OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£180VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):120 W

Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB
6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

40%

4.6

Technical score

25%

8.0

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.6

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 86% of graphics cards
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 68%
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

44%

2.3

Performance

24%

3.9

Memory

12%

9.0

Power

11%

7.4

Features

5%

9.1

Design

4%

7.6

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 89%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 51% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 51%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
  • sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
  • sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
  • sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
  • sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
  • sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
  • sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-470-4gb
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB

Based on 1 · 3

Reviewers praise its effective cooling, solid 1080p performance and good support for modern graphics APIs.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB

Based on 223 owners sharing their experience in online comments

49%positive22%mixed29%negative

Strong gaming performance is the card’s biggest strength, while heat, driver trouble, and instability are common frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Under full gaming load the GPU often reaches 78 to 90°C, and the fan can get loud. Undervolting or a different BIOS helped some owners.19
  • In demanding games such as GTA V and Elden Ring, owners report only 18 to 40 frames per second, often with older CPUs.11
  • Some cards sometimes show artifacts or green lines in games, and owners suspect worn memory or power parts.5
  • Some cards drop from about 1220 MHz to 300 to 500 MHz under load, and one stayed locked at 300 MHz despite BIOS changes.4
  • Installing drivers can cause a black screen, especially on cards with a modified BIOS; one owner had to reinstall Windows.4
  • Games can stutter, freeze or crash, and some owners say a modified mining-card BIOS caused it.4

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Graphics cards model ranking

Ranked #1177 of 2,260 models in Graphics cards (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of graphics card Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components:

44%

2.3

Performance

24%

3.9

Memory

12%

9.0

Power

11%

7.4

Features

5%

9.1

Design

4%

7.6

Connectivity

4.6
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

7.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
3,793 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 3,793 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 91.2% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
7,933 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 7,933 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 89% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,909 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,909 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 90.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
5.16 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 5.16 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 85.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
211.2 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 211.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 86.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 90.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% of graphics cards.
vendor-name or prompt-tail contamination removed; Vulkan version unresolved.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
5
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 5 displays, which is more than 97.3% of graphics cards and equal to 1.4% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
3840x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 3840x2160, which is lower than that of 97% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 78.3% of graphics cards and equal to 9.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
25.92 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 25.92 Gbps, which is faster than on 51.7% of graphics cards and equal to 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
120 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 120 W, which is lower than that of 82.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
175 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 175 W under peak load, which is lower than 65.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
120 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 120 W, which is lower than that of 85.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
120 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
241x 126x 42 mm
Length
240 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 240 mm long, which is shorter than 76.2% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.5% of graphics cards.
Height
125 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 125 mm tall, which is shorter than 48.8% of graphics cards and equal in height to 2.9% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
710 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 710 g, which is lighter than 77.2% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of Graphics cards.
Show more

Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 44.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (120 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    120 W vs 215 W
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 1 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (5 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    5 vs 4
  • 42.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (240 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    240 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 45.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (120 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    120 W vs 220 W
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 2.89x cheaper
    Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£180 vs £520).
    £180 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (5 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    5 vs 4
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 44.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (120 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    120 W vs 215 W
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 45.5% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (120 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    120 W vs 220 W
  • 42.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (240 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    240 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 49.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,260 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,260 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 51.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (932 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    932 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 41.0% lower sentiment score
    4.6 vs 7.8
  • 3.1% worse value for money
    Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.19 vs 7.4).
    7.19 vs 7.41
  • 49.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,260 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,260 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 51.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (932 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    932 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 75% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (40.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    40.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 59.2% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (154.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    154.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 56 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (128 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    128 vs 184
  • 77.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (5.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    5.16 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 8 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (32 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    32 vs 40
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    August 2016
    2016 vs 2023
  • 65% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (7,933 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    7,933 points vs 22,638 points
  • 74.3% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (3,793 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    3,793 points vs 14,779 points
  • 75.9% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,909 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,909 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 82.5% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (5.2 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    5.16 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 2,304 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (2048 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    2,048 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 63.2% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 52.9% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (211.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    211.2 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 75% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (32 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    32 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    vendor-name or prompt-tail contamination removed; Vulkan version unresolved.
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • 75.1% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (5,700 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    5,700 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (3840x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    3840x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 7.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (43 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    43 dB vs 35.4 dB

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
19/08/2016
Hands-on review · 1080p benchmarks and game tests
Verdict
Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB is a strong 1080p value card, though its price sits too close to the RX 480.
5.0
Matt's Paddock
≈ estimated
05/08/2016
Unboxing and review · 1080p tests, overclocking and noise
Verdict
Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB performs well, but its price sits too close to the RX 480 to recommend it.
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
geektopia.es
≈ estimated
09/09/2016
Benchmark test · Polaris card
Verdict
The Sapphire RX 470 Nitro+ performs well at 1080p, with DirectX 12 gains in several games, but 4K frame rates are low.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB

  • Excellent 1080p gaming performance, capable of high/ultra settings in many titles
  • Superior cooling solution (Dual-fan) that stays relatively quiet
  • Premium build quality featuring a robust aluminum backplate
  • User-friendly 'Quick Connect' fans that are easy to replace with a single screw
  • Good overclocking headroom, sometimes rivaling stock RX 480 performance
  • Includes features like dual BIOS (Quiet/Boost modes) and customisable RGB lighting

What customers don't like about Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB

  • High power draw for its class, significantly exceeding the reference 120W TDP
  • Price at launch was awkwardly close to the more powerful RX 480
  • Runs hotter than some competing aftermarket models (e.g., MSI) due to factory overclock
  • 4GB of VRAM is becoming a bottleneck for modern AAA titles at higher settings
  • Does not include any display adapters or power cables in the box

Verdict

The Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 470 4GB is a mid-range Polaris-based graphics card featuring 2048 shading units, 4GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, and a factory-overclocked boost clock of up to 1260 MHz. Known for its Dual-X cooling system with removable 95mm fans and an aesthetic aluminum backplate, it excels in 1080p gaming with solid DX12 support and quiet operation under light loads thanks to Intelligent Fan Control III. However, its 4GB VRAM can be a bottleneck in modern memory-intensive titles at higher resolutions, and it consumes more power than some newer alternatives with its 120W TDP and 8-pin connector requirement.

Compare Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 470 4GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found