• 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

humbug said:
With all the rumours flying around, such as the one above i suggested they may overclock to stock 980TI performance.

480 5.8 TFlops vs 390X 5.9 TFlops and the overclock in that apparent leak is 27%. a perfectly reasonable suggestion i thought but Gibbo said no mater what you do to the 480 it will never be as fast as a 980TI, in fact he accused me of over hyping the card.

So with that basically the performance suggestion has gone right back down to being pretty low. like 390 or less.

If he's right its a fail, its ok if its 390X performance at reference out of the box as long as it can overclock, but it looks like from what Gibbo is saying its iether much slower or another Fury-X for clocking, if not worse.

I hope Gibbo is simply over estimating the performance of the 980TI, if he isn't and knows something we don't, let slip, its another disaster,.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Gibbo talking about an OC'ed 980ti?
 
humbug said:
The fail would be on the price you get for that performance, its basically more of the same 390/X for about the same money under the 'efficiency' banner.

I wouldn't buy it and i'm desperate to replace my 970 with something new for sub £300.
Click to expand...

RX480 was never really meant for anyone with 970/290 and above. Just like 1060 is not meant for anyone with 970/290 or above. It was meant for those with GPUs below that.

RX480 is a great card, period. The real problem here is that it's not being followed by it's bigger brothers, so those with 970/290 and above, don't have an AMD upgrade path. Now that's something we can bit*h about.
 
.Trooper. said:
So many conflicting reports flying around, first Gibbo says what he said, then we get more leaks showing this :o
Click to expand...

That's because what Gibbo said made entirely no sense.

People, end users, on forums, they randomly came up with the idea that after the 1080 reviews the cards would do way above 2.1Ghz with AIB cards. Users made up this idea then were disappointed when it didn't happen. Users aren't making up new overclocking tools, AIBs bringing other cards, these are industry leaks not user optimism.

Yet Gibbo brushes off good overclocking RX480's as the same as 1080 overclocking user optimism and nothing else.


WHen will people get it, these are different types of cards. Look at even 390x power/average gaming power usage. 275W board power, 250W average power. RX480 150 board power, 100W average gaming power, from a 10% reduction to 33%.

For every card there is a clocks vs voltage curve that the card works on, optimum performance/w and optimum performance are differently places on this curve.

RX480 is being primarily targeted to OEMs, it's a mass market product not an enthusiast part. It's stock clocks/performance is based around peak performance/w, but up clocks and you get better performance for a reduction in performance/w. They launch RX480 at the best performance/w to satisfy OEMs, laptops, desktops and also at the right price points for those markets. For end users, higher end gamers, upgraders, there will be the performance optimised versions at the other end of the curve.

Stock looks like 390x+ performance, overclocked looks like it might be considerably more. Much like the 1080, 1266Mhz might be max boost and actual gaming benchmarks are really only showing that performance at say 1050Mhz because the card it throttling to 100W at stock settings. Now in the same scenario a card with power setting and clocks up at 1400Mhz might be 35% faster as it might not be overclocking from 1266Mhz to 1400mhz, but from 1050Mhz sustained to 1400Mhz sustained.

ANother way to think of it, what is the absolute peak of performance/w for GP104. Maybe they could produce a 1400Mhz base clock, 1.5Ghz boost clock 140W 1080 giving better performance/w but lower actual performance. However they've sold it at $700, this isn't going to be a big seller for Dell, there is no need to sell the card at peak performance/w but target it at peak performance, nothing more or less.

Also maybe I'm missing something but the 390x launched at $429, bringing that performance to $200 is exactly the definition of great. Wafer costs go down over time, sales happen, competition happens. RX480 will probably drop in price over time but not all that much.

Calling it a £250+ card because you've for absolutely no reason decided to use ultra price gouged stupid potential prices is daft. The 8GB reference model is $229. It's almost certainly going to be faster in games than the 390x, it sounds from every leak like it will overclock far better than the 390x ever did and I'd also expect a 15-20% performance gain from drivers over the first 6 months.

What should it do at almost half the launch price of the 390x, be triple the performance, smash the 1080 to pieces, cook dinner for you?

A week ago it was between 390x and Nano performance for $229 and was awesome, then a few days ago it was 390x to Nano at stock but might hit huge overclocks for $250 models, today it's 390x/Nano, can't overclock and costs £300.....

I'm embarrassed of like 95% of people in this thread, because stock performance hasn't changed in the past 2 weeks, and 3 and 6 months ago people thought it would be around 390x performance for half the price and half the die size........
 
Last edited:
SimBy said:
RX480 was never really meant for anyone with 970/290 and above. Just like 1060 is not meant for anyone with 970/290 or above. It was meant for those with GPUs below that.

RX480 is a great card, period. The real problem here is that it's not being followed by it's bigger brothers, so those with 970/290 and above, don't have an AMD upgrade path. Now that's something we can bit*h about.
Click to expand...

lol it's still minimum 20% faster at stock than 970/290, double vram half tdp and way better overclocker and cheaper, im not even talking about extra features, thats the difference between 980Ti and 1080 20%, yet the latter is worst overclocker than the former and 150-200£ more expensive.
ppl are funny sometimes.
 
AlamoX said:
lol it's still minimum 20% faster at stock than 970/290, double vram half tdp and way better overclocker and cheaper, im not even talking about extra features, thats the difference between 980Ti and 1080 20%, yet the latter is worst overclocker than the former and 150-200£ more expensive.
ppl are funny sometimes.
Click to expand...

Well tbf we dont know if it is 20% faster in games than those cards and what the reference core exactly is set to stock. The 12** clocks might be overclocked , case of wait n see
 
I am thinking as most others that RX480 is around R9 390X performance.

So overclock RX480 and it will be say 10-15% performance of a stock 980Ti in DX11 and in DX12 faster still 5%-10% of a stock 980Ti.

It is also possible in DX11 if AMD made improvements in DX11 it will be within 5%-10% of a stock 980ti.

So overall I think this card will be a very good card for the price.I do not see a problem with the RX480.

R9 390X 8GB relative performance vs stock 980Ti

1600x900-29%
1920x1080-29%
2560x1440-27%
3840x2160-24%

R9 390x 100%
 
humbug said:
Well sorry but a 390X level 480 is a complete fail, especially at a price where those who spend that kind of money are 85% of the custom market and already have cards of that performance which cost them that money

I got moaned at for over hyping by suggesting that it might be Fury-Nano level.

That is a perfectly reasonable expectation and I get moaned at again for saying "well actually if that's not the case the thing is an utter fail."

3 years ago I bought a 290 at a cost of under £300, one year ago I bought another 290 'there abouts' level card at under £300 (because that's all there was)
Now AMD have another 290 'there abouts' level card for under £300 and i'm supposed to be impressed?
Click to expand...

For goodness sake, a 390X is significantly faster than a 290. You don't even know that it's 390X level anyway.
 
So amd still trying to play catchup with nvidias last gen tech? Then that means a 490x card might compete with pascal mid range cards like 1070 or 1080?
Why do i get the feeling that amd wont be able to come close to the speed of a pascal titan?
 
This thread is utterly hilarious. Seanspeed and D.P., the two guys who were derided as 'Nvidia shills' now emerge as the most level-headed and accurate. Meanwhile, the AMD cats have turned on each other big time. The impact of Gibbo's brutal destruction of the excessive hype surrounding this card has been such that many have completely lost their minds.

The main issue with those now completely dismissing this card is that they seem to think the 390X is close to the 980 Ti. Where this silliness comes from I have no idea. As Gibbo alluded to earlier, the entire Internet clearly shows the 980 Ti smashes the 390X. I know that a lot of AMD fans despise Nvidia, but they shouldn't let such emotions cloud their judgement. Nvidia's high end is simply on another level and has been for quite some time.

The upside to this is that there's a large gap in performance that can potentially be filled. The 480 could find a nice spot there.
 
Truth is we know no more real facts than 100 pages back. The winner is...AMD as everyone is talking about the RX480 and waiting to see what happens.

You can't buy that kind of advertising ;)
 
BluD said:
Cant believe its gone on for this many pages with no info still :)
Click to expand...

actualy info is pretty solid and doesn't leave that much to the actual reviews.
performance at stock is about 390X, different and higher custom stock clock would put it at 980 or slightly over, sapphire confirmed overclock can go up to 1500+mhz, that should put it around Fury territory.
we know the card have 75+75watt connectors with max 150watt TDP, suggest typical power draw between 110-130watt.
we know 4Go MSRP is 199$ and 8Go is 229$ for reference design, UK that translates to 180£ and 200£. (10£ give or take)
we have actual gaming and 3Dmark official numbers for 470, puting it just shy of 970 priced for 149$ which is like 130£.
ppl will still argue that this is not confirmed yet by reviews, but so many different leaks suggest the same thing, that 29th reviews wont be very far off what i said, and to be honest there isn't much left to leak, other than custom designs.
 
I am curious. How does Gibbo know the cooler performs when he hasnt had time to do any testing?

People need to remember hes under an NDA. We will find out the performance on the 29th, so at the moment I will listen to Gibbo for selected tidbits and scoff at the "certainty" of many on this thread who insust on setting themselves uo for a fall.

To those slating AMD because the 480 isnt a 1070/1080 rival, you realise this is a low midrange part, right? Stop acting like spoilt teens and either buy Nvidia now or wait to see what vega brings.
 
It is a midrange part, regardless of what AMD initially wanted for Polaris or however many people want to hype it as a 1070/1080 competitor. So glad Gibbo put a lid on the mayham. Imagine the rending of cloths and gnashing of teeth had the hype train continued.

That said, 390x performance at stock and Fury overclocked for £220 is still good.
 
Last edited:
AlamoX said:
beh not in a synthetic bench, but i could beat it in some DX12 games, or a new firestrike running on DX12 and async compute :D
Click to expand...

Most of the figures people have been quoting in this thread are DX11 games so I think I will stick with that.

If anyone wants to have a go at the Firestrike Ultra challenge it will be on graphics score not overall score as that would be unfair with me using a 6950X CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom