AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB Review

[InvalidError]

Toms Hardware: Considering all the buzz about yours and others rx 480 PCIE power draw tests are we going to see every new GPU and even some past ones put through this testing?

THG has been doing that sort of testing on GPUs for a few years, just not on every card since getting the numbers requires shipping the cards between whoever writes the GPU review and Aris or whoever else has the measurement equipment. Or having cards shipped to both. That's why full power coverage is focusing mainly on new GPU launches. The majority of derivative cards using the same GPU will be mostly the same, so there is usually little to no value in repeating the test on all of them.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Toms Hardware: Considering all the buzz about yours and others rx 480 PCIE power draw tests are we going to see every new GPU and even some past ones put through this testing?

What I want to see is that every review site that has tested the RX 480 power draw with those home brewed test rigs go back and test as many different GPUs as they can. Do other cards fall out of spec? Which ones? If so by how much? That should keep things scientific and get rid of the claims of anti AMD bias. Furthermore it will help inform the consumers and enthusiasts who consider your work before parting with our hard earned dollars.

Thanks and keep up the good work!

Chris used this same test setup on the GTX 1080 and even under a gaming load overclocked it was only pulling 72W from the motherboard.

he even did it with the Fury X and it was only pulling 32.1w from the motherboard and the rest was coming from the PCIe connections.

I would say that that eliminates and anti AMD bias as he has been using for a while to test power draw and this GPU is showing a higher pull from the slot than even a much more power hungry Fury X.

It is probably only going to be an issue with stock PCB designs but it is still an issue they will have to deal with.

There is a reason why I enjoy Chris articles, he is normally very detailed and fair..

 

[-Fran-]

I never understood what the big gripe was about that 3.5GB direct access VRAM issue anyway as an SLI 970 owner. Not one of my games in the past 2-3 years (nearly 2 years of owning 970) came close to allocating* even 3GB VRAM at 1440p with ultra and 4xAA in Afterburner (Crysis 3, BF3/4, Witcher 3, FC3/4, Battlefront, Project Cars). Granted I don't have GTA-V or Shadow Of Mortar which are brutal on VRAM use.

*A lot of people still confuse VRAM memory allocation that shows up in GPU programs like Afterburner and GPU-Z with what is actually being used.

Have you ever used DSR? I am pretty sure you will notice then.

Cheers!

 

[Mousemonkey]

terribe, i repeat rerrible perf / watt ratio.

jeez 480 is almost at the same numbers as 1080.

Nobody I know anywhere really cares are performance-to-watt ratios......only price-to-performance.

In absolute terms, 150w for the performance of the 480 is pretty good, and if you want to buy a 480, wattage isn't likely a big concern. However, I care about the wattage and you probably should too. Given that AMD is actually on a *smaller* node process than Nvidia, it's worrisome that NVidia was able to squeeze much more performance out of 150w in the 1070 than AMD has in the 480. It's doubly worrisome in that it indicates that the Fury successor cards may have some significant power draw and heat issues.

Personally, I'm worried because I bought a 1440 freesync 144hz for super cheap off slickdeals; I've been sitting on a GTX 970 waiting for the high end polaris cards and I may end up upgrading to a 1070 and foregoing freesync. Seriously..I want to buy an AMD card and I'm not sure I will.

In what way is it actually smaller? Everything that I have found seems to suggest that it's a nomenclature not an actual size or accurate measurement.

http://semiengineering.com/a-node-by-any-other-name/

 

[10tacle]

Have you ever used DSR? I am pretty sure you will notice then. Cheers!

I have a 1440p monitor for a reason, chief. Why would I want to software upscale it to 4K? It's also why I don't use Nvidia's Hairworks in W3...not worth the massive FPS hit. If I wanted to run a 4K resolution, I'd buy a 4K monitor and GPUs powerful enough to run it at 60+ FPS.

 

[-Fran-]

I have a 1440p monitor for a reason, chief. Why would I want to software upscale it to 4K? It's also why I don't use Nvidia's Hairworks in W3...not worth the massive FPS hit. If I wanted to run a 4K resolution, I'd buy a 4K monitor and GPUs powerful enough to run it at 60+ FPS.

Missing the point. Remember just because you don't use it, it means it's useless.

The complaints that I have found are when using DSR and maxing out the memory. I know it is obvious, but yeah.

Come on, try it. It's only a test

Cheers!

 

[10tacle]

Missing the point. Remember just because you don't use it, it means it's useless. The complaints that I have found are when using DSR and maxing out the memory. I know it is obvious, but yeah.
Come on, try it. It's only a test

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. You made a comment above about testers commenting about the poor overclocking and power use of the reference 480 and excused it as being "out of spec." (Funny how the reference 970 release overclocked well).

Anyway, guess what? So is DSR. Everyone knows that two 970s are not enough to run a 4K monitor at 60+ FPS in today's games. Never mind that DSR was really geared towards those with lower resolutions in the first place like those still stuck on 720p/900p and wanting to game at 1080p.

That's like arguing that a Hennessey-modified C7 Corvette still can't beat a Pagani Zonda. The 'Vette wasn't meant to compete at Supercar class levels..."out of spec."

 

[-Fran-]

With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. You made a comment above about testers commenting about the poor overclocking and power use of the reference 480 and excused it as being "out of spec." (Funny how the reference 970 release overclocked well). Anyway, guess what? So is DSR. Everyone knows that two 970s are not enough to run a 4K monitor at 60+ FPS in today's games.

That's like arguing that a Hennessey-modified C7 Corvette still can't beat a Pagani Zonda. The 'Vette wasn't meant to compete at Supercar class levels..."out of spec."

It's just a simple test, come on

Plus, I didn't miss the point. You mentioned the 3.5GB not being a big deal. I say otherwise.

And the Hennessey can compete in regular 1/4 miles and win a lot. It just depends on the competition you want to put it. I always use the same argument with EVOs and Stangs

Cheers!

 

[littleleo]

The conlcusion, the VR part, is a bit off. Why? becaus VR is not mainstream yet. As a personal opinion, VR is going to die like 3D TV's

I've never been a fan of the 3D hype. I don't think the premium you pay for 3D movies isn't worth it. I've seen many 3D movies and shorts and very very few were a great experience. The poor quality of 3D movies shows what some movie producers think, that by making a movie 3D fixes a crappy story line and poor acting. Not to mention the many times the 3D effect is added later and they suck. It is very very rare when you see a 3D movie and walk out feeling it was worth it. Usually I feel the regular version would have been just as good and saved me money for popcorn.

VR is an interesting product, it's like we're more immersed into the game. The biggest problem I see is the cost. With the current prices very few will cough up the dough required to have a decent setup. I don't think it has a chance of being a mainstream product like AMD & Nvidia hope for until the cost comes down a lot. I'm more interested in the potential of what VR offers over the joke that is 3D.

That all being said I think the RX 480 is a good value lowers the cost for the level of performance it offers by $100 easy. I'm sure the AMD board partners will have more impressive models soon that will be even more attractive. Overall this is a good product, maybe it was over hyped a bit, so it's not faster then a GTX 980 Ti for $200, but lets be honest that wasn't a realistic expectation in the 1st place. Because of this offering Nvidia will have to come out with the 1060 to combat it sooner. This is good for all of us unless you just upgraded your GPU in the last year ;^D.

 

[10tacle]

It's just a simple test, come on

I already know what it will do. I can read 4K benchmarks and VRAM use with 970 SLI just fine, thanks.

Plus, I didn't miss the point. You mentioned the 3.5GB not being a big deal. I say otherwise.

Yes you did. Because you are not listening to a thing I'm saying. Never mind you yourself don't even own a 970. So who are you to talk? Read. Learn. http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k-aa-enabled/index.html

Anyway this is getting too off topic, so I'm done here.

 

[-Fran-]

I already know what it will do. I can read 4K benchmarks and VRAM use with 970 SLI just fine, thanks.

And I still stand by my point: this isn't about you, it's about what was/is advertised with the card. IF it doesn't bothers *you*, it does not mean it is *not* an issue. Let me rephrase your argument and do a caricature of it:

"I have my 970s running perfectly fine in SLI pushing Quake 3 at 640x480 with zero issues".

Yes you did. Because you are not listening to a thing I'm saying. Read. Learn. http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/90/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k-aa-enabled/index.html

Like I said before, I am not arguing your 970s are fine for you, but they *have* a problem and that can't be denied. Having ways to avoid it is *another* topic.

But you are correct; off topic indeed.

Cheers!

 

[jwl3]

A lot of AMD fanboys here butthurt that their vid card can't compete with the 1070 and even the 970. A lot of the benchmarks vs the 970 are lower except for the few AMD optimized games. Face facts, AMD is the bastard stepchild of the computing world - losing out to Intel processors and now Nvidia by a mile.

No idea why people are so hung up over brand loyalty - I've owned 10 AMD's to 2 Nvidias. 3 Sony's to 2 Yamahas (receivers). 2 Panasonics to 1 LG (tvs). Who cares? I buy whatever gives me the best performance for the price point.

 

[Sakkura]

In what way is it actually smaller? Everything that I have found seems to suggest that it's a nomenclature not an actual size or accurate measurement.

http://semiengineering.com/a-node-by-any-other-name/

While "14nm" and "16nm" are by no means accurate measures (plus they have to describe an entire process where a variety of elements can have different sizes, so it could never be a single number), I do believe the Samsung/GloFo process is a little more dense (ie. smaller for same design). That was the case for the Apple A9 when it was dual-sourced from TSMC and Samsung.

IIRC those were the 16FF and 14LPE processes, where the new GPUs are made on 16FF+ and 14LPP, so we'd have to get lucky with another dual-sourced chip to be certain the same (small) density difference is still in play.

 

[FritzEiv]

looks like tom's called the pcie slot issues. too bad folks were not listening!! http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-killing-pcie-slots/

not good at all for amd and these cards

If true it makes me wonder what was going through their minds and if they knew about this. They had to know about this.

Hopefully it is just a issue in the BIOS and they can get an update out that puts the PCIe back to 75W and then the rest of the power us drawn from the PCIe cable from the PSU.

Igor does the power testing. He reported his results to AMD before we published the review and as of today (July 1) still hasn't heard back from them directly.

 

[Math Geek]

Igor does the power testing. He reported his results to AMD before we published the review and as of today (July 1) still hasn't heard back from them directly.

now that's some very interesting information to have. at least we can say that amd was aware of the issue as reported by a reputable third party. i don't know whether it would be better for them to claim to not have known or to claim they did know and "someone" let it slide against amd policy. quality testing and certifications should have caught this rather early on if they are up to par. i have a feeling this is going to blow into a rather big deal over the next few weeks.

 

[jimmysmitty]

looks like tom's called the pcie slot issues. too bad folks were not listening!! http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-killing-pcie-slots/

not good at all for amd and these cards

If true it makes me wonder what was going through their minds and if they knew about this. They had to know about this.

Hopefully it is just a issue in the BIOS and they can get an update out that puts the PCIe back to 75W and then the rest of the power us drawn from the PCIe cable from the PSU.

Igor does the power testing. He reported his results to AMD before we published the review and as of today (July 1) still hasn't heard back from them directly.

Well I would not be surprised if you guys don't hear back from them until after Monday.

I would hope they would at least get to us by then at least.

Igor does the power testing. He reported his results to AMD before we published the review and as of today (July 1) still hasn't heard back from them directly.

now that's some very interesting information to have. at least we can say that amd was aware of the issue as reported by a reputable third party. i don't know whether it would be better for them to claim to not have known or to claim they did know and "someone" let it slide against amd policy. quality testing and certifications should have caught this rather early on if they are up to par. i have a feeling this is going to blow into a rather big deal over the next few weeks.

It very much could.

I honestly hope that it is a simple software fix. A recall would not benefit them at all.

 

[elbert]

It looks to me that the both the rx480 and the GTX960 go over the limit. The GTX960 actually does it more often but doesn't have the less occasion of a high draw like the RX480. Thus shouldn't cause anymore damage than the GTX960. This said I wouldn't overclock the stock 6pin version and wait for custom models with a 8pin power connector.

 

[17seconds]

It looks to me that the both the rx480 and the GTX960 go over the limit. The GTX960 actually does it more often but doesn't have the less occasion of a high draw like the RX480. Thus shouldn't cause anymore damage than the GTX960.

A forum myth debunked by PC Perspective.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Power-Consumption-Concerns-Radeon-RX-480/Evaluating-ASUS-GTX-960-Strix

So there you have it - while I cannot say for certain that NO previous graphics card in recent memory hasn't behaved in the same fashion that the new AMD Radeon RX 480 does, I can categorically discount the notion that the ASUS GTX 960 Strix is somehow equivalent in its power delivery.

 

[InvalidError]

i don't know whether it would be better for them to claim to not have known or to claim they did know and "someone" let it slide against amd policy.

I do not think they can claim to "not have known" since power draw testing from the PCIe slot would be part of the PCIe compliance testing. How can you admit to have casually overlooked part of qualification testing and not lose face? They cannot have NOT measured power some number of time during the hardware, driver and software development process.

 

[monsta]

great article, thanks for exposing AMd for pulling a VW

 

[monsta]

the burn outs have started
https://community.amd.com/thread/202410

 

[Jose_56]

I've heard of some people undervolting the cards and decreasing consumption by 30 watts and reach higher frequencies. Could you guys try that and use your equipment to see if that can be a temporary fix to the pci power draw issue?

 

[Jose_56]

AMD has just released an official statement,
As you know, we continuously tune our GPUs in order to maximize their performance within their given power envelopes and the speed of the memory interface, which in this case is an unprecedented 8Gbps for GDDR5. Recently, we identified select scenarios where the tuning of some RX 480 boards was not optimal. Fortunately, we can adjust the GPU's tuning via software in order to resolve this issue. We are already testing a driver that implements a fix, and we will provide an update to the community on our progress on Tuesday (July 5, 2016).

 

[-Fran-]

AMD has just released an official statement,
As you know, we continuously tune our GPUs in order to maximize their performance within their given power envelopes and the speed of the memory interface, which in this case is an unprecedented 8Gbps for GDDR5. Recently, we identified select scenarios where the tuning of some RX 480 boards was not optimal. Fortunately, we can adjust the GPU's tuning via software in order to resolve this issue. We are already testing a driver that implements a fix, and we will provide an update to the community on our progress on Tuesday (July 5, 2016).

That is great to know. Do you have a link/source for that?

Cheers!

 

[Mousemonkey]

So what effect does cranking down the voltage have on the cards performance I wonder? If that is what their "fix" is then all those benchies are going to have to be re run, no?