• 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.

Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199

Jono8 said:
Well what people might be referring to is that if it is only 390/970-390x/980 performance, the 970 had a 145w tdp and the 980 had a 165w tdp, and that was 20 months ago.

If the tdp of this is only under 150w even the perf per watt isn't all that wonderful.

Obviously if AMD do manage to get it under 100w for that level of performance, then yes it will be good.
Click to expand...

TDP can't be compared across manufacturers as it's not a standardised measure and indeed NVIDIA use the term to mean something different to the rest of the industry. Intel & AMD both define it as the amount of waste heat that a cooler must dissipate in order to keep a silicon chip within its operating temperatures. NVIDIA view TDP as an input. There are no standards at all for what to run to determine it etc which has led to some very misleading results over time (including some gens where NVIDIA were closer to the actual power used and some where AMD were).

You can only look at power consumption tests to compare cards - which is what I'm sure we'll do once the 480 is released.

Gotta be careful though with this as most review sites don't actually measure this, they measure whole system power at the wall then either present that (giving massively inflated numbers) or guesstimate the power draw of the rest of the system based on something they think is 'known' resulting in pretty variable / made up numbers. Sometimes they even remember that the PSU isn't 100% efficient but sometimes not.
Some sites do use proper risers & modified aux power & look at power draw over a period with short sample intervals etc but even then you've got a few factors such as the risers causing different airflow resulting in different temperatures hence different efficiency, as well as game or program choice & settings used causing the results to vary significantly (along with CPU & RAM choices of course - do you try to 'minimise bottlenecks' or do you try to get a picture of it's likely power draw in a system a user may actually have, as these may be substantially different).
I've kinda forgotten what I set out to write - basically that reviewing power draw well is difficult and subjective I guess? Sorry, mind wandering...
 
Kaapstad said:
Very true

The latest intel CPUs have a TDP of 140watts, in actual use some of them could be drawing over 300watts with overclocking.

Before anyone says overclocking is a different case, the CPUs come with unlocked multipliers as standard and are designed to be overclocked.
Click to expand...


Thats cpus though kaap. You generally have to raise voltage well over stock values to get that sort of power draw. We're talking about stock values here not overclocking so your reply is irrelevant. Ofc you can increase power draw on gpus too by overclocking but once again weren't talking about that. Stock values unless your talking about gpu boost which overclocks your gpu within thermal limits which generally I dont think is taken into consideration withpower draw. But once again were not talking about that we are onabout Amd cards which dont boost.

And we have seen that generally amd cards are within there stated power limits on reference cards. When they are not is with overclocking. Seems like select few keep wanting to paint any amd news in a bad light and power draw back with 970 era was all the talk but all those people are silent now which makes me laugh. Yes ppl was banging onabout performance matters not powersavings. Which on a enthusiast forum I can see why that would be true Lol. Just look at the reply I got from kaap. Proves my point.
 
Jeebus are people still arguing over TDP?? lol its been proven that top end cards add about £20 to an electricity bill over the course of a year or something....

People this thread has achieved an all time low with people arguing over TDP and other assorted nonsense thats been argued back and forth here.

I mainly blame DP and a few others for dragging this rubbish up over and over but it only goes to prove they have no other real point to argue on as basically the Poiaris architecture is pretty much going to be a win for AMD, and as people say the best form of defence is offence, so pretty much DP and other likeminded nvidia fans are on the offence as i think they may actually feel nvidias superiority is actually being threatened for once.

Either that or they are so brainwashed now they have become automated puppets just splooging random pro Nvidia garbage at any given opportunity.

Anyhow, i think we may see something at E3 on Monday from AMD, seen a few rumors last night and today that AMD could well be gearing up for some info sooner rather than the 29th.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4ni3jj/tweaktown_rx_480_we_cant_tell_you_when_our_review/

Edited to add link
 
Jono8 said:
Well what people might be referring to is that if it is only 390/970-390x/980 performance, the 970 had a 145w tdp and the 980 had a 165w tdp, and that was 20 months ago.

If the tdp of this is only under 150w even the perf per watt isn't all that wonderful.

Obviously if AMD do manage to get it under 100w for that level of performance, then yes it will be good.
Click to expand...

Actually if its 30% slower than an 1070 and needs 120W its about the same performance/W
Also as many here argue, its not about power consumption, its about heat/noise...at this level it really doesn't matter if its 120 or 140W.

Yeah the 970 had a 145W TDP and they usually pulled between 160-170W.
 
Mtom said:
Actually if its 30% slower than an 1070 and needs 120W its about the same performance/W
Also as many here argue, its not about power consumption, its about heat/noise...at this level it really doesn't matter if its 120 or 140W.

Yeah the 970 had a 145W TDP and they usually pulled between 160-170W.
Click to expand...

you have to remember that Nvidia power/efficiency metrics are often measured at stock clock, not taking boost into account. The maxwell architecture is more efficient than older GCN but nowhere near as inefficient as initial figures showed once the Driver overhead reductions were released.
 
Last edited:
SiDeards73 said:
Anyhow, i think we may see something at E3 on Monday from AMD, seen a few rumors last night and today that AMD could well be gearing up for some info sooner rather than the 29th.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4ni3jj/tweaktown_rx_480_we_cant_tell_you_when_our_review/
Click to expand...

i hope so and i hope its more than more ashes figures, need to see some other games and real performance info and if they have a $300 card they need to show it with proper figures. less waffle about vr and more about real world performance.
 
So we are looking at a card that is faster than a 970 and uses 90W less power to do that. That would save me a tenner a year on the leccy bill. Awesomes.....
 
Doesn't really matter what's said here, AMD/Nvidia only have themselves to blame for the state of gpu's anyway.

One couldn't market cheap water in the desert, the other mob you'd die of thirst as you couldn't afford it.:D
 
tommybhoy said:
You were sayn...
Click to expand...

I was saying people banged on about power savings in the 970 era how great it was now those same people overlook this with AMD now they have done the same but try to paint it in a bad picture by making out that actually Amd cards are not that efficient and use more power than officailly stated to take away any positivity to try and make things look negative. Like I was saying those who thought powersavings was great are now silent about how great it was and is.

Also greg you dont care about efficency and power savings! Noted!
 
I know what you were saying, my post was in reaction to Gregs power backtracking as he slaughtered AMD for theirs more so when 970 arrived.
 
ICDP said:
Your missing my point.
Click to expand...

I understood what you were saying perfectly well and I replied in detail to exactly that. With apostrophes. You've ignored it and just repeated the same thing again:

ICDP said:
R9 390 and GTX970 have been this rough price for a long time now. Bringing out a new GPU that does not improve on already existing price/perf at that price point is utterly idiotic.
Click to expand...

As I already explained, if you target the mid-range with your initial releases, the previous high-end will reduce in price because you can't sell an equally performing card for £200 more. And when the price reduces then it will inevitably sink down to settle at the same price-performance as the new cards because that's the point at which it starts to sell again. This is straight-forward A->B->C logic. The previous high-end will remain at the new lower prices until stock is all gone and they vanish. The alternative is that they stay sitting on a retailer's shelf forever. This process is an inevitable consequence of targetting the mid-price market with your new generation first, and high end later.

For you to attack AMD over an inevitable consequence of them targetting the mid-range first is wrong-headed.
 
D.P. said:
Firstly, 150w is actually. Min "max" power form 6pin and pcie, you can actually typically draw far more than that, not that I think the card does.

Secondly, form AMDs official figures and the estimated performance it will be closer to 150w. They claims twice the performance per watt, so 390x performance at half the power. 275/2 >> 100 w. 130w is more realistic.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. All of it. We've just done this and you want to do it all over again. How many times do you want to force people to take this apart, it's like you're reading off a script of talking points: '#2 - make claims about power consumption.'
 
HardStyler3 said:
is this power consumption discussion still going on? watch this and you can see what we know and how the power consumption can be
Click to expand...

Stopped and then started again. :/ After everybody and their dog took apart D.P.s claims and finally forced D.P. to agree that TDP and power draw were different things (which they then claimed they had known all along despite having made statements that were directly wrong), silence and peace reigned for several days. And then D.P. started posting the exact original arguments all over again. :/
 
h4rm0ny said:
This is nonsense. All of it. We've just done this and you want to do it all over again. How many times do you want to force people to take this apart, it's like you're reading off a script of talking points: '#2 - make claims about power consumption.'
Click to expand...

How many times have I proved you wrong with official AMD figures from AMD's website, computex presentation and Q2 financial analysis.

Of course if you want to continuously ignore what AMD says to suit your own biased agenda be my guest. Your welcome to your own opinion. I will just look at the facts thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom