Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199

[kalniel]

So do we yet know the final details for the RX 480 to compare it to the 390x?

390x
GPU Clock - 1050 MHz
Memory Clock - 1500 MHz
Memory Size - 8 GB
Memory Type - GDDR5
Memory Bus - 512 bit
Shading Units - 2816
TMUs - 176
ROPs - 64
Compute Units - 44
TFLOPS - 5.9
Architecture - GCN 1.1
TDP - 275W


RX480
GPU Clock - 1120 base/1266 boost MHz
Memory Clock - 2000 Mhz real/8000 MHz effective
Memory Size - 4/8 GB
Memory Type - GDDR5
Memory Bus - 256 bit
Shading Units - 2304
TMUs - 144
ROPs - 64
Compute Units - 36
TFLOPS - 5.1/5.8
Architecture - GCN 4.0?
TDP - 150W?

Mostly from https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2848/radeon-rx-480 plus the pcper newegg screenshot

 

[Bloomfield]

121fps for the 470 .

 

[Dontrocktheboat]

I want a MSI lightning for £230 and I will be happy!
Or OEM type for 199£

 

[David Bisset]

121

Edit: Wow gotta be fast around here!

 

[humbug]

121fps for the 470 .

Thank you

 

[AllBodies]

Some people are missing some things about the Overwatch results.

It was the 470 that was benched on this (like a few people have pointed out now), and it was at max settings, not ultra that people are comparing it to.

Here's some benchmarks: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Overwatch-Notebook-and-Desktop-Benchmarks.166833.0.html

Fury gets 121fps
RX 470 121 fps (according to AMD slide)
980 gets 117fps
290X gets 97fps

Added in the 470 score in the quote.

And actually you may have a point, because apparently Overwatch is hugely affected by CPU performance (both IPC and clockspeed): http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html

And AMD say they used a 5960x at 3 GHz. Notebookcheck used a 4790k with the Fury, so putting those together that suggests the 470 is faster than a Fury in Overwatch.

However that is effectively combining results from 3 different configurations, so probably isn't accurate.

 

[XeNoNF50]

The conversion price doesn't matter, because we know the RRP for the 1080 $699, and we know the price OCUK sold at £619... you can fiddle with bank costs all you want but those two prices don't move. If you take 5% away from the addition at the end and add it to the currency conversion it doesn't matter, the £619/$699 is established. There is no random added 40%. Simple realise that the 1080 cost in £ 88.5% of it's $ price.

$229 x .885 = £202. £230 is a completely ridiculous price that would require a drastically worse exchange rate than when the 1080 were bought and afaik it's stronger at the moment.

Good point. Yeah it was the same for the GTX 1070, that was 88.8% converting dollar price into pounds and the GTX 1080 was 88.6% converting the dollar price into pounds. We should really feel very disappointed if the RX 480 does not follow suit with the same sort of ratio.

 

[ICDP]

Yes but your comparing rumours to given facts
Matching $500 card performance for $200 is what they stated. If it does not meet that then they lied.

How many people here would at this moment buy a GTX970 with 4GB for similar price this is going to come in at with 8GB. Or spend £299 on a GTX980 now when the RX480 AIB models should manage to outperform it.

To me its clear Nvidia have pushed for the enthusiast. AMD seen a performance gap in the market at a price they could be very competitive and that is exactly what the current price comparisons seem to be highlighting.

I'm not stating it as a fact, I'm stating that IF the equal to 390 rumours are accurate then RX 480 is underperforming and would be a failure IF true.

 

[cib24]

Mostly from https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2848/radeon-rx-480 plus the pcper newegg screenshot

So do we yet know the final details for the RX 480 to compare it to the 390x?

390x
GPU Clock - 1050 MHz
Memory Clock - 1500 MHz
Memory Size - 8 GB
Memory Type - GDDR5
Memory Bus - 512 bit
Shading Units - 2816
TMUs - 176
ROPs - 64
Compute Units - 44
TFLOPS - 5.9
Architecture - GCN 1.1
TDP - 275W


RX480
GPU Clock - 1120/1266 MHz
Memory Clock - 2000 MHz
Memory Size - 4/8 GB
Memory Type - GDDR5
Memory Bus - 256 bit
Shading Units - 2304
TMUs - 144?
ROPs - 64?
Compute Units - 36?
TFLOPS - 5.1/5.8
Architecture - GCN 4.0
TDP - 150W?


So it is a cut down card compared to the 390x but still pushing nearly the same TFLOPs. This signifies quite an increase in IPC does it not? i.e. the RX 480 is expected to be much more efficient in both performance and power efficiency. Impressive although you wonder what they could do with a 275W ceiling like the 390x and the additional shading units, TMUs, etc.

Perhaps that is what Vega will be?

 

[humbug]

Added in the 470 score in the quote.

And actually you may have a point, because apparently Overwatch is hugely affected by CPU performance (both IPC and clockspeed): http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html

And AMD say they used a 5960x at 3 GHz. Notebookcheck used a 4790k with the Fury, so putting those together that suggests the 470 is faster than a Fury in Overwatch.

However that is effectively combining results from 3 different configurations, so probably isn't accurate.

Fury has a real problem with Draw Call bottlenecks, its a problem AMD's Raja said has been fixed with Polaris.

So, possibly Polairs is able to run its true potential, while Fury, as we all know isn't, nothing like its true potential.

 

[seezaa]

But why the huge hike from November? The 380X was $230, and it wasn't anywhere near £230, it was £190 on release. The same went for all of AMD's 300 series cards released last year.

the market has been fluttering a fair bit over the last 1/12 with the EU vote coming up, i'd hazard a guess that the dollar is a little stronger against the pound than it was end of last year... im no expert though.

 

[XeNoNF50]

the market has been fluttering a fair bit over the last 1/12 with the EU vote coming up, i'd hazard a guess that the dollar is a little stronger against the pound than it was end of last year... im no expert though.

It is stronger for sure. My hotel that I booked a year ago to pay in dollars when I got there was 200 quid more by the time it came round to me going to NY a month ago. Suffice to say I chose somewhere else a month before I left and paid in pounds.

 

[fullmetaltony]

the market has been fluttering a fair bit over the last 1/12 with the EU vote coming up, i'd hazard a guess that the dollar is a little stronger against the pound than it was end of last year... im no expert though.

A little, but not much. ~1.51$/£ in Nov 15 compared to 1.46$/£ in Mar 2016

edit for clarity, those are the corporate rates where I work, slightly out from current market but the difference over months will be comparative.

 

[AllBodies]

Fury has a real problem with Draw Call bottlenecks, its a problem AMD's Raja said has been fixed with Polaris.

So, possibly Polairs is able to run its true potential, while Fury, as we all know isn't, nothing like its true potential.

True.

And also just Overwatch itself loves CPU power.

 

[kalniel]

The conversion price doesn't matter, because we know the RRP for the 1080 $699, and we know the price OCUK sold at £619... you can fiddle with bank costs all you want but those two prices don't move. If you take 5% away from the addition at the end and add it to the currency conversion it doesn't matter, the £619/$699 is established. There is no random added 40%. Simple realise that the 1080 cost in £ 88.5% of it's $ price.

$229 x .885 = £202. £230 is a completely ridiculous price that would require a drastically worse exchange rate than when the 1080 were bought and afaik it's stronger at the moment.

Shops probably have their hands tied for the FE cards - the MRSP is rather more strictly enforced in order to get allocation. On the other hand the FE MRSP probably has higher margins built it. The non-FE 1070 seem to be much more expensive than the $379 nvidia said they would be, in nearly all cases more than 1£ per $ :/

But the 380X example is a nice one. Hopefully the same applies for the 480.

 

[humbug]

One week.

 

[kalniel]

So it is a cut down card compared to the 390x but still pushing nearly the same TFLOPs. This signifies quite an increase in IPC does it not?

No. 1266Mhz is a higher clock speed than 1050, not a cut. Fewer shaders, but they run at higher frequency. IPC stands for instructions per cycle, so is lower on the 480 once clock speed is equalised.

 

[D.P.]

So do we yet know the final details for the RX 480 to compare it to the 390x?

390x
GPU Clock - 1050 MHz
Memory Clock - 1500 MHz
Memory Size - 8 GB
Memory Type - GDDR5
Memory Bus - 512 bit
Shading Units - 2816
TMUs - 176
ROPs - 64
Compute Units - 44
TFLOPS - 5.9
Architecture - GCN 1.1
TDP - 275W


RX480
GPU Clock - 1120/1266 MHz
Memory Clock - 2000 MHz
Memory Size - 4/8 GB
Memory Type - GDDR5
Memory Bus - 256 bit
Shading Units - 2304
TMUs - 144?
ROPs - 64?
Compute Units - 36?
TFLOPS - 5.1/5.8
Architecture - GCN 4.0
TDP - 150W?


So it is a cut down card compared to the 390x but still pushing nearly the same TFLOPs. This signifies quite an increase in IPC does it not? i.e. the RX 480 is expected to be much more efficient in both performance and power efficiency. Impressive although you wonder what they could do with a 275W ceiling like the 390x and the additional shading units, TMUs, etc.

Perhaps that is what Vega will be?

No, it just the clock speed difference:
390x = 2816*1050*2= 5.9TFLOPS
480 = 2304*1266*2=5.8TFLOPS

IPC is lower on the 480.

 

[Tris1066]

No, it just the clock speed difference:
390x = 2816*1050*2= 5.9TFLOPS
480 = 2304*1266*2=5.8TFLOPS

IPC is lower on the 480.

You know I had no idea that's how TFLOPS were calculated (shaders*clock*2). If that's the case then my 1070 is hitting a hair over 7.9TFLOPS

Can't wait to see how far the 480 can be pushed

 

[Mauller]

No, it just the clock speed difference:
390x = 2816*1050*2= 5.9TFLOPS
480 = 2304*1266*2=5.8TFLOPS

IPC is lower on the 480.

yet performance can be higher due to architectural improvements.