Radeon R7 370 [in 8 benchmarks]
Radeon R7 370
Buy
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
- Core clock speed 0
- Max video memory 4096 MB
- Memory type GDDR5
- Memory clock speed 975
- Maximum resolution
Summary
AMD started Radeon R7 370 sales 5 May 2015 at a recommended price of $149. This is a desktop graphics card based on a GCN 1.0 architecture and made with 28 nm manufacturing process. It is primarily aimed at gamer market. 4 GB of GDDR5 memory clocked at 975 GHz are supplied, and together with 256 Bit memory interface this creates a bandwidth of 179.2 GB/s.
Compatibility-wise, this is dual-slot card attached via PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Its manufacturer default version has a length of 152 mm. 1 x 6-pin power connector is required, and power consumption is at 110 Watt.
It provides poor gaming and benchmark performance at
11. 46%
of a leader’s which is NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090.
GeForce RTX4090
Compare
General info
Some basic facts about Radeon R7 370: architecture, market segment, release date etc.
| Place in performance ranking | 330 | |
| Value for money | 1.54 | |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | |
| GPU code name | Trinidad (Pitcairn) | |
| Market segment | Desktop | |
| Design | reference | |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (8 years old) | |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | |
| Current price | $418 (2.8x MSRP) | of 158889 (A100 PCIe) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio.
The higher, the better.
Technical specs
Radeon R7 370’s specs such as number of shaders, GPU base clock, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of Radeon R7 370’s performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider its benchmark and gaming test results.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | of 20480 (Data Center GPU Max NEXT) |
| Boost clock speed | 975 MHz | of 3599 (Radeon RX 7990 XTX) |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | of 14400 (GeForce GTX 1080 SLI Mobile) |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | of 4 (GeForce RTX 4080) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | of 2400 (Data Center GPU Max Subsystem) |
| Texture fill rate | 62.40 | of 969. 9 (h200 SXM5 96 GB) |
| Floating-point performance | 1,997 gflops | of 16384 (Radeon Pro Duo) |
Size and compatibility
This section provides details about the physical dimensions of Radeon R7 370 and its compatibility with other computer components. This information is useful when selecting a computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards, it includes details about the interface and bus (for motherboard compatibility) and additional power connectors (for power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | |
| Length | 152 mm | |
| Width | 2-slot | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin |
Memory
Parameters of memory installed on Radeon R7 370: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth.
Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated memory and use a shared part of system RAM instead.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | of 128 (Radeon Instinct MI250X) |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | of 8192 (Radeon Instinct MI250X) |
| Memory clock speed | 975 MHz | of 22400 (GeForce RTX 4080) |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | of 3276 (Aldebaran) |
| Shared memory | — |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on Radeon R7 370. As a rule, this section is relevant only for desktop reference graphics cards, since for notebook ones the availability of certain video outputs depends on the laptop model, while non-reference desktop models can (though not necessarily will) bear a different set of video ports.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | |
| Eyefinity | + | |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | |
| HDMI | + | |
| DisplayPort support | + |
Technologies
Technological solutions and APIs supported by Radeon R7 370. You’ll probably need this information if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | |
| CrossFire | 1 | |
| Enduro | — | |
| FreeSync | 1 | |
| HD3D | — | |
| PowerTune | — | |
| TrueAudio | + | |
| ZeroCore | — | |
| VCE | + | |
| DDMA audio | + |
API support
APIs supported by Radeon R7 370, sometimes including their particular versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| Vulkan | + | |
| Mantle | + |
Benchmark performance
Synthetic benchmark performance of Radeon R7 370. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
R7 370
11.46
Passmark
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite.
It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 24%
R7 370
4504
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280×1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
R7 370
28723
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle.
All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280×720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
R7 370
8519
3DMark Fire Strike Score
Benchmark coverage: 13%
R7 370
5525
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280×720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
R7 370
39809
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs.
It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature seemingly made of lava. Using 1920×1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
R7 370
5961
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280×720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
R7 370
323114
Unigine Heaven 4.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands.
The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.
Benchmark coverage: 1%
R7 370
702
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of Radeon R7 370. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 359 Mh/s | |
| Decred / DCR (Decred) | 0.52 Gh/s | |
| Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto) | 14 Mh/s | |
| Monero / XMR (CryptoNight) | 0.42 kh/s | |
| Zcash / ZEC (Equihash) | 150 Sol/s |
Gaming performance
Let’s see how good Radeon R7 370 is for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in frames per second.
Comparisons with game system requirements are included, but remember that sometimes official requirements may reflect reality inaccurately.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular modern games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 47 | |
| 1440p | 41 | |
| 4K | 20 |
Performance in popular games
Relative perfomance
Radeon R7 370’s performance compared to nearest competitors among desktop video cards.
AMD Radeon R9 370
104.8
AMD Radeon HD 7870
102.97
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580
100.61
AMD Radeon R7 370
100
AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT
99.
21
NVIDIA P104-100
98.78
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti
96.95
NVIDIA equivalent
According to our data, the closest NVIDIA alternative to Radeon R7 370 is GeForce GTX 580, which is faster by 1% and higher by 2 positions in our ranking.
GeForce GTX580
Compare
Here are some closest NVIDIA rivals to Radeon R7 370:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050
112.04
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
105.93
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580
100.61
AMD Radeon R7 370
100
NVIDIA P104-100
98.78
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti
96.
95
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480
89.7
Similar GPUs
Here is our recommendation of several graphics cards that are more or less close in performance to the one reviewed.
GeForce GTX660 Ti
Compare
GeForce GTX760
Compare
Radeon RX460
Compare
Radeon R9270X
Compare
GeForce GTX1050
Compare
GeForce GTX750 Ti
Compare
Recommended processors
These processors are most commonly used with Radeon R7 370 according to our statistics.
FX
6300
4.7%
FX
4300
2.4%
Core i5
4460
2%
Core i5
3470
1.
8%
FX
8350
1.7%
Core i5
2400
1.6%
FX
8320
1.5%
FX
8320E
1.4%
Core i3
10100F
1.3%
FX
8300
1.3%
User ratings: view and submit
Here you can see the user rating of the graphics card, as well as rate it yourself.
Questions and comments
Here you can ask a question about Radeon R7 370, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
XFX Radeon R7 370 2GB Black Edition Game Benchmarks
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.
Here’s how it works.
Why you can trust Tom’s Hardware
Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.
Gaming Benchmark Results
Comparison Graphics Cards
Sapphire ITX Compact R9 380
Asus GeForce GTX 950 Strix
Zotac GeForce GTX 960 AMP!
Battlefield
Image 1 of 2
In Battlefield 4, XFX’s R7 370 Black Edition handles 1080p at Ultra quality fairly well. It doesn’t average the 60 FPS many gamers want to see, but it never dipped below 30 either. Overclocking the card yields a small speed-up, though you’ll still want to dial back your detail preset for smoother performance.
Image 1 of 2
At a lower resolution, XFX’s R7 370 Black Edition breaks above that 60 FPS average. It manages a sizable lead over the GeForce GTX 750 Ti, but trails Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 950, which recently took over a similar price point.
Far Cry 4
Image 1 of 2
XFX’s R7 370 Black Edition doesn’t fare well in Far Cry 4. For some reason the game is particularly hard on AMD’s hardware, evidenced by the R9 380’s dip to 31 FPS. The Radeon R7 370 maintains a higher average frame rate than the GTX 750 Ti, though Nvidia’s card doesn’t fall as low as AMD’s. Even after overclocking, the 370 dips down to 26 FPS.
Image 1 of 2
Lowering the resolution gets performance into a more playable range, though if you want to break past 60 FPS on average, you’ll still need to relax the quality settings. Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 750 Ti still maintains a higher average and doesn’t dip as low in our minimum measurements.
Grand Theft Auto V
Image 1 of 2
In Grand Theft Auto V, the R7 370 Black Edition is far more competitive. It stays above 60 FPS most of the time using our settings. The GeForce GTX 750 Ti is left in the dust, and the GTX 950 can’t carve out much of a lead. After overclocking, XFX’s R7 370 is nipping at the heels of Nvidia’s latest.
Image 1 of 2
Dropping the resolution helps the R7 370 in GTA 5, establishing an average frame rate in excess of 100 and never dipping below 60. Curiously, the Sapphire R9 380 ITX we recently reviewed registers a lower minimum, and overall, the 370 performs almost on par.
It would seem that Nvidia’s architecture is better-optimized for this resolution; the GeForce GTX 750 Ti is 17 FPS higher than AMD’s cards.
Metro: Last Light
Image 1 of 2
XFX’s R7 370 Black Edition performs well in Metro: Last Light, trailing the GeForce GTX 950 by a small margin. After overclocking, this gap essentially closes. Both cards average just shy of 60 frames per second, and dip into the higher 30s at certain. The GTX 750 Ti can’t keep up in this game.
Image 1 of 2
The R7 370 Black Edition is slightly slower than the GTX 950 at this lower resolution, but leaves the GTX 750 Ti trailing far behind. Our tests are performed with tessellation turned off, but it would be easy to enable it for increased geometry detail with plenty of performance to spare.
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor
In Shadow of Mordor, XFX’s R7 370 Black Edition averages 15 FPS more than the GeForce GTX 750 Ti and trails the GTX 950 by just a hair. After overclocking, the R7 370 manages a gain over the 950 and is only a few FPS slower than the pricey GeForce GTX 960.
Image 1 of 2
For desktop gamers on a 1366×768 display, the R7 370 Black Edition runs Shadow of Mordor beautifully. You’ll rarely see fewer than 60 frames per second. Our overclocked configuration pushes performance beyond the GeForce GTX 950, though Nvidia’s GTX 960 maintains a significant lead. The GeForce GTX 750 Ti can’t even compete; it doesn’t average more than 60 FPS at these settings.
Tomb Raider
Image 1 of 2
Tomb Raider is an older title, but it is still one of the most demanding games in our suite. The settings used for this test frankly should have been relaxed. Only the R9 380 averages higher than 60 FPS. The R7 370 Black Edition does manage playable performance, but also dips as low as 20 FPS at certain points, usually hovering around 45.
Overclocking helps, but not enough to catch the GTX 950.
Image 1 of 2
With the resolution lowered to 1366×768, the game runs better. It averages more than 60 FPS, though we still see dips into the 30s. Ultimate presets are really beyond what this card was designed for.
Overclocking yields a slight boost, but really, Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 950 handles the lower resolution better, extending its lead. On the other hand, the GTX 750 Ti trails, again unable to maintain a 60 FPS average.
Zotac GeForce GTX 960 AMP!: Price Comparison
No price information
Check Amazon
powered by
Current page:
Gaming Benchmark Results
Prev Page Specifications & Product 360
Next Page Overclocking, Audio, Heat & Power
Kevin Carbotte is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware who primarily covers VR and AR hardware. He has been writing for us for more than four years.
rebranding is (not) fun! GECID.com. Page 1
::>Video cards
>2020
> AMD Radeon R7 370 2GB Gaming Test 2020: Rebranding Is (Not) Fun!
02-06-2020
Page 1
Page 2
One page
We recently tested the capabilities of the Radeon R9Fury in actual games.
It seems that at that time AMD’s entire available budget for the graphics division was spent on this innovative series of video cards with HBM memory, and the rest of the segments received rebranded versions of the previous generation models.
The Radeon R7 370 looked especially sad in this respect. It is based on the Trinidad PRO GPU. This is a slightly improved and accelerated version of Curacao PRO, which in 2014 formed the basis of the R7 265 video card. But even then it was not the original chip, but a rebranding of Pitcairn PRO for the Radeon HD 7850, released in 2012.
This whole nesting doll is based on the first generation 28nm GCN microarchitecture, with not very good support for DirectX 12. They have 1024 stream processors, 64 texture units and 32 raster units in their structure. For 3 years of existence on the market and three generations of video cards, only the clock frequencies of the GPU and video memory have improved, and the recommended price has also decreased from $249 to $149.
There were also versions with a 4-gigabyte buffer. But the rest without much change.
NVIDIA was doing better then. In this price segment, its position was defended by the very successful GTX 750 Ti and the then new GTX 950. Both are made in a 2-gig version, but this did not prevent the GTX 950 from surpassing the R7 370 in performance. That is, at the time of its announcement, this video card was slightly outdated. Let’s see what it’s capable of 5 years after its release.
The MSI Radeon R7 370 2GD5T OC 9 temporarily becomes the first violin in our booth0012 . It was provided to us for testing by the CompX store, which has a wide selection of new and used components.
It adopts MSI Armor’s classic black and white design, uses three heatpipes and a pair of 10cm fans in the cooler design, and boasts a 5% factory overclocked GPU. Unfortunately, the video buffer is presented in a 2-gigabyte version and without factory overclocking.
The rest of the stand looks like this. For this test run, BRAIN provided the 9 processor0011 Core i5-9600KF . Even in nominal mode, it will not limit the potential of the video card. Its 6 cores work in 6-thread mode with a base frequency of 3.7 GHz and a maximum dynamic overclock of up to 4.6 GHz.
The ASRock Z390 Phantom Gaming SLI was cast as a motherboard due to excellent equipment.
CPU temperature was monitored by 2-section coolant DEEPCOOL GAMERSTORM CAPTAIN 240X WHITE .
Another highlight of the test stand was the 16 GB kit DDR4-3200 ADATA SPECTRIX D41 RGB . Its illumination can be synchronized with compatible components. Popular technologies from ASUS, ASRock, GIGABYTE and MSI are responsible for this. And simple overclocking is guaranteed by Intel XMP 2.0.
The operating system, games and some software were installed on a 2.
5-inch SSD Apacer AS340 with a capacity of 480 GB. Drive-critical games are on a fast terabyte M.2 SSD Transcend PCIe SSD MTE220S . And everything else fit on a 2-terabyte hybrid drive from Seagate .
The golden block VINGA VPS-650G provided stable power supply for all pieces of iron. In addition to excellent output characteristics and a high-quality element base, it will please with a fully modular cable system, flexible cables that are easy to lay, and a quiet fan operation throughout the entire range.
To give the stand a finished look, we used a capacious case VINGA COBALT . It comes with only one 120mm fan. In a pair to it, you can install five 140- or 120-mm turntables, or take these seats with LSS radiators.
Monitor Philips Brilliance 329P9H was used to display the picture. And with the recording of gameplay without loss of performance, an external system with AVerMedia Live Gamer 4K helped.
Let’s move on to games. In Dota 2 , we boldly turn all the settings to the maximum and immerse ourselves in the gameplay. Clash of several heroes and using colorful spells drops the 0.1% Low stats below 30 fps, but this will not spoil the gameplay experience. Average speed rises to district 90 fps.
World of Tanks on ultra requires 3 GB of VRAM, and on R7 370 the game froze a little. The maximum preset is already given without such problems. Even on a light tank, you can confidently surf the map if your opponents allow it. The average speed just keeps at the level of 60 FPS.
When playing for the result, it is better to go down to a high preset in order to achieve the optimal balance of image quality and video sequence smoothness. There is no longer an average speed, but the statistics of very rare events is kept around 60 frames / s.
War Thunder surprised me. We recently tested a 2-gig GeForce GTX 660, and everything was great there at the maximum preset.
Here, according to statistics, there are no critical remarks, but at times there is an Input lag, and this is uncomfortable.
Switching to a high preset completely removes all negative impressions. The picture is still pleasing to the eye, the video sequence is smooth and responsive. If you play carefully and do not substitute, you can enjoy the gameplay.
The low quality preset in ARK Survival Evolved lowers the render scale below 70%. The picture turns out not only vyrviglazny, but also soapy. An average speed of 85 FPS can be used for marketing purposes, but then you will have to be modestly silent about jamming. We will not do this and will immediately tell the truth — really light friezes slipped through. This is clearly seen in the 0.1% Low statistics.
RUST ate 11 GB of free RAM and a lot of our time until we managed to find the right graphics settings. We stopped at almost the minimum parameters.
The picture will appeal to connoisseurs of primitivism in the visual arts. But it ran without friezes and twitches.
CS: GO averaged over 100 FPS at the lowest graphics settings, and statistics for very rare events never dropped below 39 fps. That is, there was not even a hint of stators or jamming. Everything is fine with the control, but the reaction speed in this battle let us down.
In Escape from Tarkov , only the low preset provides playable gameplay without freezes and with sane controls. Although random stators also skip, and the current frame rate depends on the number of objects in the frame. In general, you can count on 40-50 FPS.
Rainbow Six Siege warns that it is slightly lacking in video memory for a high graphics preset, but we did not feel any discomfort from this in operations. The average speed is kept around 70 frames / s and you can go online with a clear conscience and trembling hands.
Review and testing of the AMD Radeon R7 370 4096 MB video card: a hidden threat
Table of contents
- Introduction
- Specifications
- Review ASUS Radeon R7 370 Strix (Strix-R7370-DC2OC-4GD5-Gaming)
- Appearance and dimensions
- PCB
- Cooling system
- Test bench
- Instrumentation and Test Method
- Play tests
- Cooling System Potential Study
- Details
- Electricity consumption level
- Test results
- Company Of Heroes II
- Metro Last Light
- Sleeping Dogs
- Sniper Elite III
- Thief (2014)
- Tomb Raider (2013)
- Total War: Rome II
- Far Cry III
- Crysis 3
- Battlefield 4
- Grand Theft Auto V
- The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
- Average number of frames
- Conclusion
Introduction
How long do you think the GPU architecture can live? A year, two, three or more? If you answered that up to three years, then you are greatly mistaken.
No, I’m not a snob and never break away from manufacturers, it’s just that some people manage to survive in difficult situations with one architecture for almost five years. Of course, market positions are weakening, but the company is still strong and ready to develop something new.
Yes, we are talking about AMD. Now difficult times are coming for it — the market for discrete accelerators is constantly shrinking, and the eternal competitor is not just stepping on its heels, but is already breathing in the back. And no, it’s not Nvidia. For a long time, Intel has been in the shadows, but the latest reports from independent experts tell us about the dominance of integrated solutions. And while the market niche between $50 and $100 is blurring and disappearing, companies are retraining for more expensive and productive video cards.
And here comes the second question. Did AMD do the right thing by renaming the de facto existing line of models to something new? In my opinion, it is difficult to find fault here.
After all, AMD has honestly reduced the cost of its graphic solutions in terms of the two-four-year existence of the latter. Let’s say that in 2012 the Radeon HD 7850/HD 7870 video cards were estimated at $200-250, and two years later their cost dropped to $150, while the GPU frequency rose from 860 MHz to 925 MHz.
And in 2015, the same Pitcairn was reborn in the form of the Radeon R7 370, but with 4 GB of memory and a frequency of under 1 GHz. Quite a worthy replacement. And now, using the example of the ASUS Radeon R7 370 Strix version, we will find out how good the $150 Pitcairn Pro is.
Specifications
recommendations
|
Name |
Radeon R7 265 |
Radeon R7 370 |
GeForce GTX 750 Ti |
| Codename |
Pitcairn Pro |
Pitcairn |
GM107 |
| Version |
GCN 1.  0 |
GCN 1.0 |
Maxwell 1.x |
| Process technology, nm |
28 |
28 |
28 |
| Core size/cores, mm 2 |
212 |
212 |
148 |
| Number of transistors, million |
2800 |
2800 |
1870 |
| Core frequency, MHz |
900 |
— |
1020 |
| Core clock (Turbo), MHz |
925 |
975 |
1085 |
Number of shaders (PS), pcs. |
1024 |
1024 |
640 |
| Number of texture units (TMU), pcs. |
64 |
64 |
40 |
| Number of rasterization blocks (ROP), pcs. |
32 |
32 |
16 |
| Maximum fill rate, Gpix/s |
29.6 |
31 |
16.  3 |
| Maximum texture sampling rate, Gtex/s |
59.2 |
64 |
40.8 |
| Memory type |
GDDR5 |
GDDR5 |
GDDR5 |
| Effective memory frequency, MHz |
1400 |
1400 |
1350 |
| Memory, GB |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| Memory bus bit |
256 |
256 |
128 |
| Memory bandwidth, GB/s |
179 |
179 |
86.  4 |
| Power, connectors Pin |
6 |
6 |
— |
| Power consumption (2D / 3D), Watt |
-/130 |
-/110 |
-/60 |
| CrossFire/Sli |
V |
V |
— |
| Announcement price, $ |
150 |
150 |
150 |
| Replacement model |
Radeon HD 7850 |
Radeon R7 265 |
GeForce GTX 650 Ti |
Review ASUS Radeon R7 370 Strix (Strix-R7370-DC2OC-4GD5-Gaming)
Appearance and dimensions
|
Model |
A, mm |
b, mm |
c, mm |
D, mm |
A1, mm |
b1, mm |
C1, mm |
| ASUS Radeon R7 370 Strix (Strix-R7370-DC2OC-4GD5-Gaming) |
170 |
108 |
35 |
75 |
214 |
113 |
40 |
| XFX Radeon R7850 Core Edition |
198 |
98 |
34 |
67 |
198 |
98 |
38 |
| Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 OC |
198 |
98 |
35 |
74 |
210 |
102 |
41 |
| Sapphire Radeon R7 265 Dual-X |
198 |
98 |
34 |
74 |
210 |
98 |
38 |
| PowerColor AX7850 2GBD5-DHV2 |
198 |
98 |
34 |
88 |
202 |
105 |
41 |
| MSI R7850 Power Edition OC |
203 |
98 |
34 |
74 |
212 |
107 |
39 |
| MSI R7 265 2GD5 OC |
220 |
98 |
34 |
95 |
220 |
113 |
37 |
| HIS 7850 IceQ X Turbo X |
198 |
98 |
34 |
86 |
219 |
113 |
39 |
| GigaByte GV-R7265WF2OC-2GD |
238 |
98 |
34 |
95 |
241 |
114 |
39 |
| GigaByte GV-R785OC-1GD |
198 |
98 |
34 |
96 |
225 |
109 |
38 |
| ASUS HD 7850-DC-1GD5 |
215 |
98 |
35 |
76 |
251 |
109 |
40 |
| ASUS HD 7850-DC2-2GD5 |
198 |
87 |
37 |
76 |
255 |
102 |
42 |
| ASUS HD 7850-DC2T-2GD5-V2 |
215 |
98 |
37 |
76 |
274 |
102 |
40 |
| AMD Radeon HD 7850 v1 |
240 |
98 |
34 |
63 |
248 |
98 |
38 |
| AMD Radeon HD 7850 v2 |
198 |
98 |
34 |
67 |
198 |
98 |
38 |
A — length of the printed circuit board, excluding the cooling system and the bracket for video output ports.
B PCB width, excluding PCI-E pins and cooling system.
C — height from the horizontal plane of the printed circuit board to the level of the top surface of the cooling system.
D – diameter of the fan/s along the outer radius.
A1 – length of the printed circuit board, including the cooling system (if it extends beyond the printed circuit board) to the bracket for the video output ports.
В1 – width of the printed circuit board, excluding PCI-E pins, but including the measurement of the cooling system (if it extends beyond the printed circuit board).
С1 — height, taking into account the back plate (if any) / radiator mounting screws to the level of the upper surface of the cooling system. If it is lower than the height of the back bar of the video output ports, then the height is measured to the top of the bar.
The table above shows all models based on the Pitcairn graphics core and passed through my hands.
We can say that the class is quite large and the varieties of boards can not be counted.
But only now it was possible to significantly reduce the dimensions of the printed circuit board — up to 170 mm, and we will find out whether the quality indicators of the components used have deteriorated a little later. As for video outputs, here we are waiting for a standard set of a pair of DVI ports, one HDMI and one DispalyPort.
PCB
A favorite topic for ASUS developers is releasing PCBs of their own design. Sometimes the original design surpasses the quality of the original, sometimes it becomes a miserable copy.
The Radeon HD 7850 experienced a black screen error. Many buyers faced it, who reacted extremely negatively in the future to the offer to exchange a video card for the same one. Then the situation changed, but now the case intervened and many ASUS models have not recovered from the «black screen». And only in the third revision it was possible to solve the problem.
But time was lost, and trust was undermined.
Instead of the Radeon HD 7850 (by the way, one of the samples with a burned out and then replaced GPU is still on the shelf and retains 100% youth and combat efficiency), R7 265 was released. In the near future, when we will prepare material on the evolution of video cards for the last few years, we will definitely dust it off and put it in a test system.
With the Radeon R7 265 a new era in design has begun. The number of phases has been reduced to a minimum (from five to four), they themselves are located in a vertical line in the front (I remind you that in the first revision of the HD 7850 five phases of Dr.MOS were installed in a checkerboard pattern), power is supplied through a single 6pin connector.
And the ASUS PCB as a whole becomes a compromise between the desire to save money (supplied medium-priced coils and affordable power transistors) and to provide a video card with nominally good power.
Memory phase control device, more precisely one — uPI Semiconductor uP1540P PWM controller. The four GPU power phases are connected to a similarly capable uP1608TK PWM controller.
It is noteworthy that a similar combination has already been seen on ASUS video cards and was perfectly recognized by the proprietary utility. Now it’s as if the whole world has conspired against overclocking AMD models. The rated voltage is 1.188 V, which is also the maximum available! Can you imagine what an exciting overclocking process awaits us?
Since the length of the printed circuit board is rather modest, and the cooling system goes beyond its perimeter, the convenience of connecting and placing the power connector comes to the fore. And here the novelty of ASUS is not perfect.
There is an indication of the supply of electricity — excellent, visual, commendable and useful, but by the time you crawl to the connector, you will scratch all your fingers.
It could have been rotated 90 degrees. Well, at least the tongue is on the back of the printed circuit board, otherwise it would be impossible to turn off the power without knowledge of the Kama Sutra.
In the case of the tested video card, the amount of memory is 4 GB, while previously the standard was 2. The number of chips has not changed. There were eight of them, and so it remains. Accordingly, the density changed — exactly twice.
According to the technical documentation, Hynix T2C operates at 5000 MHz, while on the ASUS Radeon R7 370 Strix the memory operates at 5600 MHz, which corresponds to the specifications of the AMD Radeon R7 370. Theoretically, this is factory overclocked above the documented capabilities. But so far, Hynix has not posted data on denser microcircuits, so I fully admit that at higher voltages they officially support a frequency of more than 5 GHz.
This is a Pitcairn GPU, formerly known as Curacao/Trinidad.
Its area is 212 mm 2 , and until now (what year in a row) it is produced using 28 nm technology.
ASUS Radeon R7 370 Strix nominal frequencies are 1050 MHz for GPU and 1400 MHz for memory.
The graphics core contains 1024 unified shader processors, 64 texture units and 32 raster operations units. Its frequency in 3D mode on the ASUS video card is increased relative to the reference value from 975 to 1050 MHz. The ASIC quality of the crystal is 72.3%.
Cooling system
The cooling system of most new models of ASUS video cards is semi-passive. This means that the fans stop during partial loads or when idle. With this scheme of operation of the CO, it is important to install high-quality turntables on the video card that can start as smoothly as possible from low speeds.
The video card in question is cooled by a medium-sized radiator and a pair of 75 mm fans.
Compared to the PCB, the heat spreader is really big.
But at its base there are only two heat pipes with a diameter of 6 mm.
The declared power consumption of the video card is 150 W, which means that it allocates the equivalent of this value.
I initially liked the simplicity of the design with wide ribs. A direct contact over the entire surface should provide good results.
True, on closer examination it turned out that the height of the radiator is quite tiny — 13 mm. The bet is made on large models of fans with aggressive blades.
The main problem of the video card is the choice of the correct speed of the turntables when the power system is heated. Look at the heatsink that cools the VRM area.
The area is scanty, the height is below the coils, the location is unfortunate (just behind the heat pipe, if you look at it from above). What awaits the VRM zone during long-term work under load or even worse in overclocking .