It's an upgrade. Just not a worthy one.

nothing.

Unitl vega is released and we can see how it performs against it or the upcoming 1080ti, for the absolute best performance right now form a single card, you need the 1080

​Not currently. Vega might rival it but we simply don't know yet as it's unreleased. Vega is coming out really soon (March) if rumours are to be believed.

I got the RX470 4gb for £150 from amazon. Seen it around £165 lately. Very little difference between RX470 and RX480 at 1080p. This is 8gb so might be a bit future proof, but my logic is the RX 480 cannot do 4k so with the money saved, I can put it towards a RX580 or whatever next year for 4k gaming.

So see what you need for WoW but I think this is overkill

Have one of these and it runs nice and quiet. Stays cool under load ~65max w/o overclocking. Stable clocks no throttling. OCs pretty well too.
Good price

this or Vega... humm decisions decisions

Nice price for a good card

Is this any better than an MSI R390X 8gb ?

Worthy upgrade to a 4gb 970 or not worth the bother?

Would anyone know if this would be suitable for a lad who plays World of Warcraft please?

Id say the sapphire nitro edition is the best but the twin frozr is pretty damn good too. At this price you can't go wrong

Definitely overkill for WoW, a 460 would play that happily!

Thank you. I'm still keeping my eye on the 1070 price drops

New cards must be round the corner, the RX 480 price seems to have dropped £50 across the board.

MSI is one of the better manufacturers, heat!

RX480 is not an upgrade on a GTX970. Make it a GTX1070 or don't bother

Unless you've got money to burn or want to move up a model, skipping a generation is generally a good idea. 970 -> 1060 (or 480) makes little sense as it's a significant expenditure for a minimal upgrade. Likewise 980 -> 1070 or 960 -> 1050(Ti).

The 970 goes for about £120 at the moment, so £110 after postage costs. A £115 upgrade for a small increase in performance and some new features. Most likely the 970 will still be worth £80-£100 when the next generation launches and 1070 beating performance is available at this price point. Far more bang for your buck.

Game benchmarks universally show that your 970 will outperform a 480 at 1080p and 1440p in games that are a couple of years old, but not in very recent Direct X12 games, nor any game at 4k resolution. However, the 480 isn't enough to push 4k at reasonable framerate anyway. As said above, in your case, go 1070, or skip this generation entirely.

Does AMD have anything that rivals a Nvidia 1080 GFX Card ?

Thanks guys, I will wait and see what happens in the next few months and save a wee bit more :smile:

Will this 480 run GTA V with everything on its highest setting @ 1080p 60 FPS?

upgrade from rx460 2gb or wait ?

yes it will run it easy if that's all he is playing though i would recommend save yourself some monies and go for a gtx 1050ti 4gb. can pick them up around the £150 mark

480 isn't just beating 970 in modern DX12 games, but also DX11 games, too. Especially console-driven AAA titles. This should be quite relevant for anybody looking to buy a new GPU as most people dont buy these mid-range cards with no interest in playing new games at good settings and performance.

The gap will likely be quite drastic in two years or so. The vRAM difference alone will probably mean a significant difference in ability to run good textures and draw distances on the 970.

But yea, I dont feel the 1070 is good value. It's something like £70-100 more than the 970 was and it's likely going to be blown away by Vega here soon enough. Volta is probably not super far off either, given how early Nvidia were confident in releasing basically the full Pascal line-up. And the fact that Pascal itself was only a late stop-gap architecture to fill in between Maxwell and Volta means it's probably going to be significantly outdone here in pretty short order.

Volta will probably be the first chance of a 4k/60fps card at £300-350. If not at release, then maybe a year later or so with a price drop.

Not according to this: http://www.trustedreviews.com/amd-radeon-rx-480-review

Launch review = bad drivers for the 480.

Yes, the date at the top is 27th January 2017. But TR have simply republished their earlier review; it says so at the start of the first page.

Not that I'd suggest the 480 is significantly faster than the 970. It isn't. The extra RAM might have an effect going forward though; the 780Ti struggles with some newer titles.

The reports of AMD 'pulling away' on DX12 are greatly exaggerated.

Many review sites have 2 games in favor of NVIDIA and 4 in favor of AMD. It's really far too early tell.

The sample size is small and the comparisons are generally very close.

But if you have a 970, there is no reason to buy a 1060, 480, or anything else unless you plan on going 1070/1080.

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/msi-rx-480-gaming-x-8gb-graphics-card-225-22-amazon-2611170#post-comment

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/30.html

The MSI version of the 970 is within 5% performance of the MSI 480 before either are OC'd.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/RX_480_Gaming_X/26.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_970_Gaming/30.html


The 970 recovers the 5% in OC.

Anyway, if you are paying the same price, the 480 is a better value, but if you can get a 970 for 100-140, it's a great deal.

I got an r9 270x toxic 2gb. Cex round the corner from my work have a MSI GTX970 for sale for £185, they'll give me £50 for my GPU. Is it worth the upgrade? Could I get more that £50 if I sell it on?

I recall this card had cashback direct from msi and was posted <£234 on scan around 3 months ago?

Thank you, that's a very useful review. I am just trying to decide whether to keep my order for the 480 or pay another £15 and get an nVidia 1060 instead. Another review I read seemed to show the 1060 was slightly faster in pretty much all of the games I play. I guess I have a few days to decide anyhow.

They are very much neck and neck now. Make sure you check up to date reviews benchmarks because the RX480 is quite a bit faster now than it was at launch (at launch 1060 was faster in pretty much everything)
The 480 will likely 'age' slightly better than the 1060 but whether or not that's significant before both cards are obsolete performance-wise is anybodies guess tbh (likewise if you are going to upgrade again the next year or so it's fairly meaningless)
Like you say though, the only important benchmarks are the games you actually play.
I'm sure you'll be happy with either don't sweat it

So, for starters, launch driers were 16.6.2.

So, common knowledge being so obvious, how much better are the most current drivers compared to the 16.7.2 drivers?

I'll wait for your % before we discuss further.

Benchmark a game released after the update. Christ fanboys on both sides are mental

I suppose I chose my words poorly; 16.7.2 are launch window drivers, found in many of the reviews that trickled in after launch. It's probably the most benchmarked driver version.

From Hardware Canucks GTX 1060 review, 18th July.
Drivers: Nvidia 368.146, Radeon 16.7.2.



DX11, GTX 1060 12% better at 1080p, 8% better at 1440p.



DX12, GTX 1060 3% worse at 1080p, 4% worse at 1440p.

From Hardware Canucks 1060 vs 480 updated review, 5th December.
Drivers: Nvidia 376.09, Radeon 16.11.5.



DX11, GTX 1060 2% better at 1080p, 0% better at 1440p.



DX12, GTX 1060 6% worse at 1080p, 6% worse at 1440p.

So that's a 10 point improvement in relative performance between the two cards in DX11 at 1080p, and an 8 point improvement at 1440p. Hardware Canucks also found that the gap had widened under DX12.

The conclusion I take from that is that both cards are pretty good buys, with the GTX 970 also offering good value at <£140 used. For reference, my 480 Nitro+ OC cost me £175 used. It's newer than a 970. It's a bit quicker than a 970. It cost a little bit more. Seems fairly appropriate.

The 1060 6GB remains the better card overall - at the same price point, I wouldn't hesitate to choose that card over the RX 480. Even if the AMD card can now keep up in benchmarks, it's still larger, more power hungry, and runs hotter. My card is inside an SG13. Noise and temperatures are now down to acceptable levels after some experimentation and tweaking. But I have no doubt this would have been considerably less work with a 1060.

Ahh, the skewed HardwareCanucks source?

https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-vs-nvidia-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-an-updated-review.1919224/

They didn't use the same set of titles.

Games in the original review (July) which are gone: Far Cry 4, RottR, Battlefront.
Two games that favor Nvidia, one Gaming Evolved.

Which were replaced by: Infinite Warfare, Mankind Divided, BF1.
All three favor AMD, two Gaming Evolved.

So yeah, remember when you checked the 'test setup' when someone posts something you disagree with? Maybe you should check the test setup when you agree with something too.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-2.html

Always be skeptical, especially when you agree with something.

are you both still arguing over like 3 FPS?

I bought a G1 970 when they were about £230 used 9 months ago. Brilliant card and currently playing gears 4 on ultra at 130fps.

About to upgrade to 1080 and x34a

@ 480p

:innocent:

Not at all, I'm arguing over a flawed concept that AMD's drivers have been some "Fine Wine" where it's more the case that AMD fanboys and GPU enthusiasts have been hoodwinked by a poor test setup.

When you try to claim that the performance improvements seen at the end of your article are because of better drivers, but you don't actually use the same set of games, it's *really* dodgy.

Arguable it's an upgrade. It's mildly faster in 1080p, doesn't use really use less power or run cooler despite being a completely new generation manufacturing node and overclocks worse. For example typical average OC boost on an RX 480 you might get 1375mhz from a reference 1266, but on a GTX970 with a stock of 1178 you'll usually easily manage a consistent boost of 1400+ which is a larger increase from a lower base speed.

Main advantages of RX 480 are DX12 performance and memory. Main weaknesses are it's AMD, so it's slower with greater CPU load on DX11 or older titles. Nvidia cards typically better paired with less than stellar CPUs then, like many people still have.

If it's an upgrade it's one measured under a microscope, I would never go from an Nvidia card to an AMD one that isn't comprehensively better. So meh.

All that to end it with "meh". Disappointed.

I'm just interested in clarifying. Usually I like to max OC parts if they are not top end to increase my bang per buck, RX 480 is a disappointing overclocker in that sense. It's probably down to it being power limited but also could be because it's not on the mature of process nodes.

I been knocking middling GTX970 chips beyond 1450mhz stable boost but it's difficult for your average non handpicked RX 480 sample to go much beyond 1350 stable boost in games. It's certainly unimpressive and does a lot to closing the gap between them at their preferable resolution @ 1080p.

Of course buying new your only option is an RX 480, but if you possess a decent GTX970 just push for overclocking, you'll get results on par (or potentially exceeding) a GTX980. Great OC card.

Maybe he's using a custom ultra setting , AA and all that turned down maybe, or just means texture quality on ultra lol

Where is that graph from? My 970 is not even using OC profile. Happy to do a video. But 100% sure it is hovers between 120 and 135 FPS depending on the scene and number of enemies wallbouncing around. I just set it to ultra preset and don't touch any of the advanced options. I'm using the gears internal FPS counter by the way. I might try fraps when I get home as I'm doubting the internal FPS counter now.

Guru3d

I worked it out when I saw the watermark. I'll check the FPS in a minute and do a YouTube video.

I created a quick video of the Gigabyte 970 G1 running GOW4 just now.
https://youtu.be/exLgoP_-NEA

Summary: In normal horde mode i got 130FPS - 140FPS when running at 1080p Ultra preset- which is normal and similar to vs mode. When i ran benchmark, i got 78FPS on average, which matches what Guru3D got.

When i turned it down to low, it went over 200FPS