AMD Radeon RX 480 Review: Performance for the masses

[Evernessince]

Once again.... If you are buying a low-mid-level card in an attempt to be "future proof", you're not very bright.... You need to go high end if you want reasonable performance in 2 years time.... So if you are buying for right now - go ahead and buy this... But don't go off spouting how great this card will be with dx12 titles in the future - you want to play those, either buy a 1070/1080 or wait a year

I think that is what an enthusiast would call future proofing. A regular person is fine buying a mainstream card and lowering the settings over time. If performance increases and they can put settings back up to high, I don't think anyone is going to complain.

 

[NightAntilli]

Aaaaand leaving this here... The video includes the RX 480.

 

[meric]

Once again.... If you are buying a low-mid-level card in an attempt to be "future proof", you're not very bright.... You need to go high end if you want reasonable performance in 2 years time.... So if you are buying for right now - go ahead and buy this... But don't go off spouting how great this card will be with dx12 titles in the future - you want to play those, either buy a 1070/1080 or wait a year

Sorry but if you were right, there would be no "mid tier card", everyone would buy the single fastest $600 card and would do with that for a couple of years. There are consoles for that purpose. Most of us can't afford to pay that much for a GPU, thus, rx480 or gtx 1060 will be poor man's gtx 980 for a while.

 

[NightAntilli]

In other news; RX 480 less power efficient than GTX 970 in Doom under OpenGL, but more efficient under Vulkan;

The power consumption excuse against AMD is even less of a factor now.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Yeah, really. GTX 980 Ti cost over $700 just two months ago and now AMD's mid end card is faster on DX12/Vulkan games. Money well spent.

My point had nothing about cost... It was about how long a card will last... The 980ti will still play games quite well in 2 years. The 480 will not...

 

[Squid Surprise]

Sorry but if you were right, there would be no "mid tier card", everyone would buy the single fastest $600 card and would do with that for a couple of years. There are consoles for that purpose. Most of us can't afford to pay that much for a GPU, thus, rx480 or gtx 1060 will be poor man's gtx 980 for a while.

You misunderstand.... A mid-low tier card is fine... Most people don't "need" to play ultra details at 60fps... They buy these cards and are quite happy... But for those who DO want 60fps when playing games at high res, buying a mid-level card will only suffice for right now...2 years from now it simply won't...

 

[HardReset]

My point had nothing about cost... It was about how long a card will last... The 980ti will still play games quite well in 2 years. The 480 will not...

I disagree.

1. GTX 980 Ti is already old tech on Nvidia's lineup and driver support will mean performance will suffer. As seen on GTX700-series.
2. RX 480 will be faster in games made to support DX12/Vulkan/Mantle from start. Doom is OpenGL + Vulkan support added later and games that are made for Vulkan from start are even more faster.

 

[NightAntilli]

My point had nothing about cost... It was about how long a card will last... The 980ti will still play games quite well in 2 years. The 480 will not...

I have to disagree. Right now in Doom Max settings with Vulkan ;
980 Ti: 135 fps
RX 480: 123 fps

The difference between 980 Ti and RX 480 under upcoming APIs is obviously not that big. The 980 Ti is still faster, but, their class is not so different as to qualify one viable in 2 years and not the other. Unless you're thinking that in the upcoming two years everything will be programmed like DX11 games from two years ago... Which is not impossible, but highly unlikely.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I have to disagree. Right now in Doom Max settings with Vulkan ;
980 Ti: 135 fps
RX 480: 123 fps

The difference between 980 Ti and RX 480 under upcoming APIs is obviously not that big. The 980 Ti is still faster, but, their class is not so different as to qualify one viable in 2 years and not the other. Unless you're thinking that in the upcoming two years everything will be programmed like DX11 games from two years ago... Which is not impossible, but highly unlikely.

Your own numbers show it.... The 980ti is better.... As it should be - it costs more and is a high end card...

It's also an older card.... It will most likely be playing games fine when it is two years old...

The 480 is brand new and still isn't as good NOW! How can you think it will perform better in two years?

For future proofing (I want a card that will play games WELL in two+ years from when it is released), a high end card is the way to go. If you are seriously arguing that the 480 will somehow magically surpass the 980ti (let alone the 1070/1080), I'd love to hear your rationale.

 

[NightAntilli]

Your own numbers show it.... The 980ti is better.... As it should be - it costs more and is a high end card...

It's also an older card.... It will most likely be playing games fine when it is two years old...

The 480 is brand new and still isn't as good NOW! How can you think it will perform better in two years?

For future proofing (I want a card that will play games WELL in two+ years from when it is released), a high end card is the way to go. If you are seriously arguing that the 480 will somehow magically surpass the 980ti (let alone the 1070/1080), I'd love to hear your rationale.

You must have a reading comprehension problem. I did not say the 480 will beat the 980 Ti, although I do not see that as impossible, that was not the argument. The argument was;

Their [performance] class is not so different as to qualify one viable in 2 years and not the other.

This was based on the performance in Vulkan, which is the upcoming API, and not DX11.

 

[Squid Surprise]

You must have a reading comprehension problem. I did not say the 480 will beat the 980 Ti, although I do not see that as impossible, that was not the argument. The argument was;


This was based on the performance in Vulkan, which is the upcoming API, and not DX11.

So you are saying their performance class is not so different.... I would say that they ARE different - the 980ti, at a year old, is still playing pretty much every title at excellent FPS.... It will almost certainly be the case for another year to come...

If you are telling me that the 480 will perform as well in two years, you really are a fool.... It's already inferior to this card with a year's difference!!

But again, that's not the 480's job! It's a mid-tier card which is really meant to compete with the 1060... We've already seen that the 1060 will be the superior card - but will cost more.... Exact numbers will be out soon I'm sure.

To keep carrying on about this card as if it's superior to high end cards is just pointless... It IS cheaper though- guess you count that as a win...

 

[NightAntilli]

So you are saying their performance class is not so different.... I would say that they ARE different - the 980ti, at a year old, is still playing pretty much every title at excellent FPS.... It will almost certainly be the case for another year to come...

You're basing everything on DX11. That's why you fail to understand that AMD's cards have a lot more longevity than is apparent under DX11. You only have to look at the R9 280X AKA HD7970 under Doom Vulkan. Reports of close 125% performance increase is not uncommon. No, not 25%. 125%, as in, more than twice as fast. It's the reason the chart looks like this, with nVidia's 700 series from 2013 on the bottom of the chart, while AMD's 7000 series from 2011 is between a GTX 960 and a GTX 970....

If you are telling me that the 480 will perform as well in two years, you really are a fool.... It's already inferior to this card with a year's difference!!

You don't get it... The fool is you because you think things will be like DX11 forever. You're applying the longevity of nVidia cards to discredit AMD's longevity. Apples and oranges. AMD's cards age better and that has been proven over and over. Whether it's driver overhead or whatever argument you want to use, AMD's cards are competitive in performance at their release, and their performance gets significantly better with time, unlike nVidia's. Or are you going to deny this also...?

But again, that's not the 480's job! It's a mid-tier card which is really meant to compete with the 1060... We've already seen that the 1060 will be the superior card - but will cost more.... Exact numbers will be out soon I'm sure.

Well, you're gonna be in for a surprise. We'll see a lot of AIB 1060 compared to the reference RX 480, where the 1060 will win in DX11. Then when say a Sapphire RX 480 Nitro is benched against the 1060, the 1060 will lose slightly under DX11 right now, and will literally wipe the floor with it under Vulkan.

To keep carrying on about this card as if it's superior to high end cards is just pointless... It IS cheaper though- guess you count that as a win...

If you can get GTX 980 performance for $200, that is actually superior to a high end card. Unless you're gonna start arguing that the GTX 980 is a mid range card...

In any case... Using Computerbase.de as a reference... Look at the following. We are half a month after release of the RX 480. Let's look at the performance changes between the launch drivers 16.6.2 and right now 16.7.2, two weeks later, compared to GTX 970 and GTX 980. And likely you have a grudge against Ashes of the Singularity, so I'll leave that one out. As a compensation I will leave the obvious extremely nVidia-biased games out... Here we go;

Assassin's Creed: Syndicate – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 7% slower than reference GTX 970 with 6.2, 1% slower with 7.2

Call of Duty: Black Ops III – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 27% faster than overclocked MSI GTX 970 with 6.2, 35% faster with 7.2
RX 480 13% faster than reference GTX 980 with 6.2, 20% faster with 7.2
As a side note, it's only 8% slower than a 980Ti with 7.2.

Dirt Rally – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 2% slower than reference GTX 970 with 6.2, 4% faster with 7.2

F1 2015 – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 5% slower than reference GTX 970 with 6.2, 1% faster with 7.2
RX 480 11% slower than reference GTX 980 with 6.2, 5% slower with 7.2

Far Cry Primal – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 6% slower than reference GTX 980 with 6.2, 1% slower with 7.2

GTA V – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 11% slower than reference GTX 980 with 6.2, equally fast with 7.2

Just Cause 3 – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 8% slower than reference GTX 980 with 6.2, 1% faster with 7.2

Rainbow Six Siege – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 5% slower than reference GTX 980 with 6.2, 3% faster with 7.2

The Division – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 as fast as OC'd MSI GTX 970 with 6.2, as fast as reference GTX 980 with 7.2

The Talos Principle – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 4% slower than reference GTX 970 with 6.2, 2% faster with 7.2

The Witcher 3 – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 4% slower than reference GTX 980 with 6.2, 1% faster with 7.2

XCOM 2 – 2.560 × 1.440
RX 480 1% slower than overclocked MSI GTX 970 with 6.2, 6% faster with 7.2

You likely hate Hitman, but, the RX 480 is faster than the 980 Ti in that game already. That is using their best performing API, as in DX11 for 980 Ti and DX12 for the RX 480. But for you that won't count as anything anyway.

And oyeah, I should mention... All these results are the RX 480 running at 1137 MHz with 6.2 and 1152 MHz with 7.2 since the new driver allowed slightly higher boost clocks.

 

[meric]

Kepler gone weaker and weaker in years GCN 1.0 really was a monstrous arch it seems.... Many that bought that vanilla HD7970 and overclocked it to GHZ edition had a decent gaming experience + used their card for bitcoin mining, earning back the money they paid for the card (some earned even much more )

 

[Squid Surprise]

I'm not basing anything on dx11... Although that will still be a very important thing to consider for a few years to come anyways...

I'm basing this on HISTORY... It's simply a fact that mid-tier products - of almost any company for any product! - don't hold their value as long as a high end product... Again, you get what you pay for....

You can post all the numbers you like, but since you cannot post numbers from next year (or the year after), they are meaningless drivel...

Once again, this IS a perfectly reasonable card to purchase if you want something to run decently now... To expect more from it in 2 years is foolish.... Come back in 24 months and prove me wrong...

 

[Azshadi]

I tend to agree with Squid here. Once you buy a piece of hardware you get it because you need it now not 2 or 20 years from now. Futureproofing sounds like shooting yourself in the foot. Nobody knows if things turn out for the worse. Let's say that AMD will base Vega on a new arch. If this happens the support for GCN will be dropped. Although highly unlikely since they can't afford pumping money into RnD. Thus futureproofing is a gamble and not everyone wants to play those odds.

 

[NightAntilli]

Once again, this IS a perfectly reasonable card to purchase if you want something to run decently now... To expect more from it in 2 years is foolish.... Come back in 24 months and prove me wrong...

Gladly. Do you count the R9 280X as a mid tier card...?

I tend to agree with Squid here. Once you buy a piece of hardware you get it because you need it now not 2 or 20 years from now. Futureproofing sounds like shooting yourself in the foot. Nobody knows if things turn out for the worse. Let's say that AMD will base Vega on a new arch. If this happens the support for GCN will be dropped. Although highly unlikely since they can't afford pumping money into RnD. Thus futureproofing is a gamble and not everyone wants to play those odds.

You would have a point if the performance when you buy it was unplayable. But that's not the case. The performance remains playable over many years due to the constant improvement in performance.

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.

 

[Squid Surprise]

The 290x was NOT a mid-tier card.... So dunno what you're trying to prove...

 

[Azshadi]

You would have a point if the performance when you buy it was unplayable. But that's not the case. The performance remains playable over many years due to the constant improvement in performance.
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.

The performance remains the same because they didn't abandon the streamline that is GCN. Not because they don't want to it's because they can't sustain something new. Once that is over they'll move on to the next big thing and so on. This is the only guarantee you can get. That's why I stand by my opinion that "future-proofing" is pointless. No expectations no disappointments right?. Thus grabbing something that's needed now is always advisable versus something that might be nearly as good 2-3 years from now. Furthermore if AMD suddenly find the magic wand and reverse the whole situation the would do what nVidia does now (overpricing and so on). Because it's a business and running them to the ground isn't usually healthy. So all and all they have the same practices. Also if nVidia wants to run AMD into the ground they can do it relative ease and start a price war across 2 generations of GPU's.Who has more money in the bank for this? clearly not AMD. But would you start slashing out prices at 70%+ market share? Personally I don't care if my GPU is Red or Green as long as I can get what I need for my money at the time that I need it. Future-proof can't be in the same sentence with technological advancement. I'm not saying to go out and but the most expensive thing on the market but I wouldn't put my eggs in the "maybe it's going to be better in the future" basket. Nothing is set in stone.

 

[NightAntilli]

The 290x was NOT a mid-tier card.... So dunno what you're trying to prove...

I said 280X... Mistakes happen, but, I guess it's an indication for the accuracy that you read my posts with. No wonder you disagree lol xD

The performance remains the same because they didn't abandon the streamline that is GCN. Not because they don't want to it's because they can't sustain something new.

Actually, I think they stuck with GCN for so long because all the supported technologies were never used. Since these were never used, they came with Mantle, which pushed DX12 and Vulkan to bring to light what GCN really is about. People still see it as an old architecture, and yet, GCN 1.0 is closer to full FL12_1 support than Pascal. GCN 1.0 is missing 4 features for full FL12_1 support, while Pascal is missing 5. It paid off. They indeed can't afford to do as much extensive research as nVidia, which is exactly why their GCN architecture paid off for being so forward-thinking. It's more a CPU-like GPU so to speak, which makes it more versatile than anything nVidia has brought to the table. Not saying nVidia cards are bad. They perform well for their time of release. Let's just say that nVidia is a master in planned obsolescence. They won't have any features that will go unused in their hardware at the time of launch, while AMD's are packed with them.

Once that is over they'll move on to the next big thing and so on. This is the only guarantee you can get. That's why I stand by my opinion that "future-proofing" is pointless.

Obviously AMD left VLIW behind and with good reason. GCN is superior in every way, although VLIW still serves me well (HD6850 here). But having the same basic design over long periods can be beneficial as we're seeing now with GCN. When GCN is superseded, they might indeed leave GCN behind just like happened with VLIW. But that won't happen in the next 2 years, and I expect it won't happen even in 5 years.

No expectations no disappointments right?. Thus grabbing something that's needed now is always advisable versus something that might be nearly as good 2-3 years from now.

Again, you're assuming that what we have now is insufficient. Why would you go for the one that is known to have equal or less performance under future APIs, rather than equal or more?? If you're only looking at the past up to right now, you have dinosaur thinking. That, or you upgrade every year in order to always have the faster card. That's your right, but, to a lot of us, that's a waste of money.

To put it differently. You have the choice between;
1) Perfect performance now, no performance boost in the near future.
2) Playable performance now, huge performance boosts in the near future.

If you have a limited amount of money, which would you go for?

The RX 480 is sufficient for a lot of people right now, and, it will grow within upcoming years. I know I'm getting one. I simply never buy reference, and I'm awaiting a Sapphire Vapor-X/Toxic card. I will be buying this because I will be using it for close to 5 years. That's how I buy my cards, and that's how a lot of people buy their cards. A lot of people saw the GTX 970 as one of these long term cards. Unfortunately, they were wrong and should have gone with the R9 390 instead (as long as PSU was not an issue).

A GTX 970 that was faster than the RX 480 two weeks ago is already slower. The GTX 970 was also propagated as a perfect card when it launched, and the 3.5GB vs 4GB issue was pointed out as not mattering. It hasn't been that long since its release, but the card is becoming obsolete extremely fast. It was great at its time of release, but is now losing its grip already, not only against the R9 390, but simply at the 1080p resolution due to its limited memory. The R9 390 which was a bit slower at the GTX 970 launch now crushes it into the ground and has 8GB to boot.
You really cannot think only in right now if you want to make smart buying decisions, and sadly, the majority of people recommending cards to newbies are inevitably going to recommend them nVidia cards that will be obsolete in 2 years indeed. It's not really about future proofing per se, it's about maximizing your money's worth. If at the time I had the choice of only the R9 390 and the GTX 970, I would have gotten the R9 390 despite the GTX 970 being slightly faster. Not because I'm supposedly a fanboy, not because I supposedly hate nVidia, but because I could already see where things were headed. I've tried recommending the R9 390 over the GTX 970 to a LOT of people, and ultimately they went with the GTX 970 because it was faster at the time. I wonder if they squirm when they see the Doom Vulkan results, or that on average the R9 390 is now faster even under DX11. The only reason I did not get an R9 390 was because I was awaiting the node shrink. It seemed stupid to get a 28nm card with 14/16nm just around the corner.

Things are going to be happening in a similar way with the GTX 1060 and the RX 480. I recommend everyone to get the RX 480 instead, because it WILL be faster within less than a year, guaranteed. But this will fall on deaf ears anyway. nVidia has the luxury of making mistakes and still having customers. AMD does not.

Furthermore if AMD suddenly find the magic wand and reverse the whole situation the would do what nVidia does now (overpricing and so on). Because it's a business and running them to the ground isn't usually healthy. So all and all they have the same practices. Also if nVidia wants to run AMD into the ground they can do it relative ease and start a price war across 2 generations of GPU's.Who has more money in the bank for this? clearly not AMD. But would you start slashing out prices at 70%+ market share? Personally I don't care if my GPU is Red or Green as long as I can get what I need for my money at the time that I need it. Future-proof can't be in the same sentence with technological advancement. I'm not saying to go out and but the most expensive thing on the market but I wouldn't put my eggs in the "maybe it's going to be better in the future" basket. Nothing is set in stone.

That's fair enough. It's your money. But two years from now, everyone that bought a 980 Ti instead of a Fury X is going to regret it. Well, they would regret it if they thought a little. Chances are that they will be blindly spending money again instead. But anyway, if the situation really flips, and AMD becomes the one with shady business practices and holding back the industry, I will be supporting nVidia. But as of right now, nVidia is the one holding back the industry, and has been for a long time.

 

[Squid Surprise]

My bad... Misread on my iPhone

The 280x was just a rebranded 7870.... Which was also not a mid tier card...I believe the 280x launched at around $300... Not exactly mid-tier for 2013....

Still not exactly sure what you're getting at by throwing the name around...

 

[NightAntilli]

I'm simply questioning what would be considered a mid tier card or not. Is it the price only? Is it the performance...? Right now the RX 480 might be considered mid tier, even though it's performing as a high end like the R9 390... So... Which is it?

On a side-note, leaving this post here;
http://www.overclock.net/t/1605674/computerbase-de-doom-vulkan-benchmarked/140_20#post_25346545

 

[Squid Surprise]

It's NOT performing like a high end card.... The 980ti, TitanX, 1070 and 1080 all leave it in the dust.... It's performance is in the middle of the pack... As is its price.... Hence the label "mid-tier"... Sorry, thought u understood the definition...

Oh... And performing like a high end card from 2 years ago does NOT make it a high end card.... It has to perform like a high end card NOW to be considered one...

 

[NightAntilli]

Yeah AMD itself propagated it as a mid range class card. Just wanted to confirm the definition to see what to say to you. So... I can agree that high end cards age better than mid range cards, obviously.

However, mid range cards are not exempt from the boosts seen over time, especially with AMD. It's safe to say that their relevance over time will be proportional to the high end cards of the prior generation. So if say an R9 390X is viable for the next two years at 1080p, so would the RX 480, considering the difference at launch was about a 4% advantage for the 390X.

 

[Squid Surprise]

So your entire point is that this card is better than a high-end card from 2 years ago... Awesome.... But that's just plain common sense... Buying the 1060 will be better than buying a 970 as well...

This card, despite AMD's advertising scheme, is competing against the 1060... The 970 is OLD!

 

[NightAntilli]

Hmm. I'm not sure if buying the 1060 will be so much better than buying a GTX 970. Maybe particularly for the memory issue.

It is indeed plain common sense. But the longevity is within brands though. I think we can all agree that an HD7950 aged a lot better than a GTX 780. The R9 390 aged/is aging better than the GTX 970. I expect that trend to continue.