Leaked benchmarks are putting the 480 a little below the Zotac 970 AMP! Nvidia shills have been claiming that a 480 will lose to a standard 970.
Here are benchmarks of that particular card versus reference 980s.
We also have to understand that the 480 is also reference. And it appears the cooler is garbage, as expected.
...
...
Imagine the people using the rx480 with an older or weaker cpu, with the massive overhead they'll see even worse performance, unless gaming at 1440p or 4k
...
>Imagine the people using the rx480 with an older or weaker cpu, with the massive overhead they'll see even worse performance, unless gaming at 1440p or 4k
FO4 is a mess of a game. RAM speeds can increase your FPS by up to 30%. And the 480 is targeted towards gaming beyond 1080P.
>call it a non shilling thread
>shill for amd
cuck
>Fallout 4
>the game that has performance gains by overclocking your ram and using a OC'd CPU
Fallout 4 has way more issues than just driver overhead.
>fx8350
>ddr4
What the fuck
Every game is affected by ram speeds you dip.
The more cpu intensive it is, the more ram speed affects performance
>posts examples with 10fps boost at most
>comparing it to a 30fps boost
That chart is bullshit and you know it. Vishera and Haswell didn't have ddr4 support.
he's actually shilling for Zotac.
That's a breddy gud card.
I dont think he said there was DDR4 on that..
You can find other benches that show the same results. Pretty sure DigitalFoundry had one.
See
Even a gpu intensive game would usually see gains from a overclocked cpu, and fallout 4 was pretty cpu intensive compared to other titles like battlefield.
Yes but not that exaggerated.
wccftech.com
>Top end 970 outperforms bone stock 480
I'm supposed to care why?
Well obviously Fallout 4 was an outlier enough to get a reputation for needing more ram speed vs other titles.
>the game that has performance gains by overclocking your ram
that's literally every game
>10% FPS gain for almost a doubling in CPU bandwidth
Again, I'm supposed to care why?
While you newbies keep jerking off to the highest numbers I'll continue to sit here optimizing for lowest latency, throwing absolute FPS MAX out the window in favor of smoother average performance and less FPS drop in minimum scenarios.
That's true, but it's always exaggerated how much difference it makes and then you get people taking shit like this as fact.
You are absolutely fucking retarded if you think driver overhead has anything to do with those benchmarks. TPU's benching system has an overclocked 6700K in it. The Fury's speed (or lack thereof) at 1080p and below is down to bottlenecks in the front end of the card's hardware, along with HBM not playing nice with lower resolutions.
I fucking hate tech-illiterates who start posting numbers, with no idea of what they mean or how they were achieved, attached to their own retarded theories.
Driver overhead.
AMD's extra driver overhead is literally only a problem on AMD's shitty CPUs and i3s. Anything above that and the difference is negligible, especially on some overbuilt reviewers rig using an X99 i7 or whatever. The fact that you're trying to pass those benchmarks off as an example of it is fucking hilarious and a clear indication that you have no real idea what you're talking about.
"do not release any benchmarks until the goyim preorder"
t. radeon pajeet
but when you're building a rig around a 200 usd card, you're not gonna pair it with a 3-400 usd CPU (unless you're a fucking idiot), so you probably will be using an i3...
Or worse, an i5 6400 or 2500...
Kek here to get raped again?
Roughly 20% speed increase 1333/2400 MHz. DDR4 can go up to 4000 MHz too.
With rams being cheap as fuck, who'd pass up these performance increases.