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

  • TheinsanegamerN - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link

    So it cant to 60FPS constant at 1080p, but it CAN do 90FPS constant at 2160x1200? Did you fail math?
  • Sushisamurai - Friday, July 1, 2016 - link

    I think the point of yojimbo's post is that it should be able to hit 90fps @2160x1200 at medium to low settings. It can't hit 60FPS at ultra high settings at 1080p
  • Yojimbo - Friday, July 1, 2016 - link

    Yes exactly. Ironically, math is my area of expertise.
  • cocochanel - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link

    You must be smarter than the engineers at AMD. They said this card was designed for VR, they would not make such a claim if the card did not deliver. 3-4x higher performance ? Where do you live ?
  • CiccioB - Friday, July 1, 2016 - link

    In a world where marketing claims results to be false for most of the times.
    Wasn't Polaris 10 going to have 2.5x efficiency gain vs GCN? An AMD engineer told that as well. And has even put it on a slide.
    I just saw 40% gain. While Pascal gained more than 60% over Maxwell. Which was still 40% better than GCN.
    If an AMD engineer tells you that this card can fly, would you accelerate the fan at the level to try that claim? You know, an engineer has told you that it can! And it was an AMD engineer, nothing less!
  • FriendlyUser - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    Perf/W would be much better if they had used GDDR5X, which they did not, for cost reasons. HBM is even more power efficient. Then you have the board itself, which probably is not as electrically sophisticated as the much more expensive nVidia 1080 board. Finally, you don't know which of the two process technologies is better for perf/W (two different foundries). In the end, I don't think the chip design is the main difference.
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link

    The RX 480's perf/W is really no better than the GTX 970, which uses GDDR 5 RAM like the RX 480 as well as a 28nm process compared with the 14nm process of the RX 480. I do think the architecture is the main difference. Polaris 10's architecture seems to be significantly less efficient than Maxwell's, after accounting for the advantage of the 14nm process of the RX 480. Pascal is even more efficient architecturally than Maxwell.
  • Meteor2 - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    The 1080/1070 take the performance/power crown. But the 480 comfortably takes the performance/price crown. What's interesting is that the 1080 isn't quite fast enough for AAA titles at 4K and the 1070 sits in no man's land, while the 480 runs AAA and 1080p and does VR. It's clear which option is the solid buy.
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link

    Yes the RX 480 will take the performance/price crown assuming supply can keep up with demand, but for how long? The GTX 1060 will be out in a month or two and be very competitive in price/performance.

    The 1080 is fast enough for AAA titles at 4K if one doesn't max out the settings. A similar thing can be said for the 1070. Also similar is RX 480's VR claim. It can only manage VR gaming when settings are not maxed out. Are you a console gamer or you just have selective memory? This paragraph should be redundant for a PC gamer.
  • Demibolt - Friday, July 1, 2016 - link

    Not here to argue, just fact checking.

    GTX 970 can be purchased for ~$240 from several online retailers (less if you get a used one from ebay). Given the close performance figures between the 2 cards and the inevitable price-drop that will happen with the GTX 970, It is objectively too soon to say the price/performance benefit of one cards beats out the other.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now