Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199

.Trooper. · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:02

This is what happens when the only information you provide is (semi) useless Ashes of the Singularity benchmark. If they had just given a proper benchmark with a more useful game or tool, expectations would be set in stone instead of all this madness and the ****-pot that is this thread.

Even would be good if they gave some OFFICIAL benchmark this week prior to the launch to set everyone straight.

XeNoNF50 · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:04

.Trooper. said:
This is what happens when the only information you provide is (semi) useless Ashes of the Singularity benchmark. If they had just given a proper benchmark with a more useful game or tool, expectations would be set in stone instead of all this madness and the ****-pot that is this thread.

Even would be good if they gave some OFFICIAL benchmark this week prior to the launch to set everyone straight.

I am hoping for some benches pre-release. Always thought it was silly it had to be on launch day.

Gregster · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:04

.Trooper. said:
This is what happens when the only information you provide is (semi) useless Ashes of the Singularity benchmark. If they had just given a proper benchmark with a more useful game or tool, expectations would be set in stone instead of all this madness and the ****-pot that is this thread.

Even would be good if they gave some OFFICIAL benchmark this week prior to the launch to set everyone straight.

Bugged the crap out of me that slide they did with AoTS and I can understand them using it but at least do it in single card mode :mad:

Apache14 · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:05

I don't see the confusion about the performance of the 480, it will be near identical to the 390(x) but with a much lower power consumption. And if the rumours are true should have pretty good OC potential.

From my point of view, at the moment I have a R9 290 (stock cooler) in a bitfenix prodigy case and an ASUS FreeSync monitor. If all the talk is true and the 480 is <£250 and performs like a 390X AND draws a lot less power than my 290. I will be buying one .... or two

I think AMD have made the right choice in pushing these "mid range" chips first that allows more people access to VR requirements over the £500+ bleeding edge chips

Hotwired · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:09

Talking about VR is just padding the advertising.

They are mid range cards and that's it.

meldarthx · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:10

five8five said:
He said he's seen custom models in Taiwan. I expect he'll have seen or been told about expected performance.

And or Gibbo wants people to buy what he has right now - now not what he doesn't have.

Ref cards I've said from the beginning will be at least 390X 980 speeds....in DX 11 and DX 12 they should be between nano and fury speeds.....

Its OC where they land - they look like they will hit 1400 and possibly 1500 speeds. With that OC they could fall between nano and fury speeds for DX 11 and possibly Fury X with DX 12 - could they make 980TI? possibly but not until the custom cards come.

Now its the custom cards we don't have clue on; where they will fall - along with because someone has held one doesn't mean they were told how they were performed. AMD's been playing their cards very close to their chest for a reason.

Right now - if you have a 290; the 480 still looks to be solid upgrade.....same with 470.....

*remember the benches for 470 we've gotten show it matching 970 so there is no way 480 would only be 970 speeds; it at least matches 980 at boost*

Scramz · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:12

I'm going for in and around R9 390 (non X) performance just drawing a hella lot less power.

XeNoNF50 · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:13

Hotwired said:
Talking about VR is just padding the advertising.

They are mid range cards and that's it.

Definitely just for advertising, surely? Can't imagine many people who are willing to spend almost 700 quid on a HTC Vive headset will cheap out 200 quid on the GPU.

Tolemac · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:15

Personally I want to see the 2560 X 1440p benchmarks before I part with any money

TheRealDeal · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:18

Scramz said:
I'm going for in and around R9 390 (non X) performance just drawing a hella lot less power.

You might be right but it's hard to see how this can be true. The card is supposed to have 5.8 gflops and the 390x has 5.9 Gflops. Add in all the improvements to the architecture and it's hard to see how it can be slower than a 390x. The 5.8 gflops is based on the 1266 core clock which could be wrong. This guy talks it through well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Lt41pdGJk

D.P. · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:18

Hotwired said:
Talking about VR is just padding the advertising.

They are mid range cards and that's it.

And despite all of AMD's marketing being VR driven they haven't said anything about VR specific hardware. Pascal has a lot of hardware specific optimizations for single pass multi-projection that they claim can give a 70% performance increase by reusing geometry processing through the left and right view-ports (and correcting the perspective), as well as reducing overdraw.

AMD haven't made any claims of VR specific hardware. Maybe when the reviews come out we will find out more but you would have thought they would be singing about such hardware advances when they released the cards.

D.P. · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:20

TheRealDeal said:
You might be right but it's hard to see how this can be true. The card is supposed to have 5.8 gflops and the 390x has 5.9 Gflops. Add in all the improvements to the architecture and it's hard to see how it can be slower than a 390x. The 5.8 gflops is based on the 1266 core clock which could be wrong. This guy talks it through well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Lt41pdGJk

I wonder is the 1080 clock is the base and 1266 is boost. Of course, who knows how the boost works with this new generation.

But I agree , if it has a 1266Mhz clock it should be similar or slightly faster than a 390X.

Supernova · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:22

Hotwired said:
Talking about VR is just padding the advertising.

They are mid range cards and that's it.

So? If you don't want 1440p or 4k it is more than powerful enough. That's the end of it.

LoadsaMoney · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:23

Just been catching up on this thread, had a good old chuckle, cheers guys

kylew_is_back · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:24

I strongly believe that RX480 will fall between Fury and Fury X performance, because AMD said that Polaris will have 2.8x stronger performance per watt than the 270X

AMD said:
Using Performance/Board power, the resulting average across the 4 different titles was a [performance] per watt of 2.8X vs the Radeon R9 270X.

RX480 = 150W
270X = 180W

(150*2.8)/180 = 2.33x → 2.33x30 = 70!!!

and with a little OC(10%) the RX480 will surpass the Titan X (at stock) :eek:

Finners · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:25

Anyone know if the reference cards are going to stick around once AIB cards come out? Surely they will be more expensive as the ref design looks cheap as chips to manufacture.

TNA · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:25

Gregster said:
Basically that. A couple of times Humbug had speculated that the 480 could be faster than a Titan X and whilst it would be amazing if true, it isn't going to happen.

480 faster than a Titan X? Maybe in another dimension

Humbug dude. I have a 290 which I will be selling to get a 480 myself, it may seem like a pointless upgrade but it is not for me. The 290 I got from members market and never risked overclocking it.

My reasoning is that I will end up with a card that is as fast, if not faster than what I have, will be able to overclock it, will certainly run cooler/quieter, double the VRAM and warranty. Oh and a new to play with

The card will stay in my system for probably 6-9 months and then move into my partners machine where it will live a easy life and play everything she wants maxed as she only has a 1080p monitor. I can see the card lasting her 4-5 years

As for me, I think I will likely get the big Vega with HBM 2 or 1080Ti when they come out. Those cards will be the true 14/16nm cards which will bring big performance leap and last me a long time

D.P. · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:26

XeNoNF50 said:
Definitely just for advertising, surely? Can't imagine many people who are willing to spend almost 700 quid on a HTC Vive headset will cheap out 200 quid on the GPU.

I expect AMD ave been jumping on the VR bandwagon for investor purposes, telling investors how AMD are going to revolutionize the industry with affordable VR hardware that will generate X billion dollars over the next Y years. VR is a popular fad right now, at CES every man and his dog had a VR head set even if they had nothing to do with VR. Seriously, even some of the Auto companies had a booth set up with VR headsets playing project cars or whatever. Investors think VR is the hottest thing since sliced bread, whether it is or isnt is largely irrelevant if AMD can convince investors that AMD will be a big player and generate significant revenue.
Part of the investor spiel will include marketing VR to consumers at low costs, completely ignoring the head set costs a fortune in the first place.

Seanspeed · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:27

Tolemac said:
Personally I want to see the 2560 X 1440p benchmarks before I part with any money

If you have a 1440p monitor, I think you're stuck with a 980Ti/1070 at minimum.

I say this because I'm 110% sure that we're going to see some 1440p DX12 benchmarks that makes it seem like the 480 is a great card for that resolution, but isn't actually adequate in the majority of gaming applications.

AMD's own marketing is bound to emphasize DX12 and I think people should realistically try and look past that given that

a) People dont always want to play nothing but modern games

and

b) Most new games will still be DX11.

SimBy · 21 Jun 2016 at 16:30

Here we go again