First Thoughts

Bringing our first look at AMD’s new architecture to a close, it’s exciting to see the field shape up for the FinFET generation. After over four years since the last great node transition, we once again are making a very welcome jump to a new manufacturing process, bringing us AMD’s Polaris.

AMD learned a lot from the 28nm generation – and more often than not the hard way – and they have put those lessons to good use in Polaris. Polaris’s power efficiency has been greatly increased thanks to a combination of GlobalFoundries 14nm FinFET process and AMD’s own design choices, and as a result, compared to AMD’s last-generation parts, Polaris makes significant strides where it needs to. And this goes not just for energy efficiency, but overall performance/resource efficiency as well.

Because AMD is launching with a mainstream part first they don’t get to claim to be charting any new territory on absolute performance. But by being the first vendor to address the mainstream market with a FinFET-based GPU, AMD gets the honor of redefining the price, performance, and power expectations of this market. And the end result is better performance – sometimes remarkably so – for this high volume market.

Relative to last-generation mainstream cards like the GTX 960 or the Radeon R9 380, with the Radeon RX 480 we’re looking at performance gains anywhere between 45% and 70%, depending on the card, the games, and the memory configuration. As the mainstream market was last refreshed less than 18 months ago, the RX 480 generally isn’t enough to justify an upgrade. However if we extend the window out to cards 2+ years old to things like the Radeon R9 280 and GeForce GTX 760, then we have a generational update and then-some. AMD Pitcairn users (Radeon HD 7800, R9 270) should be especially pleased with the progress AMD has made from one mainstream GPU to the next.

Looking at the overall performance picture, averaged across all of our games, the RX 480 lands a couple of percent ahead of NVIDIA’s popular GTX 970, and similarly ahead of AMD’s own Radeon R9 390, which is consistent with our performance expectations based on AMD’s earlier hints. RX 480 can't touch GTX 1070, which is some 50% faster, but then it's 67% more expensive as well.

Given the 970/390 similarities, from a price perspective this means that 970/390 performance has come down by around $90 since these cards were launched, from $329 to $239 for the more powerful RX 480 8GB, or $199 when it comes to 4GB cards. In the case of the AMD card power consumption is also down immensely as well, in essence offering Hawaii-like performance at around half of the power. However against the GTX 970 power consumption is a bit more of a mixed bag – power consumption is closer than I would have expected under Crysis 3 –  and this is something to further address in our full review.

Finally, when it comes to the two different memory capacities of the RX 480, for the moment I’m leaning strongly towards the 8GB card. Though the $40 price increase represents a 20% price premium, history has shown that when mainstream cards launch at multiple capacities, the smaller capacity cards tend to struggle far sooner than their larger counterparts. In that respect the 8GB RX 480 is far more likely to remain useful a couple of years down the road, making it a better long-term investment.

Wrapping things up then, today’s launch of the Radeon RX 480 puts AMD in a good position. They have the mainstream market to themselves, and RX 480 is a strong showing for their new Polaris architecture. AMD will have to fend off NVIDIA at some point, but for now they can sit back and enjoy another successful launch.

Meanwhile we’ll be back in a few days with our full review of the RX 480, so be sure to stay tuned.

Power, Temperature, & Noise
Comments Locked

449 Comments

View All Comments

  • fanofanand - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    You are commenting on the RX 480 article you are waiting for. Maybe you are looking for a deeper dive, but give em' a break. This is already more in-depth than you will get from 90% of the other review sites.
  • nagi603 - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    So much for an upgrade from a 290X.... it isn't even a side-grade at this point.
  • evolucion8 - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    If it was an upgrade from the 290X, wouldn't be called RX 490 instead?
  • nagi603 - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    No, it would be called 390X then. You know, the 480 is two steps ahead...
  • evolucion8 - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    Wrong, 290X replacement was Fury X, and the 280X replacement was the 390X, the issue with the naming scheme was to make space for the Fury X naming which messed up the whole naming convention. Now they are using it back like on the 200 series days. Its clear that AMD is targeting $200 buyers, not $300+ buyers on the likes of the GTX 970, 980, 390, 390X and so on.
  • WhisperingEye - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link

    Newegg is selling an EVGA 970 ACX 2.0+ for $250 dollars right now. Now which buyers are we targeting again?
  • mikato - Friday, July 29, 2016 - link

    Can you spell out your point a little better? And please use a useful comparison... since, you know, I don't think you have one here.
  • Syran - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    Small mistake early on in the article, in listing the specs, it shows the 4GB card with 8GB of vram.
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    Thanks!
  • watzupken - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    The performance is rather underwhelming to be honest. It may be a little early to conclude with the state of the driver for this new card. Still I feel its kind of just performing at the level of a R9 390 in most cases and is saved by the aggressive pricing.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now