Does not apply. Most popular card on Steam is GTX970 where people paid for 4GB card but got 3.5GB card. Did those buyers get what they paid for? No.
AMD Radeon RX 480 Review: Performance for the masses
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Does not apply. Most popular card on Steam is GTX970 where people paid for 4GB card but got 3.5GB card. Did those buyers get what they paid for? No.
amstech
Posts: 2,662 +1,824
Holy crap the 970 is almost 2 years old. (GeForce GTX 970 September 18, 2014 GM204)
Wow times flies.
And for the record I agree (even bitched about it on here) on the Founders cards and 3.5GB VRAM. Thats BS.
specs seem slightly off on those cards. my r9 390 definately has a higher core clock than that
Just a comment about all these sli/crossfire propositions.. It should be obvious by now that NV and AMD are no longer interested in maintaining sli/cfx. After years of this experiment, there have been little to no improvements in support, both by game/api devs and in the drivers. You'd think that 12 years later (or 18, if you count 3dfx) that sli/cfx support would be universal and practically infallible, but what we have is exactly what it has been since the beginning -- paying twice as much for a 15-30% performance boost, with limited game support which wanes back and forth with each new driver release.
It's just for bleeding-edgers who want to get better benchmarks or push the limits of current games (like running anything current with high settings at 4k). It's not, and never will be, a mainstream tech.
(release the trolls! x] )
It's just for bleeding-edgers who want to get better benchmarks or push the limits of current games (like running anything current with high settings at 4k). It's not, and never will be, a mainstream tech.
(release the trolls! x] )
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,221 +3,075
This card makes me wonder why AMD didn't just rebrand the 390 and charge ~$200 for it.
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
That was my sentiment. The RX 480 reference runs cooler than the 970 reference and yet steve still seems to find a way make fun of the AMD card. I guess steve isn't considering that given his review of the gtx 970 is based on non-reference cards.
https://www.techspot.com/review/885-nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-gtx-980/
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
The 390 costs allot more to produce and uses allot more power. In countries like Japan where power is very expensive, energy usage is a huge deal. Nvidia has been gouging the Japanese market ever since maxwell came out. The RX 480 should be a good seller there. In addition, less power draw equals less heat. From what we've seen so far these cards aren't monster overclocks but we'll see what they can do with 3rd party coolers and custom PCBs.
If Vega is to have HBM2, that means the RX 490 and the new Fury and Fury X should be very good performers. Given that these cards will be getting the nm jump, HBM 2, and will feature AMD's big die you should expect at least 2x performance.
Mate you aren't really putting a lot of effort into this fanboy gig these days. Let me do the basic math for you. HardwareCanucks found the RX 480 was 10% faster than the GTX 970 at 1440p and 5% faster at 1080p.
Now my own results show the RX 480 to be 11% faster at 1440p and 4% faster at 1080p. So what is your point?
"The card is superior to the GTX 970 in every way."
Who said the GTX 970 is better? We showed the RX 480 to be faster and delivered a better cost per frame. The comment made was this and it is very true...
"The market has self-adjusted in anticipation to the new Radeon's arrival, so at launch the RX 480 8GB card will barely undercut the R9 390 and GTX 970, both of which can be had for $260."
It offers slightly more performance for a slightly better price while not improving power consumption and offering dismal overclocking performance. Now to boot there are also the power draw issues through the PCIe slot.
Even if the DX12 performance does end up weighing in AMD's favor once we have more than one real title, that doesn't change the fact that the RX 480 is at best a mild improvement over the R9 390.
Anyway thanks for posting those HardwareCanucks results that confirmed my own testing, that was super useful and proved the point you were trying to make I am sure
iABDOzz Mustafa
Posts: 12 +2
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
Mate you aren't really putting a lot of effort into this fanboy gig these days. Let me do the basic math for you. HardwareCanucks found the RX 480 was 10% faster than the GTX 970 at 1440p and 5% faster at 1080p.
Now my own results show the RX 480 to be 11% faster at 1440p and 4% faster at 1080p. So what is your point?
"The card is superior to the GTX 970 in every way."
Who said the GTX 970 is better? We showed the RX 480 to be faster and delivered a better cost per frame. The comment made was this and it is very true...
"The market has self-adjusted in anticipation to the new Radeon's arrival, so at launch the RX 480 8GB card will barely undercut the R9 390 and GTX 970, both of which can be had for $260."
It offers slightly more performance for a slightly better price while not improving power consumption and offering dismal overclocking performance. Now to boot there are also the power draw issues through the PCIe slot.
Even if the DX12 performance does end up weighing in AMD's favor once we have more than one real title, that doesn't change the fact that the RX 480 is at best a mild improvement over the R9 390.
Anyway thanks for posting those HardwareCanucks results that confirmed my own testing, that was super useful and proved the point you were trying to make I am sure
Actually the RX 480 significantly improve power usage
FYI steve, you never put down the system you are benching with so we have no idea how reliable your system power measurements are.
Another problem, the RX 480 doesn't replace the 390, it replaces the 380. As a reviewer you should not be comparing apples to oranges.
Dismal overclocking performance? Oh, just like the GTX 1080 or about every reference card out there? At least the RX 480 doesn't thermal throttle at stock settings like the 1080 does. It's funny how you forget these things for Nvidia cards but take points off for the AMD cards.
"It offers slightly more performance for a slightly better price"
And without it everyone would be still be paying twice as much for mid to entry level enthusiasts cards. Once again you are treating a mid tier card like a high end one. Hey, at least people can actually buy this card and it did cut the prices of cards in it's performance range, unlike the GTX 1080 and 1070 which can't be had unless you camp out a website for it. Or are you saying this card is worth less because it's good for the consumer?
Boilerhog146
Posts: 642 +223
this American company that makes their products in asia .aquired both their chipset and GPU tech from a CANADIAN! company named ,ATI. I used to be very fond of ATI .. atleast until they sold us out.they have never been the same since..Quite a few good careers slipped across the border in that deal...
Compared to what exactly? It is an improvement I will give you that, significant? Yeah NO.
No that is a problem for AMD. The R8 380 and GTX 960 were already out the door at the $200 price point. Hell at the time of release the GTX 960 was selling for as low as $160, over 30% less than the RX 480 8GB price. The RX 480 is coming in against the R9 390 and GTX 970 at $240, please come to terms with that basic fact.
The GTX 1080 FE showed over 15% gains in most of my overclocking benchmarks and we weren’t impressed with that at the time but at least it showed signs of hope. As it stands I have produced one of the best reference card overclocks on the RX 480 and we gained 8% more performance. Most have been lucky to get 5% more from what I have seen.
I am simply stating the facts as I find them. Are you trolling all the RX 480 reviews because from what I have seen they are all much the same. The RX 480 is a good graphics card, it just isn’t a great one.
Finally if I based my cost per analysis on the $200 4GB model like AdoredTV did despite testing the $240 8GB card then yes the RX 480 would have looked a lot more impressive.
NightAntilli
Posts: 929 +1,195
Thank you Steve for showing your true colors. Your double standard becomes more prevalent the more you speak. Still I must say, your review was more positive than what I expected. Too bad your comments ruined it.
As for saying I shouldn't pick on a GTX 970 since it's the most popular card on Steam, all I have to say is 3.5/4 & Mirror's Edge Catalyst Hyper settings.
Maybe you should not be picking on the RX 480, which has sold out in many places, despite ample stock. You never know how many steam users will be getting one.
As for saying I shouldn't pick on a GTX 970 since it's the most popular card on Steam, all I have to say is 3.5/4 & Mirror's Edge Catalyst Hyper settings.
Maybe you should not be picking on the RX 480, which has sold out in many places, despite ample stock. You never know how many steam users will be getting one.
Thank you, I translated that as “I was proven wrong but will never admit it”.
Still I am not even sure you are reading my comments. I never mentioned the popularity of the GTX 970 and I certainly never said you should pick on it. Are you getting your facts muddled again?
NightAntilli
Posts: 929 +1,195
Ok I confused someone else's comment with yours. Sorry for that.
However, you are 'punishing' the RX 480 for its lack of overclock capability, and you didn't for the 1080. You're also complaining about its power consumption. Yeah, maybe it's not up to par to nVidia's, but, compare it to the R9 390 and you see that it's a big improvement. Not to mention that higher power consumption was made as a sacrifice to not undermine their DX12 performance.
Given the comments made so far in this thread I would say the confusion isn’t limited to that one post. You are trying to discredit what is one of the more positive RX 480 reviews on the internet. Again we pretty much stuck to the facts and figures on this one with few of our own personal thoughts and feelings.
At some point you have to stop comparing AMD GPUs with just AMD GPUs. When you do, you quickly see that the RX 480 consumes the same amount of power as the much faster GTX 1070 and that obviously isn’t a good thing. I don’t think it is wrong to tick this off as a negative attribute of the product.
As for the overclocking angle. As I said we pushed the GTX 1080 14% above the base clock which really hiked up the GPU Boost 3.0 clocks, resulting in over 15% performance gains. Meanwhile the RX 480 struggled with a 7% overclock.
The GTX 1080 was as easy as can be to overclock, it hit those frequencies without much tinkering. It took me over an hour to get the RX 480 stable at 1.35GHz and the evidence would suggest most gave up before making it even that far.
NightAntilli
Posts: 929 +1,195
Will you be doing AIB RX 480 reviews?
I very much hope so. HIS are telling me custom cards will be available in 2-3 weeks time. I am hoping to see much better thermals and improved overclocking. I also think the 8GB model isn't were the value is at. I really want to test the 4GB models as I think they will be the bees knees.
Nero7
Posts: 498 +237
Is the 480 actually strong enough for 8GB of vram? I wonder because this used to be a big topic about the GTX770 between its 2 and 4GB version. I found the 4GB version of the 770 to be great because many games went above 2GB requirement like Titanfall and others. The RX 480 isn't that much stronger than a 770 and yet it has 8GB?
I don't think so. At best the games where the 8GB card will have an advantage under playable conditions will be far and few between.
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,438 +10,209
Did you mean to type Who, now how?
Because the answer is a lot of people, hence the popularity of maxwell over the 300 series. the 390x was between the 970 and 980 in many games, but pulled way more power and, surprise surprise, it sold way worse then the 980, let alone the 970.
People may not have cared during the geforce fx and 6 days, but the modern market certianly does care, and AMD needs to start competing there.
That power consumption also speaks volumes about vega. At 1080 performance, how much is vega going to draw, 300 watt? Based on polaris, it doesnt look good.
And what of the 1060 when it comes out? Power consumption matters a lot in the lower mid range market, and if the 1060 hits 480 performance but at 80 watt power consumption, AMD is going to really struggle unless the 1060 is $300+
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
"Compared to what exactly? It is an improvement I will give you that, significant? Yeah NO."
and your previous comment
"It offers slightly more performance for a slightly better price while not improving power consumption and offering dismal overclocking performance"
Nice 180. So at first you state no improvement in power efficiency and now it does? The RX 480 is around 22% more power efficient than the 380 all the while providing over 50% more frames on average. Massive increase in FPS and they managed to decrease the power usage.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview/4
Overclocking gains don't mean anything if the card is already throttling at stock, like the 1080. "signs of hope" is in your completely subjective opinion and could mean anything.
"No that is a problem for AMD. The R8 380 and GTX 960 were already out the door at the $200 price point. Hell at the time of release the GTX 960 was selling for as low as $160, over 30% less than the RX 480 8GB price. The RX 480 is coming in against the R9 390 and GTX 970 at $240, please come to terms with that basic fact."
Because if Steve says so it magically makes the card a RX 490? FYI, and I stated this before and you ignored it, the only reason the 970 and 390 are at their current price points is because of the RX 480. Also your pricing on the GTX 970 is off.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133620&buyingoptions=New
You can get the GTX 970 above $260 in limited quantities only. Notice how newegg only has one model at that price. Most other models start at $280+. If you aren't going to compare model to model you should at least compare price to price. Even the GTX 960 is often costs more than the RX 480 and it is a far slower card. You are trying to argue that either AMD / Nvidia's out of production, limited stock cards are right to compare to a in production card. That's great if the intention of your review was to mislead. In reality there aren't many of these cards left and they are last gen. If you take the higher price and the value of next gen tech into consideration it's easy to see why the RX 480 is the far better value.
Also, another point you dodged, the lack of any benchmark criteria or what system was used is pretty stark compared to other review sites.
GeforcerFX
Posts: 1,091 +547
Hope you get to! After reading all reviews I think the reference power delivery is gimping the card, which I get amd wanted to save the money and stay in a particular power envelope. I think that 1500 core could be doable with a better power delivery and a 3rd party cooler. Still wouldn't beat the GTX1070 but could still be a decent performer, maybe sitting at 200 watts at that point.
Evernessince
Posts: 5,469 +6,158
Power consumption isn't a linear equation. Given that the RX 480 consumes 167w I'd imagine that the RX 490, assuming the it is 35% faster, will consume around 218w. Compare that to last gen R9 390 which would consume 323w, that's a pretty great jump in efficiency
source
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/28.html
Similar threads
