• 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

Mtom said:
Anyone linked this already?

vVn5kmi.jpg

20052_tier_png.png
Click to expand...

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat (man)?

They rate the 480 and the *470* is 1440p cards? The actual ****?

And the 460 and 450 are 1080p? What, at like 12 FPS?

Am I reading this wrong?
 
FoxEye said:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat (man)?

They rate the 480 and the *470* is 1440p cards? The actual ****?

And the 460 and 450 are 1080p? What, at like 12 FPS?

Am I reading this wrong?
Click to expand...
These sorts of things are always a bit optimistic/misleading. But then again, I see plenty of people trying to say that a 390/970/480 are 'just fine' for 1440p on here, too.

I'm guessing it's something like how Nvidia's Geforce Experience auto-optimizing functionality only aims for 40fps or so. Obviously plenty of gamers are actually fine with that, which is fair, but if 60fps is important to you, then yea, these recommendations are not terribly useful.

Anyways, looks like they're going with an Intel-like naming scheme. Which isn't any less confusing than what they were doing before, if you ask me. Especially if these are just higher-clocked revisions or something like that. Just seems like a cheap way to make people think it's a new, better card, kinda like rebranding but without even rebranding.
 
So exactly as I have been saying and I thought, the cards are thermally held back and power restrained. Like I've been saying the AIB cooled and power phased cards should be something decent to see.
 
D.P. said:
The spikes are higher on the 960 but that isn't actually as bad as the average load which is considerably higher on the 480.

But I don't think it is a huge issues. the 75W is a minimum that the motherboard must support, a quality motherboard will allow much more, and over brief periods of time should be able to provide far higher power as seen with the 960 above.

A bigger concern would be if you wanted to crossfire the 480, then 2 cards both pulling significantly more would cause issues. I don't now if the motherboard would risk getting damaged but certainly there will be stability issues.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's the issue. We asked motherboard makers prior to posting our updated story on this, and they stated that sustained (average) load exceeding 75W can lead to damage. This was further confirmed when we saw the voltage droop to 11.5V from the motherboard slot while the 6-pin connector (carrying the same current) was able to maintain 12.0V.

The other examples folks are citing are the Toms reviews which are measuring in a way that can see the instantaneous current spikes resulting from the DC-DC switching power supply on (all) GPUs. A switching supply, when measured in that way, is going to potentially spike above the limit. Motherboard makers have told us that those instantaneous spikes are not the issue. The issue is sustained load from the slot, which the 480 is exceeding.

What is causing more confusion is that plenty of cards in the past have exceeded the 6/8-pin spec, but we / others don't make such a huge deal about that since that is a direct link to the +12V rail of the PSU, which can usually handle way more than the stated limits for those connectors. Motherboard traces / PCIe pins are way more limiting.
 
malventano said:
Actually, that's the issue. We asked motherboard makers prior to posting our updated story on this, and they stated that sustained (average) load exceeding 75W can lead to damage. This was further confirmed when we saw the voltage droop to 11.5V from the motherboard slot while the 6-pin connector (carrying the same current) was able to maintain 12.0V.

The other examples folks are citing are the Toms reviews which are measuring in a way that can see the instantaneous current spikes resulting from the DC-DC switching power supply on (all) GPUs. A switching supply, when measured in that way, is going to potentially spike above the limit. Motherboard makers have told us that those instantaneous spikes are not the issue. The issue is sustained load from the slot, which the 480 is exceeding.

What is causing more confusion is that plenty of cards in the past have exceeded the 6/8-pin spec, but we / others don't make such a huge deal about that since that is a direct link to the +12V rail of the PSU, which can usually handle way more than the stated limits for those connectors. Motherboard traces / PCIe pins are way more limiting.
Click to expand...

Main issue seems to be the standard test for pci-e then and the certification.
if you send cards, they pass as they are tested then someone at the pci-e certification protocol responsability messed up.

solution to the current issue should then be either a bios fix or a software update, seems easy enough.

For those into conspiracy theories you dont send cards to test and then change them to sell otherwise specified.
the protocol for pci-e and its certification seems not good enough.
 
malventano said:
Actually, that's the issue. We asked motherboard makers prior to posting our updated story on this, and they stated that sustained (average) load exceeding 75W can lead to damage. This was further confirmed when we saw the voltage droop to 11.5V from the motherboard slot while the 6-pin connector (carrying the same current) was able to maintain 12.0V.

The other examples folks are citing are the Toms reviews which are measuring in a way that can see the instantaneous current spikes resulting from the DC-DC switching power supply on (all) GPUs. A switching supply, when measured in that way, is going to potentially spike above the limit. Motherboard makers have told us that those instantaneous spikes are not the issue. The issue is sustained load from the slot, which the 480 is exceeding.

What is causing more confusion is that plenty of cards in the past have exceeded the 6/8-pin spec, but we / others don't make such a huge deal about that since that is a direct link to the +12V rail of the PSU, which can usually handle way more than the stated limits for those connectors. Motherboard traces / PCIe pins are way more limiting.
Click to expand...

AMD and Intel create CPUs with 125W limits yet are fine pushing 250W through the motherboard, vrms and pins let alone the CPU itself. Rated at, and can run at, are very different.

Likewise plenty of people overclocked the 750ti without pci-e connector and used well beyond 75W... it's a non issue.

Also a droop of 11.5v on the slot makes no difference, vrms aren't only capable of dropping 12v precisely down to the required voltage, on cpu, gpu or anything else, vrms work in a range, as do psus, as does everything electrical. Incredibly standard on most electrical items is input being +/- 10% of the rated amount.


Saying sustained load exceeding 75W can cause damage is confirmed by seeing a voltage droop is insanely bad writing. In what way did that confirm damage... it didn't. Vdroop is not a sign of damage nor an indication that damage will occur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom