AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB

[jabbadap]

Same problems as usual: over hyped by fanboys and crippled with a crappy cooler...

Lets hope non ref cards can fix this

+Too low power delivery, 8-pin connector would have been better... Well better wait for custom models, with better cooling and better power delivery.

It's currently overpriced in old continent too:
http://geizhals.de/?cat=gra16_512&xf=1440_RX+480~653_AMD#xf_top
http://geizhals.de/?cat=gra16_512&xf=1439_GTX+970#xf_top

 

[Frick]

But why would you purchase GTX 970 4GB (3.5GB) at $265 when you can purchase RX 480 8GB card at $239 ??
EDIT: I forgot to add this thing has better DX 12 performance than GTX 970.

Not to mention immature drivers, maybe/probably.

I think it'll come down to when the 1060 is coming out and how it'll be priced. It will be a power effeciency monster and hugely popular.

EDIT: I had hoped for more OC though,that way we'd have the old days back. More memory/slighlt faster and more expensive or cheaper and overclocking it.

 

[TheGuruStud]

But why would you purchase GTX 970 4GB (3.5GB) at $265 when you can purchase RX 480 8GB card at $239 ??
EDIT: I forgot to add this thing has better DX 12 performance than GTX 970.

As long as you keep your usage within the fast ram, 970 destroys this steaming pile. 970 clocks well, this garbage can't even make a dent.

 

[Crap Daddy]

Worse than expected, only price looks right but then again one needs to put up with noise and heat. Performance might be appealing for some using the 380, 960 and below who can't wait maybe another month for the green counterpart. If the GTX 1060 would've been already out this could've looked even worse. If GP106 follows the trend of GP104 in terms of performance compared to previous gen and Vega follows Polaris trend, AMD will again have to sell their cards for peanuts to stay in the business.

 

[Eroticus]

As long as you keep your usage within the fast ram, 970 destroys this steaming pile. 970 clocks well, this garbage can't even make a dent.

Stock 970 didn't overclocked well to,

GTX 970 is fine as long you won't reach 3.5gb limit or DX12 that would crash after hour.

17 vs 50fps ? - Nvidia's Hyper Settings.

 

[xorbe]

"soon there will also be a 4 GB version, which will retail for $199, which lower memory clocks though." (with?)

I'm actually doubting the usefulness of 8GB as the card struggles to achieve 60fps at 1440p where that amount of memory is needed. I'd really like to see some benches with memory usage on 1080/1440p.

I think the 4GB card will be the popular one ... but why would they lower the vram clock, how annoying.

 

[Dimi]

Well the cheapest RX480 is 299 Euro for me. I'd rather wait for the GTX 1060 or i might just buy a 1070 when i'm in the USA in September.

 

[deu]

I dont get why people in here go balistic over this performance!? AMD had stated that the 480 would be close to a 980 (which it is) The card outperform ALL card in performance pr dollars and is in the top when it comes to perfomance pr watt. EVENTHOUGH this is documented her ONSITE by techpowerup, people still go full meltdown for some reason!? Either you REALLY did not do your research well and somehow excepted polaris to be the vega-chip or else you are just plain super-biased. For some reason only is the entusiast level gaming that matters to some people, even though this card will be the best choice to about 80% of all gamers right now. To be honest I actually thought people frequenting these forums had some level of insight but again forums = trolls and biasedness...

 

[jabbadap]

"soon there will also be a 4 GB version, which will retail for $199, which lower memory clocks though." (with?)

I think the 4GB card will be the popular one ... but why would they lower the vram clock, how annoying.

Maybe because there is no 4Gb memory chips that is clocked 8Gbps, all 8Gbps memory chips on the market are 8Gb. 256bit bus so it needs 8 chips or clamped mode 16 chips. If you use 4 8Gb@8Gbps chips you would get 4GB card with 128bit bus.

 

[xorbe]

what's this claim that 16.6.2 had a perf bug, and to use 16.20.1035.1001-RC1 ... sounds like a bad joke. Well, it is on page 5 of their review.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/s...7bd2dbcc6d3e083d96a10&p=29713609&postcount=46
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/5/

Choice cb.de quote was left out, last line: "On average 1.5% faster."

 

[v12dock]

Reported driver issues https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/5/

Apparently there is a 5% performance difference between the 16.6.2 and 16.20.1035.1001-RC1 drivers

what's this claim that 16.6.2 had a perf bug, and to use 16.20.1035.1001-RC1 ... sounds like a bad joke
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/s...7bd2dbcc6d3e083d96a10&p=29713609&postcount=46

Beat me to it

 

[GhostRyder]

So basically its between the GTX 970 and GTX 980 which was what was expected while some believed it was going to be above the GTX 980 and hyped it way up. The only thing I see disappointing is the overclocking, this thing really needs an aftermarket solution that includes that dual 6 pin and some fans to keep it in line then check the overclocking. But honestly this overclocking is very disappointing at the moment in my book as it really needed to catch up in that department. The cooler is exactly what was expected and it performs similar to the other recently released blowers... Blowers are never going to be amazing coolers because of how they are designed (Plus its only a $200-$240 card so what should we expect).

Well either way the 4gb one is a great buy at the $200. The 8gb might provide a little better longevity, however I think that would only be really beneficial in CFX.

 

[yogurt_21]

AMD literally does not learn from their mistakes, this is the 290 launch all over again. This is why they deserve to fail as a company.

you mean the 2900XT, the 290(X) was faster than the 780 when it launched at the same price or 100$ cheaper only losing to the 780 ti. The 400$ 290 absolutely destroyed the 350ish 770 and still beat the 500$ 780 in most games. Also being that kepler wasn't all that power efficient, the 290(X) didn't seem all that power hungry; not when we still had fermi in the back of our minds.

like the 390(X) I feel like 8GB on this card is a waste especially since its a mid-range. Mid-range card begets mid-range monitor which is 1080p and no game chews up that much vram at that resolution. So at 200$ the 4GB isn't too bad...if it were released 6 months ago. It feels like NV can easily launch a 1050 ti that will stomp this card with less power draw, less noise, and at the same price point or less. Then they can charge 250-300 for the 1060 (ti) which will fill the gap between that and the 1070.

 

[illli]

As someone who always roots for the underdog and wants to see them succeed... I'm slightly disappointed by the results. I was hoping it would at least be on par with the GTX 980, but it wasn't. It also seems to have worse power draw than a 1070, which is just... bad.

 

[deu]

Was hoping that higher OC would help this card shine.

The temperature is a limit; with aftermarket you could proberbly se it go higher but again it is a "mid-end-card" :0

 

[Steevo]

Performance is where we expected, cheap card wit a cheap cooler, the like we haven't seen since the early 2000's, and limited over clocking potential in Stock form.


I guess this is exactly where they were aiming for, so no disappointing parts of the review except the high idle and blu-ray power draw, but how much of that is them still using their UVD tech in the same silicon and hardware acceleration without blackscreen like Nvidia have had issues with.

Not the upgrade I was hoping for at this time, but I would like to see one under water and with more power available.

 

[iO]

Reported driver issues https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/5/

Apparently there is a 5% performance difference between the 16.6.2 and 16.20.1035.1001-RC1 drivers

And according to PCGH.de there is also a bug which prevents the card to enter it's lowest P-State. Should lower the idle power consumption about a third.

 

[yogurt_21]

http://www.smarteranalyst.com/2016/...devices-inc-acquires-software-company-hialgo/

so maybe in a couple years we'll see them get a handle on it?

 

[Frick]

Prices here so far go from €280-340. GTX980 is €345->, GTX970 is from €240. Good 970s. The RX 480 would be worth it IMO if not for that cooler. Seriously, fire the people responsible, they are holding you back AMD!

EDIT: Also, multimonitor is terrrrriiiiibbblllle. Seriously, WTF. But as noted above, could be drivers. It is a brand new card after all.

 

[the54thvoid]

The review is for the card sampled, not an AIB, so in that respect this card is too loud, too hot, too mediocre. Of course it needs to be cheap. The reference version frankly is disappointing.

However, I'm sure once AIB's get to tamper with it the noise and temps won't be an issue. It will be good little card with a bit of tlc

It's just a shame that AMD see fit to release such an unrefined card and wait for the AIB's to make it shine....

 

[newtekie1]

not really ...it is sad only if you own a 980 or a 390X (or in case of sidegrading like a 290 or ... eventually a 970 3.5 edition )

oh well my 980 will hold till Vega and after Pascal, nothing worth it in the latest gen

Not what I meant. I mean it is sad because once again we have a generation where AMD is extremely far behind in power and heat, and can't compete in the high end performance segment. We have to wait for Vega to come out to get competition performance wise to the 1070/1080, and by then GP102 will be ready and faster. But GP102 cards will be overpriced because they have no competition... Lack of competition is bad, and means we as the consumer loose. I was hoping RX 480 would at least come close to the 1070 to warrant a slight price cut from nVidia, but nope... Even in crossfire, two of these can't compete with a 1070.

Plus, it annoys me that AMD has gone quite a bit out of spec on the power consumption, pulling beyond spec from the PCI-E slot and PCI-E 6-pin. I've seen this cause the 24-pin connector melt.

 

[mcraygsx]

While not a very solid card when it comes to Power efficiency. I feel like AMD is just playing a catchup game with NVidia. They barely are catching up with nVidia's last generation Mid range cards (970/980).

Hyper was all about Cost/Power efficiency and it is way below 1070 (154W) vs 480 (166w) given the huge performance difference between the two. I am not sure where the card shines besides the outstanding price.

 

[KainXS]

Performance is where we expected, cheap card wit a cheap cooler, the like we haven't seen since the early 2000's, and limited over clocking potential in Stock form.


I guess this is exactly where they were aiming for, so no disappointing parts of the review except the high idle and blu-ray power draw, but how much of that is them still using their UVD tech in the same silicon and hardware acceleration without blackscreen like Nvidia have had issues with.

Not the upgrade I was hoping for at this time, but I would like to see one under water and with more power available.

When AIB cards come out I was planning to do that with a 8+6Pin verison maybe since I have seidon 120m sitting which will mount to with with no bracket needed.

However, I'm sure once AIB's get to tamper with it the noise and temps won't be an issue. It will be good little card with a bit of tlc

It's just a shame that AMD see fit to release such an unrefined card and wait for the AIB's to make it shine....

100% true

 

[ShurikN]

Well the cheapest RX480 is 299 Euro for me. I'd rather wait for the GTX 1060 or i might just buy a 1070 when i'm in the USA in September.

If this card is 300e in your country, then even the 1070 is overpriced compared ti US. And so will the 1060 be.