RX 480 vs GTX 970

KYLEDLH · Jul 3, 2016

So I'm planning a build for a friend, I haven't kept up to date with the latest releases. In your unbiased opinion, what would you recommend, the 480 or 970?

turkey3_scratch · Jul 3, 2016

Well it depends on what price you can get each for. I'd also not recommend the reference RX 480, I'd recommend an aftermarket one, so if you are not willing to wait two weeks, I would get the GTX 970. Otherwise, if you can eventually get your hands on an aftermarket RX 480, you should be able to get it for a better deal than the GTX 970.

rcxtra · Jul 3, 2016

The RX 480 inches out the GTX 970 in most cases, and does it for less cash. Also, the GTX 970 only has 3.5G of usable VRAM, not an issue at 1080 resolution but could become an issue in the future at 1440.

JackNaylorPE · Jul 3, 2016

Neither... at that price point I'd look at the 1060 (launches Thursday) ... and whichever way you go, do NOT get a reference model.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-10,4616-9.html
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Power-Consumption-Concerns-Radeon-RX-480
https://community.amd.com/thread/202410

KYLEDLH · Jul 3, 2016

turkey3_scratch :

We got time to wait, he's still saving money up so probably be in a month or 2

KYLEDLH · Jul 3, 2016

JackNaylorPE :

I never go reference anyway.

sleepybp · Jul 3, 2016

the RX 480 is better than the 970 due to future DX12 titles performing better on AMD cards.
The 1060 will most likely perform slightly better in DX11 titles, worse in DX12 titles, cost more, consume less power, and be very hard to purchase in the next two months because Nvidia can't even supply adequate stock for 1070/1080. The 1070/1080 has a much higher profit margin for Nvidia, so they will not be in a hurry to increase their 1060 supply.

JackNaylorPE · Jul 3, 2016

the RX 480 is better than the 970 due to future DX12 titles performing better on AMD cards.
The 1060 will most likely perform slightly better in DX11 titles, worse in DX12 titles, cost more, consume less power, and be very hard to purchase in the next two months because Nvidia can't even supply adequate stock for 1070/1080. The 1070/1080 has a much higher profit margin for Nvidia, so they will not be in a hurry to increase their 1060 supply.

As long as the 480 is frying motherboards I can't agree with any stance that promotes purchasing it at this time. The "fix" will nerf performance and only the release of non-reference cards w/ 8 pin connectors will put the 480 back in play as a reasonable alternative again.

But the list of "most likely's " it's just pure conjecture. Reminds me of the "Mantle is going to change everything" mantra.... it changed nothing.

- There are no 480 models currently available without a deficient design (see above references)

- Yes, nVidia does have issues meeting supply in the early months because they outsell AMD by a huge margin. AMD used to have same problem, but not since the 7xxx series. There are more 970s in use than all 25+ R7 and R9 cards combined ... and by a 2:1 margin. For every AMD card sold, 4+ nVidia cards are sold

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 = 7.35% market presence
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 = 4.98%
VIDIA GeForce GTX 980 = 1.48%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti = 1.36%

AMD Radeon R9 200 Series (combined) = 1.89%
AMD Radeon R7 200 Series = 0.60%
AMD Radeon R7 300 Series = 0.77%
AMD Radeon R9 300 Series = < 0.30% (didn't make cutoff)

- The 280 and 380 were AMDs only horses in the race. Nvidia still has the top tiers (x70 - x80 Ti) locked up so you know the bean counters were putting pressure on the engineers to put something up to go against the x80 with this generation. They did it last generation by dropping the 970s price low enough that the 970 was an attractive alternative to someone with an original $250 - $275 budget.

As a consumer who likes to see competition, I was really hoping AMD could hit a home run with the 480 ... well they hit the long ball .... but it went foul. They foolishly tried to save 2 cents per card by only using a 6 pin connector. The design is therefore only rated for 150 watts (75w cable / 75w PCIE slot) and it pulls much more than that. With reports of fried MoBos growing, they now have several huge PR hurdles to overcome.

- AMD has nothing that the educated consumer will buy right now. Who is going to buy this card with the power deficiency now exposed ? That's why they're going to see them perennially in stock. Only when their AIB partners can get some 8 pin designs out on the shelves, can they hope to recover.... but the power boondogle will stay in consumers minds for a long time.

- The idea that nVidia will do nothing in the face of the 480s presence is ridiculous. Of course they would rather you buy the $400+ cards... But there's a huge market out there of people with $250 just to spend. The fact that nVidia put the 1070 back up at the x70s $400 historical price range was a good indicator that they had another option at the next lowest price tier.

- AMD announced a fix, a fix that reduces the power of the card ... so in consumer's minds, the published benchmarks are no longer relevant. lot of builds got put on hold when the news broke and, no surprise, nVidia swooped in and leaked the 1060 launch at the time when consumers were putting those builds on hold.

- They are in the same position as nVidia at this point with the 1060 / 480, as neither will have a card on the market worth buying for several weeks. Until we see non-reference boards on the market from either side, then and only then will smart buyers take out their credit cards.

- Be aware also that yields on the lower tier cards are much higher than at the top end.

For too long now we haven't seen the AMD cards live up to the pre-launch claims of "most likely". What they are "gonna do", just doesn't often seem to come to pass. So while I remain hopeful that the non-reference 480 will remain competitive, the existing 480 reference cards should be a definitive "no buy" (power issue) just as the FE cards (throttling issue) should be a definitive "no buy". The cards that will be worth considering ... the 1060 non-reference and the 480 non-reference aren't here yet ... so a firm recommendation for one or the other just isn't possible at this time.

sleepybp · Jul 4, 2016

Good point Jack,
We should continue to support Nvidia's dominance in market share because the 1060 will offer 10% better performance in DX11 and 20% worse performance in DX12 (the future of games) compared to RX480. Also, an added benefit is that once AMD finally goes bankrupt because of this mindset, we can all look forward to more Nvidia founders edition releases asking for $100 over msrp and longer times between performance increases since the competition is wiped out.
Want to see that future? Just look at the gaming performance gains Intel has given us since Sandy Bridge over 5 years ago (negligible). Thats what happens when there is no competition, Intel doesn't have to do anything for us because AMD is still catching up in CPU's, will be the same way if no one buys amd gpus in 2 years.
Have you seen how much debt amd owes in coming 2 to 3 years(billions)? I will gladly buy their card if it is 10% slower for a cheaper price than Nvidia with the hope that this will help prevent a GPU monopoly by Ngredia for the rest of time.

turkey3_scratch · Jul 4, 2016

sleepybp :

You don't honestly think the 1060 is going to compete with the RX 480s price point, do you? If it is better, it is more expensive.

sleepybp · Jul 4, 2016

No, everyone expects the 1060 to be slightly more expensive than RX 480. That's what I said, but it can only be slightly more expensive because otherwise it would be pointless to buy the 1060 when the 1070 will have so much more performance at only $380. It will be between 250 and 300 bucks (+50 for founders edition tax)

Warmacblu · Jul 4, 2016

If you can't wait then I suggest a nice GTX 970 from a board partner such as ASUS, MSI, eVGA, Gigabyte, Zotac, etc...

If you can wait then the GTX 1060 may fit your requirements.

bignastyid · Jul 4, 2016

Sleepybp, exactly how do you know how future titles are going to perform? Not every dx12 game is going to be async dependent.

Op, any info on the gtx 1060 is just speculation and rumour till the ndas are lifted and the correct information is published.

sleepybp · Jul 4, 2016

as far as I know there are no games that show considerable increased performance on an nvidia card in DX12 vs DX11. When the Nvidia cards win in DX12 it is by brute force and clockspeed, granted it is a win but not showing large gains as the amd cards show when going from DX11 to DX12.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/226082-early-directx-12-games-show-a-distinct-split-between-amd-nvidia-performance

notice that in tomb raider the 980ti performs faster in dx11 than in dx12, same for amd so basically that game is not even dx12 it is horribly coded for dx12.

17seconds · Jul 4, 2016

sleepybp :

And how many of those games are not long-time AMD developed titles in the Gaming Evolved program, like Ashes, Hitman, and Warhammer?

sleepybp · Jul 4, 2016

tomb raider is widely known as an nvidia title
notice like i said how nvidia shows no gains in dx12 in their own nvidia title
show me a single game where nvidia shows dx12 gains and by what percent when compared to dx11.

Look forward to being informed

17seconds · Jul 4, 2016

sleepybp :

Tomb Raider loses performance in DirectX 12 for both AMD and Nvidia. If I used this chart, and applied it to the entire universe of DirectX 12, I'd say that AMD has a big problem when it comes to DirectX 12. Most people are doing the same thing when they see the 2 or 3 other AMD-oriented benchmarks commonly used.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/03/28/rise_tomb_raider_dx11_vs_dx12_review/6#.V3qmPI-cGUk

Every single other DirectX 12 game used in benchmark reviews is included on this page:
AMD Gaming Evolved Featured Games
http://www.amd.com/en-us/markets/game/featured

So are you seeing DirectX 12 itself, including all the features that entails? Or are you seeing AMD optimized games overusing the one and only part of DirectX 12 that favors AMD hardware?

Look forward to being informed.

sleepybp · Jul 4, 2016

So we are in agreement that AMD has proven to have performance gains in the few DX12 titles that have been released.
We are also in agreement that for some reason Nvidia does not have any DX12 titles that show increased performance.

Why has Nvidia decided not to invest into DX12? That is a question i would be wondering if I was an Nvidia customer. There is a growing theory that Nvidia does not have the hardware level ability to benefit from DX12 parallel optimizations that AMD does. Time will tell so, yes we can wait and see if Nvidia decides to prove otherwise in the future, which it has not yet done and AMD has.

I asked you to show me where Nvidia benefits in DX12 and you show me one where it does not. Case proven, thanks again

madmatt30 · Jul 4, 2016

sleepybp :

Nah mate,Im with turkey here 100%, nvidia have a total disdain for even trying to match amd's pricepoints
everyone bigging up the gtx 1070 (& it is a technical marvel don't get me wrong) when its out there at a 980ti pricepoint is laughable.
expect the 1060 to be $270+

17seconds · Jul 4, 2016

sleepybp :

Your problem, in addition to your attitude, is equating async compute with DirectX 12. As bignastyid said, not all games are going to use async compute and it does not represent the universe of DirectX 12 features. To pull out two or three AMD titles and then make sweeping statements like you have is fooling yourself and misleading the OP.

BurgerandChips66 · Jul 4, 2016

Well Microsoft for one is pushing DX12 (surprise!) and not just for the Xbox One, but in all their recent PC releases such as Forza 6 Apex, Quantum Break and Gears of War. That won't change. Don't know if it uses Async Compute though at all?

I recall DX11 uptake was slow at first, and the results were similar (a slight gain, no gain or worse performance) in many games had people asking questions at the time. I remember people wondering why DX9 and DX10 games were seemingly performing better when it was supposed to be the other way around. It takes time for Devs to master the new API.

In time DX11 will be dropped by virtually all Devs, in a year or two all games will be DX12 with a few in Vulkan as well. But there will probably still be the odd DX11 release even then. Look at the current situation: Rocket League in 2015 was DX9, when we though we'd seen the end of that API!

I think by the time DX12 becomes a big deal Nvidea will hope to have a new Architecture releasing, one that has full hardware support for Async Compute and belt and braces hardware support for DX12 generally. Until then they will hope to ride it out using raw power or 'brute force' as you say.

I'm hoping AMD can stay in the game long term, we need the competition as consumers or otherwise we'll continue to get overcharged by Nvidea and it'll only get worse.

I currently own a 980Ti and a 750Ti and have bought a pile of Nvidea cards in the past, starting with a Riva TNT2 M64..... but I have no loyalty to the name whatsoever.
I only buy their stuff If I think it's the best product available for my needs at the time, but I don't like their prices. Performance/$ they are generally not that great.
So I'm therefore very happy with my R9 380X, which performs great and overclocks well for the price I paid for it. But it was the first Radeon card I bought since they lost ATI out of the name.

RX 480 vs GTX 970

Reputable

Expert

Reputable

Titan

Reputable

Reputable

Distinguished

Titan

Distinguished

Expert

Distinguished

Distinguished

Titan

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Titan

Champion

Honorable

Share this page