Official AMD Polaris Review Thread: Radeon RX 480, RX 470, and RX 460

[tential]

Also given how this launch is kind of disappointing, not as bad as previous but still disappointing, should we even be excited for Vega?

 

[sze5003]

After having the sapphire tri-x design I honestly will never go back. So they can put that on the 480 for Uber cooling, or I'll wait for a higher end card that uses that cooler. I like the silence of sapphires tri-x design too much to get anything else

I'm also a fan of that on my current card now. It's been very quiet and only hear it when I game. I do like Sapphire's designs too. The Asus strix and msi models also seem like they would do fine too.

 

[tential]

I'm also a fan of that on my current card now. It's been very quiet and only hear it when I game. I do like Sapphire's designs too. The Asus strix and msi models also seem like they would do fine too.

Eh I wouldn't buy Asus or MSI personally because they don't have coolers that test better than sapphire in reviews. If they make one then of course I'll switch. I have no loyalty, I just want the quietest best performing cooler out there.

I really hope Vega is better because the 480 results are all over the place. The only interest I have in the 480 is mining which doesn't bode well for casual gamers looking to pick this card up .

 

[sze5003]

Eh I wouldn't buy Asus or MSI personally because they don't have coolers that test better than sapphire in reviews. If they make one then of course I'll switch. I have no loyalty, I just want the quietest best performing cooler out there.

I really hope Vega is better because the 480 results are all over the place. The only interest I have in the 480 is mining which doesn't bode well for casual gamers looking to pick this card up .

I'd say it's perfect for casual 1080p gamers. Most extra settings like hair works people turn off and other ones I can't recall off the top of my head.

Results that I have seen in 1080p from reviews seem fine for most games. Then again a lot of casual gamers don't even play lots of triple A titles.

For me I think it's perfect for the performance increase to hold me over until Vega or big Pascal.

If i had a 1440p monitor I would have gotten a 1070 by now.

By perfect I mean I guess for anyone that doesn't have a custom 390/390x already. But yea overall it can be some what disappointing that amd didn't release a top end card right now. But for $200 it's a hell of a deal to be able to max out most games at 1080p.

 

[JDG1980]

Also given how this launch is kind of disappointing, not as bad as previous but still disappointing, should we even be excited for Vega?

Vega is said to have some architectural improvements, and by the time it launches, GloFo should have the worst of the 14LPP process kinks worked out. The issues with Polaris makes it less likely (IMO) that Vega 10 and 11 will take the performance crown outright, but AMD can still make it a very attractive proposition with the appropriate pricing. And people care less about perf/watt at the high end than they do with cards that are supposed to fit on 1x6-pin connector.

Even Polaris 10 can be salvaged - it will be interesting to see how the fix being discussed for PCie non-compliance works, and whether it improves performance and/or perf/watt in ordinary usage. The fact that some users have already gotten better results by undervolting on their own is encouraging.

Tests seem to indicate the card is bottlenecked by memory bandwidth, and I believe an AMD rep confirmed at one point that the memory controller supports GDDR5X. If true, that would be a big improvement - down the line (maybe in October, which seems to pop up in a lot of rumors) we could get a revamped "RX 485" with GDDR5X and maybe a new stepping to improve efficiency. Running the memory controller at 1250 MHz (effective 10GB/s with G5X) might in itself provide some efficiency benefit over the current clock of 2000 MHz (which provides an effective 8GB/s rate).

 

[Qwertilot]

Have say the launch, measured purely as a competent launch, has to rate as fairly terrible. Stock sure but an awful lot of purposeless shooting themselves in both feet going on.

Vega seems a bit worrying really - given the TDP efficiency gap here, is there are any real chance they'll get meaningfully past the 1080? Looks very hard.

The Fury thing where they ended up selling big die/HBM vs a medium die/standard memory chip which has been on the market for a long time before you ship can't be remotely good for either sales or profits.

 

[boozzer]

Eh I wouldn't buy Asus or MSI personally because they don't have coolers that test better than sapphire in reviews. If they make one then of course I'll switch. I have no loyalty, I just want the quietest best performing cooler out there.

I really hope Vega is better because the 480 results are all over the place. The only interest I have in the 480 is mining which doesn't bode well for casual gamers looking to pick this card up .

because of the higher power draw than expected I thought 480 is a bad mining card? or at least not as good?

as for gaming, I thought it was as good as any other card and it is the current top card in it's price segments. there is no challenge till nv 1060 hits the stores. and even if 1060 is better but if it has the same stock problems as 1070 n 1080, 480 will still dominate if amd can keep up with stocks/supplies.

 

[sze5003]

because of the higher power draw than expected I thought 480 is a bad mining card? or at least not as good?

as for gaming, I thought it was as good as any other card and it is the current top card in it's price segments. there is no challenge till nv 1060 hits the stores. and even if 1060 is better but if it has the same stock problems as 1070 n 1080, 480 will still dominate if amd can keep up with stocks/supplies.

I'm not so worried about stock of the 1060 but more importantly how they will price it. If it's better than the 480 it surely may cost more too knowing how nvidia prices their cards. I don't think the 6gb will be $200 but more like $250-300 if the 3gb starts off at $200.

 

[railven]

I feel gone are the launches of HD 4k/5K and frankly 6K showed dents in the armor.

They dropped the ATI name with 6K, they launched a product that was so over hyped VLIW4 vs VLIW5 that even the most loyal AMD fans had a hard time buying it considering NV's gains by fixing the "global thermal hazard" Fermi.

HD 7K paper launched in Dec, had short issues in January for official launch and then driver issues up until June (still bought mine!). It was a great card but I think the launch debacles just continued. Hawaii and the cooler, Fiji and it's predictions (HBM will rule the roost!)

Oh well, glad to see AMD is still putting up the fight. This launch was decent but if the true issue of all the power fluctuation is a driver bug - I just have to laugh. Hopefully the fix increases performance due to throttling cards. NV needs a kick in the shin.

Once AIBs come out, I might just replace my 290X +HG10-A1 in the basement setup. I might go to a smaller build for it.

 

[railven]

I'm not so worried about stock of the 1060 but more importantly how they will price it. If it's better than the 480 it surely may cost more too knowing how nvidia prices their cards. I don't think the 6gb will be $200 but more like $250-300 if the 3gb starts off at $200.

NV undercut AMD with the GTX 680. And then the GTX 970. While I don't see them leaving TOO much profit on the tables, when NV can beat AMD with a smaller GPU they tend to not go for the throat margins.

I'd predict $200 3GB (if they make one) and $250 for the 6GB version. Falls in line with historical xx60 prices.

$300 max for custom AIBs and what not.

 

[boozzer]

I feel gone are the launches of HD 4k/5K and frankly 6K showed dents in the armor.

They dropped the ATI name with 6K, they launched a product that was so over hyped VLIW4 vs VLIW5 that even the most loyal AMD fans had a hard time buying it considering NV's gains by fixing the "global thermal hazard" Fermi.

HD 7K paper launched in Dec, had short issues in January for official launch and then driver issues up until June (still bought mine!). It was a great card but I think the launch debacles just continued. Hawaii and the cooler, Fiji and it's predictions (HBM will rule the roost!)

Oh well, glad to see AMD is still putting up the fight. This launch was decent but if the true issue of all the power fluctuation is a driver bug - I just have to laugh. Hopefully the fix increases performance due to throttling cards. NV needs a kick in the shin.

Once AIBs come out, I might just replace my 290X +HG10-A1 in the basement setup. I might go to a smaller build for it.

if you have a 290x, why buy a 480? it is basically 200$ for a smaller power draw.

 

[sze5003]

NV undercut AMD with the GTX 680. And then the GTX 970. While I don't see them leaving TOO much profit on the tables, when NV can beat AMD with a smaller GPU they tend to not go for the throat margins.

I'd predict $200 3GB (if they make one) and $250 for the 6GB version. Falls in line with historical xx60 prices.

$300 max for custom AIBs and what not.

This gives me time to consider the 1060 as well since we will know this week what it consists of and hopefully prices too. The AIB 480's won't be out until the following week or even after that so I'm mainly going to focus on how well it scores compared to the 480 but I don't think I'll be interested in the 3gb card since that's the vram I have now.

 

[R0H1T]

NV undercut AMD with the GTX 680. And then the GTX 970. While I don't see them leaving TOO much profit on the tables, when NV can beat AMD with a smaller GPU they tend to not go for the throat margins.

I'd predict $200 3GB (if they make one) and $250 for the 6GB version. Falls in line with historical xx60 prices.

$300 max for custom AIBs and what not.

That happens ever so often when they offer (somewhat) less performance in the overall package, case in point being 2GB 680 & 3.5GB 970; the latter especially, if it were known at launch that it had gimped memory & what not, would not have sold in the quantities that it did.

This is a bit similar to the upcoming 1060 launch, so the 3GB version can be priced at or below the base 480 but I wouldn't recommend anything less than 4GB especially ~200$ price bracket. Also looking at the leaked numbers from the other thread it's clear that the 1060 will be less efficient than 1070 or 1080, just as the 960 was, so an OCed RX 470 could match a stock 1060 in perf & perf/W even when OC.

The 480 launch was indeed disappointing but there is a sliver of hope with the 470 & I really don't see Nvidia giving us more perf/$ with the 1060, unless the (OCed) 470 is nipping at its heels.

 

[guachi]

are you seriously equating aots and warhammer to just benchmarks? D:

Are AotS and Warhammer popular games? If yes, I'm not.

AotS from what I understand is a game primarily to show off technology. So it would fall into the second category, a game hopefully representative of future performance.

I remember when Anandtech benchmarked WoW because it was so popular. Basically every card was good in WoW. But that provided useful information to readers.

 

[boozzer]

Are AotS and Warhammer popular games? If yes, I'm not.

AotS from what I understand is a game primarily to show off technology. So it would fall into the second category, a game hopefully representative of future performance.

I remember when Anandtech benchmarked WoW because it was so popular. Basically every card was good in WoW. But that provided useful information to readers.

at least you are consistent :thumbsup: aots had a niche market like the supreme commander series, but they had some new gameplay designs which that market hated, ruined their sales. that doesn't take away on how well made aots is. warhammer is very, very popular ca is a better game designer than oxide.

a well made game can be a great benchmark tool.

a popular game can be a very bad benchmark tool because of gameworks/amd equivalent.

I hope that gets my point across.

 

[Qwertilot]

Total war is, by any yardstick, an important and popular series. Maybe the only big graphical 'pc only' one left.

 

[pcmax]

Live data: RX 480 issue with Doom. Just installed card to try out Doom and when setting the virtual texturing page size to ultra or nightmare it completely distorts the colors. How do I contact AMD about this? :sigh:

Edit: So added another 8GB of ram to the system which had 8GB to begin with and problem went away interesting. Will continue testing. Currently running in Daughters 4th Gen board with a 4770k and now 16GB of ram. May move it to my main rig once I'm convinced it won't fry the PCI-E slot. My games are limited but let me know if there are any tests that you might want.

 

[sze5003]

Live data: RX 480 issue with Doom. Just installed card to try out Doom and when setting the virtual texturing page size to ultra or nightmare it completely distorts the colors. How do I contact AMD about this? :sigh:

What memory does the card have and do you have the latest drivers? If your card has 4gb of vram nightmare textures may cause issues. I think people with 6gb cards tried nightmare textures and the game was still barely useable in the menus.

 

[pcmax]

What memory does the card have and do you have the latest drivers? If your card has 4gb of vram nightmare textures may cause issues. I think people with 6gb cards tried nightmare textures and the game was still barely useable in the menus.

Sorry for lack of details, it's an ASUS 8GB version and just edited previous post that adding another 8GB of system ram removed the issue. That being said I did the all options hack for setting nightmare mode on my main GTX 770 4GB system and it dips in the 40's for FPS but is playable. Getting 60's to 90's with all options maxed on the RX 480 system now. Yes, current Crimson 16.6.2 drivers.

 

[sze5003]

Sorry for lack of details, it's an ASUS 8GB version and just edited previous post that adding another 8GB of system ram removed the issue. That being said I did the all options hack for setting nightmare mode on my main GTX 770 4GB system and it dips in the 40's for FPS but is playable. Getting 60's to 90's with all options maxed on the RX 480 system now. Yes, current Crimson 16.6.2 drivers.

Cool so it seemed to be a system ram issue. Seems like it's running solid now. Do you have max settings in doom? I tuned off the blur and increased sharpening and noticed it looked better.

 

[tviceman]

Also given how this launch is kind of disappointing, not as bad as previous but still disappointing, should we even be excited for Vega?

Given that I posted this in another thread

GP104 is a 36% larger die.
GP104 has 21% more transistors.
Polaris 10 is 7.5% more dense than GP104.
1080 is ~80% more efficient.
GTX 1080 is 75-85% faster depending on 1080p or 1440p.

Even if the smaller Vega has HBM (which I doubt), it will still have a huge amount of work to do to catch up. Polaris power draw is insanely high for it's performance level vs. Pascal and Polaris is using a significantly larger amount of transistors/fps to compete. I think we'll be looking at a similar situation of Hawaii vs. GM204, whereas GM204 is leaner, way more efficient, and has more OC headroom but AMD will price Vega more aggressively. Given Nvidia's current sky-high pricing, AMD has plenty of pricing room to work with.

 

[pcmax]

Cool so it seemed to be a system ram issue. Seems like it's running solid now. Do you have max settings in doom? I tuned off the blur and increased sharpening and noticed it looked better.

Yes, interesting that a supposed VRAM setting requirement by the publishers in reality came down to exceeding their system ram recommendations to function properly which explains why it will run on my 16GB system with 4GB GTX 770 albeit slow FPS but without issue. So far with all video settings maxed in Doom the RX 480 is pumping out a solid 60+(usually 90 ish) FPS with Vsync off which is what I was going for at 1080P.

 

[boozzer]

Yes, interesting that a supposed VRAM setting requirement by the publishers in reality came down to exceeding their system ram recommendations to function properly which explains why it will run on my 16GB system with 4GB GTX 770 albeit slow FPS but without issue. So far with all video settings maxed in Doom the RX 480 is pumping out a solid 60+(usually 90 ish) FPS with Vsync off which is what I was going for at 1080P.

just means craptastic game dev.

 

[sze5003]

Yes, interesting that a supposed VRAM setting requirement by the publishers in reality came down to exceeding their system ram recommendations to function properly which explains why it will run on my 16GB system with 4GB GTX 770 albeit slow FPS but without issue. So far with all video settings maxed in Doom the RX 480 is pumping out a solid 60+(usually 90 ish) FPS with Vsync off which is what I was going for at 1080P.

That will be enough for me to snag one soon hopefully the aib model prices aren't too steep. I've been spoiled when I first got my current card just cranking all settings to max but can't do it all the time now.

 

[pcmax]

Going to switch it to my main rig shortly as all the PCI-E burnout hype seems just that. Will report back if any more anomalies and/or glamorization's.