AMD Radeon RX 470 vs AMD Radeon RX 480 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 480 and the AMD Radeon RX 470 are two Polaris-based cards from the same generation, but the benchmark data shows that they are not created equal. The RX 480 holds a clear performance advantage across every recorded test, yet the RX 470 still has a role for builders who prioritize lower power draw and a smaller footprint in their system requirements. This analysis breaks down the measured differences, the architectural details that explain them, and which card suits which type of user.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results are one-sided. The RX 480 wins all four benchmark comparisons, with margins ranging from 13.2% to 22.5%. The largest gap appears in the Geekbench Metal test, where the RX 480 scores 51,057 against the RX 470’s 41,690, a delta of 22.5%. This is a substantial lead in a graphics API that is commonly used in macOS environments, so for users who rely on Metal-accelerated workloads, the RX 480 is clearly the stronger option.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a 15.3% advantage for the RX 480, with scores of 45,968 versus 39,884. Vulkan is widely used in modern games and cross-platform engines, so this result indicates that the RX 480 will deliver noticeably better frame rates in titles that leverage Vulkan. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, which is a more recent and demanding DirectX 12 workload, shows a 14.7% lead for the RX 480 (966 versus 842). DirectX 12 is the standard for many AAA PC games, so this margin translates directly to real-world gaming performance.

The smallest gap between the two is in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the RX 480 scores 37,998 and the RX 470 scores 33,568, a 13.2% difference. OpenCL is used for general-purpose compute tasks such as video encoding, image processing, and some scientific workloads. The RX 480’s lead here is still significant, but it is the closest result of the four tests, suggesting that the compute-oriented gap is narrower than the graphics-oriented gap.

Looking at the broader database context, the RX 480’s average benchmark score is 33,997, which places it at the 78th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (average score 34,133, delta -0.4%) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (average score 34,154, delta -0.5%). The RX 480 essentially trades blows with these cards, sitting within a 0.5% margin of each. The AMD Radeon HD 7950 (average score 33,951) is only 0.1% behind, and the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (average score 33,849) is 0.4% ahead. This means the RX 480 is positioned in a tight cluster of performance, where small differences in workload can flip the ranking.

The RX 470’s average benchmark score is 28,996, which puts it at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (average score 28,874, delta 0.4%), the Intel Arc A370M (average score 29,175, delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (average score 29,197, delta -0.7%), and the AMD FirePro W8000 (average score 29,211, delta -0.7%). The RX 470 is similarly clustered, but at a lower performance tier. The delta between the RX 480 and RX 470 in average score is about 17.2%, which aligns with the per-test margins.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same foundational design. They share the Ellesmere chip, the GCN 4.0 architecture, and the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation. The process node is 14 nm, produced at GlobalFoundries, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 24.6M per mm². Both are end-of-life products, and both succeeded the Pirate Islands generation with Polaris as their successor.

The differences start with the compute resources. The RX 480 has 2,304 shading units, while the RX 470 has 2,048. That is a 256-unit difference, which translates to 16 additional compute units on the RX 480. The texture mapping units (TMUs) also differ: the RX 480 has 144, while the RX 470 has 128. Both cards have 32 ROPs, so the pixel output capability is closer. The clock speeds further separate them. The RX 480 runs a base clock of 1120 MHz and a boost clock of 1266 MHz. The RX 470 runs a base clock of 926 MHz and a boost clock of 1206 MHz. This means the RX 480 has both more compute units and higher clock speeds, creating a combined advantage.

The memory subsystem also differs. The RX 480 ships with 8 GB of GDDR5, while the RX 470 ships with 4 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the memory clocks are not the same. The RX 480 runs its memory at 2000 MHz, which translates to 8 Gbps effective, yielding a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The RX 470 runs its memory at 1650 MHz, or 6.6 Gbps effective, yielding 211.2 GB/s. The RX 480 therefore has 21.2% more memory bandwidth, which matters in high-resolution textures and memory-heavy workloads.

The pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The RX 480 delivers 40.51 GPixel/s and 182.3 GTexel/s. The RX 470 delivers 38.59 GPixel/s and 154.4 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is only about 5%, due to the shared 32 ROPs, but the texture rate gap is about 18%, driven by the extra TMUs and higher clocks. The FP32 compute throughput is 5.834 TFLOPS for the RX 480 and 4.940 TFLOPS for the RX 470, a difference of about 18%. Both cards support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning the FP16 throughput matches the FP32 numbers.

Power and connectivity also differ. The RX 480 has a TDP of 150 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The RX 470 has a TDP of 120 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W. Both use a single 6-pin power connector and are dual-slot cards. The dimensions are identical: 240 mm length, 95 mm height, and 35 mm width. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 and have the same display outputs: one HDMI 2.0b and three DisplayPort 1.4a. The API support is identical as well, with DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 480 wins every recorded benchmark, so there is no test in the database where the RX 470 comes out ahead. However, the margin of victory varies, and that tells us where the RX 480’s advantage is most pronounced. The biggest win is in Geekbench Metal, at 22.5%. This suggests that the RX 480 is particularly well suited for Metal-based applications, which include many macOS creative tools, video editors, and 3D renderers. For users in that ecosystem, the RX 480 is the clear choice.

The Vulkan test shows a 15.3% lead, which makes the RX 480 the better pick for Vulkan-based games and for any future titles that adopt Vulkan as their primary API. The DirectX 12 result, at 14.7%, is nearly identical, so DX12 gaming also favors the RX 480. The OpenCL gap is the smallest at 13.2%, but it is still a solid lead. For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, the RX 480 is faster, but the RX 470 is relatively closer here than in graphics tests.

The RX 470’s position is not about winning; it is about efficiency and system requirements. With a TDP of 120 W versus 150 W, the RX 470 draws less power and can run on a 300 W PSU instead of a 450 W unit. This makes it a better fit for compact or older systems with limited power delivery. The identical dimensions mean both cards fit the same cases, but the RX 470’s lower power draw generates less heat, which can matter in poorly ventilated cases or with smaller coolers. The RX 470 also has 4 GB of memory, which is less than the RX 480’s 8 GB, but for 1080p gaming with moderate texture settings, that capacity is still workable.

The RX 470’s percentile ranking is 74, versus 78 for the RX 480. That four-point difference reflects the performance gap, but the RX 470 still sits above the majority of GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Arc A370M and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, are within 0.7% of its average score. This means the RX 470 is a competent mid-range card, just not in the same class as the RX 480.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the RX 480 is the stronger card in every measurable way. It wins all four head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, and sits at a higher percentile. If you are building a system where raw graphics performance is the priority, the RX 480 is the one to choose. Its 8 GB of memory also provides more headroom for modern game textures and for future titles that exceed 4 GB usage.

The RX 470 makes sense only if your primary constraint is power consumption and PSU capacity. The data shows a 30 W TDP difference and a 150 W difference in suggested PSU rating. For a small form factor build or a system with an older power supply, the RX 470 is the safer pick. It also costs less at launch, though that is not a factor in the benchmark analysis. The RX 470’s performance is still respectable, landing at the 74th percentile, but it will trail the RX 480 by roughly 13% to 22% depending on the workload.

There is no scenario in the data where the RX 470 outperforms the RX 480. The RX 480 is the definitive choice for gamers and compute users who want the maximum performance from this generation. The RX 470 is a fallback for constrained builds, where its lower power draw and smaller PSU requirement are worth the performance trade-off.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in DirectX 12 workloads?

A: The RX 480 is faster. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the RX 480 scores 966 versus the RX 470’s 842, a 14.7% advantage.

Q: How much better is the RX 480 in Metal-based applications?

A: The RX 480 leads by 22.5% in the Geekbench Metal test, scoring 51,057 versus 41,690 for the RX 470.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 480 has 256.0 GB/s, while the RX 470 has 211.2 GB/s. The RX 480 offers about 21% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card requires a smaller power supply?

A: The RX 470 has a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the RX 480 requires 450 W. The RX 470 also has a lower TDP of 120 W versus 150 W.

Q: Are the physical dimensions the same for both cards?

A: Yes. Both are 240 mm in length, 95 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. Both are dual-slot cards with a single 6-pin power connector.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 480 | AMD Radeon RX 470 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Base Clock | 1120 MHz | 926 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1266 MHz | 1206 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1650 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 211.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 144 | 128 |

| Pixel Rate | 40.51 GPixel/s | 38.59 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 182.3 GTexel/s | 154.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 5.834 TFLOPS | 4.940 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) | 4.940 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 120 W |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 300 W |

| Launch MSRP | 229 USD | 179 USD |

| Release Date | 2016-06-28 | 2016-08-03 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 33997 | 28996 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 78 | 74 |