AMD Radeon Rx 480 3DMark 11 Performance Benchmark Surfaces

#5287364

s0x

2016-06-10 15:44

If the RX 480 comes to replace the R9 380 that's around 45% improvement at around the same price.

#5287375

Undying

2016-06-10 16:02

No point is even considering Polaris then... My GTX 970's graphics score is 18156.

Heavily oc'd 970. You do realize there is a 980 inculded in the test and it scores 16.7k.

#5287378

s0x

2016-06-10 16:04

not the same price, R9 380 costs 100 bucks more.

Not in my country tho. 🙂 MSI R9 380 Gaming 2GB ~200USD NewEgg / ~220€ (Store in my country) MSI R9 380 Gaming 4GB ~240USD NewEgg / ~260€ (Store in my country) So if RX 480 4GB is 200USD it should be ~45% improvement around the same price. Notice I said 380 not 390.

#5287379

Anarion

2016-06-10 16:04

Heavily oc'd 970. You do realize there is a 980 inculded in the test and it scores 16.7k.

Must be really slow 980 if it scores that poorly. I'm even using stock volts.

#5287380

Undying

2016-06-10 16:05

Must be really slow 980 if it scores that poorly. I'm even using stock volts.

Idk what to tell you. That 970 of yours must be magical then.

#5287381

Agonist

2016-06-10 16:06

not the same price, R9 380 costs 100 bucks more.

Your wrong. You mean the R9 390. R9 380 is only $164 for a 2GB 380 strix on newegg, and $184 for a 4GB Strix 380. The RX 480 will replace the R9 380. I am actually thinking about selling my fury X to my friend. He has a reference 970, wants my fury x really badly. I will just get a 4GB RX 480 to use till vega comes out. Hes gonna give me $280, plus the 970, and carbide 200r. Plus my monitor is only 2560x1080. I dont wanna lose freesync TBH. I may even sell the 970 to use towards my vega fund.

#5287388

waltc3

2016-06-10 16:28

not the same price, R9 380 costs 100 bucks more.

I paid ~$249 for my 4GB R9 380 several months ago.

#5287389

GlennB

2016-06-10 16:30

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4nfwmn/rx_480_european_price_without_vat_etc/ expected price around €280 including VAT for the 8GB model. Just a bit disappointed knowing the price of a 390 8GB dropped to around the same price level and has the same performance :3eyes:

#5287397

Aelders

2016-06-10 16:55

R9 290 OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8086059 GPU Score-17698 GPU Clock-1200 CPU 3770K Clock-4700 I scored P15 215 in 3DMark 11 Performance 780TI OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8085897 GPU Score-17138 GPU Clock-1187 CPU 3770K Clock-4700 I scored P14 918 in 3DMark 11 Performance 970 GTX OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/9411925 GPU Score-18433 GPU Clock-1560 CPU 3770K Clock-4600 I scored P15 681 in 3DMark 11 Performance 980 GTX Stock http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8753904 GPU Score-17589 GPU Clock-1200 CPU 3770K Clock-4600 I scored P15 137 in 3DMark 11 Performance 980 GTX OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8755560 GPU Score-20891 GPU Clock-1500 CPU 3770K Clock-4800 I scored P17 085 in 3DMark 11 Performance 980 TI OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/10813065 GPU Score-26735 GPU Clock-1418 CPU 3770K Clock-4500 I scored P19 657 in 3DMark 11 Performance TITAN X OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/9623645 GPU Score-28282 GPU Clock-1450 CPU 3770K Clock-4600 I scored P20 061 in 3DMark 11 Performance

#5287415

zer0_c0ol

2016-06-10 17:33

R9 290 OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8086059 GPU Score-17698 GPU Clock-1200 CPU 3770K Clock-4700 I scored P15 215 in 3DMark 11 Performance 780TI OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8085897 GPU Score-17138 GPU Clock-1187 CPU 3770K Clock-4700 I scored P14 918 in 3DMark 11 Performance 970 GTX OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/9411925 GPU Score-18433 GPU Clock-1560 CPU 3770K Clock-4600 I scored P15 681 in 3DMark 11 Performance 980 GTX Stock http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8753904 GPU Score-17589 GPU Clock-1200 CPU 3770K Clock-4600 I scored P15 137 in 3DMark 11 Performance 980 GTX OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8755560 GPU Score-20891 GPU Clock-1500 CPU 3770K Clock-4800 I scored P17 085 in 3DMark 11 Performance 980 TI OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/10813065 GPU Score-26735 GPU Clock-1418 CPU 3770K Clock-4500 I scored P19 657 in 3DMark 11 Performance TITAN X OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/9623645 GPU Score-28282 GPU Clock-1450 CPU 3770K Clock-4600 I scored P20 061 in 3DMark 11 Performance

So.. it is awesome you are comparing a fully OC parts vs the stock one.. GG

#5287418

Denial

2016-06-10 17:37

So.. it is awesome you are comparing a fully OC parts vs the stock one.. GG

Nah, there is a stock 980 in there. I also just want to say that I've been trying to compare this score with my 980 and I've come to the conclusion that 3DMark's database comparison tool or whatever you want to call it, is garbage. The filtering is garbage. The interface is garbage. Arguably the scores are garbage because the variance is so high with identical systems. It's like really, really bad and they should feel bad about it considering their only purpose is to essentially compare stuff. I had better luck searching google images for graphics cards scores and finding a few sites who do it by GPU Score instead of overall.

#5287422

mathiash

2016-06-10 17:44

Exactly, impossible know what to make of it. 14000 seems pretty mediocre compared to most 300$ card scores, although one seems to be able find anything between 14000 and 19000 points in most cards between 300$ and 500$. That's why another site still rates the same score at r9 390 level, although even that seems generous compared to most results...

#5287428

Anarion

2016-06-10 17:50

Idk what to tell you. That 970 of yours must be magical then.

Hardly. The GTX 980 result was really, really poor in that comparison.

#5287456

icedman

2016-06-10 18:32

Is this 480 supposed to be a stripped down die with the 480x being the full core with higher clocks? If so the full core i believe would compete the the gtx 1070 even.

#5287462

Embra

2016-06-10 18:41

R9 290 OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8086059 GPU Score-17698 GPU Clock-1200 CPU 3770K Clock-4700 I scored P15 215 in 3DMark 11 Performance 780TI OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8085897 GPU Score-17138 GPU Clock-1187 CPU 3770K Clock-4700 I scored P14 918 in 3DMark 11 Performance 970 GTX OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/9411925 GPU Score-18433 GPU Clock-1560 CPU 3770K Clock-4600 I scored P15 681 in 3DMark 11 Performance 980 GTX Stock http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8753904 GPU Score-17589 GPU Clock-1200 CPU 3770K Clock-4600 I scored P15 137 in 3DMark 11 Performance 980 GTX OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8755560 GPU Score-20891 GPU Clock-1500 CPU 3770K Clock-4800 I scored P17 085 in 3DMark 11 Performance 980 TI OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/10813065 GPU Score-26735 GPU Clock-1418 CPU 3770K Clock-4500 I scored P19 657 in 3DMark 11 Performance TITAN X OC http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/9623645 GPU Score-28282 GPU Clock-1450 CPU 3770K Clock-4600 I scored P20 061 in 3DMark 11 Performance

How many of these cards cost $200 dollars, and the comparison should have them all at stock... not that any of the above means anything. The 480 is a $200-250 part with a 3DMark benchmark posted. Seems the expectations are all over the place in this tread.

#5287463

Aelders

2016-06-10 18:41

So.. it is awesome you are comparing a fully OC parts vs the stock one.. GG

These results were chosen because they use a similar system throughout. That said, I don't think anything I could have possibly posted would have made you happy. I stole this from gerardfraser's post on H, I believe he also has an account here https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-announces-the-radeon-rx-480-starting-at-just-199.1901093/page-15#post-1042344484

Nah, there is a stock 980 in there. I also just want to say that I've been trying to compare this score with my 980 and I've come to the conclusion that 3DMark's database comparison tool or whatever you want to call it, is garbage. The filtering is garbage. The interface is garbage. Arguably the scores are garbage because the variance is so high with identical systems. It's like really, really bad and they should feel bad about it considering their only purpose is to essentially compare stuff. I had better luck searching google images for graphics cards scores and finding a few sites who do it by GPU Score instead of overall.

Yep, terrible filtering, and scores all over the place, I don't even know why there needs to be a score, I'd much rather compare framerates in each of the graphics tests at standard settings

#5287468

PrMinisterGR

2016-06-10 18:50

If the score is true, I expect a "full" 40 CU Polaris 10 core with an 8-pin connector to reach within 10% of the 1070 at points. By the way, a single six pin means absolute board power of 150W. There is no way that the card works close to that, it would be unstable. Expect it to be between 80-120W max.

#5287471

Aelders

2016-06-10 18:56

If the score is true, I expect a "full" 40 CU Polaris 10 core with an 8-pin connector to reach within 10% of the 1070 at points. By the way, a single six pin means absolute board power of 150W. There is no way that the card works close to that, it would be unstable. Expect it to be between 80-120W max.

I agree about the wattage it doesn't seem right at all, on the other hand, why would AMD misrepresent it and announce a higher TDP? You'd think they would do the opposite. Assuming same clocks it should score 11% higher, that puts it exactly at 20k score, does anyone have 1070 3DM11 graphics scores to compare with ? Remember though, it'll be competing, for the sake of the discussion; I know it's in another bracket entirely, with the AIB 1070s, which start at $379, ~ 450 euros RX480 itself with presumed $240 price tag for 8GB should translate into around ~290 euros. How it compares to the 1070 really depends on whether the RX480 overclocks well or not; we know an OC 1070 sits around ~ 7.6tflop We know a stock RX480 sits somewhere around 5500 tflops, naturally there's more to account for than just compute, as usual, but the 1070 is 50% more expensive, if it's 40-50% faster then it will present similar value Edit: price in euros = price in USD x 1.22

#5287488

Reardan

2016-06-10 19:23

If the score is true, I expect a "full" 40 CU Polaris 10 core with an 8-pin connector to reach within 10% of the 1070 at points. By the way, a single six pin means absolute board power of 150W. There is no way that the card works close to that, it would be unstable. Expect it to be between 80-120W max.

Absolutely not. 290x maximum specced power is 300w and that's exactly what it consumed in uber mode. Nevermind overclocking, which, by your accounts, would cause the computer to burst into flames, presumably. The ATX spec is a guideline, it is not a hard and fast rule, and no decent power supply above like 20 bucks is going to fail because a couple cables pulled a little more power than spec. That's just not how this works.

#5287489

Aelders

2016-06-10 19:25

Yeah you can comfortably draw 200W from an 8-pin, and an 8-pin is just a 6-pin with two more grounds