• 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

Soldato
Joined
8 Aug 2003
Posts
9,144
This is all i want to know now. Seems like the awful cooler is holding it back a bit

One of the better more technical reviews I have read thus far is from bit-tech.net, linked earlier by someone. Waited a month on this card coming so another few weeks on AIB models/info isn't a problem.

"Sadly, the reference cooler leaves a lot to be desired. The default 2,200 RPM fan speed limit is quickly reached under load in order to keep the card at its default target temperature of 80°C, and the card is relatively loud at this speed – it's certainly nowhere near as bad as the R9 290X and R9 290 cards were, but compared to what we're used to these days it does still stand out. We found clock speeds were not able to remain at the peak boost speed of 1,266MHz, instead typically floating at closer to 1,200MHz. That said, this appears to be at least as much of a power limitation than a thermal one, as upping the power limit saw 1,266MHz maintained virtually all the time.

As a reminder, we added 9 percent to the core and 12.5 percent to the memory speeds when overclocking. With these new frequencies, we were able to achieve performance increases of between 8 and 16 percent – this is possible because we removed the power and thermal limitations, allowing the card to boost higher more often. Again, this isn't a realistic overclock for everyday use, at least not with this cooler, but it is promising that there appears to be a healthy amount of headroom here."
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
Where is DM with his 14nm hype? :D

they found the bug - sent out drivers that fix it - if the reviews didn't bother to use the new drivers; could explain the lower performance and higher power useage......

like I said I don't think we've really seen the 480 stretch its legs yet....

The reviews are certainly inconsistent. Anandtech's power numbers are a joke.

They say 228W under Furmark giving 53dba fan and 80C load, while gaming is apparently 296W, 50dba fan and 80C load....... those numbers are bogus.

[H] of all places and Hexus both have this card running silently or near silently and using less power.

Anandtech have it using 20W less than a 970, Hexus have it using 60W less than an oc'd 970 and [H] has it using 60W less than a 970.

[H] says the card is brilliant at 1080p, gave it a silver award, said it runs silently with sub 2200rpm under all gaming loads and show it using way way.

Numbers are all over the place in every review. Hitman it's great, Tomb Raider DX11 it's strong, other games it's weak. It's stopping all over the 380/960 as it was designed to do.

The difference in temps/power from one review to the next is very strange, ridiculous difference from one core to the next, drivers not limiting power properly, voltage incorrectly set or inconsistent thermal paste/heatsink installation.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,177
Okay. You understand why I asked though because there are often people claiming they've "run out of memory" because they see it full. I'll remember that you're a game developer in future. Cheers.

I understand - something I've brought up a good few times. Its been quite interesting having both a 970 and 780 to hand how so many games with the same settings and performance sit at say 3.4GB on the 970 but 2.7GB on the 780.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,703
Location
Surrey
The reviews are certainly inconsistent. Anandtech's power numbers are a joke.

They say 228W under Furmark giving 53dba fan and 80C load, while gaming is apparently 296W, 50dba fan and 80C load....... those numbers are bogus.

[H] of all places and Hexus both have this card running silently or near silently and using less power.

Anandtech have it using 20W less than a 970, Hexus have it using 60W less than an oc'd 970 and [H] has it using 60W less than a 970.

[H] says the card is brilliant at 1080p, gave it a silver award, said it runs silently with sub 2200rpm under all gaming loads and show it using way way.

Numbers are all over the place in every review. Hitman it's great, Tomb Raider DX11 it's strong, other games it's weak. It's stopping all over the 380/960 as it was designed to do.

The difference in temps/power from one review to the next is very strange, ridiculous difference from one core to the next, drivers not limiting power properly, voltage incorrectly set or inconsistent thermal paste/heatsink installation.



:p
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2013
Posts
3,510
They didn't, if you shopped around i think it was the MSI one that was £235 right at launch. Don't forget that 970 prices went up really quickly after launch at which point they mostly became £250+ but there was a short period where some were a bit cheaper, i can't remember why but probably the usual £/$ shennanigans.
I absolutely shopped around and there were no £235 GTX970's anywhere. Trust me, I am a very thrifty person who does lots of research and bargain hunting. I bought mine the first week, so I am well aware of the cards cost back when launched.

If there were any cheaper, they were extremely rare and it's certainly not anything to argue about it being the normal pricing.

Also worth remembering that if we're comparing directly, the 4GB 480 is only £175, so that's technically £75 off 970-level performance. Nothing to sneeze at, just not quite the disruptive splash some were hoping for.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
One of the better more technical reviews I have read thus far is from bit-tech.net, linked earlier by someone. Waited a month on this card coming so another few weeks on AIB models/info isn't a problem.

"Sadly, the reference cooler leaves a lot to be desired. The default 2,200 RPM fan speed limit is quickly reached under load in order to keep the card at its default target temperature of 80°C, and the card is relatively loud at this speed – it's certainly nowhere near as bad as the R9 290X and R9 290 cards were, but compared to what we're used to these days it does still stand out. We found clock speeds were not able to remain at the peak boost speed of 1,266MHz, instead typically floating at closer to 1,200MHz. That said, this appears to be at least as much of a power limitation than a thermal one, as upping the power limit saw 1,266MHz maintained virtually all the time.

As a reminder, we added 9 percent to the core and 12.5 percent to the memory speeds when overclocking. With these new frequencies, we were able to achieve performance increases of between 8 and 16 percent – this is possible because we removed the power and thermal limitations, allowing the card to boost higher more often. Again, this isn't a realistic overclock for everyday use, at least not with this cooler, but it is promising that there appears to be a healthy amount of headroom here."

See this gets more strange, they say default fan profile limits at 2200rpm, which I've seen all over, [H] say that is silent, bit-tech say that isfairly quiet, Hexus say that is 40dba or something while Anandtech say this is 53dba and basically 290x levels.

There simply isn't any way they can all be right, nothing else seems to agree with Anandtech unless they randomly for stock benchmarks upped the power limit and fan speed to maximum for no reason, which is they no where near stock or normal settings. Having listened to several dozen cards with blower fans I'd say 2200rpm is pretty quiet, not silent but not 'loud' at all. The 290x is barely hearable at 40% which is about 2200rpm, it only gets irritating above 50% and ear splitting above 60% which is pushing above 3000rpm.

Most reviews show the 2200rpm number, most agree it's relatively quiet at worst. Anandtech's suggestion this card is almost as loud as 290x is nuts.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Apr 2008
Posts
3,907
Location
Sheffield
AMD need to stop releasing cards with ~290x performance.

You could have bought an Asus custom cooled 290x for £210 from here over a year ago....

And that was indeed a very good deal. It's not AMDs fault that pound is worth peanuts now. If the rate was the same as back then, it would have been a 129.99 card for 4gb.

This is currently still the only card available for that price point as otherwise we'd be stuck with the 960 for another few months.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,703
Location
Surrey
And that was indeed a very good deal. It's not AMDs fault that pound is worth peanuts now. If the rate was the same as back then, it would have been a 129.99 card for 4gb.

TO be fair 7 months ago the rate was ~1.50. Yes it would have been cheaper but it would not have been £130 !
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2013
Posts
3,510
See this gets more strange, they say default fan profile limits at 2200rpm, which I've seen all over, [H] say that is silent, bit-tech say that isfairly quiet, Hexus say that is 40dba or something while Anandtech say this is 53dba and basically 290x levels.

There simply isn't any way they can all be right, nothing else seems to agree with Anandtech unless they randomly for stock benchmarks upped the power limit and fan speed to maximum for no reason, which is they no where near stock or normal settings. Having listened to several dozen cards with blower fans I'd say 2200rpm is pretty quiet, not silent but not 'loud' at all. The 290x is barely hearable at 40% which is about 2200rpm, it only gets irritating above 50% and ear splitting above 60% which is pushing above 3000rpm.

Most reviews show the 2200rpm number, most agree it's relatively quiet at worst. Anandtech's suggestion this card is almost as loud as 290x is nuts.
Inconsistencies between card samples are hardly some unknown phenomenon.

Brand new process, cheap heatsink/cooler, non-prime chips chosen for reference cards maybe. It's explainable.
 
Associate
Joined
13 Oct 2009
Posts
778
What I still don't get is why couldn't they just shrink the Nano and replace the HBM memory with GDDR5X? Better cooler and sort out the oc issues. For £300 it would have been an amazing buy.
 
Back
Top Bottom