rtwjunkieThey cool excellently for little noise. I like them a lot.

my 290 doesnt rev at all

eidairaman1my 290 doesnt rev at all

My Gigabyte WF3 R9 290 OC (1040Mhz stock) doesn't usually spin up, either, but its temperatures have been climbing lately and the fans have been spinning higher, so I think the thermal paste may have dried out (still stock paste, IIRC), so I guess it's time for a re-paste... or perhaps just a cleaning :p

looncrazMy Gigabyte WF3 R9 290 OC (1040Mhz stock) doesn't usually spin up, either, but its temperatures have been climbing lately and the fans have been spinning higher, so I think the thermal paste may have dried out (still stock paste, IIRC), so I guess it's time for a re-paste... or perhaps just a cleaning :p

id try the cleaning first

Is Radeon lord really medi01? Radeon, LOL... good stuff man... goood stuuf.

SageFoxFalse. The RX 480 scales better than gtx 1060. The RX 480 nitro+ at 1420 mhz is faster than GTX 1060 gaming X at 2100 mhz. And you wouldn't get much of that gtx but in the 480 1500 - 1600 is possible.

Also the fact that those less than 100 mhz OC in the nitro compared to the reference model give 9% performance boost is other proof.

Assuming of course everyone can get 1420mhz? Seems they can't from this review where the overclocked Nitro+ still lagged behind the overclocked 1060 by some margin...............

www.eteknix.com/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-oc-8gb-graphics-card-review/10/

No doubt your statement "could" be fairly accurate if all Nitro+ cards hit the magic 1420mhz.

Sad to say, and I was rooting for it, the 4GB model at least is lagging the 1060. LegitReviews managed to only get a 1370Mhz OC out of it. and in both games tested (WTF...2 games? :slap:) it lagged the 1060. Also, TimeSpy, which should have been a friend to the 480 had it slightly behind the 1080.

Still, it's not as if it did badly, but perceptions will be that it's just not as good.

www.legitreviews.com/sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-480-4gb-video-card-review_184553

rtwjunkieSad to say, and I was rooting for it, the 4GB model at least is lagging the 1060. LegitReviews managed to only get a 1370Mhz OC out of it. and in both games tested (WTF...2 games? :slap:) it lagged the 1060. Also, TimeSpy, which should have been a friend to the 480 had it slightly behind the 1080.

Still, it's not as if it did badly, but perceptions will be that it's just not as good.

www.legitreviews.com/sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-480-4gb-video-card-review_184553

To be fair to the card, even if on average it was 5-10% behind the 1060, with hopefully a 10% cheaper point when things settle down it will still make for a damn good card.

Tatty_OneTo be fair to the card, even if on average it was 5-10% behind the 1060, with hopefully a 10% cheaper point when things settle down it will still make for a damn good card.

Yep, I fully agree, that's why I said it's not as if it did badly.

Frankly, I think consumers have become spoiled. No, if a card can't overproduce twice as much as is actually needed to play well at a given resolution, we start thinking "it sucks". The reality is you've still got a very good card.

Tatty_OneAssuming of course everyone can get 1420mhz? Seems they can't from this review where the overclocked Nitro+ still lagged behind the overclocked 1060 by some margin...............

www.eteknix.com/sapphire-nitro-rx-480-oc-8gb-graphics-card-review/10/

I've always found it interesting that average gamers would care about 10~15% of performance when it comes to video cards. Even a 30% difference is, often-enough, just barely enough to care about... assuming you are already getting playable frame-rates.

GTX 1060 wins the efficiency contest, but the performance contest is so close they may as well be tied. RX 480 is efficient enough that most people won't care - we're only talking about 30~40W this time around, instead of 100W+, and RX 470 won't be giving up much performance - and only has a 120W TDP.

Tatty_OneTo be fair to the card, even if on average it was 5-10% behind the 1060, with hopefully a 10% cheaper point when things settle down it will still make for a damn good card.

In directx 11 of course. and you know most games are Optimized for nvidia hardware
(The way it's meant to be played) in startup of games
But i agree GP106 is more power efficient

Radeon lordIn directx 11 of course. and you know most games are Optimized for nvidia hardware
(The way it's meant to be played) in startup of games
But i agree GP106 is more power efficient

I agree but what is actually on offer currently in DX12? It is quite easy to allow yourself to focus on 4 titles in a review and ignore the other 12 but it's not really reflective of overall performance (I always personally focus on the performance figures for games I play, little point in me buying a card because it's a strong performer in a game that does not interest me), by the time there is a real choice with a suite of DX12 games available that people want to play the 480 and 1060 will be superseded in any case, on top of that, at a guess there are still millions upon millions of people out there that have Windows 7/8 operating systems where DX12 means very little currently. I think AMD's DX12 performance is admirable, almost stellar and should be applauded however it means less today IMO, next year will see a list of DX12 titles available so for me it's the performance comparisons then that will count most, if the gap in DX12 performance remains then AMD's market share should increase even further.

eidairaman1if you try to wc good luck. its easier to wc a ref board

One reason why I wanted ref PCB RX 480, but the power sourcing is poor IMO which has put me off them.

GhostRyderI do like the Sapphire coolers, always seems to be high quality along with looking the part.

Agree like this, but preferring the DirectFets on XFX RX 480 DD edition TBH, also quite like the cooler / backplate on that.