Unfortunately, this deal is no longer valid
Sapphire AMD Radeon RX 590 NITRO+  8GB GDDR5 Graphics Card £199.98 at Amazon
295° Expired

Sapphire AMD Radeon RX 590 NITRO+ 8GB GDDR5 Graphics Card £199.98 at Amazon

£199.98£2199%Amazon Deals
18
Posted 13th Jul

This deal is expired. Here are some options that might interest you:

Great GPU and good price.
Specification:
- GPU: AMD Radeon RX 590 Graphics
- Stream Processors: Up to 2304 unit
- Compute Units: 36
- Boost Core Clock: Up to 1560MHz
- Memory Clock: Up to 2100MHz, Effective 8400Mbps
- Memory Size: 8192 MB
- Memory Bus: 256-bit
- Firmware: Dual UEFI BIOS (mining mode & gaming mode)
- Form Factor: 2.2 slot, ATX
- Cooler Fan: Dual Fan, 95mm, Dual Ball Bearing
- Cooling Module: 8mm x2 + 6mm x2 Heat-pipes
- Back-Plate: Yes
- Power Design: 6 Phase VDDC
- PCB Layers: 8 Layers
- External Power: 1 x 8p + 1 x 6p
- Warranty: 3yr
Community Updates

Groups

18 Comments
This or a 1070 u just bought from amazon warehouse for just 20 more?
fzurro13/07/2019 20:50

This or a 1070 u just bought from amazon warehouse for just 20 more?


Keep the 1070. 1070 will be a little bit powerful than this. A great pruce for a new 590 though. So hot from me.
Cool. Thanks. This one looks very good. If I had not found the other one I would have got this.

Hest op
fzurro13/07/2019 21:49

Cool. Thanks. This one looks very good. If I had not found the other one I …Cool. Thanks. This one looks very good. If I had not found the other one I would have got this.Hest op



GTX1070 is quite a bit faster than this, most are quieter and use less power. It's a better card in every way and easily worth the extra £20. It's as fast as a GTX1660Ti, which is a £260 card.

In general a GTX1660 OC is better than this too for £205 or so.
fzurro13/07/2019 20:50

This or a 1070 u just bought from amazon warehouse for just 20 more?


Depends on how long you want to keep the card, in a few years the 590 will probably start to out perform the the 1070 with the latest game (AMD have a history with this).
2 years is more than enough to be honest. I'm not a AAA type of gamer so maybe even more...
vulcanproject13/07/2019 22:01

GTX1070 is quite a bit faster than this, most are quieter and use less …GTX1070 is quite a bit faster than this, most are quieter and use less power. It's a better card in every way and easily worth the extra £20. It's as fast as a GTX1660Ti, which is a £260 card.In general a GTX1660 OC is better than this too for £205 or so.



The 6gb on the 1660/1660 ti wont be enough ram by the time the PS5 comes out (Shadow of the Tomb Raider takes 5gb+ on max settings now) some time near the end of next year. The extra 2gb on this will really help.
Edited by: "dijital" 14th Jul
Any advice on choosing between this and the RX580 on Amazon?

amazon.co.uk/Sap…M2/
Edited by moderator: "url link edit" 14th Jul
dijital14/07/2019 08:13

The 6gb on the 1660/1660 ti wont be enough ram by the time the PS5 comes …The 6gb on the 1660/1660 ti wont be enough ram by the time the PS5 comes out (Shadow of the Tomb Raider takes 5gb+ on max settings now) some time near the end of next year. The extra 2gb on this will really help.


It almost certainly won't matter, neither of those cards will be fast enough to exploit the settings required to utilize higher video memory.

Using your own example both cards are borderline to run Shadow of the Tomb Raider at ultra settings and just 1080p. They barely manage 60FPS minimums, often not.

Also what you think is memory utilization in games is more often than not just the game grabbing all the memory it can and not using it. This has been proven more than once.
If you have a Freesync monitor this is a great card, the Anti Lag feature really helps with multiplayer and poorly optimised games. Yes the architecture is getting long in the tooth but can still handle a lot even 4K gaming if economical with your detail settings.
vulcanproject14/07/2019 11:40

It almost certainly won't matter, neither of those cards will be fast …It almost certainly won't matter, neither of those cards will be fast enough to exploit the settings required to utilize higher video memory.Using your own example both cards are borderline to run Shadow of the Tomb Raider at ultra settings and just 1080p. They barely manage 60FPS minimums, often not. Also what you think is memory utilization in games is more often than not just the game grabbing all the memory it can and not using it. This has been proven more than once.



Your assumption that you need you need more processing power to handle more vram is somewhat incorrect, look at open world games, the vieo ram is used to hold textures so that it doesn't need to keep going back to system ram (which is about 20 times slower) or even worse, load then from the hard disk (which is about 100-500 times slower even with a SSD). the geometry doesn't need to be drawn, but the textures need to be ready to be called very quickly.

Forza horizon 4 is optimised really well but you are still forced to low textures in you have under 2gb of vodeo ram. Vram is going to be way more important by the time the next gen consoles come round.Grand Theft Auto becomes a stuttery mess with missing textures if you dont have enough Vram.
Edited by: "dijital" 14th Jul
dijital14/07/2019 17:47

Your assumption that you need you need more processing power to handle …Your assumption that you need you need more processing power to handle more vram is somewhat incorrect, look at open world games, the vieo ram is used to hold textures so that it doesn't need to keep going back to system ram (which is about 20 times slower) or even worse, load then from the hard disk (which is about 100-500 times slower even with a SSD). the geometry doesn't need to be drawn, but the textures need to be ready to be called very quickly.Forza horizon 4 is optimised really well but you are still forced to low textures in you have under 2gb of vodeo ram. Vram is going to be way more important by the time the next gen consoles come round.Grand Theft Auto becomes a stuttery mess with missing textures if you dont have enough Vram.



Nah. Your first sentence also doesn't really make a lot of sense based on what we know of modern games.

These are distinctly 1080p, lower midrange cards. You might have a (small) point if they were higher up (RTX2060) and had longer expected lifespans at playing new games, but they aren't.

We have seen plenty of evidence that 6GB of VRAM is enough for 1080p gaming (even 1440p), and plenty of benchmarks proving that the 1660 is also faster than the RX590. This has been tested and tested by lots of major sites and they have come to this conclusion time and again. I think we'll have to trust their professional opinion best.

In reality in an ideal scenario for this card, the 590 might claw back a tiny amount in a few years because it has a little extra memory, but not enough that it'll suddenly be winning all new games when it basically loses all the current ones we have now versus a 1660.

Even then, by the time this actually matters neither of these cards will be very relevant and you should have replaced them. Neither will be fast enough, neither will have enough memory for higher settings that they can actually run the game at.

Your very own example I'll point out again- by the time you need more than 6GB of VRAM for Shadow Of the Tomb Raider (highest settings, highest AA, 1440p+ resolution) these cards aren't fast enough to make them very playable anyway. It'll be exactly the same for any new game designed for next gen consoles.

'Future proofing' has never really been a thing for PC gaming. all we know is that the 1660 is faster now, will be for a fairly distant foreseeable future (a good 18 months for new consoles) and then in two years if the 590 finally starts to maybe win on two or three games then great.

But that's not how you buy a card. Because if you bought the 1660 you had 2 years of a better card, and then will be looking to swap it out anyway. If you bought the 590 you had 2 years of an inferior card, and you are probably wanting to swap it anyway at that stage. Even if it's a tiny bit faster because it has more memory. It's now slow regardless.
dijital14/07/2019 18:16

You have you opinion, I have mine, lets get on with our lives.



Ok, but I don't have an opinion as such. I have facts that the 1660 is a better card now and for the near future.

You just have a vague assertion (read: hope) that in the distant future after new consoles have arrived (18 months) RX 590 might claw a bit back.

Ha! Look at my new 2021 games that run at 24FPS instead of your GTX1660 only doing 20FPS. You might have had the better card for two full years, but I won in the end! Now let's buy new cards because these clearly suck today.

I know what I would base my purchases on.
vulcanproject14/07/2019 18:23

Ok, but I don't have an opinion as such. I have facts that the 1660 is a …Ok, but I don't have an opinion as such. I have facts that the 1660 is a better card now and for the near future.You just have a vague assertion (read: hope) that in the distant future after new consoles have arrived (18 months) RX 590 might claw a bit back.Ha! Look at my new 2021 games that run at 24FPS instead of your GTX1660 only doing 20FPS. You might have had the better card for two full years, but I won in the end! Now let's buy new cards because these clearly suck today.I know what I would base my purchases on.



My god, I tried to be civil, you're an !diot. AMD cards age MUCH better, its a fact.

.
I am no longer interested in your opinion, it means nothing to me, you would proove yourself a true mess of person if you replied.
Edited by: "dijital" 14th Jul
dijital14/07/2019 18:31

My god, I tried to be civil, you're an !diot. AMD age MUCH better its a …My god, I tried to be civil, you're an !diot. AMD age MUCH better its a fact.[Video] .I am no longer interested in your opinion, it means nothing to me, you would proove yourself a true mess of person if you did.


Civility is a poor substitute for intellectual honesty, which you lack.

Here's your AMD's aging better: 980Ti beating up the Fury X even more so than it did when they were new. So much for that 'always ages better' porky you are parading to reinforce this flimsy idea that in the distant future the RX590 MIGHT be a bit better.

When it's by then irrelevant. Hooray!
vulcanproject14/07/2019 18:34

Civility is a poor substitute for intellectual honesty, which you …Civility is a poor substitute for intellectual honesty, which you lack.Here's your AMD's aging better: 980Ti beating up the Fury X even more so than it did when they were new. So much for that 'always ages better' porky you are parading to reinforce this flimsy idea that in the distant future the RX590 MIGHT be a bit better.When it's by then irrelevant. Hooray!



What an absolute loser lol.
dijital14/07/2019 18:37

What an absolute loser lol.


You're resorting to an ad hominem, personal attack. Why? Perhaps you are faced with no other option at this stage as your argument has been systematically dismantled.

GPUs must be taken on a case by case basis how they age. Only ridiculous fanboy statements claim that AMD cards always age better. That is clearly a false statement by someone looking to mislead.

However seeing as though it simply isn't possible to determine for absolute certainty whether an RX590 will be significantly better in two years post next gen consoles why base your purchase decision and the next several years of your PC gaming on that faint hope?

All we know if the 1660 is a better card today, and a total reversal is unlikely. Even if we assume very best case scenario for the 590, you are looking at two GPUs that are not high end cards today, and neither will probably hold up very well when utilised for next generation console games.

Sure, you can be a fanboy and not acknowledge the 1660 is a better card and base your entire argument on complete unknown and hopeful assumptions, or you can just buy a better card now and for the foreseeable future.

Your choice.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text