[Reddit] RX 480 fails PCI-E specification - Page 72 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

[Reddit] RX 480 fails PCI-E specification

 
Thread Tools
post #711 of 1129 (permalink) Old 07-03-2016, 12:42 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,490
Anyone who doesn't want to be fear mongered, misinformed, have its intelligence insulted or don't want to join a tech brand cult should watch these two videos for a full picture of whats going on.

There's a lot of misinformation on this thread.

To summarize things, TomsHardware's graphs show a RAW power consumption with no filtering, as PCPer says these spikes are generated because of DC conversions when turning off and on in cycles to provide power, Tomshardware gets the most precise numbers with inductive measuring and RAW data while other reviewers like PCPer have different methodology that aren't capable of faithfully showing these spikes with their filtered results as these happen in such short time spans.

Many have said that the reason why this have been blown out of proportion is because of hardware damages, but this is ridiculous because the RX 480 is proven to have short spikes to 140W compared to other cards like the GTX 960 to 240W from the PCIe Motherboard slot alone, or the 750Ti with spikes above 150W with stock/reference settings.



"LEAVES THE MOTHERBOARD CONNECTOR TO DEAL WITH UNPRECEDENTED UNFILTERED POWER SPIKES ON ITS OWN"

Many people see this image and are amazed to see such power spikes, they are so impressed by these results that they ignore completely the description above pointing out that these are the motherboard PCIe X16 Slot results without any PCIe Power PSU Connector and go on to reply misinformation about this being the card's total power graph, which is not.




TomsHardware inductive measurements show how spikes for the 750Ti can reach up to 150W, which occurs approximately 19 times every minute, it's especially ironic that people are crying out loud for the RX 480 when the 750Ti behavior is what end up damaging electrical components because of thermal fatigue and weak spots.

None of this was ever discussed before the RX 480, gee, I wonder why?






DISCLAIMER: THE POST ABOVE MAY CONTAIN FACTS, DISCRETION ADVISED.

DISCLAIMER 2: I BELIEVE THE RX 480 IS A POOR EXCUSE OF A CARD, THAT POLARIS 10 IS INEFFICIENT AND WEAK

DISCLAIMER 3: I BELIEVE POLARIS 11 IS A MARVEL AS IT WAS THE FOCUS OF THIS ARCHITECTURE, I BELIEVE THE RX 480 IS POLARIS STRETCHED OUT (SACRIFICING EFFICIENCY) INTO A PERFORMANCE BRACKET IT WASN'T DESIGNED TO BE IN.

DISCLAIMER 3: I NOW OWN A GTX 1070 AND NO AMD SHARES.


Thank you everyone.
Dargonplay is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #712 of 1129 (permalink) Old 07-03-2016, 12:44 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Mahigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,771
Rep: 877 (Unique: 233)
Loonam posted this...



Then what the hell is this guy talking about??
https://www.twitch.tv/buildzoid/v/75850933

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)
Kn0wledge
(18 items)
CPU
Intel® Xeon E5-1680 V2 @ 4.5GHz
Motherboard
ASUS ROG Rampage IV Extreme
GPU
ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX 2080Ti
RAM
32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum PC3-17066
Hard Drive
WD Black NVMe M.2 2280
Hard Drive
256GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Hard Drive
4TB Western Digital Caviar Black
Optical Drive
ASUS internal BW-12B1ST Blu-ray writer
Power Supply
XFX PRO1050W Black Edition
Case
Cosmos II Ultra Tower
Operating System
Windows 10
Operating System
Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS
Monitor
Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
Monitor
Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
Monitor
Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
Keyboard
Corsair Vengeance® K90 Performance
Mouse
Logitech G9x Laser Mouse
Audio
ASUS Xonar Essence STX II
▲ hide details ▲
Mahigan is offline  
post #713 of 1129 (permalink) Old 07-03-2016, 12:56 AM
Cake
 
TwirlyWhirly555's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Inside a Fridge , UK
Posts: 292
Rep: 19 (Unique: 15)
Well
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProclusLycaeus View Post

They aren't 2.2A each, they are 1.1A ... just as PCPer said.

.

Yup , Completely missed the " two adjacent pins powered " on the data sheet , so 1.1A

Never mind .

I don't know what you had in mind
But here we stand on opposing sides


TwirlyWhirly555 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #714 of 1129 (permalink) Old 07-03-2016, 01:08 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Exilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,082
Rep: 89 (Unique: 57)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post


DISCLAIMER: THE POST ABOVE MAY CONTAIN FACTS, DISCRETION ADVISED.

DISCLAIMER 2: I BELIEVE THE RX 480 IS A POOR EXCUSE OF A CARD, THAT POLARIS 10 IS INEFFICIENT AND WEAK

DISCLAIMER 3: I BELIEVE POLARIS 11 IS A MARVEL AS IT WAS THE FOCUS OF THIS ARCHITECTURE, I BELIEVE THE RX 480 IS POLARIS STRETCHED OUT (SACRIFICING EFFICIENCY) INTO A PERFORMANCE BRACKET IT WASN'T DESIGNED TO BE IN.

DISCLAIMER 3: I NOW OWN A GTX 1070 AND NO AMD SHARES.


Thank you everyone.

Lmao.

Thermal fatigue from in rush current measuring in micro seconds.

Ok.

Exilon is offline  
post #715 of 1129 (permalink) Old 07-03-2016, 01:13 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Mahigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,771
Rep: 877 (Unique: 233)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dargonplay View Post

Anyone who doesn't want to be fear mongered, misinformed, have its intelligence insulted or don't want to join a tech brand cult should watch these two videos for a full picture of whats going on.

There's a lot of misinformation on this thread.

To summarize things, TomsHardware's graphs show a RAW power consumption with no filtering, as PCPer says these spikes are generated because of DC conversions when turning off and on in cycles to provide power, Tomshardware gets the most precise numbers with inductive measuring and RAW data while other reviewers like PCPer have different methodology that aren't capable of faithfully showing these spikes with their filtered results as these happen in such short time spans.

Many have said that the reason why this have been blown out of proportion is because of hardware damages, but this is ridiculous because the RX 480 is proven to have short spikes to 140W compared to other cards like the GTX 960 to 240W from the PCIe Motherboard slot alone, or the 750Ti with spikes above 150W with stock/reference settings.



"LEAVES THE MOTHERBOARD CONNECTOR TO DEAL WITH UNPRECEDENTED UNFILTERED POWER SPIKES ON ITS OWN"

Many people see this image and are amazed to see such power spikes, they are so impressed by these results that they ignore completely the description above pointing out that these are the motherboard PCIe X16 Slot results without any PCIe Power PSU Connector and go on to reply misinformation about this being the card's total power graph, which is not.




TomsHardware inductive measurements show how spikes for the 750Ti can reach up to 150W, which occurs approximately 19 times every minute, it's especially ironic that people are crying out loud for the RX 480 when the 750Ti behavior is what end up damaging electrical components because of thermal fatigue and weak spots.

None of this was ever discussed before the RX 480, gee, I wonder why?






DISCLAIMER: THE POST ABOVE MAY CONTAIN FACTS, DISCRETION ADVISED.

DISCLAIMER 2: I BELIEVE THE RX 480 IS A POOR EXCUSE OF A CARD, THAT POLARIS 10 IS INEFFICIENT AND WEAK

DISCLAIMER 3: I BELIEVE POLARIS 11 IS A MARVEL AS IT WAS THE FOCUS OF THIS ARCHITECTURE, I BELIEVE THE RX 480 IS POLARIS STRETCHED OUT (SACRIFICING EFFICIENCY) INTO A PERFORMANCE BRACKET IT WASN'T DESIGNED TO BE IN.

DISCLAIMER 3: I NOW OWN A GTX 1070 AND NO AMD SHARES.


Thank you everyone.

The spikes are normal. When you turn a circuit on... it will spike for a a very very very short time (usually measured in microseconds). It is the same thing that happens when you flick the switch to turn on a light bulb. All circuits operate this way. What you want to do is filter those out in order to get a better idea of the true sustained load. In doing so (as PCPer did) you get the proper results.

You are new to this stuff eh?

On another note... if you think you can come here on overclock.net and spout nonsense to a very knowledgeable user base... then you are wrong. My suggestion to you Mr Dragon is to fly on over to wccftech and breath your fire over in their ever-so knowledgeable comment section. I am sure that the ensuing flame wars there will be more to your liking.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)
Kn0wledge
(18 items)
CPU
Intel® Xeon E5-1680 V2 @ 4.5GHz
Motherboard
ASUS ROG Rampage IV Extreme
GPU
ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX 2080Ti
RAM
32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum PC3-17066
Hard Drive
WD Black NVMe M.2 2280
Hard Drive
256GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Hard Drive
4TB Western Digital Caviar Black
Optical Drive
ASUS internal BW-12B1ST Blu-ray writer
Power Supply
XFX PRO1050W Black Edition
Case
Cosmos II Ultra Tower
Operating System
Windows 10
Operating System
Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS
Monitor
Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
Monitor
Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
Monitor
Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
Keyboard
Corsair Vengeance® K90 Performance
Mouse
Logitech G9x Laser Mouse
Audio
ASUS Xonar Essence STX II
▲ hide details ▲
Mahigan is offline  
post #716 of 1129 (permalink) Old 07-03-2016, 01:19 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
The Stilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,270
Rep: 750 (Unique: 286)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themisseble View Post

Well GTX 970 has TDP of 145W and it goes way way over!
So basically you are saying that GTX 970 and GTX 1070 should never use over 110W.

RX 480 8GB with downvolts will use less then 120W.

In this case XFX RX 480W peaks at 125W stock.

XFX 480 8GB claims 120W TDP
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/b3684/xfx-rx-480-black-edition

The TDP on the reference RX 480 cards is configured to 110W. That applies on the calculated (by PM) power draw of the GPU, not the measured one. The controller on RX 480 supports DCR measurements, so technically the input power could be measured more accurately. At the moment GPU-Z is not displaying the data from the controller directly (you can see the controller data on 290/390 cards for example).

The values displayed for nVidia cards are based on shunt measurements (AFAIK) so they include the VRM losses (as the shunts are for 12V inputs).
The Stilt is offline  
post #717 of 1129 (permalink) Old 07-03-2016, 01:24 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
The Stilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,270
Rep: 750 (Unique: 286)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahigan View Post

Some dude on the bitcoin forums claimed that his motherboard was fried from running 3x RX 480s (under-clocked his cards)....

well...

Take 6x R9 290xs each pulling 66W from the 12v rail and around 9W from the 3.3v rail of their respective motherboard PCIe slot. Do the math...

That is 450W being pulled from the motherboard (I ran that on several machines during the bitcoin heyday and many other users run similar configurations on cheap motherboards).

This user wants us to believe is that 3x RX 480s pulling 80W each from their respective PCIe Slots are somehow responsible for burning out the motherboards 24-pin connector.

Lets do the math.. 3x 80W = 240W.

So let me ask you all... how come many bitcoin miners can run 6 R9 290xs on the same motherboard using PCIe ribbon cables pulling 450W without a single issue yet 3 RX 480s are somehow responsible for burning out a motherboard after pulling 240W?

What is a larger number. 240 or 450???

Hawaii or Fiji based cards don't draw anywhere near the maximum allowed by the specification (i.e 66W) from the PCI-E slot. They draw the power for the GPU VRM from the PCI-E power connectors and the power drawn from the PCI-E bus itself only feeds VDDCI VRM and the display interfaces (on Hawaii) and MVDDC and display interfaces on Fiji.
The Stilt is offline  
post #718 of 1129 (permalink) Old 07-03-2016, 01:30 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
BulletBait's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 1,393
Rep: 150 (Unique: 67)
Aha,

@The Stilt has arrived. There's a man's opinion that I can trust.

Which... btdubs... got any Polaris BIOS' yet? biggrin.gif



BulletBait is offline  
post #719 of 1129 (permalink) Old 07-03-2016, 01:36 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Mahigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,771
Rep: 877 (Unique: 233)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt View Post

Hawaii or Fiji based cards don't draw anywhere near the maximum allowed by the specification (i.e 66W) from the PCI-E slot. They draw the power for the GPU VRM from the PCI-E power connectors and the power drawn from the PCI-E bus itself only feeds VDDCI VRM and the display interfaces (on Hawaii) and MVDDC and display interfaces on Fiji.

Oh really now... then how does a MSI R9 390x Gaming 8g card get to pull an average of 344W then? Remember.. the card has a 8 pin and a 6 pin connector. That means 150W and 75W for 225W.
Quote:
For this test, we measure the power consumption of only the graphics card via the PCI-Express power connector(s) and PCI-Express bus slot. A Keithley Integra 2700 digital multimeter with 6.5-digit resolution is used for all measurements. Again, the values here only reflect the card's power consumption as measured at its DC inputs, not that of the whole system.

Are you going to tell me that it is over PCIe power connector spec?



Therefore I have to ask... where did you get your information from?

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)
Kn0wledge
(18 items)
CPU
Intel® Xeon E5-1680 V2 @ 4.5GHz
Motherboard
ASUS ROG Rampage IV Extreme
GPU
ASUS ROG Strix GeForce RTX 2080Ti
RAM
32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum PC3-17066
Hard Drive
WD Black NVMe M.2 2280
Hard Drive
256GB Samsung 840 Pro SSD
Hard Drive
4TB Western Digital Caviar Black
Optical Drive
ASUS internal BW-12B1ST Blu-ray writer
Power Supply
XFX PRO1050W Black Edition
Case
Cosmos II Ultra Tower
Operating System
Windows 10
Operating System
Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS
Monitor
Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
Monitor
Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
Monitor
Dell UltraSharp 2408WFP
Keyboard
Corsair Vengeance® K90 Performance
Mouse
Logitech G9x Laser Mouse
Audio
ASUS Xonar Essence STX II
▲ hide details ▲
Mahigan is offline  
post #720 of 1129 (permalink) Old 07-03-2016, 01:38 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
The Stilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,270
Rep: 750 (Unique: 286)
Anyway, based on buildzoid's video the GPU VRM power input is infact split between the PCI-E slot and PCI-E power connector (and not just shorted), like I expected. w1zzard from TPU promised to make me some measurements to find out the exact structure of the card. If the power source for the GPU VRM phases are split 50/50 between PCI-E slot and the PCI-E power connector, I should be able to remedy the excess power draw from the slot quite easily. The fix could be applied either by Afterburner or by using a modified bios (once flash tools are available). The fix doesn't affect the total power draw of the card or the performance.
The Stilt is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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