AMD Radeon RX 480

[byalexandr]

17 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Yeah because it's going to perform a lot like the R9 390. Which I mean is playable at 1440p. But it's nothing like what the GTX 1070 is. But I suppose the GTX 1070 is about $180 more expensive. 

I'm pretty sure it's closer to the 390X in performance, maybe even the 980.

[handymanshandle]

17 minutes ago, Steel_Wind said:

In fairness to the RX 480 -- it is promising more like a 390X in terms of comparable performance, not the 390. That's not a LOT more WangoZeeTango, but it is a significant bit of nitro in the tank in terms of comparisons and price/performance in the current marketplace.

Okay but on average how much faster is the 390X anyways? I mean I originally wanted to go with the 390X.

 

16 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

You don't need a particularly good GPU to stream 4K content, especially if that content is only at 24fps anyway. As such, there is much more 4K content than 1440p, and 4K has the benefit of scaling almost perfectly to 1080p which 1440p doesn't.

4K is harder to run regardless, still costs more than 1440p. But yes because it's like a quadrupling or doubling of the resolution.

 

15 minutes ago, Steel_Wind said:

Given the price comparison in the Ashes of the Singularity dual RX 480 Crossfire video, the implication was that the 8GB model is expected with a MSRP of about $249 USD

Hmm $50 for 4GB of GDDR5 huh. 

14 minutes ago, hex4 said:

300 watts? mate i draw almost 400w from my 580 with it's OC alone lol, as do nVIDIA high end cards, 2 480's are exceedingly efficient for their performance, yes not quite Pascal efficiency but who really cares?

It sort of makes me wary of running a two way CF off a 550W. Idk I kinda wanted to keep the power draw as low as possible with one card, and as I said there have been many issues linked with CF and SLI, and some games not even supporting it.

$20 to $50 isn't a huge deal I suppose. But it's still an additional cost and it can improve performance. Probably surpassing the GTX 1070.  But if I went with the 8GB model for a two way CF that might be $500. Quite a fair bit more than the GTX 1070. Though would technically beat it. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't get me wrong, I don't really want to say that now that we know more about Polaris and nothing about Vega, and that Polaris is exactly what it was rumored to be and what someone from AMD had said. It's kind of disappointing to see that AMD isn't really out to compete with what Nvidia has right now. Which is what I was sort of hoping for, because then that would set them up nicely for Vega so that they would surpass Pascal. Vega will still probably do that but it might not be quite as impressive as I was hoping. Even though I had not much interest in Vega because I was anticipating AMD to have something to trade blows with whatever Nvidia had. Maybe my expectations were too high. Pfft might as well save myself some time and money. Maybe just stick with my PS4 and Xbox 360. Idk.

Edited June 1, 2016 by wcreek
BBCode Page brakes don't work... :/

[othertomperson]

1 minute ago, wcreek said:

4K is harder to run regardless, still costs more than 1440p. But yes because it's like a quadrupling or doubling of the resolution.

There isn't a Haswell-or-newer onboard gpu from AMD or Intel that couldn't do 4K streaming at 24fps like I mentioned, so it really doesn't make any difference there.

[handymanshandle]

12 minutes ago, iop90 said:

The power draw of a dual 480X could be less than one R9 390 since it's using 14nm FinFET. Plus Crossfire scales much better than SLI. Bang for buck, with proper optimization, in terms of raw power, this is a better deal. But again, only benchmarks will tell us for sure.

150W*2=300W

The R9 390 by comparison drew about 275W. 

Though I suppose they almost never draw the TDP wattage.

Still CF/SLI support isn't always a thing. And true, I suppose CF does scale better. Single cards just seem like a better deal.

[Steel_Wind]

Depends on the game, but the FPS of a 390X over a 390 is about a 10-20% faster card.  (Not enough to merit the price premium over the 390, imo).

But if that's what a RX 480 will do? I'll take it and smile. The price performance boost over the current R9 380 (which is the price point of the RX 480) is massive.

I have 2 x R9 390s in my current system. Not sure I would upgrade those for  2 x RX 480s, but it is certainly making late 2017 looking like that might be a nice time to upgrade...

[iop90]

2 minutes ago, wcreek said:

150W*2=300W

The R9 390 by comparison drew about 275W. 

Though I suppose they almost never draw the TDP wattage.

Still CF/SLI support isn't always a thing. And true, I suppose CF does scale better. Single cards just seem like a better deal.

Usually I would be inclined to agree, but 14nm definitely changes things. At the very least buying one 480X now and waiting to buy another one later could be a nice "future proofing" strategy

[handymanshandle]

2 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

There isn't a Haswell-or-newer onboard gpu from AMD or Intel that couldn't do 4K streaming at 24fps like I mentioned, so it really doesn't make any difference there.

Well more specifically gaming, but like watching 4K content yeah. The desktop iGPUs of current AMD and Intel APUs/CPUs can handle that kinda thing.

[othertomperson]

1 minute ago, wcreek said:

Well more specifically gaming, but like watching 4K content yeah. The desktop iGPUs of current AMD and Intel APUs/CPUs can handle that kinda thing.

Easily. And that's why 4K TVs are so obscenely popular. It doesn't matter how easy it is to game on them when you can just turn the resolution down to 1080p and still enjoy the 4K content.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, iop90 said:

Usually I would be inclined to agree, but 14nm definitely changes things. At the very least buying one 480X now and waiting to buy another one later could be a nice "future proofing" strategy

Idk. I'm probably not going to be building until late summer or early fall anyways. Gives AMD plenty of time to have something that more properly competes with the GTX 1070 on a single card with out CF.

[iop90]

1 minute ago, wcreek said:

Idk. I'm probably not going to be building until late summer or early fall anyways. Gives AMD plenty of time to have something that more properly competes with the GTX 1070 on a single card with out CF.

Rumor has it that the RX 490/X will be better than or on par with 1070 and will release late 2016. So it could be awhile. AMD is definitely targeting the mid end for Summer/Fall 2016

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, othertomperson said:

Easily. And that's why 4K TVs are so obscenely popular. It doesn't matter how easy it is to game on them when you can just turn the resolution down to 1080p and still enjoy the 4K content.

Kind of makes me want to cringe when one doesn't utilize the resolution of their display but I suppose. Maybe that's why 1440p is being left out. Maybe these need to become things #No1440PLeftBehind #1440PLivesMatter

[vanished]

1 minute ago, wcreek said:

Kind of makes me want to cringe when one doesn't utilize the resolution of their display but I suppose. Maybe that's why 1440p is being left out. Maybe these need to become things #No1440PLeftBehind #1440PLivesMatter

usually me too but at least 1080p goes into 4K at a perfect 4:1.  It won't look perfect since afaik all cards and displays will still interpolate unnecessarily, but it's a lot better than, say, 1080p on a 1440p screen

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, iop90 said:

Rumor has it that the RX 490/X will be better than or on par with 1070 and will release late 2016. So it could be awhile. AMD is definitely targeting the mid end for Summer/Fall 2016

When I saw those benches for the GTX 1070, I was like noice it easily does 1440p and not going much lower than 60fps or constantly getting 60fps or higher at 1440p which I felt was a happier medium between 1080p and 4K. As it's easier to run at native res than 4K, but also higher PPI than 1080p.

[Steel_Wind]

2 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Idk. I'm probably not going to be building until late summer or early fall anyways. Gives AMD plenty of time to have something that more properly competes with the GTX 1070 on a single card with out CF.

I don't know why you wouldn't want to use CF. It is vastly superior tech to SLI and is comparatively trouble free. It is nothing to install, "it just works" (unless it doesn't.) 

But going forward with DX12? Yes, It just works. Period. That's why the Ashes of the Singularity demo was rolled out for the "kicks the ass of the 1080" part of the show.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

usually me too but at least 1080p goes into 4K at a perfect 4:1.  It won't look perfect since afaik all cards and displays will still interpolate unnecessarily, but it's a lot better than, say, 1080p on a 1440p screen

True, because 1080p is a nice step down or up from 4K. 1440p is a little weird but like I said it's easier to run at native res for gaming but it still gives you more pixels than 1080p.

[handymanshandle]

2 minutes ago, Steel_Wind said:

I don't know why you wouldn't want to use CF. It is vastly superior tech to SLI and is comparatively trouble free. It is nothing to install, "it just works" (unless it doesn't.) 

But going forward with DX12? Yes, It just works. Period. That's why the Ashes of the Singularity demo was rolled out for the "kicks the ass of the 1080" part of the show.

Not a lot of games really support DX12 yet. Sure newer games will or do support it. But again isn't support for CF kinda hit or miss? Of course it's easier because it's managed through the PCIe bridges and managed through software, where as SLI is managed through the SLI bridge, maybe even a bit of PCIe now and software which does cause some issue.

[Steel_Wind]

I predict 1440p will soon be a marooned resolution. We had 1440 because the video cards available were not capable of running 4K. That's the only reason we saw 1440p. 

Even still, 1440p has never really sold all that well, comes at a significant price premium, and the economies of scale in making 4K screens on the TV side will enjoy all of the same advantages that 1080p had in terms of fabrication. And we know how that manufacturing/tooling affected the marketplace for PC monitors. 

Well that's where it's all going -- and FAST, too.

I expect that within 18 months' time - you won't be able to buy a new 1440p monitor even if you wanted to. It's a dead-end resolution that never really caught on -- and now it won't.

[handymanshandle]

7 minutes ago, iop90 said:

Rumor has it that the RX 490/X will be better than or on par with 1070 and will release late 2016. So it could be awhile. AMD is definitely targeting the mid end for Summer/Fall 2016

Well I hope that's the case. I hope I can get something similar to or better than the GTX 1070 for a little bit less. 

 

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, Steel_Wind said:

I predict 1440p will soon be a marooned resolution. We had 1440 because the video cards available were not capable of running 4K. That's the only reason we saw 1440p. 

Even still, 1440p has never really sold all that well, comes at a significant price premium, and the economies of scale in making 4K screens will enjoy all of the same advantages that 1080p had. And we know how that pricing affected the marketplace. 

Well that's where it's all going -- and FAST, too.

I would be surprised if within 18 months' time - you won't be able to buy a new 1440p monitor even if you wanted to. It's a dead-end resolution that never really caught on -- and now it won't.

But hasn't every resolution ever stepped up slowly like that?  640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, 1152 x 864, 1280 x 960 (or x 1024), 1600 x 1200, 1680 x 1050, 1280 x 720, 1366 (or 1360) x 768 (the stupidest, most hated (by me) resolutions of all time btw), 1920 x 1080, 2560 x 1080, 2560 x 1440, 3840 x 1440, 2880 x 1620, 3840 x 2160, and so on (I hope I didn't mess that up going all from memory )

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, Steel_Wind said:

I predict 1440p will soon be a marooned resolution. We had 1440 because the video cards available were not capable of running 4K. That's the only reason we saw 1440p. 

Even still, 1440p has never really sold all that well, comes at a significant price premium, and the economies of scale in making 4K screens will enjoy all of the same advantages that 1080p had. And we know how that pricing affected the marketplace. 

Well that's where it's all going -- and FAST, too.

I would be surprised if within 18 months' time - you won't be able to buy a new 1440p monitor even if you wanted to. It's a dead-end resolution that never really caught on -- and now it won't.

4K (IPS) displays are still more expensive than 1440p (IPS) displays, though the 1070 does handle 4K pretty well, and the 1080 even better. I suppose it's kind of hard to call the GTX 1080 the 1070 of 4K gaming.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, wcreek said:

4K (IPS) displays are still more expensive than 1440p (IPS) displays, though the 1070 does handle 4K pretty well, and the 1080 even better. I suppose it's kind of hard to call the GTX 1080 the 1070 of 4K gaming.

If 4K (IPS) displays are about the same price as 1440p (IPS) displays in 18 months time, then I'll be damned. But that has about another $100 to $200 to go. So idk, I doubt it.

[Steel_Wind]

7 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

But hasn't every resolution ever stepped up slowly like that?  640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, 1152 x 864, 1280 x 960 (or x 1024), 1600 x 1200, 1680 x 1050, 1280 x 720, 1366 (or 1360) x 768 (the stupidest, most hated (by me) resolutions of all time btw), 1920 x 1080, 2560 x 1080, 2560 x 1440, 3840 x 1440, 2880 x 1620, 3840 x 2160, and so on (I hope I didn't mess that up going all from memory )

To an extent, yes. But I don't think you can really compare the experience in CRT technology. 1080p united TV screens and  PC monitors and provided a huge economy of scale in terms of fabrication. The drift to 1440p came at such a high price premium because it was departing from that fabrication process.

At this stage, if you have been to your local Best Buy, the supply of new models is all on the 4K side and there is little action on 1080p except on the budget end. This Xmas will be the last gasp of 1080p in terms of televisions. Xmas 2017 will all be 4K and the effect will ripple out to PC side as well.

And really, that's a A Good Thing ™  for all of us. Cheap ass, high quality 4K PC monitors will change our desktops.

And then the quest for high powered CF and SLI setups capable of running 3 x 4K Battlestations will be the new e-Peen.

La plus ca change...  

[hex4]

10 minutes ago, Steel_Wind said:

I predict 1440p will soon be a marooned resolution. We had 1440 because the video cards available were not capable of running 4K. That's the only reason we saw 1440p. 

Even still, 1440p has never really sold all that well, comes at a significant price premium, and the economies of scale in making 4K screens on the TV side will enjoy all of the same advantages that 1080p had in terms of fabrication. And we know how that manufacturing/tooling affected the marketplace for PC monitors. 

Well that's where it's all going -- and FAST, too.

I expect that within 18 months' time - you won't be able to buy a new 1440p monitor even if you wanted to. It's a dead-end resolution that never really caught on -- and now it won't.

1440P was around well before 4K was even a thing, 1600P too.

[rebane2001]

Hi guys, I currently have a R7 260x and I will have by birthday in December (which means I will get a bit of money) and I would like to upgrade

Would the RX 480 be the card for me?

[iop90]

2 minutes ago, rebane2001 said:

Hi guys, I currently have a R7 260x and I will have by birthday in December (which means I will get a bit of money) and I would like to upgrade

Would the RX 480 be the card for me?

I would say yes. Probably the best bang for buck and definitely an upgrade for you. Plus the power consumption will likely be less.