Discussion: Polaris, AMD's 4th Gen GCN Architecture

[jimmysmitty]

So you are saying it is all just a coincidence?

It is still higher than spec power draw and AMD could have avoided all of this by just adding a 8pin connection to it instead so the PCIe port would draw less power.

Why are you refusing to read my posts? I specifically said that the issue with the card was exposing an issue with the motherboard.

I am not. I just don't think it is the motherboard that is the issue I think it is the GPUs power draw. If this happened with nVidia I would be on the same page it is just odd that people who ran older, higher power draw cards did not have this issue because those GPUs did not pull as much power from the PCIe slot.

It is too much of a coincidence.

Oh FFS. Just read one of my replies, I've explained the concept perfectly well. There isn't necessarily a single cause of such a problem.

If you run current through a wire, and the wire burns, whose fault is it? The wire for not being thick enough, or the current for being too strong? It's the combination.

What we have in this situation is a graphics card pulling more current than the specification allows. But we also know that the current the graphics card pulls will not cause a properly constructed motherboard to sustain damage. The articles have explicitly said so. So the graphics card issue exposed a pre-existing issue in the motherboard. This is not a coincidence, as you keep erroneously claiming, it is in fact cause and effect.

And if a company forces a higher currant than the wire is rated or speced for whose fault is it? The motherboard are designed within the PCIe spec. The GPU is pushing it beyond that spec.

In short you are saying that any motherboard (so far ASRock, Asus and an MSI) are all faulty and at fault for a GPU pulling more power consistently than the slot is speced for?

I just can't see how a motherboard can be called faulty if a part is going beyond spec.

No, AMD proved that the motherboards are too weak, not that they are outside spec, that's already known. Tom's already explained that the RX480 shouldn't be able to damage the motherboards, did you even read the article?

Yes I did and they stated it should not, that does not mean it wont happen. It is much like if a PSU blows. It should not take other components with it due to protections yet it is still possible.

And the boards that died are not "weak". In fact where did AMD "prove" this?

I ma not saying it will happen but saying it never will happen is wrong as well. It is an issue they are working out then after it is worked out it will need to be tested again.

Again AMD could have avoided all of this had they put an 8pin instead and the card would have probably been praised for the price/performance like it should have been.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

And the boards that died are not "weak". In fact where did AMD "prove" this? Wow. I'm done here.

 

[TehPenguin]

And the boards that died are not "weak". In fact where did AMD "prove" this? Wow. I'm done here.

And thank god for that.

 

[renz496]

here's some more fun with aftermarket cooling for the 480 http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-overclocked-air-water/

seems with solid air and water cooling, the reference pcb of the 480 is a VERY robust platform. on water it clocked high enough to beat "R9 390X, 980 & Nano but is also effectively encroaching on R9 Fury territory."

get's me a bit more excited for the custom cards to start showing up in the next couple weeks.

too bad they did not apply the same principle when designing the reference cooler. the reference probably will fare better if they just use open air cooler type on it instead of the blower design. they do that in the past why can't they do it now? sometimes it doesn't make sense when they beef up the PCB design and then cut corners when it comes to coolers. if people want blower style cooler let board partner offer that option.

 

[renz496]

Lots of salt for WTFBBQTech.

I really don't think most Partners will go over 1.2Ghz and 1.3Ghz turbo speed for their non-reference. Maybe some halo products will push them to 1.3/1.4Ghz, but not the norm. I will be happy with a cool running silent card. AMD and, most probably Sapphire, can have my money then. That Asus strix looks nice as well, but the bling bling... Ugh.

Cheers!

some people still expecting for OCed RX480 to be able to match 980Ti performance.

 

[renz496]

I like XFX's designs, too. Can't wait to see what their aftermarket card looks like.

We have seen it, it even has replaceable fans. Pic was included in instruction booklet of the reference cards

That does look cool. XFX has always had some good stuff.

Do you think XFX regrets dumping Nvidia for AMD? Going to a chip brand that has seen it's market share drop to 20%. I wonder if the guy that recommended that and the person that followed his advice is still working there.

what XFX wants is to sell both AMD and nvidia graphic card for more profit. i think that's how it was. because back then the market share between amd and nvidia is about even like 55/45 in nvidia favor. that is quite a big market opportunity for XFX. they did not dump nvidia. it was the opposite. XFX starts as nvidia exclusive partner. i don't know the fine details like if XFX ever agreed to nvidia to only sell nvidia cards but nvidia does not like it when XFX start selling AMD card. then they break their partnership.

 

[Rogue Leader]

^ You are correct, XFX started building AMD cards so Nvidia yanked their license. Strange because they are ok with ASUS and MSI and others. I have doubts Nvidia would change their mind.

 

[jimmysmitty]

And the boards that died are not "weak". In fact where did AMD "prove" this? Wow. I'm done here.

If you submit a claim, provide proof. Is there anything wrong with asking that AMD has "proved" that the motherboards being used are weak compared to others? If that is so, then are AMD users expected to buy high end motherboards to run mid end GPUs?

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of one over the other, my 980Ti is the first nVidia GPU I have bought in 13 years. The Fury X just did not appeal to me. I just think that an issue is an issue. I would do the same for nVidia. I can even remember when nVidia cheated on games by lowering image quality.

here's some more fun with aftermarket cooling for the 480 http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-overclocked-air-water/

seems with solid air and water cooling, the reference pcb of the 480 is a VERY robust platform. on water it clocked high enough to beat "R9 390X, 980 & Nano but is also effectively encroaching on R9 Fury territory."

get's me a bit more excited for the custom cards to start showing up in the next couple weeks.

too bad they did not apply the same principle when designing the reference cooler. the reference probably will fare better if they just use open air cooler type on it instead of the blower design. they do that in the past why can't they do it now? sometimes it doesn't make sense when they beef up the PCB design and then cut corners when it comes to coolers. if people want blower style cooler let board partner offer that option.

Blowers are superior in that they drop the heat outside the case. I think if someone like Asus designed a blower with their DirectCU III it would work great. Problem is it would probably be a 3 slot GPU then.

Lots of salt for WTFBBQTech.

I really don't think most Partners will go over 1.2Ghz and 1.3Ghz turbo speed for their non-reference. Maybe some halo products will push them to 1.3/1.4Ghz, but not the norm. I will be happy with a cool running silent card. AMD and, most probably Sapphire, can have my money then. That Asus strix looks nice as well, but the bling bling... Ugh.

Cheers!

some people still expecting for OCed RX480 to be able to match 980Ti performance.

Why?

Overclocking gives some performance but in reality it would not give that massive of a boost.

Man the hype just never ends even after launch.

 

[renz496]

as far as i'm aware asus and some others has been long selling both nvidia and ATI cards. but they also selling other computer stuff like mobo and other stuff. XFX i think they start as pure GPU vendor. if i remember correctly they did not sell other computer stuff like PSU until HD4k series/ GTX200 series generation. and i do heard some stories from my local forum as well. it seems nvidia did not out right drop XFX but they did drop them from their first tier partner list. remember that early 40nm node was a disaster for nvidia. back then nvidia only give most GF100 supply to their first tier partner and XFX was excluded from that unlike it was before. i heard they do get small quantity of GF104 chip but even that only for tiny asian market. heard that XFX decided to be AMD exclusive from there on.

 

[renz496]

Blowers are superior in that they drop the heat outside the case. I think if someone like Asus designed a blower with their DirectCU III it would work great. Problem is it would probably be a 3 slot GPU then.

i understand that point. this is very useful especially with smaller case. but with mid tower with decent air flow open air can be very effective. plus they often still quite quiet even when the fan speed are high.

Why?

Overclocking gives some performance but in reality it would not give that massive of a boost.

Man the hype just never ends even after launch.

some people still hoping. and wccftech still hyping them. back then they said 1.6Ghz on air. now they tone down the hype a bit saying 1.5ghz is possible on water.

 

[17seconds]

I would do the same for nVidia. I can even remember when nVidia cheated on games by lowering image quality.

That was AMD that did that. It's actually one of the reasons why I laugh when people accuse Nvidia of unfair practices. Image quality cheats, cherry-picked review samples that outperform retail samples, AMD's got a decent history of cheating. You gotta understand it's a cutthroat industry and support the hardware you prefer, rather than the company you think is more virtuous, because that one doesn't exist.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/exploring-ati-image-quality-optimizations,1.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-570-gf110-performance,2806-5.html
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2010/11/19/testing-nvidia-vs-amd-image-quality/

 

[17seconds]

Blowers are superior in that they drop the heat outside the case. I think if someone like Asus designed a blower with their DirectCU III it would work great. Problem is it would probably be a 3 slot GPU then.

Asus already tried to do an upgrade to the blower style heatsink with their Turbo series.
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/asus_gtx970_turbo_sli/1
http://www.geeks3d.com/20150603/asus-turbo-geforce-gtx-960-oc-2gb-review/

https://www.asus.com/us/Graphics-Cards/TURBOGTX970OC4GD5/

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

If you submit a claim, provide proof. Is there anything wrong with asking that AMD has "proved" that the motherboards being used are weak compared to others? If that is so, then are AMD users expected to buy high end motherboards to run mid end GPUs?

Proved as in motherboards should be able to handle it but they can't. I'm not claiming anything, you're just assuming. It's both the cards and the motherboards involved fault.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I would do the same for nVidia. I can even remember when nVidia cheated on games by lowering image quality.

That was AMD that did that. It's actually one of the reasons why I laugh when people accuse Nvidia of unfair practices. Image quality cheats, cherry-picked review samples that outperform retail samples, AMD's got a decent history of cheating. You gotta understand it's a cutthroat industry and support the hardware you prefer, rather than the company you think is more virtuous, because that one doesn't exist.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/exploring-ati-image-quality-optimizations,1.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-570-gf110-performance,2806-5.html
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2010/11/19/testing-nvidia-vs-amd-image-quality/

No this was years ago, I think back in 2003 with the FX 5000 series. It was similar to what happened with the AMD/ATI driver.

If you submit a claim, provide proof. Is there anything wrong with asking that AMD has "proved" that the motherboards being used are weak compared to others? If that is so, then are AMD users expected to buy high end motherboards to run mid end GPUs?

Proved as in motherboards should be able to handle it but they can't. I'm not claiming anything, you're just assuming. It's both the cards and the motherboards involved fault.

So motherboards that are designed within the PCIe spec should be able to handle 23% more current than is stated in the PCIe spec?

I am not assuming anything. The Toms article clearly shows the GPU pulls more power on average than most any other GPU and pulls quite a bit more current than PCIe is speced at at stock speeds, it is probably even worse when overclocked on a reference card, and multiple users have show that with the RX 480s their boards died off, including those who had higher power draw GPUs in before that utilized more PCIe PSU connections than just a 6pin.

So again I will ask, if someone is buying an RX 480 are they supposed to buy a high end motherboard? How do they know that motherboard can handle 23% higher current than PCIe spec? Should reviewer now take this into account even though it is so far only the RX 480 does this. Even the R9 Nano, with only a 8 pin but a 175W TDP, used only 19W average under load from the 12V PCIe slot. In fact that is almost the perfect showing that a 8 pin could have solved this entire problem.

Again it is just questions that come up since you seem to think AMD is not at fault at all when it is clearly an issue with the GPU and not the boards.

 

[17seconds]

Actually some of the reports I read were on higher end boards: an Asus Rampage, a MSI FX990, and a ASRock 970 Extreme4.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

jimmy, from the Tom's article

"Current hardware should be able to handle this amount of current without taking any damage, as long as the motherboard’s slots are clean and not corroded."

So I was indeed right about the GPU only being half the story. I'm not even trying to say that the RX480 doesn't have power issue, it does.

Quoting my earlier post "The testing only tells us half the story.". That was before they added the "conclusion" section regarding the fact that the motherboards should be able to handle it.

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, comprehension problems....) that what they're trying to say is that the motherboards should be able to handle this, but they don't, probably because the manufacturers newer saw it coming, or thought it was a possibility. They're also pointing to user error.

 

[cdrkf]

I would do the same for nVidia. I can even remember when nVidia cheated on games by lowering image quality.

That was AMD that did that. It's actually one of the reasons why I laugh when people accuse Nvidia of unfair practices. Image quality cheats, cherry-picked review samples that outperform retail samples, AMD's got a decent history of cheating. You gotta understand it's a cutthroat industry and support the hardware you prefer, rather than the company you think is more virtuous, because that one doesn't exist.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/exploring-ati-image-quality-optimizations,1.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-570-gf110-performance,2806-5.html
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2010/11/19/testing-nvidia-vs-amd-image-quality/

No this was years ago, I think back in 2003 with the FX 5000 series. It was similar to what happened with the AMD/ATI driver.

If you submit a claim, provide proof. Is there anything wrong with asking that AMD has "proved" that the motherboards being used are weak compared to others? If that is so, then are AMD users expected to buy high end motherboards to run mid end GPUs?

Proved as in motherboards should be able to handle it but they can't. I'm not claiming anything, you're just assuming. It's both the cards and the motherboards involved fault.

So motherboards that are designed within the PCIe spec should be able to handle 23% more current than is stated in the PCIe spec?

I am not assuming anything. The Toms article clearly shows the GPU pulls more power on average than most any other GPU and pulls quite a bit more current than PCIe is speced at at stock speeds, it is probably even worse when overclocked on a reference card, and multiple users have show that with the RX 480s their boards died off, including those who had higher power draw GPUs in before that utilized more PCIe PSU connections than just a 6pin.

So again I will ask, if someone is buying an RX 480 are they supposed to buy a high end motherboard? How do they know that motherboard can handle 23% higher current than PCIe spec? Should reviewer now take this into account even though it is so far only the RX 480 does this. Even the R9 Nano, with only a 8 pin but a 175W TDP, used only 19W average under load from the 12V PCIe slot. In fact that is almost the perfect showing that a 8 pin could have solved this entire problem.

Again it is just questions that come up since you seem to think AMD is not at fault at all when it is clearly an issue with the GPU and not the boards.

I've seen very few reports of failed motherboards due to the RX480 (and I also think it's possible a few may well have been fabricated by trolls based on the info Toms put out). As someone who has developed a few PCB's over the years (not my main line of work but something I have an active interest in), I find it *highly unlikely* that a 20% over current on that slot (which remember is ONLY when the card is being hammered flat out) would be sufficient to cause damage, even with modest components. Where power is concerned, any decent quality board should be designed with a high FOS built in on all components- as the power draw will not be consistent. If the specification says the nominal current limit is 5.5A (based on the 66w figure for the 12v line), then you need to remember that spikes of as much as double that can be expected. Therefore for the motherboard to sustain 5.5A it should be able to cope with momentary loads of up to 11A if it's designed well. The main issue for drawing more than 5.5A continuously (assuming a long gaming session) would be cooling on the various power delivery components- this is where cheap boards could be under specced, but again a FOS built into such designs should account for quite a bit more than 20%. I'd personally never designed a power delivery circuit with less than a 100% FOS (i.e. I design for at least double the nominally expected power draw).

That said, AMD should re-balance the power draw as drawing over spec from the motherboard isn't something they should be doing. My personal feeling is that whilst motherboards *may* have failed after installing an RX480, unless this happens to large numbers of consumers it's likely just a standard motherboard failure (and they do fail, quite often for any number of reasons, including simply changing a major component- also so many users don't bother protect against static for example). I would say the same if this were an nVidia issue as well.

 

[Sakkura]

And the boards that died are not "weak". In fact where did AMD "prove" this? Wow. I'm done here.

If you submit a claim, provide proof. Is there anything wrong with asking that AMD has "proved" that the motherboards being used are weak compared to others? If that is so, then are AMD users expected to buy high end motherboards to run mid end GPUs?

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of one over the other, my 980Ti is the first nVidia GPU I have bought in 13 years. The Fury X just did not appeal to me. I just think that an issue is an issue. I would do the same for nVidia. I can even remember when nVidia cheated on games by lowering image quality.

If you're not a fan, why all the mental gymnastics?

Again, here is what Tom's Hardware officially has to say on the matter:

To be clear, your motherboard isn't going to catch fire. But standards exist for a reason.

In our launch article, we put our result into a broader context and pointed out that this shouldn’t result in any damages, as long as the system’s hardware conforms to the usual standards.

Current hardware should be able to handle this amount of current without taking any damage, as long as the motherboard’s slots are clean and not corroded.

So if you want to claim Tom's Hardware is wrong about this, you need to present some evidence.

 

[TJ Hooker]

The main issue for drawing more than 5.5A continuously (assuming a long gaming session) would be cooling on the various power delivery components- this is where cheap boards could be under specced, but again a FOS built into such designs should account for quite a bit more than 20%. I'd personally never designed a power delivery circuit with less than a 100% FOS (i.e. I design for at least double the nominally expected power draw).

When it comes to 12V power through the motherboard, aren't the only components involved the connectors (24 pin connector and PCIe slot) and traces? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the connectors standard? Meaning that really the only variable here would be the traces.
Also, what is FOS? Not familiar with that acronym.

 

[jimmysmitty]

And the boards that died are not "weak". In fact where did AMD "prove" this? Wow. I'm done here.

If you submit a claim, provide proof. Is there anything wrong with asking that AMD has "proved" that the motherboards being used are weak compared to others? If that is so, then are AMD users expected to buy high end motherboards to run mid end GPUs?

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of one over the other, my 980Ti is the first nVidia GPU I have bought in 13 years. The Fury X just did not appeal to me. I just think that an issue is an issue. I would do the same for nVidia. I can even remember when nVidia cheated on games by lowering image quality.

If you're not a fan, why all the mental gymnastics?

Again, here is what Tom's Hardware officially has to say on the matter:

To be clear, your motherboard isn't going to catch fire. But standards exist for a reason.

In our launch article, we put our result into a broader context and pointed out that this shouldn’t result in any damages, as long as the system’s hardware conforms to the usual standards.

Current hardware should be able to handle this amount of current without taking any damage, as long as the motherboard’s slots are clean and not corroded.

So if you want to claim Tom's Hardware is wrong about this, you need to present some evidence.

I look at it from a perspective of someone who has done repairs. They are correct it should not. That is the key word. It is most likely possible that the boards were older and had some dust but corroded is hard to say.

I have seen things happen that should not. I have seen a bad PSU cause a motherboard to catch fire. Should not happen but I have seen it. I have seen a i7 2600K shoved into a LGA 1156 even though physically it should not be possible but again I have seen it.

I have seen a lot of things you don't think should be possible happen.

I am just saying that the motherboards themselves that so far were reported as damaged were not "weak" boards. I am also saying that it was an avoidable issue but for some reason AMD decided not to go that route and it was a mistake.

@cdrkf, I understand what you are saying but in a mass production world where the majority of metal used is copper with gold plating, they typically will design it to meet spec. Especially since copper has been higher than it used to be cost wise. Hell people would go into empty homes and rip it out of the wall to sell it.

Designing like you do is great if people are willing to pay the extra costs involved. People are normally not going to. Hell it is hard enough convincing people that there are not name brands with PC components. Try telling them to spend 30% more for a board with thicker traces that should meet double the power spec.

 

[cdrkf]

The main issue for drawing more than 5.5A continuously (assuming a long gaming session) would be cooling on the various power delivery components- this is where cheap boards could be under specced, but again a FOS built into such designs should account for quite a bit more than 20%. I'd personally never designed a power delivery circuit with less than a 100% FOS (i.e. I design for at least double the nominally expected power draw).

When it comes to 12V power through the motherboard, aren't the only components involved the connectors (24 pin connector and PCIe slot) and traces? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the connectors standard? Meaning that really the only variable here would be the traces.
Also, what is FOS? Not familiar with that acronym.

Sorry the acronym means 'Factor Of Safety' 😛

 

[cdrkf]

And the boards that died are not "weak". In fact where did AMD "prove" this? Wow. I'm done here.

If you submit a claim, provide proof. Is there anything wrong with asking that AMD has "proved" that the motherboards being used are weak compared to others? If that is so, then are AMD users expected to buy high end motherboards to run mid end GPUs?

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of one over the other, my 980Ti is the first nVidia GPU I have bought in 13 years. The Fury X just did not appeal to me. I just think that an issue is an issue. I would do the same for nVidia. I can even remember when nVidia cheated on games by lowering image quality.

If you're not a fan, why all the mental gymnastics?

Again, here is what Tom's Hardware officially has to say on the matter:

To be clear, your motherboard isn't going to catch fire. But standards exist for a reason.

In our launch article, we put our result into a broader context and pointed out that this shouldn’t result in any damages, as long as the system’s hardware conforms to the usual standards.

Current hardware should be able to handle this amount of current without taking any damage, as long as the motherboard’s slots are clean and not corroded.

So if you want to claim Tom's Hardware is wrong about this, you need to present some evidence.

I look at it from a perspective of someone who has done repairs. They are correct it should not. That is the key word. It is most likely possible that the boards were older and had some dust but corroded is hard to say.

I have seen things happen that should not. I have seen a bad PSU cause a motherboard to catch fire. Should not happen but I have seen it. I have seen a i7 2600K shoved into a LGA 1156 even though physically it should not be possible but again I have seen it.

I have seen a lot of things you don't think should be possible happen.

I am just saying that the motherboards themselves that so far were reported as damaged were not "weak" boards. I am also saying that it was an avoidable issue but for some reason AMD decided not to go that route and it was a mistake.

@cdrkf, I understand what you are saying but in a mass production world where the majority of metal used is copper with gold plating, they typically will design it to meet spec. Especially since copper has been higher than it used to be cost wise. Hell people would go into empty homes and rip it out of the wall to sell it.

Designing like you do is great if people are willing to pay the extra costs involved. People are normally not going to. Hell it is hard enough convincing people that there are not name brands with PC components. Try telling them to spend 30% more for a board with thicker traces that should meet double the power spec.

Jimmy the way PCB's are manufactured means you don't save on copper by using thinner traces- boards start off as full sheets that are a laminate of copper and glass reinforced paper (usually, there are other base materials for high end stuff). The copper is removed via etching normal leaving the required pads / tracks (and usually leaving as much of the reaming copper to form a board wide ground plane- which helps improve EMC performance).

You can pay extra for *thicker* copper to begin with, and I agree that may not happen, however the currents involved aren't that high and should be achievable using wide tracks on the relevant lines. The only disadvantage for using wider tracks is they are more difficult to route (taking up more board space). So potentially more of an issue for compact layouts, I wouldn't have thought this would be an issue in the case of ATX or mATX boards however.

Edit: Where you may have a point is there are possibly some load / smoothing capacitors on the motherboard (to remove and ripple introduced through the cables from the PSU to the motherboard). These could of course be of low quality and could prove to the the 'weak link' in the event of overloading the slot. Without looking at the design of motherboards in more detail I can't honestly say I know if this is how they are built though, just speculation on my part.

Edit 2: Also if anyone is unsure on this- the reason Toms highlighted that corrosion / bad contacts in the slot might be a problem is any corrosion would effectively form a resistor- and running high current through a restive load creates heat. In theory, a high current draw over a bad contact could possibly heat up enough to burn the board.

 

[Mousemonkey]

The "fix" for the non-existent problem has arrived it would seem.

http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/amd-radeon-software-crimson-16-7-1-driver-download.html

 

[cdrkf]

The "fix" for the non-existent problem has arrived it would seem.

http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/amd-radeon-software-crimson-16-7-1-driver-download.html

That's good- I look forward to Toms testing it. It's impressive if they can redistribute the power from the driver (I would have assumed that level of granular control would have required a bios flash).

Assuming this does what they say it does, that should hopefully put all the pcie slot controversy to bed and people can focus on the merits (or otherwise) of the card vs the other options out there.

 

[Devoteicon]

The "fix" for the non-existent problem has arrived it would seem.

http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/amd-radeon-software-crimson-16-7-1-driver-download.html

That's good- I look forward to Toms testing it. It's impressive if they can redistribute the power from the driver (I would have assumed that level of granular control would have required a bios flash).

Assuming this does what they say it does, that should hopefully put all the pcie slot controversy to bed and people can focus on the merits (or otherwise) of the card vs the other options out there.

Pcper posted a review showing the new driver fixed the issue without hurting performance.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-RX-480-Power-Consumption-Concerns-Fixed-1671-Driver