AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB

[HD64G]

4000 is 73% more shaders than 2300, so I'm not sure what are you trying to say.

I just explained that your comment previously about not linear increase in performance by increasing shaders is invalid as I compare same ach. In GPUs and especially in games that depend more on GPU than on CPU power with all details maxed out is it mostly common to have analog performance to the shader count when comparing same arch. On average, again...

And some new benches about a game that is being awaited for long now to show the DX12 abilities of AMD CGN arch vs the nVidia's one:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Deus-.../Specials/Benchmarks-Test-DirectX-12-1204575/

Sapphire Nitro+ OC is 33% faster on average and almost 50% on minimal FPS than a custom OCed GTX1060 (Palit@1900MHz boost) at 1080P maxed out. Maybe a bad driver of nVidia but GTX980 is lower as well. Let's wait/hope for @W1zzard to include this game into his reviews along with Warhammer DX12 and Doom Vulcan now sometime into September as patch for DE MD will be out in the 5th as devs have said.

 

[Prima.Vera]

I never understood the point of this series release. I mean this card is slower or on the same performance point as 390 and a 290X... Why was this so called "new" generation even launched?? What is the point on releasing such shitty cards?? Seriously

 

[Aquinus]

I never understood the point of this series release. I mean this card is slower or on the same performance point as 390 and a 290X... Why was this so called "new" generation even launched?? What is the point on releasing such shitty cards?? Seriously
View attachment 81577

If you compared power consumption between the RX 480 and the R9 390, you'll find out really quick. The RX 480 also has fewer shaders and compute hardware than the 390, so yeah. I would call that new technology just not the new technology you were hoping for.

 

[john_]

I never understood the point of this series release. I mean this card is slower or on the same performance point as 390 and a 290X... Why was this so called "new" generation even launched?? What is the point on releasing such shitty cards?? Seriously
View attachment 81577

Why consider a GTX 1070 new generation, if it is as fast as a GTX 980 Ti? Why consider GTX 1060 as new generation if it is slower than GTX 980? Why Nvidia didn't just announced the GTX 1080 and the new Titan alone and lowered the prices on the rest of the cards? Pascal is considered on overclocked Maxwell anyway.

It's not just performance, as already mentioned. It's also new features, optimizations and other stuff. Those optimizations help AMD and Nvidia, to get the same performance at much lower production costs, something they wouldn't be able to do with older cards. Except if they love much lower profit margins.

Examples from CPUs. Kaby Lake is considered new and only seems to offer better codec support. But Intel will point to other stuff too. Or, if Kaby is a little of an extreme example, what about Broadwell and Hasswell? Is Broadwell something much more than just a Haswell at 14nm? Is it enough to be considered a newer generation?

 

[Prima.Vera]

Guys, the average end user Joe, doesn't give a shmit about any of those. He just wants a card that is faster than last year and last 2 year's, for the same price. Nobody cares about those geeky details, relax.
P.S.
And there are people that are still wondering why AMD is in such a big doodoo...

 

[john_]

Well, he does get a better card at the same price, RX 480 vs R9 380, or GTX 1060 3GB vs GTX 960 4GB.

I really don't understand why this is an AMD only matter.

 

[Aquinus]

Guys, the average end user Joe, doesn't give a shmit about any of those. He just wants a card that is faster than last year and last 2 year's, for the same price. Nobody cares about those geeky details, relax.
P.S.
And there are people that are still wondering why AMD is in such a big doodoo...

Your average joe probably isn't buying a dGPU smart ass... and even if someone were to, that's why they use Google or come here and ask us.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Your average joe probably isn't buying a dGPU smart ass... and even if someone were to, that's why they use Google or come here and ask us.

?

 

[TheGuruStud]

Your average joe probably isn't buying a dGPU smart ass... and even if someone were to, that's why they use Google or come here and ask us.

There's plenty of nubs buying GPUs that don't know much. They have friends build their PCs or they get prebuilts. Some even buy prebuilts and slap in a nice GPU (crazy but true). We're a minority.

 

[rtwjunkie]

There's plenty of nubs buying GPUs that don't know much. They have friends build their PCs or they get prebuilts. Some even buy prebuilts and slap in a nice GPU (crazy but true). We're a minority.

A HUGE number of people not like us buy GPU's. It's probably the number one upgrade people get from whatever they had.

 

[BiggieShady]

... doesn't give a shmit about any of those ...

Well, average Joe does give a shmit about fan noise ruining his gameplay

 

[HD64G]

Guys, the average end user Joe, doesn't give a shmit about any of those. He just wants a card that is faster than last year and last 2 year's, for the same price. Nobody cares about those geeky details, relax.
P.S.
And there are people that are still wondering why AMD is in such a big doodoo...

1060 is a 980 in performance for a lower price and power usage, as RX480 is the same for 390. Why is that a problem only for AMD now?

 

[Jeffredo]

1060 is a 980 in performance for a lower price and power usage, as RX480 is the same for 390. Why is that a problem only for AMD now?

Maybe one reason because as with the case of the R9 390 vs. GTX 980 the AMD offering (RX480 vs. GTX 1060) is still considerably more power hungry and hot running for the same performance (more or less). Which is unfortunate given its most current API advantages.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Maybe one reason because as with the case of the R9 390 vs. GTX 980 the AMD offering (RX480 vs. GTX 1060) is still considerably more power hungry and hot running for the same performance (more or less). Which is unfortunate given its most current API advantages.

I don't think that's an issue anymore. The new silicon is much more efficient. Unfortunately, there's not much documentation on it and it seems not many batches are using the new stuff.

I guess AMD is waiting for refresh time to advertise the lower power usage (and it be universal).

 

[RejZoR]

Why consider a GTX 1070 new generation, if it is as fast as a GTX 980 Ti? Why consider GTX 1060 as new generation if it is slower than GTX 980? Why Nvidia didn't just announced the GTX 1080 and the new Titan alone and lowered the prices on the rest of the cards? Pascal is considered on overclocked Maxwell anyway.

It's not just performance, as already mentioned. It's also new features, optimizations and other stuff. Those optimizations help AMD and Nvidia, to get the same performance at much lower production costs, something they wouldn't be able to do with older cards. Except if they love much lower profit margins.

Examples from CPUs. Kaby Lake is considered new and only seems to offer better codec support. But Intel will point to other stuff too. Or, if Kaby is a little of an extreme example, what about Broadwell and Hasswell? Is Broadwell something much more than just a Haswell at 14nm? Is it enough to be considered a newer generation?

New generation doesn't just mean "top of the line card". It means you also get lower models with new technologies and most importantly, at a lower price. R9 390 when new wasn't 300€. It was a lot more. My GTX 980 was 650€ And now a 300€ RX480 performs around the same for the most part. Yeah, that...

 

[Aquinus]

R9 390 when new wasn't 300€.

I got my 390 new for 290 USD. Prices tend to vary across the world.

 

[Totally]

I got my 390 new for 290 USD. Prices tend to vary across the world.

When did you buy yours? That's what they are selling for right now for a vanilla non-oc version with a third party cooler.

 

[bug]

New generation doesn't just mean "top of the line card". It means you also get lower models with new technologies and most importantly, at a lower price. R9 390 when new wasn't 300€. It was a lot more. My GTX 980 was 650€ And now a 300€ RX480 performs around the same for the most part. Yeah, that...

Actually, the 390 was $329 MSRP on launch: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9387/amd-radeon-300-series/3

 

[Aquinus]

When did you buy yours? That's what they are selling for right now for a vanilla non-oc version with a third party cooler.

I got mine last year in July IIRC. It's actually kind of strange because I was expecting the price to drop more than it has since then.

 

[Prima.Vera]

New generation doesn't just mean "top of the line card". It means you also get lower models with new technologies and most importantly, at a lower price. R9 390 when new wasn't 300€. It was a lot more. My GTX 980 was 650€ And now a 300€ RX480 performs around the same for the most part. Yeah, that...

I agree, for a documented user, this is no issue. However I have 2 (two), not 1, 2 colleagues who bought the 480 because they said is the top card of AMD released this year, and for the price AMD is selling it was no brainer. They even made fun of me buying the 1080, saying that how could I payed double for the nVidia's offering. In their mind the 480 and 1080 were almost on the same performance levels.
These kind of users I was referring too.

 

[Tomorrow]

Yep i went with 1080 too since i had the money to buy either Fury X, 980TI or 1080 this year. I saw 1080 as the only real jump in performance since it was 25% faster than 980Ti. Also it used a new memory standard. Although i really-really loved Fury X design and the HBM memory concept. Unfortunately 4GB would have been a bottleneck very soon for me.

If i had come from a 390X i doubt i would have upgraded to RX 480.

 

[john_]

I agree, for a documented user, this is no issue. However I have 2 (two), not 1, 2 colleagues who bought the 480 because they said is the top card of AMD released this year, and for the price AMD is selling it was no brainer. They even made fun of me buying the 1080, saying that how could I payed double for the nVidia's offering. In their mind the 480 and 1080 were almost on the same performance levels.
These kind of users I was referring too.

This is a no issue for an undocumented user also. Not just in GPUs, but in everything.


The price difference is huge to consider that those two cards perform the same, even if you have no knowledge on computer hardware. The least you do when you have no clue at all, with any kind of products, is to ask why an RX 480 costs less than half compared to a GTX 1080, or why it is cheaper even compared to an older GTX 970. Not just in GPUs, but in anything, from cars, or clothes, to plain food. I can throw out any number of examples here. Another similar question here that comes in my mind is, how someone can have knowledge about AMD's models and which one is the top, and still know nothing about their performance. And especially not question the performance based on the price.

In the end, I think this is one more case where we have to invent reason to blame AMD again.

 

[bug]

I agree, for a documented user, this is no issue. However I have 2 (two), not 1, 2 colleagues who bought the 480 because they said is the top card of AMD released this year, and for the price AMD is selling it was no brainer. They even made fun of me buying the 1080, saying that how could I payed double for the nVidia's offering. In their mind the 480 and 1080 were almost on the same performance levels.
These kind of users I was referring too.

In all honesty, when AMD changed their naming scheme, years ago, xx80 meant top of the line and xx60 meant mid-range. But leave it to the marketing department...

 

[bug]

This is a no issue for an undocumented user also. Not just in GPUs, but in everything.


The price difference is huge to consider that those two cards perform the same, even if you have no knowledge on computer hardware. The least you do when you have no clue at all, with any kind of products, is to ask why an RX 480 costs less than half compared to a GTX 1080, or why it is cheaper even compared to an older GTX 970. Not just in GPUs, but in anything, from cars, or clothes, to plain food. I can throw out any number of examples here. Another similar question here that comes in my mind is, how someone can have knowledge about AMD's models and which one is the top, and still know nothing about their performance. And especially not question the performance based on the price.

In the end, I think this is one more case where we have to invent reason to blame AMD again.

But that's how stupid works: in spite of evidence, they always think they've found something special and outsmarted everyone else. That why we have princes moving their wealth out of Africa

 

[Aquinus]

I agree, for a documented user, this is no issue. However I have 2 (two), not 1, 2 colleagues who bought the 480 because they said is the top card of AMD released this year, and for the price AMD is selling it was no brainer. They even made fun of me buying the 1080, saying that how could I payed double for the nVidia's offering. In their mind the 480 and 1080 were almost on the same performance levels.
These kind of users I was referring too.

Well, they're right if they just want smooth performance at 1080p. You don't buy a 1080 unless you need it, otherwise you're kind of wasting money.