Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
-
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
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
This...
Thats exactly what is says it is, power consumption, power consumption is not TDP. TDP is not power consumption.
One is how much power the thing uses the other is minimum thermal dissipation requirements. that can be set at anything above the power requirements, typically the ceiling of how much power it can or will draw, in Fury-X thats 375 Watts
This is basic stuff, you should know this.
Last edited:
The link at the bottom of the article explains the mix-up
http://neurogadget.net/2016/05/29/amd-polaris-r9-490-vs-gtx-1080-comparison/31782
http://neurogadget.net/2016/05/29/amd-polaris-r9-490-vs-gtx-1080-comparison/31782
What are you not understanding there?
1 watt in power draw is 1 watt in heat, its simple.
You said TDP is linked to power draw (which it isn't but the 2 are usually put together) but now you are saying it isn't. I think you are confusing yourself on this.
Edit:
Just found this to help you out.
Physics, you use one 1 watt of energy its converted into 1 watt of heat.
TDP is a measure of the recommended cooling solution to dissipate that energy, a TDP rating is typically higher than the energy (watts) used.
With a TDP of 300 Watts 'for example' the add in board partner knows to use a cooler with the minimum heat dissipation power of 300 watts, or 600 watts if he wants it to be really good at it.
The TDP is related to power because its a direct conversion, a TDP rating however is not the power consumption as that can be set as desired independently of power consumption.
Thermal Design Power
Thermal Design
Last edited:
We know exactly what part of the market AMD are targetting with the 480. They're targeting the <£200 section of the market. And nobody is "defending AMD" by claiming that they didn't say which market they were targetting - you seem to be implying that they targeted the high end, failed and then someone is trying to excuse them for that. No, some people are making daft criticisms based on their own unsupported idea that it's supposed to be a 1080 competitor which it never was and we knew that all along.
Complete nonsense and with the amount of ads on there, clearly looking for hits (which they are getting from us)
Sorry
That's not a TDP figure.
Yeah, a full two pages of arguments with that already.
Sorry
Hey, you weren't necessarily to know and now that it's publicly demolished it'll help stop someone else falling for it, at least!
Actually, when we're talking heat, yes - you do end up with 1 to 1. That's what the second law of thermodynamics is about (Entropy increases, heat death of the universe, etc.). You're referencing that you can never have a 100% efficient system. Well that's true if you're talking about work done, but heat IS the inefficiency that you're saying you can't rule out.
I know. But I figured you would like to know that someone else understood what you're saying. TDP and power draw are both measured in watts, but they are not the same thing.
they couldn't be more clear about it, unless they give you straight forward benchmarks, they said they want to target performance and mainstream, if that wasn't clear they said they want VR minimum requirement(290/970 4Go) at a lower price point.
now the point is not figuring out what was the target, but how high than that, does it just deliver 970 and call it a day or pushes a bit higher.
and you want ppl to claim that AMD said or did stuff and not be corrected when wrong ?
But that's assuming they've set the TDP at the lowest value they can.
You acknowledged that the cards power consumption was 275 Watts, and by thermodynamics wattage in is the heat produced. So either AMD has lied about the typical power consumption or the TDP it has isn't actually the absolute minimum amount of thermal dissipation needed.
Unless you're defining a 375 watt card to be a card with a TDP of 375.
(If that is the case then fair enough because it's just semantics).
Last edited:
i think the guy was drunk, or his account hacked, or he knows absolutely nothing about graphics, the article doesnt make sense from start to end, not just the mention of 490, but the way he compares the card by game requirement.