RX 470D Tested / Pictures

[Abwx]

The RX470D is 93% of the performance of a RX470 for 97% of the power consumption of the RX470. The problem is that is around 4% worse than a RX470,which is within a 5% margin of error.

That s 93% of the 470 price/performance , the chart above is about this metric actually, the perormance itself is 95.65% of the 470...

 

[LTC8K6]

It wouldn't make too much sense to lower the price of the 470 if you were going to bring a cheaper 470D to the same market.

 

[LTC8K6]

There's a shocker price of $159 after rebate for a 470 at Newegg.

 

[USER8000]

That s 93% of the 470 price/performance , the chart above is about this metric actually, the perormance itself is 95.65% of the 470...

But either way its hardly any different from a RX470. But 36% greater performance for a 28% increase in power consumption technically makes the GTX1050TI system they tested worse in FPS/watt for the whole system. For only 8% more than a GTX1050TI,it looks a good buy for someone in China.

 

[Abwx]

But either way its hardly any different from a RX470. But 36% greater performance for a 28% increase in power consumption technically makes the GTX1050TI system they tested worse in FPS/watt for the whole system. For only 8% more than a GTX1050TI,it looks a good buy for someone in China.

That s right for China but also for elsewhere if they decide to sell it worldwide at some point, although at lower frequencies than the chinese model, the gap between the 460 s 896, or even 1024 SPs, and the 470 s 2048 is too big to not be filled with an intermediary product.

It would make sense for small PCs as its 1792 shaders allow to have better perfs at same GPU TDP than the direct competition, at first glance they could have 10% better perfs at same GPU power.

 

[ConsoleLover]

My point was to say compared to other faster AMD cards , the 470 and 480, the 470D is a power hog.
It uses 7 less watts than a normal 470 but is much slower. See the chart?


I never said the 1050, so what bias are you personal attacking about?

Its also like $15 cheaper. So $15 cheaper, 10W less consumption under full load and shorter for just 10% of the performance of a full 470, that is a sweet deal Chinese are getting.

Anyways why do Nvidia fanboys pretend like 30W or whatever is meaningful, its 100% meaningless. Even 100w is meaningless! Change 1 light bulb from the 100w ones to a 15W LED one and wham, there is your difference. Over a year 100w would save you few dollars at best and that is if you run the card at full speed 6+ hours a day, every day! Realistically a 20W difference between cards will "save you" 50 cents or so over a full year. ITS 100% MEANINGLESS!

Only the most ardent fanboys are pushing this fraud that few watts more is somehow the end of the world or how its important. ITS NOT IMPORTANT! Nvidia has better sales because they have better advertisement, period. AMD destroyed Nvidia on the 5000, 6000 and 7000 series, but still lost because Nvidia had better advertisement.

The only times Nvidia won was when they released the GTX 460, that generation they won the middle range by a huge margin, that card was a beast, the best performance for price in years and then later on Nvidia only started winning from the 700 series and upwards, before that the previous generation it was a tie in terms of performance.




Your use of the term "fanboy", in the manner you have posted, is inflammatory and is not allowed on these forums.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director