XFX Radeon R7 370 2GB Black Edition Review

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be nice if this article had proper links for reviews of the GTX950 that was being compared. I follow Tom's pretty closely, but I don't remember seeing the review and it isn't currently listed in the best-of-the-month column. It also would've been nice, for the sake of comparison, if the article mentioned the price delta between the card in question and the board that tested highest - in this case, it would've been nice to explain that the gtx960 is about $50 more than the r7 370 instead of merely referring to it as "the pricey 960."
 
I suspect the aggressive fan profile is to ensure the PCB components that do not contact the heatsink receive adequate airflow. I would be willing to bet that if you relax the fan profile your memory and voltage regulators start getting a bit hot.

I have to say I am distinctly unimpressed with XFX third party cooling solutions. I have had a number of DD cooled GPU's and they are really bad. For example, one revision of the 7950 has blocked vents over the VRMs so no airflow at all. I had the rear fan blow out prematurely on a 7970. And on another 7950 the card throttled stock clocks until I increased the power limit. Overall just AVOID AVOID AVOID.

I recommend Sapphire Dual-x/vapour-x, tri-x and Gigabyte windforce third party cooling. MSI-gaming style has also given me problems similar to the XFX DD (failed rear fans, better solution overall though when working).
 
This review is off .... The 380 performs slower than a 960 in the majority of the tests, which is strange, since the 380 is the faster card. Then .. all AMD cards have very low and consistently low minimum framerates, which again makes no sense. The 750 Ti even is a fast or faster in some tests compared to a 370, which is insane. The 750 Ti could NEVER reach HD 7850/265 levels, yet here it reaches and outpaces the a 370, which is a 265 that has more efficient memory modules and maybe a slight overclock.

Also, the fact that a 100+ MHz increase on the core and 150-200 MHz increase on the memory did nothing to performance also is very weird.
 


I agree that this is an anomoly that would not be expected, but these are the numbers that were recorded from our test bench.
Where there appeared to be discrepencies the tests were run multiple times.

 


Here is the link to the 950 review. I'm not sure why it wasn't added to the article.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asus-geforce-gtx-950-strix,4270.html

as for the price delta comment, you have a great point, and I will make sure to remember that in the future.

 
I've owned three XFX "DD" cards, a HD7770, a HD7870, and a HD7970. The first two of those were always quiet, even under load. The HD7970 was so hot and loud that I returned it for a Gigabyte WF3 model, which is amazing for how cool and quietly it ran, even under 100% load. I also had a XFX HD7750 with a single fan, and it too is silent and cool (now in my father's PC). So, I'd keep buying XFX for low to mid range cards, but not at all for the high-end.
 
I am the proud (former) owner of the XFX R9 280X Black Edition Double-Dissipation GPU. It was a great card on all accounts, and I have no problems recommending the brand to others.

One thing that is often overlooked with the Black Edition units is that they are specially binned so that they are factory-overclocked while using the stock voltage.

XFX has put a lot of time and effort into perfecting their cooling solution over the years; they are often the top bracket of performance, although using only two fans instead of three can hurt their acoustics some. With the higher-end 300-series, they've updated their cooling solution (Ghost Thermal 3.0 now, I think??) and I look forward to seeing to what that brings to the table.
 
"Our Best Graphics Cards For The Money column would agree. The 370 is one of our picks around the $150 level, after all. "

when the article is so old (really not updated since june??!!) i'm not sure those recommendations are even valid anymore. prices have changed and new products have come out making this article useless until it updated. this review makes that pretty clear as the gtx 950 seems to beat it for the same money.

referencing the gpu article (or any of those not updated in months) just seems like a slap in the face to those who had come to know and love the monthly articles and look forward to reading the updates.

EDIT: since the gpu article has finally been updated (and i'm sure this reviewer knew it was coming) i humbly adjust my comment to reflect this reality. still took a long time but at least it's here now
 
The Radeon 7000 series has been showing its age for a while now. This really cements it for me. I'm still getting decent performance out of my 280, but an upgrade is quickly becoming in order. AMD really needs to start funneling the Hawai'i and Fury improvements down into the mid-range cards.
 


Did you check that the card was not throttling during testing? I had a XFX card that would throttle clocks even at vanilla stock. I know they supposedly bin high leakage chips to help OCing, so perhaps the power limit was being reached?

In actual fact you can see that the torture test for the OC put in LOWER POWER CONSUMPTION than at stock? That is a big giveaway that something is very wrong.

Would it be possible to log the core clock speed during a game test and show the result?
 
I just don't understand why fan speeds are not states in these graphics card review articles. Fan speeds are a huge factor in cooling. If a fan is running at 80% compared to a fan running at 40%, that's a pretty big deal there. In the temperature readings, the fan curves should all be identical so the fans run at the exact same speed.

Also, for the comparison charts, it seems a an ITX 380 was used, which probably had low stock clocks, and the Zotac 960 was used, which is one of the highest factory clocked 960s to my knowledge. Why?
 
This review is off .... The 380 performs slower than a 960 in the majority of the tests, which is strange, since the 380 is the faster card. Then .. all AMD cards have very low and consistently low minimum framerates, which again makes no sense. The 750 Ti even is a fast or faster in some tests compared to a 370, which is insane. The 750 Ti could NEVER reach HD 7850/265 levels, yet here it reaches and outpaces the a 370, which is a 265 that has more efficient memory modules and maybe a slight overclock.

Also, the fact that a 100+ MHz increase on the core and 150-200 MHz increase on the memory did nothing to performance also is very weird.
Click to expand...

I also thought the 380 was a little off the mark, but it’s a Sapphire ITX Compact so that's why. Plus with just 6 titles (3 Nvidia hold dib's on), though GTA-V isn't any big push as at 80-100 FpS it’s immaterial. I’d also point out that running this level of card on an i7 test bed skews the FpS especially low/high, so real world things tighten-up YMMV.

While I’m not misguided to place a 370 as near as proficient as a 950 (approx. 12-15%); right today Newegg’s price on this XFX BLACK Edition 370 is $135 -AR$15 w/FS; while today the best for any middling 950 is $150 -AR$15... And this XFX is one of the highest priced 370 on Newegg. You can get a ASUS STRIX-R7370-DC2OC-2GD5-GAMING for $120 –AR$15 w/FS, and that’s not even the lowest priced 370!

Anyone that's comparing a 370 and 950 and believe AMD is still at their release MSRP is deluded. More often there's $40-50 (approx. 20%) between them. I think this is more a hoodwinked to paint 950 as being something before the 370X comes and slaps-down both the 950 & 960.
 
It would be nice if this article had proper links for reviews of the GTX950 that was being compared. I follow Tom's pretty closely, but I don't remember seeing the review and it isn't currently listed in the best-of-the-month column. It also would've been nice, for the sake of comparison, if the article mentioned the price delta between the card in question and the board that tested highest - in this case, it would've been nice to explain that the gtx960 is about $50 more than the r7 370 instead of merely referring to it as "the pricey 960."
Click to expand...
Lol, it is still not fixed. That link to the review of the Asus 950 Strix (the top of pg. 2 under "Comparison Graphics Cards") links to a review about a Sapphire R9 Fury Tri-X. Just a slightly different card /s.
 
What cards are those?

aUFfMYZ.jpg


Are they related to this article, or just mysterious ads for nameless cards?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom