AMD Hints that rx 480 has gtx 980/r9 nano Level Performance

[Flavlus]

On 6/10/2016 at 8:58 AM, DocSwag said:

Yup, that says that the rx 480 will deliver VR capability common in 500 dollar GPUs. what are the current 500 dollar GPUs? The gtx 980 and the r9 nano.

Just putting it out there that the rx480 is meant to compete with the 1060 ... not the 1070. So saying that it has 980 performance isn't saying a lot as the 1070 smashes the 980, so for this to match it i think it on point. In fact if the rx480 dosnt match the 980 then i think i wont do well as the 1060 will match it and probably be priced around $250 looking at the 10XX trend.

[Prysin]

15 hours ago, Trixanity said:

How do you determine if a game is neutral?

especially when the game he linked is a AMD title.

[AlanAlan]

On June 9, 2016 at 1:58 PM, DocSwag said:

I don't have a website source for this.... However, I did get an email from AMD regarding the stuff they talked about at Computex. And this was one part of that email:

Or if you want the original without formatting removed:

The most interesting part that I saw was this:

Yup, that says that the rx 480 will deliver VR capability common in 500 dollar GPUs. what are the current 500 dollar GPUs? The gtx 980 and the r9 nano. Of course, this could possibly be an exaggeration, since AMD could have either used Ashes of the Singularity for their results (and in ashes the 980 performs a little lower than the r9 390) or perhaps Polaris has some extra VR features that make it a lot more powerful in VR (like the 1080). However, I doubt that they did it with Ashes, since then Polaris would be lower than the 390 in performance and we are all pretty sure the 480 is better than the 390. This means that either the 480 is about as powerful as the nano or it is very good at VR, both of which are good for us. I personally doubt it will reach all the way up to the nano, but if it is between the 390x and the nano (so around the 980) that would be great! I'm hoping the 480 does turn out to be around the 390x or even a little more powerful than that. That could perhaps even give the 1070 a little competition, as dual 480s would be just a little more than the 1070 and if a 480 is around a 390x it would very likely perform considerably better.

Are you going to get an rx480?

[Prysin]

15 hours ago, Enderman said:

its neutral if it lines up with 90% of the other games

 

for example, if the 980ti overclocked performs a few % better than a stock fury X in almost every game, except for game X, then game X wouldnt be considered neutral, and is either biased to one side or the other

 

so you base a purchasing decision based on how a product will almost always perform, not based on how it performs in 10% of games

(unless that 15% is all you play)

what if the majority of other games just so happens to be sponsored by the maker of 980Ti, and that the Fury X is basically playing "catch up" with the features of the other manufacturers effect liberary?

 

Fact is, most benchmarks that reviewers use are "The way it's meant to be played" titles. As for "AMD" titles, we have just a few.

 

Nvidia Titles commonly used or seen in game benchmarking videos/articles:
Fallout 4  (Heavily relies on tesselation for certain effects)

Project Cars  (Heavily relies on tesselation for certain effects)

Rise of the Tomb Raider (The Lighting system introduced by Nvidia Gameworks uses Async Compute in this game)

The Witcher 3   (Heavily relies on tesselation for certain effects)

GTA V

Just Cause 3

Batman games

Metro Last Light

Arma 3   (shoddy coded. Runs like ass on all hardware)

Far Cry 4 (although this game, whilst having the same gameworks effects as other Nvidia titles prefers AMDs GCN cards for some odd reason)

Far Cry Primal

Bioshock Infinite

All Unreal Engine 3 and Unreal Engine 4 titles.

Crysis 2 (Heavily relies on tesselation for certain effects)

Crysis 3 (Heavily relies on tesselation for certain effects)

 

 

AMD Titles commonly used or seen in game benchmarking videos/articles:

Battlefield 4

Thief

Ashes of the Singularity (Heavily utilizing Async Compute)

Hitman (Has some Async Compute. It is not certain to what extent)

Tomb Raider (2013)  (Uses AMDs open source TressFX hair physics engine. Initially caused issues for GTX cards. It has since been patched to work fine on Nvidia hardware)

 

 

So when looking at it more realistically. because so many titles which is COMMONLY USED are potentially skewed towards vendor A. We cannot claim that any of these "majority of titles" are not biased.

 

Neither you or i have the source code. And not even the devs are 100% likely to know if any of the used Nvidia effects, compilers or liberaries are hurting AMD performance. The same goes the other way around for Nvidia cards in AMD games.

 

What we do know, as a fact, is that GCN is bad at tesselation. Nvidia is good at tesselation. Nvidia sponsored titles tend to use MORE tesselation rather then bump-maps or parrallax mapping.

We know that GCN is a beast at async compute due to its in-hardware scheduler. We know that maxwell is shit at compute, because it was designed almost exclusively for 3D Graphics workloads rather then compute.

We know that a few of the latest games feature Async compute, and that in some titles it make a bigger difference then others.

[Briggsy]

6 hours ago, Flavlus said:

Just putting it out there that the rx480 is meant to compete with the 1060 ... not the 1070. So saying that it has 980 performance isn't saying a lot as the 1070 smashes the 980, so for this to match it i think it on point. In fact if the rx480 dosnt match the 980 then i think i wont do well as the 1060 will match it and probably be priced around $250 looking at the 10XX trend.

Not to mention that AMD are talking about VR when they talk about dollar performance. 

 

From the OP: "Available on June 29th at a stunning starting price of just $199, the Radeon™ RX 480 will deliver VR capability common in $500 GPUs."

 

I wonder what that capability is, and what GPU's they are referrring to. Even the 290x at launch had an MSRP of $550, and since we are taking this from AMD marketing, I wouldn't put it past them to be talking about launch MSRP when they say "$500 GPUs." 

 

I'm just speculating on that last bit, but over the years I've learned to read between the lines with AMD Marketing stuff. I'd be willing to bet they are indeed referring to 290x VR capability.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Briggsy said:

Not to mention that AMD are talking about VR when they talk about dollar performance. 

 

From the OP: "Available on June 29th at a stunning starting price of just $199, the Radeon™ RX 480 will deliver VR capability common in $500 GPUs."

 

I wonder what that capability is, and what GPU's they are referrring to. Even the 290x at launch had an MSRP of $550, and since we are taking this from AMD marketing, I wouldn't put it past them to be talking about launch MSRP when they say "$500 GPUs." 

 

I'm just speculating on that last bit, but over the years I've learned to read between the lines with AMD Marketing stuff.

i hope you arent such a naive fanboy that you think Intel or Nvidia or Samsung or Apple or Qualcomm marketing is any more "sincere"

[Briggsy]

9 minutes ago, Prysin said:

i hope you arent such a naive fanboy that you think Intel or Nvidia or Samsung or Apple or Qualcomm marketing is any more "sincere"

Even though I've bought 2x 290's, a FuryX and a 390, Some APU's and other crap in the past few years (multiple PC's), that doesn't mean I'm an AMD fanboy. I buy from all three vendors fairly equally.

 

I'm simply calling out the subtle BS in AMD's marketing, which is that the $500 dollar performance is in relation to VR, and probably comparing to a 290x of all cards, because comparing launch MSRP is something I wouldn't put past them.

[Prysin]

5 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Even though I've bought 2x 290's, a FuryX and a 390, Some APU's and other crap in the past few years (multiple PC's), that doesn't mean I'm an AMD fanboy. I buy from all three vendors fairly equally.

 

I'm simply calling out the subtle BS in AMD's marketing, which is that the $500 dollar performance is in relation to VR, and probably comparing to a 290x of all cards, because comparing launch MSRP is something I wouldn't put past them.

they are probably comparing it to their own existing products. As that is the only thing that makes sense with the estimated performance we have seen floating around.

[DocSwag]

21 hours ago, Enderman said:

Oh, but my point is that most games perform well on both AMD an nvidia

its just that AOTS and heaven stand out for performing much better on one or the other

and its better to use neutral benchmarks to get an idea of relative performance

 

there is no reason to compare cards using small cases like AOTS or heaven

there is no reason for a game to use excessive tessellation to perform better on nvidia, or excessive async compute to perform better on AMD

 

hitman is a good DX12 game which doesnt do either of those things, giving a good idea of performance with no bias to either side

and as expected, a overlocked 980ti performs slightly better than a fury X at stock

 

this is an example of a good game, that is not unrealistically hurting either AMD or nvidia

 

Bruh, that's not the fury X right behind the 980 ti; that's an r9 fury.

So a fury X would be a few percent faster than a 980 ti in Hitman.

[xAcid9]

"Leaked" Firestrike Ultra benchmark for the RX480.

 

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

"Leaked" Firestrike Ultra benchmark for the RX480.

*snip*

 

That would put it a little over 980, right? That would be pretty killer for $230 for the 8GB or $200 for the 4GB.

[xAcid9]

2 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

That would put it a little over 980, right? That would be pretty killer for $230 for the 8GB or $200 for the 4GB.

Yes, similar FSU performance to aftermarket 980. Some price leaked show that the 8GB Nitro will cost around 250-280 euro so US price probably around that.

[SteveGrabowski0]

10 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Yes, similar FSU performance to aftermarket 980. Some price leaked show that the 8GB Nitro will cost around 250-280 euro so US price probably around that.

Wasn't 8GB reference officially announced at $229 US? I thought I read that somewhere. If it sells for $280 US that's getting a little close to 1070 MSRP. It could be worth it if it maintains the great DX12 performance we saw out of Hawaii though. 

[xAcid9]

19 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Wasn't 8GB reference officially announced at $229 US? I thought I read that somewhere. If it sells for $280 US that's getting a little close to 1070 MSRP. It could be worth it if it maintains the great DX12 performance we saw out of Hawaii though. 

Sorry I meant EU pricing include VAT and shits so US price probably around $230-$240.

 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4nfwmn/rx_480_european_price_without_vat_etc/

 

 

I wonder what LITE mean.



Also there's a Czech site claiming they will get their 480s next week and they sign no NDA with AMD so expect early review.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4nmaa7/a_czech_website_is_claiming_to_be_releasing/

[Briggsy]

1 hour ago, xAcid9 said:

"Leaked" Firestrike Ultra benchmark for the RX480.

 

 

 

Not sure how them using a 6 core intel cpu would effect the 480 graphic score (if at all), but I ran firestrike ultra with overclocked 390 at 1175/1650 and i7 4790K just to get an idea, and it looks like the stock 480 is a bit ahead still. Not bad considering half the power draw and lower price.

 

[handymanshandle]

On 6/9/2016 at 3:08 PM, Minibois said:

AMD is like "ayy GPU market, let me fuck yo shit up fam"

and I like how you said "Or if you want the original without formatting removed:", while both pictures still had the formatting on it (aka, white background on dark theme)

The RX 480 was only made for those 1080p gamers and those who are fine with medium to high settings at 1440p or those interested for VR. Which is a large portion of the market. I guess I'm a bit of a niché because I was hoping for AMD to have something (Not necessarily the RX 480) that could perform similarly (trading blows with) the GTX 1070 and cost within a reasonable ∆ lower or higher and performance corresponding accordingly.

[xAcid9]

35 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

 

Not sure how them using a 6 core intel cpu would effect the 480 graphic score (if at all), but I ran firestrike ultra with overclocked 390 at 1175/1650 and i7 4790K just to get an idea, and it looks like the stock 480 is a bit ahead still. Not bad considering half the power draw and lower price.

 

-snip-

Not much i guess, this is my 290x at 1125/1500

 

Worth noting that the RX-480 FSU test ran at 1080mhz core clock instead of 1266mhz. The poster mentioned some driver/BIOS bug with his card.

If you check his score page you will notice the GPU temperature is <50c, he mentioned when the card ran at 1080mhz the temperature was around 40c-50c and when he clock it to 1266mhz the temperature goes up to 70c.

[Delicieuxz]

How much does 3DMark benefit from async? I'd like to know the Rx 480's straight DX11 performance.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, xAcid9 said:

Not much i guess, this is my 290x at 1125/1500

What's the stock-value score of your R9 290x?

[xAcid9]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

How much does 3DMark benefit from async? I'd like to know the Rx 480's straight DX11 performance.

Zero.

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

What's the stock-value score of your R9 290x?

2786

[Delicieuxz]

So, the 3268 FSU score for the claimed RX 480 was down-clocked by 186 Mhz, or 14.6% of its total clock speed. And with aftermarket cards having higher clocks still... speculated performance for the RX 480 looks to be pretty decent.

 

Some reference GTX 1080 FSU benchmark scores are 4998, 5142...

 

Also, regarding the person saying that the RX 480 they benchmarked was bugged, and had to be down-clocked, I wonder if that issue is the same reason why AMD's 2x 480 demo setup was running at jut 51% utilization.

[DAL1189]

If it does have this level of performance, then that is going to kill Nvidia.

[3DOSH]

 

Am I the only one who noticed that it says AMD Radeon Rage.  Could this be different SKU of the same card that is overclocked alot higher? 

[xAcid9]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Also, regarding the person saying that the RX 480 they benchmarked was bugged, and had to be down-clocked, I wonder if that issue is the same reason why AMD's 2x 480 demo setup was running at jut 51% utilization.

Nah, 51% GPU utilization is just misleading graph from AMD.

1 hour ago, 3DOSH said:

-snip-

Am I the only one who noticed that it says AMD Radeon Rage.  Could this be different SKU of the same card that is overclocked alot higher? 

Doubt that since the other guy received the same card but clocked at 1,227mhz.

[Rodinski]

What's with the "VR" talk?  Isn't it no different in rendering than any other way?