Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199

Scramz · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:01

RedGoose said:
2977 is the overall score which is affected by the CPU. 2906 is the GPU score.

Thats correct, I will edit my post to reflect this. Only change 0.3 haha. OP: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29668313&postcount=6648

Orangey · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:04

Mauller said:
becasue a lot of the stuff we have seen is leaked and not actual benchmarks, or they are benchmarks in specific circumstances. it means they can release the card at full performance on the day and it keeps their hand hidden from the competition.

meldarthx said:
Those leaks came from AMD - Guru3D said so - showing 470 matching 290/970 in benches.....

6.3 was with a driver from January and low power which is supposed to be 900 mhz....seriously AMD is low balling the 480 to surprise their competition; I seriously can't believe no one remember the exact same stuff happened with 4870 release and 5870 release. There was so much disinformation - and bomb that dropped on release was eyefinity.

We know the baseline at boost for 480 will be 980/390X speeds - the core wouldn't be any less in DX11 - DX 12 shows it should be between nano and Fury. Sapphire has already confirmed 1500 mhz......and how far after it will OC is something we'll just have to wait and see.....

will it match 1070; we honestly don't know but for a 200-220 card...it just needs to get 80% of it to really do damage at that price.....and from the leaks it will more than do that

ROFL delusion levels hitting new heights!

Just give up. It's a lower-midrange nofrills card and OCing probably won't do much for it.

RedGoose · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:06

TomRL said:
I'm interested in what happened to the Fury. People keep citing it like it was a massive failure. I remember it being underwhelming but I wasn't that into the GPU market back then. How did Nvidia steal their thunder? Did they just quickly release the TI shortly after the Fury?

Fury X was supposed to be the Titan X killer. And really, looking at its numbers, it should have been. It's almost as good and is half the price. The problem, however, is that at the peak of the Fury X hype, Nvidia releases the 980ti at the same price point. Now the Fury X was not competing with the Titan X but a much more affordable 980ti, which also happened to be an excellent overclocker that ultimately became the enthusiast go-to card.

I'm not saying the Fury X was a failure or a bad card, but it didn't live up to its expectations because Nvidia outmaneuvered AMD.

Cyber-Mav · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:06

Hmm that puts rx480 around gtx960 level

Jono8 · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:07

TomRL said:
I'm interested in what happened to the Fury. People keep citing it like it was a massive failure. I remember it being underwhelming but I wasn't that into the GPU market back then. How did Nvidia steal their thunder? Did they just quickly release the TI shortly after the Fury?

The 980Ti came out and was simply better. More vram, bit faster at stock and once the AIB pre overclocked ones came out it left the Fury range for dust.

Oh also you could actually buy one as well.

MyBrainz · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:14

RedGoose said:
Here's a nice chart with all the benching tools in one:

So my AMD 7950 2112 Graphics score beats a GTX 970 2058 Graphics score in Firestrike Ultra?

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/5257360?

Clock speeds in the above link were actually 1200/1625

Scramz · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:15

MyBrains said:
So my AMD 7950 2112 Graphics score beats a GTX 970 2058 Graphics score in Firestrike Ultra?

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/5257360?

Clock speeds in the above link were actually 1200/1625

That chart is way off.

RedGoose · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:15

MyBrains said:
So my AMD 7950 2112 Graphics score beats a GTX 970 2058 Graphics score in Firestrike Ultra?

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/5257360?

Clock speeds in the above link were actually 1200/1625

That's a stock 970 though.

RedGoose · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:16

Scramz said:
That chart is way off.

You have a more accurate one for reference?

Scramz · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:17

Mauller said:
becasue a lot of the stuff we have seen is leaked and not actual benchmarks, or they are benchmarks in specific circumstances. it means they can release the card at full performance on the day and it keeps their hand hidden from the competition.

pandem0nium · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:21

Jono8 said:
The 980Ti came out and was simply better. More vram, bit faster at stock and once the AIB pre overclocked ones came out it left the Fury range for dust.

Oh also you could actually buy one as well.

It launched at 650, which was too much. Many thought that 4g vram wasnt enough for the top end card. And there were issues with pump whine on the early cards.

Secret_Window · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:22

Maybe I'm being ignorant and lazy (I have not followed the entire thread), but what is the point of the RX 480 if it is the same speed of the 390x/970?

Apologies if this has already been answered.

Gerard · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:23

pandem0nium said:
And there were issues with pump whine on the early cards.

It was never fully sorted out, some cards you can buy new now still suffer from it.

MyBrainz · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:23

RedGoose said:
That's a stock 970 though.

And so are the leaked 480 scores (did u see what i did there?)

melmac · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:24

Scramz said:
Price to performance is king regardless of what tier of card you want to buy.

How do you work out performance? It's no problem when comparing Nvidia cards to other Nvidia cards, or AMD cards to AMD cards. But, benchmarks and games can vary quite a bit depending on which brand card you use.

Is there a benchmark that doesn't favour any brand of card? And, we hear time and time again that none of the benchmarks are any sort of indication of game performance.

And then what resolution or graphic settings do we use? There is always games etc that one brand card is faster at lower resolutions than the other. And some cards have better performance at some at higher resolutions.

Sorry, those are just my some of the thoughts I have when I see people talk about price/performance.

Anyway, back to your post, You did a calculation on one benchmark and claimed that the price/performance of the 1070 and 480 were the same. But one benchmark does not even begin to tell the story of the price/performance ratio. You are also working it out without knowing what the actual performance of the 480 is in said benchmark.

So you might end up been right, but, you can't make any predictions just yet.

Just want to add, that I don't think price/performance ratios work at all across different price tiers. Because the people that buy £400 cards will be different from the people buying £200 cards.

RedGoose · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:26

Secret_Window said:
Maybe I'm being ignorant and lazy (I have not followed the entire thread), but what is the point of the RX 480 if it is the same speed of the 390x/970?

Apologies if this has already been answered.

A cheaper and more efficient upgrade choice for those who have older/lower end cards.

RedGoose · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:28

melmac said:
How do you work out performance? It's no problem when comparing Nvidia cards to other Nvidia cards, or AMD cards to AMD cards. But, benchmarks and games can vary quite a bit depending on which brand card you use.

Is there a benchmark that doesn't favour any brand of card? And, we hear time and time again that none of the benchmarks are any sort of indication of game performance.

And then what resolution or graphic settings do we use? There is always games etc that one brand card is faster at lower resolutions than the other. And some cards have better performance at some at higher resolutions.

Sorry, those are just my some of the thoughts I have when I see people talk about price/performance.

Anyway, back to your post, You did a calculation on one benchmark and claimed that the price/performance of the 1070 and 480 were the same. But one benchmark does not even begin to tell the story of the price/performance ratio. You are also working it out without knowing what the actual performance of the 480 is in said benchmark.

So you might end up been right, but, you can't make any predictions just yet.

Just want to add, that I don't think price/performance ratios work at all across different price tiers. Because the people that buy £400 cards will be different from the people buying £200 cards.

I guess it depends on what games you want to play.

TheRealDeal · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:28

Secret_Window said:
Maybe I'm being ignorant and lazy (I have not followed the entire thread), but what is the point of the RX 480 if it is the same speed of the 390x/970?

Apologies if this has already been answered.

For starters the 390x is a decent bit faster than the 970. The 390x was a £320+ card before the recent releases. What the RX480 will do is bring 390x/980 perforomance to around £200 or lower for the 4gb version and around £220 for the 8gb version. You are paying a lot less for the performance than you were a month back.

Not to mention it will do this using way less power and should be a proper dx12 card as I assume Polaris will be a step up in this department compared to all past GCN iterations.

Mtom · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:30

Secret_Window said:
Maybe I'm being ignorant and lazy (I have not followed the entire thread), but what is the point of the RX 480 if it is the same speed of the 390x/970?

Apologies if this has already been answered.

Newer, less power hungry, its one tier lower card, and cheaper then a 380x.

melmac · 23 Jun 2016 at 00:30

Secret_Window said:
Maybe I'm being ignorant and lazy (I have not followed the entire thread), but what is the point of the RX 480 if it is the same speed of the 390x/970?

Apologies if this has already been answered.

Which is it? 390x speeds or 970 speeds? The 390x is more like the 980.