AMD Radeon RX 480 Review: Performance for the masses

I don't agree... The 780 still outperforms the 7950....and most titles still prefer the 970 over the 390...

I do agree that I expect the trend to continue :)
 
I don't agree... The 780 still outperforms the 7950....and most titles still prefer the 970 over the 390...

I do agree that I expect the trend to continue :)
if you consider that hd7950 was the competitor to gtx660ti, it is still a very decent card. This is very interesting in fact. Remember, hd7970 was the competitor to gtx 680 back in those days. gtx 780 was much faster at first but these days I see a many benchmarks where a hd7970 goes toe to toe with gtx780 (especially at 1440p). So what happened to first keplers?
 
Other than a few cherry-picked benchmarks, the 7970 loses to the 780 almost all the time.... But this doesn't matter, as both struggle to play ultra details at 1440p... Which is understandable as they are old cards....

My point is that a mid tier card can't be expected to give "high end" performance in 2 years time.... That is WHY they are mid-tier cards!!!

Just because a card "ages better" doesn't mean it magically gets ultra performance years later... Even if the 480 magically surpasses the 1060 in 2 years (I still await proof!), it still won't be playing 4K at acceptable frame rates on ultra...

Once again - this isn't a complaint!! It's a mid-tier card and to expect any more is foolish!
 
Expecting more than 2 years lifespan out of a mid-range card is about as future proof as building a house of straw in tornado alley. Although not having Async nor DX12 support like people claimed nVidia cards are still providing competition and disregarding this in favor an uncertain "future-proofness" still puzzles me. Don't get me wrong the RX 480 is a nice enough card for the money but expecting more out of it would be ...uhm... unrealistic. If it performs like mid-range it will stay mid-range DX12/Vulkan won't be able to shift the card into overdrive so that it would push out 1200% more performance, a low-level API won't ever add extra FPS if the GPU is chocked by the game engine. If that was the case then we wouldn't have to update the hardware at all we would just sit tight and await the next miracle API that gives us free performance on a 10 year old GPU. Also if you're looking into which arch is better over time you have GCN cards which have been branded, re-branded, re-re-branded over the generations and in the other camp you have at least 3-4 generations of new arch (even though Pascal's is based on Maxwell's). AMD has some good ideas but they keep putting them out at the wrong time Mantle for example was great, the time to put it out was terrible since they couldn't strike any deals with any of the developers to implement it hence why they scrapped it and gave it to Khronos. All the features added to the GCN were a gamble in a desperate attempt to grab market share. Did it pay off when they expected it? No. Does it pay off now? Probably. Will it pay off in 2 years time? Not by a long shot since the competition has way more "potential" than them.
Regarding Vulkan gains, people keep forgetting that AMD's OpenGL was and still is well... crap.. compared to nVidia's, if they would get their stuff right those gains would not seem that impressive to begin with even though Vulkan is based on Mantle.
 
You guys take this card out of its context and change your criteria during discussion. Nobody claimed this card was aimed for 1440p (let alone 4k60). My GCN 1.0 argument still holds itself in its context which is "decent" 1080p gaming experience. NOT ONLY this but also it seems even the first GCN will take big advantage of newer APIs (mainly dx12 and vulkan) at 1080p and perhaps above. HD 7970 vs GTX 780 comparison is an example of how AMD cards hold their own DEPENDING on your expectations. I have a r9 380x and it performs excellent for what it is. It is basically a GCN 1.0 (which is now 4 years old) with minor architectural changes. I played witcher 3 at 1080p with it and I got pretty good experience (ultra details minus some graphical tweaks like switching hairworks to low etc). Witcher 3 is the most demanding game I ever played and it's a dx11 game (which, GCN is not very well optimised for, as well as Nividia's at least PLUS it's a Gameworks title). Considering the past, we could argue that RX480 can hold many people more than 1 or 2 years. As we all know, usually, the people who change their GPUs (or even their systems, in this case) every 2 years are the enthusiasts or high end users. Mainstream users try to hold on to their cards as long as it offers "decent" experience (which doesn't have to be ultra level of detail)
 
No one moved any goalposts... A bunch of AMD fanboys decided to declare this card the be all and end all of video cards saying that it provided high-end performance at mid-tier price...

I (and others) were simply trying to tell them that this card doesn't do that!!!! It provides 2 years ago high end performance at mid-tier cost.... As most mid-tier cards do!!

Just because they are wrong doesn't mean that this is a bad card - it's just a mid-tier card... Once the 1060 is released and reviewed, we can see how much "value" it actually has!
 
No one moved any goalposts... A bunch of AMD fanboys decided to declare this card the be all and end all of video cards saying that it provided high-end performance at mid-tier price...

I (and others) were simply trying to tell them that this card doesn't do that!!!! It provides 2 years ago high end performance at mid-tier cost.... As most mid-tier cards do!!

Just because they are wrong doesn't mean that this is a bad card - it's just a mid-tier card... Once the 1060 is released and reviewed, we can see how much "value" it actually has!
When we talk about a card that's $200-$250 we can only speak about "decently well" or "satisfactorily well" and not "ultra" or not "4k", no matter what fanboys say we gotta talk facts. These cards could give excellent performance or not, depending on the game, api and settings. These statements include gtx 1060 too
 
Yes the goal post is moved. Because when I explain longevity, and that I'm still using an HD 6850, some people try to convince me that in two years it will be completely garbage and unusable, while the 980 Ti will still play games well, even though it is well known that AMD cards get a huge boost in upcoming APIs and nVidia's cards do not.

And then, those people have the nerve to accuse others of being fanboys, while they themselves are obviously biased over 9000.
 
Yes the goal post is moved. Because when I explain longevity, and that I'm still using an HD 6850, some people try to convince me that in two years it will be completely garbage and unusable, while the 980 Ti will still play games well, even though it is well known that AMD cards get a huge boost in upcoming APIs and nVidia's cards do not.

And then, those people have the nerve to accuse others of being fanboys, while they themselves are obviously biased over 9000.


There is a slight difference between what longevity means to you and what it means to other people. I for one was enjoying playing on a 2Gb GTX 770 until a month ago. Yes I know ...it's Kepler, yes I know ....you have the opinion that it got nerfed in time. Bottom line it's a mid-range card and that's what I expected it to be. Is it horrible after 3 years? Yep. Can it still perform? Kinda. Does it show that it's a 3 year old mid range card? Clearly. On a second rig I do have a HD7970 GHz Edition and to be fair I can't tell the difference between them. They both play horrible while cranking up the settings because let's face it nobody wants to play a game on low or to downscale it back to the stone age. The only difference between them is that one is a space heater ... guess which one? And yes they are complete garbage for my needs and I'm willing to bet that when the card you have starts to underperform in some titles you're a bit bitter about having to turn down the settings to make it playable, heck everybody is...
As for the 980Ti as long as DX11 (let's face it it's a DX11 card) is still around it can still show it's teeth. And DX11 would still be around for a couple of years at least. But then again we're talking about a card that's on the enthusiast tier on which I'm willing to bet that it won't be outclassed by a mid-rage card from the current AMD line-up. Matched maybe, outclassed no.Thus said buying into the upper tier would still be more profitable in the long run than buying into mid and waiting for the "magic of low-level API's" that might come or not at a certain point.
Moving the goal post? not by a long shot. Everybody here spends his/her time by theory crafting scenarios. And frankly nobody is being biased(apart from certain trolls). Some people see value in the card others don't. Still it's their opinion and I for one respect it. Let's try to keep things civil and not start a flame war.
 
There is a slight difference between what longevity means to you and what it means to other people. I for one was enjoying playing on a 2Gb GTX 770 until a month ago. Yes I know ...it's Kepler, yes I know ....you have the opinion that it got nerfed in time. Bottom line it's a mid-range card and that's what I expected it to be. Is it horrible after 3 years? Yep. Can it still perform? Kinda. Does it show that it's a 3 year old mid range card? Clearly. On a second rig I do have a HD7970 GHz Edition and to be fair I can't tell the difference between them. They both play horrible while cranking up the settings because let's face it nobody wants to play a game on low or to downscale it back to the stone age. The only difference between them is that one is a space heater ... guess which one? And yes they are complete garbage for my needs and I'm willing to bet that when the card you have starts to underperform in some titles you're a bit bitter about having to turn down the settings to make it playable, heck everybody is...
After reading your post, I ran a google search and checked the recent performance tests of 770 and the 7970. I still have an opinion that those are decent cards? Are you really thinking in the "mainstream" space or do you expect these 3-4 year-old cards to max out games with 60fps? In my definition, a decent gameplay is about 1080p@40+fps (or as high as possible). When I start a game, first I test it and tweak the settings to provide me these criteria I mentioned. If you don't want to bother with settings and just hit ultra and go, then you are not a mainstream/mid-tier user. By the way, which game did you have to set low to be able to play with these cards and what resolution? In the benchmarks I saw, 7970/770 can still run many games on high/ultra at decent fps except some newest AAA titles that offer the richest eye candy but even those can be tweaked to offer some decent experience. The thing is, it's about what your expectations are and what kind of experience satisfies you.

EDIT: Added some benches
https://www.techspot.com/review/1093-amd-radeon-380x/
 
Last edited:
After reading your post, I ran a google search and checked the recent performance tests of 770 and the 7970. I still have an opinion that those are decent cards? Are you really thinking in the "mainstream" space or do you expect these 3-4 year-old cards to max out games with 60fps? In my definition, a decent gameplay is about 1080p@40+fps (or as high as possible). When I start a game, first I test it and tweak the settings to provide me these criteria I mentioned. If you don't want to bother with settings and just hit ultra and go, then you are not a mainstream/mid-tier user. By the way, which game did you have to set low to be able to play with these cards and what resolution? In the benchmarks I saw, 7970/770 can still run many games on high/ultra at decent fps except some newest AAA titles that offer the richest eye candy but even those can be tweaked to offer some decent experience. The thing is, it's about what your expectations are and what kind of experience satisfies you

Decent for me isn't struggle to run stuff @ 40 FPS. Witcher / The Division / Doom / Rise of the Tomb Raider etc (no AOTS because the game is ... erm ... crap from my point of view). So mostly the new stuff. I didn't just max out everything to begin with. Like you mentioned there is a balance for me that balance didn't cut it. I was sacrificing way too much graphics for decent performance. But I didn't expect one or the other to pull over the designated tier. Wasn't expecting a miracle to suddenly pull 60 FPS on ultra nor did I expect their performance to go up with time. I got what I paid for and I am more than Ok with that. When I got pushed out of my comfy zone I upgraded and that's that.
 
So now the 1060 is out... And shockingly.... It is better... But more expensive... Will have to wait a few weeks to see what the "real" prices of both cards are, as right now you can't get either at msrp
 
There is a slight difference between what longevity means to you and what it means to other people. I for one was enjoying playing on a 2Gb GTX 770 until a month ago. Yes I know ...it's Kepler, yes I know ....you have the opinion that it got nerfed in time.
No I don't have the opinion that it got nerfed in time. I have the realization that nVidia's cards are built on planned obsolescence to create a shorter cycle for their cards than necessary. Smart business? Yes. Good for consumers? Absolutely not.
Bottom line it's a mid-range card and that's what I expected it to be. Is it horrible after 3 years? Yep. Can it still perform? Kinda. Does it show that it's a 3 year old mid range card? Clearly. On a second rig I do have a HD7970 GHz Edition and to be fair I can't tell the difference between them.
Oh really? 280X vs GTX 770.

perfrel_2560_1440.png


It's pretty much on par with a GTX 780 and yet you can't notice the difference between it and a GTX 770. Isn't that interesting?

They both play horrible while cranking up the settings because let's face it nobody wants to play a game on low or to downscale it back to the stone age. The only difference between them is that one is a space heater ... guess which one? And yes they are complete garbage for my needs and I'm willing to bet that when the card you have starts to underperform in some titles you're a bit bitter about having to turn down the settings to make it playable, heck everybody is...
I can understand that, but that was never my point. So, when I say that the goalposts are moved, that's what I'm talking about. Read on.

As for the 980Ti as long as DX11 (let's face it it's a DX11 card) is still around it can still show it's teeth. And DX11 would still be around for a couple of years at least. But then again we're talking about a card that's on the enthusiast tier on which I'm willing to bet that it won't be outclassed by a mid-rage card from the current AMD line-up. Matched maybe, outclassed no.
So... If it might be matched, what are we arguing about?

Thus said buying into the upper tier would still be more profitable in the long run than buying into mid and waiting for the "magic of low-level API's" that might come or not at a certain point.
Not if you don't have enough money for the upper tier. And even if you do, a Fury X is a much better choice for the long term than a 980 Ti or even a 1070.

Moving the goal post? not by a long shot. Everybody here spends his/her time by theory crafting scenarios. And frankly nobody is being biased(apart from certain trolls). Some people see value in the card others don't. Still it's their opinion and I for one respect it. Let's try to keep things civil and not start a flame war.
I can keep things civil. But look. What did I say? I said;

- The RX 480 is a superior choice to the GTX 970
- DX12/Vulkan performance/watt is a lot better than under DX11 for AMD, and comparisons need to be done there as well
- AMD is closer to full FL12_1 support than Pascal
- AMD's cards have a track record of gaining more performance over time than nVidia cards, and this trend will continue
- You have to evaluate how long you will stick with your card. If you upgrade every year or every two years, you can make the argument that within that time Vulkan nor DX12 will become relevant. If you're like me, where you want to use your card for 4 years or so (I still have an HD 6850), Vulkan/DX12 benchmarks weigh in a lot more in determining my choice.
- The RX 480 will age approximately equally well compared to a 980 Ti. This is based on the fact that under Doom Vulkan, the 980Ti and RX480 have 135fps vs 123 fps respectively, which is insufficient to put them on a different performance class under the upcoming Vulkan API.
- Some of us buy the best current option which is the worse future option, under the pretext to spend more money when the company they love so much eventually catches up to the future standard that is already creeping up.
Some of us buy the ok current option which is the best future option, saving as much money as possible and still being satisfied with the performance.

What where the replies that I got?
- Discussions which card is high end and which isn't, and mid tier and whatnot
- Arguments regarding AMD losing customers, and AMD's low market share
- AMD has bad drivers
- Comments about immature discussions, fanboyism and trolling
- There only being one DX12/Vulkan game available, even though there are more.
- AMD dropping GCN in the future so goodbye driver support
- Better not to buy a card that gets a boost under future APIs, because DX11 is now and only that matters
- Disdain rather than arguments

Every excuse in the book is being used to avoid admitting some things that AMD does well, and in fact better than nVidia. Even though the points I stated are factual and straightforward, even well-known among the ones that did their homework on the subject.

So now the 1060 is out... And shockingly.... It is better... But more expensive... Will have to wait a few weeks to see what the "real" prices of both cards are, as right now you can't get either at msrp
Remember my prediction?
- 1060 better than reference RX 480 under DX11
- AIB RX 480 to match 1060 and/or slightly beat it
- RX 480 to wipe the floor with the 1060 under Vulkan

So tell me. If you only had ~$280, and the only cards left in stock are a reference RX480 and a reference GTX 1060, both at that same price, which one would you buy?
 
The problem here is that you willfully misunderstand what "long term" means... If you are buying a high end card (no, NOT this one!), you expect that you can play just about anything at the highest details at the highest resolution.

Unfortunately, no card can actually do this except maybe the 1080... and even it struggles with some titles at max settings on 4k...

So what does "long term" actually mean when you buy a video card? You are saying you want 3 years or more out of it... Well, for a card to give you 60FPS at ultra settings at 1440p NOW, you need a high end card - even the 1060 doesn't quite do it...

Can you tell me that in 3 years, the fury, 1070, 1080 will still be able to play the newest titles at ultra settings at 1440p? I'd doubt it... your best bet is going to be the 1080, but even that would be a risky venture.

So, what do we REALLY mean by "Long Term"? I'd say that we mean an acceptable loss of performance over a certain amount of time... software is always going to demand more from the hardware, and the "perfect" video card will be the one that comes out 6 months after you buy yours... (in my case, the 980Ti, which came out weeks after I bought my Titans)

Now lets go back to your rather ridiculous argument about this card... RIGHT NOW, this card can give you less than 60FPS at ultra settings on 1080p and 1440p on the newest titles... In 2-3 years, I think it would be fair to say that it STILL WILL NOT GIVE YOU 60FPS in the newest titles.... in fact, I would posit that they will be barely playable unless at the lowest detail settings...

Now, this is perfectly reasonable, as this card only costs $200....

Let's say I went batsh1t crazy and bought 3 Titan X cards last year (Yes, I actually did - long story...) I could play every title at over 60FPS at ultra settings at 4k.... it's a year later and I still can.... I figure it will be at least another year before I can't... and I will still have "acceptable" playability on the newest titles for a few more years after that. Now, I paid $3,000 - 15 times more than a single 480.... Am I going to get 15x more value? Of course not! It would have to last at least 20 years for me to get the value back.... But that's as close to really "future proofing" a PC as you can get....

Nothing lasts forever - but the more you spend, the longer it will last... I'm not advocating that high-end cards are worth the purchase - everyone has to make that decision based on their own gaming preferences as well as budget...

But don't go off spouting about how your card is more valuable because it will age better... That's just plain BS....
 
Remember my prediction?
- 1060 better than reference RX 480 under DX11
- AIB RX 480 to match 1060 and/or slightly beat it
- RX 480 to wipe the floor with the 1060 under Vulkan

So tell me. If you only had ~$280, and the only cards left in stock are a reference RX480 and a reference GTX 1060, both at that same price, which one would you buy?

Vulkan results have to wait until we have a bunch of titles that use it... and the AIB 480 doesn't beat the 1060... and the 1060 has far more OC headroom so it can easily beat the 480 by even more with some tinkering - or by getting 3rd party cards from ASUS, etc... And despite the power fix by AMD, the 1060 still uses far less power than the 480...

The only possible reason to purchase the AMD card is because it's cheaper - if I had to choose between them at $280, it's obvious that you should pick the 1060... but I'd prefer to spend a bit more and get the 1070....

Your argument continues to be about the "future", and how this card will age so much better than it's competitor...

First of all, any arguments about the future are speculative at best - no one knows the future!!

Second, when buying a mid-tier card (I feel that I'm repeating myself here, but you don't seem to get it), the future is a foolish thing to plan for. Mid-Tier cards are for NOW - they won't be giving you acceptable gaming for very long - and the difference between competitors by the time their lifecycle is complete is largely irrelevant. Who cares if a card plays a game at 12FPS and its competitor plays it at 9FPS??!!? Yes, one is better... but both can't play the game!!!
 
The problem here is that you willfully misunderstand what "long term" means... If you are buying a high end card (no, NOT this one!), you expect that you can play just about anything at the highest details at the highest resolution.

Unfortunately, no card can actually do this except maybe the 1080... and even it struggles with some titles at max settings on 4k...
I know exactly what I mean by long term. Maybe you didn't understand what I mean by it because you were too busy thinking of your own definition.

So what does "long term" actually mean when you buy a video card? You are saying you want 3 years or more out of it... Well, for a card to give you 60FPS at ultra settings at 1440p NOW, you need a high end card - even the 1060 doesn't quite do it...
You see, that's your problem. You set your own criteria and think that everyone should meet that criteria.
- I do not have a 1440p screen, a simple 1080p, even though I do wish to move to a 21:9 HDR FreeSync monitor, which is what I'm waiting for. The majority of people do not play beyond 1080p. Check steam.
- Since I grew tired of FPS games, 60fps is not really a must for me. 60fps is only necessary for fighting games to me, and those are less heavy than other games, thus a mid card will suffice. I would have no problem playing RPG's like the Witcher 3 or whatever at 40 fps. Not only that, I have no problem lowering some settings to do so, and neither do many people.

Your criteria are yours, and that's fine. It does not conform to the criteria of majority of players. If that was the case, the steam GPU distribution wouldn't look like it looks right now, cluttered with mid range cards and low res screens. You argue for yourself and hardcore gamers that want a top notch experience. I argue for the majority with limited budgets and normal demands.

Can you tell me that in 3 years, the fury, 1070, 1080 will still be able to play the newest titles at ultra settings at 1440p? I'd doubt it... your best bet is going to be the 1080, but even that would be a risky venture.

So, what do we REALLY mean by "Long Term"? I'd say that we mean an acceptable loss of performance over a certain amount of time... software is always going to demand more from the hardware, and the "perfect" video card will be the one that comes out 6 months after you buy yours... (in my case, the 980Ti, which came out weeks after I bought my Titans)

Now lets go back to your rather ridiculous argument about this card... RIGHT NOW, this card can give you less than 60FPS at ultra settings on 1080p and 1440p on the newest titles... In 2-3 years, I think it would be fair to say that it STILL WILL NOT GIVE YOU 60FPS in the newest titles.... in fact, I would posit that they will be barely playable unless at the lowest detail settings...

Now, this is perfectly reasonable, as this card only costs $200....
If that's your definition of long term, what if I told you that it has been shown time and time again that AMD loses less performance over time than nVidia? Then why are you insisting that people should keep buying nVidia? Or are you going to say again that your money's value over the long term doesn't matter, and it only matters on what there is right now? Then you might as well buy every GPU that comes out that appears the fastest at time of launch. How did that work out for ya with your Titans?

Let's say I went batsh1t crazy and bought 3 Titan X cards last year (Yes, I actually did - long story...) I could play every title at over 60FPS at ultra settings at 4k.... it's a year later and I still can.... I figure it will be at least another year before I can't... and I will still have "acceptable" playability on the newest titles for a few more years after that. Now, I paid $3,000 - 15 times more than a single 480.... Am I going to get 15x more value? Of course not! It would have to last at least 20 years for me to get the value back.... But that's as close to really "future proofing" a PC as you can get....
You were indeed batsh1t crazy to buy those Titans.
It's you who came with the 'future proofing' thing. You defined it as needing 60+ fps at 1440p at max settings for three years. Obviously no single card can match that, not even high-end. You create impossible demands and then pretend that I did it.
I was talking about long term, as in, long term investment. And what I mean by that is having the best value for your money over long periods of time, which actually conforms to what you said above, that you're not gonna get the best value for your money buy investing shitloads of money on multiple high end cards. Buying any Titan card obviously does not fall into that category since you'll never recover the value in terms of price/performance that another 'normal' card would. An upper mid range to high end card (not enthusiast) fits the best category to get the most of your money's worth

Nothing lasts forever - but the more you spend, the longer it will last... I'm not advocating that high-end cards are worth the purchase - everyone has to make that decision based on their own gaming preferences as well as budget...
I can agree with that, but you're constantly acting like your own needs are the end all be all. And there is still a difference between AMD and nVidia in this regard. Spending more money on nVidia does not necessarily give you more longevity than a slightly less expensive AMD card. That is the whole point of this discussion, but you do everything to avoid this fact.

But don't go off spouting about how your card is more valuable because it will age better... That's just plain BS....
LOL you sure are a comedian aren't you. If two cards cost $200, and one will be able to play games 60 fps for 2 years, and the other for 3 years, which one is the better value? Obviously the one that will be able to play at 60fps for 3 years rather than two years. If you want to call that BS, I don't know what to tell you.

What we're talking about is the following:
Green: 100 fps now, 50 fps in the future, $300
Red: 70 fps now, 50 fps in the future, $200

You say go green. I say go red. But you don't seem to get that.

Vulkan results have to wait until we have a bunch of titles that use it...
Yeah. And if it was nVidia doing well, it would be a great benchmark. You have a double standard and you don't even know it. I bet you think 3DMark's TimeSpy is great.

and the AIB 480 doesn't beat the 1060...
Funny. When someone says that AMD's card will be faster, the reply is wait for benchmarks. And now, we can claim an AIB RX 480 won't beat a 1060 despite having no bechmarks of AIB RX 480 cards. And for things we do have a benchmark for, like Vulkan, yeah, we need more of those. They are only valid when nVidia wins of course, because nVidia is simply better than AMD!

and the 1060 has far more OC headroom so it can easily beat the 480 by even more with some tinkering - or by getting 3rd party cards from ASUS, etc...
AMD's IPC is higher. A smaller OC nets more gain compared to nVidia. But you don't mention the 8GB vs 6GB advantage. Ah yes. "That doesn't matter right now, no games will use 8GB, and the future doesn't exist". Just like the 3.5GB of the GTX 970 vs its own 4GB vs the 8GB of the R9 390 didn't matter, right? RIGHT????

And despite the power fix by AMD, the 1060 still uses far less power than the 480...
Oh boy. 40 watts is oh so much power. It'll cost you a bajillion dollars per second and will burn down your house! Not to mention you need a 2500W PSU rather than a 400W! And yeah, performance per watt under Vulkan doesn't matter because Vulkan doesn't exist right now, it will exist somewhere in the future where all mid cards will already have vanished.

The only possible reason to purchase the AMD card is because it's cheaper - if I had to choose between them at $280, it's obvious that you should pick the 1060... but I'd prefer to spend a bit more and get the 1070....
Because Vulkan doesn't exist, and we should ignore all benchmarks that put AMD in a positive light. Only DX11 matters.

Your argument continues to be about the "future", and how this card will age so much better than it's competitor...

First of all, any arguments about the future are speculative at best - no one knows the future!!
Except we already have evidence for future performance with Doom Vulkan. But yeah, that one does not exist. We need more benchmarks, and benchmarks are only valid when nVidia wins.
If there's an nVidia biased game and nVidia wins;
No worries, nVidia is simply better, as always
If there's a single game where AMD has the advantage like Hitman;
OMG THE AMD BIAS IN TEH GAME. DO NOT USE AS REFERENCE, AMD BAD, nVIDIA GOOD.

If there's a game under a new API where nVidia wins;
YEAH SEE THAT, nVidia is always better.
If there's a game under a new API where AMD wins;
OH THE AMD BIAS, MUST WAIT FOR MOAR BENCHMARKZZZ.

Use an game under an old API where nVidia wins;
YEAH, nVIDIA FTW, AMD DRIVARZ SUXXARS.
Use that same game under a new API that boosts AMD performance to beat nVidia;
OH NO NO NO, INVALID, MUST HAVE MORE BENCHMARKS, BECAUSE AMD CANNOTTTTTTT DO ANYTHING BETTER THAN NVIDIA.

Moderator note: Stop shouting
Second, when buying a mid-tier card (I feel that I'm repeating myself here, but you don't seem to get it), the future is a foolish thing to plan for. Mid-Tier cards are for NOW - they won't be giving you acceptable gaming for very long - and the difference between competitors by the time their lifecycle is complete is largely irrelevant. Who cares if a card plays a game at 12FPS and its competitor plays it at 9FPS??!!? Yes, one is better... but both can't play the game!!!
Because your definition of acceptable performance is universal, and Doom Vulkan benchmarks don't exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, you still don't get it... and you're clearly just an AMD fanboy (while I own 3 Titans, my previous boxes have had AMD/ATI and I have no problems with their products) looking for trouble...

I'll try one last time for you... This is a perfectly good video card - for $200 (if you can get it there) it's the best value right now.

But VALUE does not equal longevity! This card offers 970 performance now - the 970 offered that performance 2 years ago... in 2 more years, 970-like performance won't be nearly as impressive - both AMD and Nvidia will almost certainly have cards that cost the same offering vastly improved performance.

I understand that many discrete video card owners aren't as demanding as me... To many users, this card will still be fine for them in 2 years...I have no issue with that...

The thing is, YOU and your other fanboy friends were attempting to mislead readers by stating that this card offered high-end performance... That is simply not true. It offers 2-years-ago high end performance!!! High end performance is offered by high end cards.... Right now, even the Fury is borderline high end, let alone this card...

If you want MID-Tier performance at a reasonable price, buy this card... if you want high-end performance, buy a 1070 (or 1080 if u have the cash), or wait a few weeks for 980Ti prices to drop (it still crushes this card with ease and might come down to comparable price levels if the 1060 starts selling...

You harp on and on about Vulkan - it doesn't beat the 1060 on Vulkan by the way - it's tied instead of losing.... future driver updates may change this either way - once again, you can't predict the future!

Oh... and in case you hadn't looked, the 8GB and 4GB versions of this card give virtually identical performance (in fact, the first batch of 4GB cards actually ARE 8GB cards, with firmware disabling half the memory). So stating that 8GB gives it better longevity over the 6GB 1060 is simply nonsense. The card doesn't have the horsepower to properly utilize 8GB, and probably only comes with it for bragging rights....
 
Last edited:
In two years from now it will be at least GTX 980 performance. In fact, I'll say that as of tomorrow, the AIB cards will be offering GTX 980 performance with the RX 480. Call me a fanboy all you want. I know I am not. I point out the unfortunate double standards that no one wants to hear, because they prefer to stay with their bias of AMD bad, nVidia good.

Under Vulkan, it does offer performance closer to high end nVidia cards. Obviously the high end AMD cards like the Fury cards outdo it.
amd-2016-doom-vulkan-benchmark-computerbasede.png


You're a blatant liar when you say that the RX 480 matches the 1060 under Vulkan. The RX 480 still wipes the floor with it, as in over 30% faster. And then you say I'm trying to deceive consumers. :mad::confused::eek:. And I'm the fanboy.... -.- >_< O_O

1468921254mrv4f5CHZE_4_4.gif


I can probably expect you to try and ridicule me for using HARDOCP, since every excuse in the book is used by you to justify how nVidia is always better. And now, future drivers won't fix this. It's a low level API. At most, nVidia will get a 5% performance boost if they can get their low quality preemption working. That's it.

As for 6GB vs 8GB, it's always the same story. Again you're using your demands to say that the 8GB won't matter. Put in texture modding, and bam, 8GB becomes extremely relevant, even for mid range cards. But yeah of course, that don't matter right? Because it's not nVIdia that has the 8GB. Because people whining about the Fury's 4GB was warranted, saying that the 6GB of the 980Ti is necessary, but not for the GTX 970's 3.5GB. The 3.5GB is fine, and the 8GB of the R9 390 is unnecessary.
Double standards all over the place.
As for the 8GB and 4GB cards giving equal performance, did anyone test Mirror's Edge at 1440p with hyper settings...?

And no, value does not equal longevity, but I never said it did. I said that more longevity for the same price equals better value. What is so wrong with that statement? Oh right. Nothing. You simply want to twist my words to try and pretend as if I'm spouting nonsense.

This is going nowhere. So I'll just leave this here and call it a day;
 
Last edited:
In two years, it will have 980 performance - even if that pure guess is true, that's high end performance that will be over 3 years old... Again, not high performance!!

And you spout drivel about 8gb being superior (yet leave no proof)... The 970 is still the most used card - the 3.5gb controversy notwithstanding, all of your AMD press is declaring that IT is the competition for your card! And it takes the 480 more than twice the memory to compete!!

My Titan X cards have 12GB of memory each - does that make them superior to the 1080s? It's not always the size, it's how you use it :)

You very misleadingly leave 2 different Vulkan benchmarks - your first omits the 1060 completely, while using 1440p.... You've already admitted that this card won't be playing 1440p in 2 years.... So I refer you to my "who cares if one card plays a game at 12FPS while the other plays it at 9FPS"...


More longevity is great - but again, you have no evidence that the 480 offers it.... Just a guess drawn from early benchmarks that will almost certainly have no relevance in 2-3 years...
 
Back