OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon RX 480 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£60VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):150 W

AMD Radeon RX 480 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 61 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon RX 480
6.3/10

Overall score

Score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

40%

4.6

Technical score

25%

8.4

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.6

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 85% of graphics cards
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 54%
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

44%

2.6

Performance

24%

4.0

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

8.6

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 89%
8.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 85% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

9.7

Popularity

Grades by review (61)
28 reviews: 11 with a printed score, 17 estimated from the review. 33 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 85%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-radeon-rx-480
  • amd-radeon-rx-480
  • amd-radeon-rx-480
  • amd-radeon-rx-480
  • amd-radeon-rx-480
amd-radeon-rx-480
amd-radeon-rx-480
amd-radeon-rx-480
amd-radeon-rx-480
amd-radeon-rx-480
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon RX 480

Based on 28 · 36

Reviewers like its affordability and broadly solid gaming, but many complain it runs hot and is short on memory.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon RX 480

Based on 198 owners sharing their experience in online comments

74%positive7%mixed19%negative

Owners praise its strong, affordable gaming performance, while high temperatures are the clearest drawback.

What owners dislike

  • Runs hot under gaming load, often reaching 80 to 90°C on stock fan curves, and some owners fixed it by replacing thermal paste or raising fan speed.19
  • Crashes or shuts down unexpectedly, especially with aggressive overclocks or on older motherboards, and some owners fixed it by lowering clocks.8
  • Overclocking is limited or unstable, with many cards crashing in games at clocks that pass benchmarks.8
  • Performance falls short in demanding games, where 4GB cards can run out of VRAM and need lower settings for smooth frame rates.5

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon RX 480

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components:

44%

2.6

Performance

24%

4.0

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.6

Design

4%

8.6

Connectivity

4.6
Reviews score
8.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
4,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 4,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 87.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
8,544 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 8,544 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 88% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
3,778 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 3,778 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 87.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
5.8 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 5.8 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 84.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
224 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 224 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 83.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
8,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 8,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 86.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
3840x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 3840x2160, which is lower than that of 97% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
25.92 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 25.92 Gbps, which is faster than on 51.7% of graphics cards and equal to 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
150 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 150 W, which is lower than that of 72.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.8% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
165 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 165 W under peak load, which is lower than 68.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
500 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 500 W PSU, which is lower than that of 75.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
192 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 192 W, which is lower than that of 58% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
150 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
240x 95x 35 mm
Length
240 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 240 mm long, which is shorter than 76.2% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.5% of graphics cards.
Height
95 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 95 mm tall, which is shorter than 91% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
685 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 685 g, which is lighter than 79.3% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon RX 480 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 30 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (95 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    95 mm vs 125 mm
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    9.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (61)
    28 reviews: 11 with a printed score, 17 estimated from the review. 33 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 W vs 215 W
  • 42.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (240 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    240 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    9.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (61)
    28 reviews: 11 with a printed score, 17 estimated from the review. 33 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 8.67x cheaper
    AMD Radeon RX 480 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£60 vs £520).
    £60 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 W vs 215 W
  • 30 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (95 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    95 mm vs 125 mm
  • 42.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (240 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    240 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 49.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,266 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,266 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • 41.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,120 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,120 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 41.0% lower sentiment score
    4.6 vs 7.8
  • 49.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,266 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,266 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 41.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,120 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,120 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 74.9% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (40.5 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    40.51 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 51.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (182.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    182.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 74.3% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (5.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    5.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    June 2016
    2016 vs 2023
  • 40 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (144 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    144 vs 184
  • 62.3% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (8,544 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    8,544 points vs 22,638 points
  • 69.6% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (4,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    4,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 4 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (36 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    36 vs 40
  • 68.7% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (3,778 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    3,778 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 80.2% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (5.8 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    5.83 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 57.9% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (8,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    8,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 50% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (224 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    224 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 75.1% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (5,700 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    5,700 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (3840x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    3840x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 14 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (81 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    81 °C vs 67 °C
  • 31 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (31 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    31 dB vs 0 dB
  • 6.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (42 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    42 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

5.0
Nerdy Throwback Tech
≈ estimated
14/01/2026
Hands-on review · 1080p game tests and benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 is only worth buying if it is very cheap, but it is still playable at 1080p for existing owners.
7.0
Budget-Builds Official
≈ estimated
17/12/2025
Hands-on review · benchmarks, power draw and VRAM check
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 is good enough for budget gaming, though 8GB is better for newer demanding titles.
8.0
TechLabUK
≈ estimated
19/09/2023
Hands-on review · 1080p game tests with FSR tuning
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 is still good value with tweaks, though visuals suffer in some demanding games.
8.0
ProYamYamPC
≈ estimated
17/05/2022
Benchmark review · esports and game tests at 1080p
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 is recommended especially for esports players, though the 8GB version is the better buy.
8.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
03/07/2019
Hands-on review · 1080p 60 fps settings and game benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 is still a decent 60 fps 1080p card at a low price, if bought from a careful seller.
9.0
Proceu Tech
≈ estimated
31/03/2019
Hands-on review · benchmarks against GTX 1060 and 1050 Ti
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 is an excellent budget gaming card that should stay good value for years.
9.0
PC Centric
≈ estimated
28/07/2016
Hands-on review · benchmarks and value comparison
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 is excellent at 1080p and lower-end 1440p and a top buy for its price, though not for 4K.
9.0
MW Technology
≈ estimated
10/07/2016
Hands-on review · benchmarks, cooling, noise and power
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 offers excellent value for 1440p and 1080p gaming, though its blower cooler is outdated.
8.0
PC Perspective
≈ estimated
02/07/2016
Power draw analysis · measured current draw from the card
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 has a power issue that is not critical and is safe on most motherboards, though AMD still needs to ship a fix.
9.0
Digital Foundry
≈ estimated
29/06/2016
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and power tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 is not the fastest card, but it is a very strong value for smooth 1080p60 gaming.
9.0
Paul's Hardware
≈ estimated
29/06/2016
Hands-on review · benchmarks, overclocking and noise tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 is a very good value card with strong VR features, and it is clearly recommended despite limited overclocking.
8.0
Tech of Tomorrow
≈ estimated
29/06/2016
Hands-on review · overclocking, heat and 1080p/1440p performance
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 480 delivers strong 1080p and 1440p performance at its price, though it runs warm and overclocks poorly.
More graded video reviews (6)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.5
techspot.com
✓ explicit
29/06/2016
Benchmark review · Mid-range GPU
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 is a compact, efficient mid-range card for mainstream gamers, but its narrower memory bus gives less bandwidth than the older R9 390.
10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
29/06/2016
Launch review · Mainstream GPU
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 is a mainstream 14nm card needing just one 6-pin connector, best for buyers wanting a low-power upgrade rather than top-end speed.
9.5
pcper.com
≈ estimated
29/06/2016
Launch review · Polaris architecture
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 offers dynamic clocks and fast 8GB memory, but it runs well below the GTX 1080's clock speed and doesn't consistently beat the R9 390.
9.0
hardwarezone.com.sg
≈ estimated
02/07/2016
Benchmark review · Mainstream card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 edges past the GTX 970 in most tests but trails the R9 390X and offers only about half the GTX 1080's performance.
9.0
digitalfoundry.net
≈ estimated
13/08/2016
Benchmark test · Mainstream GPU
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 is a 1080p and VR-ready card that beats the GTX 960 by a wide margin, but 4K is out of reach for demanding games.
6.0
rockpapershotgun.com
≈ estimated
01/11/2017
Hands-on test · 1080p and 1440p
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 is a good 1080p card and workable at 1440p with some setting tweaks, but 4K is too jerky for real play.
9.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
29/06/2016
Benchmark results · Game tests
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 holds 60 fps or more in most games at 1080p Ultra, but 4K Ultra is too heavy for demanding titles.
9.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
29/06/2016
Benchmark test · Mid-range card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 is a strong Full HD and 1440p card and a good entry point for VR, though rivals like the GTX 1060 now match it closely.
9.0
pcworld.com
✓ explicit
29/06/2016
Lab test · Power and heat
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 handles 1080p and VR well, but its power efficiency only matches Nvidia's last-generation GTX 970.
8.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
29/06/2016
Lab test · Polaris architecture
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 is a fast, efficient 1080p card with plenty of room for quiet custom models, though Nvidia's Pascal uses less power.
6.0
igorslab.de
≈ estimated
29/06/2016
Benchmark test · 1080p and 1440p
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 is a solid 1080p card that beats the GTX 970 in some tests, but stutters in GTA V and trails older Radeons at 1440p.
8.5
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
29/06/2016
Launch review · Full HD card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 is a Full HD card rated at 150 W, designed to match the GTX 970 and R9 390, with custom-cooled models arriving later.
7.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
21/07/2016
Partner card test · Custom cooling
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 Strix from Asus is a long, quiet custom card whose fans stop at idle, but its 30.5 cm length needs room in your case.
8.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
28/07/2016
Partner card test · Quiet overclock
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 Red Devil from PowerColor is a fast, quiet overclocked card with an OC and Silent BIOS switch, but it skips LED lighting.
9.0
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
26/08/2016
Partner card test · Overclock review
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 Red Devil from PowerColor runs faster than reference and stays quiet at idle, suiting overclockers, but it has no LED lighting.
8.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
29/06/2016
Benchmark test · Mid-range card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 is a capable 1080p card with generous overclocking controls, but its reference cooler runs hot and loud until partner designs arrive.
7.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
30/06/2026
Retro test · Baldur's Gate 3
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 still runs Baldur's Gate 3 at maximum detail, but at 35 fps it is good for playable settings rather than high frame rates.
8.9
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
29/06/2016
Full review · Overclocking results
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 is an efficient card with performance close to the GTX 970 at stock, and it gains about 13% when overclocked.
9.0
elchapuzasinformatico.com
≈ estimated
29/06/2016
Unboxing · Technical details
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 offers 4GB or 8GB of memory and modern display outputs, though this first part of the review contains no performance results.
7.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
29/06/2016
Full review · Mid-range graphics card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 480 runs 2K (1440p) games smoothly, but its memory bandwidth holds back 4K and the reference cooler limits overclocking to about 10-15%.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon RX 480

  • Excellent value for money, often cited as a 'price/performance king' for its launch segment
  • Strong performance at 1080p resolution, capable of handling most AAA games at high settings
  • First mainstream card to offer a 'premium VR experience' at an affordable entry price
  • Solid DirectX 12 support, providing better future-proofing and performance in modern APIs compared to older rivals
  • Improved power efficiency over previous AMD generations like the R9 390
  • The 8GB variant offers ample VRAM for texture-heavy titles and longevity

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon RX 480

  • The reference cooling solution is often criticised for being loud and inefficient
  • Tendency to run hot, with high thermal levels reported on stock models
  • Initial power draw concerns where the card exceeded the 75W PCIe slot specification
  • Limited overclocking headroom with the reference cooler
  • Cannot compete with high-end enthusiast cards like NVIDIA's GTX 1070 or 1080 in raw performance
  • Reference design can feel dated or less premium compared to board-partner (AIB) custom designs

Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 480 is a mid-range graphics card based on the 14nm Polaris 10 architecture, featuring 2,304 stream processors, 36 compute units, and a boost clock of 1,266 MHz. Available in 4GB and 8GB GDDR5 configurations with a 256-bit memory interface, it delivers up to 5.8 TFLOPS of compute performance and supports modern APIs like DirectX 12 and Vulkan. Its main strengths include exceptional value for 1080p and 1440p gaming, VR-ready capabilities, and significantly improved power efficiency over previous generations with a 150W TDP. However, the reference blower-style cooler can run hot and loud under load, and early models faced criticism for drawing power that occasionally exceeded PCIe slot specifications.

Compare AMD Radeon RX 480 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon RX 480 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found