• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

SAPPHIRE RX 480 NITRO NOW AVAILABLE FOR PRE-ORDER AT OVERCLOCKERS UK (WORLD FIRST) !!!

retrofly said:
Anyone else think this is disappointing - https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/sapphire-radeon-rx-480-nitro.html?sf30772966=1
Click to expand...

No, look at the actual cost difference from reference, then look at the heatsink, then look at the cost of a good 3rd party heatsink.

In general you get a base card for whatever price it is, a custom cooled version for 10% more, and a custom cooled card with a big overclock for 15-25% more. This isn't £60 more than reference, it's not 30% more than reference, in the states they are saying this card is actually $10 over reference, they state $20 because originally everyone thought the RRP for 8GB was $229 but it appears to have been $239, so $249 that this card is certainly puts it in the price range of a low clock custom cooled card.

Look at 1070/1080, look at the base non FE blower cards, then look at the clocks of the cards that are 10% more then the clocks of the cards that are 20% more.

I've never paid an absurdly high price for a highly clocked version, I buy the cheaper model with the same pcb, heatsink and set the overclock myself... I have no idea why anyone would pay an extra 5-15% when you can open MSI or apparently now just Wattman and overclock it yourself.
 
drunkenmaster said:
I have no idea why anyone would pay an extra 5-15% when you can open MSI or apparently now just Wattman and overclock it yourself.
Click to expand...

Because it's factory overclocked, stable, don't have to muck around with anything, plus the warranty is not affected.

I prefer Zotac cards because they are very good cards, very good factory overclocks and the warranty is the longest you can get. That's why. I know this isn't about nvidia cards but the same reasons apply to AMD
 
My Gigabyte 970 WF OC has the same 300 Watt PCB as the G1 Gaming, it runs at 1550/2000 24/7 stable @ sub 70c
Out of the box it runs 1354Mhz tho is advertised as 1253Mhz.
It benches past 1600/2050

The only difference between the WF-OC and the G1 Gaming is an LED, a metal shroud, a slightly larger cooler and a backplate.

I don't see many G1 Gaming 970's running more than 1550/2000 24/7 and even those that do only by <50Mhz at best, 2 or 3%.
 
Last edited:
Griffildur said:
Because it's factory overclocked, stable, don't have to muck around with anything, plus the warranty is not affected.

I prefer Zotac cards because they are very good cards, very good factory overclocks and the warranty is the longest you can get. That's why. I know this isn't about nvidia cards but the same reasons apply to AMD
Click to expand...

FIrst up, no card has ever, ever been refused an RMA for overclocking because there is zero proof you overclocked. Secondly these cards are sold with overclocking software and talk about their overclocking prowess, they are designed to be overclocked. Third, that uber overclocked Zotac card might still overclock another 10-20% beyond the clock they determined.

Lastly, not at all pre-overclocked cards are stable, lots of people get overclocked(and stock for that matter) cards that aren't stable and have to be returned or have their clocks or voltage tweaked.

More to the point, if the card you actually bought, lets say it's an overclocked version and has 1800Mhz clocks, and that exact core could have been put in a cheaper version of the card with 1600Mhz clocks, that you then set to 1800mhz and is literally no different to the more expensive card you bought. The core can do what it can do, it doesn't matter if you or they overclock it in reality. It's also pretty damn easy to simply find your stable near max overclock and edit the bios so it runs that way without overclocking via software, though if it breaks and they find an edited bios you're more likely to find them refusing a replacement if it failed.

In reality, my experience is cards arrive DOA or faulty and quickly become terminal, or they'll run for years, beyond the warranty and fail.

In terms of binning, it's actually fairly rare for the cheaper not heavily overclocked cards to have an absolute overclock much different to a card that is more expensive and heavily overclocked. IE a £500 1600Mhz stock clocks and £650 1800Mhz overclock versions of cards could both hit 1900Mhz with max overclocks. People like to believe that a 1800Mhz card will overclock higher in absolute terms but for 15 years of graphics card buying and testing I've seen nothing to support that.

Same goes for CPUs, with AMD more now and with Intel more in the past when they had several speeds available of the same chip(now it's only really 6700k/6600k), a 3Ghz and 2.5Ghz chip with different prices both hit almost identical maximum overclocks.
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
FIrst up, no card has ever, ever been refused an RMA for overclocking because there is zero proof you overclocked. Secondly these cards are sold with overclocking software and talk about their overclocking prowess, they are designed to be overclocked. Third, that uber overclocked Zotac card might still overclock another 10-20% beyond the clock they determined.

Lastly, not at all pre-overclocked cards are stable, lots of people get overclocked(and stock for that matter) cards that aren't stable and have to be returned or have their clocks or voltage tweaked.

More to the point, if the card you actually bought, lets say it's an overclocked version and has 1800Mhz clocks, and that exact core could have been put in a cheaper version of the card with 1600Mhz clocks, that you then set to 1800mhz and is literally no different to the more expensive card you bought. The core can do what it can do, it doesn't matter if you or they overclock it in reality. It's also pretty damn easy to simply find your stable near max overclock and edit the bios so it runs that way without overclocking via software, though if it breaks and they find an edited bios you're more likely to find them refusing a replacement if it failed.

In reality, my experience is cards arrive DOA or faulty and quickly become terminal, or they'll run for years, beyond the warranty and fail.

In terms of binning, it's actually fairly rare for the cheaper not heavily overclocked cards to have an absolute overclock much different to a card that is more expensive and heavily overclocked. IE a £500 1600Mhz stock clocks and £650 1800Mhz overclock versions of cards could both hit 1900Mhz with max overclocks. People like to believe that a 1800Mhz card will overclock higher in absolute terms but for 15 years of graphics card buying and testing I've seen nothing to support that.

Same goes for CPUs, with AMD more now and with Intel more in the past when they had several speeds available of the same chip(now it's only really 6700k/6600k), a 3Ghz and 2.5Ghz chip with different prices both hit almost identical maximum overclocks.
Click to expand...

That's quite fair but you've also touched on reasons why a pre overclocked cards is actually a good idea. Not everyone is a great overclocker and a lot of people don't even want to touch the BIOS let alone know what it does. The reasons still stand as far as I am concerned.
 
Fake

2826577
 
Griffildur said:
That's quite fair but you've also touched on reasons why a pre overclocked cards is actually a good idea. Not everyone is a great overclocker and a lot of people don't even want to touch the BIOS let alone know what it does. The reasons still stand as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

he did not touch on voltage though, on max overclocks he is generally right the problem is the voltage required to get there can vary hugely and this impacts fan profiles and of course power draw. that's why they are binning the chips, for voltage at a specific clock not for just for max clocks. that's why they are being slow confirming shipping clock.
 
1317mhz or something on the Nitro apparently, out of the box, bit of a let down from the 1350 we was hoping for, none the less, it may overclock closer to 1400 while remaining cool etc, heres hoping!
 
I think its a fairly safe bet that this card with a block is going to fly. Will be interesting to see what EK and others do regarding the custom 480 blocks as they did not do many custom 390x blocks.
 
Besty said:
I think its a fairly safe bet that this card with a block is going to fly. Will be interesting to see what EK and others do regarding the custom 480 blocks as they did not do many custom 390x blocks.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you will see that many, lets face it if you are going to go to the expense of a block you probably want a 1070/1080 right now - and in what 4-5 months we are going to have full fat Vega which will be the ones that are worth investing in a block for.

Putting a water block on a $230 card seems like strapping a $5000 dollar turbo to a $8000 Fiat Punto.

Not saying I don't want to know what would happen if you did mind you.
 
The thing is, even though it would be so expensive to add a block to them (the 480 one recently announced is like $100 iirc), the reference boards are just too weak to properly take advantage of it, especially the 1060 one (which looks very cheap), I mean 3+1 phase, yikes, wouldn't want to push that too far. That's why I think so many people are waiting for custom boards, they're just so much better in every way and not much more expensive (yet). It's a no-brainer.
 
I said I would get one of these but..

Couldn't wait any longer, ended up getting a Fury X pretty cheap. Should do well in DX12. ;)
(Not to mention a lot said I wouldn't get much fps improvement from a 970)

The rx480 is going to be a cracking card for games like bf1 etc
 
Last edited:
mark-san said:
It's funny, because the more i read about the 1060, the more i lean towards buying a custom 480.
Click to expand...

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-07...md-nvidia/#diagramm-doom-mit-vulkan-2560-1440

TSAAA being said to produce very good quality AA with great performance numbers. RX480 10% behind a 1070....

The past 6 months had DX12 games, either at launch or added through patches recently all of which boost AMD performance more than Nvidia all pushing AMD cards basically up by a tier/price point in comparison to Nvidia.

The next 3 months alone sees some massive games to launch with DX12 support and nothing at all we've seen from Pascal suggests that their DX12 performance changed noticeably at all. DX11, 1060 will be good competition, maybe even beat the RX480 but over the next year I'd expect the majority of DX12 titles the RX480 will be closer to the 1070 than the 1060.

I honestly can't believe anyone can look at any list of games due in the next year, the number of DX12 titles, the number of game engines supporting DX12 which are used to make dozens of games, then see AMD vs Nvidia performance in current DX12 titles and then come to the conclusion the 1060 looks like an exciting product.
 
We've been waiting for DX12 to save the day for what seems like years now, in the games released so far it's been unimpressive. We heard all this hype about ROVs and conservative this, physically-based that, asynchronous the other and it ended up a wet fart.

People don't want a card that might be good in 2 years time.
 
Last edited:
Orangey said:
We've been waiting for DX12 to save the day for what seems like years now, in the games released so far it's been unimpressive.

People don't want a card that might be good in 2 years time.
Click to expand...

I want a card that will be good now and in 2 years time. The 480 is a decent card now and if DX12/Vulcan means it stays a good card in 2 years, then I'm sold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom