Radeon RX 480 Benchmarks

[Starelementpoke]

1 minute ago, OptimisticRealist said:

Um...why not just wash some cars, work a couple of hours of overtime, eat less expensive food for a week, mow 2-3 lawns...

 

 

and just get a GTX 1070 and max out everything at 1080/1440p???

Because most teenagers don't do that, and instead just save birthday money. 

[Starelementpoke]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

The RX 480 appears to be less powerful than a GTX 970, both stock and overclocked. The GTX 970 was a mid-range card 1.8 years ago, and graphics standards progress over time. We now have new standards for mid-tier, which is probably a GTX 980 - GTX 1070.

 

The RX 480 is not a mid-range card right now, but is an upper-low-end card. The same goes for the GTX 970, which will probably be outperformed by a GTX 1060.

From what i was, they bounced back and forth between each other quite a bit.

[OptimisticRealist]

1 minute ago, Starelementpoke said:

Because most teenagers don't do that, and instead just save birthday money. 

Well, do it then...lol? Clean a few pools, help around a family members office for a week...anything, and you can max

out everything?

 

Tsk, so simple. 

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Starelementpoke said:

I'm not trying to say that it's unfair, I'm trying to say your comparing the wrong things. yeah, the 1080 jumped two tiers, and the 480 jumped one, for certain. But the 1080 also is a different architecture tier, Nvidia's high end. It's their big gun. Polaris, in every way, shape, or form is AMD's secondary, their side-arm. Yeah, the 480 is the same efficiency as the 1080/1070, but the 2*performance per watt was to the respective company's last line up. The 1080/1070 being from the 980ti/980 are of course going to be better in that regard than the 480, because the 480 is coming off of the 390, which had about the same, if not worse, TDP and thermals than the 980ti/980, not to mention the 390 performed worse than the two.

I said 1070 not 1080. Before you continue to accuse me of "comparing the wrong thing" get that part right.

 

Other than that is not the wrong thing to compare because it's an analogy not a direct comparisson. Both companies jumped to a new generation, both companies jumped to a newer node, both had sigificant gains in power efficiency. That's the purpose of the comparisson and where the comparisson ends: AMD Polaris just isn't as impressive when measured to Nvidia's Pascal. It just isn't.

Your entire argument boils down to: Wait for Vega. Which is crap since we're a week away from the 1060 anyways.

[minibois]

According to JayzTwoCents, who asked AMD, the drivers they got to use on the RX 480 card, are the drivers the consumers will get (for now)

[Starelementpoke]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I said 1070 not 1080. Before you continue to accuse me of "comparing the wrong thing" get that part right.

 

Other than that is not the wrong thing to compare because it's an analogy not a direct comparisson. Both companies jumped to a new generation, both companies jumped to a newer node, both had sigificant gains in power efficiency. That's the purpose of the comparisson and where the comparisson ends: AMD Polaris just isn't as impressive when measured to Nvidia's Pascal. It just isn't.

Your entire argument boils down to: Wait for Vega. Which is crap since we're a week away from the 1060 anyways.

My bad then, TDP and Performance are roughly the same between the two.

 

That's fair enough, but your analogy is flawed. They both had a node shrink yes, but only one of the companies brought out their big gun, while the other went with the secondary. I'm not saying Polaris is more impressive than Pascal, it's not. But the Node shrink is only part of the story. Polaris isn't as impressive as Pascal yeah, but one is the main cannon while the other is a side arm.

 

I'm not trying to say wait till Vega, I'm saying that while Polaris isn't as impressive as Pascal in any regard, that's taking it at face value. You have to dig a little deeper on why that might be.

[Humbug]

20 minutes ago, OptimisticRealist said:

Um...why not just wash some cars, work a couple of hours of overtime, eat less expensive food for a week, mow 2-3 lawns...

and just get a GTX 1070 and max out everything at 1080/1440p???

Well i'm using an R9 290 and still crank my settings up at 1080p and play very smoothly.

RX 480 4GB is faster than my GPU. So for many buyers they will decide that at $200 this allows them to fully enjoy their PC gaming experience, and spending more money for a higher tier GPU does not allow them to really have much more enjoyment as a gamer. That's the mainstream mindset when buying a GPU and it makes sense.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Starelementpoke said:

My bad then, TDP and Performance are roughly the same between the two.

 

That's fair enough, but your analogy is flawed. They both had a node shrink yes, but only one of the companies brought out their big gun, while the other went with the secondary. I'm not saying Polaris is more impressive than Pascal, it's not. But the Node shrink is only part of the story. Polaris isn't as impressive as Pascal yeah, but one is the main cannon while the other is a side arm.

 

I'm not trying to say wait till Vega, I'm saying that while Polaris isn't as impressive as Pascal in any regard, that's taking it at face value. You have to dig a little deeper on why that might be.

Ok so to wrap this up: Polaris isn't as impressive as Pascal. This thing started because that Brit from OC3D said we're ignorant if we're not impressed by Polaris. I think that even if you think Polaris has is merits (For exactly 1 week before the 1060 at least matches it if not surpases it) there's more than enough reasons not to be impressed: It just isn't as efficient as Pascal in any regard. AMD basically knows this so is continuing the Strategy from Fiji now on Vega: don't release top tier cards at the same time Nvidia does, place em in between generations. That way it doesn't looks as if we just can't get near them we're just "lagging behind" some months vs just sucking.

 

[zMeul]

39 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

The 480 has more transistors than the 970 while consuming slightly more power. Seems about right in transistor/power.

yeah ... while one is 28nm and the other is 14nm 

[Starelementpoke]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

yeah ... while one is 28nm and the other is 14nm 

2*performance per watt. Half the power draw of the 390 which it is on par with. Your point?

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Starelementpoke said:

2*performance per watt. Half the power draw of the 390 which it is on par with. Your point?

you're looking at RX480 like it exists in a vacuum - it doesn't!

[Starelementpoke]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

you're looking at RX480 like it exists in a vacuum - it doesn't!

I'm not. I looking at it as if it was 2*performance per from AMD's last generation, like it is. Your looking at it as if it were supposed to be half the TDP of the 970, which it isn't.

[zMeul]

16 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

I'm not. I looking at it as if it was 2*performance per from AMD's last generation, like it is

TWICE?!!??!?!

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Deletist_Jerk said:

Most of you got caught up in the click bait articles' artificial hype. You only have yourselves to blame for the disappointment. 

And now let's look forward to seeing the same people make the same mistake with Zen. 

 

 

I am going to set my expectations that Zen is literally made out of shit, and will burn my house down when plugged in. Let's see if AMD manages to exceed or at the very least match my expectations this time... I don't see how they could underwhelm me with expectations like that but I wouldn't be surprised... 

[Briggsy]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

And now let's look forward to seeing the same people make the same mistake with Zen. 

 

 

I am going to set my expectations that Zen is literally made out of shit, and will burn my house down when plugged in. Let's see if AMD manages to exceed or at the very least match my expectations this time... I do the see how they could underwhelm me with expectations like that but I wouldn't be surprised... 

 

all joking aside, Zen will probably be delayed.

[dlink377]

I can buy GTX 970 around $40 cheaper than RX 480 8G here (probably launch price, I believe will go down after non reference card showing up).

 

RX480 performance is more or less same with GTX 970, almost 2 years old card. With similar power efficiency to begin with.

The only problem with GTX 970 is the 3.5G+0.5G RAM.

 

It seems I will stuck with GTX 950 for the time being. Waiting for GTX 1060. No way I will pay for the GTX 1070 for $379. I am just hoping for the GTX 1060 performance will be better than GTX 980, with reasonable price point, $249 seems okay.

 

Yeah, "the hype is real". My expectation of around GTX 980 performance is way off by 10%. Still a good buy comparing to GTX 970.

[Starelementpoke]

10 minutes ago, zMeul said:

TWICE?!!??!?! it's 38% better not 50%

Yeah, and the 480 is replacing the 380, not the 390. With the 480 being about 170 watts, the 380's TDP being about 190, and the 390 doing about 2*'s better than the 380, it's in line.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Starelementpoke said:

Yeah, and the 480 is replacing the 380, not the 390. With the 480 being about 170 watts, the 380's TDP being about 190, and the 390 doing about 2*'s better than the 380, it's in line.

oh, so you change the discussion now

is the RX480 in the same ball park perf to GTX970 and R9 390? yes, it is! adding R9 380 doesn't help your cause

[Deli]

1 hour ago, dlink377 said:

I can buy GTX 970 around $40 cheaper than RX 480 8G here (probably launch price, I believe will go down after non reference card showing up).

 

RX480 performance is more or less same with GTX 970, almost 2 years old card. With similar power efficiency to begin with.

The only problem with GTX 970 is the 3.5G+0.5G RAM.

 

It seems I will stuck with GTX 950 for the time being. Waiting for GTX 1060. No way I will pay for the GTX 1070 for $379. I am just hoping for the GTX 1060 performance will be better than GTX 980, with reasonable price point, $249 seems okay.

 

Yeah, "the hype is real". My expectation of around GTX 980 performance is way off by 10%. Still a good buy comparing to GTX 970.

My bad, where do you find the $379, aka MSRP price, for 1070? Everywhere I look, A.I.B. cards are as expensive, or more expensive than the FE.

[Starelementpoke]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

oh, so you change the discussion now

is the RX480 in the same ball park perf to GTX970 and R9 390? yes, it is! adding R9 380 doesn't help your cause

It does. 2*performance per watt with the node shrink. The 480 is replacing the 380, and performs roughly 2* better, while having similar TDP.

[dlink377]

6 minutes ago, Deli said:

My bad, where do you find the $379, aka MSRP price, for 1070? Everywhere I look, A.I.B. cards are as expensive, or more expensive than the FE.

It says so on the slides, MSRP $379.

 

Never really done some research on AIB card.

 

If that is the case, then Nvidia outright lying about "Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price", or the vendors simply want to milk more money before decreasing the price to MSRP.

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, dlink377 said:

If that is the case, then Nvidia outright lying about "Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price", or the vendors simply want to milk more money before decreasing the price to MSRP.

do you understand what MSRP means? Suggested 

[Starelementpoke]

4 minutes ago, dlink377 said:

It says so on the slides, MSRP $379.

 

Never really done some research on AIB card.

 

If that is the case, then Nvidia outright lying about "Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price", or the vendors simply want to milk more money before decreasing the price to MSRP.

Please note it says suggested. Rarely is it followed.

[Fetzie]

56 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I said 1070 not 1080. Before you continue to accuse me of "comparing the wrong thing" get that part right.

 

Other than that is not the wrong thing to compare because it's an analogy not a direct comparisson. Both companies jumped to a new generation, both companies jumped to a newer node, both had sigificant gains in power efficiency. That's the purpose of the comparisson and where the comparisson ends: AMD Polaris just isn't as impressive when measured to Nvidia's Pascal. It just isn't.

Your entire argument boils down to: Wait for Vega. Which is crap since we're a week away from the 1060 anyways.

If somebody is waiting for Vega then they won't be interested in the 1060 or 480.

[Deli]

1 hour ago, dlink377 said:

It says so on the slides, MSRP $379.

 

Never really done some research on AIB card.

 

If that is the case, then Nvidia outright lying about "Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price", or the vendors simply want to milk more money before decreasing the price to MSRP.

Doesn't matter what it said on paper. Only matters is if I can find/buy one with that price.

 

It's a nice scam Nvidia uses to jack up the price of its cards. The card is good, but not for the inflated price.