MSI Radeon RX 5500 XT GamingX 8GB review
ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT EVO 8GB review
PowerColor Radeon RX 5500 XT Red Dragon 8GB review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5500 XT Gaming 8GB review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB review
Zotac Gaming GTX 1650 Super review
Radeon Adrenalin 2020 Edition Driver Overview
Guru3D Winter 2019 PC Buyer Guide
Corsair QL120 and QL140 RGB fan review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
AMD possibly will be using XX5 revisions e.g. AMD Radeon RX 495
AMD could be moving towards xx5 donominators say 480 and then later on a 485 for their graphics card series, indicating faster models compared to 0 suffix based models. The company also reaffirms the arrival of the Radeon RX 490 model.
These xx5 revisions may actually be released after the initial batches and this are released after the current line of available products, thus these would be updated GPUs with say optimizations on 14nm FinFET chips for higher clock speeds and lower consumption. While AMD hasn't confirmed this is the case it certainly is indicative. So inevitable you might see say a Radeon RX 485 with the 4 for Generation, the 8 is the tier and the 5 being the revision. Striking is the mention of the '9', which AMD again the arrival of the RX 490 card confirms indirectly.
Tier versus performance things wil look like this, and if you look closely at the slide you can see the xx5 shown under 'Revision':
| |
|||
| Radeon RX | 49X | >256bit | uhd, 2160p |
| 48X, 47X | 256bit | wqhd, 1440p | |
| 46X, 45X | 128bit | fullhd, 1080p | |
| Radeon | 460X, 45X | 128bit | fullhd, 1080p |
| 44X | 64bit | - | |
You can also spot the Tier 9 in there indicating Radeon RX 490, it is listed with a 256-bit wide (or higher) memory bus and tagged as a 4K capable graphics cards. AMD has not officially confirmed of the revisions, but pointed to the possibility of it with this slide.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5300363 Posted on: 07/03/2016 11:18 PM
It can get 15-20 fps at 1440p in most games I guess? It roughly matches a GTX 970, and that's what a 970 would get at 1440p in a modern game maxed.
Is this a joke? You're on the wrong kind of forum to be calling people elitists over maxing details.
Bro he is serious. Between him and vase I'm really not wanting to suggest this card to friends due to not wanting them to start acting like them.
It can get 15-20 fps at 1440p in most games I guess? It roughly matches a GTX 970, and that's what a 970 would get at 1440p in a modern game maxed.
Is this a joke? You're on the wrong kind of forum to be calling people elitists over maxing details.
Bro he is serious. Between him and vase I'm really not wanting to suggest this card to friends due to not wanting them to start acting like them.
Matt26LFC
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 2008-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 2008-01-06
#5300429 Posted on: 07/04/2016 05:52 AM
I totally agree with Loophole35 and Denial, I wouldn't buy this for my 1440p screen! I waited for this cards release before I made my purchase of a 1070, after I read the review I liked the card and its performance at its price point, but its certainly not for 1440p gaming with modern titles. 1080p gaming is its domain.
I totally agree with Loophole35 and Denial, I wouldn't buy this for my 1440p screen! I waited for this cards release before I made my purchase of a 1070, after I read the review I liked the card and its performance at its price point, but its certainly not for 1440p gaming with modern titles. 1080p gaming is its domain.
Stormyandcold
Senior Member
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2003-09-15
Senior Member
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2003-09-15
#5300435 Posted on: 07/04/2016 06:32 AM
Like Leszy's 2 pictures show; the RX 480 IS capable of 1440p gaming.
On the other-hand, I do think having a 1440p monitor and then buying the RX 480 to go with it is dumb. However, going crossfire RX 480, yeah, decent setup.
Like Leszy's 2 pictures show; the RX 480 IS capable of 1440p gaming.
On the other-hand, I do think having a 1440p monitor and then buying the RX 480 to go with it is dumb. However, going crossfire RX 480, yeah, decent setup.
Matt26LFC
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 2008-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 2008-01-06
#5300437 Posted on: 07/04/2016 06:44 AM
Like Leszy's 2 pictures show; the RX 480 IS capable of 1440p gaming.
On the other-hand, I do think having a 1440p monitor and then buying the RX 480 to go with it is dumb. However, going crossfire RX 480, yeah, decent setup.
Those graphs don't tell me enough, what in game settings where used!? If you look at Fallout 4 it shows nearly 70FPS (DX11) and Hilberts graphs shows mid 50s, quite a bit of a difference there. Then theres Battlefield Hardline, the quoted graph shows nearly 80FPS at 1440p whereas Hilbert saw mid 40s I mean what!?
I guess theres no right or wrong here, if someones happy to game at 1440p and turn a lot of settings down to get 60FPS thats up to them, personally I don't want to make that compromise, so for me RX480 is nowheres near enough for 1440p, hence why I've got a 1070 arriving today.
Like Leszy's 2 pictures show; the RX 480 IS capable of 1440p gaming.
On the other-hand, I do think having a 1440p monitor and then buying the RX 480 to go with it is dumb. However, going crossfire RX 480, yeah, decent setup.
Those graphs don't tell me enough, what in game settings where used!? If you look at Fallout 4 it shows nearly 70FPS (DX11) and Hilberts graphs shows mid 50s, quite a bit of a difference there. Then theres Battlefield Hardline, the quoted graph shows nearly 80FPS at 1440p whereas Hilbert saw mid 40s I mean what!?
I guess theres no right or wrong here, if someones happy to game at 1440p and turn a lot of settings down to get 60FPS thats up to them, personally I don't want to make that compromise, so for me RX480 is nowheres near enough for 1440p, hence why I've got a 1070 arriving today.
Ryu5uzaku
Senior Member
Posts: 6775
Joined: 2006-09-24
Senior Member
Posts: 6775
Joined: 2006-09-24
#5300454 Posted on: 07/04/2016 07:39 AM
Like Leszy's 2 pictures show; the RX 480 IS capable of 1440p gaming.
On the other-hand, I do think having a 1440p monitor and then buying the RX 480 to go with it is dumb. However, going crossfire RX 480, yeah, decent setup.
Well if on a budget and one wants to upgrade from lets say 760 on that 1440p you will get better performance, most of the time it seems to be tad over 60fps most settings maxed w/o gameworks. Or hilberts reviews 41-100 fps depending on game. And these people will have that 60hz screen also.
I cannot max out a game like witcher 3 without it feeling choppy that hairworks is a bitch on 1200p already. But I don't need it, it looks odd.
Like Leszy's 2 pictures show; the RX 480 IS capable of 1440p gaming.
On the other-hand, I do think having a 1440p monitor and then buying the RX 480 to go with it is dumb. However, going crossfire RX 480, yeah, decent setup.
Well if on a budget and one wants to upgrade from lets say 760 on that 1440p you will get better performance, most of the time it seems to be tad over 60fps most settings maxed w/o gameworks. Or hilberts reviews 41-100 fps depending on game. And these people will have that 60hz screen also.
I cannot max out a game like witcher 3 without it feeling choppy that hairworks is a bitch on 1200p already. But I don't need it, it looks odd.
Stormyandcold
Senior Member
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2003-09-15
Senior Member
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2003-09-15
#5300481 Posted on: 07/04/2016 08:36 AM
Those graphs don't tell me enough, what in game settings where used!? If you look at Fallout 4 it shows nearly 70FPS (DX11) and Hilberts graphs shows mid 50s, quite a bit of a difference there. Then theres Battlefield Hardline, the quoted graph shows nearly 80FPS at 1440p whereas Hilbert saw mid 40s I mean what!?
I guess theres no right or wrong here, if someones happy to game at 1440p and turn a lot of settings down to get 60FPS thats up to them, personally I don't want to make that compromise, so for me RX480 is nowheres near enough for 1440p, hence why I've got a 1070 arriving today.
Well if on a budget and one wants to upgrade from lets say 760 on that 1440p you will get better performance, most of the time it seems to be tad over 60fps most settings maxed w/o gameworks. Or hilberts reviews 41-100 fps depending on game. And these people will have that 60hz screen also.
I cannot max out a game like witcher 3 without it feeling choppy that hairworks is a bitch on 1200p already. But I don't need it, it looks odd.
Ofcourse, RX 480 is NOT a "full-details" kind of card at 1440p, but, I think people are aware of this. It's a nice card at 1080p where-as GTX1070 is a "very nice" card at 1080p.
I'm also a full-on advocate of 60fps+ gaming, but, we have to realise that the market for this card rests in the more "budget-mid-range" sector.
Only time will tell how this plays out, but, from the 2 pics; I think it's actually NOT strong enough for 60fps DX12 gaming @1440p. (minus the pci-e spec problem) Crossfire is a very viable option, especially those who get another in a year's time to "rectify" this "problem".
On the other-hand, RX 480 is rumoured to be what's in the next iterations of the Xbox and PS4 consoles, so, I think it'll work out alright for it's users.
We must remember that this card is packing tech that is currently going un-used which may one-day play it's part...thus adding a little future proofing especially for those console ports.
Tech that us on the Nvidia-side are missing so don't completely write RX 480 and it's iterations off yet.
Those graphs don't tell me enough, what in game settings where used!? If you look at Fallout 4 it shows nearly 70FPS (DX11) and Hilberts graphs shows mid 50s, quite a bit of a difference there. Then theres Battlefield Hardline, the quoted graph shows nearly 80FPS at 1440p whereas Hilbert saw mid 40s I mean what!?
I guess theres no right or wrong here, if someones happy to game at 1440p and turn a lot of settings down to get 60FPS thats up to them, personally I don't want to make that compromise, so for me RX480 is nowheres near enough for 1440p, hence why I've got a 1070 arriving today.
Well if on a budget and one wants to upgrade from lets say 760 on that 1440p you will get better performance, most of the time it seems to be tad over 60fps most settings maxed w/o gameworks. Or hilberts reviews 41-100 fps depending on game. And these people will have that 60hz screen also.
I cannot max out a game like witcher 3 without it feeling choppy that hairworks is a bitch on 1200p already. But I don't need it, it looks odd.
Ofcourse, RX 480 is NOT a "full-details" kind of card at 1440p, but, I think people are aware of this. It's a nice card at 1080p where-as GTX1070 is a "very nice" card at 1080p.
I'm also a full-on advocate of 60fps+ gaming, but, we have to realise that the market for this card rests in the more "budget-mid-range" sector.
Only time will tell how this plays out, but, from the 2 pics; I think it's actually NOT strong enough for 60fps DX12 gaming @1440p. (minus the pci-e spec problem) Crossfire is a very viable option, especially those who get another in a year's time to "rectify" this "problem".
On the other-hand, RX 480 is rumoured to be what's in the next iterations of the Xbox and PS4 consoles, so, I think it'll work out alright for it's users.
We must remember that this card is packing tech that is currently going un-used which may one-day play it's part...thus adding a little future proofing especially for those console ports.
Tech that us on the Nvidia-side are missing so don't completely write RX 480 and it's iterations off yet.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 9243
Joined: 2006-02-14
It can get 15-20 fps at 1440p in most games I guess? It roughly matches a GTX 970, and that's what a 970 would get at 1440p in a modern game maxed.
Is this a joke? You're on the wrong kind of forum to be calling people elitists over maxing details.