facebook rss twitter

Review: Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X

by Tarinder Sandhu on 20 March 2014, 16:00

Tags: Sapphire, AMD (NYSE:AMD)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qacb75

Add to My Vault: x

Conclusion

The Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X card uses established, well-grounded cooling on a capable card, though it seems profligate not to increase frequencies much above stock speeds.

AMD's partners have relied on a succession of price cuts and tweaks to long-standing GPU architectures for their premium graphics offerings in 2014. This is no bad thing if the cards are priced appropriately and continue to offer meaningful competition to rival GeForces.

Such an approach has been taken with the Radeon HD R9 280 GPU released earlier this month. A rebadged HD 7950 Boost in all but name, a new-and-improved £199 price tag brings it into the financial reach of more users. GPU hardware development pace will continue to slow as transitions to smaller processes become more expensive, so, moving forwards, we'll likely see more teasing out of present architectures.

The Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X card uses established, well-grounded cooling on a capable card, though it seems profligate not to increase frequencies much above stock speeds - overclocking tests show it to be a capable performer.

Pricing is always key in this segment of the market. Increasing the budget by £30 brings the R9 280X and GTX 770 OC very much into play - you'll be rewarded with extra performance, sometimes considerably higher, from those rival cards. But judged solely at the intended price point, Sapphire's custom-cooled card makes reasonable sense, particularly if your monitor is limited to a 1080p resolution.

The Good

Great cooling capacity
Solid performance at £200
Overclocks well

The Bad

Tiny out-of-the-box overclock
Aggressive fan-speed profile

HEXUS.awards


Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X

HEXUS.where2buy

The Sapphire Radeon R9 280 Dual-X is available to purchase from Overclockers.co.uk.

HEXUS.right2reply

At HEXUS, we invite the companies whose products we test to comment on our articles. If any company representatives for the products reviewed choose to respond, we'll publish their commentary here verbatim.



HEXUS Forums :: 6 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Typo in the final paragraph. 290X should read 280X
I really can't figure out why anybody's buying AMD cards in recent years. If you do get a card that's cheaper than its rival at the same performance level, then it's a false economy since the thing is going to cost you more in electricity, and the noise is going to be a problem. Unless you're a headphones-wearing gamer who doesn't pay their own bills, I cannot understand why AMD would be an attractive option. Assuming you run that card for a few years, operational costs are going to be a huge factor.

It seems like the only high-end card that makes sense on price and noise for single display set-ups is the GTX770, but the power efficiency of a “lesser” GTX is perhaps better in the long run even though a low 770 is pretty close in price tag to a 760 now.
Otherhand
I really can't figure out why anybody's buying AMD cards in recent years. If you do get a card that's cheaper than its rival at the same performance level, then it's a false economy since the thing is going to cost you more in electricity, and the noise is going to be a problem. Unless you're a headphones-wearing gamer who doesn't pay their own bills, I cannot understand why AMD would be an attractive option. Assuming you run that card for a few years, operational costs are going to be a huge factor.

It seems like the only high-end card that makes sense on price and noise for single display set-ups is the GTX770, but the power efficiency of a “lesser” GTX is perhaps better in the long run even though a low 770 is pretty close in price tag to a 760 now.

Not really sure on that view point… say if the difference was around 100W which it most certainly isnt if you look at the 290X vs the 780TI (its direct competitor) it uses 30w less… but regardless back to the 100W extra scenario, run it 3 hours a day 7 days a week ( thats still 21 hours of gaming!) and over a WHOLE YEAR it would cost you between £10 and £20 depending on your electricity unit pricing… I know for me that buying my 7950 boost v2 @ £180 (and selling the game codes as well for a healthy return!) was a very cost effective purchase as the competing products were much more expensive and infact marginal in power usage difference.

If you're really worried about power usage I hear the AMD A10-7850k is a competent platform to use :P.

I am just a little disappointed that this is a rebrand and is more expensive than when I bought mine! Should be a bit cheaper now :(. Wonder what the AMD 300 series will bring? Finally ordered my Oculus rift so I believe I will be in need for an upgrade to get all games running at a solid 75FPS minimum :P
Otherhand
I really can't figure out why anybody's buying AMD cards in recent years.

If you do get a card that's cheaper than its rival at the same performance level, then it's a false economy since the thing is going to cost you more in electricity, and the noise is going to be a problem. Unless you're a headphones-wearing gamer who doesn't pay their own bills, I cannot understand why AMD would be an attractive option. Assuming you run that card for a few years, operational costs are going to be a huge factor.
What a strange viewpoint. AMD's pitcairn cards are at least as efficient as their nVidia equivalents, often more so, and their compute power completely blows even higher tier nVidia out of the water.
Did you even actually bother looking at the real stats before coming to that opinion?

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/67581-sapphire-radeon-r9-280-dual-x/?page=10

Those results are giving the exact opposite in what “Otherhand” is saying..