RX480: Viable in 1440P?

Treeckcold57 said:
If you are going to upgrade CPU. I'd say wait for Zen. I'm going to rebuild my main rig in this late Christmas is when Zen is supposedly to launch in late december. I might get a RX 480 soon as they launch on 29th and then later to get Zen. :drool:
Click to expand...


Ya plan is to make a new rig finally... its way overdue but truth be told this old phenom 2 computer is still a great 1080p gaming and otherwise fully functional rig. I wont pay early adopter tax on the 480 and will wait for zen and a few more bucks to build a proper new machine.

Might thrown in a SSD into this old puter just for shits and giggles when the 1tb ssd gets cheap enough.
 
Nagorak said:
I don't know whether it's how Ebay is nowadays or whether it's because CPUs have basically been stagnant, but it seems like CPU prices there are holding up really well. I just looked at Ivy Bridge i5s and they are still like $140!
Click to expand...

Online retailers are all doing the amazon thing where if something gets out of production you get rising prices instead of lowering. Im sometime seeing lower prices for some tech still under production than months or years later. You can pay crazy prices for old out of print dvds or books on amazon...

They seem to apply a rarity tax to anything now...
 
I think I might get a 480 at some point. I'd also need to get a new monitor.

This 5870 has served me well. But I cant play newer stuff just because the 5870 doesn't have feature support. It'll be a good addition for my AutoCAD workstation at work though :P

If I built a new main rig i'd probably just get a new 480 or something at the time anyways.
 
To answer to original question, it is not viable at 1440p, you need two to play in max. RX480 performs as ~390 and for a price of $239+ for 8Gb there is nothing good about it. AMD you failed. This card for this price would make sense 1+ years ago but now, just too late.
 
Faceless Rebel said:
For 1440p, I would really want a 1070 at a minimum.

The 480 and upcoming 1060 are cards meant for 1080p.
Click to expand...

See above. The video reviews I've been seeing on the 480s show that it does well for 1080@60fps but it's not quite strong enough for AAA games for 60fps@1440p maxed out. The 480s also can't o/c for crap with the stock cooler, unlike the 1070s and 1080s. Hopefully the AIB cards will have better O/C ability with their better coolers/additional wattage but I'm not holding my breath. As someone who was eagerly awaiting 480 benchmarks I have to say that I'm a bit underwhelmed with the 480s performance at this moment. Hopefully drivers will be able to make some substantial boosts.
 
Id read that the 1070-80 barely oced 10% while the rx 480 is showing 20% oc capability.

For the money its the best performer hands down. To compare a 400-600$ card with a 240$ one doesnt make much sense.
 
pax said:
Id read that the 1070-80 barely oced 10% while the rx 480 is showing 20% oc capability.

For the money its the best performer hands down. To compare a 400-600$ card with a 240$ one doesnt make much sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know what people are talking about regarding the 1070s/1080s overclocking. From reading the thread here it doesn't sound like they overclock worth a damn either.
 
Gpu boost 3.0 basically overclocks the 1070/80 out of the box considering that the official boost clocks is "only" 1733mhz.
 
Yeah, people complaining about the overclock ability of the 1070 and 1080 are usually talking about their OC above and beyond the boost clock they already got out of the box unless they have a Founders Edition.

My ASUS STRIX 1080 boosted to 2064. Out of the box. I was like WTF. I was only able to get another +40 out of it to hit 2101. So either I have the worst OCing 1080 ever, or the best depending on your point of view. In actuality 2101 is pretty good, most people end up in the 2000-2100 range and that's normal for Pascal even though the base clock is only 1607 and the boost is only 1733. The overclock ability of Pascal is very healthy, and the performance Pascal Titan is literally going to be insanity.
 
The thing is, the benchmarks are going to reflect whatever the card boosts to naturally. So, if it normally boosts to 1900 MHz, regardless of whether the "claimed" boost is only 1733, then that is what the "stock" benchmark results are going to reflect. For example, the Techpowerup sample was already boosting to 1898 MHz apparently before being overclocked.

Overclocking is about getting performance higher than the stock figures, so you can't say the card was "pre-overclocked" and therefore overclocks amazingly. It overclocks by about 10% over the stock figures, which is decent, but not really anything all that exceptional.

Looking back, the 980 Ti overclocking so much was probably sort of an anomaly. Nvidia probably wanted to make sure they didn't leave that much performance on the table this time.
 
MasterGoa said:
Hey guys, after having a great run with a Samsung 2443T, after 8 years,
I think it's time to upgrade.

I do not plan on going 4K, however 2560x1440 would be awesome.

The benches with RX480 are encouraging. But I believe most are in 1080P.

So, doing well with a 7870OC which I further OC by 100/100mhz,
will switching to an RX480 and 1440P be equivalent? (2GB mem)

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

1070
fury/Nano/Furyx

I consider the 480 as a 1080p card that can be used to do 1440p at some good fps with some adjusted settings. One rarely needs AA/msaa etc..
 
I agree with you on the RX480 being a 1080P card. Another thing to consider: Why bother getting a 1440P monitor for high-resolution fidelity, to then turn settings down? At that point, you might as well just stick to 1080P with maxed settings -- it would look better.
If you're running 1440P, I'd say Fury/FuryX or 980TI/1070 minimum. There's just not enough horsepower in the RX480 to run 1440P smoothly in the top-notch titles out right now. It'll only get worse later on with newer games.

My 980TI, heavily OC'd at 1475/4025, struggles at 3440x1440. The only reason it's smooth is due to GSync.

Also, the 1080 is a terrible OCer limited by the power crap NV has going on. It's the 680 all over again -- a stripped down, power-efficient Pascal. Further proven by the mediocre-at-best scaling the card is showing with the ~100Mhz you can get out of it over the max boost clock. I don't know why that's even a debate, lol.
The card needs a modded BIOS badly, but most likely we won't see that until the 1080TI/TITAN comes out, which is basically what happened with the 680 -- modded bios' didn't start flowing until after the release of the 780.
 
Last edited:
It is getting harder to recommend a FuryX, FuryPro due to 4gb of ram. My Nano runs out of memory with Mirrors Edge Catalyst above Ultra settings, on Ultra with memory limit in place at 4K and 80% rendering I get around 42-44fps. Game is real persistent in frame rates which makes it ideal for FreeSync, which even at those frame rates is buttery smooth.

If I take out the memory limit at Ultra it goes between 38fps and up but with some lows. At hyper settings and no memory limit it runs around 24 fps (4gb of memory is not enough). At 1440p it should do better but I doubt it would do Hyper there, I should check that out.

Anyways I was able to get my FreeSync range from 40-61 to 35hz-61hz. Was not able to get the driver to stick at 30-61, just keeps showing 35hz-61hz, I might try 33hz-61hz. Anyways that made a big difference in using 4K.

So 8gb is one aspect what ever you get is probably wise for 1440p. Plus compare the AIB RX 480 to the 1060, I say mostly look at DX 12 benchmarks to know which one is the fastest. Plus the 1060 is 6gb which I believe over time will be limiting even at 1440p.
 
I don't see 6GB being an issue at 1440P, at least not for another two years or so. By then, I suspect it'll run out of horsepower to drive that resolution before memory is a factor. Then again, I don't see the 1060 being a 1440P card either, judging by the talk that the card is 15% faster than the RX480. If so, it'll barely pass as acceptable, and will be unacceptable before the end of Q2 2017.

4GB of vRAM is an issue, yes, something I didn't really consider with that Fury/FuryX suggestion. Absolutely agree with you on that part. I disagree with looking only at DX12 benchmarks, though. DX11 is still far too prevalent and will still be a major factor deep into 2017.

Also, Noko .. get that 6700K out of the Nano system and pair that with the 1070!! You've got things all mixed up :p
 
Nunz said:
I don't see 6GB being an issue at 1440P, at least not for another two years or so. By then, I suspect it'll run out of horsepower to drive that resolution before memory is a factor. Then again, I don't see the 1060 being a 1440P card either, judging by the talk that the card is 15% faster than the RX480. If so, it'll barely pass as acceptable, and will be unacceptable before the end of Q2 2017.

4GB of vRAM is an issue, yes, something I didn't really consider with that Fury/FuryX suggestion. Absolutely agree with you on that part. I disagree with looking only at DX12 benchmarks, though. DX11 is still far too prevalent and will still be a major factor deep into 2017.
Click to expand...

GTA V and Rise Of The Tomb Raider is there already. Other games with add-ons especially high resolution textures can really push it beyond 6gb. Also Nvidia has some great compression so the 6gb maybe enough - but for long term as in over 1 year ? Also DX 12, a whole slew of games are coming out in the next 6-8 months (many of them are the Microsoft ones, http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/windows ). Then again the ones that are very interesting is Deus Ex next month and BF1 Oct.

I say 6gb is the low limit for a new gaming card in the Mainstream level.

Nope, the AMD FX 9590 and 1070 are going to be lovers until I build a new machine. The I7 6700K is mostly because of power/heat in a SFF case, the I5 6400 was junk that I bought initially. The 1070 is doing fine paired up with the mighty AMD cpu ;). Depending upon Zen and what not I don't expect to build a new main rig until Apr-Jun of next year which by then Vega and Big Pascal will be out - the 1070 will go into the HPTC rig paired with a FX8350 :lol:.
 
Last edited:
RottR is using a caching system as far as I know, like the Frostbite engine used in the BF games. It'll use more if you have it but it's not required. GTAV is just a hog. :bleh: haha. Witcher 3 is arguably the best looking game on the market right now, and I see 3GB vram usage on my 980TI at 3440x1440. 3GB !!! It's more due to the inefficiency of the other games imo, which might change in the future -- who knows.

Agreed on NV's compression capabilities. On my 3440x1440 monitor, I don't see a single game going over 4.5GB of vRAM usage. I'll try Rise of the Tomb Raider later on my 980TI, but I know on the TITAN X SLI system, it wasn't even hitting 6GB out of the 12GB available on the same 3440x1440 monitor.

I am very curious how Deus Ex and BF1 turn out with DX12 usage, but I also suspect NV's performance will have improved by then as well.

As for the 1070 + the AMD CPU ... nooooooooooooo !!! The 6700K @ 4.4Ghz will probably end up faster than Zen anyway.. lol.

Big Pascal is where I feel DX12 performance really improves.
 
Nunz said:
RottR is using a caching system as far as I know, like the Frostbite engine used in the BF games. It'll use more if you have it but it's not required. GTAV is just a hog. :bleh: haha. Witcher 3 is arguably the best looking game on the market right now, and I see 3GB vram usage on my 980TI at 3440x1440. 3GB !!! It's more due to the inefficiency of the other games imo, which might change in the future -- who knows.

Agreed on NV's compression capabilities. On my 3440x1440 monitor, I don't see a single game going over 4.5GB of vRAM usage. I'll try Rise of the Tomb Raider later on my 980TI, but I know on the TITAN X SLI system, it wasn't even hitting 6GB out of the 12GB available on the same 3440x1440 monitor.

I am very curious how Deus Ex and BF1 turn out with DX12 usage, but I also suspect NV's performance will have improved by then as well.

As for the 1070 + the AMD CPU ... nooooooooooooo !!! The 6700K @ 4.4Ghz will probably end up faster than Zen anyway.. lol.

Big Pascal is where I feel DX12 performance really improves.
Click to expand...

:lol: It is working just fine with AMD/Nvidia together so close. It is way faster then the Nano rig to be honest in a number of games. Later with Nano II or maybe another Nvidia card will replace the Nano with the SFF experiment. My first Vega card if it is like the Nano in size may go with the I7. I do expect Zen with 8 cores and HT to be faster in the end over an I7 6700K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top