RX 480 Thoughts?

[ChrisCross]

8 minutes ago, App4that said:

 

wow now i know why the 480 is so awesome for vr.

just take a look at the frametimes. in any kind of 1st person envirement the 480 is just so much more stable than both the 970 & 390. that is just so impressive how did they do that?

[don_svetlio]

3 minutes ago, App4that said:

And by the time AMD gets their 5% driver increase the 1060 will have launched.

Which will cost 100$ for the Premium Plastic Flamethrower Edition

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, ChrisCross said:

wow now i know why the 480 is so awesome for vr.

just take a look at the frametimes. in any kind of 1st person envirement the 480 is just so much more stable than both the 970 & 390. that is just so impressive how did they do that?

Not sure if you are being sarcastic but frame time on GCN 4 is indeed more stable than Maxwell or GCN 1.2

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Which will cost 100$ for the Premium Plastic Flamethrower Edition

And your comment on the heat issues with the 480 reference Don? Or is it OK for a AMD card to run hot?

[Dackzy]

3 minutes ago, App4that said:

And by the time AMD gets their 5% driver increase the 1060 will have launched.

and so what? Nvidia have not been that good with budget cards this past two gens, so yeah there is that.

 

4 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

yeah we saw that with the Fury X launch....was 15-20% slower than the GTX 980ti/titanX...and now...one year later it's...wait...15 to 20% slower than a 980ti/titan X

''wait for drivers'' they say that all the time...''wait for the RX480'' yeah...they say that all the time.

...wait for ZEN...yeah you know

Oh okay so 290x vs 780ti the 290x was about 10% slower than a 780ti when it came out, but later it became around 7% faster huh and their were more things to the fury x than just drivers, there were hardware problems.

[ChrisCross]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

Not sure if you are being sarcastic but frame time on GCN 4 is indeed more stable than Maxwell or GCN 1.2

no im actually really amazed at the moment.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Dackzy said:

and so what? Nvidia have not been that good with budget cards this past two gens, so yeah there is that.

 

Oh okay so 290x vs 780ti the 290x was about 10% slower than a 780ti when it came out, but later it became around 7% faster huh and their were more things to the fury x than just drivers, there were hardware problems.

Always looking to the past, is the AMD fan. Look at the performance difference between a 970 and a 1070, now add that to a 960.  

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

And your comment on the heat issues with the 480 reference Don? Or is it OK for a AMD card to run hot?

I've seen wildly different reports. All the way from 75*C to 95*C. Not sure what to believe at the moment.

[Prysin]

9 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

it's GCN...been GCN for years now...it's all the same shit...the CU and the way they operate never changed...flip side to this is driver optimisation benefit all of AMD's line-up...but those are not ''early drivers'' they are ''heavily optimised through the last 4 years of GCN mature GPU drivers'' and nothing else.

actually, the difference between GCN 1 (7970) and GCN 3 (Fiji) are actually HUGE in terms of changes to pipeline, front end, etc.

Compute units doesnt change, because the compute units themselves doesnt need to. Their workload is the same.

However the geometry engine, vertex shader, rasterizer, cache and all that has been improved throughout the years.

 

Now from GCN 3 (Fiji) to GCN 4 (Polaris) the changes are small. Much like with Pascal vs Maxwell. There are small, but important changes being made.

Sure the compute units themselves, the ones doing GPGPU, has not changed, but it does not really need to as GPGPU hasnt changed much either. But the IMC, cache, vertex shaders, front end, rasterizers and a few other pieces has been altered or reworked from the ground up.

 

Driver benefits for GCN 3 (Fiji) cannot, and will not benefit Hawaii (GCN 2) or Tahiti (GCN 1). These architectures are too different to "help" eachother. It may be the same underlying base. But the buildings ontop is not comparable at all.

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

Oh okay so 290x vs 780ti the 290x was about 10% slower than a 780ti when it came out, but later it became around 7% faster huh and their were more things to the fury x than just drivers, there were hardware problems.

ahhh see...290X was different...this was much earlier in GCN life...there was still lots of room for driver improvements back then...

today, AMD GCN drivers are mature...and this card is still based on GCN.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Always looking to the past, is the AMD fan. Look at the performance difference between a 970 and a 1070, now add that to a 960.  

Why not look at what a "improvement" the 960 was to the 760? That 5% extra performance was awesome /s

[App4that]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

Why not look at what a "improvement" the 960 was to the 760? That 5% extra performance was awesome /s

Why thank you Don for proving my point. Much appreciated friend.  

[ChrisCross]

Just now, App4that said:

Always looking to the past, is the AMD fan. Look at the performance difference between a 970 and a 1070, now add that to a 960.  

than look at the price difference between the 970 and the 1070! surprise the 1070 costs as much as a 980ti...

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Why thank you Don for proving my point. Much appreciated friend.  

You do realise that while the 970 performed like a 780 Ti at laucn the 960 still can't beat a 770 and gets hammered by a 7970 (not GHz) from 2012?

[Dackzy]

3 minutes ago, App4that said:

Always looking to the past, is the AMD fan. Look at the performance difference between a 970 and a 1070, now add that to a 960.  

Nope and you know I am not a fan. Just because one card gets a good boost in performance does it not mean that another card will, that is not so hard to understand is it?

And if I recall the jump from 770 -> 970 was bigger than the jump from 970->1070 oh damn and yet the 760 -> 960 was pretty small huh.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

You do realise that while the 970 performed like a 780 Ti at laucn the 960 still can't beat a 770 and gets hammered by a 7970 (not GHz) from 2012?

960 was an extremely weak card for the segment and to this day i havnt been able to recommend a 960 to anyone...not even once...you just pick the right example.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, ChrisCross said:

than look at the price difference between the 970 and the 1070! surprise the 1070 costs as much as a 980ti...

Only because of the price drops LOL. Compare launch pricing  

 

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

You do realise that while the 970 performed like a 780 Ti at laucn the 960 still can't beat a 770 and gets hammered by a 7970 (not GHz) from 2012?

And your use of the past gave you insight into the RX 480 performance?

 

 

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

960 was an extremely weak card for the segment and to this day i havnt been able to recommend a 960 to anyone...not even once...you just pick the right example.

What about the 760 to the 660? Nvidia *60 cards have not been interesting recently. The last great one was the 660/Ti

 

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Only because of the price drops LOL. Compare launch pricing  

 

And your use of the past gave you insight into the RX 480 performance?

 

 

I was wrong. Just like you have been before. It's normal and I admit it like a man.

[Dackzy]

7 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

ahhh see...290X was different...this was much earlier in GCN life...there was still lots of room for driver improvements back then...

today, AMD GCN drivers are mature...and this card is still based on GCN.

I think prysin explained it pretty well.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

What about the 760 to the 660? Nvidia *60 cards have not been interesting recently. The last great one was the 660/Ti

 

I was wrong. Just like you have been before. It's normal and I admit it like a man.

Aw come on lol. You have to give me this one, I've waited weeks for this. But you know me, just having fun. Take the hype away and the 480 will be a hit, give it a week.

[ChrisCross]

Just now, App4that said:

Only because of the price drops LOL. Compare launch pricing  

that doesnt matter since the release price of the 1070 isnt even remotely accurate. and dont give me an example of a fanboy edition now.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Aw come on lol. You have to give me this one, I've waited weeks for this. But you know me, just having fun. Take the hype away and the 480 will be a hit, give it a week.

Still good value. 8GB DX12 ready entry-VR 1440p-capable GPU for 240$. Could be worse and it's better value than a 970.

Also, DF's video showed a 2% OC give them 8fps. Makes me wonder what Sapphire could do with a Vapor-X and dual 6-pins. Am hopeful for a Lightning as well.

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

I think prysin explained it pretty well.

fact remain: for 250$USD you have to spend for a new GPU?! give that to me i'll find you something much better.

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, ChrisCross said:

that doesnt matter since the release price of the 1070 isnt even remotely accurate. and dont give me an example of a fanboy edition now.

And the 480 hitting 90c? Speaking of fanboy edition  

[bgibbz]

24 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

It is not made to compete with a 1070, it is made to compete with a 1060...

I know, but it won't compete well with that either. It is unlikely that nvidia will release a card (1060) that performs just as well as a prior gen card (970) with the same price (220USD). I was hoping that he 8gb model would be at least 980ti performance, but it fell far short. The 4gb model is what should be competing with the 970/1060.