• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

Orangey said:
Pretty desperate to market it as a xfire card for VR when:

a) xfire is dead
b) headsets cost 3 times as much, not exactly a match made in heaven for budget-conscious buyers

I hope they change tack and give people some more realistic reasons to buy.
Click to expand...

But doesn't the two card solution work per eye for VR, there is a specialist application for two cards then?
 
OK tried again. This time I took off the extra shaders and ended up with this.

Tap3nd6.png
 
Sacrifice said:
But doesn't the two card solution work per eye for VR, there is a specialist application for two cards then?
Click to expand...

This method is still in the scientific stages and while the potential is there for this theory to play true and work well, it is still an unknown how well this method will work. There are alternatives and only the best will win through and be adopted, in scale, by developers.

Currently there is no VR that uses one GPU per eye, as far as I am aware.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
Graphics score is listed in both screenshots.

With shaders unlocked = 18439
At Stock = 18049

RX480 8GB = 18060
Click to expand...

Yeah, i completely glanced over those bits on the pic, they just blended into the background for me. lol i kept going into the drop down for the result details etc.
 
Mauller said:
Nice, 18049 while the Rx480 3dmark had 18060, putting the RX480 at Fury / nano performance.
Click to expand...

Actually now that I think about it mine is the Tri X with 1040mhz core clock speed. The regulary Fury Pro has 1000mhz so that 480 gpu score would beat my score if I downclocked it.
 
Overall it shows that there is a mixture of architecture improvements in performance going along with the increase in clocks.

The biggest performance increases will need to be seen in games, especially ones with tessellation etc.
 
Lokken86 said:
Actually now that I think about it mine is the Tri X with 1040mhz core clock speed. The regulary Fury Pro has 1000mhz so that 480 gpu score would beat my score if I downclocked it.
Click to expand...

Weird that my OC 290X actually gets a higher score than your Fury Pro.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11299483

If the 480 is Fury level at stock speed then surely overclocking should get it to FuryX level. :eek:

The AoTS results make the 480 appear to be slower but the 3dmark 11 score indicates its around Fury Pro level. Maybe the DX11 improvements have indeed made a difference.
 
Last edited:
TonyTurbo78 said:
So what's the difference between having two cards in your system, one powering each eye in VR compared to having 2 cards in your system in crossfire????

I generally don't get it. Maybe I should have put it like - will the two 390 cards in my system work with VR?
Click to expand...

Answer your question Yes when games are supported.Check out AMD LiquidVR™: Affinity multiGPU video

May have been posted in the last 200 pages,the videos are from last year.
So when games start using this technology by AMD's "LiquidVR ™".Single card and crossfire support will be very good.


AMD LiquidVR™: Affinity multiGPU

AMD LiquidVR™:Simplified
 
fs123 said:
Weird where my OC 290X actually gets a higher score than your Fury Pro.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11299483

If the 480 is Fury level at stock speed then surely overclocking should get it to FuryX level. :eek:

The AoTS results make the 480 appear to be slower but the 3dmark 11 score indicates its around Fury Pro level. Maybe the DX11 improvements have indeed made a difference.
Click to expand...

Still even then - you have a 1.2GHZ R9 290X.

The RX480 does have a 22% deficit in shaders and half the memory bandwidth,the score puts it definitely faster than an R9 390.

Edit!!

You might be right the DX11 performance though.
 
Last edited:
My 390 at 1040MHz:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11299472

The 480 is looking to be somewhere between 390X and Fury performance then.

...I'm beginning to wonder whether the 3DMark11 graphics tests are hitting CPU limits with all these cards on systems with Ivy Bridge and Haswell processors - these scores are very close, and it is at 1280x720 after all.
 
Last edited:
fs123 said:
Weird that my OC 290X actually gets a higher score than your Fury Pro.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11299483

If the 480 is Fury level at stock speed then surely overclocking should get it to FuryX level. :eek:

The AoTS results make the 480 appear to be slower but the 3dmark 11 score indicates its around Fury Pro level. Maybe the DX11 improvements have indeed made a difference.
Click to expand...

Maybe because it's only at 1280x720 and you're cpu score is way higher so probably less bottleneck. I might try one last time at 4.6 or 4.8 to see what kind of effect the cpu is having on it.
 
Lokken86 said:
Maybe because it's only at 1280x720 and you're cpu score is way higher so probably less bottleneck. I might try one last time at 4.6 or 4.8 to see what kind of effect the cpu is having on it.
Click to expand...

If you try at a lowly 4GHz (as that's where my 3570k is currently at :() it would probably show quite clearly if there's a CPU bottleneck in the Graphics tests.
 
p5ychonaut said:
If you try at a lowly 4GHz (as that's where my 3570k is currently at :() it would probably show quite clearly if there's a CPU bottleneck in the Graphics tests.
Click to expand...

OK I will.

I've looked at the fps in the detailed results section for all the cards. The 390 fps is almost the same as the 480 but the 480 beats the overclocked 290x in gpu test 4. The Fury also has by far the fastest gpu test1 but the slowest test4. Why can't anything be simple!

Btw how did you get such a high gpu score? Is it a 390x?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom