Wednesday, August 17th 2016

High PCIe Slot Power Draw Costs RX 480 PCI-SIG Integrator Listing

AMD's design of the Radeon RX 480 graphics card, which draws over 75W of power from the PCI-Express x16 slot, has cost it a product listing on the PCI-SIG Integrators List. The list is compiled for hardware devices implementing the various PCI-Express specifications to the letter. The RX 480 is off-spec, in that it overdraws power from the slot, as the card needs more power than what the slot and the 6-pin PCIe power connector can provide while staying within specs. According to these specs, the slot can provide up to 75W of power, and the 6-pin connector another 75W. The RX 480 was tested to draw more than this 150W power budget.

What this means for AMD is that it cannot display the PCI-Express certification logo on the product or its marketing materials. This, however, may not affect AMD's add-in board (AIB) partners that are PCI-SIG members in their own right, and make graphics cards with their own sub-vendor IDs, provided their power-supply designs comply with PCIe specs. Custom-design cards with an 8-pin PCIe power connector, instead of 6-pin, may qualify as the combination of the 8-pin connector and the slot yields a power budget of 225W. AMD released a software fix to the issue of the cards overdrawing power from the slot, with the Radeon Software Crimson Edition 16.7.1 Beta.
Source: Heise.de
Add your own comment

63 Comments on High PCIe Slot Power Draw Costs RX 480 PCI-SIG Integrator Listing

#2
dj-electric
This will effect about 2 people in the world, roughly
Posted on Reply
#3
JalleR
Not at all, but still nice to see that there is consequences, and AGAIN it still just show how bad AMD design department is...... why didn't they just put a 8pin from the start.... Swallow that less than 150W pride suckers.... :)
Posted on Reply
#4
ZoneDymo
matters not, but still pretty interesting.
Posted on Reply
#5
animal007uk
99% of joe public won't even take notice of such things let alone know anything about the PCI-Express certification proccess so i don't see it as an issue at all.
Posted on Reply
#6
RejZoR
Just because of hardware. Realistically, you need latest drivers and they have the fix included. Meaning this is entirely irrelevant. Besides, who ever checked the SIG certificate? Freaking no one ever. In all the time PCIe exists, I've done that exactly NEVER.
Posted on Reply
#7
the54thvoid
Ferrum Master said:
Like it matters a bit...
Yeah, when AIB cards are better, who would opt for a same price reference? Though despite the protests, it is very relevant to drop that PCI-e branding.
But yes, buy a Sapphire version instead, far better.

A bit like FE from Nvidia. AIB's can be cheaper and cool better.
Posted on Reply
#8
ensabrenoir
...thought this was over. Men tend not to read labels, so as long as there is no threat of magic blue smoke....
Posted on Reply
#9
Caring1
ensabrenoir said:
...thought this was over. Men tend not to read labels, so as long as there is no threat of magic blue smoke....
They wouldn't see it, for the smoke haze in the room :pimp:
Posted on Reply
#10
bug
RejZoR said:
Just because of hardware. Realistically, you need latest drivers and they have the fix included. Meaning this is entirely irrelevant. Besides, who ever checked the SIG certificate? Freaking no one ever. In all the time PCIe exists, I've done that exactly NEVER.
Not irrelevant, because even if you have the drivers, the default is not to run within PCI-SIG parameters. You have to enable that option (if you know about it in the first place).
Not a big deal, but since there's a spec, users should be made aware when someone goes astray. Otherwise the spec turns into a bunch of guidelines.
Posted on Reply
#11
$ReaPeR$
"The list is compiled for hardware devices implementing the various PCI-Express specifications to the letter."
right.. spikes in the power draw don't count I imagine..
Posted on Reply
#12
RejZoR
bug said:
Not irrelevant, because even if you have the drivers, the default is not to run within PCI-SIG parameters. You have to enable that option (if you know about it in the first place).
Not a big deal, but since there's a spec, users should be made aware when someone goes astray. Otherwise the spec turns into a bunch of guidelines.
Not true. The default fix fixes the PCIe power draw. It is ON by default. The "Compatibility" fix that user has to switch on manually is for 150W limit, because it was advertised as such, but draws a bit more power. But isn't harmful for anything if not enabled, in fact you get slightly more performance if OFF.
Posted on Reply
#13
ZeppMan217
I think the funny part is how the reference RX480 got the certification in the first place, since it was not compliant with the requirements.
Posted on Reply
#14
jigar2speed
The trolls are going to have a field day with the AMD fanboys.
Posted on Reply
#15
Prima.Vera
Either way, is bad marketing for AMD yet again.
Posted on Reply
#16
RejZoR
ZeppMan217 said:
I think the funny part is how the reference RX480 got the certification in the first place, since it was not compliant with the requirements.
Yeah, that is actually the funniest part. Which means someone at PEG SIG was lazy and just gave RX480 a pass. Where THEY should be the ones who should say HOLD ON! to AMD during the certification phase. But they haven't. So, the joke is on them when they remove the certificate from RX480.
Posted on Reply
#17
JalleR
It is because that Amd has the right of testing the specs them self and then say All Good to PCI-SIG. but i guess that privilege has been removed now :)
Posted on Reply
#18
$ReaPeR$
RejZoR said:
Yeah, that is actually the funniest part. Which means someone at PEG SIG was lazy and just gave RX480 a pass. Where THEY should be the ones who should say HOLD ON! to AMD during the certification phase. But they haven't. So, the joke is on them when they remove the certificate from RX480.
i will bet you anything that the only reason they revoked the certification is the fact that it became news. its bs politics.. if the specs had to be met to the letter i bet you that many cards would fail.
Posted on Reply
#19
JalleR
Just look at the TPU review history and find them... i don´t think there is that many. One though is the R9 390 Series with the 2x8Pin = 375Watt that is not a standard by PCI-SIG either.
Posted on Reply
#20
jabbadap
Not sure about meaningfulness of that list(i.e. nvidia). Heck if read that heise.des article right pci-sig compliance tests does not even test power and they will not even consider to add power tests in the future.
Posted on Reply
#21
TheinsanegamerN
JalleR said:
Just look at the TPU review history and find them... i don´t think there is that many. One though is the R9 390 Series with the 2x8Pin = 375Watt that is not a standard by PCI-SIG either.
but that IS in PCI-SIG spec. 2x8 pin, with the PCIe connector, are good for 375 watt.
Posted on Reply
#22
Fluffmeister
They should have given the reference card a 8pin connector to begin with, it's clear it needs more power.
Posted on Reply
#23
Air
Wont change much i guess since most cards sold are from AIBs, but anyway its nice too see that you cant decide not to follow specifications and get away with it unnoticed. At least SOMETHING happened. Its a little embarrassing for AMD at least.
Posted on Reply
#25
JalleR
TheinsanegamerN said:
but that IS in PCI-SIG spec. 2x8 pin, with the PCIe connector, are good for 375 watt.
And it is stamped OK as a standard by PCI-SIG ? last time i was reading about it the 2x8 wasnt a standard in their papers, but it is maybe ½ a year ago so it could have changed.

The reason for not putting the 8pin is 1. bad design not knowing the total power draw of a full card. or 2. it will look bad that their "medium" graphic card is needing one 8pin power connector when other brands are only using one 6 pin.

And yes with the fix it is still not compliant it is 75 Watt from the slot and 75watt from 6 pin, not 84Watt from the 6 pin.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment