Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199

[Geck0]

I'm just wondering how I'm going to get my qnix 2710LED to work with this puppy after i get rid of my r9 290. Hopefully an AIB does a DVI-D port. If not I'll be a little later to the party but i'm getting one for my daughters computer, ought to be a nice upgrade for her from an i5 4690 LOL

 

[Gerard]

The new King 480 is arriving soon have you made your promise to quit smoking, loose that fat and drop those push ups to be ready?

Is there any chance of any of your posts making some kind of sense and not resembling a random gibberish\pr-bot generator?

 

[TheRealDeal]

Is there any chance of any of your posts making some kind of sense and not resembling a random gibberish\pr-bot generator?

Lol all he is saying is you have to be in good shape to use the new king that is the RX 480. I thought it was rather funny.

Why do people get heated from his post's? they are harmless and mainly funny.

 

[Gerard]

Lol all he is saying is you have to be in good shape to use the new king that is the RX 480. I thought it was rather funny.

Why do people get heated from his post's? they are harmless and mainly funny.

I honestly think this is what happens when he makes a post.

 

[SiDeards73]

Bit of a side question, who is running an R9 290 on a 1440p 144hz freesync screen and plays The Division? ive been holding off buying a new monitor as i was waiting on the AMD stuff to compare to Nvidia before vendor locking myself.

Seems I will be sticking with AMD, while im tempted by the 480, i can just buy a screen right now to run my 290 on, i only really play Grim Dawn, D3, Division, Elder Scrolls online and Wow, most of these dont tax the 290, the Division does a bit though.

Just wondering what kinda framerate im going to get on a 290 @ 1440p, im guessing it should be in the Freesync range, but this also makes me think i might aswell trade up my 290 anyhow for a 480 for now til big Vega comes and then move to that?

 

[eazyrider]

Just wondering what kinda framerate im going to get on a 290 @ 1440p, im guessing it should be in the Freesync range, but this also makes me think i might aswell trade up my 290 anyhow for a 480 for now til big Vega comes and then move to that?

do that

 

[fs123]

If that leak is real (though the clockspeed readout is wrong), then it's showing faster than a 390X, but slower than a Nano, at stock clocks.

But since we're not 100% sure what the clock is then I don't know.

Why would the clockspeed be reported incorrectly in Crimson when all other leaks have shown the proper 1266MHz or 1080MHz? AMD's own driver software messing up the clockspeed reading is not likely. For some reason they appear to have intentially misrepresented the clockspeed. I mean why have a gpu-z window open when you hide it behind another window?

 

[Seanspeed]

Yeah seems weird to me too.

Even if this is legit, and it does run on that driver, surely the final proper driver will be higher performance anyway. So this leak is kinda useless either way.

I see that order of the day is to ignore all less-than-ideal leaks(or even reports directly from AMD) and only believe in the most optimistic ones? :/

 

[TheRealDeal]

Bit of a side question, who is running an R9 290 on a 1440p 144hz freesync screen and plays The Division? ive been holding off buying a new monitor as i was waiting on the AMD stuff to compare to Nvidia before vendor locking myself.

Seems I will be sticking with AMD, while im tempted by the 480, i can just buy a screen right now to run my 290 on, i only really play Grim Dawn, D3, Division, Elder Scrolls online and Wow, most of these dont tax the 290, the Division does a bit though.

Just wondering what kinda framerate im going to get on a 290 @ 1440p, im guessing it should be in the Freesync range, but this also makes me think i might aswell trade up my 290 anyhow for a 480 for now til big Vega comes and then move to that?

Why not use VSR and find out for yourself. At 1600p vsr my fps were not bad with mainly high settings. With Freesync i feel it would have been more than playable.

 

[tommybhoy]

I see that order of the day is to ignore all less-than-ideal leaks(or even reports directly from AMD) and only believe in the most optimistic ones? :/

Leaks are almost always just cash revenue.

If you take a step back concentrating on peoples opinions of leaks(leaving them optimistic with the flip side open for disapointment), it probably wouldn't bother you as much as it does.

Looking like it's going to be a frustring 9 days for you and others that don't get carried away on the hype train.

 

[AllBodies]

I see that order of the day is to ignore all less-than-ideal leaks(or even reports directly from AMD) and only believe in the most optimistic ones? :/

Or it's to ignore the ones which look dodgy?

Previous ones haven't had a corrupted clockspeed readout or a driver version which seems too early.

Also it's not even less-than-ideal. It shows slower than a 390X at 4K, but faster at 2K and 1080p, and that would both be good and make sense due to the memory bandwidth.

 

[D.P.]

Or it's to ignore the ones which look dodgy?

Previous ones haven't had a corrupted clockspeed readout or a driver version which seems too early.

16.5.2 doesn't seem that early.
The clock speed may be because it is a faster AIB card, reference cards being a tad slower.

 

[Seanspeed]

Leaks are almost always just cash revenue.

If you take a step back concentrating on peoples opinions of leaks(leaving them optimistic with the flip side open for disapointment), it probably wouldn't bother you as much as it does.

Looking like it's going to be a frustring 9 days for you and others that don't get carried away on the hype train.

You're probably right.

But I also think it'd be awful to see the card being trashed because many in here were hyping it up to be something it doesn't turn out to be, creating disappointment and also an invitation for any haters to come in and act like smug class acts.

It can still be a good card at a good price without it being knock-your-socks-off good like some here are expecting.

 

[AllBodies]

16.5.2 doesn't seem that early.
The clock speed may be because it is a faster AIB card, reference cards being a tad slower.

But it says 33701052(??) MHz, and the latest driver is apparently 16.6.1 and the card isn't released yet.

So seems fishy to me.

 

[TheRealDeal]

But it says 33701052(??) MHz, and the latest driver is apparently 16.6.1 and the card isn't released yet.

So seems fishy to me.

Yep 16.6.1 has been out for 2 weeks now.

 

[Sargatanas2511]

But it says 33701052(??) MHz, and the latest driver is apparently 16.6.1 and the card isn't released yet.

So seems fishy to me.

Apparently it overclocks better than we all thought!

 

[tommybhoy]

You're probably right.

But I also think it'd be awful to see the card being trashed because many in here were hyping it up to be something it doesn't turn out to be, creating disappointment and also an invitation for any haters to come in and act like smug class acts.

It can still be a good card at a good price without it being knock-your-socks-off good like some here are expecting.

There's always going to be dafties trashing it whether it simply turns out to be simply just garbage or astounding-even if the other team can't match the price performance ratio.

Haters gonna hate be it either team, that's just the way it is on everything at the end of the day.

 

[Jono8]

Or it's to ignore the ones which look dodgy?

Previous ones haven't had a corrupted clockspeed readout or a driver version which seems too early.

Also it's not even less-than-ideal. It shows slower than a 390X at 4K, but faster at 2K and 1080p, and that would both be good and make sense due to the memory bandwidth.

It ties in with the videocardz recent leaked benches - scores are very similar.

Both those look far more genuine than that black chinese graph that has come under a lot of scrutiny.

These tie in with what in reality is most likely the truth - the card will be around 390x performance.

 

[Mauller]

It ties in with the videocardz recent leaked benches - scores are very similar.

Both those look far more genuine than that black chinese graph that has come under a lot of scrutiny.

These tie in with what in reality is most likely the truth - the card will be around 390x performance.

It could even be a case that videocardz and wccftech and Chinese are right, the main difference being the driver used. Since it could very well be that some Polaris based optimisations or hardware enabling features are in 16.6.1 but not the last stable driver, 16.5.2 etc.

Also something else that i noticed beside the clocks which are fudged in those pictures is the vram capacity. Which as others have said with the clocks has shown fine in other leaks.

 

[Seanspeed]

There's always going to be dafties trashing it whether it simply turns out to be simply just garbage or astounding-even if the other team can't match the price performance ratio.

Haters gonna hate be it either team, that's just the way it is on everything at the end of the day.

If the card is great, it wont leave much room to trash it. :/

Haters will hate, but haters also relish having some live ammunition to do it with.