AMD RX 4xx Discussion Thread

SickBoy

Robert ninja wrote: »

After exchange rate the 4GB 480 vs the 6GB 1080 it looks like €246.874 for AMD and €303.81 for Nvidia. I guess you were comparing the 8GB version, Rossie?

I'm going with the 4GB because I haven't seen anything beyond a couple of frames different between 4-8GB @ 1080p gaming, not to mention I use very limited post processing because I feel I don't see it outside of screenshots and it just eats frames.

You have to consider though that your not just buying for today, you'd be expecting to get 18-24 months service from a new graphics card so in 6-12 months time what sort memory requirements will be the norm...
I'd be picking up an 8GB 480 or a 1060

Robert ninja

Yeah I've heard that one before :rolleyes: but I was on 2GB and that was serving me damn fine. The only reason I'm in the market for a new card is because my older one (GTX 660 ti) died. I'd be happy as a clown to ride it out until the next generation of graphics-focused living room consoles. If a game needs more than 4GB then it's probably something like Star Citizen. Not too many of those kinds of games floating around. Anything else in fact is probably just BS optimisation like The Evil Within.

Take a look at this

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

As of the time of this post 34.10% of steam users who submit hardware statistics are @ 1GB of VRAM. 23.65% @ 2GB.

Although I loathe MGSV for its DRM and boring levels, it's a marvel of optimisation. I played it recently on intergrated graphics. Every setting at minimum of course and the lowest resolution. @ 30fps framerate cap... I didn't get a single frame drop below it. That's pretty impressive. MGSV was playable on intergrated graphics. I did the latest FOB event. Tell me again I need more than 4GB of VRAM

SwarfegaHead

Are there any games that really NEED more than 4GB at 1080p? I went for the 8GB because I tend to use one card for quite a while and figured the small bit of future proofing couldnt hurt for the price. But realistically 4GB should be enough for a while, no?

SickBoy

Robert ninja wrote: »

Yeah I've heard that one before :rolleyes: but I was on 2GB and that was serving me damn fine. The only reason I'm in the market for a new card is because my older one (GTX 660 ti) died. I'd be happy as a clown to ride it out until the next generation of graphics-focused living room consoles. If a game needs more than 4GB then it's probably something like Star Citizen. Not too many of those kinds of games floating around. Anything else in fact is probably just BS optimisation like The Evil Within.

Take a look at this

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

As of the time of this post 34.10% of steam users who submit hardware statistics are @ 1GB of VRAM. 23.65% @ 2GB.

Although I loathe MGSV for its DRM and boring levels, it's a marvel of optimisation. I played it recently on intergrated graphics. Every setting at minimum of course and the lowest resolution. @ 30fps framerate cap... I didn't get a single frame drop below it. That's pretty impressive. MGSV was playable on intergrated graphics. I did the latest FOB event. Tell me again I need more than 4GB of VRAM

You need more than 4GB in a purchase with any sort of consideration towards future proofing.

Robert ninja

Heh, we'll see.

Cuddlesworth

SickBoy wrote: »

You need more than 4GB in a purchase with any sort of consideration towards future proofing.

I don't. Those cards are not really capable of utilising the 8 gigs of vram. I posted before here with articles showing the strong correlation between vram utilisation and gpu power. In reality only the new titan does well past 4gbs of vram in games with playable framerates. Its pretty much the first proper 4k card.

If your gaming at 1080p 4gigs is fine and 6/8gigs gives you a nice buffer at 1440p. And their is nothing wrong with 1080p gaming.

The big deal in the next couple of years is if developers start actually developing 2 version of each game using the available low level API's, one architecture for Nvidia and one for everybody else. Because that's what Vulkan and to a lesser extent Gameworks have shown recently, its about dominating performance boosts at the engine code level, not at the card or the driver level. Any game that doesn't do both, but instead chooses to develop for one architecture over the other(timespy.....) are going to show huge imbalances and really throw the current industry into a spin.

ShadowHearth

Robert ninja wrote: »

Yeah I've heard that one before :rolleyes: but I was on 2GB and that was serving me damn fine. The only reason I'm in the market for a new card is because my older one (GTX 660 ti) died. I'd be happy as a clown to ride it out until the next generation of graphics-focused living room consoles. If a game needs more than 4GB then it's probably something like Star Citizen. Not too many of those kinds of games floating around. Anything else in fact is probably just BS optimisation like The Evil Within.

Take a look at this

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

As of the time of this post 34.10% of steam users who submit hardware statistics are @ 1GB of VRAM. 23.65% @ 2GB.

Although I loathe MGSV for its DRM and boring levels, it's a marvel of optimisation. I played it recently on intergrated graphics. Every setting at minimum of course and the lowest resolution. @ 30fps framerate cap... I didn't get a single frame drop below it. That's pretty impressive. MGSV was playable on intergrated graphics. I did the latest FOB event. Tell me again I need more than 4GB of VRAM

Funny enough if my my 680 would not have died I would happily play away with it at least until all the launch, price and availability sorted. 2gb ram was doing fine with everything for me.
I could not wait for rx480 with decent cooler and bit the bullet on 1060. Will do for now.

mossym

i was pretty high up the preorder list for the 8gb sapphire. something about the way they were talking about stock worried me, could see a long wait and no card, so when they did the one day deal on the 1070 i called up and switched my order. that was the same day the first sapphires shipped, think i may have been in that lot, but not sure, would definitely have made the second lot i think. however given the delays i'm glad now i didn't wait, 1070 was a higher cost for sure but it's sitting in my pc now and i'm not checking stock levels daily.

Justwinginit

I'm clearing my backlog of older games as I wait for stocks etc to get better. Best not to think about it and just play some damn good games. A couple of hours into ME3 and loving it, still haven't touched SR4, Ryse:Son of Rome yet, and I have my mp nights as well, (battleborn, Helldivers) so I'm gonna stick my head in the sand for a few months.....

TerrorFirmer

Good to see the RX460 looking like a super deal at the €115 price mark now from OCUK - soundly beats the GTX750Ti and absolutely kills it in DX12, approaches GTX960 levels.

A new card in this class was sorely needed.

ShadowHearth

115ei for so much performance is really nice. AMD is really on the ball. I honestly really like their line up right now. Yes, its not Titans etc, but those are so damn good affordable gpus with good grunt now.

Slutmonkey57b

115 is more like it, day 1 pricing was 130-160 band.

AMD's pricing needs to be
110-120 : 460
150-170: 470
180-200: 4gb 480
200-240: 8 GB 480

The 1060 @ 260ish is too much of a step up in terms of raw numbers, heat, power, game engine support, and non-dodgy drivers for the 480 to compete on equal terms, AMD only wins in dx12 and there won't be enough support for that until the year after next I believe.

So that puts downward pressure on the entire product stack, there's far too much overlap between the 470 and 480, and once again AMD are leaving themselves nothing between the bargain bucket ~110 range and >200. Arguably the 4gb 480 should be scrapped because it's simply not different enough from the 470... Same problem AMD had with the last round, too many very similar products with overlapping prices leading to confusion

Robert ninja

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

non-dodgy drivers for the 480 to compete on equal terms

Hah. Good one. I've been having this 5 year old colour profile issue with Nvidia drivers that they absoutely just f'ing refuse to solve.

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/501853/geforce-drivers/nvidia-forever-ignoring-custom-color-profile-support-in-full-screen-games-collaboration-thread-/1/

Also, Nvidia's drivers on Linux which I also used to use (before their card broke right after the warranty on me) never remember my colour profile on boot unless I launch the CP right after it, and load 2 differnt colour profiles depending on whether I launch the CP as super user or not. They also keep forgetting my dual monitor resolutions and Hz so that I have to set them every 2nd or 3rd time I boot my system. it's completely random. I've had it with Nvidia's drivers. If it wasn't for this crap I would've gone with the 1060 but I'm heavily leaning towards AMD now.

I saw some very impressive benchmarks for running X2 480s. I'm wondering would it be worth running X2 460s. I'm guessing no but I'd like to see the benchmarks either way.

TerrorFirmer

I'm not saying you don't have valid criticisms but Linux support and color profiles are issues that affect a tiny percentage of market, in overall terms Nvidia driver support is pretty excellent, AMD's not so much over the last few years, somewhat improved lately.

I would forget dual of anything unless you're at a stage where dual GTX1080's is the only step available to satisfy an upgrade itch, dual cards be it AMD or Nvidia is just a waste of time overall and far too much of a headache.

Robert ninja

Getting your colours right is way more important and has a bigger impact on visual quality of a game than the nearly dozen proprietary technologies Nvidia tries to push. Anyone buying an Nvidia card for any of them without calibrating their screen is a knob. Not that calibrating it is going to do anything since nvidia will just let the games wipe it anyway.

FAILSAFE 00

Robert ninja wrote: »

Hah. Good one. I've been having this 5 year old colour profile issue with Nvidia drivers that they absoutely just f'ing refuse to solve.

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/501853/geforce-drivers/nvidia-forever-ignoring-custom-color-profile-support-in-full-screen-games-collaboration-thread-/1/

Also, Nvidia's drivers on Linux which I also used to use (before their card broke right after the warranty on me) never remember my colour profile on boot unless I launch the CP right after it, and load 2 differnt colour profiles depending on whether I launch the CP as super user or not. They also keep forgetting my dual monitor resolutions and Hz so that I have to set them every 2nd or 3rd time I boot my system. it's completely random. I've had it with Nvidia's drivers. If it wasn't for this crap I would've gone with the 1060 but I'm heavily leaning towards AMD now.

I saw some very impressive benchmarks for running X2 480s. I'm wondering would it be worth running X2 460s. I'm guessing no but I'd like to see the benchmarks either way.

Stop sipping on your fair trade mocha frappuccino while on Linux and join us on Windows

Robert ninja

Haha. I just use linux for some video and graphic work. I dual boot to W7 for gaming Both OS have their own SSD. Actually I use linux for pretty much everything that isn't windows-only games like Warframe, Planetside 2, MGSV. I've been playing Project Brutality (DOOM mod) on Linux since I have no GPU. Runs fine

Slutmonkey57b

Robert ninja wrote: »

Getting your colours right is way more important and has a bigger impact on visual quality of a game than the nearly dozen proprietary technologies Nvidia tries to push. Anyone buying an Nvidia card for any of them without calibrating their screen is a knob. Not that calibrating it is going to do anything since nvidia will just let the games wipe it anyway.

This is very similar to the wine snobbery argument.

The truth is that the human brain processes colours situationally, therefore an identical chroma pattern placed in different contexts or surroundings will "appear" different to the human "eye". You could place a perfectly calibrated professional grade setup in an adverse environment, and people would see the colours "change" even though the hardware is outputting exactly the same chroma. And in any case, the numbers of humans who truly have the aptitude and cognitive faculty to recognise "incorrect" colours is very small, as even if they have perfect sight, they also need to remember what the "correct" colour looks like.

Colour profile quality is very important to people whose professions require it, and who use top end, hardware calibrated gear in controlled conditions. Your thread discusses the use of software colour profiling, which is utterly meaningless as it relies on taking a colour profile provided by someone else from a different piece of hardware, with settings that worked on that piece of hardware, and assuming they will apply to yours. Unless you invest in a colorimeter of your own, and the expensive calibrating software that goes with it, then your monitor, even with a "colour profile" loaded, is not calibrated, and you are fooling yourself if you think it is. Your panel may have been next off the line to the one the profile was built for but this means effectively nothing unless the manufacturer is doing massive amounts of QA in the factory and maintaining uneconomically high tolerances.

And in context, you are suggesting that this colour profile issue is "way more important" than AMD's driver issues which have included frame rate tearing, crashes and leaving shedloads of performance unused. I guarantee that given the choice between "game is 20% slower than it should be and crashes a lot" vs. "colours are slightly off if you take a colourimeter to it", there's only one logical issue anyone cares about.
Playing games doesn't (and shouldn't) tick any of those boxes.

Robert ninja

You misunderstand. It's not just colour. Colour profile in the GPU CP covers more than that. It's brightness, contrast, gamma. These things can hugely affect brighter/darker scenes. If you think that kind of thing is only for graphic professionals then you're dead wrong. A badly tuned TN panel (which are often used for gaming) is a horrific thing to look at. Washed out, wrong balances of light/dark. It's not some nuance like between lipsticks. It can be the difference between. "This scene is cool" to "This scene is beautiful." It's also important for movies if you watch them. It's even noticable on webpages that use a lot of grey/white or subtle tone differences to highlight different parts of the page, much like this very forum. In fact this forum is an eyesore when I use the stock factory setting that came with my monitor.

I've honestly heard enough of 'the human eye this' and 'the human brain that' when it comes to tech. I've seen it for myself and it's significant. Maybe I'm alone in that, maybe not. Maybe it's just something people don't even realise they apprecaite like FPS-agnostics.

I stand by what I said. People who're tweaking their graphics settings very attentively, buying GPUs/monitors because of X-sync, without ever having even attempted to adjust their screen settings beforehand have their priorities wonky.

Slutmonkey57b

The fact remains that people will see a much bigger difference from adjusting the brightness/contrast slider in a game than they will from seeing the colour profile get unloaded.

And game companies regularly include those sliders, whereas they never include a "reload colour profile" button. Because the designers know that one of them makes a meaningful difference to whether 99.99℅ of users see their game "as intended" and the other does not.

The inference that a software color profile will make up for the inherent quality sacrifices between a TN panel and an IPS one is also incorrect. Nothing you can calibrate in software is going to change viewing angles or color gamut, any more than it could remove ghosting from overdriving an IPS panel. You choose your panel and accept the compromises each one offers. Color profiles are a tweak.

BloodBath

Robert ninja wrote: »

Getting your colours right is way more important and has a bigger impact on visual quality of a game than the nearly dozen proprietary technologies Nvidia tries to push. Anyone buying an Nvidia card for any of them without calibrating their screen is a knob. Not that calibrating it is going to do anything since nvidia will just let the games wipe it anyway.

Is that not a windows issue? At least with older versions, I'm not sure about W10.

Can you not use a program like Color Sustainer that will keep your color profiles in all applications.

Robert ninja

Like I said I get this issue in W7 and linux, although in different ways. One poster on the nvidia forums said it's a combination of many things and that there are multiple to blame. I'm not under any illusion that Nvidia is the sole bad guy here. I just read AMD drivers enforce the colour settings by default. The only way to confirm that would be for me to try it myself though. It's either that or get another nvidia card that I know for sure will not enforce my settings.

BloodBath

Robert ninja wrote: »

Like I said I get this issue in W7 and linux, although in different ways. One poster on the nvidia forums said it's a combination of many things and that there are multiple to blame. I'm not under any illusion that Nvidia is the sole bad guy here. I just read AMD drivers enforce the colour settings by default. The only way to confirm that would be for me to try it myself though. It's either that or get another nvidia card that I know for sure will not enforce my settings.

Have you tried that Color Sustainer program. That's what I use to enforce ICC profiles since I have 1 of those overclocked Korean monitors with no settings on the monitor itself.

Overclocking the refresh rate on the monitor messes up the colors so it really needs to have a good profile to make it look good again.

You can get it here.

http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/color-sustainer-download.html

Robert ninja

I think it was mentioned in the nvidia thread once but that was a good while back now. From what I remember, nobody had come to a sure-way software-side to get colours to remain on windows with nvidia and the conclusion that you'll have to do everything monitor-side.

But sure I'll give it a shot when I get my new GPU and I'm on windows (it's windows-only software?). Thanks! However that'll be AMD drivers. Hmm. I might try it on nvidia drivers by borrowing my sister's nvidia card for a little bit before I get my card.

Robert ninja

Do OCUK allow amazon vouchers? You can login with amazon account.

TerrorFirmer

Amazon prices have been quite crap lately as well. Their prices for the RX460 are £15+ higher than OCUK who are also offering free postage. Every time I'm looking for a new card, Amazon never has any competitive prices. It's still pretty good for most other parts, just for some reason not really GPUs.

Icyseanfitz

tbh i put a new build together a month ago and i found amazon to be the worst for most stuff, especially with their crap gbp to euro rate

Bruno Batista

Wonder if OCUK are still due to get their stock today...

Redfox25

amazon were offering a fiver free on a 30 stg gift card a while ago. might help.

SwarfegaHead

I just got my shipment confirmation from OcUK, so there are definitely cards going out today!