# AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB



## W1zzard (Jun 29, 2016)

Today, AMD is introducing their new 14 nanometer Polaris architecture. The first card we are reviewing is the Radeon RX 480, a highly affordable 8 GB card that sets out to shatter current price-to-performance ratios. In terms of performance, you can expect speeds between the GTX 980 and GTX 970.

*Show full review*


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 29, 2016)

I will keep my 970 for a little longer. I need a good 1440p card.


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Jun 29, 2016)

Oh dear AMD.


----------



## birdie (Jun 29, 2016)

Let's console those who yielded to the hype and sold their perfectly capable GTX 970 and 980.

The RX 480 is almost nice, but apparently not in the league it was rumored to be (aside from DX12 games tailored for AMD).

And my second thought is, how on Earth it consumes so much??


----------



## proxuser (Jun 29, 2016)

Not even worth in cf. which uses double watt and offers less performance. amd lost me again.


----------



## DarkOCean (Jun 29, 2016)

Guess what i'm not getting? I guess the more overhyped a product it is the crappier it is in reality.
When is rx 470 launch date?


----------



## Dammeron (Jun 29, 2016)

Sooo disappointing... Eats as much as GTX 970, even though it's 14nm vs 28nm. But still scored 8.9 in the end, which is an awesome note. I'll never get used to that.


----------



## Air (Jun 29, 2016)

I thought the smaller cooler compared to Nvidia was indication of lower power consumption, but looks like its just a cheaper design...


----------



## bug (Jun 29, 2016)

Basically a hair faster than a 970 (that evil card that "only has 3.5GB VRAM"), with slightly higher power consumption, despite being manufactured on a (much) smaller node. Not much cheaper either, since the 970 is listed for as low as $265 on newegg.


----------



## Frick (Jun 29, 2016)

To be fair the hype mostly came from fans.

The speed is about what I expected and quite good for the price, although actual retail prices remains to be seen. Power draw is ... actually alright, considering it's GCN. It really showcases how amazing Pascal is in that area though.

But AMD clearly has got to fire their cooler department. Seriously. Now bring on the flurry of AIB cards!


----------



## Kissamies (Jun 29, 2016)

Not a bad product, but now I'm sure that I won't be upgrading from my R9 290, at least not yet. Maybe newer drivers give more performance etc.


----------



## chaosmassive (Jun 29, 2016)

*"and then there's GTX 1060 coming soon, too"
*
how soon? like in 1-2 weeks?


----------



## chinmi (Jun 29, 2016)

hot, power hungry, and not as fast as advertised by amd...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 29, 2016)

Well this is sad.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 29, 2016)

the card is nice at her pricepoint... no worries though, it was advertised as a cheap high midrange and it's what it is ... 



newtekie1 said:


> Well this is sad.


not really ...it is sad only if you own a 980 or a 390X (or in case of sidegrading like a 290 or ... eventually a 970 3.5 edition )

oh well my 980 will hold till Vega and after Pascal, nothing worth it in the latest gen


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 29, 2016)

birdie said:


> And my second thought is, how on Earth it consumes so much??



Seems like Tpu f*ed up. All other sites are quoting lower power consumptions.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview/6


----------



## EzioAs (Jun 29, 2016)

I thought we'd get to see the in-game settings on each game page? Not to force you or anything but it'd be great if you could give us an update on that.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jun 29, 2016)

chaosmassive said:


> *"and then there's GTX 1060 coming soon, too"
> *
> how soon? like in 1-2 weeks?


Rumored to be early to mid july. So yes.


----------



## XSI (Jun 29, 2016)

for me it looks like new 8800GT which was almost 8800gtx level for half the price. I see similar here 480x vs 980. price / performance. cheaper almost 2 times(or even more). and price/performance 
ratio shows exactly that.


----------



## KainXS (Jun 29, 2016)

So no OC headroom on the core, runs hot, and is loud and is over pci e power specs. ehhh when I read this I felt like






AIB cards might be decent(might get one eventually) but this reference card. . . . . . is not worth it(to me at least).


----------



## Kissamies (Jun 29, 2016)

chinmi said:


> hot, power hungry, and not as fast as advertised by amd...


Well, I'd say that if it's about 290X performance with a much lower consumption, I'd not say that it's power hungry. My 290 draws a lot more power and therefor generates a lot more heat than this 480, but that's not the reason if I would upgrade. Some people (like me) just don't care about power consumption.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 29, 2016)

and GTX 1070 not even priced at 379$

GTX 960 4GB price for 290x perfomence .


----------



## v12dock (Jun 29, 2016)

I suppose they hit their performance point but I don't see them selling a lot of these cards.


----------



## natr0n (Jun 29, 2016)

Was hoping that higher OC would help this card shine.


----------



## iO (Jun 29, 2016)

Same problems as usual: over hyped by fanboys and crippled with a crappy cooler...

Lets hope non ref cards can fix this


----------



## SonicZap (Jun 29, 2016)

The performance isn't bad, the price is good, but the power efficiency is *abysmal*. There's only a small (~30%) improvement compared to Pitcairn (270X), while Pascal has shown a huge efficiency leap over Maxwell. Nvidia's 28 nm GPUs are as efficient as AMD's 14nm GPUs. GTX 1070 is over 70% more efficient. When it comes to power efficiency it's like Bulldozer against Sandy Bridge if not worse.

I wonder whether it's AMD or GloFo's process that's to blame. But this horrible power efficiency means that AMD will get slaughtered in high-end unless Vega doubles Polaris' power efficiency, which isn't going to happen.


----------



## jigar2speed (Jun 29, 2016)

O


v12dock said:


> I suppose they hit their performance point but I don't see them selling a lot of these cards.



Oh yes they will, disappointment is soon going to go away, since all the unnecessary hype was done by fanboys. Just look at the performance per dollar chart, nothing is even remotely close to the performance that you get for the money you spend.


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 29, 2016)

The Price/Perf is amazing, but I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed with the power and temps, as well as OC. Sure the ones with 970/290/390 have no reason to upgrade, but there are a lot of people like myself with a low end card, and also those who are making a new budget build. This card is perfect for them. 
Lets see what non-reference brings to the table.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 29, 2016)

I told you it was another Glofo failure. It's garbage. Power consumption is off the charts for 14nm and it can't clock at all (as expected).

Dump Glofo and sue them to break contract.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jun 29, 2016)

9700 Pro said:


> Well, I'd say that if it's about 290X performance with a much lower consumption, I'd not say that it's power hungry. My 290 draws a lot more power and therefor generates a lot more heat than this 480, but that's not the reason if I would upgrade. Some people (like me) just don't care about power consumption.


It's power hungry compared to the competition. 1070/1080 power consumption levels for 970/980 performance? That is terrible.

Imagine what the 1060 will do, if it is half the size of a 1080, with half the power draw. If it performs the same as a 480, the 480 will be obsoleted in the same year it released.


SonicZap said:


> The performance isn't bad, the price is good, but the power efficiency is *abysmal*. There's only a small (~30%) improvement compared to Pitcairn (270X), while Pascal has shown a huge efficiency leap over Maxwell. Nvidia's 28 nm GPUs are as efficient as AMD's 14nm GPUs. GTX 1070 is over 70% more efficient. When it comes to power efficiency it's like Bulldozer against Sandy Bridge if not worse.
> 
> I wonder whether it's AMD or GloFo's process that's to blame. But this horrible power efficiency means that AMD will get slaughtered in high-end unless Vega doubles Polaris' power efficiency, which isn't going to happen.


Whats worse, ZEN is made on the same process as polaris. This might not bode well for zen CPUs either if it is a glofo problem. Again.


----------



## nem.. (Jun 29, 2016)

hey folks too much talking about , and recently I'm finding that the RX 480 is the same size die chip than 960 and with similar prices when released to go seeming in that range play the 480x truly,

here this table had taken from tpu and you can see, almost doubles all specs of 960, if we are to compare Polaris against Maxwell this would be the fair and best comparison , if they say that AMD offers performance Maxwell, but twice the memory bandwidth , twice memory bus, vRam size, the power of the chip, etc.

I leave here and the link to the database anyone can see for himself.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/

*Specs comparision : RX 480 VS 960 VS 970 VS 980*


----------



## Absolution (Jun 29, 2016)

> It doesn't use any heatpipes or other high-tech means to keep the card cool. Rather, there is a big slab of metal, with a copper core that has the blower fan sending air across its fins.



And that tard Raja said it is designed like a $500 card rofl. They couldnt even get a decent cooling solution.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 29, 2016)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> It's power hungry compared to the competition. 1070/1080 power consumption levels for 970/980 performance? That is terrible.
> 
> Imagine what the 1060 will do, if it is half the size of a 1080, with half the power draw. If it performs the same as a 480, the 480 will be obsoleted in the same year it released.
> 
> Whats worse, ZEN is made on the same process as polaris. This might not bode well for zen CPUs either if it is a glofo problem. Again.


Zen better be at Samsung only (APUs at glofo I suspect).


----------



## Disparia (Jun 29, 2016)

Very nice. Not in rush buy anything though as the slowest card in the house (GTX 660) is still fine for games that the kids play. Also, even before the reviews I knew I would wait for shortened aftermarket cards with better coolers.


----------



## bug (Jun 29, 2016)

jigar2speed said:


> O
> 
> 
> Oh yes they will, disappointment is soon going to go away, since all the unnecessary hype was done by fanboys._ Just look at the performance per dollar chart, nothing is even remotely close_ to the performance that you get for the money you spend.



Yes there is. The 970 offers about the same performance for $265. And that's for custom solutions which are already overclocked and will match 480's performance in this review. Yes, there will be custom, overclocked 480s, but they will also cost more than the MSRP.


----------



## ISI300 (Jun 29, 2016)

"Made in Globalfoundries, USA."
Well, that's a first.
This might be my next cadd, but due to lack of DVI and the crappy cooler gonna wait for AIB cards or the GTX 1060.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 29, 2016)

Everything about this card smells like a 2nd hand product released as new. Price included....


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 29, 2016)

Personally, I think this card has a lot of potential and will sell remarkably well.  I don't know why everyone sounds so disappointed.

It performs very well at 1080p, with price/performance being excellent.  The only real downfall, as I see it, is the temperatures, which is a product of the cooling solution.  It is still a safe level, despite exceeding the personal comfort level of many.  This in turn impacts the overclocking ability.  AIB partners will correct most of those two issues for those it is important to with better cooling solutions.

This is an extremely good card that is very affordable and has the potential to take the majority of the mid-level market.  Just don't expect it to be what it's not, and your disappointments will wane.

EDIT:  Good grief, I believe this review and follow-up has nearly killed the TPU servers!


----------



## jigar2speed (Jun 29, 2016)

bug said:


> Yes there is. The 970 offers about the same performance for $265. And that's for custom solutions which are already overclocked and will match 480's performance in this review. Yes, there will be custom, overclocked 480s, but they will also cost more than the MSRP.


But why would you purchase GTX 970 4GB (3.5GB) at $265 when you can purchase RX 480 8GB card at $239 ??
EDIT: I forgot to add this thing has better DX 12 performance than GTX 970.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 29, 2016)

Anyone see our friend Medi01? 

I wish we would have seen more performance for the power used and price...


----------



## Valdas (Jun 29, 2016)

Almost what I have expected, except the power consumption. Delivers significantly less performance compared to 1070 and yet power consumption is similar. Oh well, it seems finally hype mist clears and we can see what the reality looks like. None the less price makes it a decent product.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jun 29, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Personally, I think this card has a lot of potential and will sell remarkably well.  I don't know why everyone sounds so disappointed.
> 
> It performs very well at 1080p, with price/performance being excellent.  The only real downfall, as I see it, is the temperatures, which is a product of the cooling solution.  It is still a safe level, despite exceeding the personal comfort level of many.  This in turn impacts the overclocking ability.  AIB partners will correct most of those two issues for those it is important to with better cooling solutions.
> 
> ...


Here's the problem. If nvidia does manage to get the rumored 1060 out in july, it will take all the wind out of AMD's sails. A 1060 would crush the 480 power consumption wise at the same performance, and if nvidia prices it at, say $250, nobody is going to buy the 480 except those on the tighest of budgets.


----------



## Assimilator (Jun 29, 2016)

AMD literally does not learn from their mistakes, this is the 290 launch all over again. This is why they deserve to fail as a company.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 29, 2016)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> Here's the problem. If nvidia does manage to get the rumored 1060 out in july, it will take all the wind out of AMD's sails. A 1060 would crush the 480 power consumption wise at the same performance, and if nvidia prices it at, say $250, nobody is going to buy the 480 except those on the tighest of budgets.



Possibly you are right.  However: 1) We know nothing of 1060 performance numbers yet, and 2) Let's not discount the NVIDIA ability to vastly overestimate the worth of their product and price it way too high for this market.


----------



## KainXS (Jun 29, 2016)

now that the card is released, if the GTX 1060 is better you will pay more for it, nvidia never lets down on that just look at the 1070 and 1080. Not to mention that rumors like that are exactly what led to all this disappointment.


----------



## red_stapler (Jun 29, 2016)

Yeah, I'm not giving up my 7950 just yet.


----------



## DarkOCean (Jun 29, 2016)

XSI said:


> for me it looks like new 8800GT which was almost 8800gtx level for half the price. I see similar here 480x vs 980. price / performance. cheaper almost 2 times(or even more). and price/performance
> ratio shows exactly that.


8800 gt had over 20% oc headroom on custom cooler cards even the stock card did better than this and lower poer consumption



iO said:


> Same problems as usual: over hyped by fanboys and crippled with a crappy cooler...
> 
> Lets hope non ref cards can fix this


even if they'd used a cooler like the one on stock intel cpus would have been better


----------



## silkstone (Jun 29, 2016)

I'm not sure what all the disappointment is about. It's roughly where we expected it to be. The biggest problem is the cooler and overclock.
For those out for a well performing mid-range card, it's far better than anything else in the price range.

I'd jump on it, if not for the poor cooler and no immediate need for a new card. The only competition this card has where I am, at a similar price point is a 290 or 970 for $100 more or a 960 at an equal price.
As it is, I will wait for the custom cards to come out with better cooling and possible 8-pin connectors.


----------



## bug (Jun 29, 2016)

jigar2speed said:


> But why would you purchase GTX 970 4GB (3.5GB) at $265 when you can purchase RX 480 8GB card at $239 ??
> EDIT: I forgot to add this thing has better DX 12 performance than GTX 970.



Linux support. At least AMD now has day 1 support, too, but it seems it's still not on par with what they offer on Windows.
970 aside, I'm mostly concerned about what the 1060 will do to the landscape.


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 29, 2016)

I'm actually doubting the usefulness of 8GB as the card struggles to achieve 60fps at 1440p where that amount of memory is needed. I'd really like to see some benches with memory usage on 1080/1440p.


----------



## ISI300 (Jun 29, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> AMD literally does not learn from their mistakes, this is the 290 launch all over again. This is why they deserve to fail as a company.


Oh, they DESERVE to fail?
200$ gets yolu at least 970/290 performance. Power consumption is a bit high but nothing that every power supply in every gaming system ever can't handle.
Cooler is a bit disappointing but that's what tne AIB cards are for.
I know some people like having their head jammed up their gloomy place and can't see the positives of a card that costs almost a third of what their G1 980 cost at launch but with almost the same performance.
Or are you one of those PR-firm hired Nvidia FUDsters?


----------



## jabbadap (Jun 29, 2016)

iO said:


> Same problems as usual: over hyped by fanboys and crippled with a crappy cooler...
> 
> Lets hope non ref cards can fix this



+Too low power delivery, 8-pin connector would have been better... Well better wait for custom models, with better cooling and better power delivery.

It's currently overpriced in old continent too:
http://geizhals.de/?cat=gra16_512&xf=1440_RX+480~653_AMD#xf_top
http://geizhals.de/?cat=gra16_512&xf=1439_GTX+970#xf_top


----------



## Frick (Jun 29, 2016)

jigar2speed said:


> But why would you purchase GTX 970 4GB (3.5GB) at $265 when you can purchase RX 480 8GB card at $239 ??
> EDIT: I forgot to add this thing has better DX 12 performance than GTX 970.



Not to mention immature drivers, maybe/probably.

I think it'll come down to when the 1060 is coming out and how it'll be priced. It will be a power effeciency monster and hugely popular.

EDIT: I had hoped for more OC though,that way we'd have the old days back. More memory/slighlt faster and more expensive or cheaper and overclocking it.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 29, 2016)

jigar2speed said:


> But why would you purchase GTX 970 4GB (3.5GB) at $265 when you can purchase RX 480 8GB card at $239 ??
> EDIT: I forgot to add this thing has better DX 12 performance than GTX 970.



As long as you keep your usage within the fast ram, 970 destroys this steaming pile. 970 clocks well, this garbage can't even make a dent.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jun 29, 2016)

Worse than expected, only price looks right but then again one needs to put up with noise and heat. Performance might be appealing for some using the 380, 960 and below who can't wait maybe another month for the green counterpart. If the GTX 1060 would've been already out this could've looked even worse. If GP106 follows the trend of GP104 in terms of performance compared to previous gen and Vega follows Polaris trend, AMD will again have to sell their cards for peanuts to stay in the business.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 29, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> As long as you keep your usage within the fast ram, 970 destroys this steaming pile. 970 clocks well, this garbage can't even make a dent.



Stock 970 didn't overclocked well to,

GTX 970 is fine as long you won't reach 3.5gb limit or DX12 that would crash after hour.









17 vs 50fps ? - Nvidia's Hyper Settings.


----------



## xorbe (Jun 29, 2016)

"soon there will also be a 4 GB version, which will retail for $199, _which_ lower memory clocks though." (with?)



ShurikN said:


> I'm actually doubting the usefulness of 8GB as the card struggles to achieve 60fps at 1440p where that amount of memory is needed. I'd really like to see some benches with memory usage on 1080/1440p.



I think the 4GB card will be the popular one ... but why would they lower the vram clock, how annoying.


----------



## Dimi (Jun 29, 2016)

Well the cheapest RX480 is 299 Euro for me. I'd rather wait for the GTX 1060 or i might just buy a 1070 when i'm in the USA in September.


----------



## deu (Jun 29, 2016)

I dont get why people in here go balistic over this performance!? AMD had stated that the 480 would be close to a 980 (which it is)  The card outperform ALL card in performance pr dollars and is in the top when it comes to perfomance pr watt. EVENTHOUGH this is documented her ONSITE by techpowerup, people still go full meltdown for some reason!? Either you REALLY did not do your research well and somehow excepted polaris to be the vega-chip or else you are just plain super-biased. For some reason only is the entusiast level gaming that matters to some people, even though this card will be the best choice to about 80% of all gamers right now. To be honest I actually thought people frequenting these forums had some level of insight but again forums = trolls and biasedness...


----------



## jabbadap (Jun 29, 2016)

xorbe said:


> "soon there will also be a 4 GB version, which will retail for $199, _which_ lower memory clocks though." (with?)
> 
> I think the 4GB card will be the popular one ... but why would they lower the vram clock, how annoying.



Maybe because there is no 4Gb memory chips that is clocked 8Gbps, all 8Gbps memory chips on the market are 8Gb. 256bit bus so it needs 8 chips or clamped mode 16 chips. If you use 4 8Gb@8Gbps chips you would get 4GB card with 128bit bus.


----------



## xorbe (Jun 29, 2016)

what's this claim that 16.6.2 had a perf bug, and to use 16.20.1035.1001-RC1 ... sounds like a bad joke.  Well, it is on page 5 of their review.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/s...7bd2dbcc6d3e083d96a10&p=29713609&postcount=46
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/5/

Choice cb.de quote was left out, last line: "On average 1.5% faster."


----------



## v12dock (Jun 29, 2016)

Reported driver issues https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/5/

Apparently there is a 5% performance difference between the 16.6.2 and 16.20.1035.1001-RC1 drivers



xorbe said:


> what's this claim that 16.6.2 had a perf bug, and to use 16.20.1035.1001-RC1 ... sounds like a bad joke
> https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/s...7bd2dbcc6d3e083d96a10&p=29713609&postcount=46



Beat me to it


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 29, 2016)

So basically its between the GTX 970 and GTX 980 which was what was expected while some believed it was going to be above the GTX 980 and hyped it way up.  The only thing I see disappointing is the overclocking, this thing really needs an aftermarket solution that includes that dual 6 pin and some fans to keep it in line then check the overclocking.  But honestly this overclocking is very disappointing at the moment in my book as it really needed to catch up in that department.  The cooler is exactly what was expected and it performs similar to the other recently released blowers...  Blowers are never going to be amazing coolers because of how they are designed (Plus its only a $200-$240 card so what should we expect).

Well either way the 4gb one is a great buy at the $200.  The 8gb might provide a little better longevity, however I think that would only be really beneficial in CFX.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 29, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> AMD literally does not learn from their mistakes, this is the 290 launch all over again. This is why they deserve to fail as a company.


you mean the 2900XT, the 290(X) was faster than the 780 when it launched at the same price or 100$ cheaper only losing to the 780 ti. The 400$ 290 absolutely destroyed the 350ish 770 and still beat the 500$ 780 in most games.  Also being that kepler wasn't all that power efficient, the 290(X) didn't seem all that power hungry; not when we still had fermi in the back of our minds. 

like the 390(X) I feel like 8GB on this card is a waste especially since its a mid-range. Mid-range card begets mid-range monitor which is 1080p and no game chews up that much vram at that resolution. So at 200$ the 4GB isn't too bad...if it were released 6 months ago. It feels like NV can easily launch a 1050 ti that will stomp this card with less power draw, less noise, and at the same price point or less. Then they can charge 250-300 for the 1060 (ti) which will fill the gap between that and the 1070.


----------



## illli (Jun 29, 2016)

As someone who always roots for the underdog and wants to see them succeed... I'm slightly disappointed by the results.  I was hoping it would at least be on par with the GTX 980, but it wasn't.  It also seems to have worse power draw than a 1070, which is just... bad.


----------



## deu (Jun 29, 2016)

natr0n said:


> Was hoping that higher OC would help this card shine.



The temperature is a limit; with aftermarket you could proberbly se it go higher but again it is a "mid-end-card" :0


----------



## Steevo (Jun 29, 2016)

Performance is where we expected, cheap card wit a cheap cooler, the like we haven't seen since the early 2000's, and limited over clocking potential in Stock form.


I guess this is exactly where they were aiming for, so no disappointing parts of the review except the high idle and blu-ray power draw, but how much of that is them still using their UVD tech in the same silicon and hardware acceleration without blackscreen like Nvidia have had issues with.

Not the upgrade I was hoping for at this time, but I would like to see one under water and with more power available.


----------



## iO (Jun 29, 2016)

v12dock said:


> Reported driver issues https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/5/
> 
> Apparently there is a 5% performance difference between the 16.6.2 and 16.20.1035.1001-RC1 drivers



And according to PCGH.de there is also a bug which prevents the card to enter it's lowest P-State. Should lower the idle power consumption about a third.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 29, 2016)

http://www.smarteranalyst.com/2016/...devices-inc-acquires-software-company-hialgo/

so maybe in a couple years we'll see them get a handle on it?


----------



## Frick (Jun 29, 2016)

Prices here so far go from €280-340. GTX980 is €345->, GTX970 is from €240. Good 970s. The RX 480 would be worth it IMO if not for that cooler. Seriously, fire the people responsible, they are holding you back AMD!

EDIT: Also, multimonitor is terrrrriiiiibbblllle. Seriously, WTF. But as noted above, could be drivers. It is a brand new card after all.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 29, 2016)

The review is for the card sampled, not an AIB, so in that respect this card is too loud, too hot, too mediocre. Of course it needs to be cheap. The reference version frankly is disappointing.

However, I'm sure once AIB's get to tamper with it the noise and temps won't be an issue. It will be good little card with a bit of tlc

It's just a shame that AMD see fit to release such an unrefined card and wait for the AIB's to make it shine....


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 29, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> not really ...it is sad only if you own a 980 or a 390X (or in case of sidegrading like a 290 or ... eventually a 970 3.5 edition )
> 
> oh well my 980 will hold till Vega and after Pascal, nothing worth it in the latest gen



Not what I meant.  I mean it is sad because once again we have a generation where AMD is extremely far behind in power and heat, and can't compete in the high end performance segment.  We have to wait for Vega to come out to get competition performance wise to the 1070/1080, and by then GP102 will be ready and faster.  But GP102 cards will be overpriced because they have no competition...  Lack of competition is bad, and means we as the consumer loose.  I was hoping RX 480 would at least come close to the 1070 to warrant a slight price cut from nVidia, but nope...  Even in crossfire, two of these can't compete with a 1070.

Plus, it annoys me that AMD has gone quite a bit out of spec on the power consumption, pulling beyond spec from the PCI-E slot and PCI-E 6-pin.  I've seen this cause the 24-pin connector melt.


----------



## mcraygsx (Jun 29, 2016)

While not a very solid card when it comes to Power efficiency. I feel like AMD is just playing a catchup game with NVidia. They barely are catching up with nVidia's last generation  Mid range cards (970/980). 

Hyper was all about Cost/Power efficiency and it is way below 1070 (154W) vs 480 (166w) given the huge performance difference between the two. I am not sure where the card shines besides the outstanding price.


----------



## KainXS (Jun 29, 2016)

Steevo said:


> Performance is where we expected, cheap card wit a cheap cooler, the like we haven't seen since the early 2000's, and limited over clocking potential in Stock form.
> 
> 
> I guess this is exactly where they were aiming for, so no disappointing parts of the review except the high idle and blu-ray power draw, but how much of that is them still using their UVD tech in the same silicon and hardware acceleration without blackscreen like Nvidia have had issues with.
> ...



When AIB cards come out I was planning to do that with a 8+6Pin verison maybe since I have  seidon 120m sitting which will mount to with with no bracket needed.



the54thvoid said:


> However, I'm sure once AIB's get to tamper with it the noise and temps won't be an issue. It will be good little card with a bit of tlc
> 
> It's just a shame that AMD see fit to release such an unrefined card and wait for the AIB's to make it shine....



100% true


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 29, 2016)

Dimi said:


> Well the cheapest RX480 is 299 Euro for me. I'd rather wait for the GTX 1060 or i might just buy a 1070 when i'm in the USA in September.


If this card is 300e in your country, then even the 1070 is overpriced compared ti US. And so will the 1060 be.


----------



## Frick (Jun 29, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Not what I meant.  I mean it is sad because once again we have a generation where AMD is extremely far behind in power and heat, and can't compete in the high end performance segment.  We have to wait for Vega to come out to get competition performance wise to the 1070/1080, and by then GP102 will be ready and faster.  But GP102 cards will be overpriced because they have no competition...  Lack of competition is bad, and means we as the consumer loose.  I was hoping RX 480 would at least come close to the 1070 to warrant a slight price cut from nVidia, but nope...  Even in crossfire, two of these can't compete with a 1070.
> 
> Plus, it annoys me that AMD has gone quite a bit out of spec on the power consumption, pulling beyond spec from the PCI-E slot and PCI-E 6-pin.  I've seen this cause the 24-pin connector melt.



The only way Vega will beat anything is clearly if it pulls several million watts. Which is fine, IMO, if the price is very competitive (partly because PSU's last forever compared to GPU's and the high end gamers generally sit on big PSU's). I'm betting it won't be though. :/


----------



## Casecutter (Jun 29, 2016)

While a little off on the performance I had hoped it still could have potential.  I need to see more reviews, but the other I've look at was somewhat down on the cooler (while not as bad as here) it seem to just be reference adequate.  I think the AIB can do a lot with what they have and was more waiting for those.  And yes the power numbers shown here seem to again not follow the quick perusing I've done to this point of other sites.


----------



## lays (Jun 29, 2016)

Frick said:


> Prices here so far go from €280-340. GTX980 is €345->, GTX970 is from €240. Good 970s. The RX 480 would be worth it IMO if not for that cooler. Seriously, fire the people responsible, they are holding you back AMD!
> 
> EDIT: Also, multimonitor is terrrrriiiiibbblllle. Seriously, WTF. But as noted above, could be drivers. It is a brand new card after all.



1. Those are launch prices. Price gouging from retailers. No one in their right mind is going to buy a GTX 970 over a non-reference normal priced RX 480

2. There's a possible driver issue, 5% performance increase is quite big

3. AMD reference cards are always hotter and more power thirsty than non-ref cards (they do need to sort this because it affects initial optics on their products)

4. Other sites are reporting lower power usage for the RX 480, perhaps there is an issue with some cards

If they launched this card with a good cooler, 5% better performance (10% over 970) and better power usage the reaction here would no doubt be very positive

That's likely what the nonreference RX 480's will be. Am I dashing out to buy one? no, waiting for non-ref benches and release of GTX 1060 (rumoured around 7th of July) before
I pull the trigger. Likewise when GTX 1060 is released I will wait for non-reference cards (although Nvidia usually do better coolers and have less rocky launches)


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (Jun 29, 2016)

9700 Pro said:


> Well, I'd say that if it's about 290X performance with a much lower consumption, I'd not say that it's power hungry. My 290 draws a lot more power and therefor generates a lot more heat than this 480, but that's not the reason if I would upgrade. Some people (like me) just don't care about power consumption.



It's faster than the 290X. It's faster than the 390X in at least half of the tested games mostly thanks to its improved tessellation throughput. The problem is the shitty stock AMD cooler.


----------



## GAR (Jun 29, 2016)

Wow....this is sad.....Amd again lied in the slides, getting tired of those shade antics by Amd. I bet zen is also amazing as well....get ready for another let down.


----------



## Frick (Jun 29, 2016)

BTW, full system power.

Intel Core i7-5930K @ 4,4 GHz
Asus Rampage V Extreme
16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX, 2 133 MHz, 15-15-15-36
Corsair LX 512 GB
Corsair AX1200i 1 200 W









GAR said:


> Wow....this is sad.....Amd again lied in the slides, getting tired of those shade antics by Amd. I bet zen is also amazing as well....get ready for another let down.


Did they though?


----------



## bug (Jun 29, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> The review is for the card sampled, not an AIB, so in that respect this card is too loud, too hot, too mediocre. Of course it needs to be cheap. The reference version frankly is disappointing.
> 
> However, I'm sure once AIB's get to tamper with it the noise and temps won't be an issue. It will be good little card with a bit of tlc



Of course it will be, but will still be a $239 card?


----------



## Divide Overflow (Jun 29, 2016)

Performance for dollar looks outstanding, which is really what a low to mid end card is all about.  Minor quibbles on heat and noise issues will be addressed by non-reference solutions.
Could care less though, really.  Vega has my interest.


----------



## TheDeeGee (Jun 29, 2016)

I read the following on Toms Hardware:

_*"We skipped long-term overclocking and overvolting tests, since the Radeon RX 480’s power consumption through the PCIe slot jumped to an average of 100W, peaking at 200W. We just didn’t want to do that to our test platform."*_


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 29, 2016)

i've seen a totally true statement that made up my mind ...

waiting on AIB models ... preferably with a Strix cooler and 8pin version or even a 8pin and ref pcb and getting a fullcover block aside ...

AMD cripple it... AIB rectify it (i saw that with my 290 ref, before and after putting her on water, or my 980 Poseidon Plat .... compared to a Stock 980, it's night and day )


----------



## puma99dk| (Jun 29, 2016)

I should get a Sapphire Radeon RX 480 home mby I will mount my Corsair H80i on this and oc it a lot


----------



## G33k2Fr34k (Jun 29, 2016)

Divide Overflow said:


> Performance for dollar looks outstanding, which is really what a low to mid end card is all about.  Heat and noise issues will be addressed by non-reference solutions.
> Could care less though, really.  Vega has my interest.



Performance overall for a $230 card is outstanding. The 480 beats the 390X in both Rise of the Tomb Raider and Fallout 4, the only two games I'm playing currently. It's a great card overall. The cooler though is horrible. AMD should have just let the AIBs use their own coolers.


----------



## TheDeeGee (Jun 29, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> I should get a Sapphire Radeon RX 480 home mby I will mount my Corsair H80i on this and oc it a lot



Careful with OCing as it uses an average of 100 Watt on the PCI-E Lane.


----------



## rruff (Jun 29, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> I mean it is sad because once again we have a generation where AMD is extremely far behind in power and heat, and can't compete in the high end performance segment.



Precisely. The performance is right where I expected, and when custom cards come out they will be quieter and cooler. But the power efficiency means they will be in *exactly the same spot they were last generation*, as soon as Nvidia releases competing Pascal cards.

Check out the idle, multimonitor, and BR power consumption. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/22.html   You are looking at >$10/yr more (at cheap US prices) just for electric consumption at idle! And AMD isn't going to make any headway in laptops at this rate.

Unfortunately it is more of the same from AMD, which means Nvidia can still sell their cards for a premium. AMD will probably claw back a little market share, but not much. I expect the same on the CPU side. I hope that AMD is taking at least baby steps towards profitability and sustainability, but it doesn't look like a big jump is happening soon.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jun 29, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> I should get a Sapphire Radeon RX 480 home mby I will mount my Corsair H80i on this and oc it a lot


You are not going to get very far with that stock board. Wait for the AIB models.


rruff said:


> Precisely. The performance is right where I expected, and when custom cards come out they will be quieter and cooler. But the power efficiency means they will be in *exactly the same spot they were last generation*, as soon as Nvidia releases competing Pascal cards.
> 
> Check out the idle, multimonitor, and BR power consumption. You are looking at >$10/yr more (at cheap US prices) just for electric consumption at idle! And AMD isn't going to make any headway in laptops at this rate.
> 
> Unfortunately it is more of the same from AMD, which means Nvidia can still sell their cards for a premium. AMD will probably claw back a little market share, but not much. I expect the same on the CPU side. I hope that AMD is taking at least baby steps towards profitability and sustainability, but it doesn't look like a big jump is happening soon.


Yup. AMD didnt learn from the 300 series that TDP matters just as much as performance to a large number of consumers. Nvidia might get that 80% market share back by christmas.


----------



## arnoo1 (Jun 29, 2016)

I really want that the gtx1060 will destroy this card, not for hating amd but hey have to step up their game to be more competitive


----------



## efikkan (Jun 29, 2016)

This is a really sad day for AMD. All the hype aside, this card isn't anywhere near the efficiency gains AMD promised, and does not perform good enough either. It's only selling point is performance is performance per dollar, which even the old GTX 970 is able to match.

We knew this chip never could cope with GTX 1070, but I was hoping the performance gap would be more like 30% rather than 50%. Just as important, the performance per watt is on par with Maxwell on 28nm. Even with Nvidia pushing their GTX 1070/1080 really high, they still achieve 70-80% better efficiency. At similar clocks Nvidia will be close to twice the efficiency of Polaris, meaning the efficiency gap has not decreased. This is pretty extreme considering Polaris achieves the efficiency of Maxwell on an inferior node. When Nvidia get's their GP106 and GP107 out AMD will be crushed, both in the low-end desktop and in the laptop segments.


----------



## snakefist (Jun 29, 2016)

What's wrong with all of you? How was this card advertised?

"A card for 1080, for a mainstream gamer. Fairly priced."

And what it is? Hmmm, it performs as 970 (for less price) - it's a candidate for replacing my few years old, mid-range card. Will probably wait better cooler, though.

1440p/4k lovers - go buy what actually can move your games, spend 800eur - we're not in the same class. But take a look (on Steam, for instance) - how many people actually PLAYS 4k? And how many people actually owns integrated GPU... You'd be quite surprised by results, judging by comments here...

And for save-the-planet bunch: what's your PSU wattage? 300W? 500W? You go to flame wars for 20W - one energy-efficient lightbulb equivalent. Sorry, I don't agree with your logic - as long as I own a fridge, freezer and several kW-ranged home appliances. Hell, my wife's hairdryer uses 2kW. So, if I gamed heavily 12h/day, I'd use the similar extra power as she does on daily basis...

I guess most posters here are quite distant from the real world and real life and expect no-energy consuming hardware able to run most demanding games of today (quite high expectations), and don't care at all about the cost of it (quite low expectations - I pay attention on cost greatly). Go ahead, tell me that extra 20W (applies to various hardware wattage comments in the past) will return 600eur soon. If you think so, then you obviously don't pay electric bills - your parents do...

I don't claim that this card is ideal - but do that it does what they said it will. Mainstream gaming, decent price. Look at the Performance/$ (and Watt/$, save the whales). And if the principle "no way in hell that I'll ever pay 500eur (much less 1000) for a GPU" is applied, than I have to accept 1080p gaming (not that hard at all) and mid or low range.

One other thing - 1060 in JULY? Vega in OCTOBER? They're both lying, if you ask me...


----------



## Frick (Jun 29, 2016)

efikkan said:


> This is a really sad day for AMD. All the hype aside, this card isn't anywhere near the efficiency gains AMD promised, and does not perform good enough either. It's only selling point is performance is performance per dollar, which even the old GTX 970 is able to match.



What did they promise though? Serious question, as I have no idea. The effeciency gains are good, when compared to the previous generation.


----------



## xorbe (Jun 29, 2016)

I think they should have thrown a few more cores at it to be around 980 level for the $240 price.  Or, the 8GB model should be $200 for the 970 level performance.  Looking at NE, there's a 970 for $240 and a 980 for $295.


----------



## Air (Jun 29, 2016)

I just realised this chip will be terrible for notebooks, where power consumption is a lot more important. With the same cooling/power budget, Nvidia can offer 80% more performance.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 29, 2016)

Frick said:


> What did they promise though? Serious question, as I have no idea. The effeciency gains are good, when compared to the previous generation.


2.5× performance/watt. It's not anywhere near that. Perhaps if you underclock it to 800 MHz it will get closer to 2×


----------



## Frick (Jun 29, 2016)

Air said:


> I just realised it this chip wll be terrible for mobile, where power comsumption is a lot more important. Whit the same cooling/power budget, Nvidia can offer 80% more performance.



Ok? When was the last time AMD had a mobile GPU?

Or do you mean laptop GPUs?



efikkan said:


> 2.5× performance/watt. It's not anywhere near that. Perhaps if you underclock it to 800 MHz it will get closer to 2×



I never trust those. They never specify under what scenario.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jun 29, 2016)

TheDeeGee said:


> I read the following on Toms Hardware:
> 
> _*"We skipped long-term overclocking and overvolting tests, since the Radeon RX 480’s power consumption through the PCIe slot jumped to an average of 100W, peaking at 200W. We just didn’t want to do that to our test platform."*_



Cards like this should NOT get a PCI Express SIG logo. Just no. Even typical gaming power breaks spec. And for what? Need to keep impression of efficiency and put inadequate 6-pin.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 29, 2016)

efikkan said:


> This is a really sad day for AMD. All the hype aside, this card isn't anywhere near the efficiency gains AMD promised, and does not perform good enough either. It's only selling point is performance is performance per dollar, which even the old GTX 970 is able to match.
> 
> We knew this chip never could cope with GTX 1070, but I was hoping the performance gap would be more like 30% rather than 50%. Just as important, the performance per watt is on par with Maxwell on 28nm. Even with Nvidia pushing their GTX 1070/1080 really high, they still achieve 70-80% better efficiency. At similar clocks Nvidia will be close to twice the efficiency of Polaris, meaning the efficiency gap has not decreased. This is pretty extreme considering Polaris achieves the efficiency of Maxwell on an inferior node. When Nvidia get's their GP106 and GP107 out AMD will be crushed, both in the low-end desktop and in the laptop segments.



LOL don't be so gloomy!   The card performs right where realists (not overhypers) expected it to, in the 970 and 980 territory, beating the 970 most of the tine, and a few times the 980.  Also, it's affordable.

I predict the only thing Nvidia is going to do is overprice their suggested price for a 1060, leaving the 480 and the follow on AIB models the clear winner.


----------



## Air (Jun 29, 2016)

Frick said:


> Ok? When was the last time AMD had a mobile GPU?
> 
> Or do you mean laptop GPUs?



Yes, I meant laptops, sorry.


----------



## Frick (Jun 29, 2016)

Air said:


> Yes, I meant laptops, sorry.



Aye, the next generation gaming lapotops shall be very interesting.


----------



## NDown (Jun 29, 2016)

snakefist said:


> What's wrong with all of you? How was this card advertised?
> 
> "A card for 1080, for a mainstream gamer. Fairly priced."
> 
> ...



the only post that doesnt reeks any stupidity in this thread

it's not that bad imo and perform exactly as advertised, the 1080p for mainstream gamers part i mean

of course i wont throw away my 970 just yet for this card

i dont even know if AMD ever said that this card will perform anywhere near 980 level

it's mostly from people @videocardz that said the RX 480 will be at 980 level

you have issues if you think this card will be anywhere near 1070/previous high end gpu in terms of performance


----------



## efikkan (Jun 29, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> LOL don't be so gloomy!   The card performs right where realists (not overhypers) expected it to, in the 970 and 980 territory, beating the 970 most of the tine, and a few times the 980.  Also, it's affordable.
> 
> I predict the only thing Nvidia is going to do is overprice their suggested price for a 1060, leaving the 480 and the follow on AIB models the clear winner.


In your dreams.
I'm just being realistic, which will be harch for many.
At 70-80% better efficiency Nvidia can easily compete with the upcoming GTX 1060 and GTX 1050(Ti).


----------



## jabbadap (Jun 29, 2016)

TheDeeGee said:


> I read the following on Toms Hardware:
> 
> _*"We skipped long-term overclocking and overvolting tests, since the Radeon RX 480’s power consumption through the PCIe slot jumped to an average of 100W, peaking at 200W. We just didn’t want to do that to our test platform."*_



Uhh thats not good at all, I would take over power from the 6-pin connector rather than risk motherboard power circuits like that.

Edit: they might even face the import ban because of that. See
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4qfwd4/rx480_fails_pcie_specification/?st=iq13a7kc&sh=d8555242



Spoiler






Spoiler: Hypetrain, do not look



Nvidia employee's yesterday's tweet:
https://twitter.com/PellyNV/status/747805063519731713


----------



## Plus Alpha (Jun 29, 2016)

how are you people measuring slot-power consumption AND not total card power consumption
I think the people at toms are mistaking total board power for power drawn though the pci-e slot its self


----------



## deu (Jun 29, 2016)

mcraygsx said:


> While not a very solid card when it comes to Power efficiency. I feel like AMD is just playing a catchup game with NVidia. They barely are catching up with nVidia's last generation  Mid range cards (970/980).
> 
> Hyper was all about Cost/Power efficiency and it is way below 1070 (154W) vs 480 (166w) given the huge performance difference between the two. I am not sure where the card shines besides the outstanding price.




Everything you say is (sorry to say), really newbish.


1. Power:  It beats any other card in that pricerange... Im not trying to provoke here, but have you even read through the review and checked the numbers!?
2. As for catching up: do you know how small the die size is? 232mm2 vs 970's 398mm2 It cost AMD more or less half the price to spit out a chip and they can produce almost double the amount.
3. GTX970/980 WAS NOT midrange (no matter how much you think it was) they where highend and the 980Ti / TITAN was considered entusiast.

Creating the most value-for-money card for the biggest gamer segment avaliable is what AMD have just done; whether or not NVIDIA can match them we will see, but neither maxwell nor pascal will be cost-efficient compared to polaris in that level (mid) atleast not from what they've shown so far.


----------



## Plus Alpha (Jun 29, 2016)

@W1zzard can you clarify then when you said 'board' power you where referring to total consumption of the card and not the draw though the PCI-e slot ?


----------



## Ungari (Jun 29, 2016)

KainXS said:


> So no OC headroom on the core, runs hot, and is loud and is over pci e power specs. ehhh when I read this I felt like



Save some reviewers that achieved over 1350Mhz.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 29, 2016)

efikkan said:


> In your dreams.
> I'm just being realistic, which will be harch for many.
> At 70-80% better efficiency Nvidia can easily compete with the upcoming GTX 1060 and GTX 1050(Ti).



No, not in my dreams. Unlike alot of people on here, I don't go to bed drooling over new hardware.  

What you are doing is creating the same hype with your conments for the 1060 as so many did for the 480.  Those of us that were realists are not disappointed.  

Be careful that you don't get your wish and more as NVIDIA prices the 2060 right out of competitiveness in the mid tier market.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 29, 2016)

Plus Alpha said:


> @W1zzard can you clarify then when you said 'board' power you where referring to total consumption of the card and not the draw though the PCI-e slot ?


Board power is power draw of the whole graphis card. PCIe Slot + 6-pin in this case


----------



## Hood (Jun 29, 2016)

The performance of the RX 480 may actually be much worse than indicated by this article.  Has anyone here looked at the Passmark High End Video Card chart? It show the RX 480  just barely beating the GTX 770 (and GTX 960).  And Passmark rates the GTX 970 as being over 33% faster than the RX 480.  So what's the real story?


----------



## ikeke (Jun 29, 2016)

Question - can you confirm if AMD has done the "lets-overvolt-the-c*ap-out-of-this-chip" as with Hawaii again?

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/12/#diagramm-undervoltage-performancerating


----------



## jabbadap (Jun 29, 2016)

Plus Alpha said:


> how are you people measuring slot-power consumption AND not total card power consumption
> I think the people at toms are mistaking total board power for power drawn though the pci-e slot its self



With pcie raiser cables. For cheapest way of doing that you can use ampere clamps and normal voltage meters. Tomshardware has some more serious equipment for doing it though.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 29, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> As long as you keep your usage within the fast ram, 970 destroys this steaming pile. 970 clocks well, this garbage can't even make a dent.



I'm not sure which reviews you have been looking at but I've seen the reference Stock Clock 480 trade blows with EVGA SSC 970.


----------



## Palladium (Jun 29, 2016)

If the RX480 is only 110W I would have bought one in a heartbeat, because at the least that will be competitive in perf/W with Pascal done at a similar price point especially with the 1060 being rumored at just a week away. 

Now in it's current 163W incarnation, mobo killing potential, lousy OC headroom and the noisy ref cooler, not going to bother until I see the 1060.


----------



## GLD (Jun 29, 2016)

When Sapphire releases a custom cooled RX 480 8G I will buy. Seeing as the RX 480 is ~40% faster then my R9 380 it will be a decent upgrade for me. I wont be going with a reference card at the moment though.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 29, 2016)

Air said:


> I just realised this chip will be terrible for notebooks, where power consumption is a lot more important. With the same cooling/power budget, Nvidia can offer 80% more performance.



Notebooks will use Polaris 11 chip.


----------



## illli (Jun 29, 2016)

lays said:


> If they launched this card with a good cooler, 5% better performance (10% over 970) and better power usage the reaction here would no doubt be very positive



If the above had happened, sure.  But the problem is AMD needed to make a great, not good but GREAT, first impression... not sure why they would send these flawed cards out for review.  I'm inclined to believe the out of spec power draw from the motherboard pci-e slot is some kind of flaw.


----------



## acperience7 (Jun 29, 2016)

I must have missed something... Other than the Blu-ray and Idle power draw, I don't see what's wrong with this card...It looks like it does what it was made to do for the price it was supposed to do it for. Maybe the people throwing their hands up in this thread are being sarcastic? If I didn't have a Fury already I would snap up a 4GB version.


----------



## jabbadap (Jun 29, 2016)

Ungari said:


> Notebooks will use Polaris 11 chip.



Well being similar power consumption as gm204 chip, I won't write of polaris 10 chips from higher end laptops. But of course gp104 will be most powerful laptop gpu, at least until vega(if not longer).


----------



## SIGSEGV (Jun 29, 2016)

Ungari said:


> Save some reviewers that achieved over 1350Mhz.



http://oc.jagatreview.com/2016/06/t...on-rx480-ke-1-4ghz-dengan-cooler-3rd-party/2/


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 29, 2016)

Hood said:


> The performance of the RX 480 may actually be much worse than indicated by this article.  Has anyone here looked at the Passmark High End Video Card chart? It show the RX 480  just barely beating the GTX 770 (and GTX 960).  And Passmark rates the GTX 970 as being over 33% faster than the RX 480.  So what's the real story?


passmark? Lol... enough said.


----------



## jabbadap (Jun 29, 2016)

SIGSEGV said:


> http://oc.jagatreview.com/2016/06/t...on-rx480-ke-1-4ghz-dengan-cooler-3rd-party/2/



Well that's the spirit, that meagre default pcb is still keeping it down though. According to Kyle[H](I know hardocp is not really liked here) AIB:s custom cards can be OC to 1490MHz - 1600 MHz.


----------



## Plus Alpha (Jun 29, 2016)

jabbadap said:


> With pcie raiser cables. For cheapest way of doing that you can use ampere clamps and normal voltage meters. Tomshardware has some more serious equipment for doing it though.


I read tom's article it makes no sense to me, I am electrician by trade and the numbers don't add up

they say contact free which to me means CLAMP and I can't see how those would be accurate on something that small,generally you have a tough time getting a CLAMP to read properly with 18AWG wire I find it hard to believe its accurate on a PCB


----------



## m1dg3t (Jun 29, 2016)

Excellent card for the $$$! So in about 8 - 10 months it'll be equal to/better than last gens 'top poppers'? Can't wait to see what the board partners come up with in the near future 

Why is/was the 380x left off of a few of the charts? Small oversight or are we getting creative in our bias? That is the card/segment this is replacing after all... Is it not? Or am i missing something?


----------



## geon2k2 (Jun 29, 2016)

I've read this review earlier in the day, and I was like meh, but since then I've been chewing on the results and it is actually not bad at all. Basically they brought R9 390 performance at the R9 380 price range, which is very good, and this can be seen so clearly in the performance per dollar chart.

So ... good job AMD.


----------



## ikeke (Jun 29, 2016)

ikeke said:


> Question - can you confirm if AMD has done the "lets-overvolt-the-c*ap-out-of-this-chip" as with Hawaii again?
> 
> https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/12/#diagramm-undervoltage-performancerating



?


----------



## Ungari (Jun 29, 2016)

m1dg3t said:


> Excellent card for the $$$! So in about 8 - 10 months it'll be equal to/better than last gens 'top poppers'? Can't wait to see what the board partners come up with in the near future
> 
> Why is/was the 380x left off of a few of the charts? Small oversight or are we getting creative in our bias? That is the card/segment this is replacing after all... Is it not? Or am i missing something?



970 was also noticeably absent from a few of the benchmarks too.


----------



## jabbadap (Jun 29, 2016)

Plus Alpha said:


> I read tom's article it makes no sense to me, I am electrician by trade and the numbers don't add up
> 
> they say contact free which to me means CLAMP and I can't see how those would be accurate on something that small,generally you have a tough time getting a CLAMP to read properly with 18AWG wire I find it hard to believe its accurate on a PCB



They use HZO50 PROBE, which DC amperage precision is 1mA. And Raiser card which look like this.


----------



## Tomorrow (Jun 29, 2016)

chaosmassive said:


> *"and then there's GTX 1060 coming soon, too"
> *
> how soon? like in 1-2 weeks?


July 7th annoucement event and July 13th Reference versions in retail. Custom versions in August i would assume...


----------



## IceScreamer (Jun 29, 2016)

Now that the initial dust has settled, hmm, not bad of a performer, but that power consumption, wow. Tom's review shows a very high power draw from the PCI-E slot, above the spec so that is worrying. Also, about that BIOS switch I've been hearing, could that in any way influence performance and/or power consumption.


----------



## kiddagoat (Jun 29, 2016)

I dunno why people keep drinking all the ocean water around here...... stop expecting something for nothing.... they stated in the beginning it was an upper mid - low high end card.   It fills that caveat nicely between the 970 and 980.  Depending on the title it trades blows.    I mean AMD has always ran hotter, used more power, and noise since what.... 4890??  maybe the 6970?  It should just be expected at this point.  This card hits the metrics they wanted and they kept the price where they said it would.   

I don't understand the mentality of people wanting $500-$600 performance for $150...... or $200 in this case..... wtf??  

Yeah breaking PCI-E spec does give a bit of reason for alarm but then again... unless your mobo is utter garbage along with your bargain bin PSU, you should not have anything to worry about.


----------



## birdie (Jun 29, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Seems like Tpu f*ed up. All other sites are quoting lower power consumptions.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview/6



Um, no,


----------



## happita (Jun 29, 2016)

Newer updated drivers (think 1-2 months from now) and AIB boards with 8-pin/6+6-pin configurations will certainly bring this little card well within the GTX980 range of performance.

I'm not worried about the debut crappy stock cooler, I'm more interested in custom coolers with refined power circuitry. THAT'S what people should be looking forward to.

The debut is ABSOLUTELY NO indication of how good this card can OC, it's up to the AIB partners.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 29, 2016)

I just want the new wattman to work on my furyX!

According to this, you may flash to unlock extra vram? Really? Care to dive into some details here Wizzard? Truth or bullshit?










6:20


----------



## Tomorrow (Jun 29, 2016)

If it's true what pcper said then the question is why does the 8GB version cost more than the 4GB version if both use the same pcb with the same components already installed?


----------



## Ungari (Jun 29, 2016)

Tomorrow said:


> July 7th annoucement event and July 13th Reference versions in retail. Custom versions in August i would assume...



I have to wonder if these cards will be available in any significant numbers given the wait for 1080/1070s.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 29, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> AMD literally does not learn from their mistakes, this is the 290 launch all over again. This is why they deserve to fail as a company.



R9 290 wasn't a bad launch, it was a terrific one. When it launched, the $399 R9 290 was faster than the $999 GTX Titan and $650 GTX 780, and R9 290X was fastest until NVIDIA launched GTX 780 Ti. I immediately bought an R9 290 after the review.


----------



## truth teller (Jun 29, 2016)

quite nice improvements, both on the software and the hardware side of things, a bit under 390x perf with way less resources available, but i cant help feeling a bit disappointed that it doesnt match a 390x, maybe more mature drivers? oh well, guess the op info in that rumors thread was right all along

its still a nice steal for the price, but that core overclocking, dear god, could it be more pathetic? meh

maybe some aib can make a single slot variant (*nike slogan*), that would strike my enthusiasm (even if less outputs are available)




xkm1948 said:


> According to this, you may flash to unlock extra vram? Really? Care to dive into some details here Wizzard? Truth or bullshit?


wiz probably could flash between the two yeah, but i doubt 4gb cards sold to customers ship with 8gb, but hey one can dream right? (if these could be softmoded like modern oscilloscopes the card would become a rockstar and sell like hotcackes, not gonna happen though)


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jun 29, 2016)

Those who ditched their 970s & 980s for this disappointing card will cry. I knew this card isn't going to perform as per what AMD claims after posting all that hype materials at Computex.


----------



## Frick (Jun 29, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Those who ditched their 970s & 980s for this disappointing card will cry. I knew this card isn't going to perform as per what AMD claims after posting all that hype materials at Computex.



What did they they promise performance-wise?


----------



## ikeke (Jun 29, 2016)

I seem to remember something in the lines of "GTX970/R9 390 level of performance for $199".

I could be wrong though.


----------



## Krekeris (Jun 29, 2016)

Did I missed something? Many let`s call them green people keep saying about something AMD promised and didn`t delivered. What you guys talking about? Mid-range card is performing as it was intended to do so. Performing about the same as higher-end last gen cards from both companies and being cheaper.


----------



## dj-electric (Jun 29, 2016)

"150W TDP" is an undelivered promise.
Not all promises are regarding gaming performance


----------



## ikeke (Jun 29, 2016)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> "150W TDP" is an undelivered promise.
> Not all promises are regarding gaming performance





ikeke said:


> ?



See this, looks like the cards are overvolted quite a bit, similar to Hawaii-situation. Looks like ~30-40W can be cut from it with few tweaks in the WattMan


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 29, 2016)

They didn’t tell any reviewers this fact unless they directly asked about it, so most reviews today missed that fact. We learned about it when AMD informed us that they wouldn’t be sending out any Radeon RX 480 4GB cards and instead would be using a BIOS to limit the Radeon RX 480 8GB cards to 4GB of memory. In theory if you can find a Radeon RX 480 4GB at-launch reference board you should in theory be able to flash it to a card with 8GB of memory!

Confirmed. So the best bang for the buck will be the current reference 4GB card. One BIOS flash and you get a free upgrade to 8GB.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jun 29, 2016)

$240 for an 8GB variant is kinda pointless if it can't keep up in 1440p regions like it's older brothers... especially when played at top settings. even in 1080p region it fell short. They (AMD) should not put up a fight against Nvidia's 2nd Gen Maxwell & Pascal when performance benches are this disappointing. Hell, even the "kiddie zone", 900p it also falls short miserably when compared with older cards. While the 960 isn't really a worthy opponent, the 480 just got butchered by it's older brothers across all gaming benchmarks.


----------



## Slizzo (Jun 29, 2016)

Tomorrow said:


> If it's true what pcper said then the question is why does the 8GB version cost more than the 4GB version if both use the same pcb with the same components already installed?



Over on Reddit, Robert @ AMD confirmed that they only had 8GB cards available for reviewers, so they provided reviewers with custom BIOS to simulate a 4GB card so they could also review that, as the only difference between the two cards is physical amount of VRAM and the RAM speed.


----------



## NDown (Jun 29, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> AMD literally does not learn from their mistakes, this is the 290 launch all over again. This is why they deserve to fail as a company.



How the hell does one perceive the 290 launch was "bad" except the 94 degees temp?

you sounds like a literal nvidiots with that kind of reply tbh



Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Those who ditched their 970s & 980s for this disappointing card will cry. I knew this card isn't going to perform as per what AMD claims after posting all that hype materials at Computex.



elaborate more ? i might be missing something but i dont know any official words from them except:

"VR-ready performance / 1080p gaming mainstream card at fair price"

if i recall VR minimum specs is around the 970/290 level and the 480 delivers just that kind of performance


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jun 29, 2016)

how is it that's fast enough to run VR while maintaining 970-like performance??? run all DX11.2 powered games at Medium-High for >60fps?? pfft. The 480's big older bros even butchered it across the deck...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 29, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Those who ditched their 970s & 980s for this disappointing card will cry. I knew this card isn't going to perform as per what AMD claims after posting all that hype materials at Computex.



AMD has pitched this as a mid-tier, affordable card that will mostly be a 1080p card that performs right up there with 970 and 980.

All has been met. The rest was hype built up by people, creating an almost impossible goal in their minds for AMD to reach.

You unfortunately either succumbed to the hype or you are one of those people that have so little going on in the world you think the red vs green thing is real life.


----------



## jabbadap (Jun 29, 2016)

Slizzo said:


> Over on Reddit, Robert @ AMD confirmed that they only had 8GB cards available for reviewers, so they provided reviewers with custom BIOS to simulate a 4GB card so they could also review that, as the only difference between the two cards is physical amount of VRAM and the RAM speed.



Ah, that make more sense. 4Gb gddr5 costs close to half the price of 8Gb chip. So I would assume that $40 price difference is quite close to price of 8*4Gb gddr5 chips, so $5 each while 8Gb chips are twice as much $10 each.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 29, 2016)

Why is everyone butt hurt. This is exactly what AMD promised price/performance king. They never promoted high-end performance, they never said anything about power efficient, etc. The said the RX 480 was be clearly targeted at the mid-range with a price around $200 with performance close to or on par with their current RX 390. They delivered that hands down. So this is one for the budget minded people with limit wallet space. Good job AMD.

For this crowd, myself included, the RX 490 and 490X or Fury 2 is going to have to be a completely different animal.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 29, 2016)

I wonder when we will see the die shots to confirm if the 480 has locked sectors like is believed.  If they keep the old naming, we should expect an RX 480X at some point which might hold some extra performance.


----------



## OneCool (Jun 29, 2016)

I can OC my 380X and be right there with it?  What a Turd.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jun 29, 2016)

Sadly with this power draw real competitor is good old gtx970, rather than yet unreleased gtx1060 ... dat 14nm fin fets should do better for GCN


----------



## Jeffredo (Jun 29, 2016)

Such a shame.  If this was two years ago they'd have a viable competitor for the GTX 970.  As it stands it splits the difference on typical and peak gaming power consumption, is barely faster and can't OC as high.  All Nvidia has to do is drop the price on the GTX 970 a bit and its a draw (and they will as old stock clearance gears up).


----------



## OneCool (Jun 29, 2016)

The quote of the day is!!!!!!!  drum roll  "they stated in the beginning it was an upper mid - low high end card."

WTH!!!!


----------



## okidna (Jun 29, 2016)

jabbadap said:


> Well that's the spirit, that meagre default pcb is still keeping it down though. According to Kyle[H](I know hardocp is not really liked here) AIB:s custom cards can be OC to 1490MHz - 1600 MHz.



Yup that's a good spirit, but you might want to read this :



> Variasi overclockability Radeon RX480 belum kami ketahui, dan berdasarkan* 4 GPU* yang ada di kami(2 dari AMD, 2 dari PowerColor), *hanya ada 1 GPU yang mampu berjalan di clock 1.4Ghz*. Sisanya bervariasi antara *1.33-1.35Ghz*.



Translated to English :



> We don't know yet about the overall variance of RX 480 overclockability, but with our 4 samples (2 from AMD and 2 from PowerColor) *only 1 card managed to reach 1.4 Ghz core clock*. The other 3 *reach between 1.33-1.35 Ghz core clock*.


----------



## xorbe (Jun 29, 2016)

Can you fit "entry" and "flagship" in there? lol.


----------



## john_ (Jun 29, 2016)

The price is nice, at least in some countries. First prices in Greece over 300 euros. Top retail shops ask 360. Yeah right. I am coming first thing in the morning.

AMD did only one thing wrong here and that's the cooling solution. Third party solutions will not come at $199/$239, so we can't say that they will fix this. You can't say "I fixed that", when having to pay more. In everything else the card is good. Yes, it can't overclock. So? You buy locked Intel processors and you are happy with that. It performs excellent for it's price, doesn't it? It performs better than the competition in newer titles and DX12 and it has double the ram.


----------



## Totally (Jun 29, 2016)

KainXS said:


> . . . ehhh when I read this I felt like



Unfortunately, I had bee-lined straight to the power consumption charts. Then looking elsewhere there was no justification, better off getting a 380X only advantage I see is if one opts for 8gb which the 380x doesn't offer.


----------



## jabbadap (Jun 29, 2016)

john_ said:


> The price is nice, at least in some countries. First prices in Greece over 300 euros. Top retail shops ask 360. Yeah right. I am coming first thing in the morning.
> 
> AMD did only one thing wrong here and that's the cooling solution. Third party solutions will not come at $199/$239, so we can't say that they will fix this. You can't say "I fixed that", when having to pay more. In everything else the card is good. Yes, it can't overclock. So? You buy locked Intel processors and you are happy with that. It performs excellent for it's price, doesn't it? It performs better than the competition in newer titles and DX12 and it has double the ram.



Cooling solution is not the thing what went wrong, that power delivery is much worse. It really screams 8-pin connector, 6-pin it's not enough if you have to take half the power over pcie slot. With 8-pin you could take 2/3 power from there and only 1/3 from the pcie slot.


----------



## msamelis (Jun 29, 2016)

I think AMD is playing the only card it has under its sleeve and it did hit a nice spot where gamers usually spend around $200 for a GPU and for that price, it doesn't seem like the 480 can be beaten. Sure, it's hit and all that but with an aftermarket cooler, temps will probably in check. Let's hope this drives Nvidia's prices down too, I really hate how expensive the 1000 series is at the moment.

I only just noticed something too, how is it possible that all AMD cards seem to be faster at 4k than on 1440p on Assassin's Creed: Syndicate? Is it because the game is not balanced or something? Am I missing something here?









Source: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/7.html

*Edit:* Thanks for the swift response W1zzard


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jun 29, 2016)

Its a great $200 card....but still only a $200 card and the power draw is concerning.  Amd is the value brand so you'll see a lot of value mother boards and psu's with this thing.  That I don't like at all.   Alot of people got it right with expectations, but a whole lot more didn't.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 29, 2016)

msamelis said:


> Am I missing something here?


No AA at 4K, I keep forgetting to add that info the charts


----------



## john_ (Jun 29, 2016)

jabbadap said:


> Cooling solution is not the thing what went wrong, that power delivery is much worse. It really screams 8-pin connector, 6-pin it's not enough if you have to take half the power over pcie slot. With 8-pin you could take 2/3 power from there and only 1/3 from the pcie slot.


They probably got trapped. They needed a card that was at least as fast as a GTX 970 and also limited to 150W to make third party cards worth considering over the reference. Both AMD and Nvidia here are dishonest to the customer. Nvidia came out talking about $379 and $599 cards, then throw out the Founders Edition cards. Add to that the limited supply and those $379 and $599 where pure lies. AMD on the other hand says $199 and $239, but offers a reference design that is trying to balance on a rope, forcing people to wait for third party cards that will be more expensive.

As for power delivery, I was thinking that this could be a problem, then in a videocardz article was this in the end of the article about this problem



> Let me end this post with a link to Radeon HD 6990 review by Anandtech.



I don't say that I understand completely the part in Anandtech's article about HD 6990. But if this is something similar, I also don't remember articles about HD 6990 cards having any problems, so probably we wouldn't see any problems with RX480 cards either. Not to mention that we overclock cards and probably many overclocked cards go over those limits. We just don't know that because we don't have the knowledge or the equipment to check it.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 29, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> No AA at 4K, I keep forgetting to add that info the charts


It would be incredibly helpful if you list the settings for each game somewhere. Do I miss that in each article... I feel like that was asked by me and answered before, LOL!


----------



## SpAwNtoHell (Jun 29, 2016)

I miss the days when AMD was putting more then decent stuff on the table at more then reasonable price, lets see...: this uses more power then it should, runs hot, down-clocks, overclocks worse then small pascal, costs here at the moment more then 970 parteners cards msi asus zotac with decent cooling and factory overclock...

cheapest: https://www.scan.co.uk/products/nda...0-8000mhz-gddr5-1126mhz-gpu-1266mhz-boost-230

i need to ask where is the mainstream product price? feel free to look up on the above for 970 gaming from gigabyte asus strix and msi gaming...

so amd  new die of 14nm is behind with 2 years performance or around there?

if this is like this the smaller variants and single slot will be crap.... hope it does a better job with zen and vega...


----------



## Casecutter (Jun 29, 2016)

Looking at the 99th-percentile frame time and frames beyond the 16.7-ms this Polaris is a good improvement over a 380X.  In some cases Polaris is a healthier 1440p than OC custom 970's, although I wish such a review had a 390 in the mix to give a full picture of such improvements.   As to the power numbers I don't see them off by that much from their original presentation, but it really hard to say if it validates their "2.5x improved performance-per-watt" compared with its 28nm-class hardware.  I'd like to know if the power we're seeing is more a Polaris GCN architecture thing, or is it GloFlo 14nm process issue.  If more on the latter, I might cut some slack if it permits us not to be TSMC dependent, if that's just a repercussion in promoting a second source it's a small price to pay long term.

The reference cooler is just that, and it needed at least one "S" shaped heat-pipe instead of that lub of copper in a aluminum extrusion I think it would have been a improvement.   I've never saw what a 380X reference made due with, but this RX480 was only just adequate for a closed case of average air flow.

I think in AIB custom form like a Nitro, STRIX, Double-D, or PCS+ we can see this Polaris at it best.  I just hope such AIB's start with the understanding of how budget the BOM of these reference RX480's starts at, and can do their thing without gouging on price.  Over the last several releases they've held to give nice cards with hardly a bump from MSRP.  Let's hope that they'll hold to a $250 price for such 8Gb cards, heck even reign in the bulk of 4Gb to $200-215.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 29, 2016)

SpAwNtoHell said:


> I miss the days when AMD was putting more then decent stuff on the table at more then reasonable price, lets see...: this uses more power then it should, runs hot, down-clocks, overclocks worse then small pascal, costs here at the moment more then 970 parteners cards msi asus zotac with decent cooling and factory overclock...
> 
> cheapest: https://www.scan.co.uk/products/nda...0-8000mhz-gddr5-1126mhz-gpu-1266mhz-boost-230
> 
> ...



The only reason you are seeing cheap 970s is because of this launch.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 29, 2016)

Not impressed.


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 29, 2016)

AMD should simply abandon their stock solutions. The stock RX 480 will surely leave a sour taste in everyone's mouth. AIB 480s would've looked so much more enticing. After all, the first impression counts.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 29, 2016)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Why is everyone butt hurt. This is exactly what AMD promised price/performance king. They never promoted high-end performance, they never said anything about power efficient, etc.


Power efficency was almost the only thing they promised, and didn't deliver anything close to 2.5×.



TheLaughingMan said:


> The said the RX 480 was be clearly targeted at the mid-range with a price around $200 with performance close to or on par with their current RX 390. They delivered that hands down. So this is one for the budget minded people with limit wallet space. Good job AMD.


Pascal is nearly twice as power efficient, which is a huge problem for AMD when GP106 and GP107 arrives, they simply don't stand a chance.

If AMD were going to become relevant at all they would have needed to close the efficiency gap. Even if we give AMD the benefit of the doubt and assume they will gain a few percent from driver improvements, they are still at the efficiency of GTX 900 vs Radeon 300 series. They need to shave off 10-20% of this gap for each generation. So at this point Pascal is twice as energy efficient, that is really BAD NEWS for AMD. The only "good" aspect of this chip is performance per dollar, but it looses in every other aspect.



TheLaughingMan said:


> For this crowd, myself included, the RX 490 and 490X or Fury 2 is going to have to be a completely different animal.


And which chips are those based on?
I'm going to give you a very simple math challenge. Given the efficiency of RX 480, how much power will a "GTX 1070 competitor"(50% over RX 480) and "GTX 1080 competitor"(+85%) draw?



john_ said:


> It performs better than the competition in newer titles and DX12 and it has double the ram.


Does it? Tell me which games (which are not AMD-biased). Nothing in this performance range needs more than 4 GB, probably not even 3 GB.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 29, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Nothing in this performance range needs more than 4 GB, probably not even 3 GB.



Actually I've played three games today already at 1080p....all use 3.4GB or more of VRAM.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jun 29, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Actually I've played three games today already at 1080p....all use 3.4GB or more of VRAM.


Memory that is not used, is useless memory. If you have a lot of VRAM, games tend to use it more even if it really wouldn't make a difference in terms of performance. 2 gig GTX 960 did surprisingly well, although if available games would have used much more.

Works the same with Windows and RAM too. I have 32 gigs and I don't think it really would need 10 gigs in use doing pretty much nothing. But it is proactively using it, because it can. Good thing.


----------



## Ungari (Jun 29, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Does it? Tell me which games (which are not AMD-biased). Nothing in this performance range needs more than 4 GB, probably not even 3 GB.



Solitaire doesn't count.


----------



## rruff (Jun 29, 2016)

Ungari said:


> Notebooks will use Polaris 11 chip.



FPS/W should be similar to Polaris 10. Not good compared to what Nvidia will be offering. 

It'll be just like the last generation. AMD won't be competitive in laptops.


----------



## N3M3515 (Jun 29, 2016)

Ungari said:


> The only reason you are seeing cheap 970s is because of this launch.



This.


----------



## N3M3515 (Jun 29, 2016)

efikkan said:


> And which chips are those based on?
> I'm going to give you a very simple math challenge. Given the efficiency of RX 480, how much power will a "GTX 1070 competitor"(50% over RX 480) and "GTX 1080 competitor"(+85%) draw?



When the news of vega came, it clearly said is was going to have better performance x watt than polaris.
And also, there are two vegas, 10 & 11. V10 is supposed to be in the 1080 territory and V11 in 1080Ti or whatever is it called.


----------



## deu (Jun 29, 2016)

SonicZap said:


> The performance isn't bad, the price is good, but the power efficiency is *abysmal*. There's only a small (~30%) improvement compared to Pitcairn (270X), while Pascal has shown a huge efficiency leap over Maxwell. Nvidia's 28 nm GPUs are as efficient as AMD's 14nm GPUs. GTX 1070 is over 70% more efficient. When it comes to power efficiency it's like Bulldozer against Sandy Bridge if not worse.
> 
> I wonder whether it's AMD or GloFo's process that's to blame. But this horrible power efficiency means that AMD will get slaughtered in high-end unless Vega doubles Polaris' power efficiency, which isn't going to happen.



Polaris is not in competition with pascal..; VEGA is... it is pretty basic if you read up on it. You should be able to google alot of this. Also 232mm2 die size vs 398mm2 die size; what do you think is cheapest to put out to the mainstreammasses? What do you think is cheapest to put into a console?

VEGA is the pascal competitor; I really dont get why so many people make this mistake.


----------



## jabbadap (Jun 29, 2016)

deu said:


> Polaris is not in competition with pascal..; VEGA is... it is pretty basic if you read up on it. You should be able to google alot of this. Also 232mm2 die size vs 398mm2 die size; what do you think is cheapest to put out to the mainstreammasses? What do you think is cheapest to put into a console?
> 
> VEGA is the pascal competitor; I really dont get why so many people make this mistake.



Yes it will compete with unreleased gp106 pascal gpu, maybe you meant to say polaris is not the gp104 competitor.



john_ said:


> They probably got trapped. They needed a card that was at least as fast as a GTX 970 and also limited to 150W to make third party cards worth considering over the reference. Both AMD and Nvidia here are dishonest to the customer. Nvidia came out talking about $379 and $599 cards, then throw out the Founders Edition cards. Add to that the limited supply and those $379 and $599 where pure lies. AMD on the other hand says $199 and $239, but offers a reference design that is trying to balance on a rope, forcing people to wait for third party cards that will be more expensive.
> 
> As for power delivery, I was thinking that this could be a problem, then in a videocardz article was this in the end of the article about this problem
> 
> ...



Well tomshw had the comparison with amd dual gpus in their r9-295x2 review. hd6990 peaks over 79W but avarage is still 56W in their review(vs RX 480 peaks 162W and avarages 86W). And dual gpus are niche, this is more mainstream card, which will sell a lot more. I would imagine that customer who buys dual gpu beasts does not put them to lower end motherboards too.


----------



## Legacy-ZA (Jun 30, 2016)

I just finished every review I could find out there and I have to say; my mind has been changed. This card does extremely well at it's price/performance point. I would suggest waiting for the partner cards with custom cooler designs to help rid yourself of the average stock cooler from AMD. The GTX1080 & GTX1070 suffered from throttling thanks to it's stock cooler and people had to wait for the board partners to come up with better solutions too. I still play on 1080p myself, that is, until 4k Gaming can be done at 120+ FPS, Good job AMD.


----------



## foetopsy (Jun 30, 2016)

I ask the author to explain how the test had 4 GB card bypassed 8GB card 390х !? at Call of Duty Black Ops III 

here is my 390x in Call of Duty Black Ops III FHD


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Jun 30, 2016)

deu said:


> Polaris is not in competition with pascal..; VEGA is... it is pretty basic if you read up on it. You should be able to google alot of this. Also 232mm2 die size vs 398mm2 die size; what do you think is cheapest to put out to the mainstreammasses? What do you think is cheapest to put into a console?
> 
> VEGA is the pascal competitor; I really dont get why so many people make this mistake.



because they are either ignorant or biased. the stupidity in this comment section is hilarious. i get that people are never satisfied but come on... this is ridiculous, they expect a 200-250$ card to beat a 400$ ,which in reality is close to 500$, card?! what the literal f@ck. cmon people even the 1080 fe thermal throttled and that is a "600"$ in reality a 700$ card ffs. also are you seriously complaining about the 150watt tdp?!?!?!?!?! in this forum!!!! where i bet that most people have at least a 650watt psu, and you whine about a 150watt card?! literally every review i have seen praises this card, jay, teksyndicate, linus, everyone.. but no.. its not what we expected.. ffs people are so stupid sometimes.. -_-


----------



## deu (Jun 30, 2016)

$ReaPeR$ said:


> because they are either ignorant or biased. the stupidity in this comment section is hilarious. i get that people are never satisfied but come on... this is ridiculous, they expect a 200-250$ card to beat a 400$ ,which in reality is close to 500$, card?! what the literal f@ck. cmon people even the 1080 fe thermal throttled and that is a "600"$ in reality a 700$ card ffs. also are you seriously complaining about the 150watt tdp?!?!?!?!?! in this forum!!!! where i bet that most people have at least a 650watt psu, and you whine about a 150watt card?! literally every review i have seen praises this card, jay, teksyndicate, linus, everyone.. but no.. its not what we expected.. ffs people are so stupid sometimes.. -_-



haha, 100% agree: I like a good discussion which the forum here usually have but this time it just went full batsh*t crazy in no time


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Jun 30, 2016)

The performance is about what could realistically be expected, and it does offer very good value. What I am worried about is the fact that AMD has been touting Polaris' power efficiency, when it turns out AMD is in reality an entire generation behind in performance/watt compared to Nvidia. Even though Vega will have moderate improvements in power efficiency, what will most likely end up happening is the same as it has been the past few generations: AMD can offer decent price/performance ratios at the high-end, but with a much higher power consumption. 

That being said, I think once the custom coolers and PCB cards drop from the AIB partners, the RX 480 is a great card for people that can't afford to drop 400+ bucks on a GPU. Although with the GTX 1060 coming out, I don't know how long AMD can reap the benefits of this market by themselves.


----------



## mastrdrver (Jun 30, 2016)

rruff said:


> FPS/W should be similar to Polaris 10. Not good compared to what Nvidia will be offering.
> 
> It'll be just like the last generation. AMD won't be competitive in laptops.



It should be noted that in the power wattage graph that is GTX 1070 and 1080 at factory clocks of which very few cards are going to be at. All the cards that have higher clocks are pulling in another 30-50W over what is shown in the graph. Suddenly the RX 480 doesn't look that bad in the power draw comparision.


----------



## Naito (Jun 30, 2016)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> The performance is about what could realistically be expected, and it does offer very good value.



As I said over here, it's a risky game to be playing with these reference boards. Power limits are not to be joked around with. In a very extreme case with someone owning cheaper hardware, it may lead to fire. Best wait and see what AIB partners do in this area.


----------



## KainXS (Jun 30, 2016)

Ungari said:


> Save some reviewers that achieved over 1350Mhz.



Sorry I missed this but I say there is no OC headroom on this reference board because at stock the card is already at or near it max TDP it seems. Not only is it at its max TDP but multiple reviewers had reported(If they had the equipment to test it) that their review cards and some of them have retail cards also, all of which go way above PCI-E specification which is 5.5A from the motherboards to about 6.5A of draw and in some games that gets as high as about 8A which is worrying for a cheap motherboard.(many people buying budget cards buy budget boards) An expensive board might  handle that but a cheaper one could be ruined or have interference from that over time. You can slap whatever heatsink you want on it and overclock but its going to be out of spec and the more you OC this thing the farther it will be out of spec it seems. This could just mean a little interference in your speakers though(and thats probably all you will get) but I'm not taking that chance because I know I will OC if I get one.

With AIB's though this would not be the case more than likely as this seems like a PCB issue and I will probably buy an AIB card with a better heatsink and 8pin though to OC it.


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 30, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> Those who ditched their 970s & 980s for this disappointing card will cry. I knew this card isn't going to perform as per what AMD claims after posting all that hype materials at Computex.


What were those, who ditched their 970/980s, expecting from this card exactly? 1070 perf for half the price? Seems to me they're just plain and simple stupid. Or they knew but wanted a new card anyway, in that case kudos to them.


----------



## rruff (Jun 30, 2016)

mastrdrver said:


> It should be noted that in the power wattage graph that is GTX 1070 and 1080 at factory clocks of which very few cards are going to be at. All the cards that have higher clocks are pulling in another 30-50W over what is shown in the graph. Suddenly the RX 480 doesn't look that bad in the power draw comparision.



Apples to apples would be reference on both. If power consumption is important (like on laptops particularly) the chips won't be OCd.

This is just like the prior generation vs Maxwell, including the poor idle, multi-monitor, and BR performance from AMD. I don't know if any of that is fixable. I'm guessing not easily, else they would have.

I'm fully satisfied with the 480's performance since I guessed it would barely beat 970/390 when the $200 price was announced. But I expected lower power consumption. AMD disclosed the TDP a long time ago but also said that most cards "would be a lot lower", which I thought meant that only heavily OC'd 480s would be hitting 150W.


----------



## mastrdrver (Jun 30, 2016)

No, apples to apples would be what you can get. Reference isn't important.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jun 30, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> I told you it was another Glofo failure. It's garbage. Power consumption is off the charts for 14nm and it can't clock at all (as expected).
> Dump Glofo and sue and them to break contract.


Good luck with that AMD's WSA with Glofo runs until *2024*. AMD just loves getting cornholed by GF...process goes tits up and AMD are ready and waiting to sign up for more. It's like watching a slot machine addict in action.


nem.. said:


> hey folks too much talking about , and recently I'm finding that the RX 480 is the same size die chip than 960 and with similar prices when released to go seeming in that range play the 480x truly,


So you are going full damage control comparing a 14nm product with a 28nm one? Plenty of people including yourself I seem to remember were saying the the old vs new process comparison was invalid when he GTX 1080 was being compared to the Fury X 


EarthDog said:


> Anyone see our friend Medi01?


His guerrilla marketing work here is done. Expect a return when the next fake 1600MHz RX 480 rumours surface on wtftech.


GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> Cards like this should NOT get a PCI Express SIG logo. Just no. Even typical gaming power breaks spec. And for what? Need to keep impression of efficiency and put inadequate 6-pin.


Plenty being said at the AMD subreddit. Hallock says only a small sample of review cards were exibiting the out-of-spec PCI-E power draw. The problem is that all the review sites that are reporting the issue are the only ones who do detailed power draw analysis based on a per-rail testing. The vast majority of reviews test power draw at the wall.

Nice enough card that will look better after the AIB's get through reworking it. The biggest problem is that AIB custom OC'd R9 390's are still plentiful and priced much the same.


----------



## Reuben Mitchell (Jun 30, 2016)

Signed up to the Forums just to post this! I saw myself as a target customer for this card (still rocking a HD7870 ) as I am hoping to move up to a 4K screen soon but now I see the first listings for RX480 8Gb here in rip off New Zealand are for $500 (NZD) !! For exactly the same money I can get a custom 390X 8Gb or a 970 4Gb both overclocked AIB versions. The Cheapest 980 and Fury Nano in NZ are $700 and the 380X 4Gb is now $340. So the price/performance equation in New Zealand is completely different and the RX 480 doesn't look attractive at all.
Very disappointed. Waiting for 470 to see if it is a better option price wise (I am not willing to spend more that $400 NZ - which is what I thought the 480 would come to)


----------



## rruff (Jun 30, 2016)

Reuben Mitchell said:


> I am hoping to move up to a 4K screen soon



Then 480 and definitely 470 are not for you. Neither is enough for gaming on that level. 

Prices will soften if you wait awhile, and I'd pick the 480 over the 390x or 970.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 30, 2016)

I cant read the review the site seems to be down?


----------



## laszlo (Jun 30, 2016)

card deliver good fps and for sure i'll buy one but not the reference.

due low price cooling suffer and i don't like that pcie power draw exceed limits... i see low-end mobos issues soon...

hopefully the non-ref. cards will have 8 pin connector + better cooling + DVI ; this config. will cost more (up to 300$?) but fur sure card will behave better and won't age so fast


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 30, 2016)

That cooler kinda sucks.  Will be very interesting to see what third parties do with it, though!



efikkan said:


> Pascal is nearly twice as power efficient, which is a huge problem for AMD when GP106 and GP107 arrives, they simply don't stand a chance.



It also features neutered FP32, similar to Maxwell.  This is where nvidia gets it's "power efficiency" and while games won't care, it does make AMD cards more flexible in compute situations.


----------



## Assimilator (Jun 30, 2016)

In summary, AMD has delivered a "next-generation" card that is worse in acoustics, temperature, power draw, electrical compliance than its competitor's previous-generation cards that were built on a much larger, much hotter, previous-generation process node. RX 480 is a technological failure in everything but performance.

The only thing that this card has going for it is its performance for its price - but if GTX 1060 is real and can hit similar performance targets, I can guarantee you that it will do so more quietly, much cooler, and at much lower power draw than the RX 480.
It will of course be more expensive, but I feel that's warranted given the fact it will be far less likely to set your motherboard on fire.

At this point NVIDIA could restart 28nm production of GM204 - which I'm sure TSMC would be very happy to do for them at a discount - and thus deliver a GTX 980 rebadged as GTX 1060. That would allow AIB partners to reuse all the custom board and cooler designs already proven for GTX 980, which means NVIDIA could probably offer "GTX 1060" at the same price as RX 480 and thus kill Polaris absolutely.


----------



## john_ (Jun 30, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Does it? Tell me which games (which are not AMD-biased). Nothing in this performance range needs more than 4 GB, probably not even 3 GB.


Is there any game I will show you that you will not call AMD biased? 
And can you guarantee that the extra ram will not be useful in the near future? Not all people buy cards for 6 months. Some people buy cards and keep them for years.


----------



## Assimilator (Jun 30, 2016)

btarunr said:


> R9 290 wasn't a bad launch, it was a terrific one. When it launched, the $399 R9 290 was faster than the $999 GTX Titan and $650 GTX 780, and R9 290X was fastest until NVIDIA launched GTX 780 Ti. I immediately bought an R9 290 after the review.



Let me rephrase then: this is like the 290 launch, except *worse*.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290/31.html



			
				W1zzard (2013) said:
			
		

> Multi-monitor and Blu-ray power consumption is very bad, though. We respectively see 51 W and 74 W power draw in these states, which is 300% of what comparable NVIDIA cards use.
> 
> AMD's reference design cooler gets completely overwhelmed by the card's heat load once you start gaming. With load temperatures of 94°C, the card already runs very hot, but even at those temperatures, the fan needs to run at a deafening 49 dBA to handle the heat. I'm don't really know why AMD increased the fan speed limit at the last minute instead of looking into making the card quieter and doubt many people will care about a few percent in performance, or whether the card beats the GTX 780. But most people will care once the graphics card's cooler takes over acoustically by producing enough noise to negatively affect your gaming experience.



https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/22.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/29.html



			
				W1zzard (2016) said:
			
		

> The picture is completely different in non-gaming states, though; here, it looks as though AMD still hasn't learned its lesson. Single-monitor, idle-power draw with 15 W is just ok I guess, but multi-monitor and Blu-ray using more than 5x as much power as NVIDIA's counterparts is simply unacceptable, especially since this has not been addressed for several years.
> 
> The weakest point of AMD's reference design is certainly the thermal solution. It doesn't use any heatpipes or other high-tech means to keep the card cool. Rather, there is a big slab of metal with a copper core that has the blower fan sending air across its fins. As a result we are seeing temperatures of up to 84°C, which has the card clock down further to keep cool. On average, our card ran 1239 MHz, which is in the upper range of AMD's rated 1120-1266 MHz clock window. What's even worse than the heat is the terrible fan noise. While idle noise is fine with 29 dBA (an idle-fan-off feature would have still been nice), in gaming, the fan ramps up a lot, emitting 41 dBA during gaming (not Furmark). This makes the RX 480 the loudest card launched in recent history, much noisier than, for example, the GTX 1080 (which is almost twice as fast).



RX 480 has the exact same problems that the 290 had nearly 3 years ago, plus it can't compete on performance. Absolutely pathetic.


----------



## john_ (Jun 30, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> In summary, AMD has delivered a "next-generation" card that is worse in *acoustics, temperature, power draw, electrical compliance* than its competitor's previous-generation cards that were built on a much larger, much hotter, previous-generation process node. RX 480 is a technological failure in everything but *performance*.
> 
> The only thing that this card has going for it is its performance for its price - but if GTX 1060 is real and can hit similar performance targets, I can guarantee you that it will do so more quietly, much cooler, and at much lower power draw than the RX 480.
> It will of course be more expensive, but I feel that's warranted given the fact it will be far less likely to set your motherboard on fire.
> ...



If people want to buy a graphics card that it is perfect in acoustics, temperature, power draw, electrical compliance, and performance is unimportant or secondary, *GT710* will be a nice option. 

Well GTX 1060 will be announced probably in a week from now, if we believe the latest rumors about an Nvidia event in 7th July. Now, what you point as problems for the RX480, custom solutions will fix them, all except the power consumption. They will probably cost more, but I doubt they will cost more than a 1060 with 3GB of memory, 6GB at best case scenario(it is rumored a 192bit data bus). If custom RX480 cards offer speeds close to 1400MHz, probably they will be fast enough to beat 1060 in some benchmarks, lose in others. In any case both cards will look equal in performance. What 1060 will not be able to beat is the performance/$ of the 4GB RX480. At least for the period that 4GB will look enough to those who can spent no more than $200. And let's not forget that AMD also have RX470. If RX470 offers 80% of RX480 at $149, many will choose to spend only $149 for their next graphics card. There are many still using old cards that cost them less than $250 a few years back. Someone with a HD 7950 or a GTX 760 can easily upgrade to a RX 470 and keep $100 in the pocket. For people running GTX 750Ti or R9 260, an RX470 at $150 will be a dream come true.


----------



## Caring1 (Jun 30, 2016)

Seeing as the RX 480 just beats the GTX970 (in Fire Strike) i would say this is a win for AMD, especially at the selling price.
Hopefully power consumption is a glitch and real world usage proves it to be more efficient over time.


----------



## jigar2speed (Jun 30, 2016)

RX 480 - Sold out in USA - https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rx480/

RX 480 - Soon to be sold out in UK - https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29714968&postcount=69

Don't think people agree with all the doom sayers, performance for $200 is just incredible.


----------



## chaosmassive (Jun 30, 2016)

Tomorrow said:


> July 7th annoucement event and July 13th Reference versions in retail. Custom versions in August i would assume...



Wow, what a speed (or haste?)
RX 480 only serve as wake up alarm for Nvidia
I dont know whether should I happy or sad for RX 480


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> Let me rephrase then: this is like the 290 launch, except *worse*.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290/31.html
> 
> ...



GTX 960 / 760 - didn't even beat re branded series from AMD.

AMD wanted to make best Price&performance card and they did it.

about noise - stock GTX 970 had 40dbA, 980 TI had 42dbA and RX 480 has 41dbA,

Power compulsion
AMD offering performance and good price and nvidia is offering price per watt.

30w > 12hours of gaming each day > 365days > 16$.

80% of People want to buy performance for good price.
15% of People want to buy performance no matter the cost.
4.99% of people doesn't really care, but also they don't really want to save penguins on Antarctica.


----------



## bug (Jun 30, 2016)

acperience7 said:


> I must have missed something... Other than the Blu-ray and Idle power draw, _I don't see what's wrong with this card_...It looks like it does what it was made to do for the price it was supposed to do it for. Maybe the people throwing their hands up in this thread are being sarcastic? If I didn't have a Fury already I would snap up a 4GB version.



It's built on 14nm yet it performs like the 970. It also needs as much power as the 970. Meanwhile Nvidia managed to squeeze the 1070 in the same power envelope.
And when AMD's best is only a match for Nvidia's "last year", all consumers suffer.

There's some hope with better performance than the 970 in DX12 and maybe Vulkan, but with so few titles available, it's hard to judge. And then the 1060 can and most likely will outperform this easily. But Nvidia will probably price that in the $275-300 range and everyone will be happy.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

bug said:


> It's built on 14nm yet it performs like the 970. It also needs as much power as the 970. Meanwhile Nvidia managed to squeeze the 1070 in the same power envelope.
> And when AMD's best is only a match for Nvidia's "last year", all consumers suffer.
> 
> There's some hope with better performance than the 970 in DX12 and maybe Vulkan, but with so few titles available, it's hard to judge. And then the 1060 can and most likely will outperform this easily. But Nvidia will probably price that in the $275-300 range and everyone will be happy.




Did GTX 960 performed better than 290 ? did 660 performed better than re branded from AMD ?
Even GTX 970 didn't beat 290/290x.

So please save ur double standards to ur self.

Vulkan/DX12
Doom
Battlefield 1
Total War: Warhammer
Forza 6
Forza H 2
ReCore
Quantum Break
Gears 4
Gears of War Unlimited Edition
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
Scalebound


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jun 30, 2016)

jigar2speed said:


> RX 480 - Sold out in USA - https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rx480/
> 
> RX 480 - Soon to be sold out in UK - https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29714968&postcount=69
> 
> Don't think people agree with all the doom sayers, performance for $200 is just incredible.


Nice but not earth shattering. OcUK also had 500 GTX 1080 FE's for sale- a card that was supposed to be overlooked in preference to AIB custom cards. The entire inventory was sold out in minutes


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

HumanSmoke said:


> Nice but not earth shattering. OcUK also had 500 GTX 1080 FE's for sale- a card that was supposed to be overlooked in preference to AIB custom cards. The entire inventory was sold out in minutes


What does it has to do in RX 480 review topic ?

aDMsGl_XxTk?t=1m59s


----------



## jigar2speed (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> What does it has to do in RX 480 review topic ?
> 
> aDMsGl_XxTk?t=1m59s


Exactly my thoughts...

BTW Over 1000 cards sold by overclocker UK alone - https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29717519&postcount=123


----------



## bug (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> Did GTX 960 performed better than 290 ? did 660 performed better than re branded from AMD ?
> Even GTX 970 didn't beat 290/290x.
> 
> So please save ur double standards to ur self.



This is not about raw performance, it's about efficiency. AMD boasted all over the place Polaris will be more efficient than their previous architecture (yes, they were careful no to compare it with Nvidia at all) and in the end we have AMD's 14nm being as efficient as Nvidia's 28nm. Then again, this is probably why it doesn't scale to compete at the high end.

Edit: And if it's still not clear enough what my beef is, this draws as much power as the 1070. Thus a scaled down Maxwell can give us the same HP at much lower TDP.

On the other hand, a big positive that has gone unnoticed here so far, is that this is AMD's first video card that comes with same-day Linux support.


----------



## Totally (Jun 30, 2016)

john_ said:


> If people want to buy a graphics card that it is perfect in acoustics, temperature, power draw, electrical compliance, and performance is unimportant or secondary, *GT710* will be a nice option.
> .



What stupid logic, just because something is secondary doesn't make it not important. For example, in my case, I live in Florida and well you it's hot in Florida. So I care a big deal about power draw not that I care about saving a few cents or dollars on my power bill but since power draw directly translate to heat generation therefore owning a card that doubles as a space heater is pretty high on my list of things I do not want regardless of performance. I'd also like to play games other than minesweeper and titles that are fairly current. So raw performance isn't always the #1 thing on everyone's list nor should be without reason.


----------



## john_ (Jun 30, 2016)

bug said:


> It's built on 14nm yet it performs like the 970. It also needs as much power as the 970. Meanwhile Nvidia managed to squeeze the 1070 in the same power envelope.
> And when AMD's best is only a match for Nvidia's "last year", all consumers suffer.
> 
> There's some hope with better performance than the 970 in DX12 and maybe Vulkan, but with so few titles available, it's hard to judge. And then the 1060 can and most likely will outperform this easily. But Nvidia will probably price that in the $275-300 range and everyone will be happy.


It performs like a 970 in older DX11 games. It does not perform as a 970 in DX12. It's much better. 

Nvidia is better in power consumption, but we don't buy cards based on power consumption. You have to go at 200W or higher to just start having thoughts about how much power your card eats. Anything lower and a good cooling solution will do it's job nicely and quietly. 

Consumers suffer because they expect AMD to produce a perfect product, to force Nvidia or Intel to lower prices and then go and buy Nvidia or Intel products. Consumers are paying the price of their obsession to buy the product from the strongest brand. They directly support monopolies and at the same time blame the small companies for those monopolies. It's a win win situation for the big companies.

Lastly, you don't buy a card for 3 months. So if there are not enough DX12 games today is not really that much important. If in two years there are going to be still very few DX12 games, then I will agree with you.


PS> Why is GTX 970 cheaper today than 15 days ago? Maybe because of RX480? The card that didn't impressed you? As I said. AMD will do it's best, people will find an excuse to run to the big brand.


----------



## john_ (Jun 30, 2016)

Totally said:


> What stupid logic, just because something is secondary doesn't make it not important. For example, in my case, I live in Florida and well you it's hot in Florida. So I care a big deal about power draw not that I care about saving a few cents or dollars on my power bill but since power draw directly translate to heat generation therefore owning a card that doubles as a space heater is pretty high on my list of things I do not want regardless of performance. I'd also like to play games other than minesweeper and titles that are fairly current. So raw performance isn't always the #1 thing on everyone's list nor should be without reason.



It's hot in Greece too. We have 33 Celsius here now. It's one of the good days. It was 38 a few days ago, it will go back up again in a few days.

As for stupid logic. I just read your post.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

bug said:


> This is not about raw performance, it's about efficiency. AMD boasted all over the place Polaris will be more efficient than their previous architecture (yes, they were careful no to compare it with Nvidia at all) and in the end we have AMD's 14nm being as efficient as Nvidia's 28nm. Then again, this is probably why it doesn't scale to compete at the high end.
> 
> Edit: And if it's still not clear enough what my beef is, this draws as much power as the 1070. Thus a scaled down Maxwell can give us the same HP at much lower TDP.
> 
> On the other hand, a big positive that has gone unnoticed here so far, is that this is AMD's first video card that comes with same-day Linux support.



"It's not about raw performance, it's about efficiency"

and that why you over paid for Intel i5-6600k and ASRock Z170 Extreme7+ and didn't bought I5 - 6500 with some B170 board ...


----------



## sergionography (Jun 30, 2016)

Assimilator said:


> In summary, AMD has delivered a "next-generation" card that is worse in acoustics, temperature, power draw, electrical compliance than its competitor's previous-generation cards that were built on a much larger, much hotter, previous-generation process node. RX 480 is a technological failure in everything but performance.
> 
> The only thing that this card has going for it is its performance for its price - but if GTX 1060 is real and can hit similar performance targets, I can guarantee you that it will do so more quietly, much cooler, and at much lower power draw than the RX 480.
> It will of course be more expensive, but I feel that's warranted given the fact it will be far less likely to set your motherboard on fire.
> ...


Lol no because tsmc at this point is shifting production towards 16nm ff and the equipment and fabs slowly get updated for the new process. Second problem is that gtx 980 is a 400mm2 die which is more expensive down the road because basically they can build twice as many chips per wafer when building a smaller chip at 200mm2
Point number 3 is that gtx980 peaked in its performance, while rx480 is still at its early stage of drivers and optimization, not only will it perform better down the road due to optimized performance drivers, but newer chips will have better yield and will be better binned, not to mention newer revisions of the chip itself and 14nm process will make it clock even better down the road on later chips. This is especially true on AMDs side usually more so than nvidia, if you want evidence on that then just simply go back and look at day one reviews for the gtx780ti and how it beat amds r9 290x by like 8-15% and then look at this very review and compare those same 2 cards(gtx780ti vs r9 290x) and notice the difference and how amd is now a good 15% ahead(better driver optimization as well as newer games giving amd the edge) heck right now even the r9 290 beats gtx 780ti, so go back now to those who paid 650usd for their 780ti cards back then and try to convince them that their investment was better than an r9 290 for 400usd or an r9 290x for 550usd, because surely the numbers dont show that.

So that being said, GCN is way better than we percieve it to be and definitely has tons of future proofing. its pretty much tweaked now from what it was back in 2012 but its still very much the same foundation. yes it consumes more power than nvidia even back in the kepler days, but thats because it is actually more than what nvidia gives you, amd slaps all these features and capabilities that could come in handy down the road which takes real estate on the chips, while nvidia strips their architecture with a methodology of "we can do without this/that" and end up with one purpose chips only geared for one thing. With that being said, just come back in one year when there are more dx12 games out and read reviews, and just watch how amds whole lineup jumps a good 10% in relative performance including older gcn cards compared to nvidia


----------



## Auryx (Jun 30, 2016)

Solid card, however I see MSI's edition of 970 going for lower than the RX 480 in my country, and generally these cards can clock so high that they can compete with the 980 while being cool and having great power consumption. Sadly, currently there is no competition, hope that these prices will go down soon and the RX 480 will be able to compete.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

Auryx said:


> Solid card, however I see MSI's edition of 970 going for lower than the RX 480 in my country, and generally these cards can clock so high that they can compete with the 980 while being cool and having great power consumption. Sadly, currently there is no competition, hope that these prices will go down soon and the RX 480 will be able to compete.



290x has better performance, overclocks better and has more vram and real DX12 support. and should cost you even less.

RX 480 4GB has same price like AIB GTX 960 4GB.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/8986831/fs/7991692/fs/2786237


----------



## Auryx (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> 290x has better performance, overclocks better and has more vram and real DX12 support. and should cost you even less.
> 
> RX 480 4GB should cost you less than AIB GTX 960.
> 
> ...



I'm going to contradict you here, the 970 and 290X are performing pretty much the same at stock. I have managed to clock my 970 to over 1.5GHz and its still cooler and consumes less power than the 290X. If it performs better in games that I am interested in, I will buy it, I don't really care so much about "real DX12" or synthetic benchmark scores. The 290X was a good card, but not anymore.

I had the ATI 9550, HD4850, HD6950, R9 280X and now I have the 970, my first green card and sincerely don't regret it one bit. I was hoping more from the RX 480, and with no competition from AMD, when I will muster enough money, I will upgrade to the 1070.


----------



## bug (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> "It's not about raw performance, it's about efficiency"
> 
> and that why you over paid for Intel i5-6600k and ASRock Z170 Extreme7+ and didn't bought I5 - 6500 with some B170 board ...



Are completely brain dead? I was just saying the 480 is not more power efficient than the 970 despite being 14nm.
Wth does that have to do with my CPU and motherboard?


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

bug said:


> Are completely brain dead? I was just saying the 480 is not more power efficient than the 970 despite being 14nm.
> Wth does that have to do with my CPU and motherboard?


That you don't really care about power effective and cost effective.

28nm from AMD (270x) and 14nm is pretty much effective to.



Auryx said:


> I'm going to contradict you here, the 970 and 290X are performing pretty much the same at stock. I have managed to clock my 970 to over 1.5GHz and its still cooler and consumes less power than the 290X. If it performs better in games that I am interested in, I will buy it, I don't really care so much about "real DX12" or synthetic benchmark scores. The 290X was a good card, but not anymore.
> 
> I had the ATI 9550, HD4850, HD6950, R9 280X and now I have the 970, my first green card and sincerely don't regret it one bit. I was hoping more from the RX 480, and with no competition from AMD, when I will muster enough money, I will upgrade to the 1070.




290x was great card, GTX 970 was great card just on the paperer of nvidia CEO.

970 didn't beat 1170 mhz 290x when it was clocked at 1600., you are talking with me about 1500 ? i'm running 1100 with stock fan settings.

I won't call it "pretty way the same"

When 290x performance gap between 980 and 290x is same like between 290x and 970.

and again same story like always .... "MY GPU IS MORE POWER EFFECTIVE"

Overclocks his gpu to 1500mhz, when GTX 970 is using 200~250w+.

"POWER EFFECTIVE"

Why did you bought 4C/8T i7 6700k , when 4C/8T 6700 is available ? and for gaming is even more power effective to take i5 6600. it's same like i7 6700 with Hyper Threading Disabled.


----------



## Auryx (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> 970 didn't beat 1170 mhz 290x when it was clocked at 1600., you are talking with me about 1500 ? i'm running 1100 with stock fan settings.



I would appreciate if you would point out where did you find an review for an 1.6Ghz clocked 970. (Read: REVIEW not some random slide pulled out of my backside with syntethic crap)

Also, I'm a peasant and game at 1440p/1080p where the difference is within margin error @ stock ( Read: *1051 MHz *). And even there, in games that I'M INTERESTED, and the only good ones too if you ask me (Read: The Witcher 3) the 970 is a more logical purchase than the RX 480 or 290X, if you OC it, it absolutely destroys the latter in these games while being more efficient (despite being 28nm) and is cheaper too.

You can't convince me of anything with shoving charts in my face, I've been in the red camp and I've had it, I don't want to hear anything anymore about them. This discussion is about the RX 480. I'm saying the 970 is a better purchase than the RX 480 and you try to convince me that 290X is better than 970. Completely on-topic.


----------



## rhythmeister (Jun 30, 2016)

W1zz, would it be possible for you to add Doom to the benchmarks or when the RX 480 has its next driver suite to revisit this card? I'm VERY interested in one of these cards to upgrade from my HD 7870 Tahiti and would like to see how it compares to the GTX 970. I'm ALSO considering the green team as my monitor has G-Sync but undecided if I really need that feature at all


----------



## laszlo (Jun 30, 2016)

what people do when a *bug *stick to the windshield? hmmmm shall they start the wipers or not ? 

latest benchmark show that one penguin die if you use wipers one hr...


----------



## Caring1 (Jun 30, 2016)

Auryx said:


> I've been in the red camp and I've had it, I don't want to hear anything anymore about them.


So why even bother posting in a "Red" thread unless you wanted to troll?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 30, 2016)

john_ said:


> GTX 970 cheaper today than 15 days ago?



Because within those 15 days Nvidia urged card manufacturers to cut prices on 970, 980 and 980Ti.  My feeling is Nvidia sees it as competition to overpriced 1070 and 1080, and want them and the 980's gone from all stock.

Plus, 970 prices have fallen bit by bit since their production halted 2 months ago.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

Auryx said:


> I would appreciate if you would point out where did you find an review for an 1.6Ghz clocked 970. (Read: REVIEW not some random slide pulled out of my backside with syntethic crap)
> 
> Also, I'm a peasant and game at 1440p/1080p where the difference is within margin error @ stock ( Read: *1051 MHz *). And even there, in games that I'M INTERESTED, and the only good ones too if you ask me (Read: The Witcher 3) the 970 is a more logical purchase than the RX 480 or 290X, if you OC it, it absolutely destroys the latter in these games while being more efficient (despite being 28nm) and is cheaper too.
> 
> You can't convince me of anything with shoving charts in my face, I've been in the red camp and I've had it, I don't want to hear anything anymore about them. This discussion is about the RX 480. I'm saying the 970 is a better purchase than the RX 480 and you try to convince me that 290X is better than 970. Completely on-topic.



YOU SAID, ur 970 OCing much better and more power effective, and i said you are wrong, i didn't join to GTX 970 review topic and i didn't said that my 3years old AIB 290x is much faster than GTX 970.

Even stock 290 /290x perform better than GTX 970 , you started to talk about how good ur 970 is OCing.

Sure i can't convince you, same like i convince people that are buying apple staff.

I'm just trying to stop unhappy people like you, from spearing propaganda.


----------



## Legacy-ZA (Jun 30, 2016)

rhythmeister said:


> W1zz, would it be possible for you to add Doom to the benchmarks or when the RX 480 has its next driver suite to revisit this card? I'm VERY interested in one of these cards to upgrade from my HD 7870 Tahiti and would like to see how it compares to the GTX 970. I'm ALSO considering the green team as my monitor has G-Sync but undecided if I really need that feature at all



Your brain and eyes will thank you; that is if you get an nVdia card and enable G-Sync. It sure would be nice to see DOOM benchmarks too, I agree. 

You will probably have to wait for the GTX1060 if you want the same performance/price point though.


----------



## rhythmeister (Jun 30, 2016)

Legacy-ZA said:


> Your brain and eyes will thank you; that is if you get an nVdia card and enable G-Sync. It sure would be nice to see DOOM benchmarks too, I agree.
> 
> You will probably have to wait for the GTX1060 if you want the same performance/price point though.



I WAS waiting with great expectations for the RX 480 and still think it's a great card...but I suppose the battle with the 1060 could help the price of it drop and the 1060 may even be a step up from the AMD card. Can I wait EVEN longer to upgrade from my HD 7870 Tahiti though, so I can play Doom with full eye candy AND decent frame rates?


----------



## Ungari (Jun 30, 2016)

Legacy-ZA said:


> Your brain and eyes will thank you; that is if you get an nVdia card and enable G-Sync. It sure would be nice to see DOOM benchmarks too, I agree.
> 
> You will probably have to wait for the GTX1060 if you want the same performance/price point though.



Just be prepared to wait a long time unless you are lucky enough to snag one of the 3 cards shipped to your local store.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

rhythmeister said:


> I WAS waiting with great expectations for the RX 480 and still think it's a great card...but I suppose the battle with the 1060 could help the price of it drop and the 1060 may even be a step up from the AMD card. Can I wait EVEN longer to upgrade from my HD 7870 Tahiti though, so I can play Doom with full eye candy AND decent frame rates?




Looks like...

Doom is optimized with love. 

Lower the quality and Disable SMAA.


----------



## abihakim (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> YOU SAID, ur 970 OCing much better and more power effective, and i said you are wrong, i didn't join to GTX 970 review topic and i didn't said that my 3years old AIB 290x is much faster than GTX 970.
> 
> Even stock 290 /290x perform better than GTX 970 , you started to talk about how good ur 970 is OCing.
> 
> ...





Auryx said:


> I would appreciate if you would point out where did you find an review for an 1.6Ghz clocked 970. (Read: REVIEW not some random slide pulled out of my backside with syntethic crap)
> 
> Also, I'm a peasant and game at 1440p/1080p where the difference is within margin error @ stock ( Read: *1051 MHz *). And even there, in games that I'M INTERESTED, and the only good ones too if you ask me (Read: The Witcher 3) the 970 is a more logical purchase than the RX 480 or 290X, if you OC it, it absolutely destroys the latter in these games while being more efficient (despite being 28nm) and is cheaper too.
> 
> You can't convince me of anything with shoving charts in my face, I've been in the red camp and I've had it, I don't want to hear anything anymore about them. This discussion is about the RX 480. I'm saying the 970 is a better purchase than the RX 480 and you try to convince me that 290X is better than 970. Completely on-topic.



Chill m8, as a Palit(It's called Digital Alliance in my country) "JetStream" GTX 970 and Sapphire Tri-X R9 290x Owner let me clear out some facts here.


Spoiler: GTX 970













Spoiler: R9 290x











See? OC vs OC both of them beat each other asses. They performed roughly the same in DX11 Heaven 4.0!
So, both of them are really a good cards at times. Great Value too!
About the Power Consumption i really don't care, as the electricty is cheap af in my country, so it doesnt matter!

If you wanted to get better performance for roughly the same Value. then GTX 780 Ti is the winner here..


Spoiler: 780Ti











=========================================

As an "avid" reader of Greenland /Polaris bit disappointed how they performed. But for the ppl who owns a card that less powerful than a R9 290 and GTX 970, $199/$239 Price Point is really good for them! Sadly not for me, I hope Vega would not dissapoint me, if so sadly i have to wait till Volta or Navi arrives..


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

abihakim said:


> Chill m8, as a Palit(It's called Digital Alliance in my country) "JetStream" GTX 970 and Sapphire Tri-X R9 290x Owner let me clear out some facts here.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: GTX 970
> ...




"Heaven 4.0+ Tessellation" - Even overlocked 780 Ti would get better score than 290x.


----------



## abihakim (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> "Heaven 4.0+ Tessellation" - Even overlocked 780 Ti would get better score than 290x.



Ah yes! Sry about that, but i can assure you all the benchs are taken from my own computer(i5 3570 and H77, Oh hell yes i really care when it comes to price per performance) with the same settings (Extreme Quality, 8x AA, Windowed, 1080p).


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

abihakim said:


> Ah yes! Sry about that, but i can assure you all the benchs are taken from my own computer(i5 3570 and H77, Oh hell yes i really care when it comes to price per performance) with the same settings (Extreme Quality, 8x AA, Windowed, 1080p).



At last use 3DMark.

Heaven 4.0 NVIDIA vs AMD, is same like Star Swarm or SteamVR, AMD Would win there.

700$ 780 TI vs 549$ 290x


Here


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 30, 2016)

Looking at *mindfactory.de *simply to get an idea how well the RX 480 faires against Pascal so far. Of course I am aware that Pascal has been out far longer than the RX 480. That's why I will periodically update this post to see which cards sell more units in a given time frame. One thing to keep in mind though, is that the GTX 1080 and 1070 most likely have a way higher profit margin than the RX 480 since both Nvidia GPUs are basically mid-range offerings priced as high-end. The following numbers will mark our starting point.

*total units sold as of 2016-6-30 @ 3:00 pm (CEST/UTC+2):*

*RX 480: 630           -    **card that sold the most units: **Sapphire Radeon RX 480** @ € 269,00€ with 350 units shipped*
total amount of money spent on RX 480 cards: 169.800€
*GTX 1070: 2.130    -    **card that sold the most units: **MSI GeForce GTX 1070 GAMING X** @ 499,00€ with 550 units shipped*
total amount of money spent on GTX 1070 cards: 1.065.886€
*GTX 1080: 2.650    -    **card that sold the most units: **ASUS GeForce GTX 1080 Strix OC** @ 799,00€ with 570 units shipped*
total amount of money spent on GTX 1080 cards: 2.008.867€
*This amounts to** 3.074.753€ vs 169.800€ (current card pricing).*


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 30, 2016)

In a 480 review comment thread......... lets cut the continued posting of half a page of benchmark crap for graphic cards that DON'T include the 480, it dilutes the review and member comment ON the review, roughly translated, keep on topic please, irrelevant benchmark propaganda can go into GN, this is not a Fanboi marketing stand.  Thank you.


----------



## Auryx (Jun 30, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> So why even bother posting in a "Red" thread unless you wanted to troll?



I'm just saying that the RX 480 dissapointed and that the 970 is a better buy if found cheaper. I'm not the one filling every reply with irrelevant bullshit benches


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

Auryx said:


> I'm just saying that the RX 480 dissapointed and that the 970 is a better buy if found cheaper. I'm not the one filling every reply with irrelevant bullshit benches



Sir, Facts isn't bullshit.

I don't care, how much GTX 970 is cheaper in ur local shop.

There is MSRP and global prices

RX 480 4GB MSRP - is 200$ same like GTX 960 4GB.

This isn't really AMD problem that some retailers selling RX 480 for GTX 970 or 290x price.

I didn't said in any 1070/70 /980 TI / 980 /970 review topic, blabla ebay is selling these cards for 700USD, gtx 1080 has 900+ usd price tag in my country, and how much better is my GPU that out 1 year ago. and how cheaper i got it.

and you should not.




Dethroy said:


> Looking at *mindfactory.de *simply to get an idea how well the RX 480 faires against Pascal so far. Of course I am aware that Pascal has been out far longer than the RX 480. That's why I will periodically update this post to see which cards sell more units in a given time frame. One thing to keep in mind though, is that the GTX 1080 and 1070 most likely have a way higher profit margin than the RX 480 since both Nvidia GPUs are basically mid-range offerings priced as high-end. The following numbers will mark our starting point.
> 
> *total units sold as of 2016-6-30 @ 3:00 pm (CEST/UTC+2):*
> 
> ...


+


HumanSmoke said:


> Nice but not earth shattering. OcUK also had 500 GTX 1080 FE's for sale- a card that was supposed to be overlooked in preference to AIB custom cards. The entire inventory was sold out in minutes




What does it has to do in RX 480 review topic ?

aDMsGl_XxTk?t=1m59s


----------



## Legacy-ZA (Jun 30, 2016)

rhythmeister said:


> I WAS waiting with great expectations for the RX 480 and still think it's a great card...but I suppose the battle with the 1060 could help the price of it drop and the 1060 may even be a step up from the AMD card. Can I wait EVEN longer to upgrade from my HD 7870 Tahiti though, so I can play Doom with full eye candy AND decent frame rates?



Well, from what I read; the GTX1060 will be announced on the 7th July 2016, it's about 1 week from now, maybe wait a bit longer and see? I am just saying, since you have a G-Sync monitor it will benefit you to go with nVidia.


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> What does it has to do in RX 480 review topic ?


 To get an idea if AMD will gain any significant market share.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

Dethroy said:


> To get an idea if AMD will gain any significant market share.



Awww okay, but you won't guess that , from 1 store, there is too much varieties, like another stores,  poor and rich countries,GPU supply over the time and much much more.

Example is WoW pretty failed in US, but had huge success in China(65m vs 110m+)


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> Awww okay, but you won't guess that , from 1 store, there is too much varieties, like another stores,  poor and rich countries,GPU supply over the time and much much more.
> 
> Example is WoW pretty failed in US, but had huge success in China(65m vs 110m+)


I know it won't be 100% accurate. But I'd thought it may point in the right direction, though.
If anything, people like me that like numbers, may find it interesting regardless of its accuracy


----------



## Casecutter (Jun 30, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Power efficency was almost the only thing they promised, and didn't deliver anything close to 2.5×.



The claim was "2.5x improved performance-per-watt compared with its 28nm-class hardware". 

The quantifier here has always been what constitutes its 28nm-class hardware and what Perf/W matrix?  Is "class" based on die size or level of performance today?  In other words is it compared to a Pitcairn like the 270X, or say the 290X/390.  Is performance in actual games (which ones), Firestrike or average of both? 

I'm not saying this Ellesmere part by types of matrices used in most reviews doesn't seem elevated above what I would've thought, however I can't quantify if AMD's statement is true or a fabrication with out a clear revel of their parameters.

And there's the problem; Even W1zzards' summary isn't a appropriate quantifier as I don't believe he's using the actual power consumption from "each game", but uses the one "typical gaming power consumption result" from which of these (below) I have never understood.


Average: Metro: Last Light at 1920x1080 because it is _*representative of a typical gaming power draw*_. The average of all readings (12 per second) while the benchmark was rendering (no title/loading screen) is used. In order to heat up the card, the benchmark is run once without measuring power consumption.

Peak: Metro: We use Last Light at 1920x1080 _as it *produces power draw typical to gaming*_. The highest single reading during the test is used.


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 30, 2016)

Casecutter said:


> And there's the problem; Even W1zzards' summary isn't a appropriate quantifier as I don't believe he's using the actual power consumption from "each game", but uses the one "typical gaming power consumption result" from which of these (below) I have never understood.
> 
> 
> Average: Metro: Last Light at 1920x1080 because it is _*representative of a typical gaming power draw*_. The average of all readings (12 per second) while the benchmark was rendering (no title/loading screen) is used. In order to heat up the card, the benchmark is run once without measuring power consumption.
> ...



What's not to understand?


----------



## bug (Jun 30, 2016)

Dethroy said:


> What's not to understand?


I think he means if Metro: Last Light is a good indicator of _typical_ power draw, then it's not a good indicator of _peak_ power draw - we'd need the most stressful game for that.
As a side-note, I've never understood the difference between max and peak either.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 30, 2016)

bug said:


> then it's not a good indicator of _peak_ power draw - we'd need the most stressful game for that.


It's actually a very good indicator both in averages and peaks. That's why I picked it. No, it's not Furmark, that's why we have the Furmark test.


----------



## TRWOV (Jun 30, 2016)

Anyone knows how apart the mounting holes are? I want to know if any of my heatsinks will work on this. 

The reference cooler simply won't cut it. I can buy an AIB card but I have a bunch of GPU coolers lying around gathering dust.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

TRWOV said:


> Anyone knows how apart the mounting holes are? I want to know if any of my heatsinks will work on this.
> 
> The reference cooler simply won't cut it. I can buy an AIB card but I have a bunch of GPU coolers lying around gathering dust.



http://videocardz.com/61697/how-fast-radeon-rx-480-can-be


















4Chan >.< but RX480+H100


----------



## TRWOV (Jun 30, 2016)

Thank you that'll help. 

I really want to get a reference card from the first batchs to get  Samsung/Hynx RAM chips. We know that manufacturers switch to Elpida RAM down the line.


----------



## sergionography (Jun 30, 2016)

Auryx said:


> I'm just saying that the RX 480 dissapointed and that the 970 is a better buy if found cheaper. I'm not the one filling every reply with irrelevant bullshit benches


 
Old benches are not irrelevant at all, they are shown here to show the pattern of benches between day1 reviews and later reviews with mature drivers and newer relevant games. almost every launch review has the nvidia part beating its amd counterpart by up to like 10%, and then you skip about a year or more and check recent reviews and find out that the AMD part is beating its direct nvidia counterpart by a good 10%, if this doesn't ring a bell for you idk what will. And if you dont expect to see the same pattern for the rx480 down the road then you are in denial. Even with my previous point clarified, NO the gtx 970 is NOT a better card, as after 2 years of optimization it is losing to an rx480 on day one drivers by up to 10%. I mean compared to pascal yes amd is more power hungry, but to tell me get a maxwell card instead then thats just ridiculous fanboyism there lol. 

So to summarise, AMD is a better futureproof investment especially for people who only buy a gpu once every 3-4 years like myself, and with dx12 becoming mainstream down the road will only make gcn shine even more, while nvidia by then will have a new architecture to better tackle dx12, those who invested in pascal and maxwell must realize that their architecture doesnt magically change or fix itself when nvidia releases a successor halo product, the only thing it fixes is their ego on forums about how nvidia is number one blah blah, which doesnt do sane people any good


----------



## Casecutter (Jun 30, 2016)

Dethroy said:


> What's not to understand?


That there are two different test both indicating "typical gaming power" and we really don't know for certain how either of those games are representative to either brand.

Just saying Metro: Last Light @1080p could load one brand more than the other skewing all the summary results.  Now that we're in a time when dynamic clocks (boost) such operation from a particular brand may cause a card to work less in that particular a game, while the other brand might need to work harder.   Using one game(one point) to average across all games will skew the results.


----------



## rruff (Jun 30, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> It's actually a very good indicator both in averages and peaks. That's why I picked it. No, it's not Furmark, that's why we have the Furmark test.



Any thoughts on whether the high power consumption is due to the card being volted and clocked way past its sweet spot? Thinking AMD went to extreme measures to hit a performance target with this card, and the 470 will be much more power efficient.


----------



## Dethroy (Jun 30, 2016)

Casecutter said:


> That there are two different test both indicating "typical gaming power" [...]


Same test, 2 different measured values: peak & average


----------



## truth teller (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> http://videocardz.com/61697/how-fast-radeon-rx-480-can-be


interesting


----------



## Casecutter (Jun 30, 2016)

Dethroy said:


> Same test, 2 different measured values: peak & average


so is the summary based on the 970-156W / 480-163W or the Peak of the 480-167W / 970-191W  

What if the title was Hitman and the 970-166W / 480-154W, while the Peak of the 480-153W / 970-198W?  Wouldn't that change the summary averages?


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 30, 2016)

Casecutter said:


> so is the summary based on


average of course



Casecutter said:


> Wouldn't that change the summary averages?


yes, and that's something we all have to live with, it's just too much work to bench all those games for power consumption a separate time


----------



## efikkan (Jun 30, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> When the news of vega came, it clearly said is was going to have better performance x watt than polaris.
> And also, there are two vegas, 10 & 11. V10 is supposed to be in the 1080 territory and V11 in 1080Ti or whatever is it called.


- AMD claims Vega will be significantly more power efficient than Polaris, we'll see if this is true. They claimed Polaris would improve efficiency by 2.5×, but it's more like half of that. (even less if you compare to the R9 Nano). Pascal is about twice as efficient as Polaris, so AMD needs to get their act together and needs to close that gap to compete.
- Vega 10 will be the big chip, Vega 11 will be smaller. Just like with Polaris 10/11.
- Vega is scheduled for end of Q1/ early Q2 2017. The development of the chip is soon finished, tape out is next (proably July), then ~3 months for the first test batch...



john_ said:


> Is there any game I will show you that you will not call AMD biased?


There are no good Direct3D 12 games yet. Games like AofS was written for Mantle and then ported, of course it's going to be biased. There is still no evidence that Nvidia's hardware is inferior in Direct3D 12. But a lot of people are confused since Nvidia get "lower gains from Direct3D 12", but that's because they've brought the Direct3D 12 driver optimizations to all APIs(1)(2).



john_ said:


> And can you guarantee that the extra ram will not be useful in the near future? Not all people buy cards for 6 months. Some people buy cards and keep them for years.


A card in the class of RX 480 is not fast enough to utilize more than ~4 GB. If you are trying to use more in a single frame the performance will tank because of bandwidth limitations.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

efikkan said:


> - AMD claims Vega will be significantly more power efficient than Polaris, we'll see if this is true. They claimed Polaris would improve efficiency by 2.5×, but it's more like half of that. (even less if you compare to the R9 Nano). Pascal is about twice as efficient as Polaris, so AMD needs to get their act together and needs to close that gap to compete.
> - Vega 10 will be the big chip, Vega 11 will be smaller. Just like with Polaris 10/11.
> - Vega is scheduled for end of Q1/ early Q2 2017. The development of the chip is soon finished, tape out is next (proably July), then ~3 months for the first test batch...
> 
> ...




4GB vs 8GB - 90% + Developers release their products downgraded.








btw my 4GB 290x and Fury X has same problem as i know.


GTX 970 has 224GB/s
1070 has 256GB/s
RX480 has 256GB/s memory bandwidth, so it's pretty OP.



DX11 vs 12

My 290x gains 25 fps over DX11. [1080p/Ultra]

DX12 +CPU Usage is Higher 6C/6T
http://i.imgur.com/YF5fBgG.jpg

DX11 CPU Usage Lower 6C/6T + 25 fps less.
http://i.imgur.com/mgmozPw.jpg


----------



## john_ (Jun 30, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> Because within those 15 days Nvidia urged card manufacturers to cut prices on 970, 980 and 980Ti.  My feeling is Nvidia sees it as competition to overpriced 1070 and 1080, and want them and the 980's gone from all stock.
> 
> Plus, 970 prices have fallen bit by bit since their production halted 2 months ago.


I think you got it wrong here. You don't make the competition better(Maxwell cards) if you feel they are a threat to your new products(Pascal). Nvidia saw that AMD managed to have big quantities of RX480 ready for the market. That was the only thing they didn't knew 15-30 days ago. They knew how RX480 was performing, but if AMD didn't had enough cards for the market, prices would have gone up quickly and RX480 wouldn't be a threat. It would have been a lost chance. But AMD flooded the market, so Nvidia needed to counter that fast. So they lowered the prices on Maxwell cards, something that gives people the argument that GTX 970 is not much more expensive than RX 480 today, and also moved GTX 1060 closer. Instead of August, July.



efikkan said:


> A card in the class of RX 480 is not fast enough to utilize more than ~4 GB. If you are trying to use more in a single frame the performance will tank because of bandwidth limitations.


And you are an expert in GPUs? Do you design GPUs for a company? Can you tell me what is the bandwidth of GTX 1070? The same maybe? Will GTX 1070s performance TANK because of bandwidth limitations? Or are you going to tell me that GP104 is a marvelous chip that also bypass bandwidth limitations?


----------



## Legacy-ZA (Jun 30, 2016)

john_ said:


> I think you got it wrong here. You don't make the competition better(Maxwell cards) if you feel they are a threat to your new products(Pascal). Nvidia saw that AMD managed to have big quantities of RX480 ready for the market. That was the only thing they didn't knew 15-30 days ago. They knew how RX480 was performing, but if AMD didn't had enough cards for the market, prices would have gone up quickly and RX480 wouldn't be a threat. It would have been a lost chance. But AMD flooded the market, so Nvidia needed to counter that fast. So they lowered the prices on Maxwell cards, something that gives people the argument that GTX 970 is not much more expensive than RX 480 today, and also moved GTX 1060 closer. Instead of August, July.
> 
> 
> And you are an expert in GPUs? Do you design GPUs for a company? Can you tell me what is the bandwidth of GTX 1070? The same maybe? Will GTX 1070s performance TANK because of bandwidth limitations? Or are you going to tell me that GP104 is a marvelous chip that also bypass bandwidth limitations?



Both the new GTX1000 series and RX480 from nVidia and AMD come with new texture compression technology, that allows for the cards to do more while still running slower memory bandwidth than we are used to.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 30, 2016)

john_ said:


> I think you got it wrong here. You don't make the competition better(Maxwell cards) if you feel they are a threat to your new products(Pascal). Nvidia saw that AMD managed to have big quantities of RX480 ready for the market. That was the only thing they didn't knew 15-30 days ago. They knew how RX480 was performing, but if AMD didn't had enough cards for the market, prices would have gone up quickly and RX480 wouldn't be a threat. It would have been a lost chance. But AMD flooded the market, so Nvidia needed to counter that fast. So they lowered the prices on Maxwell cards, something that gives people the argument that GTX 970 is not much more expensive than RX 480 today, and also moved GTX 1060 closer. Instead of August, July.



No sir, I think you got it wrong.  If they still hat shitloads of the older Maxwells in stocks, and which are all cheaper than their monstrously priced new cards, and which perform at a level that is all people need unless they want 4K, and if the new cards are all obscenely priced, it stands to reason Nvidia and their distributors must find a way to unload the old stock quickly.  That way, as they see it, people will be more willing to buy their overpriced, overhyped cards. 

As long as they have a cheaper, perfectly adequate option in the pipeline, they don't have much hope of actually selling the new stuff.  Nvidia stopped worrying about what AMD "might" do long ago.  and the new Pascals are not in the 480 performance or price tier at all, so not a consideration.  The only reason they started the sales was to liquidate stock of their 1070/1080 competitors.


----------



## john_ (Jun 30, 2016)

Legacy-ZA said:


> Both the new GTX1000 series and RX480 from nVidia and AMD come with new texture compression technology, that allows for the cards to do more while still running slower memory bandwidth than we are used to.


Yes I know that. Nvidia offers color compression from Maxwell if I am not mistaken and AMD introduced it with Tonga.



rtwjunkie said:


> No sir, I think you got it wrong.  If they still hat shitloads of the older Maxwells in stocks, and which are all cheaper than their monstrously priced new cards, and which perform at a level that is all people need unless they want 4K, and if the new cards are all obscenely priced, it stands to reason Nvidia and their distributors must find a way to unload the old stock quickly.  That way, as they see it, people will be more willing to buy their overpriced, overhyped cards.
> 
> As long as they have a cheaper, perfectly adequate option in the pipeline, they don't have much hope of actually selling the new stuff.  Nvidia stopped worrying about what AMD "might" do long ago.  and the new Pascals are not in the 480 performance or price tier at all, so not a consideration.  The only reason they started the sales was to liquidate stock of their 1070/1080 competitors.


 No you did. 

Making Maxwell cheaper you only drive customers to Maxwell. Every customer gone to Maxwell, will not buy a Pascal card, but more important, will still be an Nvidia customer. And why would someone who just bought a Maxwell card "be more willing to buy their overpriced, overhyped cards"? It doesn't make sense. He just got a new shiny Maxwell card.

If you have "shitloads of the older Maxwells in stocks" with prices that will interest no one, you will probably still have "shitloads of the older Maxwells in stocks" 12 months latter. That doesn't really affect how Pascal cards sell. Having "shitloads of the older Maxwells in stocks" at high prices only affect AIBs and shops having difficulties selling those cards.

Giving those "shitloads of the older Maxwells in stocks" at lower prices, you drive people to those cards which means they are not going to buy Pascal cards because they just got a new card. Especially when those Pascal cards have high prices.

I don't know in how many ways I have to explain it. I thought it was obvious. No. IT IS obvious.

What changed was AMD's RX480. Every customer going to RX480 is a lost customer to Nvidia, more market share for AMD. With no GTX 1060 in the market, Nvidia had to do something fast to not lose customers to AMD, to not have "shitloads of the older Maxwells in stocks" 12 months latter. And the only thing they could do was to lower Maxwell prices.

If the rumors about Polaris having problems where true, if Polaris was pushed back in October, we wouldn't have seen any significant price drops in Maxwel cards, except 980Ti that was way too expensive compared to GTX 1070. Prices would have stayed relatively high until GTX 1060 was released and Maxwell cards would still be selling nicely. With RX480 in the market, who would have gone and bought a GTX 970 if it was $50-$100 more expensive than an RX480? Who would have bought an even more expensive GTX 980? Too few. Not to mention that RX480 would look so much better today with NO competition at it's price range.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jun 30, 2016)

That power consumption though... jeez.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jun 30, 2016)

Casecutter said:


> The claim was "2.5x improved performance-per-watt compared with its 28nm-class hardware".
> 
> The quantifier here has always been what constitutes its 28nm-class hardware and what Perf/W matrix?  Is "class" based on die size or level of performance today?  In other words is it compared to a Pitcairn like the 270X, or say the 290X/390.


Been in a coma?
AMD's own slide from where the claim was made clearly shows the 28nm GPU baseline as late 2014. The ONLY AMD card launched in that timeframe is the perf/watt dog...R9 285. It's called "setting a low bar"


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

HumanSmoke said:


> Been in a coma?
> AMD's own slide from where the claim was made clearly shows the 28nm GPU baseline as late 2014. The ONLY AMD card launched in that timeframe is the perf/watt dog...R9 285. It's called "setting a low bar"




700 series are 28nm to.






280x =51% = 2.0p/m

51% = Overall = Could reach 2.5 in some games or apps.


----------



## HD64G (Jun 30, 2016)

efikkan said:


> - AMD claims Vega will be significantly more power efficient than Polaris, we'll see if this is true. They claimed Polaris would improve efficiency by 2.5×, but it's more like half of that. (even less if you compare to the R9 Nano). Pascal is about twice as efficient as Polaris, so AMD needs to get their act together and needs to close that gap to compete.
> - Vega 10 will be the big chip, Vega 11 will be smaller. Just like with Polaris 10/11.
> - Vega is scheduled for end of Q1/ early Q2 2017. The development of the chip is soon finished, tape out is next (proably July), then ~3 months for the first test batch...



- Polaris has the #11 also which could be the best one in efficiency, so wait 1-2 weeks more to be sure judging this aspect for Polaris.
- Vega 10 is the smaller of the Vegas, as Vega 11 is the beasty one.
- Vega 10 could be out for sale in the late 2016 with the development already done (that's what Raja told about the celebration last week after all)


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

HD64G said:


> - Polaris has the #11 also which could be the best one in efficiency, so wait 1-2 weeks more to be sure judging this aspect for Polaris.
> - Vega 10 is the smaller of the Vegas, as Vega 11 is the beasty one.
> - Vega 10 could be out for sale in the late 2016 with the development already done (that's what Raja told about the celebration last week after all)


I'm not strong in Astronomy.

But isn't Vega 10 is much bigger than Vega 11 ?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> 700 series are 28nm to.



ffs why don't you give the trolling and bad logic a rest.
The slide is an AMD slide of AMD products.
The slide was part of an AMD presentation comparing AMD architectures


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

HumanSmoke said:


> ffs why don't you give the trolling and bad logic a rest.
> The slide is an AMD slide of AMD products.
> The slide was part of an AMD presentation comparing AMD architectures



Simple English ..

28nm GPUs 1x p/w
Polaris GPUs 2.5x p/w


---------------

Awww sorry ..

I mean "7000" -  Radeon HD 7000 Series.

i need to learn to write better 

Any way you are nvidia fan so 280x = Re branded 7970 Ghz.

RX 480 has 2.0p/w over 280x overall and 7970 GHz Editions were even more hungry.

so this could reach 2.5p/w over 28nm.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> I mean "7000" -  Radeon HD 7000 Series.
> i need to learn to write better
> Any way you are nvidia fan so 280x = Re branded 7970 Ghz.


Remember what I said about bad logic?
The 280X launched in October *2013*....now check the timeline on the AMD slide that positions the 28nm GPU being compared. It shows late *2014*
Even if you had used the last HD 7000 rebrand, the R9 280, it launched at the beginning of 2014 and still doesn't correlate to either the slide timeline, nor the architectural presentation that accompanied it. I'm surprised you needed an "nvidia fan" to supply the actual facts on this matter.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

HumanSmoke said:


> Remember what I said about bad logic?
> The 280X launched in October *2013*....now check the timeline on the AMD slide that positions the 28nm GPU being compared. It shows late *2014*
> Even if you had used the last HD 7000 rebrand, the R9 280, it launched at the beginning of 2014 and still doesn't correlate to either the slide timeline, nor the architectural presentation that accompanied it. I'm surprised you needed an "nvidia fan" to supply the actual facts on this matter.








Ohhh so you want to talk about last 2years.

Did AMD released all Polaris cards ? did you know there APU wiith Polaris to notebooks ? that is using only 35w ?

Why are you comparing whole graph to the first and most powerful Polaris card ?

Great logic dude!!!!!


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jun 30, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> Did AMD released all Polaris cards ? did you know there APU wiith Polaris to notebooks ?


The discussion has nothing to do with the Polaris cards . The discussion point arose out of casecutter querying what 28nm GPU was used as the baseline for 1.0x perf. As you well know since YOU weighed in with some nonsensical observations. Now you go with the classic lowbrow troll move of trying to deflect the discussion away from its central point 


Eroticus said:


> Great logic dude!!!!!


Yeah, it actually makes sense...unlike your poorly cobbled together attempts.

Only two things remain...
I'll report you for trolling just for pro forma sake even though I have more chance of winning the powerball lottery than ever seeing someone censured for trolling on TPU...

...and welcome to my ignore list


----------



## Casecutter (Jun 30, 2016)

HumanSmoke said:


> Been in a coma?
> AMD's own slide from where the claim was made clearly shows the 28nm GPU baseline as late 2014. The ONLY AMD card launched in that timeframe is the perf/watt dog...R9 285. It's called "setting a low bar"


Odd that would mean they used a gelding, but perhaps your right from the simple slide.  I would think they would quantify the parameters in some notes.  Perhaps they're indicating the Amethyst XT R9 M295X, we can assume lots of things.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

HumanSmoke said:


> The discussion has nothing to do with the Polaris cards . The discussion point arose out of casecutter querying what 28nm GPU was used as the baseline for 1.0x perf. As you well know since YOU weighed in with some nonsensical observations. Now you go with the classic lowbrow troll move of trying to deflect the discussion away from its central point
> 
> Yeah, it actually makes sense...unlike your poorly cobbled together attempts.
> 
> ...












> Remember what I said about bad logic?
> *The 280X launched in October 2013....now check the timeline on the AMD slide that positions the 28nm GPU being compared. It shows late 2014*
> E*ven if you had used the last HD 7000 rebrand, the R9 280, it launched at the beginning of 2014 and still doesn't correlate to either the slide timeline*, nor the architectural presentation that accompanied it. I'm surprised you needed an "nvidia fan" *to supply the actual facts on this matter*.





"Compare most power full Polaris in Graph to another 28nm cards."

"Gets mad, says he Compares RX480 to the latest that released in late 2014"

I asked you why are you comparing most Powerful Polaris card in the graph if AMD didn't even said  which one and didn't released them all.

"Gets mad again and wants to report me "

and I SAID Nonsense, YEAH RIGHT.

Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word....


----------



## Casecutter (Jun 30, 2016)

I'm just asking the question(s) looking to receive the accurate information.

So let me ask... from their side in late 2014 28nm is shown 1x above baseline, and the Polaris is considered 2.5x isn't that also from baseline?  Wouldn't the difference be considered as 1.5x between them?


----------



## hapkiman (Jun 30, 2016)

I'm sorry.  Try as I might -  I just cannot seem to get excited about the 480.   Hopefully Vega shows me something impressive.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 30, 2016)

john_ said:


> No you did.
> 
> Making Maxwell cheaper you only drive customers to Maxwell. Every customer gone to Maxwell, will not buy a Pascal card, but more important, will still be an Nvidia customer. And why would someone who just bought a Maxwell card "be more willing to buy their overpriced, overhyped cards"? It doesn't make sense. He just got a new shiny Maxwell card.
> 
> ...



I wish I had time to give you some courses in business, but let me explain how it works.  When a manufacturer has a new model year of anything and too large of an inventory of the old stuff, they will always heavily discount the old stuff so that people will then concentrate on only the new stuff at its increased price, after the old is gone.  That's how it works in the USA where both Nvidia and AMD are headquartered.  

Yes, that smaller number who bought the old won't buy the new for a year or two, but it eliminates confusion. This way, instead of people wondering for months if they shod buy the expensive item, or the older item that is cheaper and still plenty good, the manufacturer just eliminates that factor.  Then all new customers only have a choice of new and expensive and new and almost as expensive.


----------



## Eroticus (Jun 30, 2016)

Casecutter said:


> I'm just asking the question(s) looking to receive the accurate information.
> 
> So let me ask... from their side in late 2014 28nm is show 1x baseline, and the Polaris is considered 2.5x isn't that also from baseline?  Wouldn't the difference be considered as 1.5x between them?



1.First Graph from Smoke
1x = 100% Performance, some GPU from late 2014.
2.5 = *UP TO* 250% Performance, some GPU from late 2016.

2.





2.





In this graph they named both GPUs

270x = 1x(100%) p/w
470x should have *UP TO* 2.8x(280%) better p/w over 270x

In this graph, you can also notice...

270x*2 and 290*1

I didn't saw the full document and i don't really know what exactly they wrote with small text.. (Marketing_meme.png)

Should be pretty accurate, i think ....


----------



## Ungari (Jun 30, 2016)

I'm not sure how much NGreedia will benefit from selling Maxwell stocks at cut-rate prices since Pascal is still largely unavailable. 
I would think that these cheaper Maxwell cards would take possible Pascal buyers out of the market.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jul 1, 2016)

Casecutter said:


> Odd that would mean they used a gelding, but perhaps your right from the simple slide.  I would think they would quantify the parameters in some notes.  Perhaps they're indicating the Amethyst XT R9 M295X, we can assume lots of things.


I suppose the card could be the mobile M295X, but if you are highlighting a new architecture it would seem strange that AMD would use a perf/watt optimized mobile part for its baseline - that just raises the bar significantly higher to achieve "2.5x perf/watt"


----------



## john_ (Jul 1, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> I wish I had time to give you some courses in business, but let me explain how it works.  When a manufacturer has a new model year of anything and too large of an inventory of the old stuff, they will always heavily discount the old stuff so that people will then concentrate on only the new stuff at its increased price, after the old is gone.  That's how it works in the USA where both Nvidia and AMD are headquartered.
> 
> Yes, that smaller number who bought the old won't buy the new for a year or two, but it eliminates confusion. This way, instead of people wondering for months if they shod buy the expensive item, or the older item that is cheaper and still plenty good, the manufacturer just eliminates that factor.  Then all new customers only have a choice of new and expensive and new and almost as expensive.



You just ignore logic because it is extremely difficult for you to accept that Nvidia lowered prices, because of competition. And graphics cards are not refrigerators. There is no confusion when a competitor's model offers the same or higher performance at 2/3 of the price. You either lower prices and keep your market share, or you don't and enjoy "shitloads of the older Maxwells in stocks". And yes, AMD has done in the past, what Nvidia did now. It was when GTX 970 came out. But they didn't dropped prices back then because they where going to show a new card. They did it because GTX 970 made 290 series cards non competitive. The same happened now, but I guess you have a problem to even think that Nvidia was in any way forced by an AMD product to adjust prices.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Jul 1, 2016)

Summary of why I and a lot of people find the RX 480 disappointing.

Never before has new generation card not been more powerful as the previous generation, which in this case is the fury.

Reviewers have gone out of there way to applaud AMD's pricing of the card, and they did do the right thing there.  But was that the plan?  I don't think so.

I think AMD saw their new hardware had some good advances, but was embarrassed by Nvidia's new cards.  To market it as mid-range was their only choice.  The pull forward of the Vega was another necessity due to the lackluster performance of Polaris.  And the publicizing of that card's 'development milestone' the same week was another attempt to distract us from the reality of Polaris.

All in all, a disappointment.  I'm fine with my year old GTX 970 for now and will wait and see how things shake out.  Was hoping for more from AMD, and I think they were too.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 1, 2016)

@john_ go ahead and ignore the fact that 290 series was still new and current then.  They did that to compete. Nvidia did this with old stock because it is competing with its own overpriced product.  Not even close to the same situation.  If it were, 1080 and 1070 prices would have been slashed.

Don't act like I'm the AMD hater here. Read the thread. I'm one of the only ones that hasn't said how much the 480 sucks compared to the expectations they had for it.  

I'm out of this conversation. It's extremely hard to have a logical conversation with extreme belief people and not worth getting worked up over.


----------



## OneCool (Jul 1, 2016)

I hate it for AMD but being a LONG time supporter... losing me really fast. hype,hype,hype....then not even average. 2 years of put offs with Samsung's help on 14nm .  could have refined 28 just one more time and got the same shit


----------



## Ungari (Jul 1, 2016)

PopcornMachine said:


> Summary of why I and a lot of people find the RX 480 disappointing.
> 
> Never before has new generation card not been more powerful as the previous generation, which in this case is the fury.
> 
> ...



You must have missed AMDs announcements about their strategy for Polaris and Vega.
The RX 480 was never designed to compete with high end cards, but the mainstream market under $300 where the vast majority of sales are; over 80% of video card purchases.
Now Vega is to be in the upper middle and higher tier of the market, and quite frankly AMD does not even have to beat Pascal, just give price to performance to be competitive at those price points.


----------



## Eroticus (Jul 1, 2016)

Why every one is comparing GTX 970 to RX 480 ?

Why no one didn't compare GTX 960 to R9 290 ?

Why GTX 760 didn't beat re branded series from AMD ?

Stock GTX 970 had high temperature and 41dbA.

Nvidia advertised the GTX 970 as high end full DirectX12.1 support , having 4GB of vram running at 224GB/s, it was later revealed that the first 3.5Gb operates at 192GB/s (7/8th) while remaining were slowed than Chinese sd-card, with bugged DirectX12 support.
GTX 970 didn't even beat 400$ R9-290, and was loved by millions.

Sounds like apple product with right marketing.


@rtwjunkie by ur logic , 700$ -780 Ti and 650$ 780 is both new GPUs.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 1, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> @rtwjunkie by ur logic , 700$ -780 Ti and 650$ 780 is both new GPUs


???????????? Er, what?!?
I'm completely unable to follow whatever thought process brought that on.  But just to establish the record, my wtf response should firmly establish that i don't think that.


----------



## Eroticus (Jul 1, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> ???????????? Er, what?!?



290x - *October 24, 2013*
780 Ti - * November 7, 2013*

I smell double standards ..


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 1, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> I'm out of this conversation. It's extremely hard to have a logical conversation with extreme belief people and not worth getting worked up over.




Me too.  This whole thread reminds me why I am not a mod (the "ban everyone in this thread" button would be my first goto in this situation.)


----------



## PopcornMachine (Jul 1, 2016)

Ungari said:


> You must have missed AMDs announcements about their strategy for Polaris and Vega.
> The RX 480 was never designed to compete with high end cards, but the mainstream market under $300 where the vast majority of sales are; over 80% of video card purchases.
> Now Vega is to be in the upper middle and higher tier of the market, and quite frankly AMD does not even have to beat Pascal, just give price to performance to be competitive at those price points.



Those announcements came after they found out what they had.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 1, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> 290x - *October 24, 2013*
> 780 Ti - * November 7, 2013*
> 
> I smell double standards ..



That was John's example.  Have you forgotten your meds today, perchance???

EDITED to reflect that it was John_ who made the 290 price drop argument I was countering, not Eroticus, who apparently was confused, acting as if I made that argument.  I can only assume he must have John_ on ignore or something.


----------



## nem.. (Jul 1, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Seems like Tpu f*ed up. All other sites are quoting lower power consumptions.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview/6



While I was watching in TechPowerUp the CF RX 480 review , and nothing make sense with some videos on youtube and even they did not bench the AOS game .. and something made me remember that long ago was wrote in TechPowerUp, the conclusions of the review of the GTX980, I repeat they were talking about an Nvidia Gpu, look well what they say at the end.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/31.html


----------



## Eroticus (Jul 1, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> That was YOUR example.  Have you forgotten your meds today, perchance???



780 Ti was overpriced and released after 290x, and didn't even beat it.

and Nvidia rushed to Release 900 series, and what happen when you rush ur products ?

Nvidia advertised the GTX 970 as high end full DirectX12.1 support , having 4GB of vram running at 224GB/s, it was later revealed that the first 3.5Gb operates at 192GB/s (7/8th) while remaining were slower than Chinese sd-card, with bugged DirectX12 support.
GTX 970 didn't even beat 400$ R9-290, and was loved by millions.

I love how some TPU users joining to AMD topic and and trying to spear green propaganda how good was high end GTX 970 and you could buy it 1 year ago.

But when you are trying to say, they are wrong, both cards doesn't even belong to same class, GTX 960 didn't beat 290 to, and we didn't compare both cards vs each other.

They got mad, blame you and tell you that they will quit from topic.



Spoiler: The Way It's Meant To Be Paid



http://i.imgur.com/3sWCghS.png


----------



## nem.. (Jul 1, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> 1.First Graph from Smoke
> 1x = 100% Performance, some GPU from late 2014.
> 2.5 = *UP TO* 250% Performance, some GPU from late 2016.
> 
> ...



380x -> 480

where 380x based on an chip of 366 mm² with tdp of 190w and polaris be on chip of 232mm2 with 150w tdp

in all scenarios (4k, 2k 1080p 900p) from 280x to 480x can se viewed an 50% of increment , and better on each scenario to the perf / w of 960.

*quoting tpu *





*finally on performance on gamming 45% faster than same die size chip of 960 on DX11





*


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Jul 1, 2016)

bug said:


> Yes there is. The 970 offers about the same performance for $265. And that's for custom solutions which are already overclocked and will match 480's performance in this review. Yes, there will be custom, overclocked 480s, but they will also cost more than the MSRP.



$265 is $65 more than the RX 480 4GB version, which performs roughly the same as or slightly better than the GTX970. That's a 33% price premium for the GTX970 despite zero improvement in performance and roughly the same power draw. With the same performance/electrical consumption as the Maxwell series, that's pretty decent considering how efficient the Maxwells are.

If AMD fixes the PCIe power draw and cooler issues, then they have a winner. They basically created an overclocked GTX970 that sells for $200. You can't compare it to Pascal cards because Pascals are all high end and cost significantly more. Nvidia has no plans to retire the lower end Maxwells GTX950, 960s, etc. Even the GTX1060 will still be a good deal more expensive than the RX 480.


----------



## NC37 (Jul 1, 2016)

Before the launch date....buzz is:

"Insane overclocking!"
"390X performance for $200 at a fraction of the power draw!!!"
"It'll be a Crossfire monster!!"

AMD launches 480...

"Terrible overclocking"
"Sub 390 performance"
"Crossfire doesn't work with really anything."

Moral of the story is...whenever AMD pimps a performance increase based on power draw, you know when it finally releases it's going to disappoint. They did it with Fury and they did it with Nano. With 1060 coming, nVidia has effectively killed the hope of AMD's Polaris GPUs.


----------



## Bluescreendeath (Jul 1, 2016)

NC37 said:


> With 1060 coming, nVidia has effectively killed the hope of AMD's Polaris GPUs.



The 1060 likely won't be close to the price range of Polaris. (I've read that it will probably cost ~$300). Nvidia is still keeping its lower tiered Maxwells. The Polaris would still be perfectly competitive at the $200-$250 range unless the 1060 is somehow priced at $250 or lower.


----------



## ikeke (Jul 1, 2016)

NC37 said:


> Before the launch date....buzz is:
> 
> "Insane overclocking!"
> "390X performance for $200 at a fraction of the power draw!!!"
> ...



Moral of the story - dont buy into hype from Videocardz/wccftech et al.

AMD said to expect R9 290/GTX970 level of performance for $200. Delivered.


----------



## john_ (Jul 1, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> @john_ go ahead and ignore the fact that 290 series was still new and current then.  They did that to compete. Nvidia did this with old stock because it is competing with its own overpriced product.  Not even close to the same situation.  If it were, 1080 and 1070 prices would have been slashed.
> 
> Don't act like I'm the AMD hater here. Read the thread. I'm one of the only ones that hasn't said how much the 480 sucks compared to the expectations they had for it.
> 
> I'm out of this conversation. It's extremely hard to have a logical conversation with extreme belief people and not worth getting worked up over.


290 series was one year old when Maxwell came out. And yes they did that to compete. I wrote that, I guess you had to wrote it too. On the other hand you keep talking about Nvidia like they don't ave any competition. Like they are alone in the market. You make it look like if Maxwell cards where no where to be found, people would be spending at least $450 for a 1070. They would completely ignore everything AMD had in the market. Nvidia's only competition is Nvidia itself.

That's your "logic" here. You are not an AMD hater. You are an Nvidia worshiper, at least in this case. And thank you for restraining yourself for saying how much 480 sucks 

I was thinking to say "I stop here" in my previous post, but I thought you would say that I try to escape from the conversation. And yes, it is extremely hard to have a conversation with you. Because you are trying to convince me that, that photo in your avatar showing a Roman soldier using his smartphone, is an authentic 2000 years old photo.


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 1, 2016)

Bluescreendeath said:


> The 1060 likely won't be close to the price range of Polaris. (I've read that it will probably cost ~$300).



$250 for 3GB and $300 for 6GB is what I've heard. Personally I feel NVIDIA could shave another $20 - $30 off those prices and still come away with a nice profit, but they're obviously worried about cannibalizing their existing Maxwell stocks.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 1, 2016)

ikeke said:


> AMD said to expect R9 290/GTX970 level of performance for $200. Delivered.


With some DX12 sugar on top


----------



## john_ (Jul 1, 2016)

PopcornMachine said:


> Those announcements came after they found out what they had.


They had a 232mm2 chip. I am pretty sure they had enough experience in the market to know what to expect from a 232mm2 chip against a 314mm2 chip.



ikeke said:


> Moral of the story - dont buy into hype from Videocardz/wccftech et al.
> 
> AMD said to expect R9 290/GTX970 level of performance for $200. Delivered.


 I guess all the hype about insane overclocking and 390X performance could happen with custom cards. But not at $200, except if Nvidia decides to be very aggressive with 1060's pricing.

AMD wasn't only trying to give R9 290/GTX 970 performance, but also to restrict what someone could archive with the reference card. That's where the 6pin connector, instead of an 8pin, comes in the equation. RX 480 looks to have been developed as a low cost to manufacture card. AMD could probably sell it at a 4GB R7 370's price and still make a profit out of it. Other than the cost of Polaris GPU over Pitcairn GPU, I can't really find anything else to make the RX480 board more expensive than a R7 370 board.



Assimilator said:


> $250 for 3GB and $300 for 6GB is what I've heard. Personally I feel NVIDIA could shave another $20 - $30 off those prices and still come away with a nice profit, but they're obviously worried about cannibalizing their existing Maxwell stocks.


 Nvidia's problem is that GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 prices are still too high. A GTX 1060 with 6GB and a price at $250 is very much possible and much more logical, because of RX480, but then the gap between GTX 1060 and GTX 1070 would be, in reality, $200. GTX 980 Ti can fill temporarily that gap with a price at $350-$400. If GTX 1060 is slower than a good GTX 980, maybe GTX 980 can also become a good option at $300. But Nvidia will need to lower the prices of GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 soon. The rumors where saying that GTX 1060 was scheduled for August, which would have gave NVidia more time to bring prices of it's GP104 cards closer to their original MSRP. Now they will have to move faster with their plans.



BiggieShady said:


> With some DX12 sugar on top


The sugar is necessary only when comparing with an overclocked GTX 970.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 1, 2016)

john_ said:


> The sugar is necessary only when comparing with an overclocked GTX 970.


Even if you compare 4th generation GCN to previous generations, there are now dual hardware schedulers active for async compute ... interestingly there were two of them since Hawaii but only one was active


----------



## nexus_a (Jul 1, 2016)

How come no one mentioned that RX480 fails the PCI-E specification??
If you don't want your motherboard fried, don't buy this card.


----------



## bug (Jul 1, 2016)

nexus_a said:


> How come no one mentioned that RX480 fails the PCI-E specification??
> If you don't want your motherboard fried, don't buy this card.


Apparently the card has passed compliance tests and going over 150W is unexpected behaviour (AMD is investigating). Still, something to keep in mind when making a buying decision.


----------



## john_ (Jul 1, 2016)

nexus_a said:


> How come no one mentioned that RX480 fails the PCI-E specification??
> If you don't want your motherboard fried, don't buy this card.


I think it was already mentioned somewhere in here.

It seems to affect only really old motherboards, like 10 years old motherboards. Newer motherboards, even the ultra cheap ones, don't seem to have any problem, giving more power through the pci bus.

Two more thing to consider.

Many graphics cards at their defaults are very close to the limits of what the motherboard can give them, for example the GTX 950 with NO extra power connector. Overclock it and you have gone over 75W. And all those watts will have to come from the pcie bus.

Second, ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte for example, not only sell RX 480 cards, but also ultra cheap $40 motherboards. You think they will have start selling RX 480 cards if there was any possibility the graphics cards to burn their own motherboards?

And one last thing. It doesn't kill the motherboard. The system shuts down, meaning you can't really play any games.


----------



## 64K (Jul 1, 2016)

nexus_a said:


> How come no one mentioned that RX480 fails the PCI-E specification??
> If you don't want your motherboard fried, don't buy this card.



I'm not sure how rigid the PCIe spec is. I remember the R9 295x2 had two 8 Pins and counting the slot power that is specced for 375 watts but according to the tests here it averaged 430 watts in gaming, peaked at 500 watts and running Furmark went all the way to 646 watts.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_295_X2/22.html


----------



## nexus_a (Jul 1, 2016)

john_ said:


> I think it was already mentioned somewhere in here.
> 
> It seems to affect only really old motherboards, like 10 years old motherboards. Newer motherboards, even the ultra cheap ones, don't seem to have any problem, giving more power through the pci bus.
> 
> ...


There are few reports of motherboard components dying right now.
https://community.amd.com/thread/202410
http://www.overclock.net/t/1604421/various-amd-rx-480-review-thread/1800_100#post_25309056
Doesn't prove that the RX 480 causes the damage, but all buyers should be aware of the potential risk.



64K said:


> I'm not sure how rigid the PCIe spec is. I remember the R9 295x2 had two 8 Pins and counting the slot power that is specced for 375 watts but according to the tests here it averaged 430 watts in gaming, peaked at 500 watts and running Furmark went all the way to 646 watts.


They could beef up the amperage of two 8-pins, but not one 6-pin. Just a guess.


----------



## john_ (Jul 1, 2016)

nexus_a said:


> There are few reports of motherboard components dying right now.
> https://community.amd.com/thread/202410
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1604421/various-amd-rx-480-review-thread/1800_100#post_25309056
> Doesn't prove that the RX 480 causes the damage, but all buyers should be aware of the potential risk.



There where negative and positive reviews of RX480 on amazon before the card become available. Internet is not a place to believe anything. The first link could be from a troll/nvidia fanboy, the second from someone who burned his audio card long ago and now found a chance to throw the blame on RX480 and demand an RMA.

We will have to wait and see. A strong indication their is a problem will come from the motherboard monufacturers. If they start posting on their motherboard pages importand notifications that RX 480 is incompatible with some motherboards, then yes. AMD F UP in a way that almost comes even with Nvidia's old bumpgate fiasco.


----------



## bug (Jul 1, 2016)

64K said:


> I'm not sure how rigid the PCIe spec is. I remember the R9 295x2 had two 8 Pins and counting the slot power that is specced for 375 watts but according to the tests here it averaged 430 watts in gaming, peaked at 500 watts and running Furmark went all the way to 646 watts.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_295_X2/22.html


2 8pin connector is already outside the spec. Any video card configured like that is not PCI-SIG certified. At the same time, it was built from the start to work outside specs.
The 480 is, but that makes it even more dangerous, because it means it's working in a way it's not supposed to.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 1, 2016)

nexus_a said:


> How come no one mentioned that RX480 fails the PCI-E specification??
> If you don't want your motherboard fried, don't buy this card.




I did a few pages ago



KainXS said:


> Sorry I missed this but I say there is no OC headroom on this reference board because at stock the card is already at or near it max TDP it seems. Not only is it at its max TDP but multiple reviewers had reported(If they had the equipment to test it) that their review cards and some of them have retail cards also, all of which go way above PCI-E specification which is 5.5A from the motherboards to about 6.5A of draw and in some games that gets as high as about 8A which is worrying for a cheap motherboard.(many people buying budget cards buy budget boards) An expensive board might  handle that but a cheaper one could be ruined or have interference from that over time. You can slap whatever heatsink you want on it and overclock but its going to be out of spec and the more you OC this thing the farther it will be out of spec it seems. This could just mean a little interference in your speakers though(and thats probably all you will get) but I'm not taking that chance because I know I will OC if I get one.
> 
> With AIB's though this would not be the case more than likely as this seems like a PCB issue and I will probably buy an AIB card with a better heatsink and 8pin though to OC it.



edit: those dead board and component failure reports look fishy though, if something would fail it would take a while.


----------



## 64K (Jul 1, 2016)

nexus_a said:


> They could beef up the amperage of two 8-pins, but not one 6-pin. Just a guess.



I'm way out of my depth speculating on power delivery capacities but the only difference between a 6 Pin and an 8 Pin is that the 8 Pin has 4 ground wires and 4 power delivery wires and the 6 Pin has 2 ground wires and the same number of power delivery wires. Since the issue has been brought up as a concern about the 480 it would be cool if an Electronics Engineer would chime in on this subject and make it clearer how this works and if it matters.


----------



## TRWOV (Jul 1, 2016)

Supposely the PCIe power overload is an issue with some cards and AMD is looking into is as it shouldn't be happening (according to them).





https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4qfwd4/rx480_fails_pcie_specification/d4sy0c3

I might wait a little and see if this gets solved with a bios update or something.


----------



## Dethroy (Jul 1, 2016)

> it's worth reminding people that only a very small number of _hundreds_ of RX 480 reviews worldwide enountered this issue.


Yeah, because only a handful of reviewers have the equipment to measure PCIe power draw. Way to cloud an issue ...


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 1, 2016)

Dethroy said:


> Yeah, because only a handful of reviewers have the equipment to measure PCIe power draw. Way to cloud an issue ...




 
Pcper has detailed measurements http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Power-Consumption-Concerns-Radeon-RX-480
TL;DR it slightly exceeds pcie spec at stock, it draws up to 100W from pcie when overclocked


----------



## bug (Jul 1, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> View attachment 75943
> Pcper has detailed measurements http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Power-Consumption-Concerns-Radeon-RX-480
> TL;DR it slightly exceeds pcie spec at stock, it draws up to 100W from pcie when overclocked



100W is 33% more than the standard 75W. If you want to call that slight, I'm not going to stop you.


----------



## rhythmeister (Jul 1, 2016)

bug said:


> 100W is 33% more than the standard 75W. If you want to call that slight, I'm not going to stop you.



It's significant but even my budget Biostar A880GZ allows me to increase the amount of power available to the PCI-E x16 slot!


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 1, 2016)

rhythmeister said:


> It's significant but even my budget Biostar A880GZ allows me to increase the amount of power available to the PCI-E x16 slot!



So does my board.  But specs exist for a reason, and this should be mentioned in reviews.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 1, 2016)

bug said:


> 100W is 33% more than the standard 75W. If you want to call that slight, I'm not going to stop you.


Slight was meant for stock clocks where it peaks at 80 W


----------



## KainXS (Jul 1, 2016)

bug said:


> 100W is 33% more than the standard 75W. If you want to call that slight, I'm not going to stop you.



its not 33% because of the tolerance to be applied to the voltage, but its still over the limit a good bit






teclab reported 126W at the slot but they are nvidia biased(to me at least)









Science Studio are the only ones reporting real problems that I remotely believe myself


----------



## nexus_a (Jul 1, 2016)

BiggieShady said:


> Slight was meant for stock clocks where it peaks at 80 W



"The PCI Express specification language is more specific on currents than wattage limits, calling for a maximum of 5.5A over the +12V line and 3A over the +3.3V."
"The highest power draw I measured with the RX 480 at stock settings showed 80-85 watts of power draw at over 7A on the +12V line and 4.5-5.0 watts of power draw on the 3.3V line. These were consistent power draw numbers, not intermittent spikes, and users have a right to know how it works."

80W actually doesn't tell you much because you need to look at both voltage and amperage. In the test the RX480 draws 12V @ 7V = 84W on average. 7A is 27% over the absolute maximum current limit of 5.5A.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 1, 2016)

Eroticus said:


> I'm not strong in Astronomy.
> 
> But isn't Vega 10 is much bigger than Vega 11 ?



In this gen of AMD GPUs, numbers show when design was started, so V10 is the 1st and the smaller of the 2.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 1, 2016)

nexus_a said:


> 80W actually doesn't tell you much because you need to look at both voltage and amperage. In the test the RX480 draws 12V @ 7V = 84W on average.


Actually it does, normal working PSU keeps voltage constant as atx spec commands ~12 V and the current (or as you say amperage) is what changes and consequently the power spent (current multiplied with voltage) ... so yeah, nitpicking


nexus_a said:


> 7A is 27% over the absolute maximum current limit of 5.5A.


That current limit sets pcie power limit at 66 W, but we colloquially take it as 75 W ... I just don't know, we'll have to wait for it to kill couple of cheap motherboards that use uncooled cheap mosfets in cases with bad airflow


----------



## Hellraiser1981 (Jul 1, 2016)

If you check the pinout for the card edge connector you can see that 5 pins are allocated to the +12V rail.  This rail is sourced by the ATX header and any Auxillary pcie plugs that apply power closer to the pcie bus for sli, xfire.  The original molex standard states 1.1A per adjacent pin.  Some on ncix and digikey state up to 2.2A per pin. 66W to 132W through the slot connector 12V pins.  Its going to depend on the quality and design of the power distribution systems on your motherboard.  A board with a 20 pin ATX header would probably burn.  
Out of compliance with pcie spec at 75W.  If you look on the pcb front, above the small section of card edge before the notch, you will see the regulator circuit thats pulling all that power.  This regulator should be configurable in the VBIOS, however it probably supplies power for the core functions of the gpu.
We've all seen the "Your power connecter is not connected" on a black screen when you forget to hook up the 6pin. That's bare minimum Gpu running off power from the slot.
Overclocking is supported but not recommended, once you pop something overclocking, you can't send it back for the free magic smoke re-injection.


----------



## TRWOV (Jul 1, 2016)

I just hope AMD can fix this with a bios update. I guess motherboards with supplemental power connectors won't have a problem but those with budget boards could have issues.

Considering the price of the 480 many with budget rigs will likely buy them so it's a potential time bomb for AMD if it's not corrected right away


----------



## nem.. (Jul 2, 2016)

*AMD RX 480 PCB & VRM Design Beefier Than GTX 1080 Founder’s Edition – PCIe Power Issue Detailed*

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-pcie-power-issue-detailed-overclocking-investigated/#ixzz4DDxltUVA

Article 01/07/2016


----------



## HD64G (Jul 2, 2016)

An official AMD statement about the PCI-E topic:

As you know, we continuously tune our GPUs in order to maximize their performance within their given power envelopes and the speed of the memory interface, which in this case is an unprecedented 8Gbps for GDDR5. Recently, we identified select scenarios where the tuning of some RX 480 boards was not optimal. Fortunately, we can adjust the GPU’s tuning via software in order to resolve this issue. We are already testing a driver that implements a fix, and we will provide an update to the community on our progress on Tuesday (July 5, 2016).

https://www.techpowerup.com/223833/official-statement-from-amd-on-the-pci-express-overcurrent-issue


----------



## john_ (Jul 2, 2016)

So, I checked a review from TPU about a low power GTX 950, those with no extra power connector

ASUS GTX 950 2 GB (no power connector) Review | techPowerUp






79W from the PCIe bus.

And that's with NO overclocking. What will happen when you overclock that card? 80W? 85W? 90W? Throttling?


----------



## okidna (Jul 2, 2016)

john_ said:


> So, I checked a review from TPU about a low power GTX 950, those with no extra power connector
> 
> ASUS GTX 950 2 GB (no power connector) Review | techPowerUp
> 
> ...



I think you might want to read the testing methodology description :



> Peak: Metro: We use Last Light at 1920x1080 as it produces power draw typical to gaming. *The highest single reading during the test is used.*



On average the GTX 950 is fine, 74 W, so still below the specification.


----------



## Grings (Jul 2, 2016)

I was really hoping they would have sorted out that blu ray power draw by now

I'm after a new card for my 2nd pc at some point this year (primarily for kodi, netflix etc on a 4k tv) and was hoping this would fix these issues

I'm also not a fan of both companies pushing the power limit of the pci-e slots just to have a card with 1 pci-e power connector, every psu i have bought in the last 8 years or so has had at least 2 pci-e connectors ffs


----------



## john_ (Jul 2, 2016)

okidna said:


> I think you might want to read the testing methodology description :
> 
> On average the GTX 950 is fine, 74 W, so still below the specification.


Yes I see that. But those 74-79W are NON overclocked results. It doesn't talk about what happens when you overclock the card and the memory like in the overclocking page of that review. It says that most of the time the card stayes at 1200MHz. In the overclocking page it talks about "1447 MHz on the GPU and 2060 MHz on the memory". 24-25% overclock. And I bet the card doesn't throttle to maintain those 74W, because "Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 19.1%." Can you get 19% more performance while having the same power consumption? 

@W1zzard Can you tell me if I am thinking it wrong? Could this be interesting enough for you to do a quick test?


----------



## okidna (Jul 2, 2016)

john_ said:


> Can you get 19% more performance while having the same power consumption?



I'm most certain that you can't, it will increase power consumption, especially if you're playing with power target and voltage.

But why does it matter anyway? Why do you feel the need to add overclocking in the equation?
The card working as intended in stock setting, within regulation and doesn't violate PCI-E specification, that's the main point.


----------



## john_ (Jul 2, 2016)

okidna said:


> I'm most certain that you can't, it will increase power consumption, especially if you're playing with power target and voltage.
> 
> But why does it matter anyway? Why do you feel the need to add overclocking in the equation?
> The card working as intended in stock setting, within regulation and doesn't violate PCI-E specification, that's the main point.



Many people and the press make too much fuss about this and they should. But at the same time you see many reacting like this is the ONLY card in the world, overclocked or not, that passes that 75W limit. Well it's not. While this is AMD's mess, it shouldn't remain as a "AMD messed up" story, but also become an opportunity to educate people. Take models that work at their defaults at the limits of the power they can get from the PCIe bus and probably one or two extra power connectors, and show people that when overclocking a graphics card, it is not just the GPU going over some specs. It's not just temps and furmark/stability testing that you have to keep in mind. I am afraid the main point here, the big picture, is completely bypassed from almost everyone. Even those who point at GTX 960 Strix at RX480's defence.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2016)

okidna said:


> I think you might want to read the testing methodology description :
> 
> 
> 
> On average the GTX 950 is fine, 74 W, so still below the specification.



Who says the spike only happened ONCE and never ever again, but it's somehow doing it injustice because the highest reading was noted in the review? If it spiked once, you can be pretty sure it would spike several times repeatedly during normal gaming session.


----------



## okidna (Jul 2, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> Who says the spike only happened ONCE and never ever again, but it's somehow doing it injustice because the highest reading was noted in the review? If it spiked once, you can be pretty sure it would spike several times repeatedly during normal gaming session.



The average/typical gaming power draw says it all, at 74W there's little possibility that the 79W spikes happened very frequently or during an extended period of testing.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2016)

You can have 150W spikes every 10 seconds for 1 second and the average would show you 74W if the rest of 9 seconds is 60-70W... You know, that's how averaging works. That's like showing average framerate of nice 60fps, but if you look at the actual data, it can fluctuate from 5fps to 350fps. Which can be pretty unplayable, but the average looks awesome...


----------



## okidna (Jul 3, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> You can have 150W spikes every 10 seconds for 1 second and the average would show you 74W if the rest of 9 seconds is 60-70W... You know, that's how averaging works. That's like showing average framerate of nice 60fps, but if you look at the actual data, it can fluctuate from 5fps to 350fps. Which can be pretty unplayable, but the average looks awesome...



I know how averaging FPS or power consumption works, my assumption is based on how the game benchmark (Metro LL) power usage characteristic, something like this :




Pretty much stable for the whole run and no extended period of power spiking.


----------



## NDown (Jul 3, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> how is it that's fast enough to run VR while maintaining 970-like performance??? run all DX11.2 powered games at Medium-High for >60fps?? pfft. The 480's big older bros even butchered it across the deck...



what? if "butchered" simply means 1-3 fps difference then i have nothing more to tell you lmao


----------



## gupsterg (Jul 3, 2016)

@W1zzard 
On the performance per watt page of RX 480 review it says at the top:-



> We used the relative performance scores and the typical gaming power consumption result.



So am I correct in thinking you have used RX 480 @ 163W and Fury X @ 246W from page 22 of review and applied that wattage to page 24 results to express perf.per watt?

Cheers  .


----------



## ikeke (Jul 4, 2016)

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1604798/...express-overcurrent-problems/10#post_25315251


The Stilt@7/3/16 at 7:22am


> Luckily the power distribution balance can be altered
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Stilt@7/3/16 at 7:33am


> It can done through the drivers too, however I'm not sure if AMD has even looked into this method. I've heard that they are looking to reduce the total power draw by other means. It is a VRM controller feature, so I'm not sure AMD is even aware of such possibility. But we'll see.



Looks to be a feature of IRF IR3567B, perhaps from 50/50 split to 30/70.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 4, 2016)

Well, I said just this and yet everyone continued with the drama about PCIe melting itself under the power of thousand suns. Polaris seems clever enough power delivery wise, meaning something like this was to be expected.


----------



## Mike89 (Jul 5, 2016)

Biggest issue for me would be the noise. I am one that simply cannot tolerate a noisy vid card.


----------



## okidna (Jul 5, 2016)




----------



## gupsterg (Jul 5, 2016)

ikeke said:


> I'll just leave this here.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1604798/...express-overcurrent-problems/10#post_25315251
> 
> ...



All kudos to The Stilt for his effort in aiding community and @W1zzard but I was hoping for more than 10W drop, link to post by The Stilt. As then it would place RX 480 in line with how Hawaii/Fiji was on PCI-E slot power draw. Seems to me IR3567B can't redistribute the way power is drawn from slot/PCI-E plug. May well be due to ref PCB design viewing @buildzoid video on RX 480 and @McSteel 's post on TPU.

From meddling with bios mod on Hawaii/Fiji, PowerLimit values in PowerPlay don't differiate on where power is drawn from, they just limit GPU to (x) TDP W, (x) TDC A and (x) MPDL W.

All in all gutted with ref PCB as had been hoping to buy one for tinkering.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 5, 2016)

gupsterg said:


> All kudos to The Stilt for his effort in aiding community and @W1zzard


I've completed the testing. You can shift power draw off the PCIe slot just fine.






the number at the bottom is how much to shift the power draw, 0 is default, 16 is maximum

However, this also means that the 6-pin will go further out of spec...


----------



## gupsterg (Jul 5, 2016)

Thank you for your update  .

When I say it can't redistribute the power I mean the fix shifts some load from 3 phases connected to PCI-E slot to 3 phase on PCI-E plug. It's not changing supply source to the 3 phases connected to PCI-E slot. Which originally I thought maybe possible, as more info (buildzoid's video) was published it become somewhat clearer the PCB design is the issue. I still thought perhaps The Stilt knows of some register within IR3567B which would change supply to the phases supplied by PCI-E slot.

This shift is reducing ~10W from PCI-E slot, which with some OC'ing will easily get consumed IMO.

As much as I welcome this fix from The Stilt's and your efforts it's still not placing RX 480's draw on PCI-E slot similar average W as 390X/Nano/Fury X.

I'll be waiting for either updated ref PCB or AIB card to purchase.

Any chance of information I was interested in post 343? thanks  .


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 5, 2016)

gupsterg said:


> Any chance of information I was interested in post 343?


Your assumption is correct, it's not perfect, but something we all have to live with, so I can finish reviews in reasonable time.


----------



## gupsterg (Jul 5, 2016)

I appreciate the reply very much  and I appreciate your teams reviews very much and ref them regularly .

I only joined and started posting recently but have been using site/vbios database IIRC since 9800 Pro ownership days, so do.

Very nice to e-meet you finally  .


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 5, 2016)

gupsterg said:


> Very nice to e-meet you finally  .


I've been lurking your work on OCN too


----------



## gupsterg (Jul 5, 2016)

Ahhh, cool  , I'm just a little fish in a very big pond  .


----------



## N3M3515 (Jul 5, 2016)

Recommended:
RX 480 Performs better and consumes less when underclocked
AMD Radeon RX 480 Power Measurements Repeated And Clarified


----------



## xorbe (Jul 6, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> Recommended:
> RX 480 Performs better and consumes less when underclocked
> AMD Radeon RX 480 Power Measurements Repeated And Clarified



I am guessing that maybe all cards don't get away with reduced voltage so easily.


----------



## Hellraiser1981 (Jul 6, 2016)

this is still a product of overclocking.  you push it it burns.  Basic electronics.  I am an nvidia fanboy, I will be buying one of the RX480's for the $$ to performance ratio.  if you want to oc it will pull more power.  your m board needs to be of good quality.  if it is not gold plated it may not survive.  same applies to (most)
at stock speed

Also Xorbe it may be better at low speeds.  Underclocking is great for efficiency.


----------



## xorbe (Jul 7, 2016)

Hellraiser1981 said:


> Also Xorbe it may be better at low speeds. Underclocking is great for efficiency.



You're preaching to the choir!  Power scales with the square of voltage.  Perf/watt rises with reduced freq / voltage.  Just depends on your absolute performance needs.

They should have qual'd the cards for how they sold them, but sold them clocking 15% lower and reduced power.  Let end users crank the snot out of them.  This whole mess wouldn't have happened.  And would have been known as a decent overclocker.


----------



## Hellraiser1981 (Jul 7, 2016)

Great point.  When you oc, you draw More power.  They wanted to be on the cutting edge, or in line with the 1060.  Not a great accomplishment for AMD but I'm sure my MSI board will handle it if I plug in the pciE connector by the cards.  I don't see this as a big deal except on cheap mb's.  They (amd)pushed their stuff as far as they could for retail.  We'll see if bios fixes it.  Then ppl will complain about overloading the pcie connector.


----------



## darkangel0504 (Jul 7, 2016)

Fixed with 16.7.1


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 7, 2016)

Seems they should have said it's really a 165-175W TDP card.


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 8, 2016)

darkangel0504 said:


> Fixed with 16.7.1


They haven't fixed anything, they made it worse, then slightly improved it.
It's still dangerously over the 75W rating for the PCI-e slot!


----------



## xorbe (Jul 8, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> They haven't fixed anything, they made it worse, then slightly improved it.
> It's still dangerously over the 75W rating for the PCI-e slot!



I see 75W total and 71W total for the slot with the new driver ... maybe we are looking at different charts.  But yeah, it's a "165w" card not 150w.


----------



## bug (Jul 8, 2016)

xorbe said:


> I see 75W total and 71W total for the slot with the new driver ... maybe we are looking at different charts.  But yeah, it's a "165w" card not 150w.


I think he's looking at the PCIe power draw.
The thing is, anything above 150W with a single 6 pin connector does not qualify for PCI-SIG certification. Though apparently this card did, the PCI-SIG's compliance tests must be a joke.


----------



## gr33n (Jul 8, 2016)

@W1zzard 
Could u do a retest for Power-Consumption on Idle, Multi-Monitor, and Bluray with that new Driver?

for Power-Consumption on Idle there was an issue AMD said with 15Wats that needed a fix.


----------



## Hellraiser1981 (Jul 8, 2016)

Why is everyone upset about the power draw of an amd card?  No brainer...  Cooks eggs too.  Still buying one once I see it on a real shelf.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jul 10, 2016)

with compatibility mode enabled, at least it's not high enough to bake the circuitry till melting point. AMD should rework the spec sheet by saying it's a 160W card as 150W is way off what the card pulled.


----------



## bug (Jul 10, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> with compatibility mode enabled, at least it's not high enough to bake the circuitry till melting point. AMD should rework the spec sheet by saying it's a 160W card as 150W is way off what the card pulled.



Tbh, it won't melt circuits even without the fix. But a cheap mobo with components running close to the specs' limits, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
As for declaring it a 160W card, that's not an option, because in order to get the PCI-SIG certification, when you use a single 6 pin connector, you have to draw 150W tops. They'd need to redesign the board to use two 6 pin or one 8 pin connector.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jul 10, 2016)

@bug aftermarket versions of the 480 will be running single 8-pin which is a good thing.


----------



## Hellraiser1981 (Jul 10, 2016)

bug said:


> Tbh, it won't melt circuits even without the fix. But a cheap mobo with components running close to the specs' limits, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
> As for declaring it a 160W card, that's not an option, because in order to get the PCI-SIG certification, when you use a single 6 pin connector, you have to draw 150W tops. They'd need to redesign the board to use two 6 pin or one 8 pin connector.


Couldn't agree more.  If it fits in a pci-e slot it should meet Pci-sig.  Maybe they should title it Rx480 founders.  You could pay $100 extra for smoke and flames.  Just playin, really don't think it would blow up a board of reasonable quality.  However AMD is in the budget consumer sector of the market.  Slot pins have a current rating for a reason.  Some crap boards might not use foxcon or other "brand name" slots.  ATX 20 pin for independence day?  Someone should try with stock 480bios.  It would probably just power down the PS


----------



## bug (Jul 11, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> @bug aftermarket versions of the 480 will be running single 8-pin which is a good thing.


All cards should use that configuration, but AMD chose to cut corners so they could pretend they have a 150W part. Then again, if PEG came back to AMD and told them: hey, this card of yours doesn't meet our specs, maybe AMD would have fixed the problem before anyone knew it was there. We'll never know what really happened, I think.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 14, 2016)

GTX970 becomes obsolete quickly now.  Stock GTX980 lvl of performance on DX12 and Vulcan for Stock RX480 guys. For much less $. What's not to like in 480 especially now they fixed PCI-E consumption?


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 15, 2016)

HD64G said:


> GTX970 becomes obsolete quickly now.  Stock GTX980 lvl of performance on DX12 and Vulcan for Stock RX480 guys. For much less $. What's not to like in 480 especially now they fixed PCI-E consumption?


Not all games can/will use Vulkan API. Doesn't that need to be coded in (can be added of course)? You are betting the farm on Vulkan adaptation and that it is swift. So, if you play DOOM and the two other titles that support Vulkan, I agree. Right now, there are only ~3 titles that use it. But for the other 99% of games out there................................


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 15, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Not all games can/will use Vulkan API. Doesn't that need to be coded in (can be added of course)? You are betting the farm on Vulkan adaptation and that it is swift. So, if you play DOOM and the two other titles that support Vulkan, I agree. Right now, there are only ~3 titles that use it. But for the other 99% of games out there................................


DX12 and Vulkan are in the same boat that DX11 used to be in. It's a preview of things to come and we'll only see more Vulkan/DX12 games going forward. New technology needs time to be adopted because it takes time to design and implement these things. Just saying.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 15, 2016)

I'm with you 100%. I took exception to the poster above me that stated the "GTX970 becomes obsolete quickly now". I don't agree with that because of current adaptation levels of DX12/Vulkan and knowing how 
'quickly' games hit. It will be at least a year or two. The 970 is defunct now anyway because of the 1060.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 15, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> I'm with you 100%. I took exception to the poster above me that stated the "GTX970 becomes obsolete quickly now". I don't agree with that because of current adaptation levels of DX12/Vulkan and knowing how
> 'quickly' games hit. It will be at least a year or two. The 970 is defunct now anyway because of the 1060.



I can see you don't own a 970. So, being just fair (which you can do), with Wiz's review on 480 showing it being faster already in average than 970, custom ones coming in a week and with all the big games having DX12 or Vulcan from now on which GPU would  you buy TODAY if on a budget below $300. There is only 480 now. 970 is only for nVidia fanboys. Obsolete as  ancient technology. 1060 is unknown quantity yet to be judged. Let it come buy and being able to be bought below $300 first.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jul 16, 2016)

I'm still running some GTX970s on some rigs I build for my house. Won't be making moves to DX12 or Vulkan until there's a big support for it, in which we'll see in another 2 more years? I'm not sure. The RX480 is for tight budget gamers, with the exception of flashing the 4GB into 8GB, it's quite worth their money now over the 2nd Gen Maxwell. But, if money is of no object, the GTX1080 non FE will be those rich gamer's choice of pixel pusher.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 17, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> I'm still running some GTX970s on some rigs I build for my house. Won't be making moves to DX12 or Vulkan until there's a big support for it, in which we'll see in another 2 more years? I'm not sure. The RX480 is for tight budget gamers, with the exception of flashing the 4GB into 8GB, it's quite worth their money now over the 2nd Gen Maxwell. But, if money is of no object, the GTX1080 non FE will be those rich gamer's choice of pixel pusher.


For 1080P, RX480 is easily the best choice atm. And with many custom ones on the way for a few more $, it will only get better for anyone in need of a GPU for the next 2-3 years. And don't forget that all of the AAA games from now on will have DX12 or Vulcan as it is easier to program them and make them look pretier also without restricting their customers into the 10% willing to spend $500 or more to play their games as DX12 and Vulcan allow $600 PC compositions with $200-300 GPU inside them to play new and upcoming games without lowering details to min or med.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jul 17, 2016)

with the power issues fixed, it's now a very competitive card for $200. hopefully we will see a higher end Polaris card where it WILL give Pascal a good competition rather than downright kick in the ass.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 17, 2016)

HD64G said:


> And don't forget that all of the AAA games from now on will have DX12 or Vulcan



I'm willing to bet not all.


----------



## Ungari (Jul 17, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> with the power issues fixed, it's now a very competitive card for $200. hopefully we will see a higher end Polaris card where it WILL give Pascal a good competition rather than downright kick in the ass.



Rumor is that the PCB for the RX 390 was sighted.


----------



## bug (Jul 17, 2016)

HD64G said:


> ... And don't forget that all of the AAA games from now on* will have DX12 or Vulcan as it is easier to program them*...



I'm going to take a wild guess here and say you don't know a thing about programming.
Hint: lower level APIs are never easier to work with. Otherwise there would be no reason for higher level APIs to exist in the first place.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 17, 2016)

bug said:


> I'm going to take a wild guess here and say you don't know a thing about programming.
> Hint: lower level APIs are never easier to work with. Otherwise there would be no reason for higher level APIs to exist in the first place.


I can stand corrected if low level APIs are much harder than higher ones.

BUT! Latest 4 AAA titles were Hitman, RoTR, DOOM and Warhammer TW. All of them already have been made or are patched with DX12 or Vulcan. And 3 AAA titles to come out (BF1, new Deus Ex and Civ6) have been already announced to have DX12. And to make it sure I can rephrase my opinion from the previous post: 

All or most of the AAA games from now on will have DX12 or Vulcan as it will make them look pretier also without restricting their customers into the 10% willing to spend $500 or more to play their games as DX12 and Vulcan allow $600 PC compositions with $200-300 GPU inside them to play new and upcoming games without lowering details to min or med.

I hope I covered your worries.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jul 17, 2016)

@Ungari u mean RX490?


----------



## Ungari (Jul 18, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> @Ungari u mean RX490?



Yes, sorry! RX 490.
The question remains whether this is Polaris or the lowest rung of the Vega line.
I assume Vega, since the price point is for Polaris is under $300, but they could put this reference card at just $300 and technically be within the Polaris target market.
There really is no evidence to support the dual GPU rumor, and I tend to think the RX 490 will be a single chip aimed at the GTX 1070 prospects showing value for the money.


----------



## bug (Jul 18, 2016)

HD64G said:


> I can stand corrected if low level APIs are much harder than higher ones.
> 
> BUT! Latest 4 AAA titles were Hitman, RoTR, DOOM and Warhammer TW. All of them already have been made or are patched with DX12 or Vulcan. And 3 AAA titles to come out (BF1, new Deus Ex and Civ6) have been already announced to have DX12. And to make it sure I can rephrase my opinion from the previous post:
> 
> ...


Well, big studios will certainly throw DX12/Vulkan in there just because it's cool. But what will make a difference will be the quality of the implementation. id is a crack team, but other studios may just throw a generic translation layer between OpenGL and Vulkan or between DX11 and DX12 and call it a day. After all, they haven't exactly shied away from crappy console ports, so there's a chance they'll take shortcuts again.
I'm hoping that will not be the case, but at the same time I'm not opening the DX12/Vulkan champagne just because id did it right.

PS Croteam also said their initial Vulkan support for Talos Principle was just a translation layer and they need further rewrites before declaring it a proper Vulkan title. And they're not there even today. So clearly there's a non-negligible amount of work involved. This may change if titles are developed from the ground up with low level APIs in mind, but again, we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jul 18, 2016)

@Ungari I think the upcoming RX490 will be single GPU, possibly with single 8-pin connector or 2 x 6-pin. Performance will be within or close to GTX1070 performance.


----------



## Ungari (Jul 18, 2016)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> @Ungari I think the upcoming RX490 will be single GPU, possibly with single 8-pin connector or 2 x 6-pin. Performance will be within or close to GTX1070 performance.



I'm hoping the RX490 will cost much less the 1070 FE price.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jul 18, 2016)

we have to wait & see. anyways, TweakTown just did a review where they pit 2 RX480s in CrossFire X against a single GTX1080. Interesting but a little disappointing.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 18, 2016)

Ungari said:


> I'm hoping the RX490 will cost much less the 1070 FE price.


This cannot be done. It needs Vega 10 to be close to 1080 performance and Vega 11 to get clearly ahead of 1080 to approach 1080Ti. So, Vega 10 will be priced between 1070 and 1080 and Vega 11 just over 1080. Then, 1080 will drop in price and the price war will be on for us to take advantage of it .


----------



## Ungari (Jul 18, 2016)

HD64G said:


> This cannot be done. It needs Vega 10 to be close to 1080 performance and Vega 11 to get clearly ahead of 1080 to approach 1080Ti. So, Vega 10 will be priced between 1070 and 1080 and Vega 11 just over 1080. Then, 1080 will drop in price and the price war will be on for us to take advantage of it .



My understanding is that AMD has less cost and more profit margin with it's smaller die, and so they are in position to sell for much less than Nvidia's FE pricing scheme.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 18, 2016)

Ungari said:


> My understanding is that AMD has less cost and more profit margin with it's smaller die, and so they are in position to sell for much less than Nvidia's FE pricing scheme.



Agreed if 490 is a dual Polaris 10 gpu but I don't think so. Time will tell.


----------



## Ungari (Jul 19, 2016)

HD64G said:


> Agreed if 490 is a dual Polaris 10 gpu but I don't think so. Time will tell.



The RX 490 will also have a greater profit due to the smaller die.
Perhaps by that time Nvidia will be able to produce enough chips to end the Paper Launch and sell cards in earnest.
Perhaps the unthinkable will happen and the Founders Edition will start selling at the SRP of $600 due to more Radeon Pressure.


----------



## HD64G (Jul 29, 2016)

*Stock voltage OC* results from buyers of Nitro+ RX480 at stock voltages vary from 1350-1400 with the highest one posting here: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29841850&postcount=1476


----------



## HD64G (Aug 21, 2016)

I am double posting since my previous post is a bit old to allow editing 

A guy managed to oc the watercooled ref 480 to 1470MHz stable with temps up to 48C and benchmarked it against oced 970, 980 and 1060.

Scalability in Polaris seems to be perfect with 20% more FPS for 20% more clocks in average for the games he tested it.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 22, 2016)

HD64G said:


> This cannot be done. It needs Vega 10 to be close to 1080 performance and Vega 11 to get clearly ahead of 1080 to approach 1080Ti. So, Vega 10 will be priced between 1070 and 1080 and Vega 11 just over 1080. Then, 1080 will drop in price and the price war will be on for us to take advantage of it .


Speculations. Speculations everywhere...


----------



## HD64G (Aug 23, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Speculations. Speculations everywhere...


Maths help much to form my thoughts about where Vega  10 should be in terms of performance. 4000 shaders for small Vega10 vs 2300 for Polaris10 means a great FPS increase of about 70%-80% depending on the core and memory clocks. Very close to 1080 performance wouldn't be? With drivers being unoptimised as usual for AMD...


----------



## bug (Aug 23, 2016)

HD64G said:


> Maths help much to form my thoughts about where Vega  10 should be in terms of performance. 4000 shaders for small Vega10 vs 2300 for Polaris10 means a great FPS increase of about 70%-80% depending on the core and memory clocks. Very close to 1080 performance wouldn't be? With drivers being unoptimised as usual for AMD...


As we already know, putting that much shaders to good use, requires async compute. If games won't heavily use async, then those shaders will not automatically translate into additional power.
This was the story with Pentium4 as well. If you wrote code that was friendly to long pipelines, it would wipe the floor with an AthlonXP. But we all know which way the market went.


----------



## HD64G (Aug 23, 2016)

bug said:


> As we already know, putting that much shaders to good use, requires async compute. If games won't heavily use async, then those shaders will not automatically translate into additional power.
> This was the story with Pentium4 as well. If you wrote code that was friendly to long pipelines, it would wipe the floor with an AthlonXP. But we all know which way the market went.


That's why I posted that it should be about* 70-80% on average up from Polaris which has the same CGN arch*. And that result would be *on par with 1080 again on average*.


----------



## bug (Aug 23, 2016)

HD64G said:


> That's why I posted that it should be about* 70-80% on average up from Polaris which has the same CGN arch*. And that result would be *on par with 1080 again on average*.


4000 is 73% more shaders than 2300, so I'm not sure what are you trying to say.


----------



## HD64G (Aug 23, 2016)

bug said:


> 4000 is 73% more shaders than 2300, so I'm not sure what are you trying to say.


I just explained that your comment previously about not linear increase in performance by increasing shaders is invalid as I compare same ach. In GPUs and especially in games that depend more on GPU than on CPU power with all details maxed out is it mostly common to have analog performance to the shader count when comparing same arch. On average, again...

And some new benches about a game that is being awaited for long now to show the DX12 abilities of AMD CGN arch vs the nVidia's one:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Deus-.../Specials/Benchmarks-Test-DirectX-12-1204575/

Sapphire Nitro+ OC is 33% faster on average and almost 50% on minimal FPS than a custom OCed GTX1060 (Palit@1900MHz boost) at 1080P maxed out. Maybe a bad driver of nVidia but GTX980 is lower as well. Let's wait/hope for @W1zzard to include this game into his reviews along with Warhammer DX12 and Doom Vulcan now sometime into September as patch for DE MD will be out in the 5th as devs have said.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 4, 2016)

I never understood the point of this series release. I mean this card is slower or on the same performance point as 390 and a 290X... Why was this so called "new" generation even launched?? What is the point on releasing such shitty cards?? Seriously


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 4, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> I never understood the point of this series release. I mean this card is slower or on the same performance point as 390 and a 290X... Why was this so called "new" generation even launched?? What is the point on releasing such shitty cards?? Seriously
> View attachment 81577


If you compared power consumption between the RX 480 and the R9 390, you'll find out really quick. The RX 480 also has fewer shaders and compute hardware than the 390, so yeah. I would call that new technology just not *the new technology you were hoping for*.


----------



## john_ (Dec 4, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> I never understood the point of this series release. I mean this card is slower or on the same performance point as 390 and a 290X... Why was this so called "new" generation even launched?? What is the point on releasing such shitty cards?? Seriously
> View attachment 81577


Why consider a GTX 1070 new generation, if it is as fast as a GTX 980 Ti? Why consider GTX 1060 as new generation if it is slower than GTX 980? Why Nvidia didn't just announced the GTX 1080 and the new Titan alone and lowered the prices on the rest of the cards? Pascal is considered on overclocked Maxwell anyway.

It's not just performance, as already mentioned. It's also new features, optimizations and other stuff. Those optimizations help AMD and Nvidia, to get the same performance at much lower production costs, something they wouldn't be able to do with older cards. Except if they love much lower profit margins.

Examples from CPUs. Kaby Lake is considered new and only seems to offer better codec support. But Intel will point to other stuff too. Or, if Kaby is a little of an extreme example, what about Broadwell and Hasswell? Is Broadwell something much more than just a Haswell at 14nm? Is it enough to be considered a newer generation?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 4, 2016)

Guys, the average end user Joe, doesn't give a shmit about any of those. He just wants a card that is faster than last year and last 2 year's, for the same price. Nobody cares about those geeky details, relax.
P.S.
And there are people that are still wondering why AMD is in such a big doodoo...


----------



## john_ (Dec 4, 2016)

Well, he does get a better card at the same price, RX 480 vs R9 380, or GTX 1060 3GB vs GTX 960 4GB.

I really don't understand why this is an AMD only matter.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 4, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Guys, the average end user Joe, doesn't give a shmit about any of those. He just wants a card that is faster than last year and last 2 year's, for the same price. Nobody cares about those geeky details, relax.
> P.S.
> And there are people that are still wondering why AMD is in such a big doodoo...


Your average joe probably isn't buying a dGPU smart ass... and even if someone were to, that's why they use Google or come here and ask us.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 4, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> Your average joe probably isn't buying a dGPU smart ass... and even if someone were to, that's why they use Google or come here and ask us.


?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Dec 4, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> Your average joe probably isn't buying a dGPU smart ass... and even if someone were to, that's why they use Google or come here and ask us.



There's plenty of nubs buying GPUs that don't know much. They have friends build their PCs or they get prebuilts. Some even buy prebuilts and slap in a nice GPU (crazy but true). We're a minority.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 4, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> There's plenty of nubs buying GPUs that don't know much. They have friends build their PCs or they get prebuilts. Some even buy prebuilts and slap in a nice GPU (crazy but true). We're a minority.



A HUGE number of people not like us buy GPU's.  It's probably the number one upgrade people get from whatever they had.


----------



## BiggieShady (Dec 4, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> ... doesn't give a shmit about any of those ...


Well, average Joe *does *give a shmit about fan noise ruining his gameplay


----------



## HD64G (Dec 4, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> Guys, the average end user Joe, doesn't give a shmit about any of those. He just wants a card that is faster than last year and last 2 year's, for the same price. Nobody cares about those geeky details, relax.
> P.S.
> And there are people that are still wondering why AMD is in such a big doodoo...


1060 is a 980 in performance for a lower price and power usage, as RX480 is the same for 390. Why is that a problem only for AMD now?


----------



## Jeffredo (Dec 4, 2016)

HD64G said:


> 1060 is a 980 in performance for a lower price and power usage, as RX480 is the same for 390. Why is that a problem only for AMD now?



Maybe one reason because as with the case of the R9 390 vs. GTX 980 the AMD offering (RX480 vs. GTX 1060) is still considerably more power hungry and hot running for the same performance (more or less).  Which is unfortunate given its most current API advantages.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Dec 4, 2016)

Jeffredo said:


> Maybe one reason because as with the case of the R9 390 vs. GTX 980 the AMD offering (RX480 vs. GTX 1060) is still considerably more power hungry and hot running for the same performance (more or less).  Which is unfortunate given its most current API advantages.



I don't think that's an issue anymore. The new silicon is much more efficient. Unfortunately, there's not much documentation on it and it seems not many batches are using the new stuff.

I guess AMD is waiting for refresh time to advertise the lower power usage (and it be universal).


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 4, 2016)

john_ said:


> Why consider a GTX 1070 new generation, if it is as fast as a GTX 980 Ti? Why consider GTX 1060 as new generation if it is slower than GTX 980? Why Nvidia didn't just announced the GTX 1080 and the new Titan alone and lowered the prices on the rest of the cards? Pascal is considered on overclocked Maxwell anyway.
> 
> It's not just performance, as already mentioned. It's also new features, optimizations and other stuff. Those optimizations help AMD and Nvidia, to get the same performance at much lower production costs, something they wouldn't be able to do with older cards. Except if they love much lower profit margins.
> 
> Examples from CPUs. Kaby Lake is considered new and only seems to offer better codec support. But Intel will point to other stuff too. Or, if Kaby is a little of an extreme example, what about Broadwell and Hasswell? Is Broadwell something much more than just a Haswell at 14nm? Is it enough to be considered a newer generation?



New generation doesn't just mean "top of the line card". It means you also get lower models with new technologies and most importantly, at a lower price. R9 390 when new wasn't 300€. It was a lot more. My GTX 980 was 650€ And now a 300€ RX480 performs around the same for the most part. Yeah, that...


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 4, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> R9 390 when new wasn't 300€.


I got my 390 new for 290 USD. Prices tend to vary across the world.


----------



## Totally (Dec 4, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> I got my 390 new for 290 USD. Prices tend to vary across the world.



When did you buy yours? That's what they are selling for right now for a vanilla non-oc version with a third party cooler.


----------



## bug (Dec 4, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> New generation doesn't just mean "top of the line card". It means you also get lower models with new technologies and most importantly, at a lower price. R9 390 when new wasn't 300€. It was a lot more. My GTX 980 was 650€ And now a 300€ RX480 performs around the same for the most part. Yeah, that...


Actually, the 390 was $329 MSRP on launch: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9387/amd-radeon-300-series/3


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 4, 2016)

Totally said:


> When did you buy yours? That's what they are selling for right now for a vanilla non-oc version with a third party cooler.


I got mine last year in July IIRC. It's actually kind of strange because I was expecting the price to drop more than it has since then.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 5, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> New generation doesn't just mean "top of the line card". It means you also get lower models with new technologies and most importantly, at a lower price. R9 390 when new wasn't 300€. It was a lot more. My GTX 980 was 650€ And now a 300€ RX480 performs around the same for the most part. Yeah, that...


I agree, for a documented user, this is no issue. However I have 2 (two), not 1, 2 colleagues who bought the 480 because they said is the top card of AMD released this year, and for the price AMD is selling it was no brainer. They even made fun of me buying the 1080, saying that how could I payed double for the nVidia's offering. In their mind the 480 and 1080 were almost on the same performance levels.
These kind of users I was referring too.


----------



## Tomorrow (Dec 5, 2016)

Yep i went with 1080 too since i had the money to buy either Fury X, 980TI or 1080 this year. I saw 1080 as the only real jump in performance since it was 25% faster than 980Ti. Also it used a new memory standard. Although i really-really loved Fury X design and the HBM memory concept. Unfortunately 4GB would have been a bottleneck very soon for me.

If i had come from a 390X i doubt i would have upgraded to RX 480.


----------



## john_ (Dec 5, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> I agree, for a documented user, this is no issue. However I have 2 (two), not 1, 2 colleagues who bought the 480 because they said is the top card of AMD released this year, and for the price AMD is selling it was no brainer. They even made fun of me buying the 1080, saying that how could I payed double for the nVidia's offering. In their mind the 480 and 1080 were almost on the same performance levels.
> These kind of users I was referring too.


 This is a no issue for an undocumented user also. Not just in GPUs, but in everything.


The price difference is huge to consider that those two cards perform the same, even if you have no knowledge on computer hardware. The least you do when you have no clue at all, with any kind of products, is to ask why an RX 480 costs less than half compared to a GTX 1080, or why it is cheaper even compared to an older GTX 970. Not just in GPUs, but in anything, from cars, or clothes, to plain food. I can throw out any number of examples here. Another similar question here that comes in my mind is, how someone can have knowledge about AMD's models and which one is the top, and still know nothing about their performance. And especially not question the performance based on the price.

In the end, I think this is one more case where we have to invent reason to blame AMD again.


----------



## bug (Dec 5, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> I agree, for a documented user, this is no issue. However I have 2 (two), not 1, 2 colleagues who bought the 480 because they said is the top card of AMD released this year, and for the price AMD is selling it was no brainer. They even made fun of me buying the 1080, saying that how could I payed double for the nVidia's offering. In their mind the 480 and 1080 were almost on the same performance levels.
> These kind of users I was referring too.


In all honesty, when AMD changed their naming scheme, years ago, xx80 meant top of the line and xx60 meant mid-range. But leave it to the marketing department...


----------



## bug (Dec 5, 2016)

john_ said:


> This is a no issue for an undocumented user also. Not just in GPUs, but in everything.
> 
> 
> The price difference is huge to consider that those two cards perform the same, even if you have no knowledge on computer hardware. The least you do when you have no clue at all, with any kind of products, is to ask why an RX 480 costs less than half compared to a GTX 1080, or why it is cheaper even compared to an older GTX 970. Not just in GPUs, but in anything, from cars, or clothes, to plain food. I can throw out any number of examples here. Another similar question here that comes in my mind is, how someone can have knowledge about AMD's models and which one is the top, and still know nothing about their performance. And especially not question the performance based on the price.
> ...


But that's how stupid works: in spite of evidence, they always think they've found something special and outsmarted everyone else. That why we have princes moving their wealth out of Africa


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 5, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> I agree, for a documented user, this is no issue. However I have 2 (two), not 1, 2 colleagues who bought the 480 because they said is the top card of AMD released this year, and for the price AMD is selling it was no brainer. They even made fun of me buying the 1080, saying that how could I payed double for the nVidia's offering. In their mind the 480 and 1080 were almost on the same performance levels.
> These kind of users I was referring too.


Well, they're right if they just want smooth performance at 1080p. You don't buy a 1080 unless you need it, otherwise you're kind of wasting money.


----------



## HD64G (Dec 6, 2016)

Jeffredo said:


> Maybe one reason because as with the case of the R9 390 vs. GTX 980 the AMD offering (RX480 vs. GTX 1060) is still considerably more power hungry and hot running for the same performance (more or less).  Which is unfortunate given its most current API advantages.


Considerably more power hungry eh? We are talking about a few tens of watts when gaming here, when most of their life GPUs are sleeping or idling. Stop trying so hard to justify what cannot be by any means and check this re-review. DX12 and Vulcan clearly show the future in gaming there.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Dec 6, 2016)

HD64G said:


> Considerably more power hungry eh? We are talking about a few tens of watts when gaming here, when most of their life GPUs are sleeping or idling. Stop trying so hard to justify what cannot be by any means and check this re-review. DX12 and Vulcan clearly show the future in gaming there.



Going to be excellent perf/watt with the refresh.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 6, 2016)

HD64G said:


> Considerably more power hungry eh? We are talking about a few tens of watts when gaming here, when most of their life GPUs are sleeping or idling. Stop trying so hard to justify what cannot be by any means and check this re-review. DX12 and Vulcan clearly show the future in gaming there.


A few 10's of watts when you are talking ~150W is significant. Now, that doesn't translate into $$$ as you point out, but the point isn't wrong either.... in fact, he didn't mention money, just power and heat. YOU added a monetary value to support your thinking about a point he never made.


----------



## bug (Dec 6, 2016)

HD64G said:


> Considerably more power hungry eh? We are talking about a few tens of watts when gaming here, when most of their life GPUs are sleeping or idling. Stop trying so hard to justify what cannot be by any means and check this re-review. DX12 and Vulcan clearly show the future in gaming there.


Those "few tens of watts" that you are trying so hard to ignore, means Nvidia can put Pascal on mobile mostly as-is, while AMD cannot do that. Nvidia also uses their architecture for Tegra SoCs, another market where AMD doesn't exist.
So yes, AMD may be competitive on one front, but they're a no-show on others, precisely because of power consumption.
Btw, did you own a P4 back in the day, or where you ignoring "a few tens of watts" at the time?


----------



## TheGuruStud (Dec 6, 2016)

bug said:


> Those "few tens of watts" that you are trying so hard to ignore, means Nvidia can put Pascal on mobile mostly as-is, while AMD cannot do that. Nvidia also uses their architecture for Tegra SoCs, another market where AMD doesn't exist.
> So yes, AMD may be competitive on one front, but they're a no-show on others, precisely because of power consumption.
> Btw, did you own a P4 back in the day, or where you ignoring "a few tens of watts" at the time?



It's already in the shitbook pros.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 6, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> It's already in the shitbook pros.



Also seems to ignore the fact that AMD is getting higher yields by allowing the TDP to be on average higher, and binning "great" chips for use in said shitbooks. its almost like we have an influx of people who cant or won't read up on technology and instead want to be spoonfed ideas that reinforce their own.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Dec 6, 2016)

Steevo said:


> Also seems to ignore the fact that AMD is getting higher yields by allowing the TDP to be on average higher, and binning "great" chips for use in said shitbooks. its almost like we have an influx of people who cant or won't read up on technology and instead want to be spoonfed ideas that reinforce their own.



I'm not ignoring anything. You just said they were a no show in laptops. Apple are inconsequential in numbers, but they can be used. I'm sure nvidia is unwilling to sell them dirt cheap for such low quantities.


----------



## bug (Dec 6, 2016)

TheGuruStud said:


> It's already in the shitbook pros.



Of course it is. My point was Nvidia's mobile GPUs are almost the same as their mobile counterparts (if nothing else, that's manufacturing costs savings right there), whereas AMD has to stick to the more traditional specially designed chips (e.g. their mobile 480 isn't even Polaris 10, it's some sort of Polaris 11).


Steevo said:


> Also seems to ignore the fact that AMD is getting higher yields by allowing the TDP to be on average higher, and binning "great" chips for use in said shitbooks. its almost like we have an influx of people who cant or won't read up on technology and instead want to be spoonfed ideas that reinforce their own.



Point taken, next time I'll try to buy the most power hungry GPU I can get my hands on, because yeah, efficiency is for noobs.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 7, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> Well, they're right if they just want smooth performance at 1080p. You don't buy a 1080 unless you need it, otherwise you're kind of wasting money.


There can never be too much performance even with the latest Titan on 1080P.
Just how many fps do you think you'll get with MSAAx8 and DSR 4.00x in any game? And I'm not talking about latest game, even 5 years old ones 
There's no such thing as a too strong card, or a too strong CPU, stop fooling yourselves.


----------



## Ungari (Dec 7, 2016)

bug said:


> Of course it is. My point was Nvidia's mobile GPUs are almost the same as their mobile counterparts (if nothing else, that's manufacturing costs savings right there), whereas AMD has to stick to the more traditional specially designed chips *(e.g. their mobile 480 isn't even Polaris 10, it's some sort of Polaris 11).*
> 
> 
> Point taken, next time I'll try to buy the most power hungry GPU I can get my hands on, because yeah, efficiency is for noobs.



There are no RX 480s on Polaris 11.
Polaris chips in Laptops are binned for lower temps achieved by TDP lower than those used in the desktop cards.
Commercial binned Polaris 11 has a TDP of 50W.


----------



## HD64G (Dec 7, 2016)

bug said:


> Those "few tens of watts" that you are trying so hard to ignore, means Nvidia can put Pascal on mobile mostly as-is, while AMD cannot do that. Nvidia also uses their architecture for Tegra SoCs, another market where AMD doesn't exist.
> So yes, AMD may be competitive on one front, but they're a no-show on others, precisely because of power consumption.
> Btw, did you own a P4 back in the day, or where you ignoring "a few tens of watts" at the time?


I am a desktop PC owner, so your point was?


----------



## HD64G (Dec 7, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> A few 10's of watts when you are talking ~150W is significant. Now, that doesn't translate into $$$ as you point out, but the point isn't wrong either.... in fact, he didn't mention money, just power and heat. YOU added a monetary value to support your thinking about a point he never made.


30W diff only when gaming without v-sync is a monetary factor eh? Whatever...


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 7, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> There can never be too much performance even with the latest Titan on 1080P.
> Just how many fps do you think you'll get with MSAAx8 and DSR 4.00x in any game? And I'm not talking about latest game, even 5 years old ones
> There's no such thing as a too strong card, or a too strong CPU, stop fooling yourselves.


If you're using 8x MSAA and 4x DSR together, you're a special kind of stupid because you won't see half of it but, you'll be giving up half of your performance to get it. This comment is so outlandish that I would expect it to be sarcasm. You say, "There is no such thing as too strong a card," but you know what is? Too big of a price tag just to run 1080p.


----------



## bug (Dec 7, 2016)

Ungari said:


> There are no RX 480s on Polaris 11.
> Polaris chips in Laptops are binned for lower temps achieved by TDP lower than those used in the desktop cards.
> Commercial binned Polaris 11 has a TDP of 50W.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_400_series#Mobile

RX480M is listed as Polaris11.


----------



## Ungari (Dec 7, 2016)

bug said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_400_series#Mobile
> 
> RX480M is listed as Polaris11.



Sorry, you are correct.
This is an awful naming convention by AMD, as it is confusing.
However, this chip has a TDP of 35W!


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 7, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> If you're using 8x MSAA and 4x DSR together, you're a special kind of stupid because you won't see half of it but, you'll be giving up half of your performance to get it. This comment is so outlandish that I would expect it to be sarcasm. You say, "There is no such thing as too strong a card," but you know what is? Too big of a price tag just to run 1080p.


You completely missed the point. 
Anyways, let's leave it as it is, you already start your usual name calling and verbal bullying, so continuing this "conversation" further is pointless.
Cheers.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 7, 2016)

Prima.Vera said:


> You completely missed the point.
> Anyways, let's leave it as it is, you already start your usual name calling and verbal bullying, so continuing this "conversation" further is pointless.
> Cheers.


My "usual name calling"? I almost never name call and I didn't call you stupid, I said anyone who does what you suggest is stupid because no one buys a Titan X (with a huge price tag nonetheless,) to run at 1080p with 4x DSR and 8x MSAA. Your point was missed because it made no sense.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 7, 2016)

HD64G said:


> 30W diff only when gaming without v-sync is a monetary factor eh? Whatever...


Didn't say it was... YOU brought cost into it. Just saying that 30W is *20%* more power for the same performance. Again, YOU brought money into it when it was never a talking point, not us. You are absolutely right, but again, that wasn't the talking point in the first place.


----------



## Ungari (Dec 7, 2016)

Aquinus said:


> My "usual name calling"? I almost never name call and I didn't call you stupid, I said anyone who does what you suggest is stupid because no one buys a Titan X (with a huge price tag nonetheless,) to run at 1080p with 4x DSR and 8x MSAA. Your point was missed because it made no sense.



I plan on purchasing a Pascal Titan X for my 720p display.


----------



## bug (Dec 7, 2016)

Ungari said:


> I plan on purchasing a Pascal Titan X for my 720p display.


Obvious flame bait is obvious. Obviously you'd need tri-SLI Pascal Titan X to drive that setup.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 7, 2016)

Speaking of wasting money... where is Trog and his dopey capped dual 980Ti setup? LOLOLOLOLhahahah!


----------



## Ungari (Dec 7, 2016)

bug said:


> Obvious flame bait is obvious. Obviously you'd need tri-SLI Pascal Titan X to drive that setup.



I was thinking of buying a second Titan X  to use as a _PhysX _card.


----------



## rruff (Dec 18, 2016)

Ungari said:


> There are no RX 480s on Polaris 11.
> Polaris chips in Laptops are binned for lower temps achieved by TDP lower than those used in the desktop cards.
> Commercial binned Polaris 11 has a TDP of 50W.



Alienware has laptops with RX 470s in them but that's all I've heard about Polaris 10 in laptops.

"The AMD Radeon RX 480M (formerly known as R9 M480) is a *mobile high end graphics cards*. It is based on the new Polaris architecture (*Polaris 11* chip) and manufactured in 14nm FinFET. Compared to the faster RX 490M, the M480 should be a slightly stripped down version based on the same chip. Up to now AMD only published benchmarks at the TDP of 35 Watt with 16 CUs. With these scores the card is slightly faster than a Nvidia GeForce GTX 960M."

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-RX-480M.164291.0.html

AMD is still about a generation behind with FPS/W competing with Maxwell, not Pascal. EDIT: Or maybe not. If they really get that performance with 35W it will be significantly better than Maxwell.


----------



## Ungari (Dec 18, 2016)

rruff said:


> Alienware has laptops with RX 470s in them but that's all I've heard about Polaris 10 in laptops.
> 
> "The AMD Radeon RX 480M (formerly known as R9 M480) is a *mobile high end graphics cards*. It is based on the new Polaris architecture (*Polaris 11* chip) and manufactured in 14nm FinFET. Compared to the faster RX 490M, the M480 should be a slightly stripped down version based on the same chip. Up to now AMD only published benchmarks at the TDP of 35 Watt with 16 CUs. With these scores the card is slightly faster than a Nvidia GeForce GTX 960M."
> 
> ...



RX 480M is not Polaris 11.


----------



## rruff (Dec 18, 2016)

Ungari said:


> RX 480M is not Polaris 11.



Source? I see a lot of places claiming it is, and none saying otherwise.


----------



## Ungari (Dec 19, 2016)

rruff said:


> Source? I see a lot of places claiming it is, and none saying otherwise.



My mistake, you are correct in saying it is Polaris 11.


----------

