AMD Radeon RX 480 Clock Speeds Revealed, Clocked Above 1.2 GHz

[Primey_]

And with a $199 price tag, 2 of these 480s in CF will be quite the deal over 1070 if AMD can market it.

Or you could spend $20 less (The RRP for the board partner 1070 is $380) and get the 1070 and not have to deal with crossfire. People seem to be forgetting crossfire and g-sync are dying, developers don't care about implementing them.

The card is almost as fast as the R9 Fury.

How could you possibly know that? There is no benchmarks for the single card.

 

[G33k2Fr34k]

Or you could spend $20 less (The RRP for the board partner 1070 is $380) and get the 1070 and not have to deal with crossfire. People seem to be forgetting crossfire and g-sync are dying, developers don't care about implementing them.



How could you possibly know that? There is no benchmarks for the single card.

We've already seen the card in 3dmark 11, it's as fast as the R9 Fury (almost). Why buy a 1070 when you can get FuryX or more performance if you overclock the RX480?

 

[arbiter]

People seem to be forgetting crossfire and g-sync are dying, developers don't care about implementing them.

g-sync is done in the driver so dev's don't have to do anything for implementing them.

We've already seen the card in 3dmark 11, it's as fast as the R9 Fury (almost). Why buy a 1070 when you can get FuryX or more performance if you overclock the RX480?

Well don't know how a RX480 can overclock at this point, plus if 3dmark scores are anything to go on well a gtx1070 is within 10% of RX480 performance wise without CF downsides. So if you were to buy 2 RX480, it would be worth considering a gtx1080(or what ever equivalent amd card) at that point since price will be about the same and you don't have to hope CF profile is there and/or game dev bothered to care enough to support it worth a piss.

 

[Valdas]

We've already seen the card in 3dmark 11, it's as fast as the R9 Fury (almost). Why buy a 1070 when you can get FuryX or more performance if you overclock the RX480?

Not entirely true. What we've seen so far is a range between 15k and 18k in 3D Mark score. Picking a number you like more is not making it any more legit than the other, especially when 18k score is achieved with an older driver.

 

[G33k2Fr34k]

Not entirely true. What we've seen so far is a range between 15k and 18k in 3D Mark score. Picking a number you like more is not making it any more legit than the other, especially when 18k score is achieved with an older driver.

AMD announced a single Polaris10 card, and that's the one with 36 CUs and 1266MHz GPU frequency. These are the specs of the Polaris10 C7 chip in that benchmark. Besides, yesterday they showcased a few Doom 4 gameplay clips at 1440P on Ultra, and the RX480 was getting 75fps to 90fps, which is Fury level performance.

 

[Valdas]

AMD announced a single Polaris10 card, and that's the one with 36 CUs and 1266MHz GPU frequency. These are the specs of the Polaris10 C7 chip in that benchmark. Besides, yesterday they showcased a few Doom 4 gameplay clips at 1440P on Ultra, and the RX480 was getting 75fps to 90fps, which is Fury level performance.

If you are refering to a specific chart from videocardz, you should also include this quote:

Results vary by 20% while 3DMark shows the same clock, so lower scores were either run with older, unsupported drivers, or higher scores simply show overclocked scores. You are the judge here. I didn’t want to post this because I simply could not confirm which results are showing stock performance.
AMD Polaris 67DF:C7 — Radeon R9 480X?
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11257751 8GB 1266 MHz 2000 MHz 15524
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11263084 8GB 1266 MHz 2000 MHz 18060

Showcase running Vulcan? I'm not sure if there is any tests for Fury running Doom on Vulcan. And there is that thing were they switch settings from High to Ultra, so it's unclear whether they were actually running High or Ultra.

 

[G33k2Fr34k]

If you are refering to a specific chart from videocardz, you should also include this quote:

Results vary by 20% while 3DMark shows the same clock, so lower scores were either run with older, unsupported drivers, or higher scores simply show overclocked scores. You are the judge here. I didn’t want to post this because I simply could not confirm which results are showing stock performance.
AMD Polaris 67DF:C7 — Radeon R9 480X?
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11257751 8GB 1266 MHz 2000 MHz 15524
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11263084 8GB 1266 MHz 2000 MHz 18060

Showcase running Vulcan? I'm not sure if there is any tests for Fury running Doom on Vulcan. And there is that thing were they switch settings from High to Ultra, so it's unclear whether they were actually running High or Ultra.

Yes, the RX480 is based on the C7 chip.

 

[Valdas]

Yes, the RX480 is based on the C7 chip.

Did I disagreed with that statement? Don't think so. You're missing the point.

 

[medi01]

Yes, the RX480 is based on the C7 chip.

The question is, which 480 it is.
They mentioned price range of 100$-300$.
If it is 300$ 480x then, meh.
If it is 229$ 480 8Gb, then shutupandtakemymoney.

 

[btarunr]

I don't think 480X will come out anytime soon. GTX 1060 itself won't come out before fall.

 

[Kanan]

The question is, which 480 it is.
They mentioned price range of 100$-300$.
If it is 300$ 480x then, meh.
If it is 229$ 480 8Gb, then shutupandtakemymoney.

480X wasn't mentioned, it's 480 for 230$ 8GB msrp. Too bad the 480X wasn't mentioned, I guess it's 5-10% faster.

 

[medi01]

I was told "there is no way X and non X card use the same ID, it defeats the point of card IDs".
Could enlightened ones comment on this please, I'm too newb to know if it is true.

C0 is in drivers, but not in leaks.

GTX 1060 itself won't come out before fall.

Oh wow.

PS
Guys, how do they measure GPU market share, number of cards or revenue?

 

[Kanan]

I was told "there is no way X and non X card use the same ID, it defeats the point of card IDs".
Could enlightened ones comment on this please, I'm too newb to know if it is true.

That's the problem, maybe "C7" is the 480X and not the 480, or the C7 is the 480 indeed and the other one is Polaris11. We will know soon enough.

 

[HD64G]

480X wasn't mentioned, it's 480 for 230$ 8GB msrp. Too bad the 480X wasn't mentioned, I guess it's 5-10% faster.

Full polaris chip=480X imho. It could arrive later with GDDR5X with better clocks for core and VRAM for $300 to compete with 1060. Probably in late summer. I like the price range of Polaris as 90% of PC gamers aren't able to surpass $300 for a GPU. So, RX480 is a great bargain for sure. Any comsumer wanting competition should be glad for this GPU.

 

[medi01]

That's the problem, maybe "C7" is the 480X and not the 480, or the C7 is the 480 indeed and the other one is Polaris11. We will know soon enough.

Wait, so which screenshot is shown in post #37?

 

[the54thvoid]

Has it been confirmed there is a 480X? The naming seems awkward, RX480X. Perhaps the naming will simply be RX480, RX490 etc?

Last round the naming changed. Normally the rebranded became lower tier numbers but the 290X became 390X and Fury was standalone.

Is there a possibility this is the plan with Polaris and Vega, seeing as last season we shared two architectures as well?

 

[Kanan]

Has it been confirmed there is a 480X? The naming seems awkward, RX480X. Perhaps the naming will simply be RX480, RX490 etc?

Last round the naming changed. Normally the rebranded became lower tier numbers but the 290X became 390X and Fury was standalone.

Is there a possibility this is the plan with Polaris and Vega, seeing as last season we shared two architectures as well?

The thing is I think it's not the full chip, 2304 shader's is a odd count for a full chip. So I think the 480X could be following later, like 380X. Similar to R9 285 the full chip maybe reserved for Apple/Consoles/whoknows, I mean they have to use the full chip somewhere. Also it could be to counter Nvidia with the 480X if they tune the GTX 1060 to be faster than RX 480.

@medi01

I think the screenshot is accurate, but I don't know which one is the 480 or if it's even on it. But most likely it is the C7.

 

[medi01]

My guess is AMD is waiting to see how the GTX 1060 performs before finalizing the clocks for the 480. Hence the 29th June NDA and on shelf date. Or they release the 480, and later the 480x to compete with the GTX 1060.

I'm sure it's the latter. The question is, for how long will they keep it mum.
I mean, if it is 10% faster than 480, many would bite it for about 50$ more than 480.

The card is almost as fast as the R9 Fury. Why do you need to crossfire?

Ahaha, to pwnzor 1500$ Fury Pro.
Seriously, imagine dual card with this nice little chip.

 

[iO]

There was some people posting even a few people i talked to that work for tech sites that seen a noticeable difference in graphic quality of the 2 videos side by side. One was set to a higher graphic setting then other one was which if that is the case would be a problem if it turns out to be true.

Ashes uses procedual generation for some texture like snow and units, thats why it looks different.
Both used the same settings:
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/a957db0f-59b3-4394-84cc-2ba0170ab699
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/ac88258f-4541-408e-8234-f9e96febe303

 

[N3M3515]

the 480x to compete with the GTX 1060. Either way a 1060 Ti will be on the way.

My guess is that the 480X will be too close to the 1070 for the 1060Ti to have a chance to compete.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Ashes uses procedual generation for some texture like snow and units, thats why it looks different.
Both used the same settings:
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/a957db0f-59b3-4394-84cc-2ba0170ab699
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/ac88258f-4541-408e-8234-f9e96febe303

IMO, people have been looking for a reason to bash AMD here, just because they are doing well. I'd wait for third party benches anyway, but to each their own.



I really hope there is a 480x out there, a full 2560SP chip. AMD may be waiting for GDDR5X production to catch up before releasing. Although, if they do call it the RX 480X, then I cant wait for the XFX RX X480XTX DD edition.

 

[GhostRyder]

Well for $200 this seems like a decent card. Whats going to matter is not only how well it overclocks but how well it performs when overclocked. Numbers are just numbers when it comes to core clocks (Though lets be honest, higher always sounds better) but if it reacts well to overclocking and overclocks decently then we have a good budget winner.

 

[DarkOCean]

wtf is wrong with AMD clocks? why they are so low ? they're supposed to be over 2ghz on 14nm

 

[Ralfies]

Do we know yet if this is a cut down or full fat P10? 36CU's seems a little odd. I'd love to see a 40CU version with higher clocks and GDDR5X for $299-329.

 

[Assimilator]

Has it been confirmed there is a 480X? The naming seems awkward, RX480X. Perhaps the naming will simply be RX480, RX490 etc?

They're gonna follow it up with the RX 580XX and then the RX 680 TRIPLE X.