So, I'm thinking about picking up one of these to upgrade from a 280x. Would it be enough for 1440p 60fps at high-ish settings? I don't need ultra or anything.
No. Get a 1080 at the bare minimum.
>>341841483
RX 480 doesn't fit that bill.
You want a GTX 1080 or a 490 later this year.
>>341841586
>>341841684
Or he can just upgrade for the low price of $199, and sell that and get a 490 if he wants when it comes out.
>>341841684
Really? I thought that was one of the selling points of the 480.
>>341841586
>>341841684
>nvidia fags
they lying to you OP
>>341842057
>>341841950
ONE 480 wont be enough for 1440p 60fps
its fine for 1080p,
TWO 480s is good enough for thatstill cheaper than a 1080
>>341841483
High with a few of the more intense options turned to medium, sure, probably. Not for too long though. I remember late in the 7970's life, a little before it was rebadged as the 280x, some review sites like Tom's hardware were talking about how solid it was for 1440p gaming. Only a couple of years later it's on its way out for even 1080p in many people's minds.
>>341841483
Nowhere near.
https://youtu.be/f_Lt41pdGJk
>>341843337
Not sure how you know that as the 4gb has been confirmed price wise but the 8gb hasnt.
>>341843337
>AMD previously showcased the Radeon™ RX 480 graphics card, designed for incredibly smooth AAA gaming at 1440p resolution and set to be the most affordable solution for premium VR experiences starting at just $199 SEP for the 4GB version. Joining the Radeon RX family are the newly announced Radeon™ RX 470 graphics card delivering refined, power-efficient HD gaming, and the Radeon™ RX 460, a cool and efficient solution for the ultimate e-sports gaming experience.
http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/e3-sneak-peek-2016jun13.aspx
AMD themself say that the RX 480 is made for 1440p.
>>341845456
they say it will in direct x 12, no mention of the others
" These graphics boards will feature TDP around 100W (110-150W) and as demonstrated at Capsaicin, will have no trouble running latest DirectX 12 titles at 1440P "...
..also at what settings? not high obviously
>>341845725
That quote was invented by currytech.
>>341841483
A highly OC'ed aftermarket model might be able to handle it pretty well.
>>341845456
>AMD themself say that the RX 480 is made for 1440p
AMD also stated the Fury X was made for 4k.
>>341843337
>TWO 480s is good enough for that
Never go full retard.
>>341841483
If you're not afraid to turn down some settings, yeah it should be pretty good. Benchmarks put it around GTX 980 level.
The Rx480 will probably max the shit out of 1080p.
1440p is questionable but wait for the NDA to lift at the end of the month if you really want to know.DX12/Vulkan performance is probably gonna be crazy but there's fuckall for games that use those APIs.
>>341848024
No chance will it max the shit out of 1080p Im even willing to put money on that.
Famalam, real talk now
When the fuck am I going to be able to buy a 1070/1080. Everything is sold out right now and no one is saying when shit will be restocked.
Brehs, should I upgrade to windows 10? I'm on 7 right now.
How much of an improvement do you think a 480 will be from a 7970? I'm still using that and running games nearly maxed at 1080/60.
>>341850581
Didnt know minesweeper had an fps counter.
>>341850380
>XBOX One and Windows 10 exclusive
>>341850581
It should be a pretty decent jump. Should be something inbetween the 970 and 980 so just look at those benchmarks.
>>341841483
Considering how 980 Ti is the go to 1440p/ultra card I think you could majority of titles at medium/high with 980/480 Rx. Of course that's assuming 480x will be as good as 980. Don't fall for the fucking Pajeet posting and wccftech articles shitposting rumors about OCed 480 being better than 1080 in dx12, you will be disappointed. At the end of the day my prediction, based on recent Firestrike benches, is that lightly OCed 480 (Without touching voltage and with stock air cooling) could be as good as a non-reference factory clocked 980 GTX which can run W3 on ultra 1440p at 40-50 fps w/o Hairworks.
>>341844629
If this guy with a clear Pajeet accent is actually being this "honest" about Polaris then AMD truly is fucked.
Given the performance RX480 is in theory capable of at just 4GB of VRAM, would 8 be a wise choice here?
>>341851808
It's a 1080p card, you will never use more than 4 gigs of VRAM in 1080p with exceptions being some terrible shitty console ports and heavily modded Skyrim with 5000 8k HD dragon dildo mods.
>>341851981
As in the 8 gigs would be overkill for 1080p? I play shit like R6 Siege and it has some bizarre FPS drops because lolubisoft and i feel like going with 8 would be safe
>>341851981
load the witcher 3 up. Turn all setting to the highest possible (x8 hair etc) & post processing settings to max.
I did and I was using over 6.4gigs of the stuff
>>341852447
Witcher 3 is probably the game i'm most curious about when it comes to how much i can get out of it at 1080p with an rx480.
Can't wait for a benchmark on it.
>>341852137
It's up to you.
>>341852447
I had 970 for 2 years, only time I've ever encountered stuttering was in maxed Lords of the Fallen and it was a micro stutter which was barely noticeable to the point where /v/ couldn't tell it's actually there in my WEBMS of the game. I feel that when it comes to mid range GPUs like 970 gtx and 480x in 9/10 cases maxing games like W3 by adding HairWorks, 1440p, AAx8 etc. will result in unplayable frames way before you'll actually manage to use the 4gb of vram.
>>341852573
I run it on ultra (like I say everything on full) , I have a 1080 and had a i5-4460 but it bottlenecked on the witcher3 and bf4 and a few others so I swapped to the i7-4790k.
