AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB Review

[n0ns3ns3]

Why are the results for TomsHardware sow low for the RX 480? In every other review I see it delivers the same or better performance than a GTX 970, but here is like it's always behind

They did compare the stock RX 480 with overclocked cards.

Do you realize that SSC and other "super overclocked" 970 are less than 150MHz above stock ?
And that is still same clock as the RX 480. The funny thing though, is that 970 easily reaching 1500MHz on air.
All reviewers failed to go beyond 1400 with 480. At least for now, 14/16nm are less overclockers than 28nm.
But after all, AMD failed to beat last gen card in anything. Moreover, it failed to get lower power consumption than much larger GP104. And for some reason, those larger chips can do 2.1GHz.
I already smell the 250-300W vega.

 

[bit_user]

so i logged into the bay half an hour ago and got a slightly used Titan X for $350 dollars.

That's interesting, because I don't see any recently sold listings of functional Titan X's for less than $600, with most being about $700 and up.

However, you can buy a new, factory-overclocked GTX 980 Ti for well under $500 (or stock clocks for a bit over $400), from your favorite online retailer. I've been scanning fleabay and used ones aren't going for much less.

So, anyone who can't wait for GTX 1070's to come back in stock & doesn't mind a bit of added heat could go that route.

 

[bit_user]

BTW, here's one perspective on the power consumption issue. My work PC has a nonstandard PSU, and our sysadmin is reluctant to try upgrading it. But it's got enough juice for a 150 W card. Since PSU is the limiting factor, not so much budget, I could either go with RX 480 or GTX 1070. Now, guess which one I'm picking.

This is one of those cases where performance per Watt really counts.

 

[nebun]

junk....AMD should sell the graphics division to nVidia and get it over with it....don't really know why they are taking so long to come up with something that's efficient and powerful....can't remember a time since AMD was the king of GPU performance...

 

[17seconds]

BTW, here's one perspective on the power consumption issue. My work PC has a nonstandard PSU, and our sysadmin is reluctant to try upgrading it. But it's got enough juice for a 150 W card. Since PSU is the limiting factor, not so much budget, I could either go with RX 480 or GTX 1070. Now, guess which one I'm picking.

This is one of those cases where performance per Watt really counts.

Yeah, there is a little bit of a difference.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/25.html

 

[bit_user]

junk....AMD should sell the graphics division to nVidia

lol. ...and why would Nvidia be interested in buying it?

I think the only ones who'd want it are the Chinese, but Congress would probably kill any such acquisition. Perhaps there'll be another big IP licensing deal, like they did with their CPU tech.

 

[technoholic]

the card is good for what it is, it is still a good step in the right direction when you compare it to the last generation cards (performs like a 250w+ card from last gen) but looking at the bigger picture i'm worried for AMD. If rx480 consumes as much power as a gtx 1070 and gives gtx 970 performance, it's irritating to imagine what will happen in the higher end bracket? Sadly it's GCN vs Maxwell all over again (if not worse) in perf/watt aspect

 

[bit_user]

Sadly it's GCN vs Maxwell all over again (if not worse) in perf/watt aspect

I actually wonder whether Nvidia used machine learning to optimize Pascal.

 

[Bem-xxx]

The RX480 matches the 1070 performance at 1080p in maxed out async games...
http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/29/12050526/amd-radeon-rx-480-benchmark-1080-1070

 

[n0ns3ns3]

The RX480 matches the 1070 performance at 1080p in maxed out async games...
http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/29/12050526/amd-radeon-rx-480-benchmark-1080-1070

Two AMD specifically designed game ... Lol...
And losses in the rest of the games to 970

 

[Olle_P]

Let's see if I can sum this up:
* Performance.
Pretty much at the point I expected. Trading blows with GF GTX 970.
* Pricing.
AMDs MSRP seems to be valid in the US only? In Europe the price is close to $300 plus sales tax. On par with the GTX 970.
* Power.
I was expecting lower power consumption than this! Definitely <150W, to not pass the PCIe connector limitations, and closer to 100W to make a real difference in the market. (Hoping for a new 5770 type revelation.)
* Another worrying point is the memory bandwidth that seems to be *the* limiting factor for the performance. Since the 4GB version has even less bandwidth expect it to be (at least) equally slower.
* Overclocking. The lack of overclocking ability is actually a good thing to me. It means the manufacturer delivers a card that's already (just about) optimised.

Now I'm keen to see...
* If my predictions regarding the 4GB version's performance will stand a reality check.
* The price development of this card in Europe.
* Where GF GTX 1060 will place itself in terms of performance, power draw and price.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

I hope manufacturers address the issue with power consumption from the pcie slot. That is a deal breaker for me. I have a feeling i'll be back to the green team this upgrade cycle. Performance consistency between titles and low fps performance are better, but not quite where they need to be.

 

[Miyconst]

Well, I was going to replace my gtx 970 with an rx 480 and buy a FreeSync monitor, but this performance does not make any sense in the replacement. This card should be released together with gtx 970 and called r9 390.

 

[frank_hnd]

All that hype and finally the release....ahhh. We now have competition in the market place. The 960 and 970 have a good contender. Let's just hope price stays low as AMD doesn't play Nvidia's limited supply game.

In Taiwan (where I am). There is one listing today selling the Gigabyte for $315usd. Prices need to get worked out. At that price I can get a 970.

They are 9900NT at PChome. Less overpriced than the GTX1070/80 but still overpriced. Don't know what to get know.

 

[-Fran-]

For those saying that right now buying a 970 is the better deal, I *really* have to ask "why?".

The 480 comes with 8GB/4GB, performs a little above or at least on par with it and it performs a tad better in DX12 native games. Yes, I am not happy with the 970 having 3.5GB of "un-hindered" VRAM usage.

If you have to think about "down the road", DX12 native titles are going to become the norm and, just like with the 7970 vs 680 of its day, AMD will win in the longevity run; at the beginning, the 670 was on par with the 7970, but after games added complexity and memory usage, the 670 became irrelevant too damn fast. If you notice, games nowadays are basically showing the 290X on par with the 980.

Give credit where credit's due, right?

Cheers!

 

[spagunk]

My main concern is the higher than expected power draw. How much risk is there for motherboards frying up do to the higher draw from the PCIe slot?

 

[ern88]

Check this out. This dude removed the stock blower and installed, what looks like a CPU cooler on the GPU. He OC'd the 480 to 1.425 ghz and the card benched at nearly what a Nano runs at.

http://oc.jagatreview.com/2016/06/teaser-overclocking-amd-radeon-rx480-ke-1-4ghz-dengan-cooler-3rd-party/2/

 

[n0ns3ns3]

even better ... this one is going for liquid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvhyrz5oDPo

 

[thezooloomaster]

Pretty disappointing results. We often see some performance gains as the drivers are optimised over the months following release. Let's hope that trend continues here...

 

[94_xj]

The motherboard draw is really concerning especially when overclocked. The price point of this card makes it budget friendly whichincreases the likelihood of it being on a cheap motherboard that likely won't take it well. 100w average with 200w peaks when OCd is way out of line. Here's hoping AMD gives it the proper 8 pun it needs in the future or at the board partners do at the very least.

 

[Sakkura]

Why are the results for TomsHardware sow low for the RX 480? In every other review I see it delivers the same or better performance than a GTX 970, but here is like it's always behind

They did compare the stock RX 480 with overclocked cards.

Do you realize that SSC and other "super overclocked" 970 are less than 150MHz above stock ?
And that is still same clock as the RX 480. The funny thing though, is that 970 easily reaching 1500MHz on air.
All reviewers failed to go beyond 1400 with 480. At least for now, 14/16nm are less overclockers than 28nm.
But after all, AMD failed to beat last gen card in anything. Moreover, it failed to get lower power consumption than much larger GP104. And for some reason, those larger chips can do 2.1GHz.
I already smell the 250-300W vega.

An overclock is an overclock. And of course the RX 480 overclocks poorly on a poor reference cooler. For another example, the reference GTX 1080 thermal throttles at stock clocks.

Anyway, the RX 480 certainly beat the last gen card in everything - performance, power consumption, plus ancillary features. The question is how it will do once Nvidia introduces a competitor - GTX 1060 or whatever.

 

[InvalidError]

Sadly it's GCN vs Maxwell all over again (if not worse) in perf/watt aspect

I actually wonder whether Nvidia used machine learning to optimize Pascal.

Well, we know two things AMD does not appear to have used in the design process:
- critical path analysis to enable higher clock frequencies - beating the ~1.1GHz factory-OC of 28nm GPUs on stock 14nm should have been easy
- power cost analysis to find power-hungry functions and come up with more power-efficient ways to implement them

Usually, clock propagation and data FFs is where most of the power in chips goes. The relatively high power at low clocks may indicate that AMD aggressively pipelined the chip for high clock frequencies then ruined it with long critical paths.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I think AMDs mistake is allowing the hype to build up. That is what hurts them the most, not the actual performance but the hype that says "IT WILL BE TEH BESTZ CARD EVAR!!!!!" crap.

Well, at least for now, it is the "best card evar" at $230 MSRP.

I am not arguing that. I am just stating that when it comes to AMD their hype gets far out of control. It is a very well performing card for its price point but it is nothing the hype was building it up as.

Why the complaint about DX11 testing?

Where you planning to play DX12 games exclusively?

Because the hardcore fanboys of either side will use whatever points to better performance even if it is not relevant yet or a minority.

 

[10tacle]

If you have to think about "down the road", DX12 native titles are going to become the norm and, just like with the 7970 vs 680 of its day, AMD will win in the longevity run; at the beginning, the 670 was on par with the 7970, but after games added complexity and memory usage, the 670 became irrelevant too damn fast. If you notice, games nowadays are basically showing the 290X on par with the 980. Give credit where credit's due, right?

"Down the road" indeed. Meanwhile back in the real world, it depends on what games you play. Besides, the 980 is not worth the price over the 970, and that's been known and proven since release nearly two years ago. The fair comparison is the 970 against the 390. And unlike AMD who really needs to learn how to make money, Nvidia is continuing to do the smart thing with Pascal and give a high end x80 GPU a small cut down and then sell it as an x70 for 40% less while maintaining 90% of the performance.

That said, there are still plenty of Nvidia customers who will pay the premium solely for bragging rights of having an x80 GPU, and those x80 GPUs have the highest profit margins. In any event, Nvidia makes more profit by selling many more of the x70 series for a reduced profit margin. That's a win-win, and that's why Nvidia continues to own AMD in the revenue and profit generation departments...where it REALLY matters for thinking "down the road." There's a reason why the GTX 970 is most commonly owned GPU by Steam users and has been for over a year now.

 

[ern88]

Check this out for naming schemes from AMD and the full list of AMD's RX cards coming out!!!
http://videocardz.com/61721/amd-radeon-rx-400-series-naming-scheme-explained