Skip to main content

Powercolor Presents Custom Red Devil RX 470 Graphics Card

The AMD Radeon RX 470 just landed, and one of the manufacturers building a custom variant is Powercolor. The company just announced its Red Devil RX 470.

The GPU aboard the RX 470 carries 2,048 cores and is connected to 4 GB of GDDR5 memory over a 256-bit memory interface. The GPU runs at up to 1,270 MHz (a small overclock above the 1,206 MHz stock rate), with memory running at 1,750 MHz (as opposed to the reference 1,650 MHz frequency). In practice, this yields 7.0 Gb/s of data throughput between the GPU and memory.

Powercolor cools the Red Devil RX 470 with a Double Blade III cooler that carries two dual ball-bearing 80 mm fans, two 8 mm heatpipes, and two 6 mm heatpipes. Additionally, the manufacturer also installed a backplate for sleek looks, a little more cooling, and for strengthening the entire card.

To power the card, you need an 8-pin PCI-Express power connector that leads to a 6+1 phase VRM circuit to power the GPU and memory. A BIOS mode switch allows you to alternate between “Ultra Overclocking” and “Silent Overclocking” modes, or you can use the secondary BIOS as a backup in case you got a little too ambitious with manual overclocking.

Powercolor did not specify pricing or availability, but seeing as the Radeon RX 470 was announced today, it shouldn’t take much longer. AMD’s suggested pricing for standard (non-overclocked) RX 470s sits at $179, which isn’t that much lower than the superior RX 480. We expect a slightly higher price for the Red Devil RX 470, at which point it may just be compelling to go for the RX 480 instead.

  • cknobman
    This is for sale at NewEgg for $179 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131696&ignorebbr=1

    Of course its out of stock, LOL.

    IMO, for $179 this is a heck of a lot of card.

    Personally I'd probably spend the extra $20 on a 480 but if something like this had rebates, or if I was on a super tight budget, I'd be all over this.
    Reply
  • 3ogdy
    18384893 said:
    This is for sale at NewEgg for $179 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131696&ignorebbr=1

    Of course its out of stock, LOL.

    IMO, for $179 this is a heck of a lot of card.

    Personally I'd probably spend the extra $20 on a 480 but if something like this had rebates, or if I was on a super tight budget, I'd be all over this.

    It's quite a bit of GPU for $180, but its price is just not right. It looks like AMD has chosen to revert the route they followed with the R9 290X / R9 290 GPUs.

    Back then they provided a monster for $500 and something VERY close to that monster for $150 less...about $350.
    Now...they provide a mid-tier champion for $200 and something inferior (13FPS on average) for $180. It just doesn't work this way. This is a $130 - $150 max. card. It's a failed strategy unless their main objective is to sell as many RX 480 GPUs as possible ...or have as many users trying to decide which of the 2 cards to buy pick the more expensive one - then they've succeeded. Once there's huge stock of RX-470s, they'll force the retail price down to what it should've been from the beginning. It's only smart to wait or go for the faster card if you really must buy a GPU within that budget today.

    In my opinion, the GTX 1060 is just much better for 1080p if you plan on keeping the GPU for a bit more time - but it also costs about $100 more than the RX-480, so it all boils down to how heavy your pockets really are.
    Reply
  • cknobman
    18385027 said:
    In my opinion, the GTX 1060 is just much better for 1080p if you plan on keeping the GPU for a bit more time - but it also costs about $100 more than the RX-480, so it all boils down to how heavy your pockets really are.

    Well your opinion is dead wrong.

    480 is the the best card you can get for 1080p.
    $200 and plays everything at max settings.

    In fact except for legacy games the 480 performs >= 1060 in many cases.

    1060 is overpriced by about $50, maybe more than that.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    18385027 said:
    This is a $130 - $150 max.
    That's unrealistic. If the GPU performs 85% as good, it deserves to be priced about 85% as high and for the RX-470, that would be around $170. Lower than that and it begins to significantly under-mine higher-end GPUs, especially ones based on the same die when the "big brother" version is already this affordable. The cheapest 256 bits GPU AMD ever launched was $150 and I doubt AMD wants to take that much of a hit to their margins when they have two billion dollars worth of debt renewals on its doorsteps.

    The RX-460 based on a cheaper, smaller die, 128bits GDDR5 memory controller, smaller, simpler and cheaper PCB will be in the $130-150 range.
    Reply
  • Bloob
    18385027 said:
    18384893 said:
    This is for sale at NewEgg for $179 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131696&ignorebbr=1

    Of course its out of stock, LOL.

    IMO, for $179 this is a heck of a lot of card.

    Personally I'd probably spend the extra $20 on a 480 but if something like this had rebates, or if I was on a super tight budget, I'd be all over this.

    It's quite a bit of GPU for $180, but its price is just not right. It looks like AMD has chosen to revert the route they followed with the R9 290X / R9 290 GPUs.

    Back then they provided a monster for $500 and something VERY close to that monster for $150 less...about $350.
    Now...they provide a mid-tier champion for $200 and something inferior (13FPS on average) for $180. It just doesn't work this way. This is a $130 - $150 max. card. It's a failed strategy unless their main objective is to sell as many RX 480 GPUs as possible ...or have as many users trying to decide which of the 2 cards to buy pick the more expensive one - then they've succeeded. Once there's huge stock of RX-470s, they'll force the retail price down to what it should've been from the beginning. It's only smart to wait or go for the faster card if you really must buy a GPU within that budget today.

    In my opinion, the GTX 1060 is just much better for 1080p if you plan on keeping the GPU for a bit more time - but it also costs about $100 more than the RX-480, so it all boils down to how heavy your pockets really are.

    At least Tom's used the 8GB version of 480 for comparison in the 470 review, so the card should be compared to the $240 version. The 4GB version is (IIRC) around 5-7% slower, making the 470 just 7-9% slower than that, for 10% less money. I don't know why AMD even bothered with having the 470 and the 480@4GB when they are this close though.
    Reply
  • 3ogdy
    18388353 said:
    18385027 said:
    18384893 said:
    This is for sale at NewEgg for $179 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131696&ignorebbr=1

    Of course its out of stock, LOL.

    IMO, for $179 this is a heck of a lot of card.

    Personally I'd probably spend the extra $20 on a 480 but if something like this had rebates, or if I was on a super tight budget, I'd be all over this.

    It's quite a bit of GPU for $180, but its price is just not right. It looks like AMD has chosen to revert the route they followed with the R9 290X / R9 290 GPUs.

    Back then they provided a monster for $500 and something VERY close to that monster for $150 less...about $350.
    Now...they provide a mid-tier champion for $200 and something inferior (13FPS on average) for $180. It just doesn't work this way. This is a $130 - $150 max. card. It's a failed strategy unless their main objective is to sell as many RX 480 GPUs as possible ...or have as many users trying to decide which of the 2 cards to buy pick the more expensive one - then they've succeeded. Once there's huge stock of RX-470s, they'll force the retail price down to what it should've been from the beginning. It's only smart to wait or go for the faster card if you really must buy a GPU within that budget today.

    In my opinion, the GTX 1060 is just much better for 1080p if you plan on keeping the GPU for a bit more time - but it also costs about $100 more than the RX-480, so it all boils down to how heavy your pockets really are.

    At least Tom's used the 8GB version of 480 for comparison in the 470 review, so the card should be compared to the $240 version. The 4GB version is (IIRC) around 5-7% slower, making the 470 just 7-9% slower than that, for 10% less money. I don't know why AMD even bothered with having the 470 and the 480@4GB when they are this close though.

    Honestly, ever since the R9 290 days I believe somebody at AMD has been working with certain people in their mind(s) - with people who have the following judgement:
    "If I can get a cheaper card and overclock the hell out of it to achieve the performance of the slightly more expensive version, I will spend no time deciding on what to go with, I'll pick the cheaper one."
    As long as that overclock comes at nearly no cost (of course, heat, electricity and all...but those are not on the GPU bill...it's more like running costs), OK...well...you can get the higher performance GPU for ...what was it...$20 less.
    I've been giving this apparently idiotic strategy a thought.

    It might be the fact that in certain countries where the main currency is weaker than the USD, $20 actually makes a difference.
    In certain countries $20 is 10% of somebody's MONTHLY salary.
    I've had people with dead-strict budgets - if they say "$1000" for my computer, then you know it cannot cost "$1001" as that is over the budget. In fact sometimes the PC can't even take up the whole budget as they have to spend on shipping from that same budget too.

    I believe the RX-470 is for the countries where the economy is not exactly shiny.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    18389149 said:
    I believe the RX-470 is for the countries where the economy is not exactly shiny.
    Or people who just don't care about being able to hit 1080p ultra in most games if they can save $20-30, possibly more.

    In my case, the most money I have ever spent on a GPU is $160: the HD5770 I bought when I got serious about playing WoW early in WotLK. After retiring from WoW, my PC gaming withered to only a few hours per month from lack of interest in most other stuff I have tried, which gives me very little motivation to waste $200 on a new GPU.
    Reply
  • 3ogdy
    18389890 said:
    18389149 said:
    I believe the RX-470 is for the countries where the economy is not exactly shiny.
    Or people who just don't care about being able to hit 1080p ultra in most games if they can save $20-30, possibly more.

    In my case, the most money I have ever spent on a GPU is $160: the HD5770 I bought when I got serious about playing WoW early in WotLK. After retiring from WoW, my PC gaming withered to only a few hours per month from lack of interest in most other stuff I have tried, which gives me very little motivation to waste $200 on a new GPU.

    Yeah, I know the feeling. I find myself replaying the older games more than trying new ones. They don't feel that appealing to me anymore either, but I believe driving 3 screens x1440p, doing AE, Photoshop and watching UHD videos is a bit more than what a mid-range GPU is usually designed for, even though Adobe's suite doesn't necessarily ask for powerful GPUs - it's mostly the CPU that makes the difference in them.
    Reply
  • turkey3_scratch
    18390398 said:
    18389890 said:
    18389149 said:
    I believe the RX-470 is for the countries where the economy is not exactly shiny.
    Or people who just don't care about being able to hit 1080p ultra in most games if they can save $20-30, possibly more.

    In my case, the most money I have ever spent on a GPU is $160: the HD5770 I bought when I got serious about playing WoW early in WotLK. After retiring from WoW, my PC gaming withered to only a few hours per month from lack of interest in most other stuff I have tried, which gives me very little motivation to waste $200 on a new GPU.

    Yeah, I know the feeling. I find myself replaying the older games more than trying new ones. They don't feel that appealing to me anymore either, but I believe driving 3 screens x1440p, doing AE, Photoshop and watching UHD videos is a bit more than what a mid-range GPU is usually designed for, even though Adobe's suite doesn't necessarily ask for powerful GPUs - it's mostly the CPU that makes the difference in them.

    I also am playing older games, my priorities have shifted. If I play games from 2005, there is no need for me to have a powerful GPU. My current priority with my PC is making it very quiet, so every little thing helps. I have a Noctua fan and CPU cooler now, and I might be picking up a passive GT 710 for the older games I play. I know, it's not even quite as good as the iGPU, but it does take some load off the CPU (and therefore quieter) and I just like the looks of the EVGA one honestly :P
    Reply
  • 3ogdy
    18390449 said:
    18390398 said:
    18389890 said:
    18389149 said:
    I believe the RX-470 is for the countries where the economy is not exactly shiny.
    Or people who just don't care about being able to hit 1080p ultra in most games if they can save $20-30, possibly more.

    In my case, the most money I have ever spent on a GPU is $160: the HD5770 I bought when I got serious about playing WoW early in WotLK. After retiring from WoW, my PC gaming withered to only a few hours per month from lack of interest in most other stuff I have tried, which gives me very little motivation to waste $200 on a new GPU.

    Yeah, I know the feeling. I find myself replaying the older games more than trying new ones. They don't feel that appealing to me anymore either, but I believe driving 3 screens x1440p, doing AE, Photoshop and watching UHD videos is a bit more than what a mid-range GPU is usually designed for, even though Adobe's suite doesn't necessarily ask for powerful GPUs - it's mostly the CPU that makes the difference in them.

    I also am playing older games, my priorities have shifted. If I play games from 2005, there is no need for me to have a powerful GPU. My current priority with my PC is making it very quiet, so every little thing helps. I have a Noctua fan and CPU cooler now, and I might be picking up a passive GT 710 for the older games I play. I know, it's not even quite as good as the iGPU, but it does take some load off the CPU (and therefore quieter) and I just like the looks of the EVGA one honestly :P

    Looks like looks must come into play haha. I usually prefer to get hardware that's more powerful than what I need at the time of building a computer as it will age in a prettier manner.
    I happen to be the owner of an NH-D15. It's very silent even at max speed, I can call myself a very happy customer of theirs.
    Reply