at the trends of "existing" DX12 titles makes sense to them, especially when its not some far off trend but a current direction most new titles are heading.
Click to expand...
If the 1060 has a 10%+ oc advantage then it wipes away the 480's lead in everything except Vulkan Doom.
 
gordon152 said:
Many do actually try to maximize their investment, so looking at the trends of "existing" DX12 titles makes sense to them, especially when its not some far off trend but a current direction most new titles are heading.
Click to expand...

But you're not really maximizing your investment, you're gambling on whether or not X will happen. DX12 will likely start becoming more popular but by the time that really matters, I'll probably be ready to buy another card anyway.

I would rather get the performance I want in the games I am currently playing (and looking toward the NEAR future), but that's just me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chenw
like this
TaintedSquirrel said:
If the 1060 has a 10%+ oc advantage then it wipes away the 480's lead in everything except Vulkan Doom.
Click to expand...
And in Vulkan Doom, 480 apparently only has lead on fast CPUs, so if you're the budget buyer (like myself, sitting with LGA771 CPU in 2016), then it's up in the air, whether 480 will have a lead in Vulkan Doom to begin with.
 
lolfail9001 said:
And in Vulkan Doom, 480 apparently only has lead on fast CPUs, so if you're the budget buyer (like myself, sitting with LGA771 CPU in 2016), then it's up in the air, whether 480 will have a lead in Vulkan Doom to begin with.
Click to expand...
Define "fast CPU" because the benchmark I saw used first-gen i5's which is a lot slower than what most people use today.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Define "fast CPU" because the benchmark I saw used first-gen i5's which is a lot slower than what most people use today.
Click to expand...
Do you have statistics on that? Because i am fairly positive majority actually use some locked older i5s or i3s (even if not first-gen i5s, indeed), that are definitely way slower than 6700k, maybe just slower enough to put 480 and 1060 on par in Doom Vk.
 
lolfail9001 said:
Do you have statistics on that? Because i am fairly positive majority actually use some locked older i5s or i3s (even if not first-gen i5s, indeed), that are definitely way slower than 6700k, maybe just slower enough to put 480 and 1060 on par in Doom Vk.
Click to expand...
What statistics? They are 7 year old chips.
If they want to test mid-range cpus they should use something like an i3 Haswell/DC/Skylake and a FX-6000 series.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
What statistics? They are 7 year old chips.
If they want to test mid-range cpus they should use something like an i3 Haswell/DC/Skylake and a FX-6000 series.
Click to expand...
I mean, statistics on what cpus are popular nowadays in low-cost PCs. I mean, i have a split on half of my fellows using Haswell/Ivy Bridge non-OCd i7s and another half sitting on even older hardware than the tested by guy (a freaking Phenom I, for one). And i dare say, both of those groups could look into 1060 vs 480 purchase.

You're correct that for mid-range test stuff you describe is better. But let's be honest, the source review was not for mid-range.
 
lolfail9001 said:
I mean, statistics on what cpus are popular nowadays in low-cost PCs. I mean, i have a split on half of my fellows using Haswell/Ivy Bridge non-OCd i7s and another half sitting on even older hardware than the tested by guy (a freaking Phenom I, for one). And i dare say, both of those groups could look into 1060 vs 480 purchase.

You're correct that for mid-range test stuff you describe is better. But let's be honest, the source review was not for mid-range.
Click to expand...

For the half that are using hardware built when the iPhone 3G was the hot new thing, if they are trying to pair that hardware with a high refresh monitor, then they have bigger problems that AMD or NV. If they're still using 60Hz standard monitors, either card works just fine.

Neither CPU in the benchmark you're talking about has even been manufactured in the last 4 years or so. And they were mid range back then.
 
jbc029 said:
For the half that are using hardware built when the iPhone 3G was the hot new thing, if they are trying to pair that hardware with a high refresh monitor, then they have bigger problems that AMD or NV. If they're still using 60Hz standard monitors, either card works just fine.

Neither CPU in the benchmark you're talking about has even been manufactured in the last 4 years or so. And they were mid range back then.
Click to expand...
1. Once again, input lag and minimums above 60hz. CPU-dependency matters.

2. It's correct, but what matters is the implications it will have for modern budget/mid-range CPU performance.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
If the 1060 has a 10%+ oc advantage then it wipes away the 480's lead in everything except Vulkan Doom.
Click to expand...
Also name one game using dx12 (aside form tomb raider) that the 1060 beats the 480 by anything much less 10%. The 1060 almost always will need that 10% overclock just to match amd the 480. Just saying its more than just Doom vulkan.
 
primetime said:
Also name one game using dx12 (aside form tomb raider) that the 1060 beats the 480 by anything much less 10%. The 1060 almost always will need that 10% overclock just to match amd the 480. Just saying its more than just Doom vulkan.
Click to expand...
Take this image and slide the middle line over to -10.
The 1060 wins in everything aside from Quantum Break DX12, Hitman DX12, and Blops where it loses by <5% in all 3 games, and Vulkan Doom where it loses by about 10%. It wins in everything else, including Total War DX12 and Ashes DX12, and up to 40% in DX11.

This would mean OC vs OC, the 1060 wins in two DX12 games and loses in two DX12 games (the wins have a larger margin than losses), and loses 1 Vulkan game -- probably wins Talos Principle but we'll let that slide. It wins every DX11 game on the market except Blops3.

Would you still get the 480? Without the overclock, it's competitive. With the overclock, it's borderline obsolete. The 480 still has price and (potentially) VRAM on its side, however.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if ditching proper async support means freeing up OC headroom then Nvidia has their priorities straight. +10% in DX12 w/ async, vs +10% in everything w/ OC. When AMD someday figures out how to do both at the same time, they'll have a winner.

zT3XB7H.jpg
 
Last edited:
TaintedSquirrel said:
Take this image and slide the middle line over to -10.
The 1060 wins in everything aside from Quantum Break DX12, Hitman DX12, and Blops where it loses by <5% in all 3 games, and Vulkan Doom where it loses by about 10%. It wins in everything else, including Total War DX12 and Ashes DX12, and up to 40% in DX11.

This would mean OC vs OC, the 1060 wins in two DX12 games and loses in two DX12 games (the wins have a larger margin than losses), and loses 1 Vulkan game -- probably wins Talos Principle but we'll let that slide. It wins every DX11 game on the market except Blops3.

Would you still get the 480? Without the overclock, it's competitive. With the overclock, it's borderline obsolete. The 480 still has price and (potentially) VRAM on its side, however.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if ditching proper async support means freeing up OC headroom then Nvidia has their priorities straight. +10% in DX12 w/ async, vs +10% in everything w/ OC. When AMD someday figures out how to do both at the same time, they'll have a winner.

zT3XB7H.jpg
Click to expand...
lol at that graph. Made by nvidia employs? So im to believe the 1060 beats the 480 by 33%? Parden me if i call BULLSHIT LOL Its must be at 4k res where the difference is 5fps? Im pretty sure i see quite a few dx12 titles missing.....Granted some are not finished retail yet. Forza Motorsport 6 ,Gears of War off the top of my head.

edit: after fact checking idk maybe it is close to that with bf4. TPU seems to agree...Funny thing is i could swear my current card matches that fps with bf4....I vsr it to 1440p but a go light on AA levels is probably the difference i guess.
 
Last edited:
It's from /r/nvidia and /r/amd

So, what is this? I'm going to describe how I went about gathering data, then I'll show the charts, and then I'll do my best to summarize them. For those of you who are impatient and trust my methods, feel free to skip ahead. The first thing I did was gather benchmarks from a number of different sources, and I had several criteria that the reviews had to meet in order to be included: they had to have a reasonably detailed section on their testing methodology, they had to describe their test system, they needed to reasonably describe the settings they used to test the games, they had to list which drivers they were testing with and those drivers had to be up-to-date.

After gathering the various benchmarks, I went through them and aggregated them by game. Any individual benchmark which wasn't within a reasonable range of other benchmarks done on the same game was removed. Additionally, any games that were outliers themselves were removed, although this only resulted in the exclusion of Project CARS, because apparently the developers decided to give a giant middle finger to AMD cards.

Instead of using the raw FPS numbers from each game (which vary too wildly between review sites), I used the same method I used to generate my normalized benchmark data and instead calculated the performance differential (in %) between the GTX 1060 and RX 480, where a positive differential would favor the GTX 1060 and negative numbers favor the RX 480. I also gathered each game's release date and converted it to a decimal number so I could plot the performance differential as a factor of when the game was released to attempt to shed light on whether the RX 480 is favored by newer games or not.
Click to expand...

Review Sources (all reviews were that site's GTX 1060 Review):
Click to expand...

I just pulled up a few reviews and yes the GTX 1060 is ~30% faster than the 480 in Battlefield 4.
 
Last edited:
That is a very interesting Graph. Thanks for posting that. It puts a few things in perspective. Some times its hard to tell the difference between what is real and some of the crap spouted by some people.
 
your chart for example show nvidia ahead by 5% in the division.....but first site i checked from your source has AMD ahead lol.....idk about that chart;)
30f48cd4-3b95-4615-8467-da9ddd6a4741.png

second one i randomly checked...i guess the chart gives an extra 10% to nvidia from theoretical over clock performance?
 
Using an average of all games, the 1060 is 10-15% faster than the 480 (also mirrored by the cumulative graph). If the 1060 wins Division by 5%, that's actually below the average.

The graph is fine. I already told you where the numbers come from, and citing 1 benchmark doesn't prove anything. Both AMD and Nvidia subreddits endorse it, that should be good enough for everyone.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Using an average of all games, the 1060 is 10-15% faster than the 480 (also mirrored by the cumulative graph). If the 1060 wins Division by 5%, that's actually below the average.

The graph is fine. I already told you where the numbers come from, and citing 1 benchmark doesn't prove anything. Both AMD and Nvidia subreddits endorse it, that should be good enough for everyone.
Click to expand...
OK, and this is maybe the second time I have done this, but KYLE is right. The 1060 numbers are very inflated in some reviews because of the use of canned benchmarks. Looking at sites that used gameplay fps the 1060 is just barely ahead to behind almost equally, say like 1/3 ahead, 1/3 behind and 1/3 equal. But look at canned benchmark sites and the 1060 looks way better than apparently it does in reality aka: real world gameplay. So using averages of all sites is gonna inflate the results heavily in the 1060s favor.
 
JustReason said:
OK, and this is maybe the second time I have done this, but KYLE is right. The 1060 numbers are very inflated in some reviews because of the use of canned benchmarks.
Click to expand...

AOTS, Hitman, Doom, Warhammer is canned benchmarks.
 
JustReason said:
OK, and this is maybe the second time I have done this, but KYLE is right. The 1060 numbers are very inflated in some reviews because of the use of canned benchmarks. Looking at sites that used gameplay fps the 1060 is just barely ahead to behind almost equally, say like 1/3 ahead, 1/3 behind and 1/3 equal. But look at canned benchmark sites and the 1060 looks way better than apparently it does in reality aka: real world gameplay. So using averages of all sites is gonna inflate the results heavily in the 1060s favor.
Click to expand...

So you're accusing NVIDIA of benchmark cheating?
 
You could predict the 480 didn't have much OC in it from the heat it generated with the ref board. AMD already took it pretty far.
 
I like to overclock my cards.
An overclocked rx480 @ 1340 uses 80 more watts than a 1060 overclocked to 2088.
I'd bet a max overclocked 480, uses more power ,and gives off more heat, than a gtx980 overclocked.
That's a deal breaker, for me at least.

look at this video at 8:55.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrmF_fBGPLU
 
Shintai said:
AOTS, Hitman, Doom, Warhammer is canned benchmarks.
Click to expand...
Ok, so try this... Look at individual reviews and see how they do their benches. THIS REQUIRES READING THE ACTUAL REVIEW AND NOT JUST LOOKING AT PICTURES. And you will see the ones that used primarily canned show 1060 higher than all reviews with actual gameplay.
 
happymedium said:
I like to overclock my cards.
An overclocked rx480 @ 1340 uses 80 more watts than a 1060 overclocked to 2088.
I'd bet a max overclocked 480, uses more power ,and gives off more heat, than a gtx980 overclocked.
That's a deal breaker, for me at least.

look at this video at 8:55.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrmF_fBGPLU
Click to expand...


So you have a 750W PSU , but total system power draw in your cited example of ~320W is a deal breaker? Even if it drew another 150W past that, your system would still wouldn't be to the point of needed additional hardware to function normally. So it's a deal breaker simply because you want it to be, not for any objective reason. Got it.
 
lolfail9001 said:
1. Once again, input lag and minimums above 60hz. CPU-dependency matters.

2. It's correct, but what matters is the implications it will have for modern budget/mid-range CPU performance.
Click to expand...

1) And once again, since both card average over 70 fps, even on the worst CPUs, minimums are not a worry with a 60Hz monitor.

2) If you're so concerned about modern budget/mid-range CPUs, then actually find or record some benchmarks that reflect a modern budget/mid-range CPU.
 
One thing i did learn in this thread.....Dont upgrade just to play bf4!:woot: Cause its the Only game that ends up a side grade from the 7970/280x......30+ % performance difference just means AMD never even bothered with the game At All lol
 
I was disappointed in the review. I don't understand how Asus thought that such a MASSIVE 3 fan heatsink was needed for such a measly overclock. It seems totally unnecessary.
I'm also starting to believe that these poor o/c numbers are a result of GLOFLO being awful. I guess I'll be waiting a few months and hopefully the process will mature a bit
 
happymedium said:
My point was not to judge the review but the overclocking ability of the AIB 480's.

XFX 480 black edition overclocking only 1328mhz?!.
about 4 minutes into the video till the end.

Click to expand...


hmm thats a bit odd, I was expecting it to reach 1400 upwards so my reference RX 480 xfx black edition performs the same with this? minus 5-7 degrees lower perhaps.. oh well I'm glad I didn't wait for the AIB versions then
 
jcagara08 said:
hmm thats a bit odd, I was expecting it to reach 1400 upwards so my reference RX 480 xfx black edition performs the same with this? minus 5-7 degrees lower perhaps.. oh well I'm glad I didn't wait for the AIB versions then
Click to expand...
What is your reference card good for? And what fan speed does it need? The dd should be quieter at times


TaintedSquirrel said:
Using an average of all games, the 1060 is 10-15% faster than the 480 (also mirrored by the cumulative graph). If the 1060 wins Division by 5%, that's actually below the average.

The graph is fine. I already told you where the numbers come from, and citing 1 benchmark doesn't prove anything. Both AMD and Nvidia subreddits endorse it, that should be good enough for everyone.
Click to expand...
I finally got around to really looking into this and understanding what the guy did. Still it puzzles me how the very same hardware can perform so well in some games and api's but in mostly dx11 its like they didnt even bother to try. Makes ya wonder if they ever will bother to optimize the older dx11 games. I wouldn't hold my breath TBH. They better do another doom vulkan when Mankind divided comes out.
 
Last edited:
TaintedSquirrel said:
It's from /r/nvidia and /r/amd





I just pulled up a few reviews and yes the GTX 1060 is ~30% faster than the 480 in Battlefield 4.
Click to expand...


There's just all sorts of things that are a bit iffy.

Eight sites are referenced, but the chart includes games where only one site actually reviewed that game? (That means there was no "normalization")
  • AC Unity
  • AC Syndicate
  • DA: Inquisition
  • Shadow of Mordor
  • Dying Light
  • Mad Max
  • Batman: AK
  • ME: Catalyst
  • TW: Atilla
  • Overwatch
  • Quantum Break
  • Thief
  • WoW
  • FC 4
  • BL Ops 3
  • BF3
  • BF Hardline

Of the games that actually are on the list, only the following have enough coverage to do even basic analysis from the listed sources:
  • AotS
  • Doom (OpenGL)
  • GTA5
  • Hitman
  • Rise of the Tomb Raider
  • Fallout 4
  • The Division
  • Witcher 3
And here's an example of if you did review one of those game's reported data across sites:

Of the eight sites, four reviewed Fallout 4, where the chart shows a 16% NV advantage.

  • TPU - Show a 1060 advantage at 900p of 19%, 1080p advantage of 11%, 1440p advantage of 3% and 2160p advantage of 5%
  • HWCanucks - Shows a 1060 advantage at 1080p of 3%, 1440p advantage of 1%
  • BabelTech - Shows a 1060 advantage at 1080p of 38%, 1440p (same settings) advantage of 12%
  • Hexus - Shows a 1060 advantage at 1080p of 13%, 1440 advantage of 12%
Anyone...ANYONE who does analysis professionally would have to balk at using a set of data like this. With such wildy disparate reports and no standards in gathering data, how is this taken seriously?
 
Last edited:
TaintedSquirrel said:
Using an average of all games, the 1060 is 10-15% faster than the 480 (also mirrored by the cumulative graph). If the 1060 wins Division by 5%, that's actually below the average.

The graph is fine. I already told you where the numbers come from, and citing 1 benchmark doesn't prove anything. Both AMD and Nvidia subreddits endorse it, that should be good enough for everyone.
Click to expand...

I've been saying all along the 1060 is the superior card of the two but the AMD fans keep harping on and on about Vulkan which has only one game win and even that is because Doom Vulkan for nvidia isn't ready so it's a lopsided comparison. In nearly every other metric the 1060 is superior. Only a fool would pick a 480 over it with just a $10 price gap.

Also dear AMD friends, remember BF4s mantle hype and DICE endorsing AMD? How did that work out in the long run? Yup, just can't trust AMD driver support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top