Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X OC 3GB GDDR5 vs Sapphire R9 280X Tri-X OC 3GB GDDR5

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 6, 2014 2:02:39 PM

Which is better?

Thank you for the answers :) 
a c 359 À AMD
a c 1410 U Graphics card
August 6, 2014 2:24:55 PM

They are equal but I favor Sapphire when comparing with Gigabyte.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b U Graphics card
August 6, 2014 2:26:17 PM

the toxic one is faster than the gigabyte....is have 150 mhz more clock speed than the wind force...
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 359 À AMD
a c 1410 U Graphics card
August 6, 2014 2:29:26 PM

Which means about 1-2fps more in game.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b U Graphics card
August 6, 2014 2:34:36 PM

yea not that much ...... the difference will be within 5 fps..
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 6, 2014 2:36:11 PM

prit87 said:
the toxic one is faster than the gigabyte....is have 150 mhz more clock speed than the wind force...

Just to note, Corprive is asking about the Tri-X model, not the Toxic (they do look almost identical, admittedly). Also the Toxic is not 150 MHz faster; the base clock on the card is 100 MHz faster than the Gigabyte model listed, but the boost clock is only 50 MHz higher.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b U Graphics card
August 6, 2014 2:41:39 PM

yea sorry my mistake i was speaking for the tri x clock and mentioning it as the toxic...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 6, 2014 2:48:04 PM

prit87 said:
yea sorry my mistake i was speaking for the tri x clock and mentioning it as the toxic...

No worries, I'm just in a pedantic mood today! :D  Also, the Tri-X has identical core clocks to the Gigabyte card listed (the Sapphire does win on memory clocks though). I'd still pick the Sapphire card personally, but they should perform more or less identically.
m
0
l
August 6, 2014 4:32:37 PM

They cost exactly the same, so any little difference will be enough.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b U Graphics card
August 7, 2014 12:09:44 AM

if the cost is same then a tiny tiny bit of performance would count so always go for the sapphire tri x..
m
0
l
August 7, 2014 12:59:06 AM

But the gygabyte one has more clock speed than the Sapphire, why is the Sapphire better?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 7, 2014 1:27:20 AM

Corprive said:
But the gygabyte one has more clock speed than the Sapphire, why is the Sapphire better?

Does it though? Both revisions (revision 1 and revision 2) of the Gigabyte R9 280X OC have a core clock of 1000 MHz, and a boost clock of 1100 MHz (the memory clock is 6000 MHz).

The Sapphire R9 Tri-X OC card also has a core clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, but this time the memory is clocked higher, at 6400 MHz. That's for the OC version of the card, as you listed above. The non OC version has lower clocks (850, 1000, and 6000 respectively).

So if the names of the two cards you listed in the title of this thread are correct, the Sapphire card will perform slightly better than the Gigabyte card (and also run cooler and quieter I believe). If they're the same price, the Sapphire would definitely be the one to pick.

m
0
l
August 7, 2014 1:37:21 AM

Is a difference of 50 MHz in the clock speed noticeable? What will it affect?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 7, 2014 1:46:20 AM

Where are seeing a difference of 50 MHz? I'm just trying to clarify that we're talking about the same cards here.
m
0
l
August 7, 2014 2:03:24 AM

We aren't:
Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X OC 3GB GDDR5: http://www.pccomponentes.com/gigabyte_radeon_r9_280x_oc...

Sapphire R9 280X Tri-X OC 3GB GDDR5:
http://www.pccomponentes.com/sapphire_r9_280x_tri_x_oc_...

According with the specifications of these two cards they have the same memory clock (6000MHz) but the Gygabyte exceeds the sapphire in clock speed:
Gygabyte: 1000/Boost: 1100 MHz
Sapphire: 900/Boost: 1050 MHz
So, under load both will be the same except for that 50 MHz difference, how much will this impact on performance?

Off: I have no idea why in this page the specifications are different
m
0
l

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
August 7, 2014 2:28:15 AM

Very odd indeed! Now I can certainly understand the confusion!

I just cross referenced the product number of the Sapphire card on the site you linked, and on a number of other sites the specifications of the card with that product number are listed as they are on Sapphire's official site (1000, 1100, and 6400). That combined with the fact the clocks on the site you linked don't line up with any 280 Tri-X on Sapphire's official site leads me to believe it's a rather unusual typo. The alternative would be it's a very odd edition that's only sold in a few places.

I had a quick dig around, and there's at least one other Sapphire card with a mistake in its listing: http://www.pccomponentes.com/sapphire_r9_280x_vapor_x_u... Either the boost clock is wrong (listed as 1000 MHZ as opposed to 1070 MHz it should be), or it has the wrong image, and should be one of the 3 fan Vapor-X models (Sapphire certainly make their model system convoluted!).

So, in conclusion, my suspicion would be that it's a typo, but just in case it isn't, the answer to your question of how much difference 50 MHz would make is very little, 2-3 FPS at most (it's less than 5% slower after all). Hope that helps!
Share
August 7, 2014 2:36:16 AM

I'll contact the Support.

Thanks.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 7, 2014 2:37:25 AM

No worries, glad to help! I wish you luck :) 
m
0
l
!