Official AMD Polaris Review Thread: Radeon RX 480, RX 470, and RX 460

[zinfamous]

https://techaltar.com/amd-rx-480-gpu-review/4/

110W consumed?

So, these guys are getting the expected power draw...and somehow this thing is slightly edging out Fury X in a few games...even at 1440p? (practically matches Titan in SW Battlefront? )

wtf....

these reviews are all over the place. Really sounds like a chip/board lottery issue. Hopefully this isn't as bad in the retail space as it is for reviewers.

OC is still pretty bad here, but could be fixed with AIB options and drivers? Oh, as far as power/OC, that still doesn't look good with their charts. They managed ~6% OC but that required 13 more W... (Actually, is that bad? I have no idea )

 

[96Firebird]

AotS for power consumption testing? CPU limited?

 

[railven]

That doesnt mean it is a $500 Card competitor, NVIDIA also said the GTX 1070 also brings performance of $650 cards at $379 but everyone was also comparing them to GTX 970 and how awesome performance increased they got.

Well, it sort of is. You gain nothing by comparing it to a slower card priced the same. You make a point by comparing it to a tier above it.

I doubt anyone would go
"Wow look how much faster it is over 380X"
And more so
"Wow look how close it is to Fury/Nano GTX 980"

There is a reason why GTX 1080 was compared to Titan X by Nvidia themselves more so than GTX 980 Ti.

What my speculations were about the RX 480 performance has nothing to do with professional reviews who got an AMD sample and were also informed by AMD via a conference call about the RX 480 positioning prior to the official launch.

It definitely draws to question your defense of the product now that it's getting rather poor response.

AMD wasted no chance to promote it as a VR capable product. So when compared to other VR capable products, you call foul? Sure. And if it were hitting at GTX 1070/GTX 1080 better I'm sure you would still call foul if it was compared to them, right?

 

[Hitman928]

Interesting..

HardOCP showed significantly lower power usage than a 970 as well. Performance seems to vary from review to review as well. I wonder if we're seeing some large wafer quality variations coming out of gf.

 

[zinfamous]

^ Yeah I noticed that, but it's confusing because it says Temps in Celsius. Probably just a goof, but Is there some hidden metric in there?

Celsius is standard and along with metric, should honestly be the only values used in any technical/science field, imo.

 

[Abwx]

Guys, looks at this O_O

He seems to have relied on stock settings for voltage/frequency :

 

[Glo.]

So, these guys are getting the expected power draw...and somehow this thing is slightly edging out Fury X in a few games...even at 1440p? (practically matches Titan in SW Battlefront? )

wtf....

these reviews are all over the place. Really sounds like a chip/board lottery issue. Hopefully this isn't as bad in the retail space as it is for reviewers.

OC is still pretty bad here, but could be fixed with AIB options and drivers? Oh, as far as power/OC, that still doesn't look good with their charts. They managed ~6% OC but that required 13 more W... (Actually, is that bad? I have no idea )

13% more power consumed for 6% more performance. It would actually match the algorithm of performance increase at expense of power consumption: 1.10 performance - 1.23 power consumed.

 

[agfkfhahddhdn]

.

 

[zinfamous]

He seems to have relied on stock settings for voltage/frequency :

[IMGIMG]

It doesn't show the actual voltage though, right? It does look as though Auto is ticked on, but reviews have shown various stock voltage, haven't they? Or have they all shipped above (at like 1.25v or whatever was reported), and only some reviewers reported the actual stock review voltage?

 

[Glo.]

Celsius stands out because the chart is not measuring temperature.

The hell? Celsius is the scale of what then? Beauty of hippos?

 

[zinfamous]

Celsius stands out because the chart is not measuring temperature.

Isn't he referring to this chart?

 

[Ares202]

Sorry if these are reposts:

ASUS

MSI

 

[Tweak155]

Isn't he referring to this chart?

The Power chart, sorry. Looks like they just left the same legend in both.

 

[AtenRa]

Well, it sort of is. You gain nothing by comparing it to a slower card priced the same. You make a point by comparing it to a tier above it.

I doubt anyone would go
"Wow look how much faster it is over 380X"
And more so
"Wow look how close it is to Fury/Nano GTX 980"

There is a reason why GTX 1080 was compared to Titan X by Nvidia themselves more so than GTX 980 Ti.

NVDIA said that GTX 1070 brings the performance of $650 cards, but they positioning the GTX 1070 against GTX 970.

AMD said that RX 480 brings the performance of $500 cards but they positioning the RX 480 against R9 380. This card is a Tonga replacement, not a Hawaii/Fiji/GM204 competitor.
It is nice to see the RX 480 vs those cards but not comparing the RX 480 to its real competitors (R9 380/X and GTX 960) is completely fail fro the Reviews that they did just that.

It definitely draws to question your defense of the product now that it's getting rather poor response.

AMD wasted no chance to promote it as a VR capable product. So when compared to other VR capable products, you call foul? Sure. And if it were hitting at GTX 1070/GTX 1080 better I'm sure you would still call foul if it was compared to them, right?

AMD compared the RX 480 against the R9 380 for VR. Also you fail to understand that there is no other $199 VR capable product in the market. And you are trying also to compare the RX 480 against GTX 1070/1080. This is not the segment RX 480 was made for, open your eyes.

 

[LTC8K6]

Looks like minimum VR ready rather than premium, though.

 

[Abwx]

It doesn't show the actual voltage though, right? It does look as though Auto is ticked on, but reviews have shown various stock voltage, haven't they? Or have they all shipped above (at like 1.25v or whatever was reported), and only some reviewers reported the actual stock review voltage?

Dont know, first time i see this interface set on auto, JagatOC overclocked the card to 1.4GHz+ using another cooler and 1.150V wich seems to be the max stock voltage.

http://oc.jagatreview.com/2016/06/t...on-rx480-ke-1-4ghz-dengan-cooler-3rd-party/2/

 

[boozzer]

The fail from AMD once again is not the product but the inability to make reviewers understand where this product is positioned against the competition. We see review after review comparing the RX480 against R9 390/X and GTX 970/980. :sneaky:

But RX 480 at $199 and $239 is a direct (Tonga) R9 380/X and (GM106) GTX 960 competitor. So lets see how that translates.

This is the average from 16 games of which 10 are GameWorks titles.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html

Performance vs Tonga and GM106

Perf/watt vs Tonga and GM106

How about DX-12 ??

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_rx_480_8gb_review,13.html

So now things are looking differently when we directly see each tree alone inside the forest.

it is basically a main stream card performing almost as good as a mid range.

hell of a bargain.

can't wait to see what AIBs has cooked up later on.

 

[zinfamous]

The Power chart, sorry. Looks like they just left the same legend in both.

Oh I never noticed that. haha. They must have their testing lab on Mars....

 

[zinfamous]

Looks like minimum VR ready rather than premium, though.

someone earlier in this thread or another posted a ~9.3 on that steam VR test with a mildly OC 480....basically the VR testing suit is still complete junk, no?

 

[Oyeve]

I ordered an 8GB version yesterday from neweggbusiness. Should be here tomorrow. I ordered one to replace my r290X, not for any performance increase, but to get rid of the power sucker r290x. My electric bill should drop a bit.

 

[BSim500]

The fail from AMD once again is not the product but the inability to make reviewers understand where this product is positioned against the competition. We see review after review comparing the RX480 against R9 390/X and GTX 970/980. :sneaky:

But RX 480 at $199 and $239 is a direct (Tonga) R9 380/X and (GM106) GTX 960 competitor. So lets see how that translates.

Part of the reason for that is that real-world pricing doesn't match rigid "perf-per-$" charts, especially with a combination of regional variations plus the fall in price of GTX 970's. Eg, in the UK, RX 480 are averaging £190-£230 whilst GTX 970 are current £200-£240 and R9 390's are £230-£260. But the GTX 960's & R9 380's have fallen to only £140-£145. When there's only £10 difference vs the GTX 970 but over £50-£90 difference vs the GTX 960 / 380, it's pretty obvious where they'll be pitched against. Personally I would have thought it obvious the nearest genuine GTX 960 competitor will be the RX 470 (and the GTX 1060 for the RX 480), but neither of those cards are out yet.

 

[railven]

Looks like minimum VR ready rather than premium, though.

Basically. AMD made the comparison, hell it's the foundation of their marketing slogan "VR for the masses" but reviewers be damned if they compare the RX 480 to anything that is VR capable.

EDIT:

Got to sort of chuckle at some of these after reviews hit.

 

[railven]

someone earlier in this thread or another posted a ~9.3 on that steam VR test with a mildly OC 480....basically the VR testing suit is still complete junk, no?

Mod post on that Reddit thread:

[–]milocher[M] [score hidden] 8 hours ago stickied comment
Hi folks, please take this with a WCCF grain of salt. This 4chan guy sounds suspicious and may be creating false hype

4Chan is probably not the most reliable source of info.

 

[dark zero]

Now there are rumors that there will be the RX485 with improved P10 chip and GDDR 5X memory. The date is unknown BTW..

However on the official side, the RX490 is already listed in a promotion in this year.

 

[Erenhardt]

Basically. AMD made the comparison, hell it's the foundation of their marketing slogan "VR for the masses" but reviewers be damned if they compare the RX 480 to anything that is VR capable.

EDIT:

Got to sort of chuckle at some of these after reviews hit.

nvm