• 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.

Official OcUK RX480 4GB and 8GB review thread

Biffa said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview
Click to expand...

Where things get tricky here however is the memory speeds. Officially, 7Gbps GDDR5 is the minimum speed for both RX 480 capacities, and this is the speed that AMD’s 4GB reference card runs at. However for their 8GB reference card, AMD has opted to ship the card with faster 8Gbps memory in order to further boost performance. I suspect that AMD would have liked to have used 8Gbps memory throughout, but the aforementioned price target required AMD to make some concessions to comfortable reach it. Otherwise for the higher priced 8GB card, AMD didn’t need to pinch pennies, and as a result they were able to ship it with 8Gbps memory.


The end result is that we have an odd schism between AMD’s card requirements and what they actually ship. The reference 4GB RX 480 meets the RX 480 minimum specifications, whereas the reference 8GB card is de facto overclocked relative to those same specifications. As we’ll see in our benchmark results, the difference in performance isn’t too great, but I don’t think this is an ideal outcome for consumers. My biggest concern right now is what happens when AMD’s partners start shipping their custom cards; if they opt for slower memory buses, then this would mean that custom 8GB cards could end up slightly underperforming the official reference card. But we’ll have to see how that plays out.
Click to expand...


How bizzare
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview/3
At its heart, Polaris is based on AMD’s 4th generation Graphics Core Next architecture (GCN 4). GCN 4 is not significantly different than GCN 1.2 (Tonga/Fiji), and in fact GCN 4’s ISA is identical to that of GCN 1.2’s. So everything we see here today comes not from broad, architectural changes, but from low-level microarchitectural changes that improve how instructions execute under the hood.
Click to expand...


So much for a whole new architecture. This starts to explain the performance gap between expectations and reality.

Overall AMD is claiming that GCN 4 (via RX 480) offers a 15% improvement in shader efficiency over GCN 1.1 (R9 290). This comes from two changes; instruction prefetching and a larger instruction buffer.
Click to expand...


As I told people time and time again, a new architecture will bring 15-30% improvements in most cases. AMD claimed the 14nm node provided a 70% improvement. I was generous and said that Polaris might get a 30% architecture improvements combined with the node and Polaris would be twice the performance per watt and to totally ignore the 2.8X figure AMD PR put out. Looks like I should have been more pessimistic and gone with a 15% architecture improvement and means the performance per watt difference between nvidia and AMD have only increased this generation. This is born out in the TPU reviews, Pascal has 80% more performance per watt.




Nvidia has seen a bigger architectural improvement in pascal than AMD has managed with Polaris. That is quite incredible considering the huge efficiency changes Maxwell achieved overall Kepler. Taking in to account the node shrink Pascal has improved about 25% architecture wise, Polaris 15%.
 
Last edited:
I think we're just seeing a similar slow-down for GPUs like we have with CPUs. Expect GPUs to keep delivering good enough performance for longer, especially at 1080p, which btw doesn't seem to be going anywhere. In a way, that's positive, in another, it's a bit of a let down, sure, but ultimately I think there's way more that can be done on the software side which we haven't seen so far than on hardware.
 
markoboyo11 said:
yeh seems to be getting a lot higher praise than I would give it.
Click to expand...

In absolute terms it is a perfectly fine card - slightly better performance per dollar than the 970. It is only looking particular bad when you consider it is pretty similar to the 970 for only a little less money but 2 years later, the power efficiency is now equivalent to Maxwell on 28nm, Pascal has 80% better efficiency, and the imminent 1060 may well be faster and use half the power.

Given then choice between a 970 and 480 at current rices, if I totally set aside my desire for Linux, openGL and CUDA then I could swing a 480 (if I never wanted to overclock). But compared to what nvidia is going to be offering this is pretty dire. A 2dn hand 970 offers better value for money, price per FPs is in pascal's favor funny enough.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
In absolute terms it is a perfectly fine card - slightly better performance per dollar than the 970. It is only looking particular bad when you consider it is pretty similar to the 970 for only a little less money but 2 years later, the power efficiency is now equivalent to Maxwell on 28nm, Pascal has 80% better efficiency, and the imminent 1060 may well be faster and use half the power.

Given then choice between a 970 and 480GBP at current rices, if I totally set aside my desired for Linux, openGL and CUDA then I could swing a 480 (if I never wanted to overclock). But compared to what nvidia is going to be offering this is pretty dire. A 2dn hand 970 offers better value for money, price per FPs is in pascal's favor funny enough.
Click to expand...

You have zero warranty with a secondhand GTX970 though and by extension you could argue then to buy a secondhand R9 290 which is better value.

Plus the GTX970 is still more expensive than a RX480 4GB and after seeing how performance started to drop away as time has progressed(my GTX960 has done the same),I don't see the point of getting one unless its a really good price.

Once the GTX1060 is released I expect more performance will drop away - I had both the GTX660 and GTX960 and it happened to both.
 
Last edited:
Poneros said:
I think we're just seeing a similar slow-down for GPUs like we have with CPUs. Expect GPUs to keep delivering good enough performance for longer, especially at 1080p, which btw doesn't seem to be going anywhere. In a way, that's positive, in another, it's a bit of a let down, sure, but ultimately I think there's way more that can be done on the software side which we haven't seen so far than on hardware.
Click to expand...

I don't see a slow down on Nvidia's side, the 1080 has 75% more performance than the 980. That is higher than the average generation changes (more like 65%).


I think Global Foundries process is completely broken. this doesn't look like AMD's fault entirely. Polaris is certainly not looking like the major architectural change they made out if they are stating a 15% architecture bump, but the clock speeds, power and heat issues may be due to GF issues. Kyle at hardOCP warned everyone about this.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
You have zero warranty with a secondhand GTX970 though and by extension you could argue then to buy a secondhand R9 290 which is better value.
Click to expand...

A second hand 290 /290x would also be a very good bet. No warranty but the cards will be decently cheaper.



But I was also referring to the 1060. I was originally thinking the 1060 would be slightly slower than the 480 and Nvidia would be wanting to charge more. Well, the rpcie might be hgiher but I'm now confident the 1060 will be faster for much less power draw and heat.
 
Last edited:
Orangey said:
Funny how you ignore reality after getting slapped in the face with it. :D
Click to expand...

Funny how I said it would be R9 390/R9 390X level performance for months and reality slapped you in the face:

http://i.imgur.com/LYu4iJ3.png

LYu4iJ3.png

So next time I know you are very desperate for EPEEN but don't put words in people's mouth cause you are coming accross as a very sad person who needs make sure they feel better about themself.
 
Last edited:
If overclocking is as lacking as several reviewers have apparently noted (according to pcper), then I find that disappointing. Aside from the price point, I can't see this offering much unless you're coming from something like a 7970 / 280 classed card. If, on the other hand, this is meant to be their mid ranged equivalent, then fair enough, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
4GB 480 £175 vs 4GB 970 £209 (EOL prices)
The 480 is a much better GPU for less money. Anyone saying GTX970 is faster needs to look at DX12 performance where it is ~25% or more slower than 480. This cannot be ignored unless you are a blinkered fool.

8GB 480 vs R9 390
The R9 390 has been available for the best part of a year at ~£230 here in the UK. It is also overall a faster GPU than the 480 even in DX12.

So a mixed bag, better than 970 but worse than 390. The 4GB 480 is actually a very good price/perf IMHO, much more so than 8GB IMHO.

Also those power consumption numbers indicate Polaris has finally caught up with (or marginally exceeded) Maxwell 970 for efficiency per watt. Well done AMD lol.
 
signal11th said:
Can't see anyone really buying one of these over even a 970 unless they were skint. Shame I was expecting a little more considering all the hype.
Click to expand...

WAT. It matches a heavily OC'd custom cooler and heatsink 970 at stock in DX11, for less money.

Matches 1070 / 980Ti in at least half the DX12 games available.

This is a new architecture on first lot of drivers ... Pascal / Maxwell have had 2 years of driver revision.

I'd expect it to significantly exceed a 980 in DX11 with a couple of months worth of driver releases.

Imagine what it will look like in 2 years ...

Also, for those expecting some kind of miracle re: performance ... this is a 212mm2 die. It's:

74% the size of GP104
58% the size of GM204

New drivers, and non-reference coolers plus OC = NVIDIA have absolutely nothing anywhere near it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom