Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › AMD RX 480 Review Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD RX 480 Review Thread - Page 243

post #2421 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dargonplay View Post

Can't really get behind that considering that Fiji is actually more efficient than P10 if we take out the 14nm advantage, just look at the R9 Nano.

For one Fiji has HBM which in turn reduces power usage due to removal of a traditional memory interface, and Fiji also lacks hardware (Hardware Schedulers are a completely new addition componenet wise) in comparison to Polaris. Now if you take a look at the nano which is a binned chip with reduced voltage and a cut down pcb, your comparison is a terrible one. Users on OCN have already shown you can remain at the 1266 boost clock while undervolting and keeping temps under control, on top of cutting ~20-30w off of stock.

*Hardware Schedulers were in fact introduced with Fiji.
Edited by rv8000 - 7/5/16 at 1:43pm
Steins Gate
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 7800x @ TBD ASRock OC Formula X299 XFX Vega 64 4x4 Crucial Ballistix Elite @ TBD 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
960 Evo 850 Evo WD Blue 1TB Thermalright True Spirit 140 Direct 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer XR342CK G413 EVGA 750w G2 CM MC5 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
G703 Logitech Powerplay Onboard Logitech Z906 
Audio
HD518 
  hide details  
Reply
Steins Gate
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 7800x @ TBD ASRock OC Formula X299 XFX Vega 64 4x4 Crucial Ballistix Elite @ TBD 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
960 Evo 850 Evo WD Blue 1TB Thermalright True Spirit 140 Direct 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer XR342CK G413 EVGA 750w G2 CM MC5 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
G703 Logitech Powerplay Onboard Logitech Z906 
Audio
HD518 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2422 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by rv8000 View Post

For one Fiji has HBM which in turn reduces power usage due to removal of a traditional memory interface, and Fiji also lacks hardware (Hardware Schedulers are a completely new addition componenet wise) in comparison to Polaris. Now if you take a look at the nano which is a binned chip with reduced voltage and a cut down pcb, your comparison is a terrible one. Users on OCN have already shown you can remain at the 1266 boost clock while undervolting and keeping temps under control, on top of cutting ~20-30w off of stock.
I am fairly positive all GCN chips have hardware schedulers, that's like main diversion between GCN and Fermi-based arches.

Also, you are not cutting power consumption unless you rise the power limit, on default power limit the thing simply throttles less after undervolt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dargonplay View Post

Can't really get behind that considering that Fiji is actually more efficient than P10 if we take out the 14nm advantage, just look at the R9 Nano.

I reference transistor counts, the actual measure of complexity.
post #2423 of 3674
@Mahigan The idea comes from another user on S|A forum but the guy has a point. Looking at previous GCN the memory controller on Polaris 10 looks like a 512bit. What do you think?

It could be disabled for several reasons, like future card, PS4, power, price but...I don't trully understand it.

GCN Tonga MC 384bit

GCN Hawaii MC 512bit

GCN Polaris MC 256bit

Kudos to Optimus from S|A for spotting this - I totally missed it thumb.gif
post #2424 of 3674
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auMsWIeWeu4 (german)

der8auer with some I²C OC results to bypass the 150w powertarget.

1500MHz with 1.35V (1.15V is standard), higher Volts do not get you higher clocks with liquid cooling.

The card pulled 300W with 1500MHz and 1.35V biggrin.gif

The 1600+ MHz some showed in GPUZ were either fake or bugged.

16.6k FSU graphics score with 1480MHz, lower with 1500MHz (idk why, maybe throtteling again), der8auer didn't mention anything about it.
Edited by poii - 7/6/16 at 7:43am
post #2425 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by poii View Post

16.6k FSU graphics score with 1480MHz, lower with 1500MHz (idk why, maybe throtteling again), der8auer didn't mention anything about it.

There's two scores there, one with and one without the tessellation tweaks that will increase the score.

The accurate graphics score without cheats/tweaks is 15300 iirc.
post #2426 of 3674
15000+ in FS graphics score is between stock Fury level and stock Fury X level thumb.gif

is it games stable ?


300W though Oo
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
Reply
The Green Beast
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K @ 4500 Mhz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming Crucial Ballistix 2x8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SSD Crucial M550 500GB SSD Samsung 850 Evo 1TB HDD Seagate 7200rpm 3TB Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO; Xilence X5 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro 64-bit Acer Predator XB271HU 27" IPS Gsync 1440p 165Hz CM Storm QuickFire XT Cherry Red 800W modular 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Black Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum SteelSeries QcK+ 4mm SK Gaming Realtek On-board 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2427 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevChelios View Post

15000+ in FS graphics score is between stock Fury level and stock Fury X level thumb.gif

is it games stable ?


300W though Oo
Toooooo much voltage.
post #2428 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevChelios View Post

15000+ in FS graphics score is between stock Fury level and stock Fury X level thumb.gif

is it games stable ?


300W though Oo

Possibly game stable (drop 20mhz or so and it would be) but only a fool would push the architecture that hard for long periods.

It's also hard to know exactly how they'll do off one sample but it gives a rough idea I guess, people who are optimistic will see his as a bad sample, and pessimistic will probably see it as a good one smile.gif In reality it's probably average.

People might be lucky and hit 1450mhz on an AIB on a reasonable amount of voltage, others might not be able to hit 1400mhz on the same amount.

Might find that there's a wall of diminishing returns ie get 1400mhz+ using 200W but to really push it will just be ludicrous from a power/perf perspective

Seems to be a fair bit of variance on the chips looking at OC's in the reviews of the 480, as with the 1080. I was browsing that thread and someone couldn't get over 2000mhz on an MSI gaming, whilst others are hitting 2100mhz on the same card. Reviews of the 480 show anything from 1300>1380 iirc

A little disappointing but the variance may be due to the smaller manufacturing process.

Just have to wait for the AIB reviews which I'm getting a little impatient for biggrin.gif
post #2429 of 3674
Tess disabled on the 16k run iirc


same perf as my oced 290x, while consuming maybe 80watts less.


The chip clearly beats the 290x when both are inside their ideal perf/watts window. But once they are out, the rx480 hogs almost as much power the oced 290x for the same 16k score.


Clearly not designed to be scalable.
post #2430 of 3674
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyshagg View Post

Tess disabled on the 16k run iirc


same perf as my oced 290x, while consuming maybe 80watts less.


The chip clearly beats the 290x when both are inside their ideal perf/watts window. But once they are out, the rx480 hogs almost as much power the oced 290x for the same 16k score.


Clearly not designed to be scalable.

What's the exact graphics score on your 290X at max OC?

Yeah efficiency really flies out the window at a certain point.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD/ATI
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › AMD RX 480 Review Thread