AMD Radeon Rx 480 3DMark 11 Performance Benchmark Surfaces

Published by

Click here to post a comment for AMD Radeon Rx 480 3DMark 11 Performance Benchmark Surfaces on our message forum
#5287283
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
Seems really good for $200. I wonder what it is about graphics test 4 that makes Polaris perform better than the Fury? Also has there been any rumors about the wattage on the 480? I know they listed 150w as the max (75+75) but there was people over on /r/amd saying it was going to be only 90w, which seems insanely low to me.
#5287286
data/avatar/default/avatar29.webp
I believe that is just a 6-pin card. I would say for $200+ it is very good.
#5287287
data/avatar/default/avatar23.webp
Seems really good for $200. I wonder what it is about graphics test 4 that makes Polaris perform better than the Fury? Also has there been any rumors about the wattage on the 480? I know they listed 150w as the max (75+75) but there was people over on /r/amd saying it was going to be only 90w, which seems insanely low to me.
I heard it was to be 130-140w.
#5287288
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/198/198862.jpg
Nwm. If only AMD keep its promise it price it at 200$.
#5287291
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/16/16662.jpg
Administrator
Seems really good for $200. I wonder what it is about graphics test 4 that makes Polaris perform better than the Fury? Also has there been any rumors about the wattage on the 480? I know they listed 150w as the max (75+75) but there was people over on /r/amd saying it was going to be only 90w, which seems insanely low to me.
Reference 4GB models should be 200 USD, 8GB more likely 249 USD'ish.. still very OK though
#5287297
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/227/227853.jpg
Seems really good for $200. I wonder what it is about graphics test 4 that makes Polaris perform better than the Fury? Also has there been any rumors about the wattage on the 480? I know they listed 150w as the max (75+75) but there was people over on /r/amd saying it was going to be only 90w, which seems insanely low to me.
People at /r/amd also said that the Fury X was a Ti killer before its launch. Insisted so much on that aspect such that most people actually believed it. Look how well that panned out. 90W sounds a bit low for such a card, 150W sounds too high. If it's indeed 150W, AMD are going to lose the efficiency race this generation too. I just hope they don't do anything stupid like trying to port the 390x on 14nm and calling it a new architecture. Although by the number of cores and CUs it doesn't seem to be the case. However, Nvidia did go mental with the clocks on the 1070 and 1080. Maybe 90W is possible at 480's frequency.
#5287301
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/198/198862.jpg
Reference 4GB models should be 200 USD, 8GB more likely 249 USD'ish.. still very OK though
That's sounds reasonable. Cant wait for you to benchmark this thing, HH.
#5287302
data/avatar/default/avatar18.webp
These are the same benchmarks that was out 2 weeks ago with the same scores,just letting you know.
#5287304
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/31/31371.jpg
Keep in people the Performance Benchmark are with 8GB ver AMD Radeon Rx 480 4GB $200 AMD Radeon Rx 480 8GB $230
#5287307
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/164/164033.jpg
Keep in people the Performance Benchmark are with 8GB ver AMD Radeon Rx 480 4GB $200 AMD Radeon Rx 480 8GB $230
That 8 gigs won't matter in 3dmark 11 performance test really. It will not be an issue until rather high settings the 4gb model actually. I've seen 110-130w being thrown around for this card. Well who knows. It will be max 150w I doubt it tho it would be worse then Nano then. I am going to buy the 8gig model maybe for another build. It is indeed interesting that in test 2-3 it is rather close to fury and 980. But int test 1 it loses kind of hard and in test 4 it blows the other two out of the water pretty much.
#5287310
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/31/31371.jpg
That 8 gigs won't matter in 3dmark 11 performance test really. It will not be an issue until rather high settings the 4gb model actually. I've seen 110-130w being thrown around for this card. Well who knows. It will be max 150w I doubt it tho it would be worse then Nano then. I am going to buy the 8gig model maybe for another build.
That not the point when price for that card show is $230
#5287312
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
That 8 gigs won't matter in 3dmark 11 performance test really. It will not be an issue until rather high settings the 4gb model actually. I've seen 110-130w being thrown around for this card. Well who knows. It will be max 150w I doubt it tho it would be worse then Nano then. I am going to buy the 8gig model maybe for another build. It is indeed interesting that in test 2-3 it is rather close to fury and 980. But int test 1 it loses kind of hard and in test 4 it blows the other two out of the water pretty much.
Yeah I was going to say the same, the 8GB won't matter in 3DMark11 and I think that you can still kind of get away with 4GB cards in modern games at 1080p, which is most likely the resolution cards like this will be paired with. VR is generally higher but it's usually paired with flat textures in order to conceal the resolution issues.
That not the point when price for that card show is $230
Why? A 4GB card would perform identically in that benchmark.
#5287319
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/267/267787.jpg
Can't wait to get one of these ones. Very competitive price vs performance.
#5287321
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/115/115710.jpg
No point is even considering Polaris then... My GTX 970's graphics score is 18156.
#5287324
data/avatar/default/avatar29.webp
I do not believe in such price, as it will cannibalize sales of all other AMD (GPU) products. Let's wait until the real one.
#5287332
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/267/267531.jpg
I wonder why Graphics Test 4 was so fast (16 percent faster) compared the Fury when the other tests were all a tad slower? Immature drivers meaning the full potential of the other 3 testa are yet to be realised, maybe? 😉
Tesselation?
#5287333
data/avatar/default/avatar16.webp
Seems really good for $200. I wonder what it is about graphics test 4 that makes Polaris perform better than the Fury? Also has there been any rumors about the wattage on the 480? I know they listed 150w as the max (75+75) but there was people over on /r/amd saying it was going to be only 90w, which seems insanely low to me.
You won't know until release. That said, the card is likely not to be 150W (even under torture) as otherwise there'd be virtually zero headroom for overclocks. While 90W sounds like an absolute ideal spot I'd not put it past the card to operate anywhere between 90W and 110W during normal (i.e non torture) usage. In particular because AMD is so focuesed on performance per watt this time around. The performance:watt ratio may also only hold up for AMD's release while boardpartners may go nuts (i.e push the 150W). Finally, AdoredTV raised a good point that this card has room for another 6PIN right next to its implemented one. That'd allow for 225W - so I'm still hoping for a 480X/490(X) lurking in the shadows in the near future between this and vega.
#5287343
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/267/267531.jpg
"High Temple 2 Graphics test 4 Lit up by the bright headlights of abandoned vehicles and the blue light of the Moon, the temple shows its sinister side. This GPU test features heavy tesselation and the majority of the workload comes from drawing tessellated geometry. The Moon acts as a shadow casting directional light and the headlights are shadow casting spot lights."
Makes sense., waiting for someone to leak tessmark result
#5287348
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/31/31371.jpg
Yeah I was going to say the same, the 8GB won't matter in 3DMark11 and I think that you can still kind of get away with 4GB cards in modern games at 1080p, which is most likely the resolution cards like this will be paired with. VR is generally higher but it's usually paired with flat textures in order to conceal the resolution issues. Why? A 4GB card would perform identically in that benchmark.
I was ref to the price not benchmark and that not always case so they will not always perform identically as they would have be very same PCB which I'm they will not be the same. It no diff the 2GB vs 4GB even at the same gaming resolution the only thing will see is future proofing are pc for much high resolution when uprade are monitor that can handel much higher resolution and mulit monitor setup as you know 1920x1080 or 1366x768 or most popular resolution. Just like some think people that 16GB is better when real the world it not it just waste you better of with 8GB system unless your doing hardcore database, graphics editing or virtualizing applications or any app that a memory pig will benefited from it.

Next Page