Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Reddit] RX 480 fails PCI-E specification
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Reddit] RX 480 fails PCI-E specification - Page 11  

post #101 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolfail9001 View Post

More reasons not to buy Asus junk. Also, i would not even bother with the whole mess of PEG consumption but the fact of the matter: reference version is the one that goes to OEMs, ASUS Strix usually does not. Do you see the implications? All i see is potential loss of OEM sales for first batches of cards. And considering the distance between announcement and hard launch....

Meh they'll last long enough to live out the two year warranty, and damage things just in time for a scheduled replacement. win win for the companies.

tongue.gif

(jokes)
post #102 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by jellybeans69 View Post

Fine, were you crying about Asus 960 strix then? I bet you weren't.

nice try to downplay the issue, but what you show is just an issue with one Asus model, not nvidia design issue. here is same gtx 960 just from gainward and no excessive power spikes



with RX480 it's a REFERENCE AMD design, so their entire design is messed up.

post #103 of 1129
Oh yeah, some random aftermarket GTX 960 had a similar issue! So we can ignore the RX 480's problem right? Wrong.
post #104 of 1129
LUL Asus LUL
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  
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  
post #105 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post

Oh yeah, some random aftermarket GTX 960 had a similar issue! So we can ignore the RX 480's problem right? Wrong.

Oh it's an issue. I'll be buying an aftermarket version anyway so personally for me care factor is zero.

It's a big problem for those who are buying reference though.
post #106 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glottis View Post

nice try to downplay the issue, but what you show is just an issue with one Asus model, not nvidia design issue. here is same gtx 960 just from gainward and no excessive power spikes



with RX480 it's a REFERENCE AMD design, so their entire design is messed up.


960 didn't have a reference card 960 did have a reference card, but AIB designs still had to be approved by nVidia. So yes nVidia greenlighted Asus's design...
Quote:
Some parameters of the Green Light program are that vendors have to send in their board designs for approval from Nvidia to meet Nvidia's noise, power, voltage and heat figures. If those figures are not met, Nvidia does not approve the card. If a company does not follow the Green Light program, they risk losing their GPU warranty and BIOS support. More importantly, they could possibly risk their allocation according to some AIBs.

So yeah, this one slipped through the crack it seems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post

Oh yeah, some random aftermarket GTX 960 had a similar issue! So we can ignore the RX 480's problem right? Wrong.

No, we're saying if you want to make a big fuss out of 480's issue, you also owe it to 960 owners to make a big fuss out of 960 Strix's issue. But nice spin regardless.
Edited by magnek - 6/30/16 at 1:43am
post #107 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by comagnum View Post

I bought one as soon as they were available on NewEgg. I'm 100% not worried about this at all. It'll pass, and people will come up with something else to attack. 1 or 2 reviews does not a problem make. Relax.


1 or 2?

It's 5 so far.

4 in this roundup by videocardz

http://videocardz.com/61667/what-reviewers-say-about-radeon-rx-480-exceeding-pci-express-power-specifications

The 5th is from some french website.
post #108 of 1129
Ok, since the bandwagon is speeding along so fast that pitchforks are flying everywhere. I have wasted 45 minutes to read through this thread. I am going to provide some information I am pretty sure few will actually read. I will start by getting the stuff I am not going to bother providing any backup for first.

According to the internet, the PCIE slot pulling over 75w was from 2 reviewers out of 20, of the other reviewers who were shared this information, non were able to recreate the scenario. So not being able to recreate the current overdraw by other reviewers, really means something in itself. But AMD fail is AMD fail, such is the oh too familiar mantra. rolleyes.gif Anyone that comes at me with proof.gif or your argument is invalid. How about you actually do some reading if your so concerned with proof. I seen the above information earlier in the day and am not going to spend the time trying to convince people that won't be convinced anyway.

Now for the good stuff.

Here's a juicy bit from this link here, which ironically is where I heard some of the above. https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4qfy9d/i_work_at_amd_the_time_has_come_to_ama_about/
Quote:
Ektobuffer 3 points 3 hours ago
Maybe i can helb you out a bit Raja.
I have just read the PCI-E 3 specifications and they are telling me something different. In my understanding the 75 watt isnt the maximum limit, its just the default value on startup of the motherboard. The motherboard it self sets the maximum allowed watt per slot in the "Slot Capabilities Register" which you can configure up to over 300 watt per slot. In the bits 7 to 14 "Slot Power Limit Value" you can set 250, 275, 300 and above 300 watt. This will be multiplied with bits 15 to 16 "Slot Power Limit Scale" in steps x1 ,x0.1, x0.01 and x0.001. So its up to the motherboard manufacturer and the power management on it how many watt the slot is capable of.
The Specifications do define the protocol and not the hardware specs of the PCI-E slot. If a manufacturer uses better parts which can handle higher amps on the contacts and the lines, they can allow the devie in the slot a higher power consumption than 75 watt via these registers.
Sadly most people doesnt even read the specifications and judge things they dont understand.
http://composter.com.ua/documents/PCI_Express_Base_Specification_Revision_3.0.pdf

Now the link provided in that quote is really interesting. ( DL it Looniam if you don't have it you will love it )
Hopefully those that are so inclined actually spend some of their time and actually read some of the info in that link.

So it's late and I need to get to bed, but this is what I quickly found in that 800+ page document.
Quote:
Power limits on the platform are typically controlled by the software (for example, platform
firmware) that comprehends the specifics of the platform such as:
15 Partitioning of the platform, including slots for I/O expansion using adapters
Power delivery capabilities
Thermal capabilities
This software is responsible for correctly programming the Slot Power Limit Value and Scale fields
of the Slot Capabilities registers of the Downstream Ports connected to slots. After the value has
20 been written into the register within the Downstream Port, it is conveyed to the adapter using the
Set_Slot_Power_Limit Message (see Section 2.2.8.5). The recipient of the Message must use the
value in the Message data payload to limit usage of the power for the entire adapter, unless the
adapter will never exceed the lowest value specified in the corresponding form factor specification.
It is required that device driver software associated with the adapter be able (by reading the values of
25 the Captured Slot Power Limit Value and Scale fields of the Device Capabilities register) to
configure hardware of the adapter to guarantee that the adapter will not exceed the imposed limit.
In the case where the platform imposes a limit that is below the minimum needed for adequate
operation, the device driver will be able to communicate this discrepancy to higher level
configuration software. Configuration software is required to set the Slot Power Limit to one of the
30 maximum values specified for the corresponding form factor based on the capability of the
platform.
The following rules cover the Slot Power Limit control mechanism:
For Adapters:
Until and unless a Set_Slot_Power_Limit Message is received indicating a Slot Power Limit
35 value greater than the lowest value specified in the form factor specification for the adapter's
form factor, the adapter must not consume more than the lowest value specified.
PCI EXPRESS BASE SPECIFICATION, REV. 3.0
528
An adapter must never consume more power than what was specified in the most recently
received Set_Slot_Power_Limit Message or the minimum value specified in the corresponding
form factor specification, whichever is higher.

Page 527 to be specific, this concerns slot power limit control.
The above sounds to me either, vBIOS or BIOS level. Would be quite interesting if the motherboard was responsible for assigning the slot power limit wouldn't it?

devil.gif away.
post #109 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaaQ View Post

Ok, since the bandwagon is speeding along so fast that pitchforks are flying everywhere. I have wasted 45 minutes to read through this thread. I am going to provide some information I am pretty sure few will actually read. I will start by getting the stuff I am not going to bother providing any backup for first.

According to the internet, the PCIE slot pulling over 75w was from 2 reviewers out of 20, of the other reviewers who were shared this information, non were able to recreate the scenario. So not being able to recreate the current overdraw by other reviewers, really means something in itself. But AMD fail is AMD fail, such is the oh too familiar mantra. rolleyes.gif Anyone that comes at me with proof.gif or your argument is invalid. How about you actually do some reading if your so concerned with proof. I seen the above information earlier in the day and am not going to spend the time trying to convince people that won't be convinced anyway.

Now for the good stuff.

Here's a juicy bit from this link here, which ironically is where I heard some of the above. https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4qfy9d/i_work_at_amd_the_time_has_come_to_ama_about/
Now the link provided in that quote is really interesting. ( DL it Looniam if you don't have it you will love it )
Hopefully those that are so inclined actually spend some of their time and actually read some of the info in that link.

So it's late and I need to get to bed, but this is what I quickly found in that 800+ page document.
Page 527 to be specific, this concerns slot power limit control.
The above sounds to me either, vBIOS or BIOS level. Would be quite interesting if the motherboard was responsible for assigning the slot power limit wouldn't it?

Well done, though there are more than 2 reviewers that actually confirmed that, simply as you know, not many have spare multimeters. Though i'll wait for [H] testing, should be up soon.
Also, the interesting part is interesting, but there's the interesting part: there's a reason we've come to expect this 75W value as limit. And there's a reason i did not see slot power limit controllable on any motherboard.
post #110 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaaQ View Post

Ok, since the bandwagon is speeding along so fast that pitchforks are flying everywhere. I have wasted 45 minutes to read through this thread. I am going to provide some information I am pretty sure few will actually read. I will start by getting the stuff I am not going to bother providing any backup for first.

According to the internet, the PCIE slot pulling over 75w was from 2 reviewers out of 20, of the other reviewers who were shared this information, non were able to recreate the scenario. So not being able to recreate the current overdraw by other reviewers, really means something in itself. But AMD fail is AMD fail, such is the oh too familiar mantra. rolleyes.gif Anyone that comes at me with proof.gif or your argument is invalid. How about you actually do some reading if your so concerned with proof. I seen the above information earlier in the day and am not going to spend the time trying to convince people that won't be convinced anyway.

Now for the good stuff.

Here's a juicy bit from this link here, which ironically is where I heard some of the above. https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4qfy9d/i_work_at_amd_the_time_has_come_to_ama_about/
Now the link provided in that quote is really interesting. ( DL it Looniam if you don't have it you will love it )
Hopefully those that are so inclined actually spend some of their time and actually read some of the info in that link.

So it's late and I need to get to bed, but this is what I quickly found in that 800+ page document.
Page 527 to be specific, this concerns slot power limit control.
The above sounds to me either, vBIOS or BIOS level. Would be quite interesting if the motherboard was responsible for assigning the slot power limit wouldn't it?

devil.gif away.

+rep

This applies more often than the kids think too. People need to have a deeper understanding of what they are commentating on,rather their brand obsession. This is not even uncommon...
MILSPEC II
(8 items)
 
| LUMO |
(6 items)
 
CLoS3 IMPACT
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820k X99m WS 980ti strix 980ti strix 
RAMHard DrivePowerCase
KLEVV Cras DDR4  3tb Red Corsair 600w SFX + 450w SFX Caselabs BH4 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4970k Z97 Gryphon GTX 680 x2 Crucial Ballistix Elite 16Gb 
PowerCase
Be Quiet Dark Power 850 InWin D Frame Mini 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS Impact ITX R9 290 Gskill Trident 2400 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCase
Samsung EV0 250 x2 WD black Loop.....oh yes...... Caselabs S3....modded 
  hide details  
MILSPEC II
(8 items)
 
| LUMO |
(6 items)
 
CLoS3 IMPACT
(8 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
5820k X99m WS 980ti strix 980ti strix 
RAMHard DrivePowerCase
KLEVV Cras DDR4  3tb Red Corsair 600w SFX + 450w SFX Caselabs BH4 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4970k Z97 Gryphon GTX 680 x2 Crucial Ballistix Elite 16Gb 
PowerCase
Be Quiet Dark Power 850 InWin D Frame Mini 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770k ASUS Impact ITX R9 290 Gskill Trident 2400 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCase
Samsung EV0 250 x2 WD black Loop.....oh yes...... Caselabs S3....modded 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Reddit] RX 480 fails PCI-E specification