AMD RX 400 series (Polaris) MegaThread! FAQ & Resources

[Martell1977]

AMD have pretty much lost me on this cycle. I bought the RX480 on launch day but cancelled the next day due to powergate. Then the 1060 came out but I waited for the custom 480s. I figured the 1060 would drive down the 480 price. But after all this waiting the 1060s are significantly cheaper in Holland, with 3GB cards starting at 215 euros and dropping, 30 euros less than the cheapest reference 480 4GB. I figure 3GB of RAM is enough for VR, so I'm going for the 1060.

Don't forget that the chip in the 1060 3gb is not the same as the 1060 6gb, it is a cut down version. Kind of dishonest of nVidia to make to different GPU's and call it the same thing.

As for the price of the 480's, it's not AMD so much as it's the retailers. Either they are having issues getting stock or they are hoarding the stock to inflate prices.

 

[Zaxx420]

Yep...AMD pissed off a lot of customers this time around. Bragging to world+dog about $199/$239 price point which turned out to be ONLY for bottom binned, poorly cooled (kills OC), 6 pin (hurts OC) noisy reference cards...AND didn't allow custom cards to launch! Availability was crap leading to price gouging...a lot folks gave up and went for the 470 (also overpriced) which was more available despite being launched waay after the 480. Now 480 availability and pricing is slowly improving but now the trumpeted $199 480 that baited everybody in is non-existent. And now since there is no $199 480 and the customs start at $230....they are able to keep charging $200+ for the 470 that is 'supposed' to cost $179! Damn retailers are loving this <mod edit> cuz they get to bend people over left, right and center! /rant

I'm one of those that got sick of waiting and settled for a 470...luckily I hit a $25 off paypal promo...paid $185 for the Nitro. Then once things improved re: 480s, I convinced the wife that the 470 was a good replacement for her 750Ti...and grabbed a 480 Nitro for $229 cuz thats prolly as cheap as they'll get for now...no way I'd go for a ref card.

<Language people>

 

[-Fran-]

re: silent PCs -> Well, as long as you can't hear it, it's fine to put a single silent fan to cool the whole thing, right? With a lot of heatpipes you can manage! Haha.

re: RX480 prices -> Nothing much we can do if GF+AMD can get them in enough quantity. And offer and demand, fellas! But yeah, there are some 1060s 6GB that justify the price difference with no problems over the RX480 4GB. In particular, the Gigabyte 6GB that was linked a few posts back is great. I used that thing for my friends PC and it's really nice... Kind of big (bigger than my RX480), but seemed to be well built (8pin, dual fan and solid Heatsink; design kind of meh). Weirdly enough, both 8GB variants in AMDs camp are bad choices for 1080p, but the 4GB variants are great value IMO. Just like the 1060 6GB in the upper bracket. I don't really like the 1055 3GB (yeah, I'm not going to call it 1060; stupid nVidia), but I can't deny it's tempting.

Cheers!

 

[Robert Cook]

I don't like fans. My next build is going to be fanless. Fanless PSU. Passively cooled GPU (GT 710 equivilent in the future). And it's going to be some really low-power, low-clocked CPU with the fan removed off the heat sink. That'll be a fun experiment.

Fanless PSU? why not, it is proof of how efficient it is. fanless PC? why? are you not a fan of fans? while the GT710 is not as bad as I thought it would be, even the next-gen variant will still be useless. a better option is just to get a really thick walled case and low RPM fans. there are some which are like 700RPM max, you could make them lower with resistors. if you use a ton, the cooling will still be there to allow something decent. the only fanless build I want to do is a novec 7000m submersion build. you could do mineral oil if you want silence for less money than novec which I guess would bubble.

 

[Robert Cook]

re: silent PCs -> Well, as long as you can't hear it, it's fine to put a single silent fan to cool the whole thing, right? With a lot of heatpipes you can manage! Haha.

re: RX480 prices -> Nothing much we can do if GF+AMD can get them in enough quantity. And offer and demand, fellas! But yeah, there are some 1060s 6GB that justify the price difference with no problems over the RX480 4GB. In particular, the Gigabyte 6GB that was linked a few posts back is great. I used that thing for my friends PC and it's really nice... Kind of big (bigger than my RX480), but seemed to be well built (8pin, dual fan and solid Heatsink; design kind of meh). Weirdly enough, both 8GB variants in AMDs camp are bad choices for 1080p, but the 4GB variants are great value IMO. Just like the 1060 6GB in the upper bracket. I don't really like the 1055 3GB (yeah, I'm not going to call it 1060; stupid nVidia), but I can't deny it's tempting.

Cheers!

perhaps call it a 1050ti?

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I don't like fans. My next build is going to be fanless. Fanless PSU. Passively cooled GPU (GT 710 equivilent in the future). And it's going to be some really low-power, low-clocked CPU with the fan removed off the heat sink. That'll be a fun experiment.

Fanless PSU? why not, it is proof of how efficient it is. fanless PC? why? are you not a fan of fans? while the GT710 is not as bad as I thought it would be, even the next-gen variant will still be useless. a better option is just to get a really thick walled case and low RPM fans. there are some which are like 700RPM max, you could make them lower with resistors. if you use a ton, the cooling will still be there to allow something decent. the only fanless build I want to do is a novec 7000m submersion build. you could do mineral oil if you want silence for less money than novec which I guess would bubble.

Most fans have a startup voltage so resistors won't necessarily work always, in the end they can just end up making the fan not spin at all.

Also I was really just joking, it's not like I'm actually building this thing. But if a Pentium CPU down the line is only 30W, it could possibly be passively cooled.

 

[Rogue Leader]

My wife's PC (linked in sig) is dead silent. Fractal Define mini and a Noctua NH-U12S with a 550G2 in eco mode (fan doesn't spin unless its under heavy load). When you turn it on you hear the fans all spin up, then they spin down and you never hear them again. Under heavy load even you don't hear them at all. In fact the only time you hear any noise at all is if you are running a game and the GTX 950 fan has to spin up. Without the monitor the only way to know its running is the power light.

Anyway back to the topic, as we should be. I am disappointed that the $199 RX 480 basically doesn't exist. I mean I got one, because my Microcenter got TWO, and I sat there and watched the website and left work to pick it up. The model is not even listed on their website anymore, I feel like its never coming back. It was literally all a marketing move. I mean maybe it will come back, in 6 months when sales slow down and they want to milk the cash cow a bit more. I guess for fans of AMD its good to know the cards are in demand, but still lame that the deal just doesn't exist.

For me personally between getting it for $199 and getting the "free" 8gb upgrade, at least means when I'm ready to sell it early next year I can probably make my money back on it, even though it is reference.

 

[SteelOwl]

That would be great. If it is not too loud I will buy Nitro+.

Ok, I ran furmark for like 10 minutes and this is what I noticed:

With the "auto" profile, the fans ramp up slowly and let the video card sit at 80°C with 50% fan speed; at that %, they are audible, but in-line with the rest of the fans in my PC (sitting at ground level, to my left in a closed case: Thermaltake S41). This case has a top-mounted fan that is not loud and helps a ton with ventilation, so that could also impact my numbers, but not by much. It took the card 2-3 minutes to reach 80°C at 100% load.

I then moved onto the Custom curve and tried different levels:
60% is noticeable and 100% is what you would expect as "loud fans". Not annoying high pitched, luckily. 70% is what I'd classify as "acceptable", but in Auto it never goes that high. That being said, with the fans at 70%, the card went down to ~75°C, so the noise trade-off wasn't worth it IMO.

I'll keep them in Auto for the time being, since Furmark is a worst worst case scenario, I'd say.

Picture:

Spoiler

Cheers!

Thank you for your testing. Shouldn`t GPU clock be 1342 Mhz? In my Define R5 it will probably be ultra quiet. What is the max temp for RX 480?

 

[TehPenguin]

My wife's PC (linked in sig) is dead silent. Fractal Define mini and a Noctua NH-U12S with a 550G2 in eco mode (fan doesn't spin unless its under heavy load). When you turn it on you hear the fans all spin up, then they spin down and you never hear them again. Under heavy load even you don't hear them at all. In fact the only time you hear any noise at all is if you are running a game and the GTX 950 fan has to spin up. Without the monitor the only way to know its running is the power light.

Anyway back to the topic, as we should be. I am disappointed that the $199 RX 480 basically doesn't exist. I mean I got one, because my Microcenter got TWO, and I sat there and watched the website and left work to pick it up. The model is not even listed on their website anymore, I feel like its never coming back. It was literally all a marketing move. I mean maybe it will come back, in 6 months when sales slow down and they want to milk the cash cow a bit more. I guess for fans of AMD its good to know the cards are in demand, but still lame that the deal just doesn't exist.

For me personally between getting it for $199 and getting the "free" 8gb upgrade, at least means when I'm ready to sell it early next year I can probably make my money back on it, even though it is reference.

That's not true, Rogue! We all know you actually got the 8GB 480 😀

 

[renz496]

Yep...AMD pissed off a lot of customers this time around. Bragging to world+dog about $199/$239 price point which turned out to be ONLY for bottom binned, poorly cooled (kills OC), 6 pin (hurts OC) noisy reference cards...AND didn't allow custom cards to launch! Availability was crap leading to price gouging...a lot folks gave up and went for the 470 (also overpriced) which was more available despite being launched waay after the 480. Now 480 availability and pricing is slowly improving but now the trumpeted $199 480 that baited everybody in is non-existent. And now since there is no $199 480 and the customs start at $230....they are able to keep charging $200+ for the 470 that is 'supposed' to cost $179! Damn retailers are loving this <mod edit> cuz they get to bend people over left, right and center! /rant

I'm one of those that got sick of waiting and settled for a 470...luckily I hit a $25 off paypal promo...paid $185 for the Nitro. Then once things improved re: 480s, I convinced the wife that the 470 was a good replacement for her 750Ti...and grabbed a 480 Nitro for $229 cuz thats prolly as cheap as they'll get for now...no way I'd go for a ref card.

<Language people>

i think AMD repeating the same mistake they did with 290s launch. although this time it might not be as bad as it were back then.

 

[Zaxx420]

+1 @ Rogue....the 'VR ready for only $199!' 480 'launch' with no custom cards allowed smacks of marketing bait...and now the lack of said $199 480s makes it muuch easier to keep on selling the '$179' 470s for $200-$210+...which are basically just 480 silicon that failed QC with some bad cores, TUs, etc. And as I mentioned...funny how their availability seemed to get sorted pretty quick even tho they launched waay after the 480 and just happened to be in place to catch all the customers sick of waiting on 480s...at a premium ofc.

Tho I'm not 100% clear on the full reasoning behind 'ref model only' launches...beyond it being annoying as hell...lol

On a side note... If Nvidia woulda/coulda led with the $199 1060 3GB launch with good availability...they would have put a hurtin' on AMD for sure.

 

[renz496]

+1 @ Rogue....the 'VR ready for only $199!' 480 'launch' with no custom cards allowed smacks of marketing bait...and now the lack of said $199 480s makes it muuch easier to keep on selling the '$179' 470s for $200-$210+...which are basically just 480 silicon that failed QC with some bad cores, TUs, etc. And as I mentioned...funny how their availability seemed to get sorted pretty quick even tho they launched waay after the 480 and just happened to be in place to catch all the customers sick of waiting on 480s...at a premium ofc.

Tho I'm not 100% clear on the full reasoning behind 'ref model only' launches...beyond it being annoying as hell...lol[

On a side note... If Nvidia woulda/coulda led with the $199 1060 3GB launch with good availability...they would have put a hurtin' on AMD for sure.

the reason is simple. they were afraid of leak ahead of launch. board partner most likely not get enough detail about the new card soon enough. just look at nvidia GTX1080/1070. the card did not launch until may but we already get some very accurate leak since march:

http://videocardz.com/58674/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-geforce-gtx-1070-cooler-shrouds-pictured

 

[Ags1]

Don't forget that the chip in the 1060 3gb is not the same as the 1060 6gb, it is a cut down version. Kind of dishonest of nVidia to make to different GPU's and call it the same thing.

As for the price of the 480's, it's not AMD so much as it's the retailers. Either they are having issues getting stock or they are hoarding the stock to inflate prices.

I'm aware of the 10% reduction in shaders, but the rest of the hardware is the same. The 1060 3G still seems to beat the 480 8G in most benches. Nvidia was no more dishonest than AMD in this regard - the shader drop on the 1060 3G hurts performance less than the 8GHz to 7Ghz memory speed drop on the RX480 4G. In AMD's marketing they quoted the 8G performance and the 4G price... and then the 4G failed to exist in any meaningful sense.

 

[Rogue Leader]

That's not true, Rogue! We all know you actually got the 8GB 480 😀

Technically I did, they just put it in a 4gb card box. If I was not about to walk out the door for work I'd take a picture of the box (whats funny is the 4GB logo is like a sticker over the 8GB logo, it seems). 😀

 

[-Fran-]

Thank you for your testing. Shouldn`t GPU clock be 1342 Mhz? In my Define R5 it will probably be ultra quiet. What is the max temp for RX 480?

It's because it's being stressed. It could be because the driver does it, but when modern GPUs get to 100% load, they throttle back to base clocks usually. Remember 1.3Ghz is the boost speed and 1.1Ghz is the base.

I'm aware of the 10% reduction in shaders, but the rest of the hardware is the same. The 1060 3G still seems to beat the 480 8G in most benches. Nvidia was no more dishonest than AMD in this regard - the shader drop on the 1060 3G hurts performance less than the 8GHz to 7Ghz memory speed drop on the RX480 4G. In AMD's marketing they quoted the 8G performance and the 4G price... and then the 4G failed to exist in any meaningful sense.

Even though the speed reduction is stupid, they had to do it in order to make the 8GB more appealing over the 4GB; which is still a moot point, since they are pretty much the same under 1440p. Stupid move, but necessary.

On another note, I have been investigating, and it seems there's a chance my Nitro+ can be turned into an 8GB model. I have to remove the HSF and backplate to double check, but there's an interesting piece of information that I noticed everywhere where the 4GB version was tested: they hide the VRAM module names/codes. My inner tin-foil hat expert is really interested in why is that, so I might do some experimentation with the Firmware/BIOS of the card. FOR SCIENCE!

Cheers!

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

The 1060 3G still seems to beat the 480 8G in most benches.

Would you mind posting your sources for that bit of information please Ags1?

 

[Math Geek]

TPU just did a review of the gaming x 3 gb card and it's pretty much what you'd expect. vulkan/dx 12 goes to the 480 and everything else goes to the 1060. seems about right considering how the other cards compare https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/

higher resolutins favor the 480 as well due to the extra vram it has. 3 gb shows it's weakness at higher resolution but we already knew this and hopefully no one is expecting a 1060 3gb card to work for 2k/4k gaming.

 

[renz496]

TPU just did a review of the gaming x 3 gb card and it's pretty much what you'd expect. vulkan/dx 12 goes to the 480 and everything else goes to the 1060. seems about right considering how the other cards compare https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/

higher resolutins favor the 480 as well due to the extra vram it has. 3 gb shows it's weakness at higher resolution but we already knew this and hopefully no one is expecting a 1060 3gb card to work for 2k/4k gaming.

in general RX480 should be faster than GTX1060 when we look at the raw power between the two (5.1Tflops vs 3.8Tflops). DX12 via async compute help AMD to better utilize that extra raw power. or should we say with DX12 AMD card will perform where it should be. would be nice if they can properly use all their resource even in DX11 (heck even in DX9; seeing RX470 being slower than GTX950 in DX9 games is not supposed to happen) because not all games going to use DX12 because of low level complexity.

 

[TechyInAZ]

TPU just did a review of the gaming x 3 gb card and it's pretty much what you'd expect. vulkan/dx 12 goes to the 480 and everything else goes to the 1060. seems about right considering how the other cards compare https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/

higher resolutins favor the 480 as well due to the extra vram it has. 3 gb shows it's weakness at higher resolution but we already knew this and hopefully no one is expecting a 1060 3gb card to work for 2k/4k gaming.

in general RX480 should be faster than GTX1060 when we look at the raw power between the two (5.1Tflops vs 3.8Tflops). DX12 via async compute help AMD to better utilize that extra raw power. or should we say with DX12 AMD card will perform where it should be. would be nice if they can properly use all their resource even in DX11 (heck even in DX9; seeing RX470 being slower than GTX950 in DX9 games is not supposed to happen) because not all games going to use DX12 because of low level complexity.

Really? The 950 is faster than 470 in DX9? That's really weird.

 

[renz496]

TPU just did a review of the gaming x 3 gb card and it's pretty much what you'd expect. vulkan/dx 12 goes to the 480 and everything else goes to the 1060. seems about right considering how the other cards compare https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/

higher resolutins favor the 480 as well due to the extra vram it has. 3 gb shows it's weakness at higher resolution but we already knew this and hopefully no one is expecting a 1060 3gb card to work for 2k/4k gaming.

in general RX480 should be faster than GTX1060 when we look at the raw power between the two (5.1Tflops vs 3.8Tflops). DX12 via async compute help AMD to better utilize that extra raw power. or should we say with DX12 AMD card will perform where it should be. would be nice if they can properly use all their resource even in DX11 (heck even in DX9; seeing RX470 being slower than GTX950 in DX9 games is not supposed to happen) because not all games going to use DX12 because of low level complexity.

Really? The 950 is faster than 470 in DX9? That's really weird.

maybe i should be specific. i was surprise to see GTX950 end up faster than RX470 in star craft 2

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-460,4707-4.html

 

[Rogue Leader]

maybe i should be specific. i was surprise to see GTX950 end up faster than RX470 in star craft 2

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-460,4707-4.html

But at 166fps... in a RTS game... does it really matter? The truth is no DX9 game is gonna make a real life performance difference with either card.

 

[renz496]

maybe i should be specific. i was surprise to see GTX950 end up faster than RX470 in star craft 2

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-460,4707-4.html

But at 166fps... in a RTS game... does it really matter? The truth is no DX9 game is gonna make a real life performance difference with either card.

still it should be able to produce more FPS because it has more raw power. i still remember when GCN has flickering issues in almost all DX9 games back in 2012. i just hope AMD is not so focused on DX12 they neglect DX11 altogether in the future (right now they even refused to support all DX11 feature in their drivers).

 

[Math Geek]

TPU just did a review of the gaming x 3 gb card and it's pretty much what you'd expect. vulkan/dx 12 goes to the 480 and everything else goes to the 1060. seems about right considering how the other cards compare https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/

higher resolutins favor the 480 as well due to the extra vram it has. 3 gb shows it's weakness at higher resolution but we already knew this and hopefully no one is expecting a 1060 3gb card to work for 2k/4k gaming.

in general RX480 should be faster than GTX1060 when we look at the raw power between the two (5.1Tflops vs 3.8Tflops). DX12 via async compute help AMD to better utilize that extra raw power. or should we say with DX12 AMD card will perform where it should be. would be nice if they can properly use all their resource even in DX11 (heck even in DX9; seeing RX470 being slower than GTX950 in DX9 games is not supposed to happen) because not all games going to use DX12 because of low level complexity.

everytime dx12 is mentioned do we really need the disclaimer?? we've had the discussion 100 times in this thread already and everyone knows it by now. i only mentioned the results of the review. really starting to hate the fact that folks just can't accept that one card is better in one instance and the other is better in a different case and move on with their lives. no need to justify the results every time a review is mentioned to make yourself feel better about the brand you chose to buy.

*sigh*

 

[littleleo]

Meh, the naming of processes is inaccurate. It's quite possible that TSMC and GloFo 7nm will be comparable to Intel 10nm.

Where do you get this idea? In fact TSMC, GloFo, Intel and others all use the same machines. I know because the company I work for makes the machines. 7nm is 7nm is 7nm.

So all three have the same equipment and are building comparable models? I got to admit I thought their processes varied some between all three thanks for the update.

 

[Robert Cook]

Meh, the naming of processes is inaccurate. It's quite possible that TSMC and GloFo 7nm will be comparable to Intel 10nm.

Where do you get this idea? In fact TSMC, GloFo, Intel and others all use the same machines. I know because the company I work for makes the machines. 7nm is 7nm is 7nm.

So all three have the same equipment and are building comparable models? I got to admit I thought their processes varied some between all three thanks for the update.

it does, but I guess the 7nm part does not. the gate lengths are wildly different apparently. honestly it seems the whole Xnm claim needs some better standards. either way Rouge leader is right this is getting off topic on this thread which I originally made to cover the polaris rumor mill, and subsequent performance.