>a PCI-Express 3.0 x8 host interface (it fits into x16 slots

>>55811497
Fuck off with these /v/-borne shitty memes

>my vidya

>>55811497
I don't see the problem, Is that going to be a bottleneck?

Reminder to sage these stupid threads

>>55811497
Kill yourself already

>>55811497
The rx480 was the most overhyped card ever made. Get a 1060 and go away

The shills are already at it

File: fixed.png (747KB, 1524x720px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 1524x720px

>>55811497
It seems really silly how they've done it then, see pic related.

>>55811497
>that heatsink

lmao are they serious?

>>55811779
Nice job

>>55811556
Nope. As long as you use PCI-e 3.0, you could use a x4 interface for 1080 and the performance decrease would still be within the margin of error.

File: patchy4.png (275KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 600x600px

>>55811497
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

PCIe x16 is just marketing aimed at retards like you. There's no (consumer) grade graphics card available that is able to saturate that much.
>inb4 muh 2 FPS
That's error margin.
Kindly fuck off to >>>/v/

They did this because Bristol Ridge APUs only have 8 PCIe 3.0 lanes and you're meant to use the RX 460 with the Bristol Ridge APU in dual graphics.

PCIe 3.0 x8 has the bandwidth of PCIe 2.0 x16

Can someone post gpuz to prove this please

>>55811779
>what is structural integrity
faggot as long as the cooler is that size it doesn't matter how big the PCB is.

>>55811497
Is that real? I once compared PCI3 x16 and x8 on a Titan X, the difference was 1-2 FPS and 100 3Dmark points. I would care more about the lenght, this looks like a decent mini-ITX card, if there wasn't that bare plane at the end.

>>55811497
>cutting costs on a low-cost card
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>55811988
>>55811779

>short card
>heatsink can take up an extra 0.5 cm
>heatsink can vent directly behind the card, better airflow

If you need support, get a stiffener. Probably cheaper to have a stiffener/better designed heatsink than a shitton of copper and PCB material

File: 1460428148898.jpg (191KB, 2032x762px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 2032x762px

>>55811497
it really makes you think

>>55811497
For having no copper that cooler is pretty well designed. Pads for the VRAM, open slots for more direct airflow to the VRMs/MOSFETS, and a cutout for air to that cap&choke setup.

Pretty nice I give it 7/10
>no copper in contact with die
>full board instead of open end with bracket stiffener as mentioned above
>light on total connectivity

All in all a solid job by Sapphire for what is presumed by many to be a $100-120 card drawing 50w

>>55812105
Uh my fetish
sauce

>>55811497
>pcie 3.0 8x has the same bandwith as pie 2.0 16x which isn't a bottleneck for GPUs

It's fucking nothing

>>55811497
>Implying AMD is even relevant at this point.


AMD is kill. AMD shall always be kill.

So long resistance.

I don't understand the need for x16 PCIe3 on Polaris 11, it's a low powered chip that doesn't even need a power supply to add power.

>>55811497
normie here
isn't a PCI-e16x slot like STUPID huge as far as bandwidth goes?
i was told it;s bigger than it ever needed to be

>>55811869
Unless you are using SLI/crossfire/dx12multigpu, then the cards need to talk across those buses as well as to the rest of the system which can saturate it.

Someone needs to bench crossfire/dx12multigpu a couple of those rx480s against reference/16x ones of the same clocks.

>>55813339
Just noticed no PCI-e connector, rx460 then?

>>55813245
Yes. Any single card now days can run at full speed in a PCI-e 2.0 x16 slot.

>>55811643
This has nothing to do with the RX 480. Polaris 11 is the RX 460 only, and this couldn't possibly matter less for a card that slow.

>>55811833
This.

I'm tired of people thinking 8x pcie will net half the performance. Literally is like this:
16x, 80 fps
8x, 78 fps
4x, 70 fps

>>55813651
>thinking that the bus directly affects FPS like that
You're literally wrong. How it affects the performance will vary greatly from game to game.

File: smug fox.jpg (48KB, 560x577px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 560x577px

>>55813667
Nope, you're full of shit.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2488-pci-e-3-x8-vs-x16-performance-impact-on-gpus

The performance deficit (or lack thereof) is entirely consistent across games in every test that's been done on whether 8x vs 16x matters.

So many tech-illiterate retards spilling over from /v/ and trying to argue about things they have no real understanding of. But they know that higher number = better, hyuck!

>>55813706
>The performance deficit (or lack thereof) is entirely consistent across games in every test that's been done on whether 8x vs 16x matters.
>(or lack thereof)
Exactly. For 8x (or 2.0 16x) it is margin of error, there is no difference. Those tests don't go down to 4x PCI so you can't extrapolate 4x performance from a margin of error result.

>>55813651
Not at all framelost is quite a lot somehow >>55813706 like this anon says. I remembered i own some old p55 chipset with 3 pcie lane, my 16x is broken like no display showing so i try with secondary pcie lane which is 8x i run some benchmark i got loss fps and less like 3000+ on 3dmark.

>>55813339
You're right, but multigpu is not relevant for the card in question.

>>55813339
But why would anyone buy a 460 for crossfire?

>>55811779
That's a lot of wasted material.

>>55813706
There are probably a few games where there is a noticeable decrease in texture streaming performance, which increases texturing pop-in, but it wouldn't significantly impact FPS because modern Virtual Texturing implementations are too good for that.

>>55813857
Crazy idea but, some people don't have money to buy higher priced GPUs. Some people aren't 16 with parents that buy them everything.

I'm 30 so this doesn't apply to me but yes, there are less fortunate people

>>55814213
For the price of two 460s you could get a 480, which I'm pretty sure will give you better performance, since FPS/$ tends to be highest in the midrange, not even taking into account that crossfire only gets you about 90% performance increase over single card in best-case scenario.

>a PCI-Express 3.0 x8 host interface
>Same speed as a PCI-Express 2.0 16x slot

>>55814246
You are correct, but you just ignored everything relevant to the situation. Some people it takes a while to save up the money, saving for a 480 would take twice the time. Some people are just financially not as comfortable as others and there's nothing bad about that. If there was someone that could barely afford a 460 in store, I'd give them the extra cash so they could buy a 480. Then go cut onions because I know how it feels

File: pic_disp (1).jpg (40KB, 601x401px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 601x401px

>>55813245
Considering pcie 1.0 16x, which has the same bandwith as pcie 2.0 8x, isn't a bottleneck for dual titans at 4k, this doesn't even matter for these low end cards.

>>55811497
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10530/amd-announces-radeon-rx-470-rx-460-specifications-shipping-in-early-august

>tfw waiting for my $99 poolaris 11.

>>55813977
For you.

>>55816064
xDD

>>55811497
>>55811779
>>55813706
>AMD cuts out uneeded components to bring the price down
>still has the card in a form factor expected for video cards today even though it isn't needed
Why is AMD denying us the ability to use their cards in the smallest, cutest mini-ITX builds?

>>55816118
>Why is AMD
AMD doesn't make the cards, blame the manufacturers that do.

>>55811845
take your anime garbage off my board.

>>55816267
anime website

>>55813525
even if you take the fastest card out and cover the pins so its only a 8x you get a whopping 3% less performance, 7 if you take it down to 4x

>>55816118
>Why is AMD denying us
Reference 460 and 470 are the size of the Nano.

Aftermarket cards have longer custom PCB's to support a larger cooler, which will allow for beefier VRM's, and higher core clocks. And thus, more performance.

>>55811497
el JUSTO xD

>>55813651
it's significantly less between 16x and 8x. anyone with a gpu and any kind of expansion card or dual gpu is already running at 8x by default unless they're on an x chipset.

>>55813339
16x16 vs 8x8 is the same, no performance difference

>>55813339
>sing SLI/crossfire/dx12multigpu
Irrelevant as almost every processor these day only has 16 direct pcie lanes in them (the rest go through chipset), ie. when using multiple graphics cards the available configurations are 16x, 8x/8x or 8x/4x/4x