Polaris RX 480 / RX 470 / RX 460 Discussion Thread - Page 81 - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #801 of 991 Old 07-24-2016, 05:39 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
JackCY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 6,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by prznar1 View Post

Im waiting for 480/470 other than reference and still with front plate
They also cool all the stuff not with frontplate but with the main cooler.
JackCY is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #802 of 991 Old 07-25-2016, 12:28 AM
Programmer
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt View Post

While GP106 is 13.8% smaller (200 & 232mm²) than Ellesmere, it is also clocked ~35% higher (1709 & 1266MHz). Most importantly the performance per watt on full Pascals (GTX 1060 & GTX 1080) is 53 - 79% higher than on RX 480. The fact that the 79% higher performance per watt over RX 480 is achieved on a > 35% larger and 37% higher clocked GPU is simply amazing.

I'm not saying that the RX 480 would hit anywhere similar performance per watt or frequency figures if made on TSMC 16nm FF+ instead of 14nm LPP, however most likely both of these figures would be significantly better if it was.

AMD's GCN architecture is just not very energy efficient.

My R9 290 pulls about 420W at 1.15GHz. I have 2560 SPs, versus RX 480's 2304,twice as many memory chips, and more ACEs of course, which explains away about 30W of power usage improvement right off the bat.

So, at 1.15Ghz, 2304 SPs, and a 256-bit bus with eight RAM chips, about 390W should be expected... at 1.15Ghz. RX 480 pulls ~165W at about 1.2Ghz average. In addition, RX 480 includes more cache and other improvements not generally good for reducing power usage... more like using more.

So 14nm LPP looks to have reduced power consumption by well more than half (only using 42% of the power), while also allowing for higher clock-speeds on a historically low-clocking design. What's more is that RX 480 power usage doesn't climb severely with increased clocks during overclocking compared to 28nm GPUs.

--

On the GTX 1060 front, we can only compare to Maxwell 1280 cores... which is 77% of what is found on the GTX 970. It has a third fewer memory chips as well. So, right off the bat, we should expect cut-down 145W GTX 970 to pull only 110~120W... without any process improvements at all. GTX 970 pulls ~145W at 1178MHz, but would only pull 120W in the GTX 1060 configuration. In order for this new GPU to match the old GTX 970, it would need to overclock to 1.566GHz. And it does. And more - all the way to 2Ghz... because nVidia put in significant effort in increasing clock-rates on Pascal. Of course, higher clocks means more power usage... but we know what the GTX 970 pulls at higher clocks - because it can reach them. At 1.25Ghz, the 970 uses about 160W - about 7W more than you'd get from linear scaling. The curve is established with 1.4Ghz pulling ~190W. At 1.84Ghz, if possible, I'd expect the card to pull 265W. *However, this doesn't include the reduction from the smaller GPU - so we should call that 240W.

GTX 1060 pulls 120W, nearly exactly, on 16FF+, at 1.838Ghz. That is a 2.21x improvement for 16FF+, compared to a 2.36x improvement for 14nm LPP. This is slightly less of a good showing for 14nm LPP than expected, but that is most likely due to variation in the design (larger caches, VRM efficiency, and so on), and the fact that I didn't correct the 50Mhz difference between the R9 290 figures I have and the RX 480 figures...

Expecting a 240W draw and getting a 120W draw, 16FF+ provided 2:1 improvement, a worse showing than 14nm LPP by a fair bit.

If GTX 1060 was on 14nm LPP, it'd draw 15~20W less!

14nm LPP's only issue right now is in its very high leakage variance between parts of the wafer - something that may well improve over time... or better binning could effectively hide.


EDIT:

Also, I did all of this in my rush to go to bed, so I did 90% of the math in my head and some of the numbers are from memory (but I have a thing for numbers...), so I hope things are accurate, correct me if I'm wrong thumb.gif

EDIT 2:

Well, it took me all of a few seconds to realize I didn't scale-down the power usage from the GTX 970 levels prior to calculating 16FF+ power savings, so I fixed that...
looncraz is offline  
post #803 of 991 Old 07-25-2016, 12:32 AM
Programmer
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by keikei View Post

Sapphire Radeon RX 470 and RX 460 pictured

I noticed that the RX 470's VRM is missing two stages on the slot side... So 3 phases from the PCI-e connector, and one from the motherboard slot. Easy way to save money while also addressing the board over-current issue. Wonder if there are any board-level revisions that could hint at an RX 480 board revision rolleyes.gif
looncraz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #804 of 991 Old 07-25-2016, 04:57 AM
Unix Evangelist
 
KarathKasun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post

Sure if you play on 720p which should stay under 4GB VRAM.

Except resolution does not significantly increase VRAM usage. thumb.gif

Textures, shadow buffers, and compute buffers OTOH...

HP-UX. I came, I saw, I was sad it would not run on my X86 box.
skull.gif [Official]AMD RX 480/ 470/ 460 Owners Club skull.gif
KarathKasun is offline  
post #805 of 991 Old 07-25-2016, 06:10 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,475
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by looncraz View Post

AMD's GCN architecture is just not very energy efficient.

My R9 290 pulls about 420W at 1.15GHz. I have 2560 SPs, versus RX 480's 2304,twice as many memory chips, and more ACEs of course, which explains away about 30W of power usage improvement right off the bat.

So, at 1.15Ghz, 2304 SPs, and a 256-bit bus with eight RAM chips, about 390W should be expected... at 1.15Ghz. RX 480 pulls ~165W at about 1.2Ghz average. In addition, RX 480 includes more cache and other improvements not generally good for reducing power usage... more like using more.

So 14nm LPP looks to have reduced power consumption by well more than half (only using 42% of the power), while also allowing for higher clock-speeds on a historically low-clocking design. What's more is that RX 480 power usage doesn't climb severely with increased clocks during overclocking compared to 28nm GPUs.
There's a reason it isn't power efficient, and that's the hardware support for a lot of features that are still missing on nVidia's hardware, while being very versatile.

nVidia's cards are more focused on what's required now. They cut a lot of things in the front end which allows them to be more energy efficient. GCN is still the superior architecture. Too bad it's not being used like it should.
NightAntilli is offline  
post #806 of 991 Old 07-25-2016, 06:15 AM
*cough* Stock *cough*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,361
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 45
That is why AMD did the mantle thing, and now it shines in dx 12 and vulkan. And seeing how fast devs are jumping to dx12 with games it will profit AMD in long term. Once again AMD changed market.

i5 3570k | MSI Z77 MPOWER | 2x4gb 1600 Crucial | ZOTAC GTX 970 | 240gb SSD Crucial BX100 | IN WIN 303 | be quiet! STRAIGHT POWER 10 500W
prznar1 is offline  
post #807 of 991 Old 07-25-2016, 06:24 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
JackCY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 6,210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by prznar1 View Post

That is why AMD did the mantle thing, and now it shines in dx 12 and vulkan. And seeing how fast devs are jumping to dx12 with games it will profit AMD in long term. Once again AMD changed market.
I would like to see Doom Vulkan with a path optimized for Nvidia so we can see how much the AMD architecture shines. Hopefully it's not a black body shine like we see so far.
JackCY is offline  
post #808 of 991 Old 07-25-2016, 06:30 AM
 
HaiderGill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by rv8000 View Post

As of late AMD cards generally age better. The 1060 is marginally faster, for the same price and has better efficiency. What games are you looking to play outside of GTA V and Hitman, because both games kind of play to one side of the GPU market? If you pick an RX480 I'd also recommend the Nitro+ over the Strix; quieter, higher boost, quite an ingenious design, removable fans, and generally better CS than ASUS.

Nitro + OC is cheaper too about £250 here. Dirt Rally, Elite Dangerous, Satellite Reign, Metal Gear Solid 7/On Line, The Long Dark, Star Citzen & GTA 5...Does the Nitro + OC run quieter and cooler than the Strix? That's what doing my head in on GTA 5 my GPU is 80-100 and the fan is noisey...
HaiderGill is offline  
post #809 of 991 Old 07-25-2016, 07:08 AM
 
slavovid's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
RX 480 being more expensive than e 1060 ?

i suggest you read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging

slavovid is offline  
post #810 of 991 Old 07-25-2016, 07:14 AM
 
PlugSeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post

I would like to see Doom Vulkan with a path optimized for Nvidia so we can see how much the AMD architecture shines. Hopefully it's not a black body shine like we see so far.
Performance wise, it cannot get better than dx11 or OGL on current nvidia hardware pascal included. If there was something to see, we would have seen it with ROTTR but sadly everyone lost performance and is better of playing the game in dx11.
PlugSeven is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off