Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199

[Mauller]

Might want to remove those links - could be classed as "competitor talk"

Parts not even out yet, just info on possible pricing, its not like OC have them listed themselves right now. a mod can remove them if need be.

Also something here from reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4nfwmn/rx_480_european_price_without_vat_etc/

So we got the base price of 222.59EUR for the RX 480 8GB (LITE), so let's do some estimate Euro country pricing with their VATs. THESE ARE ESTIMATES, retailer markup missing etc..

RX 480 4GB est. 177.28EUR without VAT
RX 480 8GB est. 222.59EUR without VAT

Country VAT Price EUR (8GB) Price NC (8GB) Price EUR (4GB) Price NC (4GB) Country
United Kingdom 20% 267 210 GBP 213 167 GBP United Kingdom

 

[ICDP]

A quick google of that part number, brings up an interesting price of £230

Quite frankly if the RX 480 8GB comes in at ~£230 then it's pure failure unless it is well above 390X performance.

R9 390 8GB can be purchased for the same price as this GPU and if 480 does not beat that by a significant amount then AMD are taking the ****. New node, better features and more power efficient or not, you do not bring out a GPU that matches performance and price of an existing GPU.

 

[md99]

Parts not even out yet, just info on possible pricing, its not like OC have them listed themselves right now. a mod can remove them if need be.

Also something here from reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4nfwmn/rx_480_european_price_without_vat_etc/

Might pick one up from Overclockers Andorra

 

[fs123]

Quite frankly if the RX 480 8GB comes in at ~£230 then it's pure failure unless it is well above 390X performance.

R9 390 8GB can be purchased for the same price as this GPU and if 480 does not beat that by a significant amount then AMD are taking the ****. New node, better features and more power efficient or not, you do not bring out a GPU that matches performance and price of an existing GPU.

It has 5.83 Teraflops theoretical which is almost the same as a 390X (5.9Teraflops) but it will have to really beat a 390X to be worth it. If it hovers between a 390 and 390X then I agree it will be underwhelming.

 

[Toss3]

Lol what?? They are cards aimed at totally different markets.... 480 will compete with the 1060 not the 1070..

The 1070 like the 1080 are overpriced cards, the 480 is priced correctly for the market it's aimed at.

If the rx 480 came even close to the gtx 1070 and cost under half as much, do you honestly think people would still buy the gtx 1070 (some would have course but not nearly as many as now that nvidia has no competition)? Amd has basically given nvidia free reign over everything other than the low-end market and are basically going to be delivering the same kind of performance most of us have enjoyed for many years already. That's not really great for us as consumers.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

LMAO - last time I checked well over 90% of the graphics card market is under £300,so not sure why people consider it low end.

This is what I feared - the high price of the GTX1070 has meant AIBs don't feel the pressure to drop the price at launch too much,until Nvidia launches its sub £300 cards.

With a cheap GTX1070 being £365,it means even at £235 for a Sapphire RX480,it is 55% more for a 25% to 35% performance increase.

The GTX1070 and GTX1080 pricing has just screwed this whole generation up as until the GTX1060TI/GTX1060, the RX480 is still the fastest sub £300 card by default which is rather annoying.

However,the R9 380X Nitro is around £188 on offer on OcUK and the R9 390 Nitro is around £254 on offer.

So,10% cheaper than a R9 390 Nitro,whilst being 10% to 20% faster overall?? It could be more if there is a decent pre-overclock.

The Nitro cards tend to be some of the more expensive ones ,so I suspect the other cards from XFX,etc will be nearer £200.

If not it is the third boring 14NM/16NM release.

 

[AlamoX]

so Nitro gets 20$ on top of the 229$ msrp, but the shipping is like 40£, my guess that is 1unit cost, which should get well under 10£ for big numbers.

 

[Supernova]

What concerns me about going AMD again is the drivers. Saw a digital foundry video earlier showing a 970 vs. 390 in the new mirrors edge game, and the 390 performance is appalling. Much lower than it should be. I do want a new AMD GPU but the drivers are so wobbly.

 

[fs123]

215£ for the sapphire nitro, that should put basic custom and reference 8Go under 200£
considering the nitro premium range between 15-25£

I don't like the white color of that nitro. I think with the cooler running 14nm core even the cheapest brands will be ok so hopefully powercolor or kfx will come in under £200.

What concerns me about going AMD again is the drivers. Saw a digital foundry video earlier showing a 970 vs. 390 in the new mirrors edge game, and the 390 performance is appalling. Much lower than it should be. I do a new AMD GPU but the drivers are so wobbly.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4nhz2t/so_are_we_calling_

DF is not using hyper settings on the 970 and are looking into it according to their youtube response. I bet they didn't think they would get caught until the gamernexus article was posted.

Gamernexus tested the game on various cards and could not get hyper settings working on 4gb cards like the 970 or FuryX.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2471-mirrors-edge-catalyst-graphics-card-benchmark-gtx-1080-1070-390x

“Ultra” runs about 14.36% higher in AVG FPS than “Hyper” at 1080p during the research stages. “High” then runs about 38.4% faster than “Ultra.” We have been unable to get “Hyper” reliably executing on some cards – like the R9 Fury X & GTX 970 – and that instability seems to coincide with devices running 4GB VRAM. Devices running 6-8GB VRAM did not have this issue.

 

[Mauller]

LMAO - last time I checked well over 90% of the graphics card market is under £300,so not sure why people consider it low end.

This is what I feared - the high price of the GTX1070 has meant AIBs don't feel the pressure to drop the price at launch too much,until Nvidia launches its sub £300 cards.

With a cheap GTX1070 being £365,it means even at £235 for a Sapphire RX480,it is 55% more for a 25% to 35% performance increase.

The GTX1070 and GTX1080 pricing has just screwed this whole generation up as until the GTX1060TI/GTX1060, the RX480 is still the fastest sub £300 card by default which is rather annoying.

However,the R9 380X Nitro is around £188 on offer on OcUK and the R9 390 Nitro is around £254 on offer.

So,10% cheaper than a R9 390 Nitro,whilst being 10% to 20% faster overall?? It could be more if there is a decent pre-overclock.

The Nitro cards tend to be some of the more expensive ones ,so I suspect the other cards from XFX,etc will be nearer £200.

If not it is the third boring 14NM/16NM release.

Also forgetting that it could be quite a bit faster under certain workloads by more than just the shader utilisation improvements due to the 'primitive discard accelerator'. But we need more info on the card first, we still know little about it.

 

[Mauller]

What concerns me about going AMD again is the drivers. Saw a digital foundry video earlier showing a 970 vs. 390 in the new mirrors edge game, and the 390 performance is appalling. Much lower than it should be. I do want a new AMD GPU but the drivers are so wobbly.

The 390 was infact rendering the game at consistantly higher quality, Digital foundary had left an option enabled which allows the game to vary the quality dependant on ram constraints. The 390 had 8GB vs the 970's 4GB, therefore the 970 as show in the picture in a post further up was in fact running the game at lower quality in comparisson.

 

[ICDP]

LMAO - last time I checked well over 90% of the graphics card market is under £300,so not sure why people consider it low end.

This is what I feared - the high price of the GTX1070 has meant AIBs don't feel the pressure to drop the price at launch too much,until Nvidia launches its sub £300 cards.

With a cheap GTX1070 being £365,it means even at £235 for a Sapphire RX480,it is 55% more for a 25% to 35% performance increase.

The GTX1070 and GTX1080 pricing has just screwed this whole generation up as until the GTX1060TI/GTX1060, the RX480 is still the fastest sub £300 card by default which is rather annoying.

However,the R9 380X Nitro is around £188 on offer on OcUK and the R9 390 Nitro is around £254 on offer.

So,10% cheaper than a R9 390 Nitro,whilst being 10% to 20% faster overall?? It could be more if there is a decent pre-overclock.

The Nitro cards tend to be some of the more expensive ones ,so I suspect the other cards from XFX,etc will be nearer £200.

If not it is the third boring 14NM/16NM release.

Rumours on 480 performance put it anywhere from GTX970/R9 390 to R9390X/Nano performance. It is at the lower end of that scale then at ~£235 it is not any better in price/perf than last gen. It in essence becomes a pointless GPU because people could have that performance per price for a while now.

I laughed at 1070 prices but at least it offers better price/perf over similar priced last gen GPUs (980/Fury). An RX 480 that is the same price and perf as an R9 390 is a total failure IMHO.

So it absolutely MUST beat 390 performance by a significant amount and I don't mean 390X performance for a whopping saving of ~£50.

 

[five8five]

I don't like the white color of that nitro.

Is it white or is it silver / aluminium?

 

[HeX]

Rumours on 480 performance put it anywhere from GTX970/R9 390 to R9390X/Nano performance. It is at the lower end of that scale then at ~£235 it is not any better in price/perf than last gen. It in essence becomes a pointless GPU because people could have that performance per price for a while now.

I laughed at 1070 prices but at least it offers better price/perf over similar priced last gen GPUs (980/Fury). An RX 480 that is the same price and perf as an R9 390 is a total failure IMHO.

So it absolutely MUST beat 390 performance by a significant amount and I don't mean 390X performance for a whopping saving of ~£50.

It's all about perf/watt for Polaris. You are getting 390X/980 speeds (possibly higher) for under 100W, while being cheaper to boot.

This part was never intended to take the performance crown, that's all on Vega.

However what many are hoping is that there is a 40CU+, higher clocked part coming out as well that will move it into FuryX/980Ti territory for under £300.

 

[D.P.]

It's all about perf/watt for Polaris. You are getting 390X/980 speeds (possibly higher) for under 100W, while being cheaper to boot.

This part was never intended to take the performance crown, that's all on Vega.

However what many are hoping is that there is a 40CU+, higher clocked part coming out as well that will move it into FuryX/980Ti territory for under £300.

You mean under 150w.

 

[RavenXXX2]

The 390 was infact rendering the game at consistantly higher quality, Digital foundary had left an option enabled which allows the game to vary the quality dependant on ram constraints. The 390 had 8GB vs the 970's 4GB, therefore the 970 as show in the picture in a post further up was in fact running the game at lower quality in comparisson.

3.5GB

 

[Lokken86]

I'm getting annoyed with digital foundary. They always seem to overlook the fact there is a glaring problem on one vendor but go ahead and test anyway. They did it with this and doom, some other game I can't remember but ran like crap on the 970 for some reason and another that ran sub 10fps on both the 390 and the 970. Seriously what's the point your just going to have to test it again.

They are just fishing for views Imo.

 

[AlamoX]

I'm getting annoyed with digital foundary. They always seem to overlook the fact there is a glaring problem on one vendor but go ahead and test anyway. They did it with this and doom, some other game I can't remember but ran like crap on the 970 for some reason and another that ran sub 10fps on both the 390 and the 970. Seriously what's the point your just going to have to test it again.

They are just fishing for views Imo.

no they dont, products shouldn't be released if not ready.

 

[Orangey]

Seems like there's always a problem, makes you wonder how many reviews/comparisons over the years at all the various sites have been accurate.

 

[SimBy]

Could be an honest mistake. But they should take the video down.