# ASUS Radeon RX 470 STRIX OC 4 GB



## W1zzard (Aug 4, 2016)

Today, AMD releases their Radeon RX 470, a more cost-efficient, trimmed-down version of the RX 480. For review, we have the ASUS STRIX, an overclocked custom design with a completely new dual-slot, dual-fan cooler that stops its fans in idle and light load.

*Show full review*


----------



## DarkOCean (Aug 4, 2016)

Weren't 4gb 470's supposed to be $150? At these prices they dont make any sense.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 4, 2016)

Street price definitely needs to come down on this one. Also when is the 460 expected to be released?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Aug 4, 2016)

Move along, nothing to see here.  For this price, people are better off just saving a few more dollars and getting a 480.


----------



## ZeppMan217 (Aug 4, 2016)

> With around 120 W the AMD reference RX 470 consumes about the same power as NVIDIA's GTX 1060, which, however is 35% faster in games. Compared to the RX480, *RX 460* is slightly more power efficient.


460?


----------



## hojnikb (Aug 4, 2016)

this card would be great at 149$ (especially if you could get cheaper custom ones at that price). At 179$ reference it makes absolutely no sense. 20$ less for 20% less performance ?

What were they thinking.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 4, 2016)

ZeppMan217 said:


> 460?


Fixed. Thanks!


----------



## WithoutWeakness (Aug 4, 2016)

It seems like this generation of ASUS coolers are targeting lower temps and making more noise as a result. Both the RX 470 and RX 480 Strix cards have load temps in the 60-70 C range and are consistently louder than other AIB cards. I'm sure a custom fan curve could resolve this but I don't know why ASUS is so afraid of letting the cards reach the 70-75 C range and run the fans slower to make the cards a few dB quieter. It annoys me when the whole idea of Strix was good performance and OC potential with less noise. Now it's just an unnecessarily low GPU temp with loud fans.


----------



## bug (Aug 4, 2016)

Out of 15 titles in the test, this card won't do 60FPS in 8. At 1920x1080. With another 2 hovering a little above 60, just because this card has modified power limits.
Maybe it's just me, but this card doesn't make much sense at _any _price point.


----------



## medi01 (Aug 4, 2016)

Sorry, but, can anyone remind me of an factory OC AIB card that doesn't have:

Power efficiency reduced
in gaming?




bug said:


> Maybe it's just me, but this card doesn't make much sense at _any _price point.


It's just you.
Although at 209 it hardly makes sense. 



DarkOCean said:


> Weren't 4gb 470's supposed to be $150?


Ditto.


----------



## bug (Aug 4, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Sorry, but, can anyone remind me of an factory OC AIB card that doesn't have:
> 
> Power efficiency reduced
> in gaming?


It's not just the overclock, Asus has modified the TDP by quite a lot. The measly 64MHz overclock cannot explain the rather large differences we see in games.
You're right, overclocked cards eat more power. But Asus has turned what was supposed to be a 120W into a 150W part. That's 25% more.


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 4, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Sorry, but, can anyone remind me of an factory OC AIB card that doesn't have:
> 
> Power efficiency reduced
> in gaming?











2 watts is still 2 watts


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 4, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Sorry, but, can anyone remind me of an factory OC AIB card that doesn't have:
> 
> Power efficiency reduced
> in gaming?


The amount varies, depending on that I mention the bullet point or not. Also see the previous post


----------



## ZeppMan217 (Aug 4, 2016)

The pricing makes no sense - $200+ for a 4GB 470 while a 4GB 480 (albeit nigh non-existent) costs $200+ as well?


----------



## medi01 (Aug 4, 2016)

Compared to (out of stock ) card, Asus one makes no sense:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202225&cm_re=rx_480-_-14-202-225-_-Product

But then, neither do other 470 AIBs. (besides Devil, which is 179)



bug said:


> The measly 64MHz overclock cannot explain the rather large differences we see in games.


It's quite noticeably faster than stock.



the54thvoid said:


> 2 watts is still 2 watts


Is it factory OCed though?


----------



## bug (Aug 4, 2016)

medi01 said:


> It's quite noticeably faster than stock.



5.3%? I highly doubt it.


----------



## PLSG08 (Aug 4, 2016)

I'm still confused as to what card I'm gonna get at the end of the year. RX 480 is has terrible pricing here, same as a GTX 1060 which is around $280 (Yes BOTH cards have the same price) 

as much as both sides say "Oh were making cards for the $200 sweet spot", after market card pricing is just pretty stupid now :/


----------



## KainXS (Aug 4, 2016)

At 150 this would be a great card but at 180 for the reference model and 20+ for the AIB's(cause we all know Asus is gouging like they are on the 480) its not worth it.

AMD is probably sitting watching the 480's fly off the the shelves and are trying to make a quick buck but it looks like alot of the buyers are ethereum miners., they are killing the RX 480 stock.

Seems like my wait for a 480 is going to be a little longer.


edit:
I was wrong the Nitro 470 is 210 also, sorry asus


----------



## Slomo4shO (Aug 4, 2016)

> The ASUS RX 470 is slightly too expensive in my opinion though at $209, a better price would be $199 or $189 - if they fix that noisy cooler with a BIOS update.



Really? $189 would be a better price? The reference 480 sits at $199...



> When I asked our head of news "What would you buy if you had $210?" he responded "I'd beg on the streets for $40 more if I have to and buy 1060."



At least try to disguise the bias...


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 4, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Is it factory OCed though?



Yes.  SC stands for super clocked, it's about 90MHz faster.  Though a small OC, it still draws a fraction less power.  Some EVGA cards often tend to be able to do this for some reason (better engineering than stock?).  Some AIB's manage it by better circuitry.  to be fair, I wouldn't expect a budget card to have that level of engineering.



Slomo4shO said:


> At least try to disguise the bias...



You hide your bias.


----------



## chaosmassive (Aug 4, 2016)

clearly that power consumption restricted (147~9W) by 6 pin connector, ought to see what 8 pin gonna do?
that aside, this card price simply too high and create terrible value for its prices
maybe another 3rd party brand will offer closer MRSP price?

btw, Asus card inherently more expensive than other card, so deal with it


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 4, 2016)

Slomo4shO said:


> At least try to disguise the bias...


Since when is expressing an opinion bias?
Some people just prefer the 1060.


----------



## Frick (Aug 4, 2016)

Pleeaaaaseeee let this be <€200, if it is it's definitely the go to budget card of this generation (so far).


----------



## KainXS (Aug 4, 2016)

seems like sapphire has a 8GB nitro card also, but it costs the same as a 8GB 480 reference model.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202226&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-Veeralava LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=6202798&SID=


----------



## Lionheart (Aug 4, 2016)

That pricing looks intentional, can't hurt them 480 sales


----------



## proxuser (Aug 4, 2016)

look like amd repeating same gpu with different names since last 3 years. just look at same performance and same power consumption. this makes absolutely no fun follow gpu news,reviews.


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 4, 2016)

That price is a bit to high, even if they are hard to find you can still buy an RX 480 4gb model for $199 with the reference cooler.  Would much rather have that over a slightly improved cooler in my book.  If they had at least put it $200 I could argue it somewhat but at a higher price point thats a no go from me...


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 4, 2016)

This card should cost in Europe 149$ INCLUDING the taxes. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense....


----------



## Lomskij (Aug 4, 2016)

Here, In the UK, AIB RX470 hover between £190 and £200. Sapphire Nitro+ RX480 4GB retails for £199. Makes difficult to understand who would buy the RX470...


----------



## -The_Mask- (Aug 4, 2016)

hojnikb said:


> this card would be great at 149$ (especially if you could get cheaper custom ones at that price). At 179$ reference it makes absolutely no sense. 20$ less for 20% less performance ?
> 
> What were they thinking.


Yeah indeed what were they thinking! Why give it the best performance per dollar on full HD???? Nobody wants that!!!11


----------



## bug (Aug 4, 2016)

-The_Mask- said:


> Yeah indeed what were they thinking! Why give it the best performance per dollar on full HD???? Nobody wants that!!!11



Will you buy a card that's best bang for the buck at FHD when it can do 60fps in half the games tested at said resolution?


----------



## xorbe (Aug 4, 2016)

bug said:


> Will you buy a card that's best bang for the buck at FHD when it can do 60fps in half the games tested at said resolution?



Don't use ultra-benchmark settings on your sub-$200 card, problem solved.


----------



## bug (Aug 4, 2016)

xorbe said:


> Don't use ultra-benchmark settings on your sub-$200 card, problem solved.


I don't need a $200 card for that. An A10 (or even A8?) will do.


----------



## Braustard (Aug 4, 2016)

Why I chose the reference Sapphire RX 480 4gb:

-I got it for $200 dlls, taxes and shipping included
-I don't have plans for changing gpu in 4 years and this card seems to handle DX 12 and Vulkan titles really good (so far)
-I have a i5 750 OC'ed to 4.1 ghz and it may become a bottleneck with more powerful gpus
-Anything beyond 60fps on 1080p is a waste for me since I have a 60hz 1080p monitor

So for me the 480 was a clear winner


----------



## -The_Mask- (Aug 4, 2016)

bug said:


> Will you buy a card that's best bang for the buck at FHD when it can do 60fps in half the games tested at said resolution?


I don't have such a screen, but yeah I would recommend the RX 470 for someone who does.


----------



## hojnikb (Aug 4, 2016)

-The_Mask- said:


> Yeah indeed what were they thinking! Why give it the best performance per dollar on full HD???? Nobody wants that!!!11



This graph is missing rx480 8gb, which would tip the scale to rx480 4gb favor.


----------



## xorbe (Aug 4, 2016)

bug said:


> I don't need a $200 card for that. An A10 (or even A8?) will do.



I have 3 APUs and in my experience, they want lowest settings and lower resolution.  RX 470 should get you 1920x1080 with med/high settings.  If you want ultra+AA at HD res and 60+ fps, you'll need more card -- that shouldn't be surprising.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Aug 4, 2016)

soooo why does this get a freaking 9/10?
Already said this once but ill say it again, what is the point of Rating here on TPU if nothing ever goes below an 8/10?


----------



## steen (Aug 4, 2016)

W1zz, interesting that blueray playback power draw is much lower than RX480. 4GB vs 8GB or newer drivers running the new decoder block?


----------



## Tkenietz (Aug 4, 2016)

I was hoping someone could explain why the performance figures here vary greatly compared ro every other review of the 470?


----------



## dyonoctis (Aug 4, 2016)

Just wait a few month for the price to become "right". Right now It's messy everywhere with card being out-of-stock, not yet available, price inflated due to low stock... on some website a nitro 470 worth 209 bucks, on another 230 bucks, some 470 can be find for 179 bucks, Asus Rx 470 is among the cheapest (LOL), some popular website don't have any RX 470 at all...Right now merchants are being greedy. The 4GB 480 is still hard to find, and they will capitalize on that. 

Once the stock will go up and AMD sell enough 480 they will lower the price. A 470 at 149 bucks will be to much of a threat for the 480 who's already getting a fait amount of disdain in favor of the 1060 who is easier to get with after market cooler and really not far in price from the 480.


----------



## dyonoctis (Aug 4, 2016)

Tkenietz said:


> I was hoping someone could explain why the performance figures here vary greatly compared ro every other review of the 470?


Asus Rx 470 is just the slower out of the box  RX 470. MSI and  Sapphire  have a more aggressive OC.


----------



## Alduin (Aug 4, 2016)

My choice is the reference RX 470
Due to lower price and lower noise and better efficiency
Improving idle and Blu-ray power consumption was a good move by AMD


----------



## lanlagger (Aug 4, 2016)

"nice" price... what is next ? a RX460 for a low as 169.99$ ?? but then again - if people would not be such a retards AMD would not try to pull it off


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Aug 4, 2016)

asus seems to be dropping the ball alot lately.. this card in this price point makes no sense whatsoever, even if you cant easily find a 480 i would suggest to wait for 2 weeks and get one, much better than this stupid thing.


----------



## GLD (Aug 4, 2016)

The rent is to damn high!


----------



## N3M3515 (Aug 4, 2016)

Wasn't this review where w1z was going to add Doom, vulkan and Dx12?


----------



## Jeffredo (Aug 4, 2016)

The RX480 4GB is a great little card for the money.  This one makes no sense at the price/performance point.


----------



## rruff (Aug 4, 2016)

Braustard said:


> Why I chose the reference Sapphire RX 480 4gb:
> -I have a i5 750 OC'ed to 4.1 ghz and it may become a bottleneck with more powerful gpus



Looks like Vulcan + RX 480 can overwhelm slower CPUs. You have a big OC, so maybe you are good.

http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-in-6-year-old-amd-and-intel-computers/


----------



## dyonoctis (Aug 4, 2016)

According to Bit-Tech the msrp for the 4GB RX 470 Nitro is 179€, it's the vendors who are putting a +40-60$/£/€ premium because why the F not ?
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2016/08/04/sapphire-radeon-rx-470-nitro-oc-4gb-review/1


----------



## ShurikN (Aug 4, 2016)

The Red Devil one at $180 is more or less on spot. Everything above that mark is not justified, as you can get Nitro+ for 200.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 4, 2016)

ShurikN said:


> The Red Devil one at $180 is more or less on spot. Everything above that mark is not justified, as you can get Nitro+ for 200.


----------



## P4-630 (Aug 4, 2016)

*MSI RX470 Gaming X in my country:*


----------



## Jism (Aug 4, 2016)

It's because demand is high and quantity is low. That's why those prices are higher then usual. Every webshop and distributor wants to earn money on those cards.

I've payed approx 300 for an 8GB 480X from XFX but to hell with it. I have a card now and it performs fantastic compared to my previous 270x crossfire, with half the power requirement and suitable for 2560x1080 resolutions on max detail.

You cant blame AMD for setting a MSRP or whatever and every party in between to not charge more.


----------



## Casecutter (Aug 4, 2016)

All pricing on this new gen stuff is out of line.  It used to be in such class of card there was a clear differentiation in price between full/gelding parts.  I don't know what's at issue here... Is it that GloFo has issues and AMD/RTG is keep a "stiff upper lip" on pricing based more against GTX1060, knowing a 1050 is sometime off?  They foresee a improved Polaris out of GloFo in several months (485/475) and hope that they can hold these prices till those are substituted?  

I think, as there's no actual reference cards from AMD, they made it lucrative for AIB by setting the $179 price.  AIB's knowing limited Polaris supply for the time being, and then they've a improved process chip on the market 3-4 month from now figure milk it now, then hold on pricing with the re-spins when the competition really is hot and heavy.


----------



## Air (Aug 4, 2016)

30 dBA load on reference cooler? If thats accurate, thats an amazing cooler and much better than Nvidias FE coolers, that are supposed to be "premium". First time Im skeptical on  a measurement of noise on TPU.


----------



## W1zzard (Aug 4, 2016)

Air said:


> 30 dBA load on reference cooler? If thats accurate, thats an amazing cooler and much better than Nvidias FE coolers, that are supposed to be "premium". First time Im skeptical on  a measurement of noise on TPU.


It's not the cooler, it's the low heat output. The GTX 1060 FE cooler runs lower temps, that's why it's more noisy.


----------



## Jeffredo (Aug 4, 2016)

rruff said:


> Looks like Vulcan + RX 480 can overwhelm slower CPUs. You have a big OC, so maybe you are good.
> 
> http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-in-6-year-old-amd-and-intel-computers/



Looks like the Nvidia advantage in driver overhead is still intact.  Got an old/weak CPU?  Go Nvidia.


----------



## ShurikN (Aug 4, 2016)

W1zzard said:


>


I could have sworn I saw it go for less about 3 hours ago on Newegg. Maybe it was 190, but def not 200.
No point in getting this card then... Its the same price as 4GB Nitro+ 480

Whats confusing is, that they released two cards with price and performance so close to each other, yet the gap between these cards and RX460 is going to be huge. What will they fill it with?


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 4, 2016)

If it drops to $150 

It would be a hell of a deal for 2x in Crossfire OC'd


----------



## Dimi (Aug 4, 2016)

Durvelle27 said:


> If it drops to $150
> 
> It would be a hell of a deal for 2x in Crossfire OC'd



I advise you NOT to do crossfire. Its bad news. While some games scale nicely, a lot of them don't.

I just started playing RB6 Siege and that does not work in CF nor SLI and that makes having 2 slow gpu's a nightmare. I'm getting myself a 1070 in september to replace my GTX 760's. I'm never doing SLI again.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 4, 2016)

Dimi said:


> I advise you NOT to do crossfire. Its bad news. While some games scale nicely, a lot of them don't.
> 
> I just started playing RB6 Siege and that does not work in CF nor SLI and that makes having 2 slow gpu's a nightmare. I'm getting myself a 1070 in september to replace my GTX 760's. I'm never doing SLI again.


Mehh I'm content with crossfire


----------



## nem.. (Aug 4, 2016)

470 tha 1060 KiLLeR


----------



## gasolina (Aug 4, 2016)

due to the graph i see that 470 is 91% and 480 is 119% meaning that (119-91)/91 = 29%~ 470 ref is 29% slower than 480....meaning it's around 280x/380x level ...


----------



## Dimi (Aug 4, 2016)

Thats all great, those benchmarks, BUT, put those AMD cards in a budget system with a budget cpu and the results will be DRAMATICALLY different. Especially in DX12 & Vulcan.

Remember that nearly 50% of ALL steam users are still on Dual Core cpu's.

Btw, they are benchmarking like 6 games with 50-60$ pricetags and people whine at a price difference of 10$ between the 1060 and 480 LOL

What a joke.


----------



## dyonoctis (Aug 4, 2016)

ShurikN said:


> I could have sworn I saw it go for less about 3 hours ago on Newegg. Maybe it was 190, but def not 200.
> No point in getting this card then... Its the same price as 4GB Nitro+ 480
> 
> Whats confusing is, that they released two cards with price and performance so close to each other, yet the gap between these cards and RX460 is going to be huge. What will they fill it with?


AMD always had the habit for the "cut-down gpu but not too much" thing. Each gpu always had his cheaper Twin (7850/7870;7950/7970). But it's the first time that ppl are so unhappy about the price. Amd built Soooo much anticipation about making gpus fo the "comomn peasant" : 199€ vr GPU, sub 200€ 1080p Gpu. 

Ppl fisrt overestimated 480 performance and began to dream about a 980 killer. It turned out to be a mere 970 killer with a power consumption from another era. The pricing in the U.S was "okay" even so the 4Gb who had the so desired princing was hard to find. Then AMD had the stupid idea of making it "ref board first, AIB later" even tho they never even tried to do a premium GTX xx70/xx80 cooler that would have actually interested some people. Then the horrific E.U pricing. Usually we got the 1$=1€ treatment, this time E.U gpu were noticably pricier. We ended in a situation were some reference 480 were pricier than some astonishing great AIB 1060. A 200 € Gpu ended up getting beyond 300€.

Then the release of the 470. The gpu was supposed to be at least 50€ less expensive. Reality: the price are awfully close, even between AIB. In Europe the 470 is being sold at the prices that were meant for the 480. 
For a reminder , the price difference between a 7850 and a 7870 at lauch was of 90€, for a 7950 and a 7970 it was 70 €. The 7000 serie wasn't cheap , but they did not overlap, and amd had the lead performance wise. Today AMD can't afford to play the "perfomance crown king", not even the power conssumption king, and got the pricing of his product all over the place. This must be the worst launch they ever did.


----------



## dyonoctis (Aug 4, 2016)

Dimi said:


> Thats all great, those benchmarks, BUT, put those AMD cards in a budget system with a budget cpu and the results will be DRAMATICALLY different. Especially in DX12 & Vulcan.
> 
> Remember that nearly 50% of ALL steam users are still on Dual Core cpu's.
> 
> ...


Actually it's more like a 2009 cpu. People with at least a sandy bridge pentium or a core I3 didn't notice any drop as huge as the one people who got a top of the line 2009 quad core cpu would get. Gaming wise a recent core i3 is waaaaaay better than a first gen core i5/core i7. (They are even better in some application where the architecture enhancement  take the lead over sheer number of core.)


----------



## rruff (Aug 4, 2016)

ShurikN said:


> Whats confusing is, that they released two cards with price and performance so close to each other, yet the gap between these cards and RX460 is going to be huge. What will they fill it with?



If TPU's benchmarks are a good guide, the difference between 470 and 480 is greater than the difference between 950 and 960, or 970 and 980. 

Nvidia left a huge gap between the 960 and 970. 460-470 will be a huge gap, but the 460 is a gimped Polaris 11, so they should come out with one that is ~15-20% better than the 460 to fill that gap. 

Weird thing is the pricing. FPS/$ should improve as you go down in price. If a 480 is $200, then 470 should be <$160.


----------



## ShurikN (Aug 4, 2016)

rruff said:


> Weird thing is the pricing. FPS/$ should improve as you go down in price. If a 480 is $200, then 470 should be <$160.


IMO $170 max for RX470 4GB. I say 4GB because I saw a Nitro one with 8, which is utterly useless. Especially at $240


----------



## Nabarun (Aug 4, 2016)

Slomo4shO said:


> Really? $189 would be a better price? The reference 480 sits at $199...
> 
> 
> 
> At least try to disguise the bias...


That's not bias. I hate nvidia for their outrageous pricing,  but I'd kill you and take your money if I had to, for the green card.


----------



## GoldenX (Aug 5, 2016)

Question, can a 120w card be cooled with a single slot system? I don't understand why all cards have to be so flashy with 2 or 3 enormous fans, in a sub U$S200 price range.


----------



## Jism (Aug 5, 2016)

Dimi said:


> I advise you NOT to do crossfire. Its bad news. While some games scale nicely, a lot of them don't.
> 
> I just started playing RB6 Siege and that does not work in CF nor SLI and that makes having 2 slow gpu's a nightmare. I'm getting myself a 1070 in september to replace my GTX 760's. I'm never doing SLI again.



Yeah, one game completely represents crossfire/sli.



GoldenX said:


> Question, can a 120w card be cooled with a single slot system? I don't understand why all cards have to be so flashy with 2 or 3 enormous fans, in a sub U$S200 price range.



Yeah it can but most portion of the heat is coming from that VRM design, as watched on various thermal vids. It's not really the GPU or memory temperature but the 95 degrees VRM's needs robust cooling.


----------



## dyonoctis (Aug 5, 2016)

GoldenX said:


> Question, can a 120w card be cooled with a single slot system? I don't understand why all cards have to be so flashy with 2 or 3 enormous fans, in a sub U$S200 price range.



They are using single slot cooler for the professional version of those card, but the workload isn't the same, and the clock are lower. According to pro gpu owner when then try to game the gpu reach 90°c quite fast and the fan get very noisy. If even a dual slot blower cooler get noisy and fail to keep the boost clock, while gaming, a single slot blower cooler won't be really better. 

I think that the radeon HD 4850 was the last middle range gaming gpu with a single slot cooler. However the temp were 60°c idle and 88-90°c at load. The noise was okay, but nowhere near silent.


----------



## ViperXTR (Aug 5, 2016)

Jeffredo said:


> Looks like the Nvidia advantage in driver overhead is still intact.  Got an old/weak CPU?  Go Nvidia.


The Lynfields and K10 are a little too old, would be interesting to see sandy bridge/ivy bridge non K/bulldozer CPUs tested on these cards as they are more likely the ones who will get these.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 5, 2016)

Braustard said:


> Why I chose the reference Sapphire RX 480 4gb:
> 
> -I got it for $200 dlls, taxes and shipping included
> -I don't have plans for changing gpu in 4 years and this card seems to handle DX 12 and Vulkan titles really good (so far)
> ...


Obviously power bills don't worry you.


----------



## xorbe (Aug 5, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Obviously power bills don't worry you.



BATTLESTATIONS!!!


----------



## GoldenX (Aug 5, 2016)

dyonoctis said:


> They are using single slot cooler for the professional version of those card, but the workload isn't the same, and the clock are lower. According to pro gpu owner when then try to game the gpu reach 90°c quite fast and the fan get very noisy. If even a dual slot blower cooler get noisy and fail to keep the boost clock, while gaming, a single slot blower cooler won't be really better.
> 
> I think that the radeon HD 4850 was the last middle range gaming gpu with a single slot cooler. However the temp were 60°c idle and 88-90°c at load. The noise was okay, but nowhere near silent.



Now I have the idea of a single slot water cooling system, pump and ventilation included, with no pipes. If you put the radiator and ventilation in a place like that "tail" of the 1060, it could work.


----------



## Slomo4shO (Aug 5, 2016)

Nabarun said:


> I'd kill you and take your money if I had to, for the *green card*.



 

I suppose people have done worst for a permanent residence card


----------



## gasolina (Aug 5, 2016)

the gap between 470 480 8gb is 30% and 4gb 25% pricing only 20$ different....


----------



## jabbadap (Aug 5, 2016)

Hmh is there anywhere clock to clock comparing with r9-380X?


GoldenX said:


> Question, can a 120w card be cooled with a single slot system? I don't understand why all cards have to be so flashy with 2 or 3 enormous fans, in a sub U$S200 price range.



Sure it can, Radeon pro WX7100 is full polaris 10, tbp 150W and single slot. 


Spoiler: RadeonPro WX7100












Workstation form factors requires single slot cards, but consumer space demands are different(low noise but no/little throttling, cases usually fits dual slot cards etc.).


----------



## MarkC (Aug 5, 2016)

This review and some others recently have increased the GTX970 idle power consumption from the figure in the reviews of those cards. Has later testing shown an increase in idle power consumption?


----------



## Air (Aug 5, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> It's not the cooler, it's the low heat output. The GTX 1060 FE cooler runs lower temps, that's why it's more noisy.


True, I forgot that the FE doesn't hit 80 ºC, Its 3 ºC lower. But its still impressive for AMD to have such a good design, considering the company recent history with reference coolers.


----------



## N3M3515 (Aug 5, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Obviously power bills don't worry you.



Would you be so kind a explain by how much per year does the power bill increase? (in your country)
People here seem to be overly fixated with power, what? 30w more?


----------



## Nabarun (Aug 5, 2016)

I was really hoping this card would be actually economical. Any news on the 1050 ?



Slomo4shO said:


> I suppose people have done worst for a permanent residence card



Yeah, that too  Things are way costlier over here


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 5, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> Would you be so kind a explain by how much per year does the power bill increase? (in your country)
> People here seem to be overly fixated with power, what? 30w more?


I don't care to find out, my bills are high enough, just over $300 per month.
I do what I can to keep consumption down.


----------



## N3M3515 (Aug 5, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> Would you be so kind a explain by how much per year does the power bill increase? (in your country)





Caring1 said:


> I don't care to find out, my bills are high enough, just over $300 per month.
> I do what I can to keep consumption down.



Then you're just talking for sport...


----------



## ShurikN (Aug 5, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Obviously power bills don't worry you.


Yeah those $2 per year are def going to destroy him financially


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 5, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> Then you're just talking for sport...


No actually he is saying power consumption does factor in his decision.


ShurikN said:


> Yeah those $2 per year are def going to destroy him financially


Yeah but Caring's $302 bill each month might   if whatever your paying today is stretching your finances to the limit, you would try to do what you could to make savings.


----------



## efikkan (Aug 5, 2016)

Durvelle27 said:


> If it drops to $150
> 
> It would be a hell of a deal for 2x in Crossfire OC'd


Actually not, for the price of two RX 470 you can buy a single GTX 1070, which will perform better, be cooler and better in every single way. Multi-GPU on low-end GPUs is a complete waste.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 5, 2016)

efikkan said:


> Actually not, for the price of two RX 470 you can buy a single GTX 1070, which will perform better, be cooler and better in every single way. Multi-GPU on low-end GPUs is a complete waste.


Find me a GTX 1070 for $300 and i'll retract my comment


----------



## Nabarun (Aug 5, 2016)

These guys saying there is like 2$ increase in yearly electricity bills apparently never paid any bills or just don't give a damn. Over here the bills increase exponentially with the increase in consumption. So a 30% increase in units may lead to 300% more bills here. That's more than most people's monthly salary here. Not cheap at all. Keep in mind that we are talking about the entire damn planet, not just your hometown where you may get away with free electricity even. IMHO majority of the users here wouldn't mind saving up on the bills, unless your dad provides you with a 5-figure pocket money.


----------



## ShurikN (Aug 5, 2016)

Nabarun said:


> These guys saying there is like 2$ increase in yearly electricity bills apparently never paid any bills or just don't give a damn.


I just dont give a damn. Electricity in Serbia is dirt cheap so I couldnt care less.


----------



## N3M3515 (Aug 5, 2016)

Tatty_One said:


> No actually he is saying power consumption does factor in his decision.
> 
> Yeah but Caring's $302 bill each month might   if whatever your paying today is stretching your finances to the limit, you would try to do what you could to make savings.



Yes, obviously it does factor BUT that depends on how much it is.
In any case, when you provide an arguement, you need the data to back up your claim.

I'm guessing the vast majority of users here that complain aobut power consumption of a $170 graphic card don't even know how much the supposed power bill increases by X amount of watts from the card.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 5, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> Yes, obviously it does factor BUT that depends on how much it is.
> In any case, *when you provide an arguement, you need the data to back up your claim.*
> 
> I'm guessing the vast majority of users here that complain aobut power consumption of a $170 graphic card don't even know how much the supposed power bill increases by X amount of watts from the card.


That's just the point, he is not making a claim, he is stating that power consumption matters to him and possibly some others, that does not require evidence, it's his choice.  Personally, living in a country that has very high energy bills I still don't care about a few $  possibly but I am not everyone.


----------



## Braustard (Aug 5, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Obviously power bills don't worry you.



I live in Mexico, my last card was a GTX 570 and I regularly payed 2.5 dollars a month for the electricity bill (that is right 2.5), you tell me if you would ;-)


----------



## efikkan (Aug 5, 2016)

Durvelle27 said:


> Find me a GTX 1070 for $300 and i'll retract my comment


RX 470 costs $180, making two of them very close to a single GTX 1070. Even _if_ RX 470 costed $150 GTX 1070 will still be a better choice.
Regardless, no well-informed person would prefer dual RX 470 over a single GTX 1070.


----------



## rruff (Aug 5, 2016)

ShurikN said:


> I just dont give a damn. Electricity in Serbia is dirt cheap so I couldnt care less.



Yes, but that isn't the norm. 

11.4 US cents/KW-hr equates to 1$/W/yr 24-7 use. So use that to make an educated guess on your cost. 

One thing that hurts AMD is high idle, video, and multi-monitor. I use these a lot more than I game. My home computer is my work and entertainment computer. It works out to ~$15/yr, 1060 vs 480. That's significant in this price range. It's enough to sway my choice in Nvidia's direction. I never paid much attention to this stuff until I did some overdue upgrades a couple years ago. Found out my old POS video card was idling at ~30W!


----------



## xorbe (Aug 5, 2016)

All electrical cost posts should be moved to some thread dedicated to the topic ... derailment every time.  Trolls always quote 24/7 gaming usage.


----------



## jabbadap (Aug 5, 2016)

xorbe said:


> All electrical cost posts should be moved to some thread dedicated to the topic ... derailment every time.  Trolls always quote 24/7 gaming usage.


+1 just agree that energy consumption might matter to someone and get over it. 



Spoiler: Off topic



While chatting offtopic, damn that energy is cheap on Serbia . Not that bad here in Finland either, but straight electric heating rises my month fee near 300€ in winter. In that some little few watts from gpu does not matter at all when heating takes some 15kW, heck my sauna has 6kW electric stove.(Heh those idiotic windmill lands are with highest kWh fees, thank god we have nuclear power plants and water dams.)


----------



## Nabarun (Aug 5, 2016)

Trolls, huh? Paying the bills take away all the fun from the gaming, dude. Just because it doesn't matte to you doesn't mean it is not an important aspect for many to consider while making a purchase decision. A few watts here and there can pile up to quite a bit at the end of the month, and like I said before, the bills aren't same for everybody. In my locality it can vary from 2 USD a month to 60 USD and more. To us that is a significant amount to consider. If you want hard data with numbers, here's a page for you Einsteins to do some calculation before making "oh it's a trivial matter , why bother mentioning" remarks.


----------



## rruff (Aug 5, 2016)

xorbe said:


> Trolls always quote 24/7 gaming usage.



Now who is trolling...


----------



## SputzNiz (Aug 6, 2016)

Just save a bit of cash and get the RX 480, because currently the RX 470 doesn't seem to be competitive enough due to the fact that the RX 480 4GB version is only $19 more


----------



## N3M3515 (Aug 6, 2016)

Nabarun said:


> Trolls, huh? Paying the bills take away all the fun from the gaming, dude. Just because it doesn't matte to you doesn't mean it is not an important aspect for many to consider while making a purchase decision. A few watts here and there can pile up to quite a bit at the end of the month, and like I said before, the bills aren't same for everybody. In my locality it can vary from 2 USD a month to 60 USD and more. To us that is a significant amount to consider. If you want hard data with numbers, here's a page for you Einsteins to do some calculation before making "oh it's a trivial matter , why bother mentioning" remarks.



60 bucks?, where's the info?
I still haven't seen any numbers on how playing 3 - 4 hours a day with a rx 470 will increase your power bill by up to 60 friggin bucks a year!

I'm not saying it isn't important but wasn't a 160w card an economical one?
By that standard nobody should have recomended hawaii or tahiti at all...

Nobody has provided any credible information.


----------



## rruff (Aug 6, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> Nobody has provided any credible information.



I provided information, and you can get the power data from TPU. If you've graduated grade school, you should be capable of running the numbers.


----------



## xorbe (Aug 6, 2016)

Seriously, can you guys migrate to a dedicated power and cost thread.


----------



## GoldenX (Aug 6, 2016)

People of different countries, with different costs per watt, arguing...


----------



## Braustard (Aug 6, 2016)

So guys, let's get back to the main topic

I think the price of the RX 470 is just too close to its bigger brother's, in my opinion paying another $20 dlls to get the RX 480 instead the RX 470 sounds more feasible than paying $50 extra bucks to get the GTX 1060 instead the RX 480 4GB.

Have a good day


----------



## Sempron Guy (Aug 6, 2016)

what's even asus thinking setting the temp limit to 60c???


----------



## Nabarun (Aug 6, 2016)

N3M3515 said:


> 60 bucks?, where's the info?
> I still *haven't seen any numbers* on how playing *3 - 4 hours a day* with a rx 470 will increase your power bill by up to *60 friggin bucks a year!*
> 
> I'm not saying it isn't important but wasn't a 160w card an economical one?
> ...



Do try to read the posts with an open brain. I have provided you the link to the official govt's page with tariff details. And  I don't run my PC for 3-4 hours a day. I reboot about once a week . It runs 24x7x365. Not JUST for gaming. And the bill I mentioned is quarterly - not yearly. About Rs. 12000 INR in 3 months usually during the summer. So about *60 USD per month* or >700 USD annually. And that happens because of OTHER things like AC, pump motor, fans, refrigerator etc, not just the GPU, but the GPU plays quite a substantial part in making that consumption cross vital thresholds to increase the cost per watt. If you are interested in anything but trolling, the numbers are there, but EVEN that's not the whole story - there are usually more costs involved. If the government's published tariffs aren't credible for you, I don't know what is.

Getting back on topic, the 4GB RX 480 isn't available here. The 8 GB 480 is priced about the same as the 6GB GTX 1060, and the 1060 is an obvious choice at so many levels. But I think all these cards are still priced a bit too high here. They are priced at 344 USD for the 480 and 334 USD for the 1060.

ATM I think I will wait for more stuff to come out, like the 1050/1050ti and 490/490x etc. Hopefully the prices will come down a bit.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Aug 7, 2016)

Nabarun said:


> Do try to read the posts with an open brain. I have provided you the link to the official govt's page with tariff details. And  I don't run my PC for 3-4 hours a day. I reboot about once a week . It runs 24x7x365. Not JUST for gaming. And the bill I mentioned is quarterly - not yearly. About Rs. 12000 INR in 3 months usually during the summer. So about *60 USD per month* or >700 USD annually. And that happens because of OTHER things *like AC, pump motor, fans, refrigerator etc*, not just the GPU, but the GPU plays quite a substantial part in making that consumption cross vital thresholds to increase the cost per watt. If you are interested in anything but trolling, the numbers are there, but EVEN that's not the whole story - there are usually more costs involved. If the government's published tariffs aren't credible for you, I don't know what is.
> .



This is a silly argument, I'm sorry to say it.

If you are so hard up that you have to worry about the running costs of your own refrigerator, may I advise that you don't spend $200 on a luxury item for your circumstance like a graphics card? And then in any case, 120-150W is tiny power consumption.

I don't want to sound like an a-hole. BUT, you assume the type of people that read TPU have some disposable income to buy the expensive tech that the site reviews. Not people who worry how much money their power generator is consuming each month. You are an extreme outlier to the norm and are making an argument against the card because of your extreme circumstance.


----------



## Nabarun (Aug 7, 2016)

Shatun_Bear said:


> This is a silly argument, I'm sorry to say it.
> 
> If you are so hard up that you have to worry about the running costs of your own refrigerator, may I advise that you don't spend $200 on a luxury item for your circumstance like a graphics card? And then in any case, 120-150W is tiny power consumption.
> 
> I don't want to sound like an a-hole. BUT, you assume the type of people that read TPU have some disposable income to buy the expensive tech that the site reviews. Not people who worry how much money their power generator is consuming each month. You are an extreme outlier to the norm and are making an argument against the card because of your extreme circumstance.



Nope. Nope. That was a general argument about the problems of over-usage of electricity by users from around the globe. And again, do read my post again and try to understand the point. YOU may not have to worry about an extra 50 watts or so for a couple of hours a day, but me and people like me who are basically the majority of potential buyers of cards at this price do. You don't care? Go buy the card. I'm not forbidding you to. I expressed MY opinion on the basis of MY realities. Don't like it? OK, I"ll try to shed some tears.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Aug 7, 2016)

Nabarun said:


> Nope. Nope. That was a general argument about the problems of over-usage of electricity by users from around the globe. And again, do read my post again and try to understand the point. YOU may not have to worry about an extra 50 watts or so for a couple of hours a day, *but me and people like me who are basically the majority of potential buyers of cards at this price do*. You don't care? Go buy the card. I'm not forbidding you to. I expressed MY opinion on the basis of MY realities. Don't like it? OK, I"ll try to shed some tears.



Nope, now you are coming out with false claims.

People that have an income which means they are worried about the power consumption of their refrigerator are clearly NOT the majority of potential buyers of this card (I'm sorry to keep bringing up that refrigerator point but you made that comment so ). That's absurd. I can't imagine Raja Kadouri sitting down when this card was being designed and this was the target audience he had in mind, can you? If you can prove otherwise, go ahead.

Secondly, 50-watts extra power usage over *2 hours per day *(your usage), for the real majority of potential buyers of this card, is so inconsequential that it is a ridiculous point of contention against a Polaris card versus the Pascal equivalent. If you said the extra heat from the higher tdp was a concern as you had an ITX case that would be understandable.

That's my last post on the subject.


----------



## 64K (Aug 7, 2016)

GPU power draw is a concern for people who pay a lot per kWh or who pay progressively more per kWh depending on how much they use. I can certainly understand that. Especially if it starts straining your budget just to play games.

It's not really much of a factor here in the USA where we pay 12 cents per kWh on average (I pay 10 cents). The extra 50 watts for me gaming on average 15 hours a week adds 33 cents a month to my power bill. Over the lifespan of a card for me (about 2 years) it adds about $8 to the overall cost of the card. 

I don't leave my computer on when it's doing nothing but if I did then idle draw isn't a factor compared to a Nvidia card but if I were using the card for something like Folding 24/7 then power draw would definitely be an issue for me.


----------



## Nabarun (Aug 7, 2016)

Shatun_Bear said:


> Nope, now you are coming out with false claims.
> 
> People that have an income which means they are worried about the power consumption of their refrigerator are clearly NOT the majority of potential buyers of this card (I'm sorry to keep bringing up that refrigerator point but you made that comment so ). That's absurd. I can't imagine Raja Kadouri sitting down when this card was being designed and this was the target audience he had in mind, can you? If you can prove otherwise, go ahead.
> 
> ...


Obviously you don't have the brains to do the simple math or understand the point I was trying to make while mentioning the freezer. And AFAIK, most gamers don't play for just 2 hours a day. That "2 hours" I mentioned was in reference to a previous poster who said that 2 hours of gaming and 50 watts or so extra shouldn't be a thing to talk about. It's not. Because it's not 2 hours and bills matter to a LOT of people where the tariffs are high.


----------



## rruff (Aug 7, 2016)

64K said:


> It's not really much of a factor here in the USA where we pay 12 cents per kWh on average (I pay 10 cents). The extra 50 watts for me gaming on average 15 hours a week adds 33 cents a month to my power bill. Over the lifespan of a card for me (about 2 years) it adds about $8 to the overall cost of the card.



For your situation it is pretty small, but $8 could be a swing factor on a <$200 card (ie one more thing to consider). For me the difference in idle, multimonitor, and video makes a big difference. My computer is on 24/7 and runs security cameras and backups and scans when I'm not in front of it. Plus I use it to play videos using dual monitors. So even at cheap US prices Nvidia always comes out a better value by a good amount.

I'm probably at the high side of AMD vs Nvidia power difference even though I don't game much. Everyone's situation is different.

If anyone wants to do their own calculations: At 11.4 cents/KW-hr, the cost is $1/W/yr for 24/7 use. So for a random example say you pay that rate, you are considering RX 480 vs GTX 1060 and your use is as follows:

Computer on for 6 hrs/day total.
2hrs gaming: 163W vs 116W = 47W... *2/24= $3.92/yr
2hrs video: 39W vs 6W = 33W... *2/24= $2.75/yr
2hr idle: 15w vs 5W = 10W... *2/24= $.83/yr

Total= $7.50/yr. 

Say you own it for 2 years, so the RX 480 has ~$15 higher electric cost. Then you sell on ebay for 50% of retail (including fees). The 1060 is $249 new, the 480 is $239, so your relative card costs are $124.50 on the 1060 and $119.50 plus $15 on the 480, or $134.50. *The 480 actually costs $10 more even though it is initially $10 cheaper.* That is a "hidden" $20 cost. And it's at cheap US rates, in the EU it would be around $40 on average. 

IMO even at cheap US electric rates, it is a big enough factor that it shouldn't be ignored by most people. And AMD is really banking on most people ignoring it.

Data taken from here: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/RX_480_Gaming_X/21.html


----------



## xorbe (Aug 7, 2016)

Penny wise, pound foolish ...


----------



## rruff (Aug 7, 2016)

xorbe said:


> Penny wise, pound foolish ...



For someone who purports to dislike discussions about power consumption, you sure do troll away on the subject. I finally get it. What you dislike is people dashing your irrational belief that it doesn't matter.


----------



## HD64G (Aug 7, 2016)

bug said:


> Out of 15 titles in the test, this card won't do 60FPS in 8. At 1920x1080. With another 2 hovering a little above 60, just because this card has modified power limits.
> Maybe it's just me, but this card doesn't make much sense at _any _price point.



Not all gamers on a budget need to play at 60FPS average at 1080P. So, it is just you and a few others that aren't on a budget


----------



## 64K (Aug 7, 2016)

HD64G said:


> Not all gamers on a budget need to play at 60FPS average at 1080P. So, it is just you and a few others that aren't on a budget



That's true and looking at the Steam Hardware Survey a lot of people are reporting gaming at less than 1080p resolutions as well.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey


----------



## Ricki Martin (Aug 16, 2016)

The price looks okay....for me


----------



## raptori (Nov 25, 2016)

Unfortunately I bought the card only to see this afterward  :












It's seems measuring temperature on the GPU alone isn't sufficient enough anymore , I'll try to return the card as this like a timed bomb , any advice is really appreciated as I doubt the seller will accept to return the card but I'll try anyway .


----------



## Jism (Nov 26, 2016)

VRM's can run up to even 120 degrees. I'm not sure why your worried about. If those temps where really a problem your card woud'nt last for a year.

VRM's convert 12V DC to 1.3v DC basicly (whatever the GPU requires) and within converting there's loss of energy that's put out to heat. Thats what you see. The more amps the GPU requires the 'hotter' those VRM's get.

But those VRM's simply 'clock down' the moment they pass a certain temperature. There are various fixes to keep your VRM cool:

1: heatsink
2: fan
3: better case flow

I have a 480X and i have option 3 going on  It does'nt sweat the card at all. They can safely go beyond 80 degrees.

Finally... "Torture loop" > is there any game on the planet able to reproduce such amount of load / heat applied to the card? This is a extreme condition. Not a game in the world is able to match this.


----------



## xorbe (Nov 26, 2016)

wccftech posters spilling over into tpu


----------



## raptori (Nov 26, 2016)

Jism said:


> Finally... "Torture loop" > is there any game on the planet able to reproduce such amount of load / heat applied to the card? This is a extreme condition. Not a game in the world is able to match this.



Yes , Doom 2016 in the 1st picture .


----------



## Jism (Nov 26, 2016)

Trust me, your VRM is 'fine'. The cooling profile is programmed to keep it within range. If that 90+ degrees was'nt healthy your card woud'nt have X years of warranty.

Back in the days, the 295X2 ran much hotter then this thing.






105 degrees. VRM's are designed to run up to 120 degrees.


----------



## raptori (Nov 26, 2016)

Ok , thank you all for feedback .


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 26, 2016)

Jism said:


> Trust me, your VRM is 'fine'. The cooling profile is programmed to keep it within range. If that 90+ degrees was'nt healthy your card woud'nt have X years of warranty.
> 
> Back in the days, the 295X2 ran much hotter then this thing.
> 
> ...



Well for VRMs, temps are fine but first pic shows 95°C for gddr5, which is too much(gddr5 temps should not exceed 85°C). 

But that's on torture and tom's review was a bit vague about it.


----------

