Radeon RX 480 vs RX 470 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 470 Mobile with Radeon RX 480, including specs and performance data.
RX 480 outperforms RX 470 Mobile by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 314 | 262 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.76 | 13.63 |
| Power efficiency | 14.67 | 10.19 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | Ellesmere |
| GCN generation | no data | 4th Gen |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 4 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 29 June 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549.99 | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 480 has 40% better value for money than RX 470 Mobile.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 2304 |
| Compute units | no data | 36 |
| Core clock speed | 926 MHz | 1120 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1074 MHz | 1266 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.5 | 182.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.399 TFLOPS | 5.834 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 144 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | n/a |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | - | + |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 224 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | 2.0 |
| DisplayPort support | - | 1.4HDR |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | n/a |
| CrossFire | - | + |
| Enduro | - | n/a |
| FRTC | - | + |
| FreeSync | + | + |
| HD3D | - | n/a |
| LiquidVR | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| TressFX | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | n/a |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| Mantle | - | n/a |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 60−65
−28.3%
| 77
+28.3%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
−27.5%
| 51
+27.5%
|
| 4K | 27−30
−33.3%
| 36
+33.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 9.17
−208%
| 2.97
+208%
|
| 1440p | 13.75
−206%
| 4.49
+206%
|
| 4K | 20.37
−220%
| 6.36
+220%
|
- RX 480 has 208% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 480 has 206% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 480 has 220% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
−24.4%
|
55−60
+24.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−24.7%
|
120−130
+24.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
−24.4%
|
55−60
+24.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−18.1%
|
85−90
+18.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−24.7%
|
120−130
+24.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−22.4%
|
70−75
+22.4%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
−123%
|
207
+123%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−42.9%
|
100
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−24.1%
|
65−70
+24.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−25%
|
80−85
+25%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−13.5%
|
150−160
+13.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
−24.4%
|
55−60
+24.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−18.1%
|
85−90
+18.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−24.7%
|
120−130
+24.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
−31.9%
|
285
+31.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−12.9%
|
110−120
+12.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−22.4%
|
70−75
+22.4%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+17.7%
|
79
−17.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−32.9%
|
93
+32.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−24.1%
|
65−70
+24.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
−21.9%
|
78
+21.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−13.9%
|
41
+13.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−25%
|
80−85
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
−62.5%
|
78
+62.5%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−13.5%
|
150−160
+13.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−18.1%
|
85−90
+18.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−12.9%
|
110−120
+12.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−22.4%
|
70−75
+22.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−10%
|
77
+10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+42.2%
|
45
−42.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+9.1%
|
44
−9.1%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−13.5%
|
150−160
+13.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+43.1%
|
65
−43.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−28.6%
|
45−50
+28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−20%
|
150−160
+20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−27.6%
|
37
+27.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
−6.8%
|
170−180
+6.8%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−44.3%
|
241
+44.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−22.9%
|
55−60
+22.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−26.3%
|
45−50
+26.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−23.3%
|
50−55
+23.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−25%
|
35−40
+25%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−16.1%
|
36
+16.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−15.4%
|
15
+15.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−12.5%
|
27
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−25%
|
120
+25%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−28%
|
30−35
+28%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−46.7%
|
88
+46.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−27.8%
|
21−24
+27.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−23.3%
|
35−40
+23.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16
−6.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18
+5.9%
|
This is how RX 470 Mobile and RX 480 compete in popular games:
- RX 480 is 28% faster in 1080p
- RX 480 is 28% faster in 1440p
- RX 480 is 33% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the RX 470 Mobile is 43% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 480 is 123% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 470 Mobile is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
- RX 480 is ahead in 57 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.68 | 19.21 |
| Recency | 4 August 2016 | 29 June 2016 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 150 Watt |
RX 470 Mobile has an age advantage of 1 month, and 76.5% lower power consumption.
RX 480, on the other hand, has a 22.5% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon RX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 470 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 470 Mobile is a notebook card while Radeon RX 480 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
