More Info on Radeon RX 460 - 470 and 480 from new Slide deck

Published by

Click here to post a comment for More Info on Radeon RX 460 - 470 and 480 from new Slide deck on our message forum
#5289698
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/237/237771.jpg
That most likely would be a 480X or RX 490 lower end Vega is my guess for that kinda gpu to compete near 1070. Im wanting to play around with the 480. My buddy has 1 of my old GTX 970s and badly wants my fury X. So I can sell him my Fury X and get my old 970 to use till 480 launches, and use 1 or 2 till Vega drops. I will get what every Fury X replacement comes out with HBM2 8GB. I only play at 2560x1080 so even the RX 480 will do really good with it.
Well the problem is that Vega is 6 months out give ore take a month. There was speculation that the Polaris 10 in the RX480 was not fully utilized and that left room for a full chip RX480x. We now know that RX480 is full Polaris 10. This I why I said the slides were disappointing.
#5289699
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/201/201426.jpg
This card is quite nice. I am selling my 2560x1080 monitor and my old 280X to get a 2560x1080 freesync monitor and a 480. Amd is awesome for letting me get a great experience with relatively low expenses.
I sold my 2 of my 3 2560x0180s to buy a single 29 inch freesync ultrawide. There is a reason I do like AMD gpus and tech. Its not stupidly priced. If I bought all Nvidia stuff, I wouldnt have money for my cars.
#5289703
data/avatar/default/avatar15.webp
One 290x core 1050 mem 1350 give 7.6 on steam vr test.
#5289729
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/225/225084.jpg
I'm with H on this one, i think the 480 is cut down for some reason, maybe to have lower power consumption? Like he said there may be an X or other version because those numbers are just weird.
#5289738
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/63/63215.jpg
I'm with H on this one, i think the 480 is cut down for some reason, maybe to have lower power consumption? Like he said there may be an X or other version because those numbers are just weird.
Well, there's still RX 490 yet to be seen.
#5289747
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/54/54823.jpg
Well, there's still RX 490 yet to be seen.
There's that screenshot with 640GB/sec of VRAM floating around.
#5289750
data/avatar/default/avatar25.webp
I'm with H on this one, i think the 480 is cut down for some reason, maybe to have lower power consumption? Like he said there may be an X or other version because those numbers are just weird.
there is no reasons to cut down small gpu, one that has much fps to cover toward 1070/1080, other than redundancy/yields. choosing not to challenge performance of 1070/1080 because of increased power/TDP...that makes no sense 🙂
#5289839
data/avatar/default/avatar32.webp
I dont think amd was like Hey guy's lets go WOW the people by saying its a 1080 1070 killer sure they showed a screen shot of 1 and a 1080 but amd is priced for people who dont want to drop loads of money on a card to play a few pc games,like one poster posted not alot of people drop 700$ on a video card to play AAA games when they only need one for games like dota csgo LoL and a few mmo's.
#5289857
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/218/218795.jpg
deleted
#5289860
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/218/218795.jpg
This card is quite nice. I am selling my 2560x1080 monitor and my old 280X to get a 2560x1080 freesync monitor and a 480. Amd is awesome for letting me get a great experience with relatively low expenses.
LOL you are going to play games on 2560x1080 max setting on 480?you sure it can run upcoming games battlefield,watchdogs 2 on 60FPS.I dont think so.better buy 1070 or 1080 for 2k resolution.
#5289878
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/180/180081.jpg
Personally, even on a budget gpu, I would never play 720p. Thats so damn cpu dependant, its not even funny.
Not really how it works 😛 it's as CPU dependent playing at that as any other resolution.
LOL you are going to play games on 2560x1080 max setting on 480?you sure it can run upcoming games battlefield,watchdogs 2 on 60FPS.I dont think so.better buy 1070 or 1080 for 2k resolution.
Who plays max settings online anyway? 2560x1080 is not much more demanding than 1080p and well, if a 2gb 680GTX can push 60FPS in Doom at medium, at 2560x1440*.9 I don't see why a 480 wouldn't be able to push max at 100% resolution. Who wants to play Watchdogs? Battlefield 1 is, if past 4 games are any indication, eminently optimized. BF4 at 2560x1440 high/ultra settings runs at 60+ FPS on my 680 - Battlefront too. So meh.
#5289879
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/164/164033.jpg
LOL you are going to play games on 2560x1080 max setting on 480?you sure it can run upcoming games battlefield,watchdogs 2 on 60FPS.I dont think so.better buy 1070 or 1080 for 2k resolution.
It can, maybe not maxed but it can.
#5289978
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/55/55855.jpg
Rich, I'll ask you to do this thing for us. Which nVidia's card scores around 3.6 in this VR bench, and how does it compare in performance with shown R9-380 in general gaming? Is it about same? 20% faster/ slower? Give us ratio, so we can actually translate 6.3 vs 6.5 into general gaming 🙂
The 960 gets around that i think, and going from reviews, it seems the 380 is only a tad faster. 🙂 http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_radeon_r9_380_strix_review,1.html More benchmarks out now (WCCF), putting the 480 around the Nano, and theres talk of when OC'd, it being up with the 980Ti/1070.
#5289986
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/243/243702.jpg
The 960 gets around that i think, and going from reviews, it seems the 380 is only a tad faster. 🙂 http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_radeon_r9_380_strix_review,1.html More benchmarks out now (WCCF), putting the 480 around the Nano, and theres talk of when OC'd, it being up with the 980Ti/1070.
I would not put it that high with OC, but I admit have no clue about OC potential. Thing which I questioned is lower than GTX 970 performance. Because it costs just bit less than cheapest GTX 970 (at least here). Prices have been shown on few sites already.
#5290068
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/246/246171.jpg
I seriously hope AMD drops the stupid X suffix this time around. It's ok if they release an "afterthought" GPU here and there with the X (much like what nvidia does with Ti), but I really don't want to see an entire lineup of them. It's not helping their statistics either. When you check stuff like Steam statistics based on most popular GPUs, AMD models never get anywhere near the top of the list because there are so many variations, while nvidia and intel only have a handful of options. AMD needs to put a little more thought into their numbering scheme, and it really shouldn't be that hard: 490 - Enthusiast 480 - High-end 470 - Play any console game at 1080p @ 60FPS, max detail 460 - Play any console game as good as a console can do it 450 - What you'd find in high-end APUs 440 - What you'd find in low-end APUs 430 - What you'd find in cheap laptop APUs 420 - For high-end SoCs 410 - For low-end SoCs
#5290082
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/63/63215.jpg
I seriously hope AMD drops the stupid X suffix this time around. It's ok if they release an "afterthought" GPU here and there with the X (much like what nvidia does with Ti), but I really don't want to see an entire lineup of them. It's not helping their statistics either. When you check stuff like Steam statistics based on most popular GPUs, AMD models never get anywhere near the top of the list because there are so many variations, while nvidia and intel only have a handful of options. AMD needs to put a little more thought into their numbering scheme, and it really shouldn't be that hard: 490 - Enthusiast 480 - High-end 470 - Play any console game at 1080p @ 60FPS, max detail 460 - Play any console game as good as a console can do it 450 - What you'd find in high-end APUs 440 - What you'd find in low-end APUs 430 - What you'd find in cheap laptop APUs 420 - For high-end SoCs 410 - For low-end SoCs
You're right. Instead it's more like this; Big Cock X - Enthusiast Big Cock - Cheaper Enthusiast 490 - High-end (similar to Big Cock) 480 - Mainstream 470 - Cheaper mainstream 460 - Console performance
#5290083
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/246/246171.jpg
You're right. Instead it's more like this; Big Cock X - Enthusiast Big Cock - Cheaper Enthusiast 490 - High-end (similar to Big Cock) 480 - Mainstream 470 - Cheaper mainstream 460 - Console performance
Except even then it's more complicated, when you also consider the possibility of a 490X, 480X, 470X, 460X, the APU version of the 460, mobile versions of each of these GPUs, and so on.
#5290087
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/55/55855.jpg
I would not put it that high with OC, but I admit have no clue about OC potential. Thing which I questioned is lower than GTX 970 performance. Because it costs just bit less than cheapest GTX 970 (at least here). Prices have been shown on few sites already.
Its an odd one, as it was only in the VR test where it was shown to be slower than the 970.
#5290091
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/80/80129.jpg
Its an odd one, as it was only in the VR test where it was shown to be slower than the 970.
Well most of the 3DMark leaks from videocardz put it just under a 980. Wccftech is the only one saying it's more. So basically it's either slower then a 970 or faster than a Fury. It can also be anywhere from 100w to 150w and from 5tflops to 6tflops. Quantum card, when you open the box the waveform collapses and it can be anything. It's just one more reason why I hate rumor/leak sites. $10 says a year from now when Volta/Navi leaks start coming no one will remember how inaccurate anything from this year was.

Previous Page

Next Page