AMD RX 400 series (Polaris) MegaThread! FAQ & Resources - page 4

1260 answers Last reply
  1. LOL, somebody messed up the pricing here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA85V4ME3998
    Reply to TechyInAZ
  2. That is one bad value card, lol.

    What the hell? xD

    Cheers!
    Reply to Yuka
  3. Hehehe, or they're just trying their luck! :-)
    Reply to AndrewJacksonZA
  4. 'twas ever thus....

    I'm seeing RX 480's and GTX 1060's listed as being 'in stock' here (France) but a Frenchman's definition of 'in stock' does not match up with my own.

    I once ordered a card that was supposed to be available, only to be later sent an email informing me there was a 6 week re-stock wait. After 8 weeks and no card I cancelled my order. The website belonged to one of the larger e-tailers in France.
    Reply to BurgerandChips66
  5. I do not think it is a paper launch. There is stock out there.
    Reply to Reynod
  6. GTX1060 has launched with loads of custom cards, while I still only see the ASUS RX480 listed in Holland - and that is due out in August. If it really does give the promised 15-20% performance bump, that would put it ahead of stock GTX1060 in almost all games.

    https://rog.asus.com/23922016/gaming-graphics-cards-2/asus-republic-of-gamers-announces-strix-rx-480/

    Question is... at what price?
    Reply to Ags1
  7. Ags1 said:
    Question is... at what price?
    Now that's the question!!

    From the link you provided to Asus' website:
    Quote:
    and 19% in the latest games such as DOOM
    Wait, wait, wait. The RX480 is already about 32% faster than the 1060!!!
    Reply to AndrewJacksonZA
  8. AndrewJacksonZA said:
    Wait, wait, wait. The RX480 is already about 32% faster than the 1060!!!


    FormatC said:

    ID said, that they optimzed the render path ONLY for AMD yet and that the Nvidia implemention will follow later. How we can test a hald-done game without the optimized driver?

    Quote:
    Currently asynchronous compute is only supported on AMD GPUs and requires DOOM Vulkan supported drivers to run. We are working with NVIDIA to enable asynchronous compute in Vulkan on NVIDIA GPUs. We hope to have an update soon.


    Any question? All current tests are useless ;)
    Reply to 17seconds
  9. 17seconds said:
    AndrewJacksonZA said:
    Wait, wait, wait. The RX480 is already about 32% faster than the 1060!!!


    FormatC said:

    ID said, that they optimzed the render path ONLY for AMD yet and that the Nvidia implemention will follow later. How we can test a hald-done game without the optimized driver?

    Quote:
    Currently asynchronous compute is only supported on AMD GPUs and requires DOOM Vulkan supported drivers to run. We are working with NVIDIA to enable asynchronous compute in Vulkan on NVIDIA GPUs. We hope to have an update soon.


    Any question? All current tests are useless ;)


    Ah yes, nVidia's fabled 'we can do async in software... we'll release a driver, promise!' statement... As obviously software emulation always works out faster than dedicated hardware right? How did that work out for ATOS again?
    Reply to cdrkf
  10. 17seconds said:
    AndrewJacksonZA said:
    Wait, wait, wait. The RX480 is already about 32% faster than the 1060!!!
    FormatC said:
    Any question? All current tests are useless ;)


    Hi 17! Here's my reply to that over at the 1060 review thread:
    AndrewJacksonZA said:
    Yeah Igor: given the inclusion of the controversial Nvidia-preferring Project Cars, I think that it would not only be fair but honest to include Doom. Update the review when the patch drops. That way we can also see what kind of a difference the patch makes.

    If you don't want to do that, then run the AMD cards in Vulkan and the Nvidia cards in OpenGL and show those numbers for now, and then update later.
    Reply to AndrewJacksonZA
  11. cdrkf said:
    17seconds said:
    AndrewJacksonZA said:
    Wait, wait, wait. The RX480 is already about 32% faster than the 1060!!!


    FormatC said:

    ID said, that they optimzed the render path ONLY for AMD yet and that the Nvidia implemention will follow later. How we can test a hald-done game without the optimized driver?

    Quote:
    Currently asynchronous compute is only supported on AMD GPUs and requires DOOM Vulkan supported drivers to run. We are working with NVIDIA to enable asynchronous compute in Vulkan on NVIDIA GPUs. We hope to have an update soon.


    Any question? All current tests are useless ;)


    Ah yes, nVidia's fabled 'we can do async in software... we'll release a driver, promise!' statement... As obviously software emulation always works out faster than dedicated hardware right? How did that work out for ATOS again?


    I'm not sure what you're talking about. Pascal does show improvements with Async Compute. Pascal does have support built in. The 3DMark Timespy results prove that there are improvements to be had with Async support on Pascal cards. Just because a couple early games didn't support it from day one doesn't mean that this will be the case for most games going forward.



    The DOOM Vulkan patch notes say that Async Compute support is currently being worked on for Pascal cards. It is also supported on Pascal cards for Rise of the Tomb Raider. The point is looking at current Doom benchmarks with Async enabled is pointless for Nvidia cards because the developers have said it isn't active yet. We won't be able to make those comparisons until it is.
    Reply to king3pj
  12. like dx12 the problem with async is it is not a simple flip a swicth and it's on type thing. there is a command set within async as well. nvidia can work better with certain commands and amd can work better with other ones. so "currently being worked on for Pascal cards" literally means they are working on adding those specific commands that nvidia likes better. people with more time on their hands than i have looked at the time spy benchmark and noted it uses more of the commands that favor nvidia rather than the ones amd handles better.

    so your argument on why games are not good sources of info is the same one that should be made for the new 3d mark time spy. it seems to be favoring nvidia making it look better than it does in games.

    there is no easy answer to this but do note that your whole argument in favor of time spy is the same one you're using against the games we have seen.
    Reply to Math Geek
  13. Math Geek said:
    like dx12 the problem with async is it is not a simple flip a swicth and it's on type thing. there is a command set within async as well. nvidia can work better with certain commands and amd can work better with other ones. so "currently being worked on for Pascal cards" literally means they are working on adding those specific commands that nvidia likes better. people with more time on their hands than i have looked at the time spy benchmark and noted it uses more of the commands that favor nvidia rather than the ones amd handles better.

    so your argument on why games are not good sources of info is the same one that should be made for the new 3d mark time spy. it seems to be favoring nvidia making it look better than it does in games.

    there is no easy answer to this but do note that your whole argument in favor of time spy is the same one you're using against the games we have seen.


    My point was that it's possible for Async to improve performance on Pascal cards and Timespy proves that. Do you really think that developers aren't going to use that information to make their games run better on Pascal cards in the future?

    I was not trying to say that we can't call Ashes and Hitman wins for AMD. We can. I say it's too early to make that conclusion for Doom since the developers say Async isn't active for Pascal yet but it will be.

    My point was that a couple games working better with Async on AMD cards doesn't mean that Async doesn't work on Pascal cards. People keep trying to make that claim and Timespy proves that it can work. Given Nvidia's market share I think it's pretty clear that developers who are working on DX12 and Vulkan games now will take the time to optimize their games to take advantage of Async Compute on Pascal cards. They would be stupid not to.

    I want to be clear that I'm not saying they will necessarily do this at AMD's expense. Good developers optimize their games for both. I don't see why Async Compute would be any different.
    Reply to king3pj
  14. works for me. would be nice to see a game optimized for all hardware. that would be my goal if i was developing a game.

    it's clear there is more to squeeze from all the hardware out there for sure. dx 12 is still so new it will take time for them to figure out how to make it work better. add in brand new architecture from the gpu's of both sides and developers got their hands full for sure!!
    Reply to Math Geek
  15. gigabyte also announced yesterday the G1 480 was released. how long before it hits stores is anyone's guess but they are supposed to be in the wild now.

    anyone seen one of these? the G1 is usually a great performer at a decent price.
    Reply to Math Geek
  16. The more I read about it the more I think by the time we know how AMD and Nvidia (recently and soon to be released cards) will compare in future DX12 games the 5xx & 11xx cards will be releasing. My money is AMD will improve more than Nvidia but not by much or every game will just vary wildly.
    Reply to simon12
  17. that's my thoughts as well. this is one of the pros for consoles. they stay around long enough with the same hardware in every box. developers continuously improve how well they use that hardware over time. so even though an xbox 360 may be 6-7 years old, games look/perform better now than when the system first came out. same hardware, but better performance all those years later. a pc will never touch that level of optimization with similarly aged hardware.

    as you noted, by that time, the pc world has moved on to new api's that are not supported or new bigger/better/faster settings that the old parts just can't handle anymore.
    Reply to Math Geek
  18. http://sapphirenation.net/NitroYear/

    Looks like the Sapphire Nitro RX 480 is about to launch..... I'm rather keen on this one.
    Reply to BurgerandChips66
  19. king3pj said:
    cdrkf said:
    17seconds said:
    AndrewJacksonZA said:
    Wait, wait, wait. The RX480 is already about 32% faster than the 1060!!!


    FormatC said:

    ID said, that they optimzed the render path ONLY for AMD yet and that the Nvidia implemention will follow later. How we can test a hald-done game without the optimized driver?

    Quote:
    Currently asynchronous compute is only supported on AMD GPUs and requires DOOM Vulkan supported drivers to run. We are working with NVIDIA to enable asynchronous compute in Vulkan on NVIDIA GPUs. We hope to have an update soon.


    Any question? All current tests are useless ;)


    Ah yes, nVidia's fabled 'we can do async in software... we'll release a driver, promise!' statement... As obviously software emulation always works out faster than dedicated hardware right? How did that work out for ATOS again?


    I'm not sure what you're talking about. Pascal does show improvements with Async Compute. Pascal does have support built in. The 3DMark Timespy results prove that there are improvements to be had with Async support on Pascal cards. Just because a couple early games didn't support it from day one doesn't mean that this will be the case for most games going forward.



    The DOOM Vulkan patch notes say that Async Compute support is currently being worked on for Pascal cards. It is also supported on Pascal cards for Rise of the Tomb Raider. The point is looking at current Doom benchmarks with Async enabled is pointless for Nvidia cards because the developers have said it isn't active yet. We won't be able to make those comparisons until it is.


    Have a look at those numbers though, even though that test is geared as an ideal situation for Pascal, the gain in Pascal is proportionally much less than you see on either AMD card. I mean one view is nVidia cards, Maxwell included, don't perform badly in DX12 or Vulkan- they don't suffer in performance, so using a DX12 or Vulkan render path isn't going to be an issue. That said though they generally doing gain much, whereas AMD cards do (which is probably in part due to the integrated hardware and partly due to AMD's DX11 driver overhead holding their cards back from where they should be based on specifications).

    nVidia are desperately trying to downplay hardware Async as it's something they don't have- the fact is however they are adding it into their cards with Volta. That there tells you everything you need to know on the subject- if nVidia's position of 'it doesn't matter, we can do it in software' was valid, they wouldn't be wasting transistors adding it into their hardware. It doesn't mean nVidia cards are terrible or should be avoided, however I do think that the comparatively cheap AMD cards represent a potential bargain- their (comparatively) poor DX11 performance has forced the prices down very low given the capabilities of many of these cards, DX12 and Vulkan are starting to show what the cards can really do.

    I mean looking at DOOM for a second- forget the issue of where nVidia might end up with the update for a sec, and just consider an API change is adding 30+% performance to AMD's higher end cards. That's a whole performance tier right there- from a software tweak. I don't doubt that Pascal will gain a bit in DOOM- it will probably put the 1070 back above th RX480 (which it should be it's a much more powerful card) although I'd expect the gain will be less than 30%, as I think the 1070 is already performing close to specification (you can't gain performance if it's already fully utilized after all).

    Edit: Some numbers from the 3D mark test- the GTX 1070 gains 7%. The Fury and RX 480 both gain 16%.
    Reply to cdrkf
  20. Some unverified benchmarks of a Sapphire Nitro RX 480 OC @ 1420MHz....

    https://imgur.com/a/sw5u3#PSkmOZQ

    Seems to more than match a GTX 1060 OC @ 2100MHz.

    I think the 'official' launch of this card is in about 24 hours time.
    Reply to BurgerandChips66
  21. BurgerandChips66 said:
    Some unverified benchmarks of a Sapphire Nitro RX 480 OC @ 1420MHz....

    https://imgur.com/a/sw5u3#PSkmOZQ

    Seems to more than match a GTX 1060 OC @ 2100MHz.

    I think the 'official' launch of this card is in about 24 hours time.


    It all comes down to the price. You can buy the cheapest 1060 and OC it to 2GHz no problem, not so much with the 480. IMO, the Nitro has to stay as close to $250 as possible for the 8GB to be competitive.
    Reply to TehPenguin
  22. Those graphs look promising, but I have a doubt in how the 1060 scales with speed. I got the impression the nVidia cards had better scaling per Mhz than AMD cards (including this round), so a 1060 at 2.1Ghz should keep the same lead or be even faster than the RX480 at 1.4Ghz.

    Oh well, official reviews can't come soon enough for the aftermarket RX480s.

    Cheers!
    Reply to Yuka
  23. it's gonna be interesting for sure. at the least they will trade blows pretty equally. best case for amd is they beat the 1060 for less money of course. i'm hoping for actually beating the 1060 for cheaper as that will be good for pricing.
    Reply to Math Geek
  24. cdrkf said:


    Have a look at those numbers though, even though that test is geared as an ideal situation for Pascal, the gain in Pascal is proportionally much less than you see on either AMD card. I mean one view is nVidia cards, Maxwell included, don't perform badly in DX12 or Vulkan- they don't suffer in performance, so using a DX12 or Vulkan render path isn't going to be an issue. That said though they generally doing gain much, whereas AMD cards do (which is probably in part due to the integrated hardware and partly due to AMD's DX11 driver overhead holding their cards back from where they should be based on specifications).

    nVidia are desperately trying to downplay hardware Async as it's something they don't have- the fact is however they are adding it into their cards with Volta. That there tells you everything you need to know on the subject- if nVidia's position of 'it doesn't matter, we can do it in software' was valid, they wouldn't be wasting transistors adding it into their hardware. It doesn't mean nVidia cards are terrible or should be avoided, however I do think that the comparatively cheap AMD cards represent a potential bargain- their (comparatively) poor DX11 performance has forced the prices down very low given the capabilities of many of these cards, DX12 and Vulkan are starting to show what the cards can really do.

    I mean looking at DOOM for a second- forget the issue of where nVidia might end up with the update for a sec, and just consider an API change is adding 30+% performance to AMD's higher end cards. That's a whole performance tier right there- from a software tweak. I don't doubt that Pascal will gain a bit in DOOM- it will probably put the 1070 back above th RX480 (which it should be it's a much more powerful card) although I'd expect the gain will be less than 30%, as I think the 1070 is already performing close to specification (you can't gain performance if it's already fully utilized after all).

    Edit: Some numbers from the 3D mark test- the GTX 1070 gains 7%. The Fury and RX 480 both gain 16%.


    Don't get me wrong, I hope AMD does great this generation. I would love to see the market share start to even out and Nvidia prices to be forced down. I would have loved to save $200 and go with a RX 480 instead of my 1070.

    Here is the thing though, my main priority is being able to play all my games at a 60 FPS on my 1440p monitor. Currently the best option for that (when price is also a factor) was the 1070 so that's what I went with. The RX 480 might have been able to get the job done in some DX12 and Vulkan games but the 1070 will much more consistently do it. Maybe if DX 12 was the majority and not a very small portion of games I play things would be different. If AMD had a 490 available in the 1070's performance bracket I definitely would have considered that option.

    The RX 480 looks like a great 1080p card but since AMD doesn't really have a current 1440p card they weren't an option for me. In PC Gamer's benchmark suite the RX 480 averages 50.3 FPS at 1440p while the GTX 1070 averages 77.4. I know that's not fair because they are in different price and performance brackets but that is what someone looking for a 1440p card currently gets to chose between.

    http://www.pcgamer.com/radeon-rx-480-review/
    Reply to king3pj
  25. king3pj said:
    cdrkf said:


    Have a look at those numbers though, even though that test is geared as an ideal situation for Pascal, the gain in Pascal is proportionally much less than you see on either AMD card. I mean one view is nVidia cards, Maxwell included, don't perform badly in DX12 or Vulkan- they don't suffer in performance, so using a DX12 or Vulkan render path isn't going to be an issue. That said though they generally doing gain much, whereas AMD cards do (which is probably in part due to the integrated hardware and partly due to AMD's DX11 driver overhead holding their cards back from where they should be based on specifications).

    nVidia are desperately trying to downplay hardware Async as it's something they don't have- the fact is however they are adding it into their cards with Volta. That there tells you everything you need to know on the subject- if nVidia's position of 'it doesn't matter, we can do it in software' was valid, they wouldn't be wasting transistors adding it into their hardware. It doesn't mean nVidia cards are terrible or should be avoided, however I do think that the comparatively cheap AMD cards represent a potential bargain- their (comparatively) poor DX11 performance has forced the prices down very low given the capabilities of many of these cards, DX12 and Vulkan are starting to show what the cards can really do.

    I mean looking at DOOM for a second- forget the issue of where nVidia might end up with the update for a sec, and just consider an API change is adding 30+% performance to AMD's higher end cards. That's a whole performance tier right there- from a software tweak. I don't doubt that Pascal will gain a bit in DOOM- it will probably put the 1070 back above th RX480 (which it should be it's a much more powerful card) although I'd expect the gain will be less than 30%, as I think the 1070 is already performing close to specification (you can't gain performance if it's already fully utilized after all).

    Edit: Some numbers from the 3D mark test- the GTX 1070 gains 7%. The Fury and RX 480 both gain 16%.


    Don't get me wrong, I hope AMD does great this generation. I would love to see the market share start to even out and Nvidia prices to be forced down. I would have loved to save $200 and go with a RX 480 instead of my 1070.

    Here is the thing though, my main priority is being able to play all my games at a 60 FPS on my 1440p monitor. Currently the best option for that (when price is also a factor) was the 1070 so that's what I went with. The RX 480 might have been able to get the job done in some DX12 and Vulkan games but the 1070 will much more consistently do it. Maybe if DX 12 was the majority and not a very small portion of games I play things would be different. If AMD had a 490 available in the 1070's performance bracket I definitely would have considered that option.

    The RX 480 looks like a great 1080p card but since they don't really have a current 1440p card they weren't an option for me. In PC Gamer's benchmark suite the RX 480 averages 50.3 FPS at 1440p while the GTX 1070 averages 77.4. I know that's not fair because they are in different price and performance brackets but that is what someone looking for a 1440p card currently gets to chose between.

    http://www.pcgamer.com/radeon-rx-480-review/



    Oh yeah the RX480 is more of a 1080p card overall. That said the AMD Fury series look comfortable at 1440p, 60fps based on that, the issue is for the same money a 1070 is faster and more efficient (though Fury wasn't too bad power wise thanks to HBM).

    I wouldn't rule out the Fury cards out of hand though- there's no major tech they are lacking imo- it's just a question of price which I think is already dropping and should settle out below the 1070.

    There's talk of AMD releasing something else this year, although that could be a dual gpu card. They have said the higher tier Vega gpu isn't coming until next year.
    Reply to cdrkf
  26. The RX 480 competes directly with the 1060. Sadly, the 490/490x will not be out until end of year. They will be competing with the 1070/1080. The 480 was never supposed to play all games at 60 fps 1440p, but is will play many at playable rates. That is game dependent.
    Reply to Embra
  27. If AMD releases a dual RX480, I'm just gonna flip a table.

    Cheers! xD
    Reply to Yuka
  28. yup seeing 4-5 fps increase with the 1060 oc's across various reviews. so i would not expect any new 1060 to come along and raise this much at all. if a 480 can oc as high as it looks like, then it will be solid competition for the 1060 and will probably take the price/performance crown unless the 1060 drops in price.

    but power usage will be higher for the 480 so we'll be back to that stupid argument for why nvidia is better. even though the fanboys have been downplaying the power needs of pascal with "who cares about power usage" comments. but somehow i think we'll be back to accusations of "furnace" and "space heater" type comments again as that's all the nvidia fanboys will have to argue with AGAIN
    Reply to Math Geek
  29. Math Geek said:
    yup seeing 4-5 fps increase with the 1060 oc's across various reviews. so i would not expect any new 1060 to come along and raise this much at all. if a 480 can oc as high as it looks like, then it will be solid competition for the 1060 and will probably take the price/performance crown unless the 1060 drops in price.

    but power usage will be higher for the 480 so we'll be back to that stupid argument for why nvidia is better. even though the fanboys have been downplaying the power needs of pascal with "who cares about power usage" comments. but somehow i think we'll be back to accusations of "furnace" and "space heater" type comments again as that's all the nvidia fanboys will have to argue with AGAIN


    Haha... All these arguments can be rather stupid about a few fps here and there. But we continue to argue.

    I think the Nitro will be the card to see in a benchmark. I heard "rumor" that there may be a Vapor X edition.
    Reply to Embra
  30. Math Geek said:
    yup seeing 4-5 fps increase with the 1060 oc's across various reviews. so i would not expect any new 1060 to come along and raise this much at all. if a 480 can oc as high as it looks like, then it will be solid competition for the 1060 and will probably take the price/performance crown unless the 1060 drops in price.

    but power usage will be higher for the 480 so we'll be back to that stupid argument for why nvidia is better. even though the fanboys have been downplaying the power needs of pascal with "who cares about power usage" comments. but somehow i think we'll be back to accusations of "furnace" and "space heater" type comments again as that's all the nvidia fanboys will have to argue with AGAIN


    What I find most amusing is if we go back a few gens, they've conveniently forgotten the time when AMD had a significant perf/w advantage in graphics (HD 4000, HD5000, HD6000 and HD7000 until Kepler came out)... Then it was "power doesn't matter it's all about performance" :P

    I've said it before and I'll say it again- nVidia's greatest strength is their marketing. Every generation, they spin it so that 'they are the most advanced / are ahead' and it gets taken as fact. nVidia have some great kit, but I don't see them as being particularly ahead of the game recently- as always there are pros and cons to either side.
    Reply to cdrkf
  31. While I prefer to use less power and therefore save money on my electricity bills, the consumption of AMD cards (such as the RX 480) is now at a level that I'm really not bothered now.

    I don't game more than about 10 hours a week these days and even then it is likely to be during off-peak tariff times. So even if my card uses (say) 100 watts more than the alternative card (on average) then the extra cost per year is negligible (less than 6€) in my country. In reality we aren't even talking about anywhere near that figure I expect.

    I would rather save money by buying a cheaper card that offers similar performance - even if it is less performance - so long as it is sufficient performance for my needs and offers the best 'bang for buck'.

    That's why Polaris is looking like a really good deal to me. I don't plan on upgrading my main rig used for work and sound / video editing (a 980Ti) anytime soon, but for my day to day gaming and messing around machine I quite fancy a custom RX 480 over the GTX 1060 atm.

    Though I will sit it out and wait until everything is released and reviewed before parting with my cash!
    Reply to BurgerandChips66
  32. Just saw a review on RX 480 ASUS STRIX (i am sure it will pop in google if you type it)
    I dont even know what to think of it.
    Reply to El Bandito
  33. Quote:
    GPU overclocking works slightly better than with the AMD reference design, reaching 1355 MHz (3% overclock).

    Actual 3D performance gained from overclocking is 3.0%.

    Reply to 17seconds
  34. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/2.html

    That is the only one I could find for the STRIX.

    The price used is $259USD, but there is no way in hell Asus is going to price the STRIX $259. I saw it in the UK for pre-order at £290GBP, so it's going to be at least $50USD premium over the reference RX480. Given the performance numbers in that review the value is mediocre at best, even with the improved thermals and reduced noise (at full speed, they are actually very loud anyway).

    We need more reviews with custom cards to find the best xD

    Cheers!
    Reply to Yuka
  35. Yuka said:
    https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/2.html

    That is the only one I could find for the STRIX.

    The price used is $259USD, but there is no way in hell Asus is going to price the STRIX $259. I saw it in the UK for pre-order at £290GBP, so it's going to be at least $50USD premium over the reference RX480. Given the performance numbers in that review the value is mediocre at best, even with the improved thermals and reduced noise (at full speed, they are actually very loud anyway).

    We need more reviews with custom cards to find the best xD

    Cheers!


    Yeah and the release rate is toooooooooooo sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow. I so wanted to go team read just to support the development but the amount of time they make you wait... ugh. I just emailed my retailer to get me a 1060 since they're plentiful(compared to custom 480's).

    A shame, I was curious how much I could get with async compute in the future.

    I wonder if it's rather bad marketing and not the actual performance of the GPU's that made AMD lose market share.

    EDIT: I have to add! In Europe the cheaper custom(!!) 1060's sell for roughly the same as the 8GB model of the 480(reference!). Really weird how AMD deals with things.
    Reply to TehPenguin
  36. These guys bench the strix 3% better than reference in standard mode & by 7% in overclocked mode 8% with a manual overclock plus you can get 5% on top of these swith a manual memory overclock https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07/asus-radeon-rx-480-strix-test/2/
    They are testing only 4 games though.
    Reply to simon12
  37. cdrkf said:

    nVidia are desperately trying to downplay hardware Async as it's something they don't have- the fact is however they are adding it into their cards with Volta. That there tells you everything you need to know on the subject- if nVidia's position of 'it doesn't matter, we can do it in software' was valid, they wouldn't be wasting transistors adding it into their hardware. It doesn't mean nVidia cards are terrible or should be avoided, however I do think that the comparatively cheap AMD cards represent a potential bargain- their (comparatively) poor DX11 performance has forced the prices down very low given the capabilities of many of these cards, DX12 and Vulkan are starting to show what the cards can really do.



    and that's part of the problem. AMD cards cannot reach their full potential without low level API. and lets face it not ALL games going to use low level API. this is from anandtech:

    Quote:
    Meanwhile, because this is a question that I’m frequently asked, I will make a very high level comparison to AMD. Ever since the transition to unified shader architectures, AMD has always favored higher ALU counts; Fiji had more ALUs than GM200, mainstream Polaris 10 has nearly as many ALUs as high-end GP104, etc. All other things held equal, this means there are more chances for execution bubbles in AMD’s architectures, and consequently more opportunities to exploit concurrency via async compute. We’re still very early into the Pascal era – the first game supporting async on Pascal, Rise of the Tomb Raider, was just patched in last week – but on the whole I don’t expect NVIDIA to benefit from async by as much as we’ve seen AMD benefit. At least not with well-written code.


    people think it was impressive for AMD cards to gain large improvement from async compute but when we try looking at it closely AMD current architecture probably have issues to utilize it's full potential that they need async compute aid where as this is not much of an issue on nvidia architecture.

    and i don't think nvidia "desperately" downplaying async compute. async compute is very general term. nvidia actually has been dealing with async compute ever since fermi. even for maxwell they have asynchronous time warp which is another form of async compute. with pascal they add the load balancing. right now nvidia just don't have ACE like hardware in their gpu.
    Reply to renz496
  38. BurgerandChips66 said:
    Some unverified benchmarks of a Sapphire Nitro RX 480 OC @ 1420MHz....

    https://imgur.com/a/sw5u3#PSkmOZQ

    Seems to more than match a GTX 1060 OC @ 2100MHz.

    I think the 'official' launch of this card is in about 24 hours time.


    i will wait official review. some people claim that any custom RX480 will be able to reach 1400mhz no problem. and we already seen the numbers from Strix RX480.
    Reply to renz496
  39. cdrkf said:
    Math Geek said:
    yup seeing 4-5 fps increase with the 1060 oc's across various reviews. so i would not expect any new 1060 to come along and raise this much at all. if a 480 can oc as high as it looks like, then it will be solid competition for the 1060 and will probably take the price/performance crown unless the 1060 drops in price.

    but power usage will be higher for the 480 so we'll be back to that stupid argument for why nvidia is better. even though the fanboys have been downplaying the power needs of pascal with "who cares about power usage" comments. but somehow i think we'll be back to accusations of "furnace" and "space heater" type comments again as that's all the nvidia fanboys will have to argue with AGAIN


    What I find most amusing is if we go back a few gens, they've conveniently forgotten the time when AMD had a significant perf/w advantage in graphics (HD 4000, HD5000, HD6000 and HD7000 until Kepler came out)... Then it was "power doesn't matter it's all about performance" :P

    I've said it before and I'll say it again- nVidia's greatest strength is their marketing. Every generation, they spin it so that 'they are the most advanced / are ahead' and it gets taken as fact. nVidia have some great kit, but I don't see them as being particularly ahead of the game recently- as always there are pros and cons to either side.


    during GT200 vs HD4000 nvidia actually more power efficient. the mess was fermi generation. and i have seen that "power doesn't matter" comment from both sides. not from nvidia fanboi only. also it is AMD that insist that power efficiency is very important (they also talking about this with polaris). remember this one?:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCi5hiIO4fs
    Reply to renz496
  40. TehPenguin said:
    Yuka said:
    https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_480_STRIX_OC/2.html

    That is the only one I could find for the STRIX.

    The price used is $259USD, but there is no way in hell Asus is going to price the STRIX $259. I saw it in the UK for pre-order at £290GBP, so it's going to be at least $50USD premium over the reference RX480. Given the performance numbers in that review the value is mediocre at best, even with the improved thermals and reduced noise (at full speed, they are actually very loud anyway).

    We need more reviews with custom cards to find the best xD

    Cheers!


    Yeah and the release rate is toooooooooooo sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow. I so wanted to go team read just to support the development but the amount of time they make you wait... ugh. I just emailed my retailer to get me a 1060 since they're plentiful(compared to custom 480's).

    A shame, I was curious how much I could get with async compute in the future.

    I wonder if it's rather bad marketing and not the actual performance of the GPU's that made AMD lose market share.

    EDIT: I have to add! In Europe the cheaper custom(!!) 1060's sell for roughly the same as the 8GB model of the 480(reference!). Really weird how AMD deals with things.


    i think AMD repeating the same mistake that they did with 290X. though this time it is not as bad as 290X launch.
    Reply to renz496
  41. i'm super pissed that i've been staying up til 3 o clock in the morning every night for a week trying to get even a<mod edit> reference RX 480 i feel so screwed lol

    <Watch your language in these forums>
    Reply to ThrashDeathDoom
  42. It will be interesting to see if the ASUS Strix RX 480 performs the same in other reviews. If it does then I find it rather underwhelming. Overclocking was abysmal in my opinion.

    There are reviews where reference cards have been overclocked up to ~1375MHz (Joker Productions on Youtube springs to mind). The overclock was stable and allowed benchmarking with games.

    As this is the first official review of a custom RX 480 I have seen, I have to say it's not a good start. I'm still hopeful for the Sapphire Nitro card as they never disappoint and usually overclock well from my experience, but this is Polaris we are talking about now...
    Reply to BurgerandChips66
  43. i heard sapphire nitro can hit 1420mhz. but with this i think 1350mhz~1375mhz probably the upper limit on most RX480. this reminds me of VCZ articles on people putting custom cooler on RX480 reference. one tech site have 4 RX480 (2 from AMD and another 2 from retail channel). among the four only one able to hit 1400mhz. people thinking AIB cards with better PCB design and more power will solve the problem. but it is possible this is the limit of the chip itself just how GP104 limit is around 2.0-2.1Ghz.
    Reply to renz496
  44. renz496 said:
    i heard sapphire nitro can hit 1420mhz. but with this i think 1350mhz~1375mhz probably the upper limit on most RX480. this reminds me of VCZ articles on people putting custom cooler on RX480 reference. one tech site have 4 RX480 (2 from AMD and another 2 from retail channel). among the four only one able to hit 1400mhz. people thinking AIB cards with better PCB design and more power will solve the problem. but it is possible this is the limit of the chip itself just how GP104 limit is around 2.0-2.1Ghz.


    I read somewhere that both Polaris GPU's were intended as low power mobile parts... and that AMD decided to repurpose them last minute to better compete with Pascal on the desktop....

    Can't remember where that was though. If that is the case the relatively low clock speeds (compared to nVidia at least) might be down to the design of the GPU. If it was in fact intended to be used in laptops at circa 1ghz for example then they're pushing it quite hard.

    That'd also explain the comparatively poor power consumption (I think this has happened with a few generations of AMD cards recently, they've had tougher competition than anticipated so clocked the cards as high as they'll go at the expense of efficiency- just look at how much more efficient R9 Nano is vs Fury X yet the clock difference is fairly small).
    Reply to cdrkf
  45. Polaris was intended to be a full generation of its own and compete on the high-end enthusiast segment. Problems with production quality and Nvidia's surprising performance led them to re-brand these as mid-range only cards.

    Reply to 17seconds
  46. 17seconds said:
    Polaris was intended to be a full generation of its own and compete on the high-end enthusiast segment. Problems with production quality and Nvidia's surprising performance led them to re-brand these as mid-range only cards.



    That road map doesn't state anything about market segment- and that argument doesn't hold water when you considder:

    AMD knew the specifications of the Polaris 10 gpu when they created it- and it is a less powerful gpu (by any measure) than their existing Hawaii and Fiji silicone.

    The argument 'they dropped it to mid range due to nVidia' is nonsense because the card is mid range against their own existing product stack.What you are describing is them creating a massive, high core count chip like Fiji, and marketing THAT as a 'x80' part due to a performance problem. That just isn't what happened here- Polaris 10 is a small, mid range part (it happens to be the exact same size as Pitcarin). There is no way ANYONE at AMD expected it to go in any higher of a market segment than it did based on those specifications. The only potential change nVidia might have forced is they dropped the price of it slightly- I'd have guessed they would have preferred to sell it at $250 instead of $200 for the base model.
    Reply to cdrkf
  47. These two cards are the ones I'd like to see face each other in a "value" contest: G1 Gaming 1060[/ur] and Nitro+ RX480.

    Cheers!
    Reply to Yuka
  48. cdrkf said:
    renz496 said:
    i heard sapphire nitro can hit 1420mhz. but with this i think 1350mhz~1375mhz probably the upper limit on most RX480. this reminds me of VCZ articles on people putting custom cooler on RX480 reference. one tech site have 4 RX480 (2 from AMD and another 2 from retail channel). among the four only one able to hit 1400mhz. people thinking AIB cards with better PCB design and more power will solve the problem. but it is possible this is the limit of the chip itself just how GP104 limit is around 2.0-2.1Ghz.


    I read somewhere that both Polaris GPU's were intended as low power mobile parts... and that AMD decided to repurpose them last minute to better compete with Pascal on the desktop....

    Can't remember where that was though. If that is the case the relatively low clock speeds (compared to nVidia at least) might be down to the design of the GPU. If it was in fact intended to be used in laptops at circa 1ghz for example then they're pushing it quite hard.

    That'd also explain the comparatively poor power consumption (I think this has happened with a few generations of AMD cards recently, they've had tougher competition than anticipated so clocked the cards as high as they'll go at the expense of efficiency- just look at how much more efficient R9 Nano is vs Fury X yet the clock difference is fairly small).


    For some reason I remember this as well, however since I can't really remember where it was for all we know it could have come from WCCTech which makes it questionable intel at best....
    Reply to Rogue Leader
  49. cdrkf said:
    renz496 said:
    i heard sapphire nitro can hit 1420mhz. but with this i think 1350mhz~1375mhz probably the upper limit on most RX480. this reminds me of VCZ articles on people putting custom cooler on RX480 reference. one tech site have 4 RX480 (2 from AMD and another 2 from retail channel). among the four only one able to hit 1400mhz. people thinking AIB cards with better PCB design and more power will solve the problem. but it is possible this is the limit of the chip itself just how GP104 limit is around 2.0-2.1Ghz.


    I read somewhere that both Polaris GPU's were intended as low power mobile parts... and that AMD decided to repurpose them last minute to better compete with Pascal on the desktop....

    Can't remember where that was though. If that is the case the relatively low clock speeds (compared to nVidia at least) might be down to the design of the GPU. If it was in fact intended to be used in laptops at circa 1ghz for example then they're pushing it quite hard.

    That'd also explain the comparatively poor power consumption (I think this has happened with a few generations of AMD cards recently, they've had tougher competition than anticipated so clocked the cards as high as they'll go at the expense of efficiency- just look at how much more efficient R9 Nano is vs Fury X yet the clock difference is fairly small).


    the mobile part is should be polaris 11. doubt that the whole polaris was meant for mobile only. but yes back then we hear lots of rumor. and most of them are hyping polaris. one that i can still remember is polaris 10 probably also a mobile part. then people speculate the one that will be use in desktop card will be even faster. at the very least people expect for desktop polaris to compete head to head with nvidia GP104.
    Reply to renz496
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

AMD Graphics GPUs Polaris Graphics Cards Radeon