The AMD Radeon RX 480 Preview: Polaris Makes Its Mainstream Mark
by Ryan Smith on June 29, 2016 9:00 AM ESTGaming Performance
So with the basics of the architecture and core configuration behind us, let’s dive into some numbers.
Overall, AMD is pitching the RX 480 as a card suitable for 1440p gaming as well as 1080p gaming and VR gaming. In the case of 1080p the card is clearly powerful enough, as even Crysis 3 at its highest quality setting is flirting with 60fps. However when it comes to 1440p, the RX 480 feels like it’s coming up a bit short; other than DiRT Rally, performance is a bit low for the 60fps PC gamer. Traditionally cards in the $199-$249 mainstream range have been 1080p gaming cards, and in the long run I think this is where RX 480 will settle at as well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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.