RX 480
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
>Tfw you didn't fall for the Nvidia meme
8GB of VRAM, GTX 970 performance in DX11 games, slaughters the 970 and 980 in DX12/Vulkan games all for $199
Welcome to 2014 AMD!
Performance summary:
1- Tom's put this card as below the GTX 970 and R9 390, but not by much.
2- TechPowerUp, Anandtech, PC Perspective, Hexus, HardwareCanucks, and KitGuru put the card at slightly above the GTX 970 and R9 390.
3- LegitReviews, GamerNexus and HardOCP puts the card on par with the GTX 970 and R9 390.
Details:
1- All reviews mention that the cards does considerably better on DX12, where it can beat the GTX 980
2- The reviews praise the card's overall power consumption, but some note that it exceeds the standard power limits (86W from PCIe, instead of 75W)
3- Most lament the temps of the reference cooler.
4- Most of the reviews note that the reference cooler does well on the noise. As good as nVidia's reference cards? No, but this is something to note, considering the horrible reference jet engines of AMD's 290/290X cards.
5- Overclocking results are mixed, some reviewers getting up to 10% OC, and some barely 2%.
Overall:
A good launch for AMD. The card is slightly above the GTX 970/R9 390, and cheaper. Once non-reference versions are out, with better temps, this should be a great purchase. If you already have a GTX 970/R9 390, this card will do nothing for you.
Some curry niggers made a custom cooler for the 480 and were able to OC it to almost 1.5ghz
Nvidia is finished
>>343202463
Did you draw this, OP.
>Tfw want to upgrade from GTX 760 to RX 480
>Sold out everywhere
>>343202463
Good for poorfags
>>343202463
But even a 970 is better than 480
>>343202780
The performance is solid for its price. The problem is with the deliberately misleading marketing which caused many people to believe we were going to see a card which would consistently overperform GTX980 in all games. Instead its only a few DX12 scenarios where RX480 truly shines
>>343203405
All future games are going to use DX12/Vulkan and AMD comes out ontop here since those APIs are based on AMDs own Mantle API.
>>343202463
thats a nice frog you´ve drawn there
I might get one
>>343203383
970 only wins in DX11 gimpworks titles
>>343202463
>8G
>199$
At least look up some facts before you shitpost
just waiting for the non-reference version.
Speaking of which, which brand should I look for? I've had HIS & ASUS before... HIS was good, but the ASUS card I had crapped out fairly quickly.
>>343203495
It's just as likely that hardware requirements for those future games will highlight the card's lack of raw processing power.
I'm using a Geoforce GT 730, not the GTX. Reccomend me a good card I can get for around 150$. I could care less about running games in 1080p60. Just something that'll let me play newer games.
>Not already owning a 970
Get a fucking job.
>>343203616
I've always felt like HIS is a low-tier brand because I never see it nor hear about it but mine has lasted for 6 years so they must do something right.
>>343203584
Ironically, they're actually going to have to gimp the 480 if they want to comply with PCIE power specs
>>343203732
>wanting to own 3.5 gigs instead of 8 by a lower price
Good goy!
>>343203673
I have a HD 7850 and it barely runs Doom at a constant 50fps with everything set to low.
You're better off with the current 970 meme card or wait for the RX cards.
I wanted one but seeing as it's weaker than a 980 I'd rather save up for a 1070.
>>343202463
I always believed in AMD GPUs, now if only they can fix their CPUs.
>>343203495
>All future games
Too distant of a future. We are still at the start of a shift and industry always takes forever to swap between DX versions. By the time swap happens cards with early support for it are obsolete.
Happened both with Dx10 and 11.
>>343204180
Hitman and Tomb raider already use DX12, new Deus Ex game and Cyberpunk2077 game already confirmed to be using DX12, Dolphin emulator already supports DX12 and seen massive gains from it, Doom already has a Vulkan build and will see more API use when PS Neo comes out.
>>343203897
Nice 8G card you had there 2 years ago.
>trusting pooinloo tech
>any year
Told you niggas.
>>343204628
I'd rather trust poo in the loo tech than chink tech
>>343203495
We said that when DX12 was released as well
Why should I care about a card that's only as powerful as one from a few years ago? I like playing videogames, I actually want them to look good. Get an actual good card every other generation instead of a cheap piece of shit, it'll still be cheaper than a lot of other hobbies.
>>343202463
are the drivers still shitty?
>>343202780
>2- The reviews unanimously praise the card's power consumption
TPU:
>Gaming power draw is definitely improved over the last generation, even though the RX 480 uses GDDR5 memory which is not nearly as power efficient as HBM. Polaris can't beat NVIDIA's current Pascal lineup in efficiency. We see numbers similar to NVIDIA's last generation (GTX 970, GTX 980), performance is similar too, so is performance per Watt.
>The picture is completely different in non-gaming states though, here it looks like AMD still haven't learned their 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 their NVIDIA counterparts is simply unacceptable, especially since this has not been addressed for several years.
Toms:
> Once again, we’re using a bar graph for our power consumption results to make it clear why we arrived at our (unfavorable) conclusions. It truly takes an observant eye to see why we bemoaned the lack of an eight-pin power connector and the power circuit's design.
>AMD’s Radeon RX 480 draws an average of 164W, which exceeds the company's target TDP. And it gets worse. The load distribution works out in a way that has the card draw 86W through the motherboard’s PCIe slot. Not only does this exceed the 75W ceiling we typically associate with a 16-lane slot, but that 75W limit covers several rails combined and not just this one interface.
>Believe it or not, the situation gets even worse. AMD's Radeon RX 480 draws 90W through the motherboard’s PCIe slot during our stress test. This is a full 20 percent above the limit.
>To be clear, your motherboard isn't going to catch fire. But standards exist for a reason. All of the components around the PCIe slot and along the path from the slot to the 24-pin ATX connector will suffer from the peaks. And depending on your platform's design, audio problems may also materialize.
Next time don't copypaste a summary from a shill.
>>343202780
Addtionally.
>4- Most of the reviews note that the reference cooler does well on the noise
>Quoting from the AMD reviewer's guide "A lot of work has gone into reducing noise levels for the Radeon™ RX 480." Sorry, but no, gaming noise levels are bad. The reference card is noisier than every single card released in recent times, and it runs at well above 80°C too. We confirmed the temperature and noise levels with other reviewers, so it's not only our sample.
>Finally, with load noise levels, RX 480 produces middling (but acceptable) results. Given that we have a mix of blowers and open air coolers here, the RX 480 performs similarly to other mainstream blower based cards. The $199 price tag means that AMD can’t implement any exotic cooling or noise reduction technologies, though strictly speaking it doesn’t need them.
>I expected AMD's new mid-range Radeon RX 480 to be completely silent under load, but I was disappointed with the reference design from the company. While it rocks a slick reference design, the cooler has a weird sound/whine when it's spooled up to keep the card cool. I tried adjusting the fan speeds and getting a custom RPM set, but as soon as it spins up, the card begins making noise that can be annoying.
This launch is successful for all those poorfags who still play on 4-5 old pc rigs their parents bought them. If u own a mid tier GPU like 290/970/390 this shit isn't worth your time. Still I'm sure there are people who will get like a 100% performance gain from it. Here I'm hoping oced 1060 will be slightly above 980 for less than $250. My 970 is too weak to max games in 2560x1080.
>he didn't build his computer two years ago
>>343206098
If I buy a 970 in 2014 and 1070 in 2016 it will still be cheaper than 980 sli which nowadays is only good for 1440p
>>343205517
>>343205610
Now, let me make my own conclusions.
AMD created a product that can only compete with its price tag. When going from a larger node to a smaller, and especially when the difference is as large as going from 28 nm to 14 nm, you expect improvements, especially in the efficiency department. However, AMD managed to make no real improvements as far as efficiency is concerned. While it is more efficient than the powerhog known as R9 390, it's no more efficient than the R9 Nano, or even the 2 year old GTX 970. Nvidia created products that had the power draw of their previous generation products, with significant increases in performance. AMD created a midrange card with the performance and the power draw of a 2 year old card.
Many were expecting the card to draw somewhere between 100 and 120W. What basically no one was expecting was for it to draw more than what PCI-E and 6 pin is designed for. It doesn't stay within its TDP of 150W, and the power delivery on the reference card doesn't allow for good overclocking, because you're already pulling as much power as it is possible to draw. Why AMD chose to go with only a 6 pin power connector is puzzling. This is a problem that will be fixed with aftermarket cards eventually, but whether the card will overclock despite better power delivery is still unknown.
Because the performance of RX 480 roughly matches that of GTX 970, and it offers no real benefits over it other than an extra 4 GB of VRAM if you buy such a model, AMD had no choice but to price it at $200/$240 for it to be relevant. While there is no real reason to buy a GTX 970 over a RX 480 at the moment, RX 480 doesn't look impressive in the slightest. We saw this card 2 years ago. Cutting its price by $100 doesn't make it impressive.
>>343203673
RX 470
>>343206098
>Windows 10
He fell for the Spyware
>>343202463
Dumb frogposter
>>343202463
Buy 2 RX 480s and get better peformance than the GTX 1080 for a fraction of the cost.
>>343207374
>AMD created a product that can only compete with its price tag.
It has another ace up it's sleve, it's good with DX12/Vulkan, Which means that it's more future proof with than the GTX 970.
But right now, it has no competition and given that the 1060 was rumored to be around the same performance, priced higher and not very good in DX 12/Vulkan, AMD has, most likely got the mass market in it's hands.
With that I think they are also hoping to gain more marketshare in order to push devs into DX12 in the near future, so that they can launch and beat the 1070/1080 with Vega.
>>343205517
You can literally see them copy pasting whatever nvidia told them to hit AMD on this generation
>AMD just completely destroyed us by releasing a card for 200$ that will become the most popular budget card ever since the 8800
>quick what bullshit can we make up? lets talk about IDLE POWER DRAW despite the fact that this is a high end niche desktop part that is going into systems where power draw is completely meaningless!
>>343207374
>Cutting its price by $100 doesn't make it impressive.
>Cutting its price by $100 doesn't make it impressive.
How bad are nvidia and their cucked hardware sites panicking right now lmao
>muh power draw
>muh no efficiency gain
>muh watts
>who needs 4GB more vram?
>muh overclocking on a reference model
>>343209593
Good try, but TPU has always been critical of idle power draw.
And let me copypaste my own post from an earlier thread.
>Depends on your usage. For example, I keep my computer on 24/7, and have multiple monitors. This means that 480 consumes 33W more than 1070 for the most of the day.
>http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/22.html
>Say I pay a fairly reasonable $0.15/kWh. That amounts to roughly $40 a year.
>8GB 280 costs $240, and the cheapest 1070 costs $400. That's a $160 difference, so it'd take 4 years to fill that gap. Not far from my initial 3 years.
>>343209925
And then 1060 comes out and AMD is completely btfo once again.
>>343210037
power draw is completely meaningless though
it's just a nvidia approved talking point that is regurgitated by nvidia hardware sites
if you were REALLY concerned about power you wouldn't be using a high end desktop, and you wouldn't leave your fucking computer on 24/7 with hibernation turned off like in Toms Cuckware example.
>>343210037
This is retarded, he will, most likely, overclock any GFX card that comes in his way for marginal frame gains, yet is now complaining that running his multimonitor setup for 4 fucking years will match the price of a more expensive card.
>>343202463
this picture needs gsync displays left dead in the water too
>>343210614
that's because power draw and watt usage are what nvidia tell him to focus on because that's all they have against a 200$ card
in what fucking third-world country is the 1070 700 bucks?
>>343210592
>were proud to introduce the nvidia gtx 1060 3gb
>msrp $299
no
>>343210614
>overclock any GFX card that comes in his way for marginal frame gains
Which is not a huge problem as far as power draw is concerned, assuming you play as games as much as /v/ does.
>for 4 fucking years
Yeah, I don't plan on dying in the next 4 years. Do you? Don't you take long term costs into account when you buy shit, or are you the kind of retard who sees "iphone X for $0* now! (*$2000 after 36 month contract)" and immediately goes for it?
What would be a good, relatively high-end CPU to go along with this card? Thinking of building a value PC with this card.
>>343202463
>8gb VRAM $199
the 4gb Vram version is $199. the 8gb Vram version is $299. please look up facts before you shit up the board please.
>>343211089
If you're running a desktop with multi-monitors you don't actually get to talk about power efficiency, because your entire setup is an inefficient powerhog to begin with, no matter what GPU you put in it.
>>343211094
If you're going to buy a card this out of date, you might as well go for the cheapest i3 you can find.
>a 250$ card comes out that is cheaper and equivalent to a 2 year old card
>isn't it fucking amazing how they do this guys?
>Nvidia btfo, they would never do it
>i-it's no like the 960 is on par with 680 that cost 600$ at some point
I can't believe how blind AMDrones are. 480 is absolutely irrelevant to anyone but people who are generations behind in vidya cards. And even then I wouldn't even consider it because I'll have to upgrade again much sooner than if had gone with the 1070/80.
>>343211308
$239-249.
you'll pay more right about now due to price gouging though.
>>343210784
The power draw is one of the things that end up limiting the product. You can add in more and more transistors, making a bigger and bigger GPU, but in return, it becomes more and more power hungry, and can't maintain temperatures at which it won't fry itself. GTX 480, a 95-100C, 280W monster is basically your limit. Considering nvidia could create a card that performs 80% better than RX 480 at the same power draw, it shows how limited AMD's future, bigger cards will be.
>>343211380
Nice non sequitur.
>>343211554
>480 is absolutely irrelevant to anyone but people who are generations behind in vidya cards.
So an overwhelming majority of the PC market?
>>343202463
thank god im not poor and getting subpar performance years later
posted from my 980ti
>>343211094
Don't listen to this >>343211428 shitposter. An i5 would be a perfect fit for a midrange gpu like this. Either the 4690k or 6500k would be ideal picks and will give you plenty of headroom should you choose to upgrade to a beefier gpu later.
>>343202463
Hey, the gtx 1070 only cost 450 and it outperforms gtx 980 ti by a large margin. The 1080 cost 800 :>
>>343211665
Frankly as long as AMD caters more to the low end market they'll do fine. They're not going to compete directly with Nvidia.
https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-radeon-rx-480-video-card-review-h.1903637/page-3#post-1042386067
>>343211665
Completely irrelevant in a 200$ budget card nvidcuck, try again.
They provided 970/980 performance, with a full 4gb of ram, for 200$.
No matter how many times you read from the script nvidia's PR handed you about watts, you'll never change that fact.
>>343202780
so basically the card is good if you don't own a 970/390 yet and shit if you do.
>>343203673
RX 470 will be out soon around that price. Wait for that one.
I can't justify buying an rx480 since I already have a couple year old 970. I'll probably grab a 1070 or wait and see if amd announces a new fury or 490 or something.
The rx 480 is kinda worthless for anyone with a decent graphics card from the past few years.
>>343214281
Waiting on the 490 myself
Shitvidia can stick gameworks up their butts
>>343202463
>>343202780
R9 380 is dropping to $250, should I get it instead?
>>343202463
wow amazing, 970gtx performance on a card like what, 3 years later for 30 dollars less
AMD WINS AGAIN!
>1- All reviews mention that the cards does considerably better on DX12, where it can beat the GTX 980
Does it mean you're fucked if you don't use Windows 10?
AMD was doomed the moment it got rid of its fabs. They have no chance to compete with nvidia now, unless they merge with another tech giant.
That's what happens when you have a woman CEO and a Pajeet in charge.
>>343215050
you get 970 performance in DX11 games for $199, plenty of 970s here still go for $280
>>343215692
Still, won't it mean that we will all need to move to W10 in a few years?
>>343215824
Only if you want to play DX12 games.
>>343202463
will frogman cuckolding the feelings alien ever get old?
>>343204723
>that dirty-ass hand
>nobody noticed all those new benchmarks where the 980ti was now mysteriously losing to the 1070
What's the point of this card again?
People who usually pass on new generations of cards do it because they don't feel the need to upgrade. Anyone who wanted to upgrade, did it when 970 came out 2 years ago.
Those who didn't will usually go for the higher tier 1070 for more future proofing.
The only ones left are people still stuck on a 4XX or 5XX cards or something, then I guess it's good for them but these are people who either very poor or don't play many games at all.
>>343216207
>now
1070 was better than a titan X since day one.
>>343216437
Anyone that wants to get into pc gaming, and doesnt have a good desktop right now. Most of gaming industry is on consoles and mobile right now after all.
Cheapest card to run most titles at 60 fps at 1080p. Was it like 90% of steam hardware survey would get an upgrade from 480?
>>343214814
380 is <$200
>>343216207
ti was always losing to 1070, but not by much, around 10% at most
