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

[.vodka]

http://videocardz.com/63033/gigabyte-radeon-rx-460-windforce-2x-performance-leaked

460 numbers. Slower than 950.

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...strix_gaming_chlodny_i_cichy_polaris?page=0,4


Interestingly here we have the very same charts of the RX460 "leak" without the RX460 numbers, down to the highlight on the RX470 since it's a RX470 review. Videocardz most probably stumbled upon some fakes.

 

[eRacer]

Interestingly here we have the very same charts of the RX460 "leak" without the RX460 numbers, down to the highlight on the RX470 since it's a RX470 review. Videocardz most probably stumbled upon some fakes.

Could be they got both the RX 470 and RX 460 cards at the same time, were tested at the same time, but the RX 460 numbers were "accidentally" included in the RX 470 results. Good way to get some extra traffic on their website.

If they are fake it looks like someone did a reasonable job of guesstimating factory overclocked RX 460 performance. The numbers seem believable for a card with only 44% of the shaders of the RX 470 and 2GB of memory.

 

[antihelten]

http://videocardz.com/63033/gigabyte-radeon-rx-460-windforce-2x-performance-leaked

460 numbers. Slower than 950.

Slower than a 950 is to be expected, the 460 is only 39% of a 480 spec wise after all, and a 950 is 48% the performance of a 480.

The really interesting thing here will be the power usage (to me at least). Unfortunately we are looking at aftermarket cards and full system power, which makes it a bit harder to compare. AMD originally showed off a PC system with a 460 using 54W less than a similar system using a 950. PurePC only gets a 34W difference, but the aforementioned issues makes it a bit fuzzy to compare these things. It will be nice to get some numbers where the GPU power usage is isolated.

 

[eRacer]

The really interesting thing here will be the power usage (to me at least). Unfortunately we are looking at aftermarket cards and full system power, which makes it a bit harder to compare. AMD originally showed off a PC system with a 460 using 54W less than a similar system using a 950. PurePC only gets a 34W difference, but the aforementioned issues makes it a bit fuzzy to compare these things. It will be nice to get some numbers where the GPU power usage is isolated.

The RX 460 efficiency isn't impressive in this test. Crysis 3 was used for power testing. The GTX 950 was 34% faster in Crysis 3 than the RX 460, so the performance/watt of the RX 460 probably wasn't much better than the GTX 950. The higher GTX 950 performance probably increased the power consumption a bit on the CPU and other system components. That would make the system power difference somewhat larger than the actual video card power difference as well.

 

[antihelten]

The RX 460 efficiency isn't impressive in this test. Crysis 3 was used for power testing. The GTX 950 was 34% faster in Crysis 3 than the RX 460, so the performance/watt of the RX 460 probably wasn't much better than the GTX 950. The higher GTX 950 performance probably increased the power consumption a bit on the CPU and other system components. That would make the system power difference somewhat larger than the actual video card power difference as well.

It's worth noting that the 950 in question is unusually fast. Comparing it to the 480 nitro and extrapolating to the numbers TPU have for reference models, that 950 is a good 50% faster than a reference 950.

 

[FatherMurphy]

http://videocardz.com/63033/gigabyte-radeon-rx-460-windforce-2x-performance-leaked

460 numbers. Slower than 950.

Basically matches a 750ti....

 

[eRacer]

It's worth noting that the 950 in question is unusually fast. Comparing it to the 480 nitro and extrapolating to the numbers TPU have for reference models, that 950 is a good 50% faster than a reference 950.

According to an actual TPU review of a Gigabyte GTX 950 WindForce OC we should expect that the PurePC Gigabyte GTX 950 isn't all that much faster than a reference GTX 950. No factory overclocked air-cooled Maxwell card is going to be anywhere near 50% faster than its reference counterpart.

 

[dark zero]

http://videocardz.com/63033/gigabyte-radeon-rx-460-windforce-2x-performance-leaked

460 numbers. Slower than 950.

Take in care something:
- The card shown was the full version. The one with the leaked performance has less SP, so less performance
- Seems that the PCI only power way is not the way AMD meant to go with the card.
- It won't OC as many can expect.

However seems that is not targeting the 950 after all, but only the GT tier cards like 940 or the older GTX tier cards like 750Ti.

The tier that nVIDIA didn't care to cover and Intel can't still catch up.

 

[SPBHM]

Basically matches a 750ti....

it's behind the 750 ti and even the 260x in some tests.. ouch.
overall it's a little faster than both, but not that much...

 

[Arachnotronic]

The RX 460 is underwhelming. Expected better from all of the initial demos of P11 claiming better perf/watt than GTX 950

 

[JDG1980]

it's behind the 750 ti and even the 260x in some tests.. ouch.
overall it's a little faster than both, but not that much...

How could it possibly be slower than the 260X? Both the 260X and 460 have 896 shaders, 16 ROPs, and a 128-bit memory bus. The Polaris 11 card has faster core and memory clocks than its Bonaire counterpart. Any architectural changes should be to Polaris's advantage. Are we still looking at immature drivers at this point?

The fact that AMD made the RX 460 a cut SKU is also puzzling. Was there a huge amount of demand for uncut P11 for mobile/AIO, or are GloFo yields still terrible?

 

[majord]

it's behind the 750 ti and even the 260x in some tests.. ouch.
overall it's a little faster than both, but not that much...

Numbers say it's 18% faster than 750ti
950 is 17% faster than it

If the Vulkan and DX12 numbers wern't (seemingly) borked, it would look a tad better. (numbers show it slower than a 260x, which is 'impossible')

 

[jpiniero]

The ref model could be power limited. I'll have to guess that 950 model has external power for instance.

 

[antihelten]

According to an actual TPU review of a Gigabyte GTX 950 WindForce OC we should expect that the PurePC Gigabyte GTX 950 isn't all that much faster than a reference GTX 950. No factory overclocked air-cooled Maxwell card is going to be anywhere near 50% faster than its reference counterpart.

That's my whole point. The 950 Windforce that PurePC has is performing much faster than it realistically ought to.

In PurePC's tests the 950 Windforce is 67% the performance of the 480 Nitro. A 480 Nitro is roughly 8% faster than a reference 480. As such if the 950 Windforce is 67% of the Nitro card it would be 72% of a reference RX 480 (67% * 1.08 = 72%). TPU shows a reference 950 as being 48% of a reference 480, thus PurePC's 950 Windforce would be 50% faster than a reference 950 (72% / 48% = 1.5).

So either PurePC's 480 Nitro numbers are messed up, their 950 Windforce numbers are messed up, or they have the most incredible golden sample 950 GPU the world has ever seen.

Edit: just noticed that PurePC is actually running their 480 Nitro in quiet mode, so their 950 Windforce would only be 32% faster than a reference 950, not 50%. Still way above normal.

Edit 2: I just tried looking at their 950 Windforce numbers vs. their 370 Gaming numbers. The 370 Gaming is running in silent mode, which means it is basically running stock clocks. The 950 Windforce is about 10% faster, which is roughly what you would expect vs. a reference 370, so it would appear that the above issue is due to PurePC's 480 Nitro numbers being way too low, not the 950 numbers being too high. Of course that arguably puts all of their Polaris numbers into question.

 

[mohit9206]

Lol where are all those people who said it would be as fast as 950/960? AM sure some people replied to me saying that when i said it will be 20-30% slower than 950.Even read a lot of folks saying as fast as R9 270X ! Even i was wrong tbh,it is even more slower than 30%.Slower than even R7 370.Worse perf/watt than Maxwell 950.I don't see the 2.8X more perf/watt anywhere in those charts.Yet Another lie from AMD?
Its not completely their fault though.Polaris just isn't as efficient as we all thought it would be,even less efficient than Maxwell.It will take them another generation or two to even match Maxwell in efficiency.
As fast as 750Ti when 750ti costs less than $100,i don't see what the fuss is all about.Most people would be better off with $110 950 because $110-130 for 2gb RX460 and $130-150 for 4gb makes no sense.GTX 950 crushes it while costing less.

 

[DidelisDiskas]

Either those leaks are false, or amd completely lost their mind releasing a cut down useless card.

 

[fuccboi]

I wonder which one of these cards showcased against the GTX 950 in the Battlefront was it. (142w vs 85w) Anyone takes a guess?

 

[mohit9206]

There is absolutely no way the Polaris 10 only matches the 390. Its going to be near Fury X/980 Ti IMO.

Well im pretty confident Polaris 10 at ~100W could be faster than GTX 980. But in DX-12 games, I wouldnt be surprised if 75W Polaris 10 be faster than GTX 980.

I can't believe AMD managed to deceive even the most experienced members of Anandtech. And we say AMD cannot do marketing(lying)

 

[Lepton87]

According to an actual TPU review of a Gigabyte GTX 950 WindForce OC we should expect that the PurePC Gigabyte GTX 950 isn't all that much faster than a reference GTX 950. No factory overclocked air-cooled Maxwell card is going to be anywhere near 50% faster than its reference counterpart.

That's correct, overclocked cards top out at being over 20% faster then reference just like in the case of Asus Gold Platinum which is basically a special edition of ROG Matrix or zotac gtx 980 Ti AMP! EE
which is a lot and basically a whole new tier of performance. That's actually more then what separates the top 80 series model from 70 series model.
970>>>980 = about 15%
1070 >>> 1080 = about 20%

 

[USER8000]

Wait for the reviews tommorrow?? No point going off one leak which might or might not be true.

But,I would at least expect an third party RX460 to match or beat an HD7850?? The HD7850 has 14% more shaders but the RX460 should have 20% more clockspeed. Memory bandwidth would be less,but the RX460 has higher speed GDDR5 and the memory compression thingy too,and the R7 260X does not have that.

If it can't even get to HD7850 level with a third party card,something has definitely gone wrong.

 

[prtskg]

Different gpus and apis put different loads on cpu. So I think best result is total system power than just gpu power. Is there any site that tests total system power? Sorry for being off topic.

 

[ShintaiDK]

 

[Sweepr]

So performs worse than the no connector 75W GTX 950s and draws more power?

 

[jpiniero]

GloFo gonna GloFo.

 

[ShintaiDK]

GloFo gonna GloFo.

GloFo isn't to blame for it all.