• 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.

Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199

Huh? Just wait 'til E3 and you'll see that all new titles will be using DX12. Of course DX12 isn't big at the moment, as it hasn't been out that long and game-development takes years. We already have: Hitman, AotS, Warhammer, tomb Raider, Gears of War, Quantum Break, etc. and at E3 we'll probably see even more upcoming titles that are built for DX12, in addition to these: Mirror's Edge, BF1, Deus Ex, ArmA 3 Tanoa, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Watch Dogs 2, etc.
By the time DX12 is 'the norm', most enthusiasts will already have, or will be buying new cards anyways. It's gonna take quite a while. And I guarantee most of those games listed will see fairly minimal improvements with DX12 and will all have a DX11 rendering path alternative that runs fine. DX12's biggest benefits are going to be those with weaker CPU's relative to their GPU's, not improving performance in GPU-limited games.

So far, the bigger trend going for AMD is their cards working better than Nvidia cards in general, DX12 or not. They've upped their driver game and it does seem that we're getting a bit more games that actually benefit from having that console-brand GPU relation. I'm not sure that trend is going to take off further, especially as many games are still being built with PC as a decently high priority(including just about anything not AAA) but it might.

I honestly wouldn't consider DX12 performance a top priority unless you wanted a card that was going to last you 3+ years. Otherwise, just look for what performs the best over a full range of different games. As always.
 
Last edited:
Newer video from the chiphell guys with newer bios and driver on an 8GB model.

3.4k graphics score on firestrike ultra giving it fury nano performance.

 
Newer video from the chiphell guys with newer bios and driver on an 8GB model.

3.4k graphics score on firestrike ultra giving it fury nano performance.


Not that i believe anything that comes out of ChipHell but....

Apparent RX 480: GPU Score 3429

GTX 970 @ 1500/1900: GPU Score 2900
GTX 970 @ stock 1178/1750: GPU Score 2366

RX 480 vs 970 @ Stock = +45% to the RX 480
RX 480 vs 970 overclocked = +18% to the RX 480


 
IF that score is real then the price to performance is fantastic but that temperature is horrendous !

I think its like what someone else mentioned, he is NDA dodging by putting a lightening 290x cooler on it. But most likely did a crap job and it don't fit properly.
 
I think its like what someone else mentioned, he is NDA dodging by putting a lightening 290x cooler on it. But most likely did a crap job and it don't fit properly.

The Hawaii chip is twice the size so its probably only got one of 3 heat pipes touching the die.

Early Asus 290X cooler had problems with overheating for the same reason, they swapped it over from the 780TI which is larger and at a different angle.
 
IF that score is real then the price to performance is fantastic but that temperature is horrendous !

Great in winter at least.

Don't need to use the heating, my 7970 GHz does an amazing job :D

His room might be a sweat house. Without knowing the ambient we can't be sure how bad that is. It's certainly a little eye opening though. The performance looks like it's there though.

Correct, I moved my pc into the hallway and it runs soooooooooo much cooler.
 
Last edited:
Also worth pointing out then that if the cooler isn't doing a good job as it's not designed for it, the card might be faster but throttled to a specific clockspeed due to the temps.

I mean if that run was a 1080 at those temps the performance wouldn't at all reflect the performance you could get if temps were 70c would they.
 
Newer video from the chiphell guys with newer bios and driver on an 8GB model.

3.4k graphics score on firestrike ultra giving it fury nano performance.

Actually slightly above Nano isn't it? In between Nano and Fury.

Gur3D 3D / Chiphell Mark Ultra (Graphics score):

AMD Fury Nano: 3325
AMD 480 8GB: 3429
AMD Fury STRIX: 3565

Amazing.... Also providing cooling is fine on final version, surely you could OC to be close to a Fury X / 980Ti... All for a £220 card.
 
How does anyone with a fury nano find it in the latest games at 1440p?

I use a watercooled and overclocked Nano. Tbh, is just like a FuryX.
(You can go to FuryX speeds by just cracking the +50% power limit, on air)

Runs cool, chews and spits anything thrown at it, and coil wine is gone.
Absolutely superb card, that I do plan to keep until Vega is out.

My only resentment, couple of games eg XCOM 2, TW Warhammer, need more VRAM if I want to crack MSAA above the 2x.
Also using it with XL2730Z Freesync monitor. Which I will only replace with a 3440x1440 or 4K Freesync monitor that can do 100hz+ and possibly supports 10bit if not HDR.
 
Actually slightly above Nano isn't it? In between Nano and Fury.

Gur3D 3D / Chiphell Mark Ultra (Graphics score):

AMD Fury Nano: 3325
AMD 480 8GB: 3429
AMD Fury STRIX: 3565

Amazing.... Also providing cooling is fine on final version, surely you could OC to be close to a Fury X / 980Ti... All for a £220 card.

Stick aftermarket cooler on, profit?
 
Back
Top Bottom