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


View All Comments

  • Demibolt - Friday, July 1, 2016 - link

    Not here to argue, just fact checking.

    GTX 970 is currently in the top 3 cards used by Steam users (according to Steam's reports).
    The GTX 970 can currently be purchased for ~$240 from several online retailers.
  • TimAhKin - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    The 480 was never meant to compete with Pascal.
    This card is for people that want to upgrade from older GPUs. It's a pretty cheap card that's good for 1080p and VR.
  • Fallen Kell - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    This is a horrible card for VR. It can barely do 60 FPS at 1080p, which isn't even in the same ballpark of doing the 90-120 FPS at 2160x1200 that is needed for VR. The card would need to be 3-4x higher performance than it currently is to pull off VR. Reply
  • Meteor2 - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    No, you need 90 fps minimum for VR and the 480 does it at the resolutions used by the Rift and Vive just fine. Reply
  • DigitalFreak - Wednesday, June 29, 2016 - link

    The 480 does 90fps @ 2160x1200? WTF are you smoking? Reply
  • Fallen Kell - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link

    I know, seriously. I don't know what Meteor2 or TimAhKin are smoking, as it is obviously the fanboy weed. There is only a single game that was benchmarked at 1080p where the 480 could even hit 90+ fps, and everything else was between 40-70 fps. And VR has 25% more pixels than 1080p.

    I mean, if the 480 was getting 120-130 fps at 1080p, then I would agree that it might be a decent VR card. But it averages about 1/3rd that on current AAA titles (or less with highest video quality settings enabled). This is why I said it needed to be 3-4x higher performance than what it is to do VR. Anyone using this for VR will have to turn down the video quality WAY down, which means you will see much more item/object popping due to object draw distances being so low, which destroys the immersion sense that VR is attempting to create in the first place. Add in the slideshows you will get during effects heavy scenes and get ready for the vomit comet to commence due to the eyes not seeing the results of your head moving.
  • Meteor2 - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link

    I'm going by the Occulus benchmarks. You know, the one by the people who make the VR headsets. Reply
  • killeak - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link

    Well, they said that this would be an entry level VR card, and for that I take using low settings but 90fps at VR Resolution, and I think it's possible to consider the RX 480 (just as the 970) an entry level VR card.

    Now, if we are talking high/ultra settings, then no, it won't make it.
  • pashhtk27 - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link

    And for 90fps on high settings, you have 1080. You sure should smoke cash. Reply
  • Yojimbo - Thursday, June 30, 2016 - link

    You are looking at benchmarks with all settings maxed out. The RX 480 is entirely capable at running 90fps @ 2160x1200 with settings selected more judiciously. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now