AMD Polaris Thread: Radeon RX 480, RX 470 & RX 460 launching June 29th

[krumme]

My personal concern is whether or not the RX 480 will be decent at 1440p, as that will be the determining factor as to whether I need a 480 or a 1070. If it really performs like a 390x, then I'm afraid I'll probably need to get a 1070, due to charts like this (stolen from the 1070 thread, thanks Sweepr).

If witcher 3 is what you play its pretty straightforward to make the decision if you want to pay nearly twice as much. If you eg want those ultra textures or 16 af. If - there is no way around the 1070 to keep those fps up.

What i am pretty sure is the witcher is in no way representive what we will se in a year. You are buying into a facelifted maxwell arch that is badly shaped for the new dx12 sleeve of games. It doesnt help you the preemption granularity is working fine in cuda. Your vr or dx12 game will still be handicapped because the devs is designing for the consoles gcn polaris arch.

 

[Head1985]

just dont trust pclabs..1070 is 30% faster than GTX980/390x not 50%.I dont know how the hell they test it.
just watch this...30% gap 1070 vs stock 980 and 980TI stock=1070 stock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIzE5g2WlBo

EDIT :btw you should not expect stock rx 480 match GTX1070.Maybe after OC to 1500-1600Mhz it will be on par but not at stock 1266Mhz.

 

[sze5003]

My personal concern is whether or not the RX 480 will be decent at 1440p, as that will be the determining factor as to whether I need a 480 or a 1070. If it really performs like a 390x, then I'm afraid I'll probably need to get a 1070, due to charts like this (stolen from the 1070 thread, thanks Sweepr).

That's what I'm also worried about. But even now I don't have everything maxed in Witcher 3.

 

[Pheran]

EDIT :btw you should not expect stock rx 480 match GTX1070.Maybe after OC to 1500-1600Mhz it will be on par but not at stock 1266Mhz.

Of course I don't expect a $230 card to match a $400+ card. The real question is whether the 480 can do around 60 FPS in most games with decent settings at 1440p. For that we'll have to wait for real game benchmarks.

 

[boozzer]

why is it the real question? it is aim at 1080p, not other higher resolutions. 1440p is not mid range.

 

[Pheran]

why is it the real question? it is aim at 1080p, not other higher resolutions. 1440p is not mid range.

It's of interest to me. If you run at 1080p then yes, you don't have to care about 1440p.

 

[sze5003]

why is it the real question? it is aim at 1080p, not other higher resolutions. 1440p is not mid range.

One must take this into account if they are to upgrade monitors later. It's not like it won't run 1440p at all, of course it will but maybe not max settings in all games.

 

[krumme]

Of course I don't expect a $230 card to match a $400+ card. The real question is whether the 480 can do around 60 FPS in most games with decent settings at 1440p. For that we'll have to wait for real game benchmarks.

What is decent settings for you?
If its ultra 16af its evident it can not do it even with a solid oc. Imo you need those minimums over 50 and solid frame pace variance. I wouldnt skimp on those parmeters. 60 hz monitor is already not good.
The question is what do you want to pay for those settings. What is ultra worth to you. What is 16 vs 4 af worth it. Its more a personal matter than a question of the card imo.

 

[Stuka87]

What is decent settings for you?
If its ultra 16af its evident it can not do it even with a solid oc. Imo you need those minimums over 50 and solid frame pace variance. I wouldnt skimp on those parmeters. 60 hz monitor is already not good.
The question is what do you want to pay for those settings. What is ultra worth to you. What is 16 vs 4 af worth it. Its more a personal matter than a question of the card imo.

AF has almost no hit on performance. Its a handful of other settings that really make an impact. Typically things like motion blur and max quality shadows. Turn off the MB and set the shadows down 1 setting and in the majority of games you will see a big jump in performance. I know for me in BF4, turning off those two settings gave me around 15fps @1080P.

 

[krumme]

AF has almost no hit on performance. Its a handful of other settings that really make an impact. Typically things like motion blur and max quality shadows. Turn off the MB and set the shadows down 1 setting and in the majority of games you will see a big jump in performance. I know for me in BF4, turning off those two settings gave me around 15fps @1080P.

Yeaa. I do the same. Mb is bad for your kd anyway. And who looks on shadows anyway.
I think a problem is with eg bf4 while ultra textures look fine they have for me at least no as NO influence on the enjoyment of the game. The physics and ai is far more important.

 

[sze5003]

Yeaa. I do the same. Mb is bad for your kd anyway. And who looks on shadows anyway.
I think a problem is with eg bf4 while ultra textures look fine they have for me at least no as NO influence on the enjoyment of the game. The physics and ai is far more important.

Yea there are a lot of options such as distortion, grain, lighting and shadows that can just be set to high instead of ultra and performance will be fine. Doom is like this. Setting ultra shadow and lightning screws with my fps but setting them to high is fine.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Nice to look through some old news from the beginning of 2016 :

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1328586

Intel’s Xeon Phi currently uses 16 Gbytes DRAM and is gaining ground as a co-processor in supercomputers. Intel is expected to bolster its product using Altera FPGAs perhaps announced as early as the International Supercomputer Conference in June. Nvidia could get ahead of Intel’s news by announcing Pascal at its own annual conference in April. One unknown is how Nvidia will support the cyclic redundancy checks and other high end features built into Micron’s HMC.

Instead of HMC , Nvidia chose HBM2.

Another graphics expert who asked not to be named said Polaris appears to be optimized for cost, targeting the videogame market while Pascal is optimized at performance, targeting general-purpose GPU computing in systems such as supercomputers.

Would be fun if GCN4 is really a graphics optimized architecture and that pure compute will be less stellar than expected.

 

[renderstate]

The "Perf/mm2 game" has no meaning. It is not relevant to anything.

Margins say hello.

 

[boozzer]

Margins say hello.

why would you care about margins as a gamer?????????????????

 

[Snarf Snarf]

Until you have an actual diagram of the architecture and a deep dive there's absolutely no way to know whether or not AMD is behind on perf/mm2. It's been covered on multiple threads multiple times before the FinFET generation started that not everything on the chip scales down 1:1. The display block and memory controllers come to mind as the two big things. There is diminishing returns the smaller the chip gets as some things are static in size.

When the NDA lifts on the 29th and we have access to technical information on Polaris we'll have a better idea of what scaling will be like. Until GP106 is out and we have technical data we won't know how it compares in perf/mm2 with regards to Polaris.

The speculation is fun, but anyone saying whether RX 480 is a dud or a winner before the product gets reviewed needs to calm their jimmies.

 

[renderstate]

why would you care about margins as a gamer?????????????????

I do. If you don't that's ok.

 

[Thala]

Sure, just like Geforce GTX 1070 beats Fury X left and right in perf/price. See what I did here? Easy to come up with claims like this when there's no direct competitor on the market yet.

Now thats the charming part about perf/price. You can compare hardware of different price brackets. You do not need a direct competitor in the same price bracket to make this comparison meaningful.

My concern with performance per mm2 (ppm) is not necessarily on this product, but with what implications it could fortell about the high end battles since ~600mm2 appears to be the practical limit (610mm2 GP100, 601mm2 GM200, 596mm2 Fiji).

There is no hard limit on die size. For each product architecture you make very individual decisions based on the requirements.

Now, if big Vega cannot come close to matching GP102 ppm and it’s well into the 500s or even approaching 600mm2, then that’s as big as they can get until real architectural improvements in Navi or whatever the future arch holds.

You fail to understand that going wider instead of higher frequency is as real architectural improvement. Where the heck do you get the idea from that only maximizing perf/area is an improvement? For higher perf parts you are going to make different architectural decisions. If the die size is going to hurt your business model more than the perf/power degradation, then you go for higher frequency. It is all about product requirements going into architecture.
Do you have the slightest idea how a SoC development process looks like? I can tell you, that you don't put engineers into a room and tell them to come up with an architecture which maximizes perf/area in order to "improve". It is a very multi-dimensional optimization problem at hand.

 

[Adul]

Hype train is now blasting off, we're going to space bois!

Have we gone to plad yet?

 

[boozzer]

I do. If you don't that's ok.

n that didn't answer the question. but that is ok.

 

[Bacon1]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...22&cm_re=radeon_rx_480-_-14-129-322-_-Product

Learn more about the VisionTek 900888


Model
Brand
VisionTek
Model
900888

Interface
Interface
PCI Express 3.0 x16

Chipset
Chipset Manufacturer
AMD
GPU
Radeon RX 480
Core Clock
1120 MHz
Boost Clock
1266 MHz
Stream Processors
2304 Stream Processors
CUDA Cores
2304 (36CU)

Memory
Effective Memory Clock
2000 MHz (8.0 GBPs)
Memory Size
8GB
Memory Interface
256-Bit
Memory Type
GDDR5

3D API
DirectX
DirectX 12

Ports
HDMI
1 x HDMI
DisplayPort
3 x DisplayPort

Details
Virtual Reality Ready
Yes
Cooler
With Fan
Operating Systems Supported
Linux, Windows 10, Windows, and Windows 7
64-bit operating system required
System Requirements
Recommended PSU: 500W

Features
Features
HDR Ready

FinFET 14

AMD FreeSync technology

DirectX 12 Optimized

VR Ready Premium

Form Factor & Dimensions
Slot Width
Dual Slot

 

[lukart]

Looks like another hype about to derail...

"AMD Radeon RX 480 Allegedly Stable Up To 1340 MHz in 3DMark Firestrike
http://wccftech.com/radeon-rx-480-thermal-tests-leak/

From what I know is that RX480 can get slightly 10% more performance after overclocking, didn't told me the clock speed he got. (not same leak as the news, this is personal one)

 

[Maverick177]

Looks like another hype about to derail...

"AMD Radeon RX 480 Allegedly Stable Up To 1340 MHz in 3DMark Firestrike
http://wccftech.com/radeon-rx-480-thermal-tests-leak/

From what I know is that RX480 can get slightly 10% more performance after overclocking, didn't told me the clock speed he got. (not same leak as the news, this is personal one)

10% perf increase is pathetic. Either go big or go home.

 

[Silverforce11]

I believe that backplate is part of the reference cooler. Both use the same coolers, XFX just has a higher MSRP because they think they can sell for $10 more.

Whoops, nevermind, looks like the backplate is missing from the reference model.

Yes, word is AIBs will charge $10-15 extra for a backplate and a small OC. Like 1266 -> 1288 or XFX may have gone with 1328mhz.

I dislike backplates, it adds nothing to function and prevents radiating heat from the back of the PCB efficiently.

Also for CF, that small extra spacing allows the top card to breathe better. But choices are good for consumers!

 

[Silverforce11]

Looks like another hype about to derail...

"AMD Radeon RX 480 Allegedly Stable Up To 1340 MHz in 3DMark Firestrike
http://wccftech.com/radeon-rx-480-thermal-tests-leak/

From what I know is that RX480 can get slightly 10% more performance after overclocking, didn't told me the clock speed he got. (not same leak as the news, this is personal one)

Looks like you are trying too hard to derail it.

We've already seen XFX RX 480 shipping with 1328mhz. If you think 1340mhz is the max OC...

 

[sze5003]

Yes, word is AIBs will charge $10-15 extra for a backplate and a small OC. Like 1266 -> 1288 or XFX may have gone with 1328mhz.

I dislike backplates, it adds nothing to function and prevents radiating heat from the back of the PCB efficiently.

Also for CF, that small extra spacing allows the top card to breathe better. But choices are good for consumers!

They said in the one article AIB models available shortly after. I hope they mean like two weeks after. I would like an Asus, sapphire, MSI or even gigabyte model to match with my mobo.