Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Dogbert666, 29 Jun 2016.
Apparently violates the PCIE rules according to Reddit with illegal power draws.
RX 480 Crossfile review on another website suggests that drivers are not optimized for Crossfire just yet. You might want to wait a month or two before taking the plunge ...
Either way I wouldn't go for a 28 nm card.
The idea that the 480 might perform well enough and be cheap enough to force prices down was from before the reviews were out... the rest of your comment is based on the facts that we have now.
My concern is why are AMD competing with a card that is 2 years old and not stealing a march on this new generation? If the 1060 performs and costs about the same as the 480 then that would leave an absolutely massive gap between the 1060 and the 1070. It seems that nVidia has the chance and performance ability to sit back and release a card that out-performs AMD's offerings at every price point.
I think this current situation is typical of AMD, always playing catch-up to the wrong gen...
They only test 3 new titles in that test and all show a performance decrease. ( just cause 3, Hitman, rise of tomb raider) only 6 of the 16 tests actually benefit at all.
As has been discussed elsewhere if you don't play the latest releases CFX can be a viable option just don't expect day 1 support or even support a few months later.
Wait till you can get some custom cards with better power delivery (i.e. 2*6pin or 1*8pin plugs). The reference ones have been shown to be drawing > 75W from PCIE on the motherboard. Put two of them together and it's asking a lot of your motherboard's power circuitry.
Tbh it looks like the developed the cooler and power circuitry around this being a 110W card, only due to problems with chip or performance they've had to up the wattage and now it's right on the limit.
That occurred to me too, but check this crossfire test out:
It seems that it would be better to go for an Nvidia 1070 instead of 2x AMD RX 480.
Just to address a few concerns:
The 970 Mini is the one we use simply because it's the one we have. No, it's not the fastest, but it actually is very useful as a test card as it is one of the closest to "reference" 970 speeds (scare quotes there because there's no true reference 970 out there).
The 970 is definitely the fairest comparison for this card as well. Yeah, it only has half the memory, but you can't blame AMD for pushing the higher memory SKU - the 8GB is a selling point over similarly priced 970s with 4GB. I too am curious how the 4GB RX 480 stacks up, but we can only test what we're given. And what else do you expect us to compare it to? It's the closest card on price, still a great selling product and literally was a game-changer in the GPU market - anyone with this amount of cash to spend will be picking between these two cards atm. If you want to see how well the RX 480 does next to last gen cards that launched at a similar price, the R9 380 and GTX 960 are included for that reason too.
We didn't get reference cards for the 1080 and 1070, hence the lack of reviews there (yours truly was away on a poorly timed bout of travelling when they launched). I'd like to get reference figures in the charts when I can though
Yes, AMD are playing catch up but the 970 was an exceptionally good card. I think our stance in the review is fair and not overly full of praise: this is a solid card for the cash currently, but the advice of waiting for the 1060 launch is there for all to see as well.
Vega... Approx 5 months.. Keep expectations low.
I've seen the 970 for a few quid more than the 4GB 480. Think it was OCUK.
At that I would still prob pick up the 480 over it even if paying the small amount more for the 8GB version. I do feel a card is needed performance wise between the 480 and 1070. Nvidia could easily position the 1060 in that gap and leave the 970 around similar to how the 750ti continues to exsist.
At least there's movement on the market right now.
Both the RX480 and the GTX1070 will settle a litte once the first rush is over.
The GTX970 price is moving already.
At the moment (German Pricing) here:
RX480 8GB ~280€
GTX970 4GB ~280€ (down from ~370€ in January and 330 before launch of the 1070)
GTX1070 ~470€ Way out!
Are you guys going to be getting cards from AIBs too? I hear rumours that the Sapphire Nitro is about to drop.
Working on getting them ASAP
What is the length of the actual PCB of the 480? Any chance we’ll see ‘ITX’ 480’s – like the ITX version of the 970 and 380? Quite likely I would of thought – given that the power draw is also very low, you probably don’t need THE BEST cooling or a super high rated PSU.
Edit, answered my own question - PCB is 180mm long!
Does seem like excessive power draw from PCI-E slot compared with past cards .
Collated THG power usage data for 390X/Nano/Fury X/RX 480.
Any chance of stating what resolution of Valley was used for power usage data on Bit tech review?
On Valley benchmark 1080P score Fury X is 34% faster, 1140P it is 50% faster and wanted to assess if the 50% extra total system draw is for 1080P or 1440P.
Reports of dead MBs after having 480s installed are appearing.
It's 2560 x 1440 for the power tests. Fury X is more efficient the higher the resolution.
Card has definitively power design flaw, in some scenarios consuming almost 200W when TDP is just 150W.
And that huge load from PCIe is over the edge.
Waiting for AIB cards to fix this.
Just reading some of those - ouch! One person reports that it fried all of his PCIe slots...
AMD released a small statement. Source from guru3d
"We continuously tune our GPUs in order to maximize their performance within their given power envelopes and the speed of the memory interface, which in this case is an unprecedented 8 Gbps for GDDR5. Recently, we identified select scenarios where the tuning of some RX 480 boards was not optimal. Fortunately, we can adjust the GPU's tuning via software in order to resolve this issue. We are already testing a driver that implements a fix, and we will provide an update to the community on our progress on Tuesday (July 5, 2016)."
Separate names with a comma.