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 590 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£260VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):175 W

Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 12 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 590
6.5/10

Overall score

Score
6.5/ 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 80% of models
Score components

40%

5.2

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

5.2

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 80% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 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 62% of models
Score components

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 62%
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 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 81% of models
Score components

44%

3.1

Performance

24%

5.1

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.1

Design

4%

8.6

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 81%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 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 77% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

8.7

Popularity

Grades by review (12)
5 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 7 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 77%
?

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-590
sapphire-nitro-radeon-rx-590
Where to buy
    N/A~ £260
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 590

Based on 5 · 7

Reviewers like its cool, quiet running and decent gaming speed, but dislike its high power draw and small gain over its predecessor.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590

Based on 202 owners sharing their experience in online comments

51%positive16%mixed33%negative

Owners like its strong gaming performance, but heat, crashes, driver problems and high power draw are recurring frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Gets very hot under load, often reaching 80–86°C with fans at full speed, and throttles unless the case has good airflow or a mod is applied.26
  • Some owners report system crashes, black screens and freezes while gaming, especially in certain titles like Arkham Knight, and the card can reset the PC.14
  • Draws around 180–225W under load, which needs a 550W or larger PSU, and can cause shutdowns on weaker power supplies.12
  • Driver problems and crashes are common, and newer driver updates have sometimes been unstable, so owners often roll back or fiddle with fan and wattage settings.9
  • In some demanding or unoptimized games like Forever Winter, it cannot hold 1080p at 60 fps and needs medium or low settings.6
  • Some owners see frequent frame drops and stuttering in games like CS:GO and Zula, with fps falling after a few minutes of play.5

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 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 81% of models
Score components:

44%

3.1

Performance

24%

5.1

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.1

Design

4%

8.6

Connectivity

5.2
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 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 62% of models
Score components:

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
5,257 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 5,257 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 84.2% 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
9,307 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 9,307 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 86% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
4,224 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 4,224 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 85.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
7.1 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 7.1 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 80% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% 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
268.8 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 268.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
8,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 8,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 86.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% 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.
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
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
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% 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
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
175 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 175 W, which is lower than that of 62.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
240 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 240 W under peak load, which is higher than 55.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
500 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 500 W PSU, which is lower than that of 75.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
235 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 235 W, which is higher than that of 52.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
175 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
260x 135x 43 mm
Length
260 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 260 mm long, which is shorter than 65.1% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Height
135 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 135 mm tall, which is taller than 70.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.5% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 50.9% of graphics cards and equal in width to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,200 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,200 g, which is heavier than 59.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 1.6% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590 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
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, 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
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 20% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2100 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,100 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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 77% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (12)
    5 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 7 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.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 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
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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 77% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (12)
    5 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 7 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.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 2x cheaper
    Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£260 vs £520).
    £260 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
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 20% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2100 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,100 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
  • 2 more monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports more monitors per output type than the average graphics card (5 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    5 vs 3
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 18.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (175 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    175 W vs 215 W
  • 22.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (260 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    260 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.3 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2.2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2.2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 37.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,560 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,560 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
  • 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.
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 33.3% lower sentiment score
    5.2 vs 7.8
  • 37.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,560 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,560 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
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 69.1% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (49.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    49.92 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/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
  • 23.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,469 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,469 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 40.6% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (224.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    224.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 68.6% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (7.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    7.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 5 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2018 vs 2023).
    November 2018
    2018 vs 2023
  • 40 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (144 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    144 vs 184
  • 58.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (9,307 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    9,307 points vs 22,638 points
  • 64.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (5,257 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    5,257 points vs 14,779 points
  • 4 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (36 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    36 vs 40
  • 65% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (4,224 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    4,224 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 75.6% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (7.2 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    7.19 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 97% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (7.2 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    7.19 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 57.9% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (8,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    8,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 40% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (268.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    268.8 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
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 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).
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 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 AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • 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).
    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
  • 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
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, 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 (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 8 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (75 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    75 °C vs 67 °C
  • 6 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (43 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    43 °C vs 37 °C
  • 33.3% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (16 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    16 W vs 12 W
  • 10 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (135 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    135 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

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

9.0
ZeeForce Gaming
≈ estimated
16/03/2019
Hands-on review · game tests, build and price
Verdict
Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590 performs very well with a good build and is worth the price, though software options are limited.
8.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
31/01/2019
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and price comparison
Verdict
Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590 is a good 1080p performer and a great-looking card, though it is still too expensive against its rivals.
9.0
Level1Techs
≈ estimated
28/11/2018
Hands-on review · overclocking, power and value
Verdict
Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590 offers great value for its price, though power draw is its main weakness.
8.0
WccftechTV
✓ explicit
28/11/2018
Undervolting test · power draw, thermals and performance
Verdict
Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590 is power-hungry at stock, but undervolting trims its draw and heat, making it a great card overall.
8.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
15/11/2018
Full review · benchmarks, cooling and pricing
Verdict
Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590 is a decent, typical model with good cooling, though its value depends on price.
Brand video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
pcworld.com
✓ explicit
28/11/2018
Benchmark review · 1080p gaming
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon RX 590 Nitro+ is a strong 1080p card with good 1440p performance and a quiet cooler, though its power draw is very high.
8.0
ign.com
✓ explicit
31/05/2019
Benchmark review · Midrange graphics card
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon RX 590 Nitro is a quiet card that holds 60 fps at 1440p and 1080p, but performs almost the same as the GTX 1660.
8.0
pk.ign.com
✓ explicit
31/05/2019
Short benchmark review · Midrange GPU
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon RX 590 Nitro handles 1080p and 1440p but performs almost the same as the GTX 1660, so the two are a close call.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
15/11/2018
Full review · Refreshed Polaris card
Verdict
The Sapphire RX 590 Nitro+ is a quiet 1080p-to-1440p card whose fans stay off at idle, but it draws more power than the RX 580.
8.0
tech.everyeye.it
≈ estimated
15/11/2018
Benchmark test · Full HD gaming
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon RX 590 Nitro+ handles Full HD well and 1440p with some compromises, but it isn't worth the upgrade from an RX 580.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590

  • Superb 1080p gaming performance and capable 1440p gaming at high settings.
  • Highly effective custom dual-slot cooler that keeps temperatures lower than competing models.
  • Whisper-quiet operation under load, especially when using the 'Silent' BIOS profile.
  • Premium build quality featuring a sturdy metal backplate and high-quality internal components.
  • Useful extra features including dual BIOS functionality, 'Quick Connect' replaceable fans, and RGB LED customization.
  • Generous display connectivity with multiple HDMI and DisplayPort outputs plus a DVI-D port.

What customers don't like about Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590

  • Astronomically high power consumption for its performance level, drawing nearly twice the power of its direct competitor, the GTX 1060.
  • Poor efficiency (performance per watt) compared to both older Polaris cards and modern architectures.
  • Marginal performance gains over the significantly cheaper Radeon RX 580.
  • Aesthetics of the 'Special Edition' blue shroud can be polarizing and may not match all PC builds.
  • High power draw during multi-monitor setups or at idle compared to similar cards.

Verdict

The Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 590 is a performance-tier graphics card based on the 12nm Polaris 30 architecture, featuring 2,304 stream processors and 8GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. It distinguishes itself with a factory-overclocked boost clock of up to 1560 MHz and an effective memory speed of 8.4 Gbps, supported by a dual-slot Dual-X cooling system with removable 92mm fans and a dual BIOS switch for performance or silent modes. Its main strengths include excellent 1080p and capable 1440p gaming performance, a premium metallic build with a backplate, and highly effective thermal management compared to other RX 590 models. However, its primary drawbacks are its high power consumption, often exceeding 225W under load, and the aging GCN architecture which lacks modern features like hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Compare Sapphire Nitro Radeon RX 590 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 590 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found