RX 480 vs R9 Fury?

[BrisoX]

so guys. it's obviusly that FreeSync is a lot cheaper here. 300$ for the same monitor on Nvidia side is more expensive. so, i'm going with AMD next.

my plan is to to upgrade to 2560x1080px 21:9 or 2560x1440px 16:9. price is same, 144hz, IPS panel 4ms. LG vs ASUS

 

so, for that resolution, i woul like to have good fps at high/very high settings. 

R9 Fury Nitro is 336€, and RX 480 Strix is 310€.

 

what should i choose?

[Morgan MLGman]

R9 Fury hands-down. It's a good 10-15% faster than an RX 480 at 1440p and it can even reach stock 980Ti/1070 levels of performance once overclocked.

 

If it's solely for gaming, go for a 1440p monitor, ultrawide ones are nice but some games will still do just 16:9 1080p on them with black bars on the side despite being 2560x1080px 21:9

[♠FlamieMeister♠]

R9 Fury Nitro. No argument here. Can do both very easily, and is not that much more than the rx 480.

[BrisoX]

15 minutes ago, ♠FlamieMeister♠ said:

R9 Fury Nitro. No argument here. Can do both very easily, and is not that much more than the rx 480.

and which resolution would be better?

[Darkseth]

There is an Argument here: Vram.

 

8gb Vram > 4gb Vram. When 4gb are full, not even HBM 20 would help you, and it WILL stutter. HBM is just faster, it's not a magical miracle. It will NOT reduce the amount of Vram needed. It will simply swap files out faster. But that is still not a Miracle. It works as long 4gb are enough. If it's not: Stutter.

 

Don't buy 4gb Cards anymore.

 

10-15% performance difference is nothing to mention, especially if you use Freesync.

Set Shadows from Ultra to Very High, and you have those 10% more fps, np. You can play with alot of settings to counter that.

 

But if you have not enough Memory... There is only one thing you can do: Reduce Texture Quality from sharp to potato.

 

And yes. There are Games, where the Fury meets the Limit. Cal of Duty Infinite Warfare for example gives stutters on any 4gb Card, if Textures are higher than "LOW".

Test: https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11/call-of-duty-infinite-warfare-benchmark/2/#abschnitt_probleme_bei_weniger_als_8_gb_speicher

Don't mind the German, you can translate it to know whats going on. Interesting are the Frametime graphs.

 

The RX 480 8gb has only 1 single Framedrop somewhere in the middle. Even on High textures.

the Fury X has multiple framedrops over the board. In NORMAL Textures less than in High obviously, but still more.

 

Meaning: The Game runs on a RX 480 better with High Textures, than on a Fury X with Normal Textures.

 

And High Settings + Ultra textures look better, than Ultra Settings + medium Textures.

 

 

Edit: Go for 1440p.

Don't buy 1080p anymore, except you're on a very tight budget. A Monitor will remain for years. Do you want to look at 1080p in all those years? I wouldn't ^^

[BrisoX]

1 hour ago, Darkseth said:

There is an Argument here: Vram.

 

8gb Vram > 4gb Vram. When 4gb are full, not even HBM 20 would help you, and it WILL stutter. HBM is just faster, it's not a magical miracle. It will NOT reduce the amount of Vram needed. It will simply swap files out faster. But that is still not a Miracle. It works as long 4gb are enough. If it's not: Stutter.

 

Don't buy 4gb Cards anymore.

 

10-15% performance difference is nothing to mention, especially if you use Freesync.

Set Shadows from Ultra to Very High, and you have those 10% more fps, np. You can play with alot of settings to counter that.

 

But if you have not enough Memory... There is only one thing you can do: Reduce Texture Quality from sharp to potato.

 

And yes. There are Games, where the Fury meets the Limit. Cal of Duty Infinite Warfare for example gives stutters on any 4gb Card, if Textures are higher than "LOW".

Test: https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11/call-of-duty-infinite-warfare-benchmark/2/#abschnitt_probleme_bei_weniger_als_8_gb_speicher

Don't mind the German, you can translate it to know whats going on. Interesting are the Frametime graphs.

 

The RX 480 8gb has only 1 single Framedrop somewhere in the middle. Even on High textures.

the Fury X has multiple framedrops over the board. In NORMAL Textures less than in High obviously, but still more.

 

Meaning: The Game runs on a RX 480 better with High Textures, than on a Fury X with Normal Textures.

 

And High Settings + Ultra textures look better, than Ultra Settings + medium Textures.

 

 

Edit: Go for 1440p.

Don't buy 1080p anymore, except you're on a very tight budget. A Monitor will remain for years. Do you want to look at 1080p in all those years? I wouldn't ^^

very nice explanations and everything man!

 

well actually, the only thing bothering me is RX 480 strix not giving me good frame rates at 1440p resolution. that's the only thing im worried right now and fury is step ahead... also considered RX 480 in CF for 1440p resolution... dont want to go with green team, because monitors are way too expensive...

[Darkseth]

If you don't get enough frames, just lower the settings

Some Settings don't impact performance much, others burn it down.

 

For example, let's take Witcher 3.

Object Distance is the one thing, that sucks up performance. I can literaly set EVERYTHING down to High, and only Object Distance on Ultra. And the fps are almost exactly the same, as if i had everything on Ultra. So i just let everything on Ultra, lower Object Distance and voila, +30% fps. ^^ And i have to take screenshots to search for the Differences.

 

The Ultra setting in most cases, looks 1-2% better, but consumes 20, 30, maybe 40% more Performance.

 

By upping your resolution to 1440p, you will get less fps, yes. but just counter that with a lower setting.

1440p on High looks better than 1080p on Ultra In most cases, you can even forget about Anti Aliasing, as aliasing gets smaller the higher your resolution is.

 

And not to forget: You will eventually upgrade your RX 480 in 2, or maybe 3 years. Will you upgrade your Monitor then too? Probably not. It might stay for 5, 7, or 10 Years, untill there are some Oled screens available  That monitor will also be used with your next GPU. or the one after that.

And untill then, you benefit from the Resolution all the time you browse the web, or read something.

 

That's all a matter of perspective.^^

 

Btw, depending on the specs, G-sync is not that expensive.

For example, lets go for 24", 1440p, 144 Hz, and G-Sync / Freesync.

On the G-Sync side we have a dell s2417dg for around 450€.

The Freesync version is the aoc Agon ag241qx. That thing with Freesync costs 60 bucks less. around 385€~ or something like that.

 

But still, the 1440p Freesync model is maybe 100-120 bucks more expensive, than a 1080p Monitor with similar specs.

 

 

Edit: Forgot to Mention.. if you go up to 1440p instead 1080p... that will also impact Vram consumption a bit. Which means, if 4gb are a bit slim for 1080p, it won't get better in 1440p ^^ Depending on what games you play.

BF1? sure, that thing is so awesome optimized, it runs well with 3 or 3,5 gb Vram consumption. Other games have less fps, look worse, and consume more than 7gb in 1080p.

[BrisoX]

3 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

If you don't get enough frames, just lower the settings

Some Settings don't impact performance much, others burn it down.

 

For example, let's take Witcher 3.

Object Distance is the one thing, that sucks up performance. I can literaly set EVERYTHING down to High, and only Object Distance on Ultra. And the fps are almost exactly the same, as if i had everything on Ultra. So i just let everything on Ultra, lower Object Distance and voila, +30% fps. ^^ And i have to take screenshots to search for the Differences.

 

The Ultra setting in most cases, looks 1-2% better, but consumes 20, 30, maybe 40% more Performance.

 

By upping your resolution to 1440p, you will get less fps, yes. but just counter that with a lower setting.

1440p on High looks better than 1080p on Ultra In most cases, you can even forget about Anti Aliasing, as aliasing gets smaller the higher your resolution is.

 

And not to forget: You will eventually upgrade your RX 480 in 2, or maybe 3 years. Will you upgrade your Monitor then too? Probably not. It might stay for 5, 7, or 10 Years, untill there are some Oled screens available  That monitor will also be used with your next GPU. or the one after that.

And untill then, you benefit from the Resolution all the time you browse the web, or read something.

 

That's all a matter of perspective.^^

 

Btw, depending on the specs, G-sync is not that expensive.

For example, lets go for 24", 1440p, 144 Hz, and G-Sync / Freesync.

On the G-Sync side we have a dell s2417dg for around 450€.

The Freesync version is the aoc Agon ag241qx. That thing with Freesync costs 60 bucks less. around 385€~ or something like that.

 

But still, the 1440p Freesync model is maybe 100-120 bucks more expensive, than a 1080p Monitor with similar specs.

well rx 480 then it is mate!

 

well just look at this Freesync monitor. (http://www.adm.hr/product.asp?product=monitor-asus-mg279q-27-wqhd-ips-90lm0103-b01170&code=23905ADM) thats around 680$ here

alternative, same specs gsync predator/asus rog is 930$ mate!

Strix RX 480 is 300€ right now and possibly considering crossfire maybe

[Darkseth]

That might be a good plan

 

But before you go for Crossfire, i would wait out for VEGA. Depending on its perfrmance and Price, and also Memory bandwidth, that might be better to switch over ^^

I also wanted to wait for it, and go for a Freesync model, but i got that G-sync Dell pretty cheap, so i guess i stick with nvidia for a while 

[BrisoX]

1 minute ago, Darkseth said:

That might be a good plan

 

But before you go for Crossfire, i would wait out for VEGA. Depending on its perfrmance and Price, and also Memory bandwidth, that might be better to switch over ^^

I also wanted to wait for it, and go for a Freesync model, but i got that G-sync Dell pretty cheap, so i guess i stick with nvidia for a while 

i will w8 for VEGA definitely. i have time ofcourse. if 490 would be around 500€ that would be cheaper than 480CF and much better solution!

[BaalRunz]

2 hours ago, Darkseth said:

There is an Argument here: Vram.

 

8gb Vram > 4gb Vram. When 4gb are full, not even HBM 20 would help you, and it WILL stutter. HBM is just faster, it's not a magical miracle. It will NOT reduce the amount of Vram needed. It will simply swap files out faster. But that is still not a Miracle. It works as long 4gb are enough. If it's not: Stutter.

 

Don't buy 4gb Cards anymore.

 

10-15% performance difference is nothing to mention, especially if you use Freesync.

Set Shadows from Ultra to Very High, and you have those 10% more fps, np. You can play with alot of settings to counter that.

 

But if you have not enough Memory... There is only one thing you can do: Reduce Texture Quality from sharp to potato.

 

And yes. There are Games, where the Fury meets the Limit. Cal of Duty Infinite Warfare for example gives stutters on any 4gb Card, if Textures are higher than "LOW".

Test: https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11/call-of-duty-infinite-warfare-benchmark/2/#abschnitt_probleme_bei_weniger_als_8_gb_speicher

Don't mind the German, you can translate it to know whats going on. Interesting are the Frametime graphs.

 

The RX 480 8gb has only 1 single Framedrop somewhere in the middle. Even on High textures.

the Fury X has multiple framedrops over the board. In NORMAL Textures less than in High obviously, but still more.

 

Meaning: The Game runs on a RX 480 better with High Textures, than on a Fury X with Normal Textures.

 

And High Settings + Ultra textures look better, than Ultra Settings + medium Textures.

 

 

Edit: Go for 1440p.

Don't buy 1080p anymore, except you're on a very tight budget. A Monitor will remain for years. Do you want to look at 1080p in all those years? I wouldn't ^^

I was told since I only game on 1080p, the 4gb rx 480 would be fine though?

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 hours ago, BrisoX said:

so guys. it's obviusly that FreeSync is a lot cheaper here. 300$ for the same monitor on Nvidia side is more expensive. so, i'm going with AMD next.

my plan is to to upgrade to 2560x1080px 21:9 or 2560x1440px 16:9. price is same, 144hz, IPS panel 4ms. LG vs ASUS

 

so, for that resolution, i woul like to have good fps at high/very high settings. 

R9 Fury Nitro is 336€, and RX 480 Strix is 310€.

 

what should i choose?

R9 Fury and 2560x1440 mate

[Demonking]

On 2/6/2017 at 9:46 AM, Morgan MLGman said:

R9 Fury hands-down. It's a good 10-15% faster than an RX 480 at 1440p and it can even reach stock 980Ti/1070 levels of performance once overclocked.

 

If it's solely for gaming, go for a 1440p monitor, ultrawide ones are nice but some games will still do just 16:9 1080p on them with black bars on the side despite being 2560x1080px 21:9

you sure about that ? cause i'm looking for a new GPU, i was going to get a fury x, but it sold out. Update i'm buying the Nitro Fury. I hope it's good & will last a while. 

[MilfShake]

I suggest acer XG270HU for 1440p 144hz freesync monitor. Best in its price range

[BrisoX]

2 hours ago, MilfShake said:

I suggest acer XG270HU for 1440p 144hz freesync monitor. Best in its price range

TN panel. i mean i dont mind it, but ive found this Asus MG279Q, 27'', WQHD IPS panel, 144hz, free sync

[Morgan MLGman]

13 hours ago, Demonking said:

you sure about that cause i'm looking for a new GPu i was going to get a fury x, but it sold out. Update i'm buying the Nitro Fury. I hope it's good & will last a while. 

Yep, I bought one myself and my FireStrike GPU score reaches a stock GTX 1070 when I OC'd my card. I also paid less than I'd pay for an RX 480 8GB/GTX 1060 6GB The card is excellent, very silent, runs very cool due to an amazing cooler, it also performs great even at 1440p for the price.

[Jumper118]

The fury is faster and it might unlock to a fury x which would be even faster still.  4096 cores is beastly! 

[MilfShake]

16 hours ago, BrisoX said:

TN panel. i mean i dont mind it, but ive found this Asus MG279Q, 27'', WQHD IPS panel, 144hz, free sync

That's why I said in that price range the acer is the best, the mg279q add another CAD $200, but if you can afford that, sure

[IAR117]

I have got an R9 Fury X, so performance shouldn't be alot less. With a decent power suply it is a great buy especially if you can OC it, then you'll match 1070 performance. I haven't had any issues with VRAM at 1440p, so you should be alright with your resoloution

[Demonking]

10 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Yep, I bought one myself and my FireStrike GPU score reaches a stock GTX 1070 when I OC'd my card. I also paid less than I'd pay for an RX 480 8GB/GTX 1060 6GB The card is excellent, very silent, runs very cool due to an amazing cooler, it also performs great even at 1440p for the price.

It should be here Thursday. Also i thought you couldn't overclock it much if.