-
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.
SAPPHIRE RX 480 NITRO NOW AVAILABLE FOR PRE-ORDER AT OVERCLOCKERS UK (WORLD FIRST) !!!
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
Nope - 4GB VRAM means the RX480 will last you longer, and probably be worth more once games that use >4GB are ubiquitous.
Not planning on going 1440p for a couple of years and there doesn't seem to be a huge difference in performance at 1080p. My PSU, the seasonic m12ii-520 evo, should be able to handle it. So it seems to come down to whether the noise and temps justify the £50.
Also I thought that as the Fury's memory is hbm and not gddr5, the 4gb cap does not matter quite as much?
I'm also at 1060/60 using a Fury Nitro and it's really not overkill for that. It provides a very nice experience and will let you max out (or close to) most games at a solid 60fps, which is something the 480 won't quite manage. I've had mine for a few days and it's the happiest I've been with a card for quite some time. The Nitro specifically is also very quiet. Much quieter than Sapphire's 290X Vapor-X and comparable to the MSI Gaming X and EVGA FTW 1070s that I've had, despite the much higher levels of heat that it's dissipating. The fans only get up to ~1300RPM under 3DMark's stress test, and barely come on at during games when locked at 60fps via vsync. It's a very well-built cooler.
The 480 will run out of GPU grunt long before it runs out of VRAM. I simply don't accept the argument that 4GB HBM isn't enough for 1080p. There are games which use >4GB now that can be tested, so there's no need to speculate about the future. Rise of the Tomb Raider for example is a game which flashes up a warning not to enable Very High textures on anything less than a 6GB card even at 1080p, yet the Fury X seems to handle it fine and posts a higher minimum than the 980 Ti even at 1440p.
Ultimately, even if it was to become a major issue, you drop the game's texture setting down a notch and call it a day. You'll be dropping more settings on the 480 to get the same performance, so there are compromises to be made either way. I still think the Fury is the better buy, but then that's the choice I made recently so I would say that.
The 480 will run out of GPU grunt long before it runs out of VRAM. I simply don't accept the argument that 4GB HBM isn't enough for 1080p. There are games which use >4GB now that can be tested, so there's no need to speculate about the future. Rise of the Tomb Raider for example is a game which flashes up a warning not to enable Very High textures on anything less than a 6GB card even at 1080p, yet the Fury X seems to handle it fine and posts a higher minimum than the 980 Ti even at 1440p.
Ultimately, even if it was to become a major issue, you drop the game's texture setting down a notch and call it a day. You'll be dropping more settings on the 480 to get the same performance, so there are compromises to be made either way. I still think the Fury is the better buy, but then that's the choice I made recently so I would say that.
Fury owners have already reported slowdowns in games using >4GB, it's already happened dude. Why do you think Fury's are being sold so cheap?
Plus - NVIDIA's low/mid range card, the 1060, has 6GB of VRAM. Their high end has 8GB VRAM. As we all know, NVIDIA have almost 80% of the market share. Developers will for sure begin to dramatically increase VRAM usage over the next few months, further crippling the Fury cards.
At the end of the day, there are many reasons the last Fury has left the factory (Gibbo confirmed Fury production has ended, info he learnt direct from AMD). Too expensive to produce, too little VRAM, overall disappointing performance. The 480 is the superior card IMO.
Last edited:
So 480 over Fury?
IMO absolutely yes. The latest GCN architecture, featuring new technologies, DOUBLE the VRAM, much less heat and noise.
Fury nitro benchmarks all seem to have better temps and noise though
Fury cards are much higher TDP than RX480's - the heat is still being produced, even if the cooler is dissipating it.
Besides, RX480 is a newer GCN architecture and still has double the VRAM.
You don't just get to say that and not back it up. Provide some evidence. Show me the people saying that the Fury is running out of VRAM at 1080p and performance is tanking. Show me the numbers. Show me the FCAT results. Show me anything.
Meaningless speculation. It's easy to turn it back the other way and say developers won't do this any time soon based on Nvidia's market share as the GTX 970 is still by far the most ubiquitous gaming graphics card out there. It's easy to twist things to suit your own perception when you're dealing in speculation.
And I disagree. The Fury has its issues, but so does the 480. You're implying that the 480 is the perfect choice and is a no compromises option compared to the Fury. It isn't. It's a less powerful card that will have to drop more settings than a Fury. Like I said before, even saying you're right, you drop the texture setting a notch on the Fury and you're fine again. You're still going to be running overall higher settings than a 480. But again, you dodged this point because it doesn't suit your argument.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,951
Isn't the VRAM issue a moot point though, as something like a 480 isn't fast enough to utilize something that would require over 4GB or VRAM anyway?
With a Fury, once you go over 4GB, you'll get stutering/terrible FPS, as it's run out of VRAM.
With a 8GB card, it can safely use 4.5GB, 5GB, 5.5GB etc, while being smooth.
I feel this is obvious, though I have to point out that there is no magic law saying that a 390, 390X, RX480 are only fast enough for games that use 3.9GB VRAM, but for games using 4.1GB they are suddenly become too slow....
Games are starting to use much larger textures. This pushes VRAM requirements up while not requiring as massive performance increases as increasing AA for example.
Hi All
So I've been having a play with mine for the last few hours and so far this is what I've got:
Mem: 2050mhz (max Wattman will allow - not bothered downgrading app or looking for tweaks etc)
Temp Max: 90, Target: 80
GPU Core: 1415mhz
GPU Voltage: 1137 (stock for nitro+ oc)
Power Target: +50% (maxed)
Firestrike: 14389
My Cards ASIC quality shows as: 88.1% (whatever that means!)
I've seen someone in this thread score 14,600+ with a GPU Clock of 1400 but higher mem. Is that likely to account for a nearly 300 point increase, otherwise what else is likely to cause it?
As far as i could tell, my GPU didn't throttle during the tests (maybe the odd a occasion but it was pretty solid at 1415 mostly).
My thoughts are that the card is nice, performs great for the money. Its too loud at default settings though and needs some tweaking to get the volume down, but that's certainly doable.
At 1415... it's definitely too loud, my fans were running at 2500 RPM and it maxed out at 85c.
At the moment, my CPU rad fans are at the front so warm air is being fed to my GPU. with 2x 140 mm exhausts at the top. I've ordered a Phantek PWM Fan hub and another 140 mm fan so i'm going to play with airflow tomorrow.
Not too sure on the best setup, was thinking move the Rad to the top and exhaust the hot GPU air through the RAD so my CPU isn't feeding hot air to the GPU. (hopefully that wont destroy my CPU temps too much).
Then one 140 mm fan at the bottom blowing straight at the GPU. That would leave me with 2 more 140 mm fans, don't know if i should do a front intake and a rear exhaust, or go for dual front intakes.
Does anyone have any suggestions for good fan setup for the below?:
Case is: Fractal Design Define S.
3 x 140 mm Fans
1 x Dual fan rad (Closed loop Fractal Kelvin S24)
Could also throw in a 120 mm fan if needed.
So I've been having a play with mine for the last few hours and so far this is what I've got:
Mem: 2050mhz (max Wattman will allow - not bothered downgrading app or looking for tweaks etc)
Temp Max: 90, Target: 80
GPU Core: 1415mhz
GPU Voltage: 1137 (stock for nitro+ oc)
Power Target: +50% (maxed)
Firestrike: 14389
My Cards ASIC quality shows as: 88.1% (whatever that means!)
I've seen someone in this thread score 14,600+ with a GPU Clock of 1400 but higher mem. Is that likely to account for a nearly 300 point increase, otherwise what else is likely to cause it?
As far as i could tell, my GPU didn't throttle during the tests (maybe the odd a occasion but it was pretty solid at 1415 mostly).
My thoughts are that the card is nice, performs great for the money. Its too loud at default settings though and needs some tweaking to get the volume down, but that's certainly doable.
At 1415... it's definitely too loud, my fans were running at 2500 RPM and it maxed out at 85c.
At the moment, my CPU rad fans are at the front so warm air is being fed to my GPU. with 2x 140 mm exhausts at the top. I've ordered a Phantek PWM Fan hub and another 140 mm fan so i'm going to play with airflow tomorrow.
Not too sure on the best setup, was thinking move the Rad to the top and exhaust the hot GPU air through the RAD so my CPU isn't feeding hot air to the GPU. (hopefully that wont destroy my CPU temps too much).
Then one 140 mm fan at the bottom blowing straight at the GPU. That would leave me with 2 more 140 mm fans, don't know if i should do a front intake and a rear exhaust, or go for dual front intakes.
Does anyone have any suggestions for good fan setup for the below?:
Case is: Fractal Design Define S.
3 x 140 mm Fans
1 x Dual fan rad (Closed loop Fractal Kelvin S24)
Could also throw in a 120 mm fan if needed.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2016
- Posts
- 5
Has anyone reduced their clock speeds back to the reference RX480? I'm asking since I'd like to know what the noise is like on the default clocks. Thanks!
So I ran another test using:
GPU: 1415
Volts: 1020
Everything else as above.
Scored worse though with 14,353.
Noticed that my GPU throttles only during the combined test (whilst also having the lowest temps). Is this a sign of CPU bottlenecking? as I only have an i5-4440.
GPU: 1415
Volts: 1020
Everything else as above.
Scored worse though with 14,353.
Noticed that my GPU throttles only during the combined test (whilst also having the lowest temps). Is this a sign of CPU bottlenecking? as I only have an i5-4440.
Have you played any games with the card yet,would be nice to see what fps the card gets in games,rather than a benchmark program.
Hi All
So I've been having a play with mine for the last few hours and so far this is what I've got:
Mem: 2050mhz (max Wattman will allow - not bothered downgrading app or looking for tweaks etc)
Temp Max: 90, Target: 80
GPU Core: 1415mhz
GPU Voltage: 1137 (stock for nitro+ oc)
Power Target: +50% (maxed)
Firestrike: 14389
My Cards ASIC quality shows as: 88.1% (whatever that means!)
I've seen someone in this thread score 14,600+ with a GPU Clock of 1400 but higher mem. Is that likely to account for a nearly 300 point increase, otherwise what else is likely to cause it?
I guess you are referencing me. If you look at my list of tests up to that point at 1400/2050 (your mem clock) my score was 14,385. So yes I gained about 300 points by upping memory to 2200.
Since then though I've reverted to stock. As well as Firestrike I ran Heaven benchmark and played 2-3 hrs of games fine with my o/c. Yet when waking the PC up from sleep I had a message saying Wattman encountered a problem and reset to default. I don't think in it's current state Wattman is any good, I'll wait for updates or Trixx to come out before o/c'ing again.