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

danlightbulb · 23 Jul 2016 at 19:36

Still pre order and no specs for any AIB rx480 i see. Getting boring now.

old gamer · 23 Jul 2016 at 19:48

motiv said:
sorry to gert in the way of the climate discussion guys but I have a techy question!

Got this climate changing card on order but I have a I5 2500K CPU. I've had it for about 5 years I think. Is it sufficient to play today's games like Doom3 or Witcher3 with the Nitro?

Should be alright mate, the 2500k is still a pretty decent cpu

motiv · 23 Jul 2016 at 20:00

old gamer said:
Should be alright mate, the 2500k is still a pretty decent cpu

many thanks. Good to know

Looking forward to gaming in glorious detail agaion. Playing on low settings is bland.

LtMatt · 23 Jul 2016 at 20:48

humbug said:

LOL!

Kaapstad Manor...

Scougar · 23 Jul 2016 at 21:08

lololololol. @Kapp's power usage

Finally sold my R9 380 4GB, so now I'm running on the 660ti until I finally get another card. Hopefully a decent clocking 480

akarypid · 23 Jul 2016 at 21:10

Griffildur said:
AMD hasn't got the right balance between performance, temperature and power consumption. That's not to say they will not with future cards, but at the moment they're not there yet.

Nvidia is not perfect either, they have their own work to do in relation to DX12 performance. That's all.

You do realise that a big portion of AMD's advantage is due to the extra hardware required to implement high parallelism and fast conext-switching with DX12, right? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If NVidia add the ACEs and HWSs and all those register files that AMD has in order to perform this well in DX12, it'll cost them in power consumption as well.

Everything is a trade-off. In any case, we're going from 28nm to 14/16, and just by that the new cards are consuming considerably less for the same level of performance. So I don't see why people are going crazy about 50W when we're talking about 120 vs 160/170... We used to think 250W was ok just 6 months ago...

akarypid · 23 Jul 2016 at 21:12

LoadsaMoney said:
Thats just to power his 480.

Actually it's for the 6-pin connector only. The card still draws some extra watts from the PCI slot!

Panos · 23 Jul 2016 at 23:05

akarypid said:
You do realise that a big portion of AMD's advantage is due to the extra hardware required to implement high parallelism and fast conext-switching with DX12, right? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If NVidia add the ACEs and HWSs and all those register files that AMD has in order to perform this well in DX12, it'll cost them in power consumption as well.

Everything is a trade-off. In any case, we're going from 28nm to 14/16, and just by that the new cards are consuming considerably less for the same level of performance. So I don't see why people are going crazy about 50W when we're talking about 120 vs 160/170... We used to think 250W was ok just 6 months ago...

The NV fanboys argument about power costs has become a very stupid joke over the years.

I still vividly remember the argument Titan Black vs 290X power consumption. However everyone ignored that you had to run the Titan Black for 55 years at 5 hours per day at 100% speed to benefit from the energy saving, against the much lower price of the 290X......

Here we are, 4 years down the line, and the TB is obsolete to day the least, with pathetic performance. While the 290X is going strong.......

Same thing will happen to the 1080/1070/1060. By that time next year going to be obsolete, while the RX480 having years in front of it.

james.miller · 23 Jul 2016 at 23:25

Nobody with an ounce of sense ever said the difference in running costs was a reason to chose one over the other.

Minstadave · 23 Jul 2016 at 23:45

I'm confused, a 1080 will be obsolete next year yet a 1080 will have years left ahead of it?

Gerard · 23 Jul 2016 at 23:48

Minstadave said:
I'm confused, a 1080 will be obsolete next year yet a 1080 will have years left ahead of it?

I see that you are confused :eek:

Lokken86 · 23 Jul 2016 at 23:50

Minstadave said:
I'm confused, a 1080 will be obsolete next year yet a 1080 will have years left ahead of it?

Now I'm confused.

motiv · 24 Jul 2016 at 04:14

found these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW3XNjW5C-8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFcAXkXl8No

CoolioMcCool · 24 Jul 2016 at 05:02

james.miller said:
Nobody with an ounce of sense ever said the difference in running costs was a reason to chose one over the other.

True that, the only reason a sane man would consider the difference in power consumption on this gens cards is if they have a low end, low wattage PSU.

CoolioMcCool · 24 Jul 2016 at 06:33

motiv said:
sorry to gert in the way of the climate discussion guys but I have a techy question!

Got this climate changing card on order but I have a I5 2500K CPU. I've had it for about 5 years I think. Is it sufficient to play today's games like Doom3 or Witcher3 with the Nitro?

Should be about at the near perfect spot that whichever is bottlenecking, it won't be by much at all. If you haven't already consider overclocking the cpu for an extra few frames on some games.

pandem0nium · 24 Jul 2016 at 09:27

james.miller said:
Nobody with an ounce of sense ever said the difference in running costs was a reason to chose one over the other.

If everything else was equal then yes it would be.

nashathedog · 24 Jul 2016 at 10:01

old gamer said:
I read unless nothing is done to stop climate change then pretty soon Britain's climate will be like ibiza, come on guys let's make it happen

They've been saying that for years and I've been living in hope ever since.

Griffildur · 24 Jul 2016 at 10:05

akarypid said:
You do realise that a big portion of AMD's advantage is due to the extra hardware required to implement high parallelism and fast conext-switching with DX12, right? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If NVidia add the ACEs and HWSs and all those register files that AMD has in order to perform this well in DX12, it'll cost them in power consumption as well.

Everything is a trade-off. In any case, we're going from 28nm to 14/16, and just by that the new cards are consuming considerably less for the same level of performance. So I don't see why people are going crazy about 50W when we're talking about 120 vs 160/170... We used to think 250W was ok just 6 months ago...

nobody is going crazy, it's a discussion ...

Griffildur · 24 Jul 2016 at 10:06

Panos said:
The NV fanboys argument about power costs has become a very stupid joke over the years.

I still vividly remember the argument Titan Black vs 290X power consumption. However everyone ignored that you had to run the Titan Black for 55 years at 5 hours per day at 100% speed to benefit from the energy saving, against the much lower price of the 290X......

Here we are, 4 years down the line, and the TB is obsolete to day the least, with pathetic performance. While the 290X is going strong.......

Same thing will happen to the 1080/1070/1060. By that time next year going to be obsolete, while the RX480 having years in front of it.

No need to get so defensive dude, it's a just a discussion. Remember those?

Jono8 · 24 Jul 2016 at 10:12

akarypid said:
Everything is a trade-off. In any case, we're going from 28nm to 14/16, and just by that the new cards are consuming considerably less for the same level of performance.

Well if you compare across brands this is not true.

The RX480 is not as fast yet consumes around the same power as the nearly two year old 980

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/25.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/22.html - see typical gaming draw. It actually uses more than the 980 in the typical gaming scenario ( but less for peak)