Looks like RX460 gonna be the perfect successor to my 250X

xorbe470's 2048 is only slightly less than 480's 2304? Both 256-bit vram, 32 rops?

Yes. Should be 15-20% faster than the 380X. The cooler seems to be the same one as the 480 so it'll be a tad quieter.

I was thinking about this but maybe I'll get a 480 and just downclock. Gotta have some spare power.... or get the 470 now and upgrade later... dunno... to be frank my 7970 still serves me well on my steambox but the lower power consumption and updated features would be nice to have.

I'll get a 480 for my main rig though.

Vega might be the High End RX line.

GhostRyderWell I guess this completely eliminates the rumor that the RX 480 could have been a cut down chip and that they are still doing the "X" nomenclature at the end for the full chips. Kinda disappointing as it really does seem like they are saying goodbye to high end for a good long while similar to the CPU side (At least till Zen). I am glad these chips are coming out for cheap but the enthusiasts are going to suffer for awhile with one card choice on the high end...

I understand the budget appeal, but at what point is a low-end cheap dedicated card no faster then essentially free IGP for that segment? Even an AMD A-8 for $100 will run 1080p at 40-45 fps on medium, which is real close to what these would do and maybe even a touch faster. Same for really any of the newer cpu offerings from either Intel or AMD, which have faster IGP than the past and are very close to these low-end dedicated cards. These 460/470 definitely won't do ultra gfx settings at 1080p I know, since I owned a 390 and even it wouldn't consistently and these are quite a bit slower than a 390.

If you have an older cpu/mb combo that you want to do budget gaming on, say a I5-2500K or something that you want to add a dedicated card to and game with, that makes more sense since IGP back then was terribly slow. But IGP has been a huge focus of improvement lately and a big selling point for new CPU releases, if not the primary area since cpu speeds have been relatively stagnant. If you're really doing a new budget build though, not leveraging the free IGP on your cpu and spending ~$150 on a dedicated card (that is at best only marginally faster than the IGP on new cpus) seems like a waste. In my opinion, either spend on a faster dedicated card or go IGP. People are too stuck in the mindset of the old early IGP that was very slow. I'd suggest they look at the benchmarks on newer CPUs under IGP, they will likely be surprised at how they compare to something like a 460.

the54thvoidNo we can't :laugh:

hehehehe i get you bro, i havent updated my system since forever.. its so frustrating sometimes. but, no money no honey.. :/

$ReaPeR$well.. that rumor was put down a long time ago.. i think the enthusiasts can hold on for 6 more months.. they are a small minority anyway..
lets hope that vega and zen can go tow to tow with nvidias offerings, i've missed the competition in that segment.

One can still hope...I still had my doubts that this was the full chip but that's gone at this point. Yea I agree on market segment and that's fine, but for me its a different story since I go for high end chips.

the54thvoidNo we can't :laugh:

Amen.

eidairaman1Vega might be the High End RX line.

That's a big "what if" because we have to see what the chips do and they are a lot further off than what I hoped. My limit is BF1 release day (Some exceptions apply)... I have the upgrade itch, so the question right now is what will be out by that point...

dozenfuryI understand the budget appeal, but at what point is a low-end cheap dedicated card no faster then essentially free IGP for that segment? Even an AMD A-8 for $100 will run 1080p at 40-45 fps on medium, which is real close to what these would do and maybe even a touch faster. Same for really any of the newer cpu offerings from either Intel or AMD, which have faster IGP than the past and are very close to these low-end dedicated cards. These 460/470 definitely won't do ultra gfx settings at 1080p I know, since I owned a 390 and even it wouldn't consistently and these are quite a bit slower than a 390.

If you have an older cpu/mb combo that you want to do budget gaming on, say a I5-2500K or something that you want to add a dedicated card to and game with, that makes more sense since IGP back then was terribly slow. But IGP has been a huge focus of improvement lately and a big selling point for new CPU releases, if not the primary area since cpu speeds have been relatively stagnant. If you're really doing a new budget build though, not leveraging the free IGP on your cpu and spending ~$150 on a dedicated card (that is at best only marginally faster than the IGP on new cpus) seems like a waste. In my opinion, either spend on a faster dedicated card or go IGP. People are too stuck in the mindset of the old early IGP that was very slow. I'd suggest they look at the benchmarks on newer CPUs under IGP, they will likely be surprised at how they compare to something like a 460.

These chips are much faster than the iGPU versions in the APU's still. Even with the right ram and some serious overclocking APU's will not match even the lowest of these three.

GhostRyderOne can still hope...I still had my doubts that this was the full chip but that's gone at this point. Yea I agree on market segment and that's fine, but for me its a different story since I go for high end chips.


Amen.

That's a big "what if" because we have to see what the chips do and they are a lot further off than what I hoped. My limit is BF1 release day (Some exceptions apply)... I have the upgrade itch, so the question right now is what will be out by that point...


These chips are much faster than the iGPU versions in the APU's still. Even with the right ram and some serious overclocking APU's will not match even the lowest of these three.

lucky bastard! :P im happy for you though, i just wish that more people had that choice.

For eSports gaming

Yeah, right! People into esports are going to use low-end hardware.

$ReaPeR$hehehehe i get you bro, i havent updated my system since forever.. its so frustrating sometimes. but, no money no honey.. :/

I've been putting money aside since I bought my Sandy-E four and a half years ago. I've upgraded gfx here and there but the money's still in the bank. So for me, I gots the money but there ain't no honey! :roll:

$ReaPeR$lucky bastard! :p im happy for you though, i just wish that more people had that choice.

Same, I normally (As my rule of thumb) buy high end and keep for awhile and skip at least one generation. Then I can justify it to myself since I do a majority of my gaming on the PC. I am trying to keep a majority of my components in this PC for a good long time (Hoping for 4-6 years). I am very cheap about everything else though (non-main desktop related) :p

GhostRyderWell I guess this completely eliminates the rumor that the RX 480 could have been a cut down chip and that they are still doing the "X" nomenclature at the end for the full chips. Kinda disappointing as it really does seem like they are saying goodbye to high end for a good long while similar to the CPU side (At least till Zen). I am glad these chips are coming out for cheap but the enthusiasts are going to suffer for awhile with one card choice on the high end...

AMD will easily produce an RX-485 with GDDRX and higher clocks (about 1400MHz) when more highly binned chips in stock and more of this type of VRAM becomes available. This GPU can jump over 15% more than 480 and get over 980 and match Fury non X for less than 180W. Question is when it will be ready for sale. My estimation is at late 2016.

GhostRyderOne can still hope...I still had my doubts that this was the full chip but that's gone at this point. Yea I agree on market segment and that's fine, but for me its a different story since I go for high end chips.



Amen.

That's a big "what if" because we have to see what the chips do and they are a lot further off than what I hoped. My limit is BF1 release day (Some exceptions apply)... I have the upgrade itch, so the question right now is what will be out by that point...


These chips are much faster than the iGPU versions in the APU's still. Even with the right ram and some serious overclocking APU's will not match even the lowest of these three.

Bro with your 290Xs youre set. Id honestly wait 2-3 more gens before selling those cards off.

PS non reference boards are much more difficult to get aftermarket air/water cooling for

RejZoRIf RX480 roughly compares to GTX 980, I wonder where RX460 is standing... GTX 960 ?

Well if it's clock better than rx480 then maybe, but consider this gtx980 has 2048 shaders and RX480 has 2304 shaders. What do you think what will happen when you put gtx960 with 1024 shaders againts RX 460 with 896, how higher clock will RX460 need to surpass gtx960?

jabbadapWell if it's clock better than rx480 then maybe, but consider this gtx980 has 2048 shaders and RX480 has 2304 shaders. What do you think what will happen when you put gtx960 with 1024 shaders againts RX 460 with 896, how higher clock will RX460 need to surpass gtx960?

Why would you compere "shaders" between two completely different architectures ?

Why do people in 2016 still do these utterly uneducated comparisons?
Do you think that "shaders" are being sold by weight at the supermarket, and are made from the same components?

Please, people, stop doing that. Pascal shaders are Pascal shaders, Polaris ones are Polaris. Don't mix em up, don't compere them by amount, they do not function the same way

Dj-ElectriCWhy would you compere "shaders" between two completely different architectures ?

Why do people in 2016 still do these utterly uneducated comparisons?
Do you think that "shaders" are being sold by weight at the supermarket, and are made from the same components?

Please, people, stop doing that. Pascal shaders are Pascal shaders, Polaris ones are Polaris. Don't mix em up, don't compere them by amount, they do not function the same way

Why not? Polaris 10 has lower fps/Tflops than gm204. What makes you think that ratio is changed between polaris 11 and gm206, when it is been like that whole gcn vs maxwell era(radeon needs more Tflops to beat corresponding geforce).

My guess is that RX460 will be close to gtx950 perf but much lower tdp.

jabbadapWell if it's clock better than rx480 then maybe, but consider this gtx980 has 2048 shaders and RX480 has 2304 shaders. What do you think what will happen when you put gtx960 with 1024 shaders againts RX 460 with 896, how higher clock will RX460 need to surpass gtx960?

The shader count is not comparable. It is, within same vendor and same series, not different vendor.

These look like they'll be great options in their price bracket.

TheGuruStudI see they're still using that lying ass slide about 2.5x perf/watt. Big typo, they meant 0.25x.

I see people still don't understand what they were comparing it to. It's really simple, the 380. Since that is the card it replaced, things should be even better with the 470/460.

Tell Mr. JHH we said thanks for coming out!

:toast:

PS: How's lying ass nVidia doing with the 4th failure of pascal, DPC latency? Still no mention of that either from TPU. Good job guys, keep up the good work!

$ReaPeR$well.. that rumor was put down a long time ago.. i think the enthusiasts can hold on for 6 more months.. they are a small minority anyway..
lets hope that vega and zen can go tow to tow with nvidias offerings, i've missed the competition in that segment.

In fact, the enthusiast market is hard to describe, but think that someone is willing to pay 50% extra money for 15% additional performance. It is not the market for amd right now. Moreover, I remember read somewhere that, every tint the manufacturing process have changed, nvidia and amd have always started with the mid range products, as the process got mature, the high end vcards started to appear, it seems that nvidia did it differently this time.

RejZoRThe shader count is not comparable. It is, within same vendor and same series, not different vendor.

Yes you are correct, it's not straight forward comparable. But when you account gpu speed, then calculate compute power and compare it to graphics card gaming performance. You have quite good picture how efficiently different architectures can move pure fp32 flops to gaming performance.

straimIn fact, the enthusiast market is hard to describe, but think that someone is willing to pay 50% extra money for 15% additional performance. It is not the market for amd right now. Moreover, I remember read somewhere that, every tint the manufacturing process have changed, nvidia and amd have always started with the mid range products, as the process got mature, the high end vcards started to appear, it seems that nvidia did it differently this time.

You can also make high end GPU first and then just test and cut down failed ones and produce lower end models with that, salvaging what would be a total waste. Both have been doing this for quite a while in the past.

as i see enthusiast market % is quite low; economy stagnation forced people to spend more rationally as income didn't rise up as the expenses

sure everyone would buy the best but can't afford maybe,or realized is don't needed immediately; a few extra frame may not worth to invest so much especially for 1080-1440 p; +20-40 fps over 80-100 don't really justify to spend 200-300$ more ....

both nv & amd must create new gpu's however and both will force end user to upgrade sooner or later; is easy for them to do it as both teams "support"(think sound better than "pay") game developers which in exchange give us,end user, increasing hardware demanding games optimized ( :shadedshu: ) for super duper hyper eye candy game-play....i know it sound like a conspiracy but is plain&simple as is .....

laszloas i see enthusiast market % is quite low; economy stagnation forced people to spend more rationally as income didn't rise up as the expenses

sure everyone would buy the best but can't afford maybe,or realized is don't needed immediately; a few extra frame may not worth to invest so much especially for 1080-1440 p; +20-40 fps over 80-100 don't really justify to spend 200-300$ more ....

both nv & amd must create new gpu's however and both will force end user to upgrade sooner or later; is easy for them to do it as both teams "support"(think sound better than "pay") game developers which in exchange give us,end user, increasing hardware demanding games optimized ( :shadedshu: ) for super duper hyper eye candy game-play....i know it sound like a conspiracy but is plain&simple as is .....

Man, you can't stop AMD aficionados from regurgitating what the marketing tells them.
Reality check: AMD has already tried the sour grapes approach with high-end CPUs already. It didn't exactly work for them.

RejZoRThe shader count is not comparable. It is, within same vendor and same series, not different vendor.

He is comparing 980 to 480 vs 960 to 460. So it is very comparable scaling, IMO. If the 480 requires more shaders than the 980 to not quite match it, then I'd expect the 460 to require more shaders than the comparable Maxwell card.

No way the 460 will best the 960 based on shaders and performance. It might match the 950, but I doubt it. Probably between 750 Ti and 950 levels.

Also consider power consumption. On the 480 at least, FPS/W is no better than Maxwell 970/980. AMD has advertised the Polaris 11 as a 50W card. They may be happy with 75W, but even in that case they are just beating the 750 Ti.

TheGuruStudI see they're still using that lying ass slide about 2.5x perf/watt. Big typo, they meant 0.25x.

First, they said the Polaris 11 is up to 2.5 x per/watt, we can't even test this. Second, the RX 480 is supposed to compete with the 390 TDP (275/150=1.83~, what they advertised). Third, the 970 TDP was way higher the 148w, yet people let them get away with it. So don't call out AMD when there is nothing to call out.

Pepperidge Farm remembers oc'd Nehalem i7-920 systems running GTX 580 cards. All y'all still yapping about 10 extra watts on a slot?