TR Forums

In the 3DMark Performance benchmark, the AMD Radeon RX 480 posted a score of P-14 461 points, which is pretty much identical to the average score managed by an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980. It is also only marginally behind the much more expensive Radeon R9 Fury in the same benchmark, which does speak volumes about the kind of performance on offer for just $199. However, do keep in mind that the $199 price applies to the 4GB variant of the card and not the 8GB variant that has been spotted on the Futuremark database.

Read more: http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-radeon- ... z4BCiD5UjB
~VR-Zone

Looking good so far. We have to see the Gaming benchmarks now.

Yeah, another way to look at it is the 480 = the R9 390... almost exactly... in the same benchmark.

I know there are a lot of older systems needing upgrades(like mine), but even the $100-ish and two years three months old GTX 750 ti gave OK 1080p performance.

I really want a visual upgrade to 4k+10 bit color/HDR and 99% Rec 2020. Only the GTX 1080 seems to allow that.

Does the fight over 1080p matter? The $200 GTX 960(i dont know equivalent AMD) was more than good for 1080p.

The GTX 980 was 165 Watt part, so 150 Watt RX480 seems good except for fact that GTX 1080 is only 180 Watt.

Main point being: Need to see the rest of the line up from both AMD and Nvidia to make any conclusions for less than 4k winner. Nvidias x50 and x60 will also give overkill power for 1080p.

ish718 wrote:

Looking good so far.

How is the 480 being on par with a 980 GTX "looking good?" Normally I wouldn't pay much attention to 3DMark, but AMD is sure to have paid attention to it because of it's popularity if nothing else. If matching a 980 is the best they can do it's not a good sign.

Redocbew wrote:

ish718 wrote:

Looking good so far.

How is the 480 being on par with a 980 GTX "looking good?" Normally I wouldn't pay much attention to 3DMark, but AMD is sure to have paid attention to it because of it's popularity if nothing else. If matching a 980 is the best they can do it's not a good sign.

Its good in the sense that you're basically getting a GTX980 at the price of a GTX960. That's awesome for budget builds. However, if you've already got a GTX980 or R9 390 then this probably doesn't matter to you.

Well yeah, and there's nothing wrong with having plenty of choices in the ~$200 range of GPUs, but a new GPU should be faster than an old GPU, no?

Redocbew wrote:

Well yeah, and there's nothing wrong with having plenty of choices in the ~$200 range of GPUs, but a new GPU should be faster than an old GPU, no?

Which old GPU and new GPU are you comparing?

Redocbew wrote:

How is the 480 being on par with a 980 GTX "looking good?" Normally I wouldn't pay much attention to 3DMark, but AMD is sure to have paid attention to it because of it's popularity if nothing else. If matching a 980 is the best they can do it's not a good sign.

RX 480 at $199 matching the GTX 980 at $399 (for a heavily discounted card with a crappy radial-fan cooler)... ┐(‘～`；)┌

I think it's pretty okay! Especially considering the DX12 performance.

Redocbew wrote:

Well yeah, and there's nothing wrong with having plenty of choices in the ~$200 range of GPUs, but a new GPU should be faster than an old GPU, no?

Comparing the R9 380 to the RX 480, seems like quite an improvement! And in about the same power budget too.

Except the part you guys are missing is that it was the 8GB version in the benchmarks. So no, you're not getting GTX 980 performance for 199USD.

However, do keep in mind that the $199 price applies to the 4GB variant of the card and not the 8GB variant that has been spotted on the Futuremark database.

DancinJack wrote:

Except the part you guys are missing is that it was the 8GB version in the benchmarks. So no, you're not getting GTX 980 performance for 199USD.

Are you stupid? GTX 980s have 4GB VRAM. (´Д⊂ヽ

And the 8GB version is supposed to only be $249 anyway.

auxy wrote:

DancinJack wrote:

Except the part you guys are missing is that it was the 8GB version in the benchmarks. So no, you're not getting GTX 980 performance for 199USD.

Are you stupid? GTX 980s have 4GB VRAM. (´Д⊂ヽ

And the 8GB version is supposed to only be $249 anyway.

Apparently you're just assuming the 8GB and 4GB RX 480 cards are clocked exactly the same and the only difference is RAM size? I wouldn't do that, but go for it!

Also, was there really a need to attack like that? I know you're a little touchy, but come on.

DancinJack wrote:

Apparently you're just assuming the 8GB and 4GB RX 480 cards are clocked exactly the same and the only difference is RAM size? I wouldn't do that, but go for it!

Why not? Historically speaking that has been the case. See GTX 960 4GB/8GB, R9 380X 4GB/8GB, R9 290X 4GB/8GB, etc. In fact historically speaking if there has been a difference it has been in favor of the card with less RAM. ( ｀ー´)ノ

DancinJack wrote:

Also, was there really a need to attack like that? I know you're a little touchy, but come on.

I thought I was being nice. Things that are stupid need to be pointed out. ┐(￣ヮ￣)┌ Otherwise no-one will learn!

_{[edit] Also, aren't YOU the one being touchy? I didn't say "you idiot!", I said "are you stupid?" because you asserted that the RX 480 WOULD NOT be as fast as the 980 just as strongly as we asserted (with circumstantial proof, mind you) that it would.}

Listen auxy, you've continually had issues on these forums, with many people. Just don't say stuff that is going to even remotely offend people, as you have consistently in the past, and maybe you won't have any issues. It's not that hard, just don't be rude.

DancinJack wrote:

Listen auxy, you've continually had issues on these forums, with many people. Just don't say stuff that is going to even remotely offend people, as you have consistently in the past, and maybe you won't have any issues. It's not that hard, just don't be rude.

That's the sort of thing that should be said in a private message.

Anyway, grow up, put on your big girl panties and deal with it. People aren't always going to be nice to you and if you take offense to everything people say even in jest you'll never get anywhere in life.

I'm not gonna bow to your victim complex, but I'm sorry you're very embarrassed and need to try and deflect that onto me. Now stop derailing the thread and talk about Radeons! (´▽｀)

blahsaysblah wrote:

Does the fight over 1080p matter? The $200 GTX 960(i dont know equivalent AMD) was more than good for 1080p.

It's not about the fight over 1080p -- RX 480 is already plenty fast enough for WQHD if the 3DMark numbers are anything to go by! It's about VR. GTX 960 won't do VR. RX 480 will.

Redocbew wrote:

Well yeah, and there's nothing wrong with having plenty of choices in the ~$200 range of GPUs, but a new GPU should be faster than an old GPU, no?

It is faster than Tonga which is/was at this price point. If you're talking about beating Hawaii, that's comparing a ~250 mm^2 chip(I know the link isn't from a reliable source but that is the best I got from a quick google search and makes sense considering how many transistors can be fit in the space on this process) to a 438 mm^2 chip even if they are on different processes. The yields on Polaris 11 will likely be far better than Hawaii's as the process matures. This gives AMD some more price lowering room on the chip later on. Polaris 11 was never intended to be a flagship GPU which is why it had the 480 branding not 490 or Fury.

DrDominodog51 wrote:

It is faster than Tonga which is/was at this price point. If you're talking about beating Hawaii, that's comparing a ~250 mm^2 chip(I know the link isn't from a reliable source but that is the best I got from a quick google search and makes sense considering how many transistors can be fit in the space on this process) to a 438 mm^2 chip even if they are on different processes. The yields on Polaris 11 will likely be far better than Hawaii's as the process matures. This gives AMD some more price lowering room on the chip later on. Polaris 11 was never intended to be a flagship GPU which is why it had the 480 branding not 490 or Fury.

Small correction; this is Polaris 10, not Polaris 11. Polaris 11 is the little dinky laptop thing.　(=ﾟωﾟ)ﾉ

auxy wrote:

See GTX 960 4GB/8GB, R9 380X 4GB/8GB, R9 290X 4GB/8GB, etc.

One additional correction that should of been: GTX 960 2GB/4GB, R9 380/380X 2GB/4GB, and R9 290/290X 4GB

auxy wrote:

blahsaysblah wrote:

Does the fight over 1080p matter? The $200 GTX 960(i dont know equivalent AMD) was more than good for 1080p.

It's not about the fight over 1080p -- RX 480 is already plenty fast enough for WQHD if the 3DMark numbers are anything to go by! It's about VR. GTX 960 won't do VR. RX 480 will.

Maybe in a generation or two. Right now, the Occulus Rift will be $500?? and the HTC Vive is $800? I dont think there is any if much cross-over with the value GPU market.
99% of people racing to buy a first generation VR headset wont be going cheap with two RX480 to save a hundred or two.

RX480 is a good card but market is in strange place. 1080p has had good choices for a while but cracking 4k in general, seems to be GTX 1080 domain. I mean reviews said 980/ti were OK for some games at 4k.

Nothing wrong with good value. Just have to see Nvidia's response.

auxy wrote:

DrDominodog51 wrote:

It is faster than Tonga which is/was at this price point. If you're talking about beating Hawaii, that's comparing a ~250 mm^2 chip(I know the link isn't from a reliable source but that is the best I got from a quick google search and makes sense considering how many transistors can be fit in the space on this process) to a 438 mm^2 chip even if they are on different processes. The yields on Polaris 11 will likely be far better than Hawaii's as the process matures. This gives AMD some more price lowering room on the chip later on. Polaris 11 was never intended to be a flagship GPU which is why it had the 480 branding not 490 or Fury.

Small correction; this is Polaris 10, not Polaris 11. Polaris 11 is the little dinky laptop thing.　(=ﾟωﾟ)ﾉ

Remembering names isn't my strong suit. At least I was close.

nice card but not really for me as its just too slow even compared to my overclocked 290 which gets 16719 in 3dmark11 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11166779
we want to see some fast cards.! not the same performance we had for the last couple of years with the 290/390
looks like im going nvidia when the prices settle

until we see the real world performance of the card and more importantly the real world power consumption it's all a toss-up.

If it is really 150W card with only PCIe and 6-pin I'll eat my hat. After I buy a hat, or 6 dozen https://www.amazon.com/Lucks-Dec-Ons-De ... edible+hat

f0d wrote:

nice card but not really for me as its just too slow even compared to my overclocked 290 which gets 16719 in 3dmark11 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11166779
we want to see some fast cards.! not the same performance we had for the last couple of years with the 290/390
looks like im going nvidia when the prices settle

No. You are comparing the total scores. The 480 is nine points off your 290 in the graphics portion (18060 VS 18069). Your system is significantly better at the Physics portion (9109 vs 14685).

DrDominodog51 wrote:

f0d wrote:

nice card but not really for me as its just too slow even compared to my overclocked 290 which gets 16719 in 3dmark11 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11166779
we want to see some fast cards.! not the same performance we had for the last couple of years with the 290/390
looks like im going nvidia when the prices settle

No. You are comparing the total scores. The 480 is nine points off your 290 in the graphics portion (18060 VS 18069). Your system is significantly better at the Physics portion (9109 vs 14685).

while that is true it still isnt much of an upgrade from a 290 now is it?
you could get the 290/290X pretty cheap and close to the price of the RX480 if you kept your eye out
for example
$233 290X http://techreport.com/news/27755/deal-o ... 0x-for-233
$230 290 http://techreport.com/news/27296/deal-o ... 5-and-more
$240 290 http://techreport.com/news/27960/deal-o ... s-and-more

seems like the RX480 isnt much improvement over the 290/290X at a similar price which is ok but im looking for something faster which means i might have to look to nvidia for my next card when the prices are not too stupid or hopefully the rumors of amd releasing vega early (as in this year) are true http://techreport.com/news/30113/rumor- ... ber-launch
im not in a rush to get another card but i would like to get one this year sometime

f0d wrote:

nice card but not really for me as its just too slow even compared to my overclocked 290 which gets 16719 in 3dmark11 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11166779
we want to see some fast cards.! not the same performance we had for the last couple of years with the 290/390
looks like im going nvidia when the prices settle

Welcome to 16 nm. Until the nVidia and AMD start shipping chips with ultra large dies, expect performance to be on par with the previous generation but using smaller dies. The only way performance got so high on 28 nm is that GPUs got crazy large. GM200 and Fiji were both around 600 mm^2 which is insane.

Both AMD and nVidia have larger die chips on the horizon for the real generational leap. We're only at the beginning of this generation.

AMD sure did confuse the hell out of prospective buyers with that leaked 3DMark11 score, assuming it's true at all. If true, my theory is this:

67DF:C4 = Cut down Polaris 10, 2048 SPs, $199
67DF:C7 = Full Polaris 10, 2304 SPs, $249 for 4GB version and $299 for 8 GB version

f0d wrote:

while that is true it still isnt much of an upgrade from a 290 now is it?
you could get the 290/290X pretty cheap and close to the price of the RX480 if you kept your eye out
for example
$233 290X http://techreport.com/news/27755/deal-o ... 0x-for-233
$230 290 http://techreport.com/news/27296/deal-o ... 5-and-more
$240 290 http://techreport.com/news/27960/deal-o ... s-and-more

seems like the RX480 isnt much improvement over the 290/290X at a similar price which is ok but im looking for something faster which means i might have to look to nvidia for my next card when the prices are not too stupid or hopefully the rumors of amd releasing vega early (as in this year) are true http://techreport.com/news/30113/rumor- ... ber-launch
im not in a rush to get another card but i would like to get one this year sometime

I'm optimistic for the 480 because there is the potential for the 4 GB variants to cost ~$170 due to much higher yields that AMD will get later in Polaris 10's life. $170 USD is about as low as I believe possible as due to the high clocked GDDR5 chips needed for it. I'm not expecting the 480 to replace anyone's Hawaii cards, but I expect it and Polaris 11 to gain market share from people new to the market and people upgrading from stuff like 750 Tis and 760s.

I paid 220 for my r290. Unless an rx480 does better in actual games, it would be a hard sell (unless I handmedown the 290 into a different pc). My card got 14 444 at default clocks if anyone is wondering. I'll wait until I see reviews on it.

One thing AMD has the unique ability to do is "Pick a sweet spot"
It's not THAT long ago when released the 7870 was the best value 1080P card out there.......
Then the 290 arrived and really kicked NV to the curb-best value 1440P card...........
That spot has now been taken over by GTX 970...........................
Hopefully AMD will regain that honor with RX480........................

Here's my best guestimation............
PERFORMANCE
100%----GTX1080---$600
75%-----GTX1070---$400
73%----R9-Fury X
73%----GTX980Ti
60%----GTX980
57%----RX480-------$200
52%----GTX970
Don't think all is well with 14nm-Rumors are AMD was hoping for higher clocks..........
as the process matures we should have improvements-Also this is rumored to not be
a full die-Let's hope they are not being saved for apple as in the past.............................

NV is getting near 2GHz out of the same 14Nm process though, and AMD's yield must be good enough if they're able to give us 2304 out of 2560 shaders in the 480.

AMD should'a done the same thing as NV and did that CPU-division style architectural optimization to get maximum clocks. It's a one-time cost that would have allowed them to make greater profit with every chip.
Polaris 10 and GP104 have the exact same number of shaders, and near identical IPC so the die sizes shouldn't be too dissimilar, but Nvidia now get to charge $400-$600 per GP104, whereas AMD makes $200-$250 for each Polaris 10.

jihadjoe wrote:

NV is getting near 2GHz out of the same 14Nm process though, and AMD's yield must be good enough if they're able to give us 2304 out of 2560 shaders in the 480.

AMD should'a done the same thing as NV and did that CPU-division style architectural optimization to get maximum clocks. It's a one-time cost that would have allowed them to make greater profit with every chip.
Polaris 10 and GP104 have the exact same number of shaders, and near identical IPC so the die sizes shouldn't be too dissimilar, but Nvidia now get to charge $400-$600 per GP104, whereas AMD makes $200-$250 for each Polaris 10.

Nvidia is on TSMC's 16 nm finfet process whereas AMD is on GloFlo's copy of Samsung's 14 nm finfet process.