R9 470 to be only 5% slower than the 970

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Also a significantly better choice. Anyone buying a 980 right now would be brain damaged considering a 390X or possibly the RX 480 are better options

480 supposedly beats a Fury so.

[Dackzy]

13 hours ago, Energycore said:

The whole xx9.99 is a weird paradigm in marketing that I'd rather went away. I'm more likely to remember a product's price when it says 150 than when it says 149.99

That is because our brain will think that 149.99 is a better price than 150$, it is a way of making things seem cheaper.

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

480 supposedly beats a Fury so.

I certainly hope it's true ^^ Even if it beats only the 980, still awesome considering it'll be much more futureproof for less money, and the 470 with R9 290-like performance for 150$...

[Dinkleberg]

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

After 5 years of the 7970 -> 280x -> 380x being around the same performance for each, it's long overdue to see things move on from the longest lull in generational graphics performance gains we've ever seen.

It should be noted that you're going a tier down each generation, the HD 7970 was the flagship, the 280X had the 290 series that was better than it, while the 380X had the Fury's and the 390 series ahead of it.

[Dackzy]

9 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

*cough* ubisoft *cough*

 

"We don't really care about efficiency on PC since if it doesn't run well, you can just buy a bigger GPU"

Ubisoft is starting to be nicer to the PC platform, after all the shit they have done in the last couple of years.

[Dackzy]

9 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

The RX 470 is barely a touch more performing than an R9 280X OC, which is what I have. My card can run most things on a mix of high/medium settings at 1920x1200, so I wouldn't recommend a 470 to anyone that wants to play max settings at 1080p in AAA games.

Keep telling yourself that, the 470 is leaked to have about gtx 970 performance (with alpha drivers) aka 390, so that is a upgrade from a 280x.

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

Keep telling yourself that, the 470 is leaked to have about gtx 970 performance (with alpha drivers) aka 390, so that is a upgrade from a 280x.

of over 40%

[Dackzy]

15 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I certainly hope it's true ^^ Even if it beats only the 980, still awesome considering it'll be much more futureproof for less money, and the 470 with R9 290-like performance for 150$...

Well you see the benchmarks we have right now are with alpha drivers or something like that, so the performance will only go up. This means that right now it is performing like a 980 or so, but in the future it could perform like a fury or even a little better.

[Morgan MLGman]

5 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

Well you see the benchmarks we have right now are with alpha drivers or something like that, so the performance will only go up. This means that right now it is performing like a 980 or so, but in the future it could perform like a fury or even a little better.

I've seen benches when an overclocked RX 480 to 1400mhz+ beat a stock Fury X... Not sure if they're legit though, it doesn't seem real.

[patrickjp93]

10 hours ago, Starelementpoke said:

490x is suppose to be 1070, 1080 competition. And was it every actually confirmed whether there was foul play or not? Aside from AOTS being more AMD GPU friendly, I was under the impression that AOTS' procedural generation was still under scrutiny on whether or not it was the cause of the differences. Was there actually photo evidence of them using an Alpha driver for the 1080? Not that I doubt you, just missed a part of the whole fiasco.

Yes there's evidence. Nvidia drivers post-retail-launch fixed the snow problems, but AMD has broken shadow rendering too. It's still foul play. If you pay attention to canyons and rock formations, you can see Nvidia having a lot of shadow depth whereas AMD really doesn't.

[juretrn]

I think the stated MSRP for the 480 is about as realistic as the 1080 one. 

[patrickjp93]

11 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

Well you see the benchmarks we have right now are with alpha drivers or something like that, so the performance will only go up. This means that right now it is performing like a 980 or so, but in the future it could perform like a fury or even a little better.

Alpha drivers that don't correctly render shadows for AMD. There's some room to fall too.

[patrickjp93]

58 minutes ago, Notional said:

TBF Ubisoft has scrapped GameWorks, so now their games will actually be able to run above 30fps. Furthermore, they have adopted DX12 (afaik), that their games won't be drawcall limited like Watch Dogs and AC:U. Also GPUOpen means effects that can actually run well, on everything. 

 

That is a nice slogan. They must have gotten that as part of their GameWorks contract. At least that is how NVidia has behaved with GameWorks *cough* Kepler *cough* 

 

---

 

At that price and TDP, it's damn impressive. And it won't cost as much as a chinese child's kidney #Pascalischeap.

If you really think AMD isn't rigging the effects in GPUOpen, you're crazy. Everything will depend on ludicrous amounts of unnecessary Asynchronous Compute and Shading.

[Notional]

3 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

If you really think AMD isn't rigging the effects in GPUOpen, you're crazy. Everything will depend on ludicrous amounts of unnecessary Asynchronous Compute and Shading.

Considering they are open source and the devs can change whatever they can I would say absolutely not. PureHair, the result of TressFX 3+ in GPUOpen, used in Rise of the Tomb Raider proves my point. No performance penalty on NVidia at all. In fact Purehair used less performance than HBAO+.

[Dackzy]

11 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I've seen benches when an overclocked RX 480 to 1400mhz+ beat a stock Fury X... Not sure if they're legit though, it doesn't seem real.

Oh that can be true, AMD usually have a very good MHz OC to FPS ratio, unlike Nvidia.

 

[Delicieuxz]

26 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

Keep telling yourself that, the 470 is leaked to have about gtx 970 performance (with alpha drivers) aka 390, so that is a upgrade from a 280x.

24 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

of over 40%

 

My comment which you're responding to is based off the this chart from the OP:

11 hours ago, TheAmazingCookieFromSquare said:

 

... in which the RX 470 at 9090 does not have a 40% better score than an R9 280x at 7324 ... and I specifically mentioned my R9 280x OC, and not a regular R9 280x.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

My comment which you're responding to is based off the this chart from the OP:

 

... in which the RX 470 at 9090 does not have a 40% better score than an R9 280x at 7324 ... and I specifically mentioned my R9 280x OC, and not a regular R9 280x.

Erm, you do notice that it's still a pretty significant difference. Not to mention the 280X uses 2x the power and outputs more heat as a result

[Dackzy]

3 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

My comment which you're responding to is based off the this chart from the OP:

 

... in which the RX 470 at 9090 does not have a 40% better score than an R9 280x at 7324 ... and I specifically mentioned my R9 280x OC, and not a regular R9 280x.

First of I did not say 40%. The 470 is about 25% faster than the 280x with god damn alpha drivers, so that number should only get higher and the 280x also uses alot more power.

 

So 25% higher performance is a minor upgrade? Nah m8, that is a pretty good/huge upgrade.

[Misanthrope]

Interesting dilema I have here: the 470 is the best for 1080p but the 480 can virtually always max out 1080p and average 60fps. 

 

What to choose... 

[Dackzy]

2 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

First of I did not say 40%. The 470 is about 25% faster than the 280x with god damn alpha drivers, so that number should only get higher and the 280x also uses alot more power.

 

So 25% higher performance is a minor upgrade? Nah m8, that is a pretty good/huge upgrade.

Oh and that 3D firestrike really says almost jack shit about game performance.

[Dackzy]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Interesting dilema I have here: the 470 is the best for 1080p but the 480 can virtually always max out 1080p and average 60fps. 

 

What to choose... 

Wait for benchmarks REAL benchmarks from games. I would get the best I could afford if I was you.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

Wait for benchmarks REAL benchmarks from games. I would get the best I could afford if I was you.

Best I can afford is a gtx 1080 actually. But seems overkill somewhat. 

[Dackzy]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Best I can afford is a gtx 1080 actually. But seems overkill somewhat. 

oh yeah it is for 1080p  man the RX480 8gb version seems like a really nice card.

[Delicieuxz]

15 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Erm, you do notice that it's still a pretty significant difference. Not to mention the 280X uses 2x the power and outputs more heat as a result

Sure, and those are good things, but that's not what the comment I made before was about:

 

Quote

The RX 470 is barely a touch more performing than an R9 280X OC, which is what I have. My card can run most things on a mix of high/medium settings at 1920x1200, so I wouldn't recommend a 470 to anyone that wants to play max settings at 1080p in AAA games.

It can be significantly better than an R9 280x, but I'm saying that my R9 280x OC, which is also significantly better than a stock R9 280x, isn't a very future-proofed card anymore (and I'll be upgrading it), and so I wouldn't recommend a 470, which looks like it will be a bit better than my R9 280x OC, to people wanting to future-proof themselves for 1080p at max settings. I would expect that a stock RX 470 already can't run all games maxed at 1080p, so I think someone should take that into consideration when thinking about what to buy.

 

11 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

First of I did not say 40%. The 470 is about 25% faster than the 280x with god damn alpha drivers, so that number should only get higher and the 280x also uses alot more power.

 

So 25% higher performance is a minor upgrade? Nah m8, that is a pretty good/huge upgrade.

I quoted you and don_svetlio, who mentioned 40% in response to you, about my earlier comment. Anyway, my earlier comment, quoted above and to which you previously replied, has nothing to do with whether an RX 470 is an upgrade from a stock R9 280x. I'm saying the RX 470, at the level of performance increase over a stock 280x that the OP benchmark chart shows, is not likely to handle all current graphically-intensive games at 1080p with settings maxed, and isn't likely a good choice of a card for people wishing to play 1080p maxed settings for the next few years.

[Dackzy]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I quoted you and don_svetlio, who mentioned 40% in response to you, about my earlier comment. Anyway, my earlier comment, quoted above and to which you previously replied, has nothing to do with whether an RX 470 is an upgrade from a stock R9 280x. I'm saying the RX 470, and the level of performance increase over a stock 280x that the OP benchmark chart shows, is not likely to handle all current graphically-intensive games at 1080p with settings maxed, and isn't likely a good choice of a card for people wishing to play 1080p maxed settings for the next few of years.

Well depends on what type of games you play and also on how much anti aliasing you put on. The 470x will be fine for most people that just play casual 1080p games and don't care if they have their settings at ultra or high.