videocardzAMD shows off Radeon RX 480 running Doom at 1440p/144Hz

csbin

Senior member
Feb 4, 2013
838
351
136
http://videocardz.com/60561/amd-shows-off-radeon-rx-480-running-doom-at-1440p144hz


AMD has demoed Radeon RX 480 at Polaris editors days. The demonstration was showing yet announced RX 480 graphics rendering graphics in OpenGL API at 1440p resolution. The editor of PCWorld noticed that the monitor (Lenovo Y27F) can only output 1080p resolution, so the demo was most likely using VSR (Virtual Super Resolution). It’s also worth noting that this monitor has 144 Hz refresh rate.

AMD has inadvertently confirmed that they are planning to launch Polaris 10 as X80 solution, which usually means 250-300 USD price tag. Although no detailed information was provided alongside this leak (leak, because twit was later removed), it is believed that R9 480 can provide more frames at 1440p than R9 380X is able to deliver at 1080p. If Polaris 10 is capable of sustaining 60 FPS at 1440p, then performance-wise it would be put between R9 390X and R9 Nano.

Since AMD is calling this graphics processor Radeon RX 480 then I suppose AMD has not yet decided if this card will be called R9 480X or R9 480.

AMD will unveil more details during Computex livestream which starts on May 31st at 10 PM EST.

AMD-Radeon-RX-480-900x675.jpg
 

jantjeuh

Member
May 4, 2015
45
0
0
So I guess this indicates the RX 480 peaks above 90 FPS (why else bother with a 144 Hz display) in Doom at 1440p?
 

selni

Senior member
Oct 24, 2013
249
0
41
So I guess this indicates the RX 480 peaks above 90 FPS (why else bother with a 144 Hz display) in Doom at 1440p?

It's just a weird article with no comparable information (ie settings/achieved framerate). Note they mention it's actually a 1080p monitor too, so if that's correct there's more than one "why would you do that" question to be asked here.
 

jantjeuh

Member
May 4, 2015
45
0
0
It's just a weird article with no comparable information (ie settings/achieved framerate). Note they mention it's actually a 1080p monitor too, so if that's correct there's more than one "why would you do that" question to be asked here.

1080p monitor running 1440p VSR, apparently.
 

topmounter

Member
Aug 3, 2010
194
18
81
Rx... Where x = 9 or 10?

And with all the 1080p monitors out there, showing VSR with the 480 makes a ton of sense. But I don't know much about how VSR works so I'd prefer to see it running on a 1440p native monitor.
 
Last edited:

thetuna

Member
Nov 14, 2010
128
1
81
I can't possibly imagine a 1080p monitor with a scaled image would look as good as a same-sized 1440p monitor displaying a native image.
This makes no sense to me...
 

Snafuh

Member
Mar 16, 2015
115
0
16
I can't possibly imagine a 1080p monitor with a scaled image would look as good as a same-sized 1440p monitor displaying a native image.
This makes no sense to me...

It's basically high quality AA. Downsampling is a nice feature especially for older games. On a new machine they usually run fine in 4K but very few users have a 4K screen. So they downsample the game and get better IQ and their fancy GPU is not just idling
 

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,355
642
121
It's basically high quality AA. Downsampling is a nice feature especially for older games. On a new machine they usually run fine in 4K but very few users have a 4K screen. So they downsample the game and get better IQ and their fancy GPU is not just idling

Yes, I can't get a 4K projector that is affordable, but I use downsampling to improve image quality. Downsampling from 4K is very helpful on a projector screen. Even 1800p is good.

There is no point getting a high-performance GPU and not utilizing every little bit of power it has.

Since AMD removed VSR from HDTVs without notice though, I'm stuck at 1080p. Sucks.
 

topmounter

Member
Aug 3, 2010
194
18
81
That's what I thought.

I see RX and think pharmacy, so I was assuming x was a placeholder. Roman numeral makes some sense by itself (ignoring R9, R8, etc) and Mac going from OS 9 to OS X (which means saying "R ten" and not "R ex" or run the risk of being chastised), I suppose.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,000
3,357
136
So NVIDIA showcased GTX 1080 running DOOM at 1080p Vulkan with ~110-150fps and now AMD runs Polaris at 1440p with a 144Hz monitor.

Ok lets see how that will go.
 

provost

Member
Aug 7, 2013
51
1
16
If it can maintain 60 fps in all/ most games at 1440p at that price point, it should be a compelling product. Is that what we are expecting from p/p viewpoint?
 

Maverick177

Senior member
Mar 11, 2016
411
70
91
So NVIDIA showcased GTX 1080 running DOOM at 1080p Vulkan with ~110-150fps and now AMD runs Polaris at 1440p with a 144Hz monitor.

Ok lets see how that will go.

At no point the actual FPS was shown for the Polaris card.
 

khon

Golden Member
Jun 8, 2010
1,319
124
106
If it can maintain 60 fps in all/ most games at 1440p at that price point, it should be a compelling product. Is that what we are expecting from p/p viewpoint?

60 fps at 1440p in almost all games would require 980ti/1070 level performance, which I doubt we will get, since AMD is going for the midrange market.

40+ fps might be more realistic, and with freesync that should be good enough anyway.
 

topmounter

Member
Aug 3, 2010
194
18
81
60 fps at 1440p in almost all games would require 980ti/1070 level performance, which I doubt we will get, since AMD is going for the midrange market.

40+ fps might be more realistic, and with freesync that should be good enough anyway.

The 390x hits its stride at QHD. The expectation has been that the 480 should equal 390x performance, so I don't see anything that doesn't fall in-line with middle-of-the-road expectations (which run the gamut from 'melting to putty on boot' to somehow 'trouncing the 1080').
 
Last edited:

dark zero

Platinum Member
Jun 2, 2015
2,655
138
106
I feel that 480 is same performance than 390X on stock and 5% less performance than Fury Nano on OC at 20% (best theorical unless gets better)

And 480X is same performance than Fury Vanilla on stock and 10% better than Fury X on OC at 20% (best theorical unless gets better).

Now calculating that, I need to move it to Polaris 11

- 470 would have the same performance than 380 performance on stock and 380X when OCed (best case 20%)
- 470X would have 10% more performance than 390 performance on stock and 390X when OCed (best case 20%)

And thinking that there might be a Passively cooled

- 470 Passive would have the same performance at 380 performance on stock and 5% below 380X when OCed (10% best OC on passive)

Wondering what will happen to 460 and 450...

And similar thing on GTX 1060 and 1050.
 

brandonmatic

Member
Jul 13, 2013
199
21
81
It would be disappointing to get slightly better than 390/390x performance for $250-300 when that was more or less available back in 2014/15 when the 290/290x were available for that price.

But I'll wait to see the real benchmarks.
 

Maverick177

Senior member
Mar 11, 2016
411
70
91
I dont believe i said anything about Polaris fps.

So what's the point of showing Polaris 10 running Doom 1440p 144Hz w/ Freesync ? Trying to show off the new monitor?, we all know that Macau conference is about Polaris architecture by now.

The pic itself is very misleading imo, probably why the AMD guy took it down.