Says slower than 390X.Ok. So mostly all 480 cards sold will be aprox 10% faster than the 390x next to it for 3dmark.
Thats fury like perf. Seems great to me. Lets hope the prices keep low.
It should handle 1440p but don't expect to turn up everything. If by the time the AIB models are out, if the 1070 drops to MSRP, I may be tempted to go for that. Then again I'm not buying a new monitor yet. Pretty much anything would be better than what I have now. I'm giving my card to my brother since he has a crappy gpu.Not sure what you are expecting here, the 480 isn't going to do well at 4K, it's just not equipped for that. I'm pushing the limit hoping that it will handle 1440p decently.
Yes. Except the standard clock of plus 15% for cards sold. Meaning in reality faster for consumers.Says slower than 390X.
If Gibbo expects to move 500 cards day one there is a reason for it and its not color or tdp. Its performance for £What...If AMD can't deliver 4k @$200 were doomed for many years.
Reviews should be interesting. Guess we'll find out not soon enough.
That's a far stretch. Not many cards can do 4k even right now smoothly. But we can always dream and hope.What...If AMD can't deliver 4k @$200 were doomed for many years.
Reviews should be interesting. Guess we'll find out not soon enough.
latest drivers 2906 4k firestrike
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8900159
Yes. Except the standard clock of plus 15% for cards sold. Meaning in reality faster for consumers.
Still a hair below Radeon R9 390X with 1-year old drivers:
They dont overclock manually. But they can push a botton that says: "i want my cards 20% faster".The vast vast majority of consumers don't overclock, and I very much doubt that your average aftermarket 480 will come factory overclocked to 1450 MHz (not to mention that AIB versions wont be available for a while).
So no it is not faster in reality (if those 3Dmark number are to be trusted, and actually reflect game performance).
They dont overclock manually. But they can push a botton that says: "i want my cards 20% faster".
I am just saying there is a reason Gibbo expects to move half the 1080 ammount on day one. What else could it be?
Still a hair below Radeon R9 390X with 1-year old drivers:
In your previous message you posted a rumored RX 480 score, and then three four Firestrike Ultra benches for "Reference", where 390X had scored higher. Someone then posted a higher 480 score, where the 480 scored higher than 390x in all your reference benches (and 980 in some). Now you came back and found another Firestrike Ultra bench where 390X is just a "hair" above 480, dismissing all the "references" that you yourself posted a page ago.
Why is it so important to prove that a card's rumored score is a hair below some other card? Can you understand, why such behavior makes all your posts appear to have an agenda? I'd suggest, letting go of these hair above or hair below comments, and wait for the real reviews to come in.
In your previous message you posted a rumored RX 480 score, and then three four Firestrike Ultra benches for "Reference", where 390X had scored higher. Someone then posted a higher 480 score, where the 480 scored higher than 390x in all your reference benches (and 980 in some).
More 3dmark and Firestrike scores... D:
I cannot find any actual game benchmarks using the 480. Do any exist? I'd much rather discuss game benchmarks, because playing Firestrike is some boring shit.
All these people having hands on these GPUs and not one has put up a single relevant benchmark? I find this frustrating and even slightly suspicious.
People probably tell him what to post. Got to keep on keeping on.