PCGH Updated their 480 review (4 months later)

[Bacon1]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Tests/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

Google Translate below:

Updated on 13/10/16: gaming performance after four months

In AMD's worth after the presentation of a new generation of architects always an eye on the subsequent drive development. Often the publication can not be optimally utilized all the improvements, so that the power months, can in some cases even years later still rising. In the case of the Radeon RX 480, this behavior can already observe almost four months after publication.Through an improved boost performance, we have raised the Bench clock of 1,150 MHz to 1,190 - an increase of 3.5 percent.

This alone, the average increase in output can not explain, however, because compared to the graphics card index from the PCGH Edition 08/2016, where the Radeon RX 480 was included for the first time, the performance is increased by eight percent. At that time, before the introduction of the Titanium X (Pascal), introduced the Geforce GTX 1080 the 100 percent mark. The RX 480 had an index value of 50.1 percent. Now there are 1080 54.1 percent compared to the GTX. In other words, the Polaris-10 GPU Positioned for release just behind a R9 290, she manages now just ahead of a R9 290X.

 

[Yakk]

Seems right on par for AMD. Continuous performance improvements over the lifetime of the product like the now venerable 7970.

DX12 should continue this trend as optimized code gets better and better.

 

[Headfoot]

They seem to do good reviews. I wish they would publish in English at the same time, so I could read it without the sometimes sketchy Google translate!

 

[Bacon1]

They seem to do good reviews. I wish they would publish in English at the same time, so I could read it without the sometimes sketchy Google translate!

Yeah, especially when they find issues as sometimes the real problem gets lost in translation. Luckly translate is pretty good so you can understand 95% of what they are talking about correctly

I wish the US (or at least "English") sites would do more in depth testing like these guys and computerbase.de.

Anandtech is pretty much gone.

[H] is VR now basically, they never got their DXMD out of "Preview" status. Haven't touched GoW4, Forza, Halo, or others that released recently. I don't think they even covered BF1?

Techreport is good, but also lacking on recent content

Digital Foundry does a good job, but they seem to ask more questions than they answer, or assume they know but don't verify. Their card selection is also small but overall they do good testing and frametime testing as well.

Its a lot to ask, but would be nice to see:

Frametime testing, Multiple settings, Multiple cards, Multiple CPUs (even if only tested against 1-2 cards from each manufacturer).

And then on top of it you need some analysis to figure out why some numbers might look wrong. I mean we've seen quite a few reviews recently that have been recalled (techreport, gamersnexus) completely because they published results that were wrong.

 

[kawi6rr]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Radeon-Grafikkarte-255597/Tests/RX-480-Test-1199839/2/

Google Translate below:

Interesting, so they're saying that the 480 is now on par or slightly faster then the 290x?

 

[Bacon1]

Interesting, so they're saying that the 480 is now on par or slightly faster then the 290x?

Yeah, now it might be due to newer games in their suite, better drivers, and AIB cards not throttling, but yeah.

 

[Headfoot]

Yeah the best english source today is probably Digital Foundries. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the video-primary review. I like written reviews with graphs and video as needed to elaborate the point. That being said, their content is great

 

[Bacon1]

Yeah the best english source today is probably Digital Foundries. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the video-primary review. I like written reviews with graphs and video as needed to elaborate the point. That being said, their content is great

Yeah their written articles often have more detail, and they at least spend the time to go into how settings are used and IQ checks and stuff often. But even they messed up the Mirrors Edge review and had the memory restriction on which showed the 970 running hyper without issue. They did resolve it in an update video later but the rush to publish has affected a lot of sites.

Their tech deep dives are great as often they talk with the developers about how they are made.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k

That one shows lots of great testing, along with RAM speed which shows it does matter now.

I mean GTAV goes from 66 -> 74 fps just from 1600 -> 2400mhz memory. Not many sites have tested ram lately.

Anyway, hopefully more sites do frametime testing and IQ testing / optimization.

 

[EndlessWargasm]

Pcper and GamersNexus both do excellent in depth work.

 

[kalrith]

I'll second Pcper. I like their frame rating and how they test the power consumption individually from the PCI-express slot and PCI-e power-supply cables.

Edit: And the performance improvement over time from AMD is one of the main reasons I'm choosing the 480 over the 1060.