Sapphire Radeon RX 580 Nitro+ Limited Edition 8 GB

[notb]

Performance is decent and 200W power consumption (on cards with record OC) is hardly outlandish.

We're not saying that 200W is something unacceptable by definition. We're simply pointing out that the competitor is way better.

They also come with amazing coolers, ASUS Strix 580 is quieter than 1060. (Sapphire manages to beat both).

Quieter than which 1060? This is the same (or almost identical) cooler ASUS used in their GTX1060. It'll have similar noise characteristics.
According to TPU this Sapphire in it's "quiet mode" is just as loud as ASUS ROG 1060 under load (32 dBA). Keep in mind ASUS has 3 fans.
A 2-fan MSI 1060 Gaming was rated at 28 dBA. That's a huge difference.
We'll see how MSI RX580 Gaming performs. Hopefully TPU will do a test.

Well, is Samsung's process inferiority a fact?
I've only seen toms review on this (where he compared apple's chip to apple's chip) and Samsung was on par or better.
Ryzen is also on 14nm, as far as I know.

It is said that Samsung's FinFET - being designed primarily for mobile devices - is not that great for PC parts.
This might be one of the reasons why Ryzen is not great for OC. It's clocked at the optimal point and since there it's very difficult to push it further (very steep temp/clock curve compared to Intel or older AMD).

I wonder why they couldn't use whatever they have created for Microsoft Scropio, with 40CUs (up from 36) and where that thing was supposed to be manufactured, GloFo or TSMC.
It has the same TFLOPs rating as 580, but surely consumes much less.

Guaranteed exclusivity?
AMD also makes a very efficient Radeon PRO GPU for MacBooks. It's not available anywhere else.

FreeSync, extra 8GB, superior Vulkan/DX12 performance, general longevity of AMD cards.

Don't get this as an insult, but the "general longevity of AMD whatever" is usually an effect of very slow replacement cycle. E.g. many people still use 5-year-old FX CPUs, because they (for whatever reasons - it's not always fanboyism) didn't want to jump to Intel. Now they're suddenly moving to Ryzen.

Of course you won't, because this is well known Nvidia's dirty trick. Just to make it clear, AMD also sponsored a few games, but sheer number of Nvidia-sponsored games vastly outnumber AMD-sponsored ones.

I see the same argument in Ryzen discussions. Software is "sponsored by Intel".
Yes, it's everyone else's fault...

DX 13 isn't released yet

DX13 is a distant future. But DX12 has been around for a while and new games are still released based on DX11.

Lately AMD announced a cooperation with Bethesda. Prey is used in the Ryzen 5 marketing campaign, but it is a DX11 game, so RX cards won't get any boost.

I see absolutely no problem with games supporting DX12 and implementing Vulkan as this would vastly boost AMD GPU's performance.

You might not, but gaming studios do. DX12 is widely criticized by programmers. Maybe we'll see a new, fixed revision (12.1 etc) or maybe they'll jump straight to DX13.
Until that happens most games will use the older libraries.
Another thing is that it's not AMD that's gaining in DX12. It's actually NVIDIA who's loosing, as their drivers are not supporting DX12 very well.

 

[Athlonite]

This is the reason I commonly skip whole generations of GPU's like going from HD7850 > R9 285 > RX480 > whatever vega card is around

 

[medi01]

Quieter than which 1060?

Quieter that Strix from Asus.

"general longevity of AMD whatever" is usually an effect of very slow replacement cycle.

Uh, no, not really.
290(x) vs 780(Ti)

Guaranteed exclusivity?

Well, meh. Exclusivity in this context would only apply to competitor, Sony in this case.
Microsoft couldn't care less about competing with... AMD...

for whatever reasons - it's not always fanboyism

Voting with your wallet is not fanboism.

 

[oxidized]

Lol.

Performance is decent and 200W power consumption (on cards with record OC) is hardly outlandish.
They also come with amazing coolers, ASUS Strix 580 is quieter than 1060. (Sapphire manages to beat both).

FreeSync, extra 8GB, superior Vulkan/DX12 performance, general longevity of AMD cards.

Oh, and I want to see the prices you have mentioned.

Performance/Watts show the 580 at one of the last spots go look

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/31.html

And this is for the nitro+ LE probably the fastest 580 came out yesterday, it's almost 220W actually, and what record are you talking about exactly? any 1060 can overclock up to 2050, i've seen people going over 2100MHz, from 1700/1800, now which one is a record OC? Memory also overclocks far more on 1060s, +500MHz pretty easily, all this with at least 50W less, and better temperature, oh and at the same price for now, what are we really talking about? Freesync? I still have to find someone saying freesync is a very good feature...extra 8 GB? i guess you mean extra 2 GB, also 2 GB on cards like these won't make much of a difference, if not in the very long run, when they'll be both obsolete, we're not talking about 4 vs 8 GB, 6 vs 8 is a completely different thing. Superior Vulkan performance? Maybe, but not that much when you take that 1060 to those frequencies i mentioned, both DX11 and 12 will be an all win for 1060 at those freqs, longevity is probably the only one on AMD side, even because of the extra 2 GB.

 

[medi01]

Performance/Watts show the 580 at one of the last spots go look

It isn't last, but remind me, when did perf/watt become major metric.

and what record are you talking about exactly

Nitro+ card.

over 2100MHz

Oh, not this shit again, are we back in P4 times?
At 2000Mhz 580 would have wiped the floor with 1070.

 

[EarthDog]

Lol medi...

A 290x would beat it at 2000 mhz..

...point is it cant come close.

So many red herring arguments... poor tpu.

 

[Assimilator]

And this is for the nitro+ LE probably the fastest 580 came out yesterday, it's almost 220W actually

Now AMD fanboys have a 220W GPU to match their 220W FX-9590 CPUs

It isn't last, but remind me, when did perf/watt become major metric.

You should probably ask laptop manufacturers, who for some reason that I cannot begin to fathom, prefer NVIDIA GPUs.

At 2000Mhz 580 would have wiped the floor with 1070.

And a P4 at 10GHz would beat any CPU today. Except P4 could never get to 10GHz just like Polaris can't get to 2GHz. So did you have a point, or are you just regurgitating irrelevant hypotheses to make yourself feel clever?

 

[notb]

Uh, no, not really.
290(x) vs 780(Ti)

So "slow replacement cycle" + "rebranding". But I know what you're talking about.
http://www.babeltechreviews.com/nvidia-forgotten-kepler-gtx-780-ti-vs-290x-revisited/view-all/
(the difference is even bigger in games from 2016)
290 has aged well because it was so similar to succeeding 390. And it's not that far from RX either.

NVIDIA releases cards more often and optimizes drivers for the latest architecture. And boy did NVIDIA cards changed...
1080 is more than twice as fast as 780, but uses around 10% less power.
RX580 uses 10-15% less power than R9 290, but the performance increase is fairly small - 20-25% according to TPU reviews.

Generally speaking, at a random moment in time it's more likely that an NVIDIA card will be a better choice at any price point - simply because they're updating a lot more often.
And if you're after high-end solutions, it might just be that AMD doesn't offer anything serious (like at the moment).
But sure, if you can cherry pick the moment when you upgrade your PC, going AMD can be very efficient. R9 290 -> Vega (if any good), why not?

That said, it's not the way I'd do my shopping.
A good r9 290 was a little over $400 and keeping it for 4 years would mean playing at lower resolutions near the end, anyway - still living with all the drawbacks of having a high-end GPU.
I'd still prefer to buy mid-range cars for $200-250 and replace every 2 years (e.g. 760 -> 1060), because:
1) in long run it costs the same (including some money from selling a 2-year-old card),
2) you're under warranty more of the time and you get all the latest features,
3) mid-range cards eat less power and should be less noisy.

I guess the (3) is the most important argument. Here's a review of a good quality 290:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_290_Vapor-X/24.html
30 dBA idle, 37 dBA under load. Sorry, but that's not acceptable. I could live with that 4 years ago, when 290 was a performance monster. But now?
Here is the duo I'd choose:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GTX_760_TF_Gaming/26.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X/23.html
Both cards are quieter under load than the Sapphire 290 is in idle. MSI 1060's fan stops in idle and light use.

 

[medi01]

290 has aged well because

That's a theory.
We know it has aged well.
We also know that 580/570 are rather similar to what is in Xbone/PS4, so this tendency is likely to stay.

You should probably ask laptop manufacturers, who for some reason that I cannot begin to fathom, prefer NVIDIA GPUs.

I thought we were discussing desktop.
It sure matters in notebooks, I guess Polaris can appear there only if undervolted/clocked.
(that demo from year ago vs 950, adoredtv bothered lowering clocks far enough to repeat that "twice lower power consumption" thing)

And a P4 at 10GHz would beat any CPU today.

Except P4 could never get to 10GHz

Indeed.
Except there was no 10Ghz CPU to compare it to and right analogy would be Athlon running ant P4 clocks.

Anyhow., are you sure what you are arguing with me about?

 

[notb]

It isn't last, but remind me, when did perf/watt become major metric.

Basically when notebooks started outselling desktops.

If you're not aware of the situation in notebook gaming, this might hurt - sorry.
Mobile GTX1070 beats a desktop R9 Fury (and mobile GTX1080 is another 25% faster).
And today it's not just about huge gaming notebooks. You can buy a slim 14" notebook with 960M and that's RX460 territory in 1080p gaming...

Oh, not this shit again, are we back in P4 times?
At 2000Mhz 580 would have wiped the floor with 1070.

Oh, man. And you call me an Intel/NVIDIA fanboy...

 

[notb]

That's a theory.
We know it has aged well.
We also know that 580/570 are rather similar to what is in Xbone/PS4, so this tendency is likely to stay.

Not if Vega is a totally different architecture compared to Polaris (and it must be to meet AMD claims).
Even if Vega is reserved only for the high-end segment in this generation (keeping RXxxx in low/mid-range), it'll now be the architecture that AMD cares about.

 

[64K]

Well, here's my 2 cents. I will compare value based on the reviews that are available on TPU and I will compare the Sapphire Nitro+ RX 580 to a MSI Gaming X 1060 6GB. The reason I would do that is that the 1060 6GB in the Performance Summary Chart is the reference non-overclocked 1060 6GB.

Current prices on Newegg are $250 for the Sapphire Nitro+ RX 580 8GB and $255 for the MSI Gaming X 1060 6GB although there is a $20 rebate and a free game for the MSI Gaming X 1060 6GB which makes it a much better deal than the 580 Nitro+ if you bother with rebates and actually want the free game offered.

The reference non-OC 1060 6GB in the 1080p Performance Summary is a few percent slower than the 580 Nitro+ overall but the Gaming X 1060 6GB is OC right out of the box just like the Nitro+ is so I would bet that would narrow down the performance lead that the Nitro+ has. Additionally for anyone considering OC even further, according to the tests done here at 1440p in Battlefield 3 an overclocked MSI Gaming X 1060 6 GB gives you an actual performance gain of 15.1% and the overclocked Nitro+ gives you an actual performance gain of only 4.4%. So probably with both cards overclocked they would be pretty equal in performance to each other.

What about the cost to buy the card and use it? The Nitro+ 580 according to the tests done here uses 234 watts average gaming and the Gaming X 1060 uses 121 watts average gaming. For me, I game an average of 15 hours a week and I only pay 10 cents per kWh so it would cost me only $9 more on my power bill per year to use the Nitro+ and I usually keep a card for around 2 years so that would make the 1060 6 GB about $13 cheaper over it's lifespan buy and use (taking into consideration that it costs $5 more for the 1060) for me and wouldn't dump as much unnecessary heat into my room as the 580. If you game more than that or pay more for electricity or keep a card for longer than 2 years then factor that in and make your own judgement but really I think it's mostly a draw between the 2 cards and if DX12 or Vulkan takes off then the lead will probably go to the 580.

I think Vega will arrive in a couple of months so if possible I would hold off on buying this card or any card until then anyway.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Basically when notebooks started outselling desktops.

If you're not aware of the situation in notebook gaming, this might hurt - sorry.
Mobile GTX1070 beats a desktop R9 Fury (and mobile GTX1080 is another 25% faster).
And today it's not just about huge gaming notebooks. You can buy a slim 14" notebook with 960M and that's RX460 territory in 1080p gaming...


Oh, man. And you call me an Intel/NVIDIA fanboy...

Apparently YOU are unaware of the situation in notebook gaming and how pathetic they are for longevity, heat etc. If you are interested, Maximum PC regularly tests insanely expensive gaming notebooks that barely compare in performance to an average built gaming desktop. So, yeah.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Really? For what, around a 10% performance gain.

1. Free upgrade. Sell the 780ti and 580 is basically free.
2. Almost 15 to 20 fps in BF1. Game which I play mostly.
3. I have a freesync monitor I wanna try out.
4. I haven't run ATI in a while. Kinda bored of NVIDIA.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

And a P4 at 10GHz would beat any CPU today.

You know, it probably couldn't. It's one lonely core is a pretty significant handicap, plus the increases in IPC since then mean that a current i3 has more horsepower at just shy of 4 GHz than the P4 would have at 10.

This whole argument has taken a turn for the bizarre. I mean, what are we arguing about here, aside from who is or isn't a fanboy (always a productive discussion, that)? Yes, the 570/580 are largely rebrands. No, it's not a particularly great advancement. Yes, the 1060 6GB is overall a better chip. No, it's not by a significant margin. (Perf/$, perf/W is another discussion, and AMD still can't compete here.) Yes, the basic 570/580 are a decent value, particularly if you throw Freesync into the mix. No, the high-end OC versions are not.

AMD has definitely leaned more heavily on refreshes and rebrands than Nvidia has over the last few generations. They're operating from a position of weakness, making less per unit while at the same time selling far fewer units. That's a rough place to be. They bet heavily on GCN, which has paid off in scalability, but hurt in power consumption. I don't know what people were expecting from the 500 series; OC attempts on the 480 showed pretty clearly that there was a performance limit that AMD was pretty close to right out of the gate; given the maturity of GCN, this isn't surprising, as Polaris was more die shrink than redesign.

Will Vega change things? Maybe. Ryzen came out much stronger than I expected, though the frequency limits make me skeptical of how well it will scale. Lightning could strike twice, but I'm not expecting them to make up as much ground in GPU as they made in CPU.

 

[mroofie]

Well l may get a 580 to replace my 780ti. Honestly people crying about power consumption are the same people who cry about MPG in muscle cars. Dumb asses.

Looking at raw performance/price these 580s ain't to bad. Looking forward to seeing Vega.

So People who care about heat output are dumb asses?
k..

 

[oxidized]

It isn't last, but remind me, when did perf/watt become major metric.


Nitro+ card.


Oh, not this shit again, are we back in P4 times?
At 2000Mhz 580 would have wiped the floor with 1070.

You can't be serious, It's always been important, what's the point if i can match X card performance, consuming twice as much, and having higher temps or using a twice bigger die? (i'm not saying 580 is all this)

also, nitro yeah, but the others won't be that far behind, 10 to 20 W less, we're still around 200W

Too bad 580 can't reach 2000MHz, can it? And it's still ~500MHz behind. So what's your point? 480 has bigger die size than 1060, so what if 1060 had 480's die size?

 

[Vayra86]

Consumes 100W more to achieve 5% more perf than a 1060. Guess which chip you wont see in a laptop... again.
Not to mention that it's trading blows with an equally priced custom 1060. And those cards were out for a while.

Wanted to say I'm disappointed, but my expectations were extremely low to begin with. And boy were those expectations met.

This, and I'm gonna leave it at that

 

[CounterSpell]

 

[Assimilator]

You know, it probably couldn't. It's one lonely core is a pretty significant handicap, plus the increases in IPC since then mean that a current i3 has more horsepower at just shy of 4 GHz than the P4 would have at 10.

Please don't make me explain how hyperbole works. Especially when I employ it in response to fallacious arguments.

Will Vega change things? Maybe. Ryzen came out much stronger than I expected, though the frequency limits make me skeptical of how well it will scale. Lightning could strike twice, but I'm not expecting them to make up as much ground in GPU as they made in CPU.

Ryzen's clocks are limited by Samsung/GloFo 14nm process just as much as Polaris's clocks are. Unless they have something completely new in the works for Vega, AMD will have to pack so many CUs onto that GPU to compensate for its low clocks, that those chips will be massive and have a correspondingly high defect rate. Which means they'll be expensive to produce, which means the cards will be expensive, which means that if NVIDA decide to introduce Volta at a lower price point, AMD is pooch screwed.

So People who care about heat output are dumb asses?
k..

In exactly the same way that ordinary people who care about their car's fuel consumption are dumbasses.
I guess the guys who want power with great fuel consumption must be the ultimate dumbasses then according to @TheMailMan78.

 

[oxidized]

GG AMD

https://www.techpowerup.com/232498/radeon-rx-480-cards-can-successfully-be-flashed-to-rx-580

 

[TheMailMan78]

In exactly the same way that ordinary people who care about their car's fuel consumption are dumbasses.
I guess the guys who want power with great fuel consumption must be the ultimate dumbasses then according to @TheMailMan78.

Ya don't buy a Corvette and bitch about MPG. If you do.....yes you are in fact a dumbass. I don't buy a gaming GPU and care about power draw.

 

[64K]

Ya don't buy a Corvette and bitch about MPG. If you do.....yes you are in fact a dumbass. I don't buy a gaming GPU and care about power draw.

That doesn't make sense though. A RX 580 is comparable in performance to a 1060 6 GB which is a low end of the mid-range Pascals. So if a RX 580 is comparable to a Corvette then what would a 1080 or 1080 Ti be?

A better comparison would be that a RX 580 is a 4 door Camry that gets worse gas mileage than a GTX 1080 Corvette.

 

[TheMailMan78]

That doesn't make sense though. A RX 580 is comparable in performance to a 1060 6 GB which is a low end of the mid-range Pascals. So if a RX 580 is comparable to a Corvette then what would a 1080 or 1080 Ti be?

A better comparison would be that a RX 580 is a 4 door Camry that gets worse gas mileage than a GTX 1080 Corvette.

1080ti would be a Bugatti. IGP would me a Camry.

 

[CounterSpell]

GG AMD

https://www.techpowerup.com/232498/radeon-rx-480-cards-can-successfully-be-flashed-to-rx-580

hhahah

we need benches!