[Videocardz] First RX 480/470 3DMark Scores

[Briggsy]

http://videocardz.com/61005/new-amd-radeon-rx-480-3dmark-benchmarks

 

Videocardz.com has just released 3DMark results for the RX (Radeon eXperience) 480 and 470 that they claim are 100% legitimate. These results confirm the common belief that the 480 sits between the 390x and 980 at stock speeds (at least in synthetic benchmarks). Hopefully we will see some overclocked results in the near future, to see just how far the 480 can stretch it's legs.

 

Of note is that this is an 8GB RX 480 clocked at 1266/8000, at least according to Firestrike details.

 

Also of note is that the 470 vs. 480 scores (further down the page) put the 470 just behind the 480 by about 3.6% in crossfire and 10% in a single card run, which is fairly insane. The 480 is clocked at 1266Mhz and the 470 at 1206Mhz (according to 3DMark Details). This would suggest that the 470 is a cut down version of the 480 (now confirmed), and might be the real price/performance polaris card.

 

Quote

Today we share the first Fire Strike scores of Radeon RX 480. 

 

We are assuming that these are stock results (but bear in mind that it is PC Partner sample, which might be slightly factory-overclocked). We are working on obtaining overclocking scores, but it may take a while. Of course these are 100% legit scores, unlike some strange charts you saw on Chinese forums. Anyway, this puts RX 480 in between R9 390X and GTX 980. There are no Fire Strike Performance Preset scores yet (which could alter overall % figures a bit).

 

 

 

Quote

Bonus content: Radeon RX 470 vs RX 480 (+CrossFire)

 

Here are some new RX 480 benchmarks, and for the first time ever we are also including RX 470.

What I can tell you about RX 480 scores is that the lowest score we have seen so far is around 15520 points. The highest score we have seen is 18060, and it was posted in our previous story as ‘best-case scenario’. The average score is 16823.

 

Meanwhile RX 470, which I assume is codenamed 67DF:C4 has the lowest score of ~13100. The highest reported score is 16164. Based on our data, the average score of RX 470 is 13368.

As for CrossFire, either RX 470 has great scaling, or those results were performed with factory-overclocked sample.

 

Rx 470 vs. 480 3DMark11 Performance Preset

 

RX 470 vs. 480 Crossfire 3DMark11 Performance Preset

 

 

Quote

Lastly, here’s the highest RX 480 score we have seen so far in CrossFire. In this particular example, RX 480 CF has higher score than stock GTX 1080, 30611 Graphics Score.

 

 

 

[Clanscorpia]

Oooooo, I'm excitied. Can't wait to pick up 2 for myself

[Delicieuxz]

I hope other benchmarks will show these scores to be lower than normal. Otherwise, I don't see the Polaris lineup as graphics cards for this generation, but as graphics cards for the previous generation, since the best of them is less-performing than the non-ti GTX 900 series, which is now a finished gen. And AMD's stating that they think these cards will be good for 3 years? I certainly hope that game graphics will achieve more progress over the next 3 years than a GTX 980 could handle at 1080p, max settings.

 

Still, it's good performance-per-cost value.

[HKZeroFive]

GTX 980-ish performance with an excellent performance/watt efficiency - all for $200? 

 

Of course, you should always wait for credible gaming benchmarks, but this is amazing price/performance on AMD's part and a big win for consumers.

[RagnarokDel]

5 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I hope other benchmarks will show these scores to be lower than normal. Otherwise, I don't see the Polaris lineup as graphics cards for this generation, but as graphics cards for the previous generation, since the best of them is less-performing than the non-ti GTX 900 series, which is now a finished gen. And AMD's stating that they think these cards will be good for 3 years? How? I only see that as being the case if those 3 years are counted backwards from today.

 

I'm not impressed with that score.

The GTX 980 still retails for $500+ US.

[deviant88]

More inconsistent leaks, please show us some game benchmarks at 1080p/2k res.

[michaelocarroll007]

10 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I hope other benchmarks will show these scores to be lower than normal. Otherwise, I don't see the Polaris lineup as graphics cards for this generation, but as graphics cards for the previous generation, since the best of them is less-performing than the non-ti GTX 900 series, which is now a finished gen. And AMD's stating that they think these cards will be good for 3 years? How? I only see that as being the case if those 3 years are counted backwards from today.

 

I'm not impressed with that score.

This is not a High end Enthusiast Card these are not meant to Be faster then the last series high end cards per se. It is to offer a good value to performance since these 3 cards go from budget to mid end. AMD has held out and done the opposite of NVidia who only launched high end with middle and low to come out in the future AMD Will offer high end in the future aswell. right now thats good for both for the next couple months theres technically no competition bad for us Maybe but doesn't seem like that yet but we will see.

[HKZeroFive]

23 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I hope other benchmarks will show these scores to be lower than normal. Otherwise, I don't see the Polaris lineup as graphics cards for this generation, but as graphics cards for the previous generation, since the best of them is less-performing than the non-ti GTX 900 series, which is now a finished gen. And AMD's stating that they think these cards will be good for 3 years? How? I only see that as being the case if those 3 years are counted backwards from today.

 

I'm not impressed with that score.

You've completely missed the point. What AMD has done is offer the performance of what would have cost you $550 previously for a mere $200. The Polaris architecture was never meant to beat the cards of the previous generation but offer higher performance at a reasonable price for the masses of consumers. Essentially, AMD is raising the standard of PC gaming. NVIDIA is as well with Pascal but they ask for a bigger price tag for their cards and lack the price/performance AMD has.

 

The R9 290/X launched in 2013 and is still a very capable card that holds out extremely well. I don't see what you're getting at. Or perhaps a more accurate example would be the R9 270X - launched with a $199 price tag in 2013 and still performs great.

[Thony]

Im still waiting for Czechs (people living in Czech Republic) to release their promised benchmarks soon. There is a topic about it in tech news

 

Hopefully they keep the word and it would also be fun to see AMD's response since Czechs said they never signed a contract on NDA etc so they will do what they want.

[raphidy]

If it's cheap in Canada, might buy two of them, sell my 390 and fold like a mad man.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Wow the GTX 1070 is sooo worth the extra 100$ right there...and it support all the cool extra nvidia tech.

[Delicieuxz]

18 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

You've completely missed the point. What AMD has done is offer the performance of what would have cost you $550 previously for a mere $200. The Polaris architecture was never meant to beat the cards of the previous generation but offer higher performance at a reasonable price for the masses of consumers. Essentially, AMD is raising the standard of PC gaming. NVIDIA is as well but they ask for a bigger price tag for their cards and tend to lack the great price/performance AMD has.

 

The R9 290/X launched in 2013 and is still a very capable card that holds out extremely well. I don't see what you're getting at.

I'm upset that the rate of progress in graphics cards is so slow, not that the latest card can play new games on high... but that graphics tech has progressed so slowly that a 3-year-old card still holds out extremely well, and that the latest graphics cards make it cheap for people to play existing-graphics at high, rather than enabling game developers to push game graphics onward to a new standard in visual fidelity... while still being cheap for gamers.

 

I find it ridiculous that my R9 280x, which is based on 6 year old tech, is still competent to run modern gaming graphics at high settings. This slow rate of progress has never before occurred in graphics performance progression.

[captain cactus]

Actually, it means that the RX470 is actually an RX480 with some fewer stream processors and a lower clock, kinda like an R9-380 vs R9-380X. So instead of just dropping the X, they put it a tier below top-Polaris and call it a 470 instead.

 

I'm fairly certain that if RX470s become available and overclock nicely it'll outperform an RX480 at stock speeds, making me wonder why people would spend the already low price of $200 on an RX480 when they can get a custom RX470, overclock it and get better performance at an even lower price, aka an overclocked 470 being Vive/Rift-capable. It has the frame buffer, now it needs the raw performance, which it does seem to have if we have to believe these 3Dmark scores (which we should still take with a massive grain of salt but it's an early indication anyway).

[samcool55]

4 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Actually, it means that the RX470 is actually an RX480 with some fewer stream processors and a lower clock, kinda like an R9-380 vs R9-380X. So instead of just dropping the X, they put it a tier below top-Polaris and call it a 470 instead.

 

I'm fairly certain that if RX470s become available and overclock nicely it'll outperform an RX480 at stock speeds, making me wonder why people would spend the already low price of $200 on an RX480 when they can get a custom RX470, overclock it and get better performance at an even lower price, aka an overclocked 470 being Vive/Rift-capable. It has the frame buffer, now it needs the raw performance, which it does seem to have if we have to believe these 3Dmark scores (which we should still take with a massive grain of salt but it's an early indication anyway).

Well that's because the rx 480 will probably overclock the same as a rx 470 and the performane gap will widen again with that.

[i_build_nanosuits]

11 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I'm upset that the rate of progress in graphics cards is so slow, not that the latest card can play new games on high... but that graphics tech has progressed so slowly that a 3-year-old card still holds out extremely well, and that the latest graphics cards make it cheap for people to play existing-graphics at high, rather than enabling game developers to push game graphics onward to a new standard.

 

I find it ridiculous that my R9 280x, which is based on 6 year old tech, is still competent to run modern gaming graphics at high settings. This slow rate of progress has never before occurred in graphics performance progression.

The HD7970 was something special it was a very strong graphics card for it's time and a very nicely layed out very future proof scalable GPU architecture...And AMD was to use this gcn architecture through the next generations and this allowed the HD7950/7970/R9 280/280X GPU's to get an exceptional run in the grand scheme of things.

Like when the GTX 680 came out it was noticeably faster than the HD7970...go re-visit those now, the 7970/280X just slap bitch the 680 across the board...but since then AMD is slow at bringing true generationnal improvements...they just built bigger and more bad ass GCN parts...fiji being a what? 4096 stream processors or something? this ain't enough, it's not fast enough to force nvidia to pull out the big guns faster...if AMD does not come up with something strong enough to compete nvidia will milk that GP104 GPU all it can before they bring the GP102...when we all know GP102 or GP100 could easily drop before the end of the year...it will not, because AMD is not pushing hard enough and who can blame them with that kind of budget for R&D...

[HKZeroFive]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

Sure you do. I'm upset that the rate of progress in graphics cards is so slow, not that the latest card can play new games on high... but that graphics tech has progressed so slowly that a 3-year-old card still holds out extremely well, and that the latest graphics cards make it cheap for people to play existing-graphics at high, rather than enabling game developers to push game graphics onward to a new standard.

 

I find it ridiculous that my R9 280x, which is based on 6 year old tech, is still competent to run modern gaming graphics at high settings. This slow rate of progress has never before occurred in graphics performance progression.

So you're blaming GPUs for not being powerful enough to push game developers out of their own incompetence to make better games? That's a ridiculous argument - have you seen MGSV? Have you seen Crysis 3? Have you seen Battlefield 1? All visually remarkable games yet still within the graphical limitations of modern GPUs. If a game looks mediocre, blame the developers for not pushing it or doing it in the first place. Not the tech.

 

If anything, giving people the ability to play at high settings for such a low price is a good thing. How is that in any shape or form bad?

 

Going from GTX 960 performance to GTX 980 performance is no small thing buddy. I seriously don't see what's wrong with a GPU that can last for years, instead of having to buy new ones each time because they suddenly become incapable of running the latest games. Not everybody is loaded with cash you know.

[Castdeath97]

13 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Wow the GTX 1070 is sooo worth the extra 100$ right there...and it support all the cool extra nvidia tech.

179* or 149* for the 8GB version.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Castdeath97 said:

179* or 149* for the 8GB version.

you really think a nice cooled well built aftermarket RX 480 will be 199$?!

no, a sapphire nitro for example will probably be more like 249$...and there will soon be 3rd party GTX 1070 that will go for around 359$ to 379$...it's well worth the extra investment at this point to get a MUCH better graphics card IMHO.

[samcool55]

Announced yesterday, benchmarks leaked today, suuure... It didn't even had a cooler when they announced it so i don't even think there are ready-to-go samples of it.

 

edit: i'm taking about the rx 470 here.

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Announced yesterday, benchmarks leaked today, suuure... It didn't even had a cooler when they announced it so i don't even think there are ready-to-go samples of it.

it was announced a while ago...this arcticle for example date from May 31st...so over 2 weeks ago mate!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10389/amd-teases-radeon-rx-480-launching-june-29th-for-199

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

you really think a nice cooled well built aftermarket RX 480 will be 199$?!

no, a sapphire nitro for example will probably be more like 249$...and there will soon be 3rd party GTX 1070 that will go for around 359$ to 379$...it's well worth the extra investment at this point to get a MUCH better graphics card IMHO.

 

Where would you find a 1070 that's $379 which isn't shitty? 

 

You'd be paying alot more for a custom pcb design and an aftermarket cooler. And that will be more than the suggested MSRP. 

[HKZeroFive]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

you really think a nice cooled well built aftermarket RX 480 will be 199$?!

no, a sapphire nitro for example will probably be more like 249$...and there will soon be 3rd party GTX 1070 that will go for around 359$ to 379$...it's well worth the extra investment at this point to get a MUCH better graphics card IMHO.

Seriously doubt there's going to be an aftermarket GTX 1070 for $359 when no aftermarket model so far even comes close to that $379 MSRP.

[Castdeath97]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

you really think a nice cooled well built aftermarket RX 480 will be 199$?!

no, a sapphire nitro for example will probably be more like 249$...and there will soon be 3rd party GTX 1070 that will go for around 359$ to 379$...it's well worth the extra investment at this point to get a MUCH better graphics card IMHO.

You also expect a nice cooled 1070 for 379 dollars? You will probably be run something like 400 dollars, we are seeing a lot of blower coolers for the 379 price point.

 

Plus assuming these results are representative we are getting 24.82 points per dollar from the RX 480 compared to 21.97 points per dollar from the GTX 1070.

[Castdeath97]

8 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

 

Where would you find a 1070 that's $379 which isn't shitty? 

 

You'd be paying alot more for a custom pcb design and an aftermarket cooler. And that will be more than the suggested MSRP. 

Let's not forget that the RX 480 has a lower TDP, I don't think it will need a cooler as good as the 1070 needs.

 

Edit: Okay they seem to be at the same TDP so I pull my statement back.

[don_svetlio]

22 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I'm upset that the rate of progress in graphics cards is so slow, not that the latest card can play new games on high... but that graphics tech has progressed so slowly that a 3-year-old card still holds out extremely well, and that the latest graphics cards make it cheap for people to play existing-graphics at high, rather than enabling game developers to push game graphics onward to a new standard in visual fidelity... while still being cheap for gamers.

 

I find it ridiculous that my R9 280x, which is based on 6 year old tech, is still competent to run modern gaming graphics at high settings. This slow rate of progress has never before occurred in graphics performance progression.

6 years? How'd you get a 280X 2 years before it was invented? 7970/280X came out in 2012 friend