Gadgetory

last month's paper launch of the GTX 1080 and gtx 1070 reignited the GPU debate in a big way performance-wise these new Pasco GPUs are immensely impressive particularly when it came to efficiency as drool-worthy is the benchmark results were for most gamers and videos new high performance GPUs are irrelevant it's a bit like when Ferrari announced a new car granted on a much lesser scale by that I mean you can enjoy watching the Top Gear boys slide it around sideways on an airstrip but that's about as close as you get to ownership well you ultimately end up with is the reasonably priced car a graphics card just capable of delivering performance needed to enjoy the latest games at reasonable quality settings with the RX 480 AMD wants to take the reasonably priced car carry out some weight reduction dump it on its guts and give it a shot of nitrous the result being a 200 each dollar GPU not a car capable of delivering very playable 1440p performance in all the latest games in an effort to try and steal some of them videos thunder last month AMD were keen to announce their upcoming Radian rx4i d graphics card during Computex the highlights included the $200 price tag and strong hints of greatness in terms of performance now this price announcement definitely generated a heap of speculation as to what the resulting performance would be I won't cover the rx for 80 specs and reference card in this video for that information please check out this video here I know you're all very keen to get right into the benchmarks so I'll make this quick now as always you guys can find all the graphs at the hardware box website which will be linked in the description after looking at the results from a select few games I'm going to heavily analyze the data from 20 plus games across multiple resolutions to get a clearer idea of how the our X 480 stacks up before I do jump into the benchmarks here are a few quick notes all tests were conducted using my GPU test rig which is built inside the corsair carbide 600 C with an Intel Core i7 6700 K clocked and locked at four-and-a-half gigahertz for a full list of the system specs please check the video description you'll also find a detailed video index there as well finally all benchmarks are conducted after a 10-minute warmup period is this the sufficient time to get these cards up to their maximum working temperature as always I'm using reference engine and video graphics cards unless specified I'll be focusing on the 1440p resolution for the discussion but I'll quickly take a look at the 1080p performance as well first up we have doom with the nightmare quality settings the arcs 480 was slightly faster than the i-93 90 here and therefore much faster than the gtx 960 and r9 380 increasing the resolution to 1440 PS is the RX for 80 average 65 fps making a 6 percent slower than the GTX 970 but 5 percent faster than the I 9 390 it was also 48 percent faster than the gtx 960 and 63 percent faster than the unha-3 80 for those wondering it was 32 percent slower than the gtx 1070 which is a very good result for AMD given the price even with the epic quality settings enabled and overwatch and 100% scale rendering the RX 480 is able to push just over 100 FPS interaction packed by benchmark at 1440p a very smooth 67 FPS was delivered by the RX 4 80 making it just 4% slower than the r9 390 and 8 percent slower than the gtx 970 unfortunately the RX 4 ad wasn't quite as impressive at 1440p as it was at 1080p and overwatch for those wondering an average 35 fps of 4k and 45 fps when used in the ultra preset the RX 4 80 impressed in the division delivering r9 390x like performance though to be fair for whatever reason very little separates the mid-range cards in this test now at 1440p the margins widened then the RX for 80 falls behind not just the i9 390x but also the vanilla 390 still it was 2% faster than the gtx 970 and 68% faster than the gtx 960 for hitman i'll focus on the DirectX 12 results since they're the most relevant here the RX 4 80 average and impressive 72 fps making it just 3 FPS slower than the i9 390x at 1440p the RX 4 ad remained quite strong matched in the r9 390 in beating the GTX 970 by convincing 36% margin sadly Just Cause 3 doesn't play that nicely with the Radeon graphics cards the average result isn't bad but stuttering is noticeable and results in a much lower minimum frame rate than the Nvidia graphics cards whereas the GTX 970 never dropped below 59 FPA the RX 480 goes as low as 46 fps the RX 4 ad was 4% faster than the GTX 970 on average despite a much lower minimum frame rate still when compared to the i9 390x the RX 4 ad performed very well delivering similar results here we see the RX 4 ad has no trouble delivering highly playable smooth performance in fallout 4 using the maximum in-game quality settings as the frame rate never dropped below 71 fps the RX 4 80 matched the GTX 970 at 1440p with an average of 56 fps making a 2 percent slower than the r9 390 65 percent faster than the gtx 960 and 44 percent faster than the r9 380 car thieves are gonna love the value the our X 480 delivers here we see a very punchy 94 FPS at 1080p making the our X 480 slightly faster than the r9 390x once again we find the Arc's 480 to be a little less impressive at 1440p here it felt well behind not just the 390 X but also the 390 as well as the GTX 970 still was 54% faster than the gtx 960 and 37% faster than the r9 380 here we see the RX 480 is struggling to keep up with the r9 390 and ARMA 3 which is something we haven't often seen the only other game with the RX 4 ID has been notably slower was the division though the margin was less in that case the RX 4 ad for whatever reason didn't perform as expected in arma 3 as it was 23% slower than the UH 930 90 and 14% slower than the GTX 970 this could simply be a driver issue or perhaps the lack of bandwidth when compared to say the I know 390 is an issue here the RX 480 looks to be finishing on a high note with an average of 55 FPS at 1080p making it just 2 FPS slower than the I know 390 X and 5 fps faster than the GTX 970 at 1440p the RX 480 still remains strong and although it was just 1 FPS faster than the i-93 90 it beat the GTX 970 by a much more convincing 24% margin it also crushed the GTX 960 by 91% margin for good measure here we see the our X 480 allowed for a total system power consumption figure of 235 watts this is an average taken from multiple games this places the arcs 480 on par with the GTX 970 and gtx 1070 in terms of consumption this means it's similar to the gtx in terms of efficiency but miles behind the GTS 1070 the rx4 ad was on average just three to four percent faster than the 970 a twenty eight nanometer part mind you and yet it consumed a similar level of power frankly for this new 14 nanometer GPU I find the result of bit disappointing particularly given AMD's bold efficiency claims as we just saw the R X 480 isn't this power efficient as we might have thought and as a result it does run rather warm reaching 81 degrees after a few minutes for cut that consumes similar levels of power to the gtx 1070 and 970 AMD sure of stuck a little heatsink on it that probably explains why the fan spins up quite a bit under heavy load I wouldn't say it's loud but it makes itself known whereas the gtx 1070 remains near silent still it's worth keeping in mind that AMD and NVIDIA reference cards almost always run at around 80 degrees is the tempted so this isn't out of the ordinary so that was a small 9 game sample of the 23 games tested so in a moment we'll check out how the RX 4 ad compares to its competition on a much grander scale but first I'd like to touch on a couple of other things the DirectX 12 testing is limited I know but it isn't entirely my fault there just aren't that many good DirectX 12 games yet that said I do plan to create a DirectX 12 performance video in the near future so keep an eye out for that also I realize overclocking hasn't been covered yet typically I cover the overclocking angle of these new GPUs in a separate video however I'm having a serious amount of trouble pushing the RX 4 80 past 1.3 gigahertz which is pretty shocking given what I was expecting I've spoken with a few other reviewers and they're also facing extreme limitations when it comes to overclocking this card at the time of creating this video I'm yet to start work on the overclocking video instead I'm holding out for some kind of magical overclocking setting from AMD that they haven't suggested there is one so it's looking more and more like the our X 480 over clocks about as well as the fury X while I try and come to terms with that realization let's move on and crunch some numbers through the our X 480 the goal is to surpass the r9 390 and in a way it has if only just at 1080p we found it was an average 2% faster the only games where performance was noticeably down with Crysis 3 and ARMA 3 the rx 480 was considerably faster in Batman Arkham Knight though I'm yet to determine if this was a result new better driver moving to 1440p was a little troubling for the RX 480 and it's now 2 percent slower than the i9 390 ARMA 3 cause big issues of this resolution while Crysis 3 and Star Wars Battlefront also proved difficult comparing the RX 480 to the GTX 970 saw big wins and the DirectX 12 titles though to be fair AMD has a significant advantage and hitman regardless of the API being used for the most part the RX 4 80 had the upper hand in this battle at 1080p the RX forehead is struggled against the o9 390 or 1440p but fares well again compared to the GTX 970 whereas 4% faster on average for those of you running AMD's last generation $200 GPU the r9 380 you can expect around a 40% performance boost at 1080p when I go into the RX 480 on average we saw a healthy 44% increase in framerate gtx 960 owners stand to gain even more performance from an Rx for ad upgrade as we found on average 59% more performance over invidious previous generation $200 GPU now for the comparison many of you been waiting for the RX 4 80 versus the gtx 1070 this is both an intriguing and yet ultimately pointless comparison but for interests sake let's make it a 1080p the RX 4 80 was just 32% slower than the gtx 1070 which is quite good given all cost at least 37 percent less once the gtx 1070 drops down to the MSRP at today's prices the RX 4 80 should come in a bid over 40% cheaper things don't change much at 1440p here the RX 4 80 was 33% slower so again not a bad result for AMD the only issue with this comparison is the power consumption despite dropping a little over 30% performance the RX 4 80s still consumes the same amount of power on that note let's take a quick look at the performance versus power consumption data the further a data plot is to the right on the x-axis the faster the framerate well the higher the figure is on the y-axis the greater the power consumption so in short if you're a GPU you want ideally to be as low and as far right on this graph as possible doing just that as the gtx 1070 which consumed just 1.96 watts per frame the RX 480 was considerably worse 2.9 watts per frame placing it pretty well on par with the last generations gtx 970 and by I'm the GTX 980 now on a final scatterplot we're looking at the cost per frame data again being further to the right indicates greater performance while the lower on the y-axis the better as this means the cheaper the cost per frame as you can see the our X 480 just beats out the gtx 970 and crashes the previous generation $200 GPUs in terms of value this for me is the RX for you saving grace the price though granted it's hardly revolutionary looking at the GTX 970 this is particularly true once you consider how well the GTX 970 overclocks which will be sure to look at in my overclocking video shortly honestly right now not entirely sure how I feel about the Radeon are exporting I'm definitely disappointed with a few things namely the complete lack of overclocking Headroom and the power consumption for a price versus performance angle the RX 480 is quite good though there's cheap GTX 970 is getting around aren't helping I think sending reviewers the $240 a gigabyte model might have been a mistake I named his path based on what I've seen when comparing the r9 290x for gigabyte and r9 390x 8 gigabyte graphics cards I can't possibly imagine a 1080p or 1440p scenario with a $40.00 premium for the AQI version makes sense this might change in the future but paying 20% more for a budget card in the hopes that it might be worth it down the track probably won't pay off you're better off putting that $40 in the bank as a down payment to watch the next upgrade that AMD not gone this way the rx 40 would look considerably more impressive in a cost per frame analysis and would have probably made the $260 GTX 970 irrelevant for now we'll just have to wait and see as you're watching this I'm probably down at the local computer shop trying to get my hands on a four gigabyte model my rx 480 crossfire video be coming really soon so if you haven't yet hit subscribe to get notified of that one I'm your host Matt as always and I'll see you guys next time youtubers like me depend on your support to continue improving the quality and content of our videos to support the channel directly consider becoming a patron to also get access to a heap of cool rewards and exclusive giveaways also don't forget you can check prices and buy the products I looked at in this video through the Amazon links in the video description below thank you kindly for supporting me and the hardware unbox channel it means a lot to me and I really do a pre and in return I'll continue to work as hard as I can to keep producing the content you enjoy