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

[Kenmitch]

Been wanting to upgrade my GTX 760 to a GTX 970 for the last few months, but decided to wait for 1070 and 480 instead. I'd like to get a 1070 but I am not quite willing to spend $400+ for 1080p gaming if a $200 card is good enough. It looks like a lot of ppl are disappointed because it was over-hyped, but I never expect miracles for a $200 part. I'm leaning towards buying an AIB RX480 so I'll wait a couple more weeks. How much faster is the 480 compare to GTX 760 in 1080p? Is it a substantial upgrade?

Here you go.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1749?vs=1745

 

[sze5003]

What a fail of a chip. What a complete and utter letdown. Crap cooling. Losing to a stock 970 quite a bit and in reality stock 970's rarely exist. OC'd 970's beat OC'd 480's with the similar power consumption. The 4gb card(s) at $199 is a good deal, but everything besides perf/$ is crap on this chip. The 8gb isn't that much better of a deal than current 1070's, and the 1070 is two tiers ahead in performance.

I was expecting 390 1440p performance with a 115-120 watt power usage. The 390 performance figure was met (mostly), but the power usage is insane. Perf/mm2 is utter crap too. GP104 36% larger die for 85% higher performance at 1440p. Perf/w metrics match up as well, with GP104 being 80% more efficient. For those that say perf/mm2 and perf/w don't matter, you can't be further from the truth. AMD won't be able to compete in the notebook space with Polaris's last-gen efficiency and the won't be able to compete in the high end desktop space with abysmal perf/mm2 numbers. Even with an optimistic 25% perf/w improvement (a total guess) to stay within 300 watts, Vega 10 and 11 may be better off as an aborted fetus instead of just DOA like Fury X.

$199 4gb RX 480 is a good deal for those who wear headphones and happen to have a R9 280x / R9 285 / GTX770 / GTX 960 or slower card and game at 1080p. The 8gb at $230-240 is meh. SLI'd RX 480's are more expensive, slower, and consume way more power than 1 GTX 1070.

What an engineering failure. AMD better hope Nvidia's supposed limited production continues for months. HEY GUYS POLARIS IS TWICE AS BRIGHT TODAY AS IT WAS YEARS AGO.

The 8gb models are like $150 less than 1070. Cheapest 1070 is $420-430 with tax. Sure 1070 is more powerful but it's also 100% more expensive.

 

[mooncancook]

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/images/perfrel_1920_1080.png

Just over twice as fast with the 8GB version. With just slightly slower memory on the 4GB version it should still manage double the speed on average.

Good enough for me. Saved over $100 by waiting a little bit. Hope the AIB cards show up in retail soon.

 

[Eymar]

Been wanting to upgrade my GTX 760 to a GTX 970 for the last few months, but decided to wait for 1070 and 480 instead. I'd like to get a 1070 but I am not quite willing to spend $400+ for 1080p gaming if a $200 card is good enough. It looks like a lot of ppl are disappointed because it was over-hyped, but I never expect miracles for a $200 part. I'm leaning towards buying an AIB RX480 so I'll wait a couple more weeks. How much faster is the 480 compare to GTX 760 in 1080p? Is it a substantial upgrade?

Yeah I'd wait for AIB 480 (hopefully prices are below $275) or see what 1060 has to offer. I'd say 480 will be a substantial upgrade (like double FPS based on AT review). The 480 scores are pretty close to 390x that if you put the two in the same system and run same settings you'll probably not notice the difference without FPS counter except for a few games at 1440p (Dirt Rally, possibly BF4 again based on AT review).

 

[topmounter]

The [H] review is surprisingly down to earth. They feel the $200 4GB (although not tested, but only a few % slower from slower memory) is very important for the 1080p crowd, and it could be a legitimate upgrade from the GTX 960 considering how much faster it is. 960 2GB launched at $200.

They feel $240 for the 8GB version may be pushing the value a bit since superior AIB models will start to creep above this. I can agree with this feeling. While the cheapest 1070 is still $400, the last thing you want to do is having your model within $100 or so of a vastly superior card like that (well, for AMD anyway. Somehow the GTX 780 was price cut to still be $100 more than the 290 after Hawaii launched at it wasn't even faster then let alone now... go figure).

Especially since Nvidia is going +$50 per model this gen, even if it turns out faster and cooler, a $250 GTX 1060 will convince some to try $200 480 4GB. Although quality AIB models for only $10-$20 premium (or no premium, one can dream) will be needed.

With the AIB cards TBD, the 8GB 480 at $240 seems to be in a bit of a no-mans land at this point. The 4GB 480 at $199 is a solid 1080p bridge to Vega though, but I'm hopeful that the AIB cards can eek out a little more 1440p performance and extend that bridge a bit further. I can wait to see what the AIB cards have on offer.

 

[thilanliyan]

The same reason they used 8 pin + 6 pin for R9 290x which uses 450+ watts when not throttling.

Sorry but a 290 does not use 450w by itself. Maybe a full system, but not the card by itself.

 

[mooncancook]

Here you go.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1749?vs=1745

Nice, I can start playing Witcher 3 when I get the card. Dirt Rally gonna run much smoother too!

 

[MrTeal]

What a fail of a chip. What a complete and utter letdown. Crap cooling. Losing to a stock 970 quite a bit and in reality stock 970's rarely exist. OC'd 970's beat OC'd 480's with the similar power consumption. The 4gb card(s) at $199 is a good deal, but everything besides perf/$ is crap on this chip. The 8gb isn't that much better of a deal than current 1070's, and the 1070 is two tiers ahead in performance.

I was expecting 390 1440p performance with a 115-120 watt power usage. The 390 performance figure was met (mostly), but the power usage is insane. Perf/mm2 is utter crap too. GP104 36% larger die for 85% higher performance at 1440p. Perf/w metrics match up as well, with GP104 being 80% more efficient. For those that say perf/mm2 and perf/w don't matter, you can't be further from the truth. AMD won't be able to compete in the notebook space with Polaris's last-gen efficiency and the won't be able to compete in the high end desktop space with abysmal perf/mm2 numbers. Even with an optimistic 25% perf/w improvement (a total guess) to stay within 300 watts, Vega 10 and 11 may be better off as an aborted fetus instead of just DOA like Fury X.

$199 4gb RX 480 is a good deal for those who wear headphones and happen to have a R9 280x / R9 285 / GTX770 / GTX 960 or slower card and game at 1080p. The 8gb at $230-240 is meh. SLI'd RX 480's are more expensive, slower, and consume way more power than 1 GTX 1070.

What an engineering failure. AMD better hope Nvidia's supposed limited production continues for months. HEY GUYS POLARIS IS TWICE AS BRIGHT TODAY AS IT WAS YEARS AGO.

What reviews are you looking at that the 480 is quite a bit slower than a stock 970? TPU has the 480 being 5% faster than a stock 970.

 

[Headfoot]

All of a sudden the people who care about power consumption flips again

 

[crisium]

Yeah, technically the $240 8GB still wins the performance-per-dollar battle against GP104, but perhaps not as much as one might like. $200 4GB version much more likely to spur upgrades I think.

GTX 960 2GB launched at $200, and 4GB was often sold at more than that. The 380X 4GB launched at $230. We have good movement here now. The firesale Hawaii cards since time immemorial really put a damper in the hype, but when you ground yourself to the reality of MSRPs (and the truth that very recently people paid this much for the GTX 960) then it's not that bad* for what it offers.

*Reference cooler sucks, power consumption higher then it should be

 

[ElFenix]

replying to a post from the other thread

What would have been the last gen AMD $199 card? Was it the R9 380? Looking at benchmarks, it seems like anyone going from a 380 would be well satisfied. There was a huge gap between the R9 380 and the R9 390. Looks like it averages well better than a 50% improvement. Getting 390 level performance for the same price is quite the upgrade IMO. For the longest time that was the kind of graphics card consumer I was. Just hitting up the next gen offering at the same ~200 price point over and over again.

380X was the same price point and roughly the same number of transistors as the 480/8GB, so that would be a pretty good place to start an investigation. haven't seen a review with one yet, though.




i wonder if performance per watt is the wrong fraction? you're chasing a diminishing number when you express it that way. same reason europe uses L/100KM instead of MPG (or, more likely, KM/L). going from 15 MPG to 30 MPG and going from 30 MPG to 60 MPG are both doubling MPG, but 15 -> 30 saves twice as much fuel in actual use.

 

[guachi]

What reviews are you looking at that the 480 is quite a bit slower than a stock 970? TPU has the 480 being 5% faster than a stock 970.

And about 30% faster in DX12 games, which I assume will be more relevant to anyone buying a video card today.

 

[Zstream]

With slower memory, sure. Still looking for reviews of that card...

I wrongly assumed you were talking about the 8GB 480, because the 1070 is 8GB.

Is this really a debate? Why are you comparing a $240 card to a $400 one? What are you trying to get out of comparing the two? Are you wanting to purchase the 1070 and are frustrated that AMD won't deliver the performance on another bracket for the $240 price?

 

[sze5003]

With the AIB cards TBD, the 8GB 480 at $240 seems to be in a bit of a no-mans land at this point. The 4GB 480 at $199 is a solid 1080p bridge to Vega though, but I'm hopeful that the AIB cards can eek out a little more 1440p performance and extend that bridge a bit further. I can wait to see what the AIB cards have on offer.

If the aib models hit $300+ I wonder if that still makes it worth it. I doubt the 1070's price will get any lower but just things I'm pondering.

 

[Headfoot]

It's funny how few comparisons from 480 to its actual predecessor chips I see.

You guys realize the 960 4GB is still going for around $185 before rebate right? The $199 480 absolutely destroys that. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ption=960 4gb&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30. To be fair they are just now (as of the last couple of weeks) starting to hit $160 AR in anticipation of this release.

The 380x is still $200AR. And that too gets destroyed by this.

Not to mention folks on 760s, 670s, 7870's, 7850's, etc.

 

[Zstream]

What a fail of a chip. What a complete and utter letdown. Crap cooling. Losing to a stock 970 quite a bit and in reality stock 970's rarely exist. OC'd 970's beat OC'd 480's with the similar power consumption. The 4gb card(s) at $199 is a good deal, but everything besides perf/$ is crap on this chip. The 8gb isn't that much better of a deal than current 1070's, and the 1070 is two tiers ahead in performance.

I was expecting 390 1440p performance with a 115-120 watt power usage. The 390 performance figure was met (mostly), but the power usage is insane. Perf/mm2 is utter crap too. GP104 36% larger die for 85% higher performance at 1440p. Perf/w metrics match up as well, with GP104 being 80% more efficient. For those that say perf/mm2 and perf/w don't matter, you can't be further from the truth. AMD won't be able to compete in the notebook space with Polaris's last-gen efficiency and the won't be able to compete in the high end desktop space with abysmal perf/mm2 numbers. Even with an optimistic 25% perf/w improvement (a total guess) to stay within 300 watts, Vega 10 and 11 may be better off as an aborted fetus instead of just DOA like Fury X.

$199 4gb RX 480 is a good deal for those who wear headphones and happen to have a R9 280x / R9 285 / GTX770 / GTX 960 or slower card and game at 1080p. The 8gb at $230-240 is meh. SLI'd RX 480's are more expensive, slower, and consume way more power than 1 GTX 1070.

What an engineering failure. AMD better hope Nvidia's supposed limited production continues for months. HEY GUYS POLARIS IS TWICE AS BRIGHT TODAY AS IT WAS YEARS AGO.

I'm actually whole heartily concerned for you, man. I'm not sure you can buy $perf/mm from a store. Are you looking for a video card? Why all the anger and frustration over a $200-$240 card?

 

[Azix]

The 480 would be a massive upgrade over your 670. Obviously the 1070 will be faster but at over double the price.

I can't possibly fathom how your disappointment in the difference between $199 and $179 results in you buying a $450 card instead.

this made me laugh. Its funny seeing people say they are disappointed in the 480 so they are buying a 1070. Never-mind the gulf in price.

If this card really is drawing as much power as it seems, then AMD messed up with the 6 pin, or are letting AIB partners have something more to sell with more power. It could be power limited but with higher OC the efficiency goes away. The main selling point then would be great perf for less cash (apparently 980+)

 

[agfkfhahddhdn]

.

 

[guachi]

Is this really a debate? Why are you comparing a $240 card to a $400 one? What are you trying to get out of comparing the two? Are you wanting to purchase the 1070 and are frustrated that AMD won't deliver the performance on another bracket for the $240 price?

They are all video cards that are used to play the exact same games. There are rarely product comparisons that are more valid than with video cards.

If I can get 80% performance for 50% the price, I'll do it if the 80% performance isn't meaningfully different (to me) than 100% performance.

I can live with 80% performance if I save $200 as it means I can get a new video card and still pay for the vet visit for my dog. 100% or 80% + living dog.

And the reason I can do this comparison is that, at the end of the day, the video card is used to play the same games.

 

[boozzer]

Here you go.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1749?vs=1745

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1749?vs=1744 hell just look at 960 vs 480 that is almost 100% performance gain

that is 100%

 

[amenx]

Whoops.. the 480 exceeds the pci-e power spec and may cause issues with OC'ing and/or may (potentially) cause damage to motherboard.

We skipped long-term overclocking and overvolting tests, since the Radeon RX 480’s power consumption through the PCIe slot jumped to an average of 100W, peaking at 200W. We just didn’t want to do that to our test platform...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-10,4616-9.html

Seriously,wth were AMD thinking with a single 6-pin connector?

 

[Headfoot]

People on actual budgets are still going to go for the 480, they'll sell like hotcakes, and it will become an even better proposition for enthusiasts once the third-party cards are released. Pretty obvious now that the reference cooler is a cheap, low-end blower to increase the margins on a mass market card, i.e. it's not meant for anyone who cares about the cooling solution on their card. Anyone calling this launch a failure is just not worth listening to.

I agree that the AIB will make or break this GPU. 290 aftermarket ended up being one of the best video cards of all time for price and performance. Now I dont think Polaris will hit those hallowed ranks but if the 1.5ghz OC on AIB rumors were true it could certainly change the calculus.

 

[boozzer]

Whoops.. the 480 exceeds the pci-e power spec and may cause issues with OC'ing and/or may (potentially) cause damage to motherboard.



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-10,4616-9.html

Seriously,wth were AMD thinking with a single 6-pin connector?

maybe stop trying to oc with a blower and wait for AIB

 

[Bryf50]

If the AIB's can overclock at least as well as the guru3d sample then that'll be pretty good. Seems like it should be possible.

 

[jj109]

The card's a technical blunder, but it's priced right so that's ok. AMD's margins will suffer for it but can't be worse than early 2015.

The problem comes for AMD when they scale up to compete with Nvidia high end. They're going to need another 50% fps/watt increase unless big Vega is going to be a 2x8pin 350W monster. It'll be a successor to the Fury X so 350W + CLC cooler isn't off the table, in the worst case.