• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Polaris refresh?

Seems a bit far fetched that higher drop in TDP. I'm sure a refresh will come as it does with every new architecture. You never know though, we could be in for a surprise considering how new 14nm is for GPUs
 
AllBodies said:
I mean, I guess this is theoretically possible since Pascal is even more efficient than that anyway.
Click to expand...

This would be more efficient than Pascal. The Rx480 would use under 100w with a 50% reduction in power.

The Rx480 uses around 160w. 50% of 160 = 80. So if it did have a 50% reduction you would be looking at an 80w part. Plenty of headroom to boost clocks well above the gtx1060. It does seem a little far fetched to me but if there is some truth like say 30% your still looking at Pascal efficiency.
 
Last edited:
Will be interesting if there is a refresh, a refined Polaris 480 with lower TDP and a slightly better clock, allowing for a better OC would be a decent card.

Im bored of my 290, been toying with the idea of buying CF Fury's, but the 4GB worries me, i only play older games like The Division, Grim Dawn, D3, POE etc, given up WOW, but i occasionally dip into other MMO's. Tempted to just buy 2 of those horrid looking HIS 480's or the XFX GTR XXX for now just to actually have something new lol.

Now with this article im wondering if they refresh Polaris, should just definitely wait til Vega and then see if theres a Polaris refresh coming, could end up with CF 2nd Gen 480's being quite the setup on MGPU supported games.
 
TheRealDeal said:
This would be more efficient than Pascal. The Rx480 would use under 100w with a 50% reduction in power.

The Rx480 uses around 160w. 50% of 160 = 80. So if it did have a 50% reduction you would be looking at an 80w part. Plenty of headroom to boost clocks well above the gtx1060. It does seem a little far fetched to me but if there is some truth like say 30% your still looking at Pascal efficiency.
Click to expand...

The article claims a reduction to 95W from 150W for Polaris 10.

So if you take the difference of 55W and apply it to a real world test, like the 163W average gaming load from Techpowerup, that would make 108W.

The GTX 1080 being 166W.

That would still put it as 20% less efficient than the GTX 1080. The 1080 currently being ~80% more efficient. And that would be essentially on par with the GTX 1060, since the weaker Pascal cards are also less efficient.

It does baffle me how the RX 480 is so much less efficient currently though. As far as I gather Samsung's 14LPP process is supposed to be mildly superior to TSMC's 16FF+.
 
480 is not particularly efficient for the process - if you take the numbers with a slight pinch of salt and assume a little bit of "marketing/PR" overhead it drops into the realm of possible.
 
AllBodies said:
The article claims a reduction to 95W from 150W for Polaris 10.

So if you take the difference of 55W and apply it to a real world test, like the 163W average gaming load from Techpowerup, that would make 108W.

The GTX 1080 being 166W.

That would still put it as 20% less efficient than the GTX 1080. The 1080 currently being ~80% more efficient. And that would be essentially on par with the GTX 1060, since the weaker Pascal cards are also less efficient.

It does baffle me how the RX 480 is so much less efficient currently though. As far as I gather Samsung's 14LPP process is supposed to be mildly superior to TSMC's 16FF+.
Click to expand...

You really have to judge it v the gtx1060 part as they both perform the same. Vega is the part you will compare to the gtx1080 and we shall see how it stacks up in efficiency.

Rroff said:
480 is not particularly efficient for the process - if you take the numbers with a slight pinch of salt and assume a little bit of "marketing/PR" overhead it drops into the realm of possible.
Click to expand...

Yea it's a fair bit of Pascal which shows what is possible.
 
Last edited:
If this is true then where does that leave Vega11 which is supposed to be the Polaris 10 replacement?

I would not be surprised if there is a bit of truth in this rumour and that is the efficiency improvements that Vega will actually bring.
 
The XFX GTR I got recently uses less power than my 970 does, while performing the same or slightly better in dx11 and way better in dx12. It's rated at 110w, so 95w isn't that far fetched.
 
Last edited:
seems this "should" of been the card made in reference to the other open thread

seems a bit more then a Step-up process. Maybe AMD rushed a little to get the card to the market. Really believe these chips or like wise are powering the Console Refresh versions .

key question in terms, how many RX 480 owners would sell and trade in for the new version if true.
Would also sit as a nice place holder between the RX 480 and Vega 11 if its to be called 485 or the fabled 490 that popped up on AMD's site. Vega could get the Fury name sake, as its a different ball game.
 
nashathedog said:
It's not exactly a stretch, According to this video this particular 480 only uses 80-90 watt with stock clocks.

This has a thread on it.
Click to expand...


Nasher said:
The XFX GTR I got recently uses less power than my 970 does, while performing the same or slightly better in dx11 and way better in dx12. It's rated at 110w, so 95w isn't that far fetched.
Click to expand...

I believe this is a misunderstanding of Afterburner's readout.

As far as I know that number is the Watts drawn by the GPU die only, so no memory/memory controller power draw.

AMD have also quoted the RX 480 as drawing 110W a couple of times in a slightly cheaty way, because that's what the GPU itself draws.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom