Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › AMD RX 480 Review Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD RX 480 Review Thread - Page 147

post #1461 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by slavovid View Post

Maybe people have missed the fact that the 4 GB RX 480 is stated to be using lower clocked memory or 7Ghz one as oposed to the 8 Ghz the 8 GB RX 480 will be using

This you can see on various review sites but also on the http://xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-rx-400-series/rx480core-rx-480m4bfa6 is visible that the specs are different

This shouldn't be a big issue but if the card has a little bottleneck due to bandwidth then that might tax the 4GB version a bit
However on the bright side the reference 4GB model will use slightly less power than the 8GB due to less Vram to power and that will let it OC slightly easier with the 6 pin power connector.

Also as stated by the reviewers the RAM actually clocks nicely to +10%

I'd actually want a 4 GB version with the faster RAM to simply save money and get better price-performance ratio

AMD set the min RAM speed, so we could see 8 GB versions with the slower RAM too.
AMD Box
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8320E @ 4.6 GHz +0.356250v offset Asus Sabertooth 990FX Rev1 eVGA GTX 970 SC ACX2.0 Patriot Viper Xtreme 2x4 GB 1600LL @ 1866 9-11-... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 840 EVO WD Black 1 TB 32MB cache FALS WD Blue 1 TB 7200rpm EZEX Corsair H80i 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 x64 HP LP2475w Logitech Illuminated Corsair TX750  
CaseMouseAudio
You don't want to know Logitech G9x Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
AMD Box
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8320E @ 4.6 GHz +0.356250v offset Asus Sabertooth 990FX Rev1 eVGA GTX 970 SC ACX2.0 Patriot Viper Xtreme 2x4 GB 1600LL @ 1866 9-11-... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 840 EVO WD Black 1 TB 32MB cache FALS WD Blue 1 TB 7200rpm EZEX Corsair H80i 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 x64 HP LP2475w Logitech Illuminated Corsair TX750  
CaseMouseAudio
You don't want to know Logitech G9x Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1462 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevChelios View Post

which model if you dont mind my asking ? also TN or IPS ?

MG279Q IPS which I bought for a decent discount.
Default freesync range is 30-90hz (iirc) which I'm fine with as I'm more of a... budget-ish conscious gamer? As in, I like nice things, but I'm happy with 'good enough', and playing games at medium graphics etc.

That's why I'm eyeing up 480 and wondering if 8gb is worth it heh smile.gif

In regards to the monitor...
Main reasons why I purchased is because
- Wanted something a bit bigger for having two windows open side by side
- Hate screen tearing in gaming
- Heard many people rave about gsync/freesync smoothness
- Heard many people rave about 120/144hz (faster motion, less blur etc etc)

I've used it about a week now (without freesync).

Have been playing the new Unreal Tournament Instagib CTF. Turned the graphics down a bit to get 100+fps

The main thing that surprised me is no screen tearing! I thought at high hz I would still get screen tearing, but I'm not seeing it.
If I had known that, I might not have bothered with freesync. Although freesync will probably help in more demanding games in that 30-90fps range

The other thing is, I don't really see any blur/motion improvement of 100+ vs 60fps.
In fact, I dont know if I really notice any improvements above 40fps. But then again, I read a lot of comments from people saying they didn't notice at first, until they went back and gamed on their old monitor and hated the old monitor.

Me personally... I suspect I won't notice. We shall see. Definitely I'd recommend others trying out 144hz/freesync before purchasing as you may not feel it's worth the money. Or buy one of the Korean monitors! (Wasn't really an option for me as I bought the MG279Q for barely more than it would cost me to import a Korean monitor in NZ)

But I look forward to getting a 480 or maybe a second-hand 390 so I can up my graphics settings and try out freesync smile.gif
Edited by mejobloggs - 6/30/16 at 3:23am
post #1463 of 3674
I'm really looking forward to the 480 AIB cards as i think the potential there is huge given the thermal constraints / power envelope of the ref card. The rumoured OC potential is much higher than ref and it will throttle far less so boost should stay near max boost. I'm now in the same waiting game to see those reviews lol ..

Seems it really shines in DX12 beating both the 970 and 980 from the pcper review and hardware cunucks review. Lets hope that's a trend that continues as slowly but surely the AAA titles will be dx12 in time to come .

Interesting to see ROTR flip flop from dx11 rx480 been under the 980 to been over in dx12 (hardware cunnucks review).

The worst negative been the Power consumption been a bit worse than i thought in dx11 but not really and issue still and in dx12 its getting quite good. Some of this is the temperature , get that down a bit and power draw will improve. Big improvement from AMD last gen overall.
post #1464 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol View Post

So... because this isn't an Enthusiast card, it's a failure?

@ $200-240, this card's performance is spot on, and if you think about it, it actually has better Perf/$ compared to the GTX 1070. That's what AMD was aiming for, and in that respect, they pulled it off.

Being an owner of a GTX 1070, the RX 480 was definitely not aimed at me. However, if I still had my old HD 7870 from a few years back, the RX 480 would be a massive upgrade AND cheap. That's what they're going for.

And for everyone else drinking the Nvidia koolaid... please stop.

Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.

Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.

Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.

Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.

Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.

The card is a huge MEH
post #1465 of 3674
Quote:
The main thing that surprised me is no screen tearing! I thought at high hz I would still get screen tearing, but I'm not seeing it.
If I had known that, I might not have bothered with freesync. Although freesync will probably help in more demanding games in that 30-90fps range
yeah, at high fps/Hz you get less tear naturally even without Gsync/Freesync

Gsync/Freesync is best for the 40-60+ fps range but it still works at all hz


but I personally decided to go all out, get the best 27" 144Hz 1440p IPS monitor available right now (TN isnt an option for me), which as far as I can tell from my research happens to be XB271HU (it has better QC and better panel uniformity than PG279Q which used to be the best), which also happens to be Gsync (30-144/165 Gsync range)

the fact that Im buying this monitor at the same time as Im buying a new high-end card to power it just favors Nvidia combo even more timing-wise, since the only real option atm is the 1070/1080

Gsync also works in windowed mode, which I suspect I may find useful in some games that I play a lot (I find mysefl alt-tabbing a lot while playing Blizzard games)


but for money value Freesync definitely wins


Quote:
If I had known that, I might not have bothered with freesync.
the thing is, as far as I could find - ALL 1440p 144Hz monitors are either Freesync or Gsync (at least among the gaming models) .. I actually have not been able to find a 1440p 144hz which doesnt have either Gsync or Freesync
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
Reply
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1466 of 3674
I'm disappointed. I am done with AMD. My sig says I have been following AMD like a cult for years. Well...not anymore. Glad I didn't hold my breath for the 480. I got my 390 for like $25 brand new, so win for me.
Fantomex
(27 items)
 
Atlas
(20 items)
 
 
  hide details  
Reply
Fantomex
(27 items)
 
Atlas
(20 items)
 
 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1467 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.

Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.

Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.

Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.

Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.

The card is a huge MEH

Card isn't even in the consumers hands that you are screaming at the failure.

Not sure you said "this is a success" the day 970 paper-launched.

I'd be you, I would at least have the decency of waiting for more custom models, more time to see the evolution of the market, and less salty words.


I'm not saying it's a success. I'm saying you need more to godwin your point that it's a failure. And I'm clearly against this kind of attitude. Time will tell, and I sure hope you're wrong because you merit it.
post #1468 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.

Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.

Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.

Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.

Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.

The card is a huge MEH
its a failure that gives 40% perf above the card that is replacing
its a failure because it draws the same amount of wattage with a 960 oh wait 960 is an nvidia card so its fine..
its a failure because amd actually indeed delivered cf perf https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/13/#diagramm-call-of-duty-black-ops-iii-2560-1440_2
its a failure because amd said it will be slightly above 970 and below 980 and that is what they actually gave us
its a failure because people like you overhyped a card only to shill on it later on claiming that amd promised something they never did
post #1469 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol View Post

So... because this isn't an Enthusiast card, it's a failure?

@ $200-240, this card's performance is spot on, and if you think about it, it actually has better Perf/$ compared to the GTX 1070. That's what AMD was aiming for, and in that respect, they pulled it off.

Being an owner of a GTX 1070, the RX 480 was definitely not aimed at me. However, if I still had my old HD 7870 from a few years back, the RX 480 would be a massive upgrade AND cheap. That's what they're going for.

And for everyone else drinking the Nvidia koolaid... please stop.

Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.

Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.

Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.

Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.

Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.

The card is a huge MEH


That's kinda how I feel with this... I still am interested in seeing the benchmarks with non-ref cards and the OC potential... We might be able to get at or a little past a 980 performance but hopefully not at much cost for power draw... I feel like the 14nm architecture is at the same performance per watt level as Maxwell is at 28nm....
post #1470 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Its a failure because it doesnt offer any additional performance than whats been on the market for many years now.

Its a failure because it consume almost as much power as GTX 1070 but is lightyears behind.

Its a failure because AMD promised that 480 CF would beat GTX 1080 and therefor offer much better value. But the truth is two cards only matched GTX 1070.

Its a failure because its only a shy $20 better value than GTX 970 for the 8GB version and not much less value than 390 which it match.

Its a failure because people expected 390X and more out of the card.

The card is a huge MEH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cakewalk_S View Post

That's kinda how I feel with this... I still am interested in seeing the benchmarks with non-ref cards and the OC potential... We might be able to get at or a little past a 980 performance but hopefully not at much cost for power draw... I feel like the 14nm architecture is at the same performance per watt level as Maxwell is at 28nm....

re ileakstuff ..

So by your argument we will see the GTX1060 beat the Fury X otherwise its fail ? Fury X been on the market for a while now .. You don't understand segments lol.

AMD did not promise CF would beat a 1080 in all apps lol .. how ever its does in a few. The 1070 gets beaten by CF 480 in CF supported games thats been proven, and once dx12 multiadaptor becomes more common it will get demolished vs CF 480. I would not recommend this route though as you are waiting on software however.

So why would anyone pay $20 more for a 970 with 4gb (4.5gb) ram less with WAY less dx12 performance is beyond me. If you can't see the value i can't help you.

AIB 480 cards could match 390x or exceed it , reports (quite good ones from Kyle Bennet himself) are 1490-1600 mhz clocks . Given the ref maintains 1150-1200 mhz clocks on average , thats going to be huge increase in performance.

This card will age like fine wine in dx12 .. while the 970 and 980 are already loosing too it without it even maintaining its boost clocks. AIB 480 cards will demolish the 970 and 980 in dx12 even max oc.
Edited by Orthello - 6/30/16 at 4:27am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD/ATI
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › AMD RX 480 Review Thread