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 57  

post #561 of 1129
So a driver fix will fix the ref cards. Aibs won't have this issue in all likelihood due to 8pin and bios balance tweaks to draw more power from 8 pin. So in essence it's a software fixable issue. It's not like it's the 970. 3.5 GB fiasco which was in hardware and could not be fixed.

Issue was found what 2 days ago and will be fixed by Tuesday or near .. what a drama of a week lol.

Also a lot of reports of increased performance from undervolting the 480 coming in so and could actually get better performance by lowering volt states and solve this issue at the same time. Expecting no performance change overall and lower tdp pulled from the driver update.
post #562 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnek View Post

If true that's a huge red flag for me, and instantly casts huge doubt on their credibility.
Red flag of what honestly? Who goes around their life posting on the AMD forum?

Seriously people need to save that thread. It's literally tinfoil hat meets AMD fanboys. There was one guy claiming the thread creator modified the error code display. lachen.gif

Anyways now it's not anymore speculation,it has been confirmed by AMD that something indeed is happening.
Edited by GoLDii3 - 7/2/16 at 4:13am
post #563 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthello View Post

So a driver fix will fix the ref cards. Aibs won't have this issue in all likelihood due to 8pin and bios balance tweaks to draw more power from 8 pin. So in essence it's a software fixable issue. It's not like it's the 970. 3.5 GB fiasco which was in hardware and could not be fixed.

Issue was found what 2 days ago and will be fixed by Tuesday or near .. what a drama of a week lol.

Also a lot of reports of increased performance from undervolting the 480 coming in so and could actually get better performance by lowering volt states and solve this issue at the same time. Expecting no performance change overall and lower tdp pulled from the driver update.


that 3,5g card competes very well with this 8g card so in the end the 3.5 was a non issue irl besides the bull crap slinging

fixed in driver like asyc was in nv drivers?

lets face it,,,amd knew the card was too slow to compete with a 2 year old 28nm 3.5g card so they went to higher boost clocks.
of coarse the card would run better at lower voltage it keeps its boost clocks more constant without much down clocking
Edited by cowie - 7/2/16 at 4:26am
post #564 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoLDii3 View Post

Red flag of what honestly? Who goes around their life posting on the AMD forum?

Seriously people need to save that thread. It's literally tinfoil hat meets AMD fanboys. There was one guy claiming the thread creator modified the error code display. lachen.gif

Anyways now it's not anymore speculation,it has been confirmed by AMD that something indeed is happening.


how can this happen to a card that uses less power then a 950? and has 2.5 errrr I mean 2x the power and performance of???? some other card.....all according to amd
post #565 of 1129
That's sad, dude just trying to show what happened not even looking for a refund or hand me out and everyone raging at him in the comments and trying to turn it round into his pc being dirty. Fanboys mad.gif
post #566 of 1129

I've been given feedback by the PCI-SIG engineers. I'll have the full reply up in an article later, but basically this is a non-issue as far as they're concerned. Their conformance tests only apply as far as being able to use the PCI-E branding on the box and being included in the list of approved systems integrators, and they don't impose limits on how far outside the standard a licensed product can go when overclocked.

 

However, there's an interesting point to the feedback I received - you can absolutely make a GPU that conforms to most of the PCI-E specifications, but you're not actually required to adhere or even implement any part of the spec. Hence, we have the Radeon R9 295X2 or HD 7990, overdrawing on the auxiliary power because the expectation is that you're going to be using a really overbuilt, beefy PSU to run that system.

 

Overdrawing on the PSU is not a problem, PCI-SIG don't care. The RX 480 was probably tested and validated at stock speeds, which makes sense because AMD doesn't actually support overclocking and neither do its partners.

post #567 of 1129
Problem fixed in driver, power target default is now -10%. Seems to be exactly what is happening.

They rode too close to the power limit and process variability seems to have pushed a number of cards over the limit.
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 #568 of 1129
New well organized data on powertune targets and how they affect performance and power draw...

http://semiaccurate.com/2016/07/01/investigating-thermal-throttling-undervolting-amds-rx-480/
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 #569 of 1129
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnek View Post

I've seen this brought up by a few people, but why?

If the mosfets are hardwired to the power sources, all it means is there's a limit to how much you can pull from each source without going out of spec on either the power source OR mosfets. There's literally nothing stopping you pulling LESS power from each power source, and the bios is what's responsible for controlling how much power is drawn, so I don't see why a bios update couldn't fix this problem.

That could be more of a problem than just fixing it via bios.
It could be that hardware wise it is rigged to pull 50/50 or 70/30 or whatever from different power sources. Even updating bios might not by all accounts mean they can change the power draw through the mosfets

Also if what you say is possible, it means that the power coming to the chip from different mosfets has different source, so you are pulling more power through some mosfets instead of the ones connected to the PCIE slot, which means you are putting too much stress one some instead of another.

Overall I think it is about the design of the card. I don't think just bios update means can fix it.
Another option they might fix it, is lot voltage usage, which might cause less power draw, but go figure its effect on OC.
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
post #570 of 1129
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1433925.msg15438155#msg15438155




Quote:
Originally Posted by madmartyk 
Well there are a lot of reports of PCI slots crapping out, I came home to this in my rig that had 3 RX-480s in it. They all went back for a refund today.

This is the worst case scenario, three cards mining.
Edited by Derp - 7/2/16 at 7:02am
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