AMD RX 4xx Discussion Thread

EoinHef

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I think memory usage and allocation is a little more complicated then that. Just because a game is using x amount of vram doesn't mean that the game needs to use that ram at that time. I think bandwidth is far more important in the short term.

I wasnt trying to brake it down to a technical level just pointing out that there are scenarios where the 8GB's vs 4GB's of VRAM are beneficial. As previously an owner of a 970 and playing at 1440p ive come across them a few times now. As rare as they are they still exist

Cuddlesworth

EoinHef wrote: »

I wasnt trying to brake it down to a technical level just pointing out that there are scenarios where the 8GB's vs 4GB's of VRAM are beneficial. As previously an owner of a 970 and playing at 1440p ive come across them a few times now. As rare as they are they still exist

Might be that you don't have 4 gig also.

EoinHef

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Might be that you don't have 4 gig also.

The 4GB in the 970 was gimped alright,but again thats not what im talking about. In some games things like texture packs ask for 6GB's plus. GTA V being one game that can exceed 4gbs and shadow of mordor another. Specific cases where up to 6GB of VRAM is specified as the minimum. Again rare enough but they are there.

Slutmonkey57b

Looks like AMD have thrown the texture pack size argument out of the window as of today anyway... Ssd on board!

Cuddlesworth

EoinHef wrote: »

The 4GB in the 970 was gimped alright,but again thats not what im talking about. In some games things like texture packs ask for 6GB's plus. GTA V being one game that can exceed 4gbs and shadow of mordor another. Specific cases where up to 6GB of VRAM is specified as the minimum. Again rare enough but they are there.

In general I get the impression that games using more the 4gigs of vram tend to be at 4k+ resolutions and are generally unplayable regardless. Its usually either nvidia gameworks or driver optimization issues(the driver manages the memory, not the game).

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/213069-is-4gb-of-vram-enough-amds-fury-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x/1

http://techreport.com/blog/28800/how-much-video-memory-is-enough

http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-vram-comparison-test/

You could argue that over time more vram will be needed but there is a correlation between gpu power and vram. So for current GPU's I don't think its a huge requirement. DX12 and its multi-gpu API's could avoid that as well, allowing lower vram models to pool ram between them using split frame rendering. It makes more sense as Moores law will run out for GPU's soon, there won't be a lot of power hops in the next 10 years as wafer size is close to the lowest it can go. More cores/gpu's makes more sense.

Cuddlesworth

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Looks like AMD have thrown the texture pack size argument out of the window as of today anyway... Ssd on board!

That's for a very specific use case and it won't have any impact on the gaming consumer. Might scare Nvidia though, they make a fair amount of money off their Tesla and Quadro gpu lines.

Slutmonkey57b

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

That's for a very specific use case and it won't have any impact on the gaming consumer. Might scare Nvidia though, they make a fair amount of money off their Tesla and Quadro gpu lines.

It takes a lot of the headroom of importing, decompressing, and using textures out of the processing pipeline though. Uncompressed textures stored on board with pcie x4 access is definitely a gamer's use case. It won't have the same impact as it does for workstation customers but it's certainly a benefit.

EoinHef

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

In general I get the impression that games using more the 4gigs of vram tend to be at 4k+ resolutions and are generally unplayable regardless. Its usually either nvidia gameworks or driver optimization issues(the driver manages the memory, not the game).

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/213069-is-4gb-of-vram-enough-amds-fury-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x/1

http://techreport.com/blog/28800/how-much-video-memory-is-enough

http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-vram-comparison-test/

You could argue that over time more vram will be needed but there is a correlation between gpu power and vram. So for current GPU's I don't think its a huge requirement. DX12 and its multi-gpu API's could avoid that as well, allowing lower vram models to pool ram between them using split frame rendering. It makes more sense as Moores law will run out for GPU's soon, there won't be a lot of power hops in the next 10 years as wafer size is close to the lowest it can go. More cores/gpu's makes more sense.

If you check out the link below you will see what i mean,and its not only @4k it crops up. Supersampling,AA etc can cause it to crop up at lower than 4k resolutions.

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k-aa-enabled/index.html

As i was saying,99% of the time 8gb is useless unless there is a specific case situation,but games that are vram hungry with certain features enabled do exist,and are really the only reason to consider 8GB over 4GB imo

Cuddlesworth

EoinHef wrote: »

If you check out the link below you will see what i mean,and its not only @4k it crops up. Supersampling,AA etc can cause it to crop up at lower than 4k resolutions.

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k-aa-enabled/index.html

As i was saying,99% of the time 8gb is useless unless there is a specific case situation,but games that are vram hungry with certain features enabled do exist,and are really the only reason to consider 8GB over 4GB imo

No framerates, with good reason I would guess. Again, its not even that some games can use more the 4gigs of ram, its that those games or settings that do are unplayable regardless. Its become a bit of a marketing selling point showing huge amounts of vram, when the reality is its not needed.

Its why the 4gig 480 and the lack of attention AMD showed on it was a real waste. Its a killer card at a killer price point for 1080 and even 1440p. I'm curious what the 470 can do and what price it will retail at.

EoinHef

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

No framerates, with good reason I would guess. Again, its not even that some games can use more the 4gigs of ram, its that those games or settings that do are unplayable regardless. Its become a bit of a marketing selling point showing huge amounts of vram, when the reality is its not needed.

Its why the 4gig 480 and the lack of attention AMD showed on it was a real waste. Its a killer card at a killer price point for 1080 and even 1440p. I'm curious what the 470 can do and what price it will retail at.

Well id only be speculating regarding framerates,and have no other first hand experience other than my old 970,which wouldnt really be great to compare givin how its vram was segmented and how each card handles the memory bandwith differently so cant say it was playable or unplayable but it does show that there are scenarios where vram usage could exceed the norm.

Personally i was hoping for a bit more from the 480,it makes total sense as a card from most perspectives,i was just hoping to have more competition for Nvidia at a higher performance level and have it be a real choice between the two,for me.

Im sure it has/will sell well though. Its Vega that im looking forward to and Zen. Im gonna be in the market for a CPU upgrade soon so interested to see what AMD can offer with Zen.

Robert ninja

I'm going to go with the 480 over the 1060 I've decided. They're similar enough and I've had enough of Nvidia's drivers I've been dealing with for years now. I feel like I should get the 4GB to save dosh but at the same time 8GB isn't that much more and I'm thinking about future-proof for VR, 1440p-5K or perhaps things like Star Citizen (if it isn't a scam).

Cuddlesworth

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

It takes a lot of the headroom of importing, decompressing, and using textures out of the processing pipeline though. Uncompressed textures stored on board with pcie x4 access is definitely a gamer's use case. It won't have the same impact as it does for workstation customers but it's certainly a benefit.

I really don't think it will work like that. AMD showcased that technology with open source renderers that were written to specifically use it. Sure we have had mantle/Vulkan/DX12 for a while now and nobody has done anything really good with those low level AP's yet. I just can't see anybody coding specific calls for local pci-ex storage on cards that are going to retail for 1k plus and be a fraction of a fraction of the discreet graphics market.

peter_dublin

Robert ninja wrote: »

I'm going to go with the 480 over the 1060 I've decided. They're similar enough and I've had enough of Nvidia's drivers I've been dealing with for years now. I feel like I should get the 4GB to save dosh but at the same time 8GB isn't that much more and I'm thinking about future-proof for VR, 1440p-5K or perhaps things like Star Citizen (if it isn't a scam).

I agree, personally I'm down for either the 200 pounds Sapphire Nitro or an EVGA 6GB GTX 1060 from EVGA as for fourty pounds more your getting 50% more memory and more overclocking headroom on the 1060. At this time it's the Nitro, I'm awaiting it to appear on Amazon as after Scans terrible returns behaviour I won't be shopping with them again.

Slutmonkey57b

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I really don't think it will work like that. AMD showcased that technology with open source renderers that were written to specifically use it. Sure we have had mantle/Vulkan/DX12 for a while now and nobody has done anything really good with those low level AP's yet. I just can't see anybody coding specific calls for local pci-ex storage on cards that are going to retail for 1k plus and be a fraction of a fraction of the discreet graphics market.

And yet nvidia are pushing prices of standard consumer level graphics cards that high already, with apparently plenty of demand. As with any new tech, take-up will depend heavily on how well AMD can push it, but this is effectively pointing towards a particular storage location, it's nowhere near the same level of effort for getting very low level API calls working.

Joshua J

So pre-ordered the Sapphire nitro+ 4gb RX480 last night with Overclockers. Said on the site expected stock on the 12th August but I got an email today saying package has been sent and got a DPD number which shows en-route. So if anyone was hanging out till the 12th maybe they have a few in stock already.

RossieMan

Any word on when the 8gb nitro will ship? Can't see my estimated delivery due to not having an account.

Robert ninja

@Joshua J

Cool let us know when you get it.

Joshua J

RossieMan wrote: »

Any word on when the 8gb nitro will ship? Can't see my estimated delivery due to not having an account.

Neither do I, but if you hover over the "pre-order" tag on the item page a pop up shows the eta of their stock. The 8gb OC version says 12/08 and the non-OC 05/08.

Joshua J

Robert ninja wrote: »

@Joshua J

Cool let us know when you get it.

Will do.

mossym

Joshua J wrote: »

So pre-ordered the Sapphire nitro+ 4gb RX480 last night with Overclockers. Said on the site expected stock on the 12th August but I got an email today saying package has been sent and got a DPD number which shows en-route. So if anyone was hanging out till the 12th maybe they have a few in stock already.

RossieMan wrote: »

Any word on when the 8gb nitro will ship? Can't see my estimated delivery due to not having an account.

was watching the OC forums with interest yesterday as i had the 8gb model pre-ordered. from what their staff posted there, they had over 600 pre orders for the 8gb model, but only 50 or so for the 4gb, almost all went for the 8gb. from the first shipment they received from sapphire yesterday they were able to fill all the 4gb orders, and sent out the first 100 or so of the 8gb, with more due in this weekend. hence why your 4gb shipped immediately and the 8gb hasn't

i think i might have been due to get one shipped yesterday, but while browsing the forum i saw the deal they were doing on the 1070 yesterday and called up and changed my order, so have a 1070 on the way. rossieman, that gets you one place closer to getting your card at least.:)

the other interesting bit was that OC have 10,000 480's on order, they are the biggest seller in the world for the new cards right now, they are basically getting almost all the early stock coming out of the factories right now, shipping to the US and everything.

Joshua J

mossym wrote: »

was watching the OC forums with interest yesterday as i had the 8gb model stocked. from what their staff posted there, they had over 600 pre orders for the 8gb model, but only 50 or so for the 4gb, almost all went for the 8gb. from the first shipment they received from sapphire yesterday they were able to fill all the 4gb orders, and sent out the first 100 or so of the 8gb, with more due in this weekend. hence why your 4gb shipped immediately and the 8gb hasn't

i think i might have been due to get one shipped yesterday, but while browsing the forum i saw the deal they were doing on the 1070 yesterday and called up and changed my order, so have a 1070 on the way. rossieman, that gets you one place closer to getting your card at least.:)

the other interesting bit was that OC have 10,000 480's on order, they are the biggest seller in the world for the new cards right now, they are basically getting almost all the early stock coming out of the factories right now, shipping to the US and everything.

Good to know thanks.

Joshua J

Robert ninja wrote: »

@Joshua J

Cool let us know when you get it.

Welp it came today so I can finally finish off my build. All those games from the steam sale I couldn't play on my old laptop can be tackled now, starting with Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor.

Eoinmc97

Just waiting on that 4GB Nitro+ to arrive! £215 incl. P&P is not bad at all IMO. ETA was August the 5th, so I can wait.

Eoinmc97

IT'S IN ATHLONE, HONEY I'M OFF!

MurDawg

Dispatch estimate is mid September on amazon de for the sapphire

Any other decent alternatives

mossym

MurDawg wrote: »

Dispatch estimate is mid September on amazon de for the sapphire

Any other decent alternatives

order from overclockers, they seem to have the supply of these locked down

Eoinmc97

MurDawg wrote: »

Dispatch estimate is mid September on amazon de for the sapphire

Any other decent alternatives

OCUK is where mine came from. Ordered it on the 25th of July, and I'll have it tomorrow! (This was due to the weekend and bank holiday, where OCUK don't dispatch)

Slutmonkey57b

First reviews of the 470 are out and it looks like it's priced too close to the 480. Cards between 215-240 which is about what the 4gb 480 is going for. And it performs about the same when overclocked.

Really confusing launch from AMD.... Lose another 20 quid and it's a seller, even if performance had to take a hit.

Glebee

Eoinmc97 wrote: »

OCUK is where mine came from. Ordered it on the 25th of July, and I'll have it tomorrow! (This was due to the weekend and bank holiday, where OCUK don't dispatch)

Did you get it yet and more important have you installed???

K.O.Kiki

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

First reviews of the 470 are out and it looks like it's priced too close to the 480. Cards between 215-240 which is about what the 4gb 480 is going for. And it performs about the same when overclocked.

Really confusing launch from AMD.... Lose another 20 quid and it's a seller, even if performance had to take a hit.

So, same situation as GTX 950 / 960 launches.