RX 480 disappointing ... what next ?

[Kanan]

I will raise you a dozen C4s ... I don't mind all the fuss, I love people being happy and having fun more so if I helped in any way to make that happen.

I don't mind VA panels or their derivatives or PLS, the problem is there's a pretty short list of FreeSync monitors (this is where I get my info: http://www.144hzmonitors.com/list-of-freesync-monitors/ ). I would love to get a 34" 3440x1440 but they sell above 400 pounds and any other ultra wide option is only 2560x1080 unfortunately. I had looked for 2560x1440 monitor with FreeSync but they are again above 400 pounds though I did found an HP Envy 32 which is FreeSync but there is next to nothing information available and its 350 pounds but not new.

Its very bewildering to me that reviews come out with contradictory information of what performance you get on what graphics card, some claiming that Fury/Nano can do 4K at around 40 FPS, RX 480 can do 2560x1440 at close to 60 FPS, on very high settings.

Better save money and get one of those a little more expensive ones than go for a cheap one now - it's well worth it, you don't buy a monitor every day.

 

[cdawall]

Its very bewildering to me that reviews come out with contradictory information of what performance you get on what graphics card, some claiming that Fury/Nano can do 4K at around 40 FPS, RX 480 can do 2560x1440 at close to 60 FPS, on very high settings.

My pair of 480's can do 4k ok at best. They do 1440p great however.

 

[revin]

They have plenty of bios updates, here with the latest being from september 2013

That's the big issue, it was a cobble BIOS to try to support Ivy Bridge, and they failed miserably with it.
After the 2x update the board can NOT be reversed, and there was way many users with bricks, an even worse performance than just on the Sandy Bridge.
I think I'll try to keep an eye on those Fury's an keep watch on the 8G 390X or even the 980Ti's again.

I would also like a pedestal to stand on.

Would that help find your stars that went missing years ago ?

And I wouldn't mind a stack of claymores

And here I thought a while back you were done dogging them for a while

 

[eidairaman1]

That's the big issue, it was a cobble BIOS to try to support Ivy Bridge, and they failed miserably with it.
After the 2x update the board can NOT be reversed, and there was way many users with bricks, an even worse performance than just on the Sandy Bridge.
I think I'll try to keep an eye on those Fury's an keep watch on the 8G 390X or even the 980Ti's again.

Would that help find your stars that went missing years ago ?

And here I thought a while back you were done dogging them for a while

Well go through all of them in sequence from the bios version installed in yours currently, bud your chances of the card not working are pretty high on 1155 without the bios from 2013, this applies even to gf users.

 

[r9]

Yeah I learned my lesson with XFX. Got a good deal on a 380X and the first one was just kick the bucket on me. It booted fine ..Installed drivers rebooted ..Got to windows and poof it was gone. Newegg made good on it..Sent me a new one and it's never given a problem. I know this is no selling point for some but overclocking is non existent on it.

Oh and for the record I'm running

4770 non k
380X
16gb ram
2 1tb drives
2 ssds
5 120 fans
External drives
Countless USB stuff

All on a 480 watt power supply....Never a issue

I was getting ready to sell this computer similar spec to yours i5 4670k, r9 290 and CM 500W.
Guy from craigslist calls ask for proof that works.
And I had the machine for couple months I've done some gaming all fine stable etc.
So he asks for proof and I'm like how about screenshot Prime95 and Furmark running for 15-20min.
He said it was fine.
So I run them both at the same time while I'm getting ready.
It took 10 min of it to kill the power supply dead.

 

[dorsetknob]

I was getting ready to sell this computer similar spec to yours i5 4670k, r9 290 and CM 500W.
Guy from craigslist calls ask for proof that works.
And I had the machine for couple months I've done some gaming all fine stable etc.
So he asks for proof and I'm like how about screenshot Prime95 and Furmark running for 15-20min.
He said it was fine.
So I run them both at the same time while I'm getting ready.
It took 10 min of it to kill the power supply dead.

Bummer guess that was a no sale ( untill you sorted it )

 

[r9]

Bummer guess that was a no sale ( untill you sorted it )

I actually end up selling it that same day .
I had a modular Evga 680w that was just lying around that I knew was waaay better match for that build I was just to lazy to do it.
The problem was we had set time to meet in like 30 min I didn't wanted him to suspect anything.
So I end up pulling it off, but man I was pissed about my luck.
In the end I god my money he got free PSU upgrade all good.

 

[Kanan]

I was getting ready to sell this computer similar spec to yours i5 4670k, r9 290 and CM 500W.
Guy from craigslist calls ask for proof that works.
And I had the machine for couple months I've done some gaming all fine stable etc.
So he asks for proof and I'm like how about screenshot Prime95 and Furmark running for 15-20min.
He said it was fine.
So I run them both at the same time while I'm getting ready.
It took 10 min of it to kill the power supply dead.

Please for the love of god, never do that again. And never, ever, use Furmark again. It's garbage when you know both AMD and Nvidia are saying it.

 

[r9]

Please for the love of god, never do that again. And never, ever, use Furmark again. It's garbage when you know both AMD and Nvidia are saying it.

Can somebody expand on this ?
I've used it for forever and it's always been dependable tool for me.
The PSU didn't blow because of Furmark it blow because I had insufficient PSU.
So in my eyes the Furmark did its job .

 

[Kanan]

Can somebody expand on this ?
I've used it for forever and it's always been dependable tool for me.
The PSU didn't blow because of Furmark it blow because I had insufficient PSU.
So in my eyes the Furmark did its job .

Furmark puts a extremely and unrealistic strain on the GPU, it was able to destroy older GPUs without built in safety mechanisms in the past as well as GPUs that had, like GTX 590.
It's not "doing the job", programs should be demanding to put the GPU to the test, yes, but Furmark is way too much. Nvidia and AMD are both now doing extensive safety mechanisms to prevent extreme high usage as well as broken GPUs when using Furmark, so it's kinda moot now anyway (power consumption isn't higher than high demanding games now). You're far better off testing the system with Firestrike or TimeSpy, both are very demanding too, but not over the top.

Insufficient PSUs don't blow by simply using them (they have safetys that normally kick in) - the PSU blew because it was bad or old.

 

[MrGenius]

There's nothing wrong with Furmark or any other power virus used with appropriate caution.

 

[qubit]

I was getting ready to sell this computer similar spec to yours i5 4670k, r9 290 and CM 500W.
Guy from craigslist calls ask for proof that works.
And I had the machine for couple months I've done some gaming all fine stable etc.
So he asks for proof and I'm like how about screenshot Prime95 and Furmark running for 15-20min.
He said it was fine.
So I run them both at the same time while I'm getting ready.
It took 10 min of it to kill the power supply dead.

It was old and you were flogging it so you were silly to stress test it like that. Better to show it running 3DMark or something else that's safe for a few minutes as proof that it works. If it then dies after a while it's the buyer's problem not yours and you can say hand on heart that you sold a working system.

 

[r9]

There's nothing wrong with Furmark or any other power virus used with appropriate caution.

Well I know that puts more load than regular use.
That's why I never tortured my machines for more then 15-20 min.
And I always said that Furmark + Prime95 for 15min equals hours of Gaming.
I always found funny reading recommendations like run Prime95 or Memtest for 24h.
That is totally ridiculous. But being able to run for 15min under full load its should not give out.

Furmark puts a extremely and unrealistic strain on the GPU, it was able to destroy older GPUs without built in safety mechanisms in the past as well as GPUs that had, like GTX 590.
It's not "doing the job", programs should be demanding to put the GPU to the test, yes, but Furmark is way too much. Nvidia and AMD are both now doing extensive safety mechanisms to prevent extreme high usage as well as broken GPUs when using Furmark, so it's kinda moot now anyway (power consumption isn't higher than high demanding games now). You're far better off testing the system with Firestrike or TimeSpy, both are very demanding too, but not over the top.

Insufficient PSUs don't blow by simply using them (they have safetys that normally kick in) - the PSU blew because it was bad or old.

And I agree on that too.
I just speed up something was bound to happen anyhow maybe in month or so.
The whole point of stress testing is to see how stable the machine is.
Using both Prime95 and Furmark loads the machine more than regular load and that is the whole point to save time.

 

[r9]

It was old and you were flogging it so you were silly to stress test it like that. Better to show it running 3DMark or something else that's safe for a few minutes as proof that it works. If it then dies after a while it's the buyers problem not yours and you can say hand on heart that you sold a working system.

Have no regrets here.
Wasn't my intention to sell a computer with failing PSU anyways.
I'm poor for more than $80.

 

[qubit]

Have no regrets here.
Wasn't my intention to sell a computer with failing PSU anyways.
I'm poor for more than $80.

You're honest to a fault my friend.

 

[Kanan]

And I agree on that too.
I just speed up something was bound to happen anyhow maybe in month or so.
The whole point of stress testing is to see how stable the machine is.
Using both Prime95 and Furmark loads the machine more than regular load and that is the whole point to save time.

Again it's unrealistic and just bad for hardware, don't do it. You don't seem to learn anything from your mistake, thinking it was "okay". There's no point - if you were so sure the PSU is nearly dead, simply replace it and don't bother with risky "tests" like that.

 

[qubit]

Furmark puts a extremely and unrealistic strain on the GPU, it was able to destroy older GPUs without built in safety mechanisms in the past as well as GPUs that had, like GTX 590.
It's not "doing the job", programs should be demanding to put the GPU to the test, yes, but Furmark is way too much. Nvidia and AMD are both now doing extensive safety mechanisms to prevent extreme high usage as well as broken GPUs when using Furmark, so it's kinda moot now anyway (power consumption isn't higher than high demanding games now). You're far better off testing the system with Firestrike or TimeSpy, both are very demanding too, but not over the top.

Insufficient PSUs don't blow by simply using them (they have safetys that normally kick in) - the PSU blew because it was bad or old.

I run Furmark on my new top end graphics cards to check them out and watch that animated fur-thing animate smoothly.

It's true about the extreme stress that Furmark can put on them, but the cards I'm using aren't overclocked, have got quality coolers and the card will just throttle down anyway if it has to so it's no problem at all on them. I wouldn't run it on a cheaper card with an inferior cooler and less protection though. Heck, I might just run it on my old reference GTX 285 that I don't use any more and see what happens...

 

[EarthDog]

Furmark really shouldn't be used...it was deemed a power virus back in the day. Today, while it likely won't harm a gpu, it does create an unrealistic stock test environment. In that at stock speeds, it will drop several bins lower than regular loading. So, in essence, you are testing a much lower clockspeed than what a normal pascal card will boost to. This is regardless of cooler or overclocking or anything. Why use it if you aren't even testing the clocks you actually run at? But ueah, that tool simply needs to go away and not be used anymore. Seriously.