RX480 a letdown?

[StormEye]

A Major Disappointment

[wasd]

Quote

RX480 a letdown?

Hyped to be a GTX 980 killer and to over clock like a Formula 1 engine.

NOT!

 

It can barely keep up with a GTX 970 and drops dead with the slightest over clock.

Not to mention mid 80 degrees on stock settings.  Terrible for a 14nm die.

Pathetic.

[Flowey]

36 minutes ago, wasd said:

Hyped to be a GTX 980 killer and to over clock like a Formula 1 engine.

NOT!

 

It can barely keep up with a GTX 970 and drops dead with the slightest over clock.

Not to mention mid 80 degrees on stock settings.  Terrible for a 14nm die.

Pathetic.

no.

Can't tell if your trolling or just being a fanboy?...

[App4that]

36 minutes ago, Flowey said:

no.

Can't tell if your trolling or just being a fanboy?...

Brother has a point.

 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 hours ago, StormEye said:

A Major Disappointment

 

2 hours ago, wasd said:

Hyped to be a GTX 980 killer and to over clock like a Formula 1 engine.

NOT!

 

It can barely keep up with a GTX 970 and drops dead with the slightest over clock.

Not to mention mid 80 degrees on stock settings.  Terrible for a 14nm die.

Pathetic.

^^

[SteveGrabowski0]

It's an awesome card from one view, a letdown from another. For the midrange buyer it's an incredible card. It really is great to have a $200 card that is a legit powerhouse for 1080p gaming so people don't have to buy crap like GTX 960 and R9 380. They can actually get a card that will play the vast majority of games at 1080p mix of ultra and high while delivering a consistent 60 fps. I mean that's absolutely huge for the midrange buyer to not have to spend $300 any more on a high performance card. This card makes high-end 1080p gaming cheaper than it has ever been, and this is very much a high-end card for 1080p.

 

From the viewpoint of the high end 1440p/4k buyer Polaris 10 is an enormous letdown because of the terrible performance per watt after a node shrink. I think most people were expecting a card that used around 110W or so in gaming loads based on rumors and on the card having a single 6-pin power connector. What kind of stupid design is that to have a 165W card using power delivery that can only do 150W in spec? It's unbelievably disappointing to see AMD only catching up to the 970's performance per watt after a shrink to 14 nm when Nvidia had the same performance to watt ratio at 28 nm. It makes you wonder how they can go very far with Vega. I mean are they going to need a 300W Vega chip to compete with GP104? How the hell are they going to compete with GP102 then, or even GP100 if that ever makes it to gamers? Are they going to have a 450W Fury XX card that sounds like a jet engine?

[BirdyTheMighty]

let down not really it performs the same as the 970 which over here is about $450 aud and the rx 480 is $319uda

[SkilledRebuilds]

3RdParty Cooling

 

Seems even with.... 1.425Ghz was achieved, but not 1500Mhz like I was hoping.
https://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Foc.jagatreview.com%2F2016%2F06%2Fteaser-overclocking-amd-radeon-rx480-ke-1-4ghz-dengan-cooler-3rd-party%2F&edit-text=&act=url

 

1.425Ghz can bring it "up to" Nano performance levels.

[SkilledRebuilds]

1.425Ghz with SMALL 3rd party cooling = Almost NANO.

Hoping board partners GPU's could crack 1450Mhz+ in the top end.
https://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Foc.jagatreview.com%2F2016%2F06%2Fteaser-overclocking-amd-radeon-rx480-ke-1-4ghz-dengan-cooler-3rd-party%2F&edit-text=&act=url

 

[Prysin]

6 hours ago, App4that said:

If drivers fixed this it would be the single most embarrassing thing to happen since 3.5 gate.

you mean like drivers "fixed" the whole 3.5GB issue by hiding the slow partition from the game engines so it would not be used?

[SkilledRebuilds]

GamerNexus is going to Hybrid cooler mod the GPU and see where it takes them. (Other parts to video will be up soon enough)

They did this to the 1080p-FE as well if you were interested in such things...

[SteveGrabowski0]

49 minutes ago, JamGorby said:

-snip-

Indeed, AMD fanboys were hyping this card to the moon despite the fact that AMD has never marketed Polaris 10 as anything other than minimum spec VR. Over and over AMD has officially said this was going to be a midrange card targeted at making minimum spec VR affordable. That's basically saying it was going to be a GTX 970 / R9 290 for less money. To their credit they really meant it when they said it would be affordable. I was initially expecting a $270 card, not a $200 one. But for some reason AMD fans kept acting like this was going to have near 980 Ti performance even when we knew it was only a 232mm^2 chip. It never fails, AMD fans keep coming up with these completely unrealistic expectations.

[balmung11]

nope the only one disappointed are those who expect a reference card to exceed the gtx 980 but hey it did exceed the stock gtx 980 on some dx 12 games and more to come 2016 onward !

[Vode]

6 hours ago, App4that said:

If drivers fixed this it would be the single most embarrassing thing to happen since 3.5 gate.

It's pretty much expected at this point though. It has to be really.

 

The GTX 970 has like 3.5 TFlops

The RX 480 has like 6 TFlops

 

AMD always seems to have issues with drivers at launch, but their cards get better over time. I don't get what they are thinking. Seems like a pretty bad stategy.

 

With the proper drivers we'll probably see GTX 980 performance.

[Kenjionigod]

I think it's a great card, it's a huge improvement over the last gen 960 and 380. I really don't know what people were expecting. I saw one guy saying he was expecting it to reach 1070 levels of performance, which is just crazy. This is only the middle of AMD's lineup, people are acting like it's the Fury or even 390 replacement... They still have more cards coming out, it's not the end all be all and it's still a very good card for the price. 

[Guest]

This is getting boring (or always was).

 

The RX480 is just right. Good, in other words. Not amazing, not disappointing.

[vanished]

I'll be honest, I am a little disappointed in it.  We were led to believe it was like a GTX 980 and it turns out it can only come close to a 970 in most cases.  If you look at it rationally, it is still a great card for the money, but I can't help but feel a little less positively towards it after the number of things that have come to light recently.

[killcomic]

The most disappointing thing for me was the Australian price. Except for XFX and Sapphire, all 8GB models are over AUD$430. Ridiculous!

You can get an R9 390X for $450!

So this 'budget' mainstream solution is priced at the high end. And those prices are RRP from the manufacturers.

 

Oh well, I'm going to go for the XFX version when custom boards and the whole PCI draw issue is sorted.

 

[Prysin]

18 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'll be honest, I am a little disappointed in it.  We were led to believe it was like a GTX 980 and it turns out it can only come close to a 970 in most cases.  If you look at it rationally, it is still a great card for the money, but I can't help but feel a little less positively towards it after the number of things that have come to light recently.

well, it just makes sense.

 

It has less ROPs then the 970, so it can only do so much.

[Kenjionigod]

21 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'll be honest, I am a little disappointed in it.  We were led to believe it was like a GTX 980 and it turns out it can only come close to a 970 in most cases.  If you look at it rationally, it is still a great card for the money, but I can't help but feel a little less positively towards it after the number of things that have come to light recently.

I don't really know how people thought this, outside of leaks which should always be taken with a grain of salt. 

[dizmo]

You're just a bitch.

 

Kidding. But, honestly, if you were expecting more from the card then I think you're a little delusional. This card has excellent performance for it's price. Remember, this isn't marketed as a high end card, but rather a mid range at best card. If not a touch lower. It's only $200! $249 I imagine for the version most reviewers have been getting.

 

6 hours ago, Fatelinha said:

Execpt if you're in Portugal where it costs 350€...

I imagine that has to do with your countries duties and taxes on importing such things, not really AMD's fault or problem.

Man does that suck though!

4 hours ago, Suika said:

No, people just overhyped the card.

 

Stop buying into stupid marketing and lame rumors and everything will look just right.

I'd say more the latter than the former...I don't really think AMD is to blame here.

4 hours ago, StormEye said:

A Major Disappointment

Haha, been holding onto that one for long? Pretty clever though

4 hours ago, wasd said:

Hyped to be a GTX 980 killer and to over clock like a Formula 1 engine.

NOT!

 

It can barely keep up with a GTX 970 and drops dead with the slightest over clock.

Not to mention mid 80 degrees on stock settings.  Terrible for a 14nm die.

Pathetic.

Was it though? I remember it being touted as a great VR card, cheap, and a great score in Doom. Which it gets.

Also Jayz2Cents got an excellent OC on his.

Yes, 80 degrees under load. On a reference cooler. Designed to be on the quieter side, than the cooler side. You know what's only 4 degrees cooler? The GTX 1070.

1 hour ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

 

From the viewpoint of the high end 1440p/4k buyer Polaris 10 is an enormous letdown because of the terrible performance per watt after a node shrink. I think most people were expecting a card that used around 110W or so in gaming loads based on rumors and on the card having a single 6-pin power connector. What kind of stupid design is that to have a 165W card using power delivery that can only do 150W in spec? It's unbelievably disappointing to see AMD only catching up to the 970's performance per watt after a shrink to 14 nm when Nvidia had the same performance to watt ratio at 28 nm. It makes you wonder how they can go very far with Vega. I mean are they going to need a 300W Vega chip to compete with GP104? How the hell are they going to compete with GP102 then, or even GP100 if that ever makes it to gamers? Are they going to have a 450W Fury XX card that sounds like a jet engine?

I think the people who are in this group aren't even looking at this card. And if they are, they shouldn't be. It's not meant for them. It's a budget card, as it's been marketed as all along. This card slots exactly where it wanted to be, and kills it.

11 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'll be honest, I am a little disappointed in it.  We were led to believe it was like a GTX 980 and it turns out it can only come close to a 970 in most cases.  If you look at it rationally, it is still a great card for the money, but I can't help but feel a little less positively towards it after the number of things that have come to light recently.

When were we led to believe that? I'd always heard GTX 970, except from people seeing benchmarks for Doom showing 60fps. Which it gets. I think they made the immediate "hey, that's what the 980 gets, it's as fast as a 980!" conclusion.

3 minutes ago, killcomic said:

The most disappointing thing for me was the Australian price. Except for XFX and Sapphire, all 8GB models are over AUD$430. Ridiculous!

You can get an R9 390X for $450!

So this 'budget' mainstream solution is priced at the high end. And those prices are RRP from the manufacturers.

 

Oh well, I'm going to go for the XFX version when custom boards and the whole PCI draw issue is sorted.

 

Haha, I was going to point out how your minimum wage is so much higher so it's simply country pricing, but if the 390x is that cheap then that's a little...odd.

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

well, it just makes sense.

 

It has less ROPs then the 970, so it can only do so much.

I'm curious about the TFLOPs figure now.  The GTX 1070 supposedly is around 6.5, which the RX 480 boasts 5.83.  Now it seems to me that the proportion between those numbers is very different than the proportion between the framerates of those two cards.  So, unless one or both of them are lying, that's interesting to say the least.  2 RX 480s working together = over 11 TFLOPS (not talking crossfire, I'm talking straight compute that should have pretty much 100% scaling).  That's a damn good value at $400 or even $500 compared to something like a GTX 1080, or 980 ti, or Titan X, or anything else I can think of right now actually.

[LooneyJuice]

What's funny with this whole RX 480 thing, is that even if it's marketed "for the people", in markets such as the EU at the moment, it barely makes sense. 390X across Europe now are coming down within 8GB 480 territory, and the 480 definitely performs worse. It's a great proposition for US markets, but honestly, I hope AIB cards have a little more left in the tank if it's even going to be considered reasonable across the pond.

 

Also. Wattman? Really? Don't get me wrong, it's great to see Driver-level overclocking, but it's essentially the red version of GPU boost 3.0, and even though it can provide benefits per state, it makes the whole experience hugely convoluted. Not to mention Overdrive was a cooler name 

[Tech Inquisition]

7 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'm curious about the TFLOPs figure now.  The GTX 1070 supposedly is around 6.5, which the RX 480 boasts 5.83.  Now it seems to me that the proportion between those numbers is very different than the proportion between the framerates of those two cards.  So, unless one or both of them are lying, that's interesting to say the least.  2 RX 480s working together = over 11 TFLOPS (not talking crossfire, I'm talking straight compute that should have pretty much 100% scaling).  That's a damn good value at $400 or even $500 compared to something like a GTX 1080, or 980 ti, or Titan X, or anything else I can think of right now actually.

That's why TerrorFlops are not a measure for gaming...

[vanished]

12 minutes ago, dizmo said:

When were we led to believe that? I'd always heard GTX 970, except from people seeing benchmarks for Doom showing 60fps. Which it gets. I think they made the immediate "hey, that's what the 980 gets, it's as fast as a 980!" conclusion.

13 minutes ago, Kenjionigod said:

I don't really know how people thought this, outside of leaks which should always be taken with a grain of salt. 

Well first there was the presentation where they compared two of them to a 1080, and we know that 2 980s compare to a 1080.  Could be that crossfire just scaled better, but,... idk.  Then there were the leaks.  Yes, those are not official and can't be trusted, but there seemed to be a large number all showing similar results, until right near the release when they started showing more 970-level performance.  And, apparently AMD outright claimed that it was similar to a 980 early on.*

 

*I'm putting a big asterisk on that last point since I don't actually recall that happening but I was told that it did.  Proof (positive or negative) pending

 

I'll admit it was probably foolish to believe it all, so I'm not trying to defend my reasoning, just explain it.