AMD Radeon RX 480 8 GB

[W1zzard]

Any chance of information I was interested in post 343?

Your assumption is correct, it's not perfect, but something we all have to live with, so I can finish reviews in reasonable time.

 

[gupsterg]

I appreciate the reply very much and I appreciate your teams reviews very much and ref them regularly .

I only joined and started posting recently but have been using site/vbios database IIRC since 9800 Pro ownership days, so do.

Very nice to e-meet you finally .

 

[W1zzard]

Very nice to e-meet you finally .

I've been lurking your work on OCN too

 

[gupsterg]

Ahhh, cool , I'm just a little fish in a very big pond .

 

[N3M3515]

Recommended:
RX 480 Performs better and consumes less when underclocked
AMD Radeon RX 480 Power Measurements Repeated And Clarified

 

[xorbe]

Recommended:
RX 480 Performs better and consumes less when underclocked
AMD Radeon RX 480 Power Measurements Repeated And Clarified

I am guessing that maybe all cards don't get away with reduced voltage so easily.

 

[Hellraiser1981]

this is still a product of overclocking. you push it it burns. Basic electronics. I am an nvidia fanboy, I will be buying one of the RX480's for the $$ to performance ratio. if you want to oc it will pull more power. your m board needs to be of good quality. if it is not gold plated it may not survive. same applies to (most)
at stock speed

Also Xorbe it may be better at low speeds. Underclocking is great for efficiency.

 

[xorbe]

Also Xorbe it may be better at low speeds. Underclocking is great for efficiency.

You're preaching to the choir! Power scales with the square of voltage. Perf/watt rises with reduced freq / voltage. Just depends on your absolute performance needs.

They should have qual'd the cards for how they sold them, but sold them clocking 15% lower and reduced power. Let end users crank the snot out of them. This whole mess wouldn't have happened. And would have been known as a decent overclocker.

 

[Hellraiser1981]

Great point. When you oc, you draw More power. They wanted to be on the cutting edge, or in line with the 1060. Not a great accomplishment for AMD but I'm sure my MSI board will handle it if I plug in the pciE connector by the cards. I don't see this as a big deal except on cheap mb's. They (amd)pushed their stuff as far as they could for retail. We'll see if bios fixes it. Then ppl will complain about overloading the pcie connector.

 

[darkangel0504]

Fixed with 16.7.1

 

[Fluffmeister]

Seems they should have said it's really a 165-175W TDP card.

 

[Caring1]

Fixed with 16.7.1

They haven't fixed anything, they made it worse, then slightly improved it.
It's still dangerously over the 75W rating for the PCI-e slot!

 

[xorbe]

They haven't fixed anything, they made it worse, then slightly improved it.
It's still dangerously over the 75W rating for the PCI-e slot!

I see 75W total and 71W total for the slot with the new driver ... maybe we are looking at different charts. But yeah, it's a "165w" card not 150w.

 

[bug]

I see 75W total and 71W total for the slot with the new driver ... maybe we are looking at different charts. But yeah, it's a "165w" card not 150w.

I think he's looking at the PCIe power draw.
The thing is, anything above 150W with a single 6 pin connector does not qualify for PCI-SIG certification. Though apparently this card did, the PCI-SIG's compliance tests must be a joke.

 

[gr33n]

@W1zzard
Could u do a retest for Power-Consumption on Idle, Multi-Monitor, and Bluray with that new Driver?

for Power-Consumption on Idle there was an issue AMD said with 15Wats that needed a fix.

 

[Hellraiser1981]

Why is everyone upset about the power draw of an amd card? No brainer... Cooks eggs too. Still buying one once I see it on a real shelf.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

with compatibility mode enabled, at least it's not high enough to bake the circuitry till melting point. AMD should rework the spec sheet by saying it's a 160W card as 150W is way off what the card pulled.

 

[bug]

with compatibility mode enabled, at least it's not high enough to bake the circuitry till melting point. AMD should rework the spec sheet by saying it's a 160W card as 150W is way off what the card pulled.

Tbh, it won't melt circuits even without the fix. But a cheap mobo with components running close to the specs' limits, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
As for declaring it a 160W card, that's not an option, because in order to get the PCI-SIG certification, when you use a single 6 pin connector, you have to draw 150W tops. They'd need to redesign the board to use two 6 pin or one 8 pin connector.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

@bug aftermarket versions of the 480 will be running single 8-pin which is a good thing.

 

[Hellraiser1981]

Tbh, it won't melt circuits even without the fix. But a cheap mobo with components running close to the specs' limits, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
As for declaring it a 160W card, that's not an option, because in order to get the PCI-SIG certification, when you use a single 6 pin connector, you have to draw 150W tops. They'd need to redesign the board to use two 6 pin or one 8 pin connector.

Couldn't agree more. If it fits in a pci-e slot it should meet Pci-sig. Maybe they should title it Rx480 founders. You could pay $100 extra for smoke and flames. Just playin, really don't think it would blow up a board of reasonable quality. However AMD is in the budget consumer sector of the market. Slot pins have a current rating for a reason. Some crap boards might not use foxcon or other "brand name" slots. ATX 20 pin for independence day? Someone should try with stock 480bios. It would probably just power down the PS

 

[bug]

@bug aftermarket versions of the 480 will be running single 8-pin which is a good thing.

All cards should use that configuration, but AMD chose to cut corners so they could pretend they have a 150W part. Then again, if PEG came back to AMD and told them: hey, this card of yours doesn't meet our specs, maybe AMD would have fixed the problem before anyone knew it was there. We'll never know what really happened, I think.

 

[HD64G]

GTX970 becomes obsolete quickly now. Stock GTX980 lvl of performance on DX12 and Vulcan for Stock RX480 guys. For much less $. What's not to like in 480 especially now they fixed PCI-E consumption?

 

[EarthDog]

GTX970 becomes obsolete quickly now. Stock GTX980 lvl of performance on DX12 and Vulcan for Stock RX480 guys. For much less $. What's not to like in 480 especially now they fixed PCI-E consumption?

Not all games can/will use Vulkan API. Doesn't that need to be coded in (can be added of course)? You are betting the farm on Vulkan adaptation and that it is swift. So, if you play DOOM and the two other titles that support Vulkan, I agree. Right now, there are only ~3 titles that use it. But for the other 99% of games out there................................

 

[Aquinus]

Not all games can/will use Vulkan API. Doesn't that need to be coded in (can be added of course)? You are betting the farm on Vulkan adaptation and that it is swift. So, if you play DOOM and the two other titles that support Vulkan, I agree. Right now, there are only ~3 titles that use it. But for the other 99% of games out there................................

DX12 and Vulkan are in the same boat that DX11 used to be in. It's a preview of things to come and we'll only see more Vulkan/DX12 games going forward. New technology needs time to be adopted because it takes time to design and implement these things. Just saying.

 

[EarthDog]

I'm with you 100%. I took exception to the poster above me that stated the "GTX970 becomes obsolete quickly now". I don't agree with that because of current adaptation levels of DX12/Vulkan and knowing how
'quickly' games hit. It will be at least a year or two. The 970 is defunct now anyway because of the 1060.