AMD Radeon RX 480

[othertomperson]

1 minute ago, iop90 said:

It may be wishful thinking, but what if multi-GPU is the new multi-core CPU

I don't think it's wishful thinking, I think it's kind of inevitable. Nvidia can keep designing huge GPUs like GP100 and putting them in $10,000 Tesla cards for as long as they like. AMD can't. For AMD to produce something like the Fury X and deal with the low yields, that's going to hurt them. It is in AMD's interest to leverage their clout with the consoles to favour more, smaller GPUs with much higher yields than to keep trying to go after Nvidia's performance in the single, big chips.

[byalexandr]

Everyone contact AMD or the AIB partners to make a short version.

 

I NEED ONE FOR MY RIG.

[handymanshandle]

5 minutes ago, hex4 said:

Please tell everyone here how this is REALLY LOW END?

Do you game at 4K or something? for 1080P the 480 will be a serious pixel cruncher.

This is low end, considering that 1440p and 4K are starting to become more common, I mean yeah for a lot of people the RX 480 is a great card. But that's because it's similar to performance to last gen's 1080p monsters at a reduced price. So yeah calling this low-end is fitting.

7 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

I'm being neither. I just find it hard to get excited over really low end stuff for this reason. It's just last generations's performance, but down a price point. That's all the 1060 will be too.

I was kinda hoping more from Polaris, I knew that the baseline was suppose to be okay. But I mean yeah it's good for low budgets. But for the hopeful PC builders trying to get something that's like the mid end of gaming PCs that can do 1440p high to ultra settings at a solid 60fps it's kinda disappointing. I mean maybe I'm being too pessimistic about this. It's just that we know how well the GTX 1070 performs and also I'm starting to like the ACX 3.0 cooler from EVGA.

4 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

 I'm sure the 490 and 490X are coming, and they are quite exciting.

If they're coming before October that's good, but I should hopefully be building some time early fall or late summer. (In all likelihood probably early fall.) 

[hex4]

3 minutes ago, wcreek said:

This is low end, considering that 1440p and 4K are starting to become more common, I mean yeah for a lot of people the RX 480 is a great card. But that's because it's similar to performance to last gen's 1080p monsters at a reduced price. So yeah calling this low-end is fitting.

I was kinda hoping more from Polaris, I knew that the baseline was suppose to be okay. But I mean yeah it's good for low budgets. But for the hopeful PC builders trying to get something that's like the mid end of gaming PCs that can do 1440p high to ultra settings at a solid 60fps it's kinda disappointing. I mean maybe I'm being too pessimistic about this. It's just that we know how well the GTX 1070 performs and also I'm starting to like the ACX 3.0 cooler from EVGA.

If they're coming before October that's good, but I should hopefully be building some time early fall or late summer. (In all likelihood probably early fall.) 

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

[handymanshandle]

2 minutes ago, byalexandr said:

Everyone contact AMD or the AIB partners to make a short version.

 

I NEED ONE FOR MY RIG.

Maybe I should just say screw 1440p and get a Dell U2414H or something like that and get an RX 480. Saves me a bit of money but I mean 1440p though. Ugh. Everything catered to those on super low budgets or those with Royal Saudi Prince amounts of money. Like I mean I'd like to think that an i5 6600K is pretty middle of the road when it comes to Intel's current CPUs for desktops. I mean sure it is higher end but it's lower than an i7 6700K or the Haswell-E stuff, which I mean arguably is a different species. But still technically comparable.

[hex4]

Surprisingly 4K is almost the same adoption number as 1080P on Steam yet 1440P is 1.5% lol.

[Big-G]

I can smell the fanboyism in this thread...

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, hex4 said:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Yes I know 1080p is still very common among Steam users that take part of the Steam HW survey. But a lot of them already have a GPU that can handle whatever they want to play at 1080p. Now I mean sure there are cases where that's a different story and their GPU is struggling to run 1080p. But that doesn't mean they'd be able to spend $200 on a GPU. Though I suppose it makes it more obtainable to them.

[byalexandr]

5 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Maybe I should just say screw 1440p and get a Dell U2414H or something like that and get an RX 480. Saves me a bit of money but I mean 1440p though. Ugh. Everything catered to those on super low budgets or those with Royal Saudi Prince amounts of money. Like I mean I'd like to think that an i5 6600K is pretty middle of the road when it comes to Intel's current CPUs for desktops. I mean sure it is higher end but it's lower than an i7 6700K or the Haswell-E stuff, which I mean arguably is a different species. But still technically comparable.

I'm more than certain it can handle 1440p.

[iop90]

1 minute ago, GidonsClaw said:

I can smell the fanboyism in this thread...

Everyone wants AMD to succeed, because then Nvidia will have more competition, which is good for everyone. Just this announcement may cause Nvidia to lower their prices. Competition is the bedrock of capitalism and drives innovation

[hex4]

2 minutes ago, GidonsClaw said:

I can smell the fanboyism in this thread...

I'm optimistic and open to new stuff no matter what brand, you should have seen the hype i made for the GTX 1080.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, byalexandr said:

I'm more than certain it can handle 1440p.

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. 

[Steel_Wind]

29 minutes ago, Chandres said:

Leaks say that 2 of them in Crossfire = 1080 http://videocardz.com/60253/amd-radeon-r9-480-3dmark11-benchmarks

In fairness, that test was in Ashes of the Singularity under DX12. But yes, Radeons are absolutely kick-ass in DX12.

DX12 is the 1200 lb Gorilla lurking offstage. That ugly bit of truth (well, ugly from Team Green's perspective) is that AMD seems extremely well positioned, driver wise, to take advantage of DX12, especially when it comes to multi-GPU scaling. Making the GPUs for the current console generation has not hurt them there, at all.

 

Will we see devs code for DX12 and take advantage of it? Well, that, in part, was one of the things that this free upgrade to Windows 10 was all about; one of those things was aimed at broadening the installed user base of DX12.

So we'll see. It's looking good though, you got to admit.

[iop90]

1 minute 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. 

Dual 480X will be able to beat 1070 performance significantly and is only $50 more. I was considering trading in my R9 290 for the 1070 for VR but I may consider dual 480Xs now. Benchmarks will give us a better idea of what we're getting into

[handymanshandle]

3 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. 

Also it'll depend on how much more the RX 480 will cost with the 8GB of Vram. So idk. Right now that GTX 1070 is looking very attractive. Maybe June 29th will change my mind. Because maybe we'll get some more cards that come closer to R9 Fury/R9 Fury X Performance. Or maybe more so GTX 1070 performance. But with the way it sounds, it sounds that it'll be like at the earliest October.

[Steel_Wind]

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.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, iop90 said:

Dual 480X will be able to beat 1070 performance significantly and is only $50 more. I was considering trading in my R9 290 for the 1070 for VR but I may consider dual 480Xs now. Benchmarks will give us a better idea of what we're getting into

Yeah but that draws more power, and two card set ups have been notorious for having issues with stuttering and scaling issues and some games out right don't even support it. Two 390s could probably be the GTX 1070 too.

[othertomperson]

13 minutes ago, hex4 said:

Surprisingly 4K is almost the same adoption number as 1080P on Steam yet 1440P is 1.5% lol.

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. Not to mention the fact that if you're in the market for a TV it's barely worth going for 1080p anymore, a very good 4K TV only costs around £400.

[iop90]

1 minute ago, wcreek said:

Yeah but that draws more power, and two card set ups have been notorious for having issues with stuttering and scaling issues and some games out right don't even support it. Two 390s could probably be the GTX 1070 too.

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.

[Steel_Wind]

3 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Also it'll depend on how much more the RX 480 will cost with the 8GB of Vram. 

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

[hex4]

2 minutes ago, wcreek said:

Yeah but that draws more power, and two card set ups have been notorious for having issues with stuttering and scaling issues and some games out right don't even support it. Two 390s could probably be the GTX 1070 too.

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?

[othertomperson]

2 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 should be better than Pascal efficiency. It's a smaller manufacturing process and a much lower tier product as well o.0

 

Edit: wait are you referring to two of them? Because that would explain that.

[hex4]

1 minute ago, othertomperson said:

It should be better than Pascal efficiency. It's a smaller manufacturing process and a much lower tier product as well o.0

I meant 480 CF vs say a GTX 1080.

[othertomperson]

Just now, hex4 said:

I meant 480 CF vs say a GTX 1080.

Right.

[Steel_Wind]

27 minutes ago, wcreek said:

This is low end, considering that 1440p and 4K are starting to become more common, I mean yeah for a lot of people the RX 480 is a great card. But that's because it's similar to performance to last gen's 1080p monsters at a reduced price. So yeah calling this low-end is fitting.

Given that one RX 480 blows away the performance of about 99% of all PCs, and more than 94%+ of the so-called "gaming PCs" in the marketplace based on Steam's data from March 2016, calling this a low-end card is a cup of bitter Green Tea. 

If it delivers 390x performance for $199? What it is, my friend, is the default video card for a gaming PC. Money talks VERY loudly. When you hit price/performance that squarely in the bullseye? The marketplace changes.