Why I Bought the RX 470 Sapphire Nitro+ Over the RX 480 Sapphire Nitro+

[sindicomp]

First off, I'll say that my decision was based on three things:
1) Future Proofing
2) Price/Perf.
3) 1080p gaming

While there are many other factors that might play a part in a graphics card purchase, my decision and this post are primarily about those three things.

Secondly, other various factors had caused me to narrow down to the Sapphire Nitro+ series. I know some are advocating for the Red Devil and others the Gaming X but this post isn't about those cards.

Third, because of future proofing, I have only considered the 8GB model of both the 480 and the 470 (a major reason why Sapphire won out over the others, as the others don't have 470 8GB versions ATM).

TL;DR:
While the RX 480 has better specs, it's not necessarily needed for 1080p gaming, even for future proofing, and the RX 470 is a better card in terms of price/performance. Thoughts?


I think it's safe to say that if you're looking for the best Polaris card that's out there, ATM, you'll want to get the RX 480 (one of the custom models, which one exactly is debatable). But my decision wasn't based on the best card but the best card for me.

For Performance
I created a table to outline the performance measures of each card. Before you take a look below, I want to preface by saying that this is a very rudimentary, and therefore possibly not a very accurate chart because I totally understand that each specification does not hold equal weight. But while I've done a LOT of research before buying, I still don't know about GPUs enough to know which characteristics get more priority over others (other than the stream processors and maybe the memory specs).

So, I welcome constructive feedback from those more knowledgeable as to whether a point system can be assigned to each parameter and how many points each spec would get (e.g. stream processors = 5, ROPs = 2, TMUs = 3, etc.).

Anyway, here's my chart:

If you compare the reference specs of the two cards, you see that the RX 470 has only ~89% of the specs of the RX 480.
However, thanks to Sapphire's customizing, that percentage gets bumped up to ~93% with the Nitro+ models. That's because Sapphire has increased the base clock and the memory speed, and thus the memory bandwidth --and they've done a better job with the 470, percentage wise, than with the 480. And that 4% bump is a game changer when you look at the cost.

For Cost
The RX 480 Nitro+ is $284.98 (Newegg price ATM w/shipping) and the RX 470 Nitro+ (remember 8GB model) is $244.98. This means the 470 costs ~86% as much as the 480. On top of that, Newegg (well Visa) is giving $15 off purchases of $200+ right now. While that means that both 480 and 470 get bumped down in cost to $269.98 and $229.98 respectively, it means that the 470 is now only ~84% of the 480's cost and this is while it gives 93% of the 480s performance.

So, in conclusion, with almost a 10% difference in price/perf, the 470 being more than adequate for 1080p gaming, and its 8GB version supposedly being quite future proof, I felt that this card was the smarter buy over the 480.

Thoughts?

 

[jjbtexas]

Why do you consider choosing 8gb over 4gb a better future proofing method than computing power? Sure, games are being designed to utilize more vram but at 1080p gaming, you're still only going to see an impact on games with crazy textures?

Also, why analyze specs instead of benchmarks?

 

[-Fran-]

Why do you consider choosing 8gb over 4gb a better future proofing method than computing power? Sure, games are being designed to utilize more vram but at 1080p gaming, you're still only going to see an impact on games with crazy textures?

Also, why analyze specs instead of benchmarks?

This.

Computing Power > VRAM.

Cheers!

 

[sindicomp]

Why do you consider choosing 8gb over 4gb a better future proofing method than computing power? Sure, games are being designed to utilize more vram but at 1080p gaming, you're still only going to see an impact on games with crazy textures?

Consoles seem to be driving PC requirements that way. I think this article explains it well.

Also, why analyze specs instead of benchmarks?

I haven't been able to find a single benchmark out on the RX 470 8GB. There are a ton on the 4GB but the processor and memory speeds are different on the two versions.
Plus, I'm not sure I understand the logic behind benchmarks (especially wrt future-proofing). I could totally be missing the point but how is seeing how a card performs with specific titles going to tell you, better than looking at the specs, how well it performs all around? Unless you're buying the card for just those games, as some people surely do, it doesn't make sense to me. My current card is over 7 years old and I don't think having looked at benchmarks back then would've helped me to know that it would last this long. Again, maybe I'm just not seeing the reasoning behind it.

 

[-Fran-]

Consoles seem to be driving PC requirements that way. I think this article explains it well.

They fail to mention Shadow of Mordor is the *only* game with the weird behavior of exploding in memory usage when using increased resolutions, when consoles render it in 1600x900 (XB1) or just 1920x1080 (PS4). And "ultra" is not available in consoles, only in PC (or at least, not all effects).

Plus, Consoles have a *shared* memory pool. What you take from the system memory, you give to the GPU and vice versa. It's a trade off PCs don't have to deal with much on the mid and high end: most PCs have 4GB+ and video cards with 2GB+). Lower end it becomes an issue (2GB-4GB RAM and GPUs with 512MB-2GB, or even worse, integrated), but then again, that is console price range anyway.

I haven't been able to find a single benchmark out on the RX 470 8GB. There are a ton on the 4GB but the processor and memory speeds are different on the two versions.

Plus, I'm not sure I understand the logic behind benchmarks (especially wrt future-proofing). I could totally be missing the point but how is seeing how a card performs with specific titles going to tell you, better than looking at the specs, how well it performs all around? Unless you're buying the card for just those games, as some people surely do, it doesn't make sense to me. My current card is over 7 years old and I don't think having looked at benchmarks back then would've helped me to know that it would last this long. Again, maybe I'm just not seeing the reasoning behind it.

You can see how the RX480 compares in it's 2 flavors. If you clock the 4GB versions VRAM to the 8GB speeds, the difference is basically non-existent between the two, except when you increase the resolution and detail to unplayable level (4K and such).

Also, reviews help you analyze under what circumstances your GPU is going to get taxed and help you understand your purchase better. You give preference to VRAM, that is fine. Numbers demonstrate a more powerful GPU and better VRAM bandwidth triumph VRAM capacity by a long shot.

Cheers!

 

[jjbtexas]

Interesting article, though I will note that it only really applies to games being designed for consoles first (most computer games bought/sold on Steam do not fall into this category). If those are the kinds of games you like (shadows of mordor, far cry, etc..), 8gb might be a good bet.

Benchmarks are valuable because they are a real world test of these specifications. Specs can only tell us would should happen, not what will actually happen. Also, in your breakdown, it appears you assigned every spec equal value. I would think Compute Performance would be way more valuable that Base Clock (assuming you have adequate cooling). I know you mentioned that in your post.

For $244, what not go wit a reference design 480 8gb?

 

[sindicomp]

They fail to mention Shadow of Mordor is the *only* game with the weird behavior of exploding in memory usage when using increased resolutions, when consoles render it in 1600x900 (XB1) or just 1920x1080 (PS4). And "ultra" is not available in consoles, only in PC (or at least, not all effects).

Actually, they mentioned a few games:
"Recent titles like Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor, Far Cry 4, and Assassin’s Creed: Unity have massive video memory requirements, rely on quad-core processors, and are full of other technical hitches. "
And I think "high" settings will be enough for me. "Ultra" would be great but I can do without.

Plus, Consoles have a *shared* memory pool. What you take from the system memory, you give to the GPU and vice versa. It's a trade off PCs don't have to deal with much on the mid and high end: most PCs have 4GB+ and video cards with 2GB+). Lower end it becomes an issue (2GB-4GB RAM and GPUs with 512MB-2GB, or even worse, integrated), but then again, that is console price range anyway.

Yeah, I'd learned about that as well just today, but I've read again and again on forums that Vram will be important wrt future proofing but it could be just hype, I guess.

You can see how the RX480 compares in it's 2 flavors. If you clock the 4GB versions VRAM to the 8GB speeds, the difference is basically non-existent between the two, except when you increase the resolution and detail to unplayable level (4K and such).

I've never done and don't really plan to do overclocking so that would just be a theoretical evaluation, in which case I may as well do what I'm doing: rely on the specs.

Also, reviews help you analyze under what circumstances your GPU is going to get taxed and help you understand your purchase better.

Ah, I guess that makes sense, but benchmarks are just a collection of FPS of various games, aren't they? So you still need to have a bit of technical know how to glean the information that you're suggesting, right?

You give preference to VRAM, that is fine. Numbers demonstrate a more powerful GPU and better VRAM bandwidth triumph VRAM capacity by a long shot.
Cheers!

Err... I've already stipulated that the 480 is the better card (on paper and in benchmarks). I just don't know if that extra compute power is worth the extra money. Are you saying that it is? And for what reason? Because, again, I'm fine with 1080p gaming on "high" settings for however long that lasts and am willing to settle for medium, maybe even "low" settings with AA off when future games surpass the 470's abilities. And again, for me, it comes down to price/perf, 1080p gaming and future proofing. Obviously the 480 will last longer, but I'm thinking that the extra time that it'll buy will be moot because hardware limitations will probably require an upgrade anyway --like my current non-DX10-12 card is requiring of me now.

 

[sindicomp]

Interesting article, though I will note that it only really applies to games being designed for consoles first (most computer games bought/sold on Steam do not fall into this category). If those are the kinds of games you like (shadows of mordor, far cry, etc..), 8gb might be a good bet.

I play a mix. Love my AAA sandbox games but also like indie stuff and smaller projects like Terraria, Limbo, etc. But those games are not very resource intensive anyway.

Benchmarks are valuable because they are a real world test of these specifications. Specs can only tell us would should happen, not what will actually happen.

Yeah, that makes sense, but as I was asking Yuka: "benchmarks are just a collection of FPS of various games, aren't they? So you still need to have a bit of technical know how to glean the information that you're suggesting, right?"

Also, in your breakdown, it appears you assigned every spec equal value. I would think Compute Performance would be way more valuable that Base Clock (assuming you have adequate cooling). I know you mentioned that in your post.

For sure, but since I don't really know how much more important compute performance is to clock speeds is to memory, I just left everything at one. How would you prioritize?

For $244, what not go wit a reference design 480 8gb?

Yeah, I'd considered it. I was actually deciding between the ref 480 and the nitro+ 480 after I saw the shocking prices of the 470 on launch day. Long story short, since the nitro+ runs ~10 degrees cooler than the reference and since heat is one of the biggest enemies of tech, I figured, future proofing wise, the cooler card would last longer. Then I decided to take a look at the specs of the 480 and 470 of the nitro+ cards specifically just yesterday and saw that Sapphire had bumped up quite a few of the specs of the 470 which lead me to the conclusion I shared in my OP.

The other thing is that the 470 is (was) in stock whereas the 480 nitro+ hasn't been seen since August 2nd according to Nowinstock. On the other hand, I'd read somewhere that they might be coming in this Friday.

Anyway, luckily the 470 comes with a 30 day return policy (funnily enough, the 480 doesn't) so if I'm convinced that that extra $40 really is really worth it, then I've got a few weeks to swap out the card. I'd have to resist opening it, lol. ATM though, I'm pretty happy with my choice and I think it'll serve me well.

 

[jjbtexas]

For what it's worth, I've never had a reference style card fail me, and I ran 2 GTX 285s in SLI for 5 years. If you don't have any plans to overclock at all, the reference design is fine. If you were to overclock it then the fan noise might start to bother you if the temps get high.

I've read quite a few reviews questioning the existence of the 8gb 470, but if the trend really is towards higher vram requirements, then maybe it makes sense. The issue here is the balance between compute power and vram. You can have all the vram in the world to run Ultra in Shadows of Mordor, but the card has to also have the compute power to achieve the Ultra setting. I think anyone would rather have 8gb over 4gb, it's a question if the advantage of having those extra gb will ever be utilized. Basically, is your GPU bottlenecking your vram. AMD made an 8gb model available for a reason, I just hope it wasn't for marketing purposes.

 

[-Fran-]

Actually, they mentioned a few games:
"Recent titles like Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor, Far Cry 4, and Assassin’s Creed: Unity have massive video memory requirements, rely on quad-core processors, and are full of other technical hitches. "
And I think "high" settings will be enough for me. "Ultra" would be great but I can do without.

Yeah, I'd learned about that as well just today, but I've read again and again on forums that Vram will be important wrt future proofing but it could be just hype, I guess.

I've never done and don't really plan to do overclocking so that would just be a theoretical evaluation, in which case I may as well do what I'm doing: rely on the specs.

Ah, I guess that makes sense, but benchmarks are just a collection of FPS of various games, aren't they? So you still need to have a bit of technical know how to glean the information that you're suggesting, right?

Err... I've already stipulated that the 480 is the better card (on paper and in benchmarks). I just don't know if that extra compute power is worth the extra money. Are you saying that it is? And for what reason? Because, again, I'm fine with 1080p gaming on "high" settings for however long that lasts and am willing to settle for medium, maybe even "low" settings with AA off when future games surpass the 470's abilities. And again, for me, it comes down to price/perf, 1080p gaming and future proofing. Obviously the 480 will last longer, but I'm thinking that the extra time that it'll buy will be moot because hardware limitations will probably require an upgrade anyway --like my current non-DX10-12 card is requiring of me now.

Well, if you don't believe in benchmarks, then it's a moot point to show you any data represented in them.

The only rule of thumb is to get the best CPU/GPU of the generation you can and live with them until you no longer run everything you want at the settings you want. Usually "best" is defined by consensus on benchmarking and not specs alone. For instance, how did you reach to the conclusion the RX470 was a better purchase than the 1060 or a 970? Only because of the VRAM? You actually know how nVidia shaders arrangements compare to AMDs?

I believe the RX470 is a bad purchase in it's current pricing range, since you can jump easily to a 4GB aftermarket RX480 or pay a bit more and choose either an 8GB aftermarket RX480 or a 6GB reference 1060. Why I say this? Benchmarks. Why do they matter? Because they give you data you can't get from spec sheets alone.

Cheers!

 

[sindicomp]

For what it's worth, I've never had a reference style card fail me, and I ran 2 GTX 285s in SLI for 5 years. If you don't have any plans to overclock at all, the reference design is fine. If you were to overclock it then the fan noise might start to bother you if the temps get high.

I've read quite a few reviews questioning the existence of the 8gb 470, but if the trend really is towards higher vram requirements, then maybe it makes sense. The issue here is the balance between compute power and vram. You can have all the vram in the world to run Ultra in Shadows of Mordor, but the card has to also have the compute power to achieve the Ultra setting. I think anyone would rather have 8gb over 4gb, it's a question if the advantage of having those extra gb will ever be utilized. Basically, is your GPU bottlenecking your vram. AMD made an 8gb model available for a reason, I just hope it wasn't for marketing purposes.

Hmm, that sounds pretty good that you've never had a problem. And this is actually the kind of info I was looking for ten days ago when everyone else was saying "screw reference" lol. But have you had AMD reference cards because they're the ones with the bad rep, aren't they? And 10 degrees is quite a difference, isn't it (ref v.s. custom)? I live in a hot and humid climate so I think the temp issue will be a big deal.

Okay, so I've done two additional things: I've reevaluated the specs list and I've looked at the 3DMark scores.
For the specs, I've given each specification a value now but again, this is somewhat arbitrary because I don't know enough about this stuff to know how much each specification is truly worth:

In case Image doesn't load.

As you can see, even with compute performance and base clock counting for 3 --btw, no, I don't plan to overclock at all-- and stream processors counting for two, it's still ~92% the card that the RX 480 is (I counted the memory speed and interface as 2 as well but left the config and bandwidth at 1).

As for the 3DMark Firestrike score, the 470 gets a 9,215 and the 480 gets a 10,720. That's ~86% as good as the 480. And while it's not as great as ~92-93%, these scores are for the reference versions and 4gb version of the 470. Considering that the 470 nitro+ series is ~4% closer in specs to the 480 nitro+ than the 470 reference is to the 480 reference, the 3DMark scores would probably be closer to ~90% (i.e. the 470 nitro would have a score that is ~90% of the 480 nitro).

But regardless of whether my hypothetical is true or not, the price/performance is still better, both in specs and benchmarks, on the 470 than the 480 considering the price I've gotten the 470 nitro. If anything, they're just not as amazing as my first table showed.

 

[jjbtexas]

I had an HD 4890 that never had issues, but It didn't get nearly as much use as my SLI setup. I too live in a hot/humid climate but that only really matters if your PC isn't going to be in an air conditioned space. (AC was actually invented to remove humidity from the air in textile mills, the cooling was just a bonus)

The reason I think base clock doesn't matter is because, when your GPU is under load, it's always going to boost over that base clock on it's own (assuming your temps are in check).

 

[BoutTime]

Its gotta be the 480 Nitro+ 4GB when it's only £11 more........

"Is there is any reason to buy the Sapphire RX 470 Nitro + OC over the RX 480 Nitro + OC which we reviewed on July 27th (HERE)? Honestly, I can’t find any. The RX 470 has 16 less texture units and 256 stream processors have been disabled. I think paying £11 to get those back is a worthwhile expenditure, especially when noise levels and cooling performance are basically identical between the solutions. Sapphire don’t incorporate weak cooling solutions on any of these cards."

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/sapphire-rx-470-nitro-oc-4gb-review/31/

 

[sindicomp]

I had an HD 4890 that never had issues, but It didn't get nearly as much use as my SLI setup. I too live in a hot/humid climate but that only really matters if your PC isn't going to be in an air conditioned space. (AC was actually invented to remove humidity from the air in textile mills, the cooling was just a bonus)

The reason I think base clock doesn't matter is because, when your GPU is under load, it's always going to boost over that base clock on it's own (assuming your temps are in check).

No AC for moi. And interesting tid bit but I think you mean "add" humidity.

If I assign the 3 points to the boost clock instead of the base, then the 470 actually has an even closer standing to the 480 (but only by fraction of a percent).

How much value should the max compute power get because that's really where the 470 is the weakest. I'm not sure I know the difference between the compute performance and the max compute. Is it like the base and boost clocks and so it'll go up to that much if needed?

Its gotta be the 480 Nitro+ 4GB when it's only £11 more........

"Is there is any reason to buy the Sapphire RX 470 Nitro + OC over the RX 480 Nitro + OC which we reviewed on July 27th (HERE)? Honestly, I can’t find any. The RX 470 has 16 less texture units and 256 stream processors have been disabled. I think paying £11 to get those back is a worthwhile expenditure, especially when noise levels and cooling performance are basically identical between the solutions. Sapphire don’t incorporate weak cooling solutions on any of these cards."

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/sapphire-rx-470-nitro-oc-4gb-review/31/

Yeah, I've seen that review but first, it's comparing the 4GB versions, and second, I don't know how big of a deal 11 pounds is but $40 is the difference in the U.S. atm which is ~17% of the card's cost, so it's not exactly a small deal.

If you've got the 11 pounds/$40 and want the better card, you can go for the 480, but, again, this conversation isn't really about that. It's about price/perfomance (among other things) and with the 8GB versions of both cards, the 470 seems to be the better value for each hard-earned dollar (even if it is only by a few percent).

 

[BoutTime]

I had an HD 4890 that never had issues, but It didn't get nearly as much use as my SLI setup. I too live in a hot/humid climate but that only really matters if your PC isn't going to be in an air conditioned space. (AC was actually invented to remove humidity from the air in textile mills, the cooling was just a bonus)

The reason I think base clock doesn't matter is because, when your GPU is under load, it's always going to boost over that base clock on it's own (assuming your temps are in check).

No AC for moi. And interesting tid bit but I think you mean "add" humidity.

If I assign the 3 points to the boost clock instead of the base, then the 470 actually has an even closer standing to the 480 (but only by fraction of a percent).

How much value should the max compute power get because that's really where the 470 is the weakest. I'm not sure I know the difference between the compute performance and the max compute. Is it like the base and boost clocks and so it'll go up to that much if needed?

Its gotta be the 480 Nitro+ 4GB when it's only £11 more........

"Is there is any reason to buy the Sapphire RX 470 Nitro + OC over the RX 480 Nitro + OC which we reviewed on July 27th (HERE)? Honestly, I can’t find any. The RX 470 has 16 less texture units and 256 stream processors have been disabled. I think paying £11 to get those back is a worthwhile expenditure, especially when noise levels and cooling performance are basically identical between the solutions. Sapphire don’t incorporate weak cooling solutions on any of these cards."

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/sapphire-rx-470-nitro-oc-4gb-review/31/

Yeah, I've seen that review but first, it's comparing the 4GB versions, and second, I don't know how big of a deal 11 pounds is but $40 is the difference in the U.S. atm which is ~17% of the card's cost, so it's not exactly a small deal.

If you've got the 11 pounds/$40 and want the better card, you can go for the 480, but, again, this conversation isn't really about that. It's about price/perfomance (among other things) and with the 8GB versions of both cards, the 470 seems to be the better value for each hard-earned dollar (even if it is only by a few percent).

£11 is about $14 at current exchange rate. AMD have got the pricing all wrong. It makes buying a 470 pointless in the UK.

 

[jjbtexas]

No I mean remove. Air's capacity to hold water is tied directly to it's temperature. The higher the temperature, the more moisture it can hold. It's why your breath gets foggy in the cold. If you don't have AC in the room you'll be gaming in it can't be that hot and humid haha.

In a way, the clock speed acts as a multiplier to the stream processors, so it's hard to say what values to assign to each variable. This is why people like benchmarking. If you tuned the 480 and 470 to have the same amount of vram and clock speed (along with any other controllable variable), then you could determine how # of stream processors is valuable. Then run a 480 with the core clocks of a 470 and a 480 and determine core clock's value. That would be the only real way to do it. But even then you would have issues with deciding what to use as the benchmark.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Compute performance appears to be just # of shaders x clock speed x 2. The advertised compute is based on base clock speed. So taking compute performance into account is somewhat redundant if you're already factoring in cores and clock speed.

 

[sindicomp]

£11 is about $14 at current exchange rate. AMD have got the pricing all wrong. It makes buying a 470 pointless in the UK.

Ah, yeah, true.

 

[sindicomp]

In a way, the clock speed acts as a multiplier to the stream processors, so it's hard to say what values to assign to each variable. This is why people like benchmarking. If you tuned the 480 and 470 to have the same amount of vram and clock speed (along with any other controllable variable), then you could determine how # of stream processors is valuable. Then run a 480 with the core clocks of a 470 and a 480 and determine core clock's value. That would be the only real way to do it. But even then you would have issues with deciding what to use as the benchmark.

*Sigh* This is more stressful now than fun. But maybe I'll just take Fedex's incompetence (they couldn't deliver to me 'cause they don't know how to use google maps) as a sign and go for the 480 --if it ever comes back in stock since I just missed it yesterday. This is much more than I wanted to initially spend though so I think I'll stave off getting a new card after this for the next decade 😛.

Compute performance appears to be just # of shaders x clock speed x 2. The advertised compute is based on base clock speed. So taking compute performance into account is somewhat redundant if you're already factoring in cores and clock speed.

Hmm, kinda like the memory bandwidth is just a calculation of the speed and interface. Whatever, I think I'll just cave and go for the 480 anyway...

 

[Aver300]

I want to buy the RX 470 Nitro+ and just wanted to ask this: The card has an 8-pin and some places say it has a 225W TDP, but the Sapphire site says 150. Can you test and tell me the correct numbers?
Also, would you say the 8GB is worth it over the 4GB for a 15% increase in price?

 

[sindicomp]

I want to buy the RX 470 Nitro+ and just wanted to ask this: The card has an 8-pin and some places say it has a 225W TDP, but the Sapphire site says 150. Can you test and tell me the correct numbers?
Also, would you say the 8GB is worth it over the 4GB for a 15% increase in price?

TL;DR
The card shouldn't hit 225W unless you're overclocking.
Price/performance the 4GB is a better buy but IMO, the 8GB will be more future proof.

Yeah, I was a bit worried about that too because I've only got a 500W PSU and it has dual 12V rails. Luckily, my ole power supply should be able to handle it but I don't think it'll actually draw 225W. We'd be getting closer to R9 390 territory now and that's just crazy IMO considering the new, more efficient architecture. I can't say for sure and this is complete conjecture on my part but I suspect the reason for the 8-pin is twofold:
First, It's meant to appease those who're concerned with that whole power draw muck-up that AMD had at launch (where the 480 was drawing more power from the mobo/pcie slot than standards allowed --75W). Really, having an 8-pin wouldn't change that because the card could still potentially draw too much from the slot it's just less likely that it would need to. What did solve the problem is AMD's newest driver which restricted the power drawn from the slot.
Second, and more important, I think it's there for the overclockers. If you want to get 480 performance out of this card (which I've read is quite possible with overclocking) then you'll also need more power to get there. If, like me, you don't plan to overclock, you'll do just fine.

As for the 8GB v.s. 4GB, that's a good question and many, including jjbtexas have said that the 8GB may be overkill considering the computational restrictions of the 470. On the other hand there are people like me who feel that since most AAA games, among others, are developed for console first, pc later, the vram requirements are going to catch up sooner than later. But purely on a price/performance scale, and mind you, I haven't gone as in-depth with this as I had with the 470 v.s. 480, no, the 4GB is a better buy (but it's likely to be much less future proof). As jjbtexas also pointed out, this all depends on what types of games you play as well.

Hope my humble opinions help.

p.s. Fedex and Newegg seem to have gotten their shit together and I think I'm going to end up getting my order after all so I'll be sticking with the 470. I should be getting it soon and so I can test the power draw and let you know (it may take some time for me to get around to that though).

 

[zzsprade]

sindicomp you have raised above a similar question to my own. Essentially:

Sapphire Nitro 480 (4GB)
vs
Sapphire Nitro 470 (8GB)

Locally in Australia they are priced essentially the same.

I have become lost amongst review after review, benchmark after benchmark.

What has me curious is an approximate 10% performance hit between their respective 4GB equivalents for approximately 10% difference in price. This I could live with.

I find the above comparison perplexing because even though it has been shown to be marginal the 4GB vs 8GB debate in terms of current real world performance (expect in limited titles), we are dealing with a strange beast in the Sapphire Nitro 470 in the 8GB variant as it is near to the same price, yet features an 8000Mhz effective memory clock vs 7000Mhz in 4GB 480 variant. It further has been shown to capably and easily overclock from 1260Mhz Boost mode core (vs. 1306Mhz) to 1350-1370 with some reporting as high as 1400 Mhz.

I am seriously torn, as to which is the better buy.

Your thoughts on these specific Sapphire Nitro variants are appreciated. With local stock, to move to an 8gb 480 Sapphire Nitro variant is a near on 25% price increase.

 

[-Fran-]

The answer is simple:

When you scale up the resolution, the 470 won't have enough processing power to make good use of larger textures AND more polygons. It's a subtle trade-off that becomes apparent when you go into higher resolutions. How much of a difference there is, it will depend on the game entirely, so there is not a "fit all" answer, unfortunately.

If you are going to stay in 1080p or 1440, then toss a coin.

Cheers!

 

[sindicomp]

sindicomp you have raised above a similar question to my own. Essentially:

Sapphire Nitro 480 (4GB)
vs
Sapphire Nitro 470 (8GB)

Locally in Australia they are priced essentially the same.

I have become lost amongst review after review, benchmark after benchmark.

What has me curious is an approximate 10% performance hit between their respective 4GB equivalents for approximately 10% difference in price. This I could live with.

I find the above comparison perplexing because even though it has been shown to be marginal the 4GB vs 8GB debate in terms of current real world performance (expect in limited titles), we are dealing with a strange beast in the Sapphire Nitro 470 in the 8GB variant as it is near to the same price, yet features an 8000Mhz effective memory clock vs 7000Mhz in 4GB 480 variant. It further has been shown to capably and easily overclock from 1260Mhz Boost mode core (vs. 1306Mhz) to 1350-1370 with some reporting as high as 1400 Mhz.

I am seriously torn, as to which is the better buy.

Your thoughts on these specific Sapphire Nitro variants are appreciated. With local stock, to move to an 8gb 480 Sapphire Nitro variant is a near on 25% price increase.

I know what you mean about getting lost. At one point you just need to close your eyes and point because it just becomes too frustrating to choose.

Actually, I realized that I was so obsessed with the future-proofing thing that I completely neglected the 470 4GB. I think of all of the options that that probably is the best one for 1080p gaming. As much as I’d like my card to last me for the next 7-10 years, it may not happen with the RX series. But if you’re set on the 480 4GB v.s. the 470 8GB (nitro series), IMO you should go with the 470 because, as you mentioned, you can overclock the processor and you can even overclock the memory clock but you can’t overclock the amount of memory you have.

Me, I’m now looking at the R9 Fury. A whole new ball game of sorts, lol. The reason being that I’d still like to future proof and at its current Newegg price of $317US (with shipping), it may just be worth it over the RX series in the long run. I’m still crunching the numbers though so haven’t decided yet.