Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199

TheRealDeal · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:29

Kaapstad said:
Because people were going on about the performance of NVidia cards. To show the difference between NV cards it is the best bench to use as it is totally about GPU grunt and type of CPU hardly matters.

We don't play Heaven though and it's not realistic when it comes to game performance. Game performance is what matters to most. Sure for some it's all about benching.

Kaapstad · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:30

TheRealDeal said:
It clearly does and i would rather base performance on loads of game benchmarks than one that's not really comparitive to games.

Not when you compare NVidia cards from the same family (Maxwell). Heaven 4 also has the advantage of being very game like in results as there is no huge physics score to skew things up.

Jono8 · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:31

TheRealDeal said:
We don't play Heaven though and it's not realistic when it comes to game performance. Game performance is what matters to most. Sure for some it's all about benching.

Ok then. All the game comparison you could ask for

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29602465&postcount=1741

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29599918&postcount=1671

Kaapstad · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:33

TheRealDeal said:
We don't play Heaven though and it's not realistic when it comes to game performance. Game performance is what matters to most. Sure for some it's all about benching.

It's results are very game like actually.

The bottom line is it shows the 980 Ti's to be about 40% faster than the 980s. This can be repeated in games at high resolutions where the CPU is not a factor.

TheRealDeal · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:33

Kaapstad said:
Not when you compare NVidia cards from the same family (Maxwell). Heaven 4 also has the advantage of being very game like in results as there is no huge physics score to skew things up.

Well tpu test 21 games and the gap is no where near as big as heaven is showing. This is at 1440p where the gap is wider. At 1080p the gap is only around 20%. Even at 4k over the 21 games the 980ti is only 25% faster.

BluD · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:34

im suprised the 390x does that well against the 980ti, the 390x cards must be a hell of a lot faster than my 290x cause they get trashed vs a 980ti.

Kaapstad · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:35

TheRealDeal said:
Well tpu test 21 games and the gap is no where near as big as heaven is showing. This is at 1440p where the gap is wider. At 1080p the gap is only around 20%. Even at 4k over the 21 games the 980ti is only 25% faster.

Luckly I still have 980s and 980 Ti's lol.

The difference is about 40%.

TheRealDeal · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:36

Kaapstad said:
Luckly I still have 980s and 980 Ti's lol.

The difference is about 40%.

It's clearly not stock for stock. You have a Kingpin 980ti which is way faster than the stock card.

BluD · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:36

Is it time to pull all the old cards out of the cupboards for testing Kaap and put the matter to rest?

Mauller · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:37

Ah, bad luck guys, looks like the card is just a potato now.

Kaapstad · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:37

TheRealDeal said:
It's clearly not stock for stock.

Stock for stock and overclocked for overclocked the difference is about 40%.

ICDP · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:38

I was saying weeks ago that if RX 480 releases at R9 390 performance and price it would be a failure. For RX480 to be worth it's asking price its need to be matching 390X - Nano. I stand by those words

We have had R9 390/GTX 970 type performance for ~£230-£250 for the past year - 18 months. AMD releasing RX 480 at that price/perf would be a monumental failure.

Kaapstad · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:39

BluD said:
Is it time to pull all the old cards out of the cupboards for testing Kaap and put the matter to rest?

They are in PCs at the moment.

TheRealDeal · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:39

Kaapstad said:
Stock for stock and overclocked for overclocked the difference is about 40%.

Maybe you should go tell Wizzard he's doing it wrong then as you have the 980ti at 40% faster and he has it at 20%. That's a massive difference.

RavenXXX2 · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:39

ICDP said:
We have had R9 390/GTX 970 type performance for ~£230-£250 for the past year - 18 months. AMD releasing RX 480 at that price/perf would be a monumental failure.

On a new process as well. :rolleyes:

Mauller · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:39

Look like the RX480 is just a potato now, got some more leaks here to prove that gibbo is right.

Jono8 · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:40

TheRealDeal said:
Maybe you should go tell Wizzard he's doing it wrong then as you have the 980ti at 40% faster and he has it at 20%. That's a massive difference.

Still ignoring these?

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29599918&postcount=1671

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29602465&postcount=1741

Troezar · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:43

Well we all know Nvidia are currently top dog they just make you pay for it. I think Gibbo is playing a clever game. Rein in the expectations whilst also knowing the performance is very good. Big peak in positive feeling come the 29th and lots of sales.

Everyone knows a good salesman sells on emotion not facts and figures

TheRealDeal · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:46

Jono8 said:
Still ignoring these?

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29599918&postcount=1671

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29602465&postcount=1741

You talking about the gtx980 or 390x. I am talking about the gtx980. I see from your results there are gaps of up to nearly 80% skewing things. Were there reasons for this.

Jono8 · 20 Jun 2016 at 20:47

TheRealDeal said:
You talking about the gtx980 or 390x. I am talking about the gtx980. I see from your results there are gaps of up to nearly 80% scewing things. Were there reasons for this.

Yes, the same reason some of them are only 5% or -10%. Funny you didn't bring those up though