MSI Radeon RX 480 Armor OC 4GB £169.98 @ Novatech - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
708Expired

MSI Radeon RX 480 Armor OC 4GB £169.98 @ Novatech

£169.98 @ Novatech
MSI Radeon RX 480 Armor OC 4GB only £169.98 with Free Delivery from NovaTech. (There are two versions of this card, this is the faster OC version, RX 480 ARMOR 4G OC) This isn't the fastest or t… Read More
McClain365 Avatar
2m, 2w agoFound 2 months, 2 weeks ago
MSI Radeon RX 480 Armor OC 4GB only £169.98 with Free Delivery from NovaTech.

(There are two versions of this card, this is the faster OC version, RX 480 ARMOR 4G OC)

This isn't the fastest or the most swish Radeon RX480, but it is probably the cheapest at the moment that I can find.

A not so fast 1291 Boost clock, the gaming series reaches over 1300+ but it is still more than some of the lower end RX480's.

The fans stop below 60c, and the custom cooler is much quieter that the reference design.

This has the Armor Branding, so is less in your face than the Gaming series, it does not have a back plate, or any RGB lights, but is more subtle if you don't like the Red theme.

They also have the 8GB version for £199, but they are not in stock yet.
More From Novatech:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
McClain365 Avatar
2m, 2w agoFound 2 months, 2 weeks ago
Options

Top Comments

(1)
6 Likes
Nate1492
basergorkobal
Good deal. Not sure if it's worth the premium for double the ram.
It's also slower RAM, 7 gpbs versus 8 gpbs. Which is about 3-5% performance.
The ram will make a difference of maybe 1 fps at 60fps?! Only mis-informed people are buying this card to run at 4k, so no one really needs over 4gb. If you buy the 8gb to 'future proof', you will still need to upgrade at the same point as the 4gb card to play the latest games because the rest of it won't be good enough.

All Comments

(42) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
2 Likes #1
Nice to see all these deals coming from a reputable retailer like Novatech, rather than some Amazon marketplace five week delivery nonsense.

Heat added. :)
#2
Good deal. Not sure if it's worth the premium for double the ram.
#3
Better off spending £30 more for the 8GB Gaming edition
#4
basergorkobal
Good deal. Not sure if it's worth the premium for double the ram.

It's also slower RAM, 7 gpbs versus 8 gpbs. Which is about 3-5% performance.
3 Likes #5
4GB RAM is not going to become obsolete for a while yet. Of course 8GB is more future proof and some newer games may show reduced performance with 4GB, but if you are after the latest and greatest graphics you're probably not looking at £170 graphics cards :)

Heat for the price and the retailer!
6 Likes #6
Nate1492
basergorkobal
Good deal. Not sure if it's worth the premium for double the ram.
It's also slower RAM, 7 gpbs versus 8 gpbs. Which is about 3-5% performance.
The ram will make a difference of maybe 1 fps at 60fps?! Only mis-informed people are buying this card to run at 4k, so no one really needs over 4gb. If you buy the 8gb to 'future proof', you will still need to upgrade at the same point as the 4gb card to play the latest games because the rest of it won't be good enough.
1 Like #7
..surely not another £200 graphics card. You would think that the tiny number of people that wanted one have one by now....
#8
Tempted, I have a GTX 960 which i bought Sept 2015 and Bsrely used since my mobo broke soon after and didnt fix it to while ago basically 8months after it broke
#9
chtyrone2
..surely not another £200 graphics card. You would think that the tiny number of people that wanted one have one by now....


Well im considering a RX 480 but im trying to hold off to see if they get cheaper or a new GPU releases, their is a reason the price is dropping
#10
TheGuyWhoNeverGetsSamples
chtyrone2
..surely not another £200 graphics card. You would think that the tiny number of people that wanted one have one by now....
Well im considering a RX 480 but im trying to hold off to see if they get cheaper or a new GPU releases, their is a reason the price is dropping
Reason is that a big supplier was selling stock at a loss to generate some quick money
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/30499851/
1 Like #11
Would I see a big difference going from HD7950 to this or should I save up more and get a more powerful card.
#12
Anonknowmouse
Nate1492
basergorkobal
Good deal. Not sure if it's worth the premium for double the ram.
It's also slower RAM, 7 gpbs versus 8 gpbs. Which is about 3-5% performance.
The ram will make a difference of maybe 1 fps at 60fps?! Only mis-informed people are buying this card to run at 4k, so no one really needs over 4gb. If you buy the 8gb to 'future proof', you will still need to upgrade at the same point as the 4gb card to play the latest games because the rest of it won't be good enough.

exact same logic why I bought 4gb 470 for £150 from amazon. With the money saved and some resale you can put it towards whatever the RX570 is next year which supports 4k as standard
#13
Anonknowmouse
Nate1492
basergorkobal
Good deal. Not sure if it's worth the premium for double the ram.
It's also slower RAM, 7 gpbs versus 8 gpbs. Which is about 3-5% performance.
The ram will make a difference of maybe 1 fps at 60fps?! Only mis-informed people are buying this card to run at 4k, so no one really needs over 4gb. If you buy the 8gb to 'future proof', you will still need to upgrade at the same point as the 4gb card to play the latest games because the rest of it won't be good enough.

Oh I agree, the whole concept that AMD are 'more future proof' is also just a fallacy.

AMD's most recent 'old cards' were just rebranded so many times that they were forced to support their old cards.

Now that they have 2 generations of 'new' cards, the pre 480 cards are going to begin to suffer.

I'd say it's more like 3-4 FPS slower though, and that can be significant depending on the games you are looking at. The golden FPS is whatever your monitor is at, so if you are dipping below 60 FPS by a few frames, then you could benefit.
#14
Nate1492
Oh I agree, the whole concept that AMD are 'more future proof' is also just a fallacy.

No it isn't. AMD cards are consistently shown to improve performance with driver updates years after release. They are also often the first to newer technologies which is why older AMD cards can support DX12 to a fuller extent than their nVidia equivalents, asynchronous compute etc.

https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/708681449671495680

Nate1492

Now that they have 2 generations of 'new' cards, the pre 480 cards are going to begin to suffer.

This is simply a statement without any evidence.
#15
Joshimitsu91
Nate1492
Oh I agree, the whole concept that AMD are 'more future proof' is also just a fallacy.
No it isn't. AMD cards are consistently shown to improve performance with driver updates years after release. They are also often the first to newer technologies which is why older AMD cards can support DX12 to a fuller extent than their nVidia equivalents, asynchronous compute etc.https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/708681449671495680
Nate1492

Now that they have 2 generations of 'new' cards, the pre 480 cards are going to begin to suffer.
This is simply a statement without any evidence.

Funny you mention DX12 support and which card provides a 'fuller' DX12 support.

Guess what? It's actually the NVIDIA card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D#Direct3D_12

No rasterization at all.
#16
Nate1492

Funny you mention DX12 support and which card provides a 'fuller' DX12 support.
Guess what? It's actually the NVIDIA card.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D#Direct3D_12
No rasterization at all.

I said "older" AMD cards. Look at your own source for AMD 2xx series vs. nVidia 7xx series, AMD were first to have DX12 support.

Edited By: Joshimitsu91 on Feb 14, 2017 17:06
#17
I'm building a high end power efficient htpc and gaming device for the living room. I'm feeling that the rx 480 may well be the best card for the job...

I still have to choose a case.
#18
vardx
I'm building a high end power efficient htpc and gaming device for the living room. I'm feeling that the rx 480 may well be the best card for the job...
I still have to choose a case.

If you want power efficiency then stay away from AMD, the RX 480 uses 150W vs 120W for the almost identically performing GTX 1060. That means that the AMD is 20% less power efficient = more heat = less suited to a small case. The disadvantage is that we are yet to see a £170 GTX 1060.
1 Like #19
Nate1492
Oh I agree, the whole concept that AMD are 'more future proof' is also just a fallacy.
you dont get out much im guessing:D

Edited By: welsh_andy on Feb 14, 2017 19:08
#20
Buy this not the 8gb...
#21
AMD finewine technology tested. AMD cards age well, search for it on y**tube.



Edited By: spark9990 on Feb 14, 2017 21:07
#22
Really tempting. I'm about to buy used GTX 970, but for 40 pounds more it's brand new card, with warranty and no 3.5 + 0.5 GB memory issue, and "two bits" faster as well (and my son has got FreeSync monitor just in case)....really tempting. Always had nVidia due to drivers (AMD somehow gets me nervous to find & change any option), but it's very interesting which card I pick on decision day 0 ;-) 10x0 series is a joke due to no SLI keys in non-top-level cards, never will buy it.


Edited By: biuro74 on Feb 14, 2017 21:14
1 Like #23
biuro74
Really tempting. I'm about to buy used GTX 970, but for 40 pounds more it's brand new card, with warranty and no 3.5 + 0.5 GB memory issue, and "two bits" faster as well (and my son has got FreeSync monitor just in case)....really tempting. Always had nVidia due to drivers (AMD somehow gets me nervous to find & change any option), but it's very interesting which card I pick on decision day 0 ;-) 10x0 series is a joke due to no SLI keys in non-top-level cards, never will buy it.

I think you will find that driver support has switched around recently, with AMD updating their drivers the most frequently to support new games and also improving performance by quite a margin. Driver support is not really an issue in the decision making any more (Nvidia actually seem to have had more driver issues recently than AMD).
#24
Hey guys, you think a deal like this would come up again? Or better to grab it now.
#25
neiiilers
Hey guys, you think a deal like this would come up again? Or better to grab it now.
Will come up again and again, this is somewhat standard pricing really. If you feel like buying it go for it there is no real reason for it too drop much lower than this not for a month or two since there are no soon to be released gpu's at this price range. Also MSI cards are usually high quality with decent customer service so this particular model is pretty good.
#26
biuro74
Really tempting. I'm about to buy used GTX 970, but for 40 pounds more it's brand new card, with warranty and no 3.5 + 0.5 GB memory issue, and "two bits" faster as well (and my son has got FreeSync monitor just in case)....really tempting. Always had nVidia due to drivers (AMD somehow gets me nervous to find & change any option), but it's very interesting which card I pick on decision day 0 ;-) 10x0 series is a joke due to no SLI keys in non-top-level cards, never will buy it.
I purchased a 2nd hand 970 to upgrade from a very old radeon 6950, it is like night and day - but with the new prices of Radeon 480 4GB, I would definitely pick that - it's faster all round, AND you get the peace of mind that you have warranty! :)
#27
Joshimitsu91
Nate1492

Funny you mention DX12 support and which card provides a 'fuller' DX12 support.
Guess what? It's actually the NVIDIA card.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D#Direct3D_12
No rasterization at all.
I said "older" AMD cards. Look at your own source for AMD 2xx series vs. nVidia 7xx series, AMD were first to have DX12 support.

You are using the concept of "DX12 Support" incorrectly. There are many levels to DX12, neither AMD nor NVIDIA fully (or even close to fully) support DX12.

What you are missing, and it's ok not a big deal, is that AMD support Tier 0 DX 12, this is called 12_0. NVIDIA support Tier 1 DX 12, this is called 12_1.

And no, NVIDIA was actually the first to DX12. Check it out here: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/190581-nvidias-ace-in-the-hole-against-amd-maxwell-is-the-first-gpu-with-full-directx-12-support

Anyway, not sure where this is going, it seems like you really want AMD to 'win' here.
#28
welsh_andy
Nate1492
Oh I agree, the whole concept that AMD are 'more future proof' is also just a fallacy.
you dont get out much im guessing:D

Not sure what you are trying to say, but I don't feel it's very nice nor constructive to the conversation, do we need to go down that route?
#29
Nate1492

You are using the concept of "DX12 Support" incorrectly. There are many levels to DX12, neither AMD nor NVIDIA fully (or even close to fully) support DX12.
What you are missing, and it's ok not a big deal, is that AMD support Tier 0 DX 12, this is called 12_0. NVIDIA support Tier 1 DX 12, this is called 12_1.
And no, NVIDIA was actually the first to DX12. Check it out here: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/190581-nvidias-ace-in-the-hole-against-amd-maxwell-is-the-first-gpu-with-full-directx-12-support
Anyway, not sure where this is going, it seems like you really want AMD to 'win' here.

Have you looked at your own sources?

It clearly shows that Kepler and even 1st gen Maxwell had only DX 11_0 support, whereas AMDs Kepler equivalent cards had DX 12_0 support. Pretty good example of how the equivalent AMD card of the time is considerably more future proof. You don't have to do much Googling to see by just how much the 290x has outlived it's rival the 780Ti (which was more expensive).

You are saying I want AMD to "win", what I'm saying is you make claims on a forum made to give other buyers advice, and when someone challenges those claims you provide sources which counter your own argument!

We get it, you like nVidia. Some of us value good value for money and future proofing above having the "fastest" GPU (for a whole 6 months until the next fastest one is released).
#30
Joshimitsu91
Nate1492

You are using the concept of "DX12 Support" incorrectly. There are many levels to DX12, neither AMD nor NVIDIA fully (or even close to fully) support DX12.
What you are missing, and it's ok not a big deal, is that AMD support Tier 0 DX 12, this is called 12_0. NVIDIA support Tier 1 DX 12, this is called 12_1.
And no, NVIDIA was actually the first to DX12. Check it out here: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/190581-nvidias-ace-in-the-hole-against-amd-maxwell-is-the-first-gpu-with-full-directx-12-support
Anyway, not sure where this is going, it seems like you really want AMD to 'win' here.
Have you looked at your own sources?
It clearly shows that Kepler and even 1st gen Maxwell had only DX 11_0 support, whereas AMDs Kepler equivalent cards had DX 12_0 support. Pretty good example of how the equivalent AMD card of the time is considerably more future proof. You don't have to do much Googling to see by just how much the 290x has outlived it's rival the 780Ti (which was more expensive).
You are saying I want AMD to "win", what I'm saying is you make claims on a forum made to give other buyers advice, and when someone challenges those claims you provide sources which counter your own argument!
We get it, you like nVidia. Some of us value good value for money and future proofing above having the "fastest" GPU (for a whole 6 months until the next fastest one is released).

Unfortunately, while all companies bend the truth to an extent, or even just ignore it, Nvidia have constantly outright lied. Claiming support for things they never did, promising support via updates to maintain sales (the update never came, well updates did come, but only ones which hampered performance to boost sales of newer products)

People say the gimping is just a myth and that Nvidia simply don't optimise anymore for previous gen. But look at all Nvidia users (myself included) who have had performance drop on existing hadware in existing software.

This is without mentioning all the other scummy things they do. I'm not even saying I wouldn't buy their products (my last few cards have been) but they're making it really difficult for me.

AMD on the other hand make impossible at the moment, hopefully Vega drops soon and kicks the sector up the backside, it needs some momentum

Edited By: eiamhere69 on Feb 15, 2017 16:58: *
#31
Scottc123
vardx
I'm building a high end power efficient htpc and gaming device for the living room. I'm feeling that the rx 480 may well be the best card for the job...
I still have to choose a case.
If you want power efficiency then stay away from AMD, the RX 480 uses 150W vs 120W for the almost identically performing GTX 1060. That means that the AMD is 20% less power efficient = more heat = less suited to a small case. The disadvantage is that we are yet to see a £170 GTX 1060.

Thanks for the reply. I was under the impression that efficiency was one of the better points of that range.

I've had Nvidia cards in the past, but my last couple have been AMD. Namely the R9 290x and the r9 390x. Those two particular cards are notoriously loud and hot. Pretty beastly for their time, but absolute hogs.

I'd like a 1070 or 1080, but the price is too high.
#32
Joshimitsu91
Nate1492

You are using the concept of "DX12 Support" incorrectly. There are many levels to DX12, neither AMD nor NVIDIA fully (or even close to fully) support DX12.
What you are missing, and it's ok not a big deal, is that AMD support Tier 0 DX 12, this is called 12_0. NVIDIA support Tier 1 DX 12, this is called 12_1.
And no, NVIDIA was actually the first to DX12. Check it out here: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/190581-nvidias-ace-in-the-hole-against-amd-maxwell-is-the-first-gpu-with-full-directx-12-support
Anyway, not sure where this is going, it seems like you really want AMD to 'win' here.
Have you looked at your own sources?
It clearly shows that Kepler and even 1st gen Maxwell had only DX 11_0 support, whereas AMDs Kepler equivalent cards had DX 12_0 support. Pretty good example of how the equivalent AMD card of the time is considerably more future proof. You don't have to do much Googling to see by just how much the 290x has outlived it's rival the 780Ti (which was more expensive).
You are saying I want AMD to "win", what I'm saying is you make claims on a forum made to give other buyers advice, and when someone challenges those claims you provide sources which counter your own argument!
We get it, you like nVidia. Some of us value good value for money and future proofing above having the "fastest" GPU (for a whole 6 months until the next fastest one is released).

If you completely ignore what I said, that's your own bias showing through.

You made a claim that AMD were the first to the DX12 table, I provided a source that counters that claim.

I also provided another source to expand on that claim. NVIDIA fully support DX12_0 and DX12_1.

You somehow insert words into my claim that I said something maxwell generation 1 or generation 2, I simply linked a source showing that NVIDIA provided the first full set of DX12 features.

And at this very moment, AMD is still at feature level 12_0 with their latest cards, and NVIDIA is at feature level 12_1. So, if AMD has a lower feature level, how is that more future proof?
#33
Nate1492

If you completely ignore what I said, that's your own bias showing through.
You made a claim that AMD were the first to the DX12 table, I provided a source that counters that claim.
I also provided another source to expand on that claim. NVIDIA fully support DX12_0 and DX12_1.
You somehow insert words into my claim that I said something maxwell generation 1 or generation 2, I simply linked a source showing that NVIDIA provided the first full set of DX12 features.
And at this very moment, AMD is still at feature level 12_0 with their latest cards, and NVIDIA is at feature level 12_1. So, if AMD has a lower feature level, how is that more future proof?

I said that AMD offered DX12 support before nVidia. A fact that is proved by your own source, the 7 series cards had no DX 12 support and were released in the same generation as the 2xx series which did. Even the next generation nVidia cards still had no DX12 support. At no point did I claim that AMD currently cover the complete feature set of DX 12. Your inability to read has got you trying to disprove something I never claimed.

Anyway I'm not arguing with you any more about this, if you want to keep paying over the odds to trap yourself in nVidias anti-consumer ecosystem, that's your prerogative.

Edited By: Joshimitsu91 on Feb 15, 2017 17:50
#34
Joshimitsu91
Nate1492

If you completely ignore what I said, that's your own bias showing through.
You made a claim that AMD were the first to the DX12 table, I provided a source that counters that claim.
I also provided another source to expand on that claim. NVIDIA fully support DX12_0 and DX12_1.
You somehow insert words into my claim that I said something maxwell generation 1 or generation 2, I simply linked a source showing that NVIDIA provided the first full set of DX12 features.
And at this very moment, AMD is still at feature level 12_0 with their latest cards, and NVIDIA is at feature level 12_1. So, if AMD has a lower feature level, how is that more future proof?
I said that AMD offered DX12 support before nVidia. A fact that is proved by your own source, the 7 series cards had no DX 12 support and were released in the same generation as the 2xx series which did. Even the next generation nVidia cards still had no DX12 support. At no point did I claim that AMD currently cover the complete feature set of DX 12. Your inability to read has got you trying to disprove something I never claimed.
Anyway I'm not arguing with you any more about this, if you want to keep paying over the odds to trap yourself in nVidias anti-consumer ecosystem, that's your prerogative.

I really don't think you understand what you are talking about.

DirectX 12 was announced by Microsoft at GDC on March 20, 2014.

GeForce GTX 780 May 23, 2013

GeForce GTX 970 September 18, 2014

The Radeon R9 290X, codename "Hawaii XT", was released on October 24, 2013

I mean, you don't get what I'm saying, try to take a step back and understand.

There were driver updates to backport changes for the 290x, but it certainly wasn't intended, nor first, to support DX12.


Also, the generation after the 7 series of cards from NVIDIA is the 900 series, just for your information, you seem to be suggesting there was an 800 series by your words.

Edited By: Nate1492 on Feb 15, 2017 23:21
#35
Nate1492

DirectX 12 was announced by Microsoft at GDC on March 20, 2014.

The Radeon R9 290X, codename "Hawaii XT", was released on October 24, 2013

There were driver updates to backport changes for the 290x, but it certainly wasn't intended, nor first, to support DX12.

You have literally just described future proofing. AMD's hardware was modern enough to allow support for something that wasn't even released. If you can't understand that, I cannot help you.

Nate1492

Also, the generation after the 7 series of cards from NVIDIA is the 900 series, just for your information, you seem to be suggesting there was an 800 series by your words.

Actually I was referring to the "Maxwell, 1st gen" from (again) your source.

But there was actually an 800 series, it was limited to mobile GPU's.

Now as it's clear you have no clue what you are talking about, and I have proved my claim that AMD are more future proof, this debate is over. Don't expect any further replies, I'm not going to waste more time arguing with someone who openly contradicts themselves.
#36
Joshimitsu91
Nate1492

DirectX 12 was announced by Microsoft at GDC on March 20, 2014.
The Radeon R9 290X, codename "Hawaii XT", was released on October 24, 2013
There were driver updates to backport changes for the 290x, but it certainly wasn't intended, nor first, to support DX12.
You have literally just described future proofing. AMD's hardware was modern enough to allow support for something that wasn't even released. If you can't understand that, I cannot help you.
Nate1492

Also, the generation after the 7 series of cards from NVIDIA is the 900 series, just for your information, you seem to be suggesting there was an 800 series by your words.
Actually I was referring to the "Maxwell, 1st gen" from (again) your source.
But there was actually an 800 series, it was limited to mobile GPU's.
Now as it's clear you have no clue what you are talking about, and I have proved my claim that AMD are more future proof, this debate is over. Don't expect any further replies, I'm not going to waste more time arguing with someone who openly contradicts themselves.

You've literally proven nothing.

And you are falling back on a massive technicality that you did not actually mean. You actually thought there was an 800m was a different series?

We all know what you are doing here, you won't actually put any sources or facts or anything, just your opinion. We get it.

AMD backward ported DX12 support into their cards. Claiming that they supported something that didn't exist yet is asinine.

DX12 hadn't been announced for at least a year since launch, there was no preliminary specs to code or create for. It. Did. Not. Exist.

Yet, you are pretending that AMD made their 290x cards for DX12? You really need to stop and think.
#37
iceburglettuce

Driver support is not really an issue in the decision making any more (Nvidia actually seem to have had more driver issues recently than AMD).

I was talking about philosophy of *using* drivers GUI, it is something that drives me mad in case of AMD. nVidia is way better. I've got comparison as I purchased Radeon to older son (so I'm the options "configurator"), but myself never purchased any Radeon due to reason mentioned above.
By the way, drivers issues never touched me as GeForce user, maybe except one thing (which is common to AMD as well) - multimonitor wrong enumeration, which Nvidia developers claim is Microsoft's fault, and Microsoft as always says drivers matters are 3rd party matters, lol.

"What is he going to do now ? Will he overcome his own weakness for better performance godness... let's find it out after short break"...


Edited By: biuro74 on Feb 17, 2017 01:58
#38
I'm trying to work out if this would be a worthwhile upgrade from an R9 380 4gb model. Any ideas?
#39
cjc1706
I'm trying to work out if this would be a worthwhile upgrade from an R9 380 4gb model. Any ideas?
depends if you can sell your current card. It's around a 70% performance boost but personally at 1080p i wouldnt bother with an upgrade until Vega by that point your VRAM at 4 gb might be limiting and an upgrade is much more worthwhile.
#40
arealmentalist
cjc1706
I'm trying to work out if this would be a worthwhile upgrade from an R9 380 4gb model. Any ideas?
depends if you can sell your current card. It's around a 70% performance boost but personally at 1080p i wouldnt bother with an upgrade until Vega by that point your VRAM at 4 gb might be limiting and an upgrade is much more worthwhile.


70%!??

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!