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 42  

post #411 of 1129

Well yes, it was obviously from a review, I own neither (for now - until AIBs release their nonref boards). :p

 

Good to know though. I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere north of that figure either way, GDDR5 is pretty efficient nowadays.

   
AGP bencher
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 5 Sapphire HD 6950 2GiB 2x8GB KFA2 HOF DDR4-3600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB Seagate 600 Series 240GB Seagate 7200.14 2TB Samsung F3 1TB 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EKWB Supreme HF XSPC Rasa GPU EK XT360 EK 4.0 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
W10 Pro LG IPS235 LG E2250V KUL ES-87 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
SF Leadex II 650W Lian Li PC-A05NB Logitech G9 Xonar DX 
AudioAudio
SMSL SA-S3+Technics CB-250 Sennheiser HD555 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5700 Gigabyte F2A75M-HD2 G.SKILL Ares 2133 CL9 Hitachi 5K750 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Momentus .7 200GB Noctua NH-L9a Server 2012 R2 Standard AUO B156HW01 
PowerCaseOther
PicoPSU-80-WI-25V AIO Aluminium Handmade TP-Link Archer Something Something Wi-Fi AC 
CPUCPUCPUMotherboard
Core2Duo E6400 Core2Quad Q6600 Pentium Dual Core E5200 AsRock 4COREDUAL-SATA2 R2.0 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
A dumpload of ancient AGP cards Kingston Value DDR2-667 CL4 2T @CL3 1T Seagate 160GB 7200.10 LG IDE DVD-ROM 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Ghettomade CPU waterblock 49cc 2stroke engine copper radiator WinXP SP2 32bit ProView 17" 
PowerCase
Tacens Radix V 550W Ghetto aluminium bench 
  hide details  
   
AGP bencher
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 5 Sapphire HD 6950 2GiB 2x8GB KFA2 HOF DDR4-3600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB Seagate 600 Series 240GB Seagate 7200.14 2TB Samsung F3 1TB 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EKWB Supreme HF XSPC Rasa GPU EK XT360 EK 4.0 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
W10 Pro LG IPS235 LG E2250V KUL ES-87 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
SF Leadex II 650W Lian Li PC-A05NB Logitech G9 Xonar DX 
AudioAudio
SMSL SA-S3+Technics CB-250 Sennheiser HD555 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5700 Gigabyte F2A75M-HD2 G.SKILL Ares 2133 CL9 Hitachi 5K750 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Momentus .7 200GB Noctua NH-L9a Server 2012 R2 Standard AUO B156HW01 
PowerCaseOther
PicoPSU-80-WI-25V AIO Aluminium Handmade TP-Link Archer Something Something Wi-Fi AC 
CPUCPUCPUMotherboard
Core2Duo E6400 Core2Quad Q6600 Pentium Dual Core E5200 AsRock 4COREDUAL-SATA2 R2.0 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
A dumpload of ancient AGP cards Kingston Value DDR2-667 CL4 2T @CL3 1T Seagate 160GB 7200.10 LG IDE DVD-ROM 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Ghettomade CPU waterblock 49cc 2stroke engine copper radiator WinXP SP2 32bit ProView 17" 
PowerCase
Tacens Radix V 550W Ghetto aluminium bench 
  hide details  
post #412 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoLDii3 View Post

That's not actually true,the ASIC alone is rated at 110W then you have to add the other components. This is a 150W GPU wich clearly seems to struggle to maintain within that power limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EightDee8D View Post

That's not how you calculate actual tdp, and no there's 0 ipc increase, instead there's regression in ipc.

I'm only talking about the GPU, not the whole board. Only the GPU is made on 14nm LPP.

There's also NOT a regression in IPC. There's an uneven improvement, and there are less ROPs and ACEs versus Hawaii, but GCN4 has about 15% higher IPC.
Edited by looncraz - 7/1/16 at 11:19am
post #413 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauxno View Post

I think they tried to physical gimp their own card by choosing a 6 pin conector instead of a 8pin. With the information about some oc power consumtion this card with a 8 pin will consume more than 200 watts and then make that Perf/watt metric pummel to the ground. They also think that their new power managment software/hardware would control the power to be able to use a 6pin wich according to some card that didnt happened.

They only thing I am worried if is the AIB card are gonna be able to avoid that the card pulls more that 75 watts from the pcie instead of chossing first the 6pin/8pin connector. Cause if that happen then not even a monster with 12 8pin conector are gonna help with that if is a chip failure.

Sry for my english smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

Well if the card is in specs, it won't hurt the motherboard at all.
Cheap doesn't mean bad for OC. Cheap can also mean less stable upper OC or less features.

Even a cheap motherboard should give 70-75W stable power to the PCIE as long as it is in specs.Granted it won't survive high loads on it, but the higher power pull should come from the PCIE 6 pin connector, NOT from the motherboard PCIE connector. Doesn't take 6 pin to have high PCI-E slot draw, 6 pin doesn't mean it will have high PCI-E slot draw.

If the 480 had an 8 pin instead of 6 pin, and draw most of its power from the 8 pin connector, there would have been zero problems. But they decided to put 6 pins most likely to support cheaper PSUs.
960 Strix had a 6 pin connector, drew too much often like this. Reference 960 had a 6 pin connector, didn't. Other board partners had lower PCI-E slot draw with similar performance. Not sure why that's difficult to understand.

There's two problems- first is the PCI-E 6 pin connector's spec being out of line for the TDP that's exceeding spec- that's a separate problem from the PCI-E overdraw. The only mutual solution is lowering the power it can use. People keep citing adding a connector as if it'll fix the problem. It doesn't need a connector change- and it's entirely possible a connector change won't fix it.
Cletus
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8370 (turned back to stock clock) GA970A-UD3 Sapphire RX-480 8GB  2x4GB 1600Mhz Crucial Ballstix 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD None Coolermaster 212 Evo Windows 7-64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Insignia 19" TV Logitech Wireless EVGA 650GS Corsair 200R 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech Wireless Side of my chair Some speakers 
  hide details  
Cletus
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8370 (turned back to stock clock) GA970A-UD3 Sapphire RX-480 8GB  2x4GB 1600Mhz Crucial Ballstix 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD None Coolermaster 212 Evo Windows 7-64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Insignia 19" TV Logitech Wireless EVGA 650GS Corsair 200R 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech Wireless Side of my chair Some speakers 
  hide details  
post #414 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahigan View Post

Do you mean gaming performance wise? The RX 480s compute performance (TFlops) are only one aspect of its potential gaming performance. We also have to contend with its 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory resulting in 256GB/s of memory bandwidth as well as its pretty anemic Pixel Fill rate capabilities. At 1266Mhz we are talking around 40.5 GPixels vs the 390s 67.2 GPixels.

Basically... the RX 480 does not have the fillrate available to really shine. I am not sure why AMD paired it with only 32 ROPs. That sounds like an absurd thing to do when you are targeting VR performance. Perhaps their choice has a little something to do with not wanting to hurt the sales of the upcoming VEGA GPUs or maybe their current Fury lineup.
Ye in gaming, what's the point of other architectural improvements if you are going to bottleneck a part somewhere ? that makes zero sense. i don't think they did it so to not hurt vega/fury because one isn't here and one is off production. plus more performance means more p/w and better position against 1060.

At this point it's pretty clear they have no clue what to do. or Raja is trying to kill RTG so he can go away from AMD. that kyle's post is more believable now. redface.gif
post #415 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCheapo View Post


960 Strix had a 6 pin connector, drew too much often like this. Reference 960 had a 6 pin connector, didn't. Other board partners had lower PCI-E slot draw with similar performance. Not sure why that's difficult to understand.

There's two problems- first is the PCI-E 6 pin connector's spec being out of line for the TDP that's exceeding spec- that's a separate problem from the PCI-E overdraw. The only mutual solution is lowering the power it can use. People keep citing adding a connector as if it'll fix the problem. It doesn't need a connector change- and it's entirely possible a connector change won't fix it.

Not true. If you use an eight pin connection, you could in theory source all of the GPU phases from that alone and power the vram from the slot only.
μRyzen
(12 items)
 
Mini Box
(4 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R5 1400 MSI B350M Gaming Pro Zotac GTX 670 4GB G.SKILL FORTIS Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
WD Green 3tb Wraith Stealth Windows 10 Debian 8.7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
ViewSonic VX-2257-8 Chinese backlit mechanical Kingwin 850w Chinese laser optical 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5350 Asus AM1I-A EVGA GTX 750 Ti SC 2x4GB DDR 3 1333 
  hide details  
μRyzen
(12 items)
 
Mini Box
(4 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R5 1400 MSI B350M Gaming Pro Zotac GTX 670 4GB G.SKILL FORTIS Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
WD Green 3tb Wraith Stealth Windows 10 Debian 8.7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
ViewSonic VX-2257-8 Chinese backlit mechanical Kingwin 850w Chinese laser optical 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5350 Asus AM1I-A EVGA GTX 750 Ti SC 2x4GB DDR 3 1333 
  hide details  
post #416 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by EightDee8D View Post

Can you explain why is there regression in ipc as in perf/tflops ? it' should be higher vs 290 and that pic shows. so basically it should perform around fury. but it cannot even beat 390x.

Because this gpu is weak on geometry and rasterization. It only has 40 Gpixels/s and 32 ROPs

It doesnt reach the peak tflops on games because of the weak geometry output.

In comparison 390x has 70 Gpixels/s and 64 ROPs
Workstation
(4 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsMonitor
Xeon E5-2690 Supermicro 2011 Nvidia GP100/ Vega FE Dell ultrasharp 4k 
  hide details  
Workstation
(4 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsMonitor
Xeon E5-2690 Supermicro 2011 Nvidia GP100/ Vega FE Dell ultrasharp 4k 
  hide details  
post #417 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhell View Post

Because this gpu is weak on geometry and rasterization. It only has 40 Gpixels/s and 32 ROPs

It doesnt reach the peak tflops on games because of the weak geometry output.

In comparison 390x has 70 Gpixels/s and 64 ROPs

Rops have zero to do with geometry last I checked. And its 32 ROPs are keeping pace with 64 ROPs with only a ~20% clock delta.
μRyzen
(12 items)
 
Mini Box
(4 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R5 1400 MSI B350M Gaming Pro Zotac GTX 670 4GB G.SKILL FORTIS Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
WD Green 3tb Wraith Stealth Windows 10 Debian 8.7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
ViewSonic VX-2257-8 Chinese backlit mechanical Kingwin 850w Chinese laser optical 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5350 Asus AM1I-A EVGA GTX 750 Ti SC 2x4GB DDR 3 1333 
  hide details  
μRyzen
(12 items)
 
Mini Box
(4 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R5 1400 MSI B350M Gaming Pro Zotac GTX 670 4GB G.SKILL FORTIS Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
WD Green 3tb Wraith Stealth Windows 10 Debian 8.7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
ViewSonic VX-2257-8 Chinese backlit mechanical Kingwin 850w Chinese laser optical 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Athlon 5350 Asus AM1I-A EVGA GTX 750 Ti SC 2x4GB DDR 3 1333 
  hide details  
post #418 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarhell View Post

Because this gpu is weak on geometry and rasterization. It only has 40 Gpixels/s and 32 ROPs

It doesnt reach the peak tflops on games because of the weak geometry output.

In comparison 390x has 70 Gpixels/s and 64 ROPs
Yeah but tonga already had ~2x fast rops, and there are l2 and other improvements to negate the need of more rops. it should at least perform same as 390x.
post #419 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by EightDee8D View Post

Ye in gaming, what's the point of other architectural improvements if you are going to bottleneck a part somewhere ? that makes zero sense. i don't think they did it so to not hurt vega/fury because one isn't here and one is off production. plus more performance means more p/w and better position against 1060.

At this point it's pretty clear they have no clue what to do. or Raja is trying to kill RTG so he can go away from AMD. that kyle's post is more believable now. redface.gif

I think Kyle is sensationalizing quite a bit.

I do not think that AMD thought that nVIDIAs Pascal cards would be such strong performers. They probably thought that there would still be a market for the Fury series once Pascal released giving them time to introduce VEGA.

AMD probably thought that Polaris would perform better than it does as well (eventhough it performs damn well considering the specifications). 32 ROPs is really a low figure but it is the same figure as the Tonga GPU which Polaris is replacing. So really... Polaris is a Tonga replacement and not a 390 or 390x replacement.

There are two Vega SKUs coming from AMD... One of them will be the 390/390x replacement and the other the Fury/FuryX replacement.
Kn0wledge
(20 items)
 
Pati3nce
(14 items)
 
Wisd0m
(10 items)
 
Kn0wledge
(20 items)
 
Pati3nce
(14 items)
 
Wisd0m
(10 items)
 
post #420 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarathKasun View Post

Rops have zero to do with geometry last I checked. And its 32 ROPs are keeping pace with 64 ROPs with only a ~20% clock delta.

"rasterization" ?
Workstation
(4 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsMonitor
Xeon E5-2690 Supermicro 2011 Nvidia GP100/ Vega FE Dell ultrasharp 4k 
  hide details  
Workstation
(4 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsMonitor
Xeon E5-2690 Supermicro 2011 Nvidia GP100/ Vega FE Dell ultrasharp 4k 
  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