06-30-2016, 07:52 AM
Thanks for the Tom's reference Bofox.
I haven't went there for reviews in a long time, but they have come a long long way. Probably one of the most comprehensive power testing I have ever seen done on graphics cards.
You know, all the hype and AMD troopers really had me grinning, I simply could not wait for Polaris launch. There were a lot of signs and a few whispers, I knew the card was not gonna be nearly as good as all the claims. I was eagerly waiting for the is one to blow up. But man....I wasn't ever expecting things to be this bad. The atrocious power hog it turned out to be, it blows NY mind. This was the one metric AMD harped on the most. It's not like I expected it to beat pascal, I mean everywhere on every site people had taken it as a given that AMD was gonna be far ahead of Nvidia in perf per watt. But, it was real obvious to me that pascal efficiency was extremely great. Most everyone overlooked it due to AMD and their claim that Polaris was 2.8x times as efficient. So, PASCAL'S phenomenal perf per watt was completely disregard. As a matter of fact, I remember so many railing on Nvidia saying that their gains from moving to 16nm was pathetic.
But geeZ... there are mountains of crow that needs to be eaten.
I knew that Polaris wouldn't surpass pascal perf per watt, but I never ever expected such utter trash as this-
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-...616-9.html
You know, this is a very scary thing. TOM'S and every other reviewer out there have robust enthusiasts boards. The market AMD is aiming at with their card, it's bare minimum budget guys. You know, this is off the charts. Tom's discovery was jaw dropping, and as mean as AMD fans might accuse it.....Tom's went very very light on the issue.
On their super dooper high class top of the line motherboard, they were afraid of overclocking due to the extreme violation of the PCIe power specs observed using the 480 at stock. There will be pure people buying these cards, with and troopers persuasion, then straight up popping them in crapware budget computers. Using Crap PSUs with mole to 6 pin adapter on a tiny case with bare minimum El cheapo motherboards. It is completely unfathomable. Tom's went so so light on the issue. Sure, his top of the line psu and mobo may be able to withstand such abuse but people with that kind of HW most likely we buy a comparable nice TOP of the line GPU.
AMD'S 480 is worse worse than the Fermi 480, as the Fermi was used and aimed at the top of the line enthusiasts market. Not a card that blast past PCIe specs (mobo and psu) aimed at the budget market. If Fermi was ever bad, this is far worse.
I haven't went there for reviews in a long time, but they have come a long long way. Probably one of the most comprehensive power testing I have ever seen done on graphics cards.
You know, all the hype and AMD troopers really had me grinning, I simply could not wait for Polaris launch. There were a lot of signs and a few whispers, I knew the card was not gonna be nearly as good as all the claims. I was eagerly waiting for the is one to blow up. But man....I wasn't ever expecting things to be this bad. The atrocious power hog it turned out to be, it blows NY mind. This was the one metric AMD harped on the most. It's not like I expected it to beat pascal, I mean everywhere on every site people had taken it as a given that AMD was gonna be far ahead of Nvidia in perf per watt. But, it was real obvious to me that pascal efficiency was extremely great. Most everyone overlooked it due to AMD and their claim that Polaris was 2.8x times as efficient. So, PASCAL'S phenomenal perf per watt was completely disregard. As a matter of fact, I remember so many railing on Nvidia saying that their gains from moving to 16nm was pathetic.
But geeZ... there are mountains of crow that needs to be eaten.
I knew that Polaris wouldn't surpass pascal perf per watt, but I never ever expected such utter trash as this-
Quote:AMD’s Radeon RX 480 draws an average of 164W, which exceeds the company's target TDP. And it gets worse. The load distribution works out in a way that has the card draw 86W through the motherboard’s PCIe slot. Not only does this exceed the 75W ceiling we typically associate with a 16-lane slot, but that 75W limit covers several rails combined and not just this one interface.
With peaks of up to 155W, we have to be thankful they're brief, and not putting the motherboard in any immediate danger. However, the audio subsystems on cheaper platforms will have a hard time dealing with them. This means that the "you can hear what you see" effect will be in full force during load changes; activities like scrolling may very well result in audible artifacts.
We’re also left to wonder what we'd see from a CrossFire configuration. Two graphics cards would draw 160W via the motherboard’s 24-pin connector; that's a tall order. Switching from the bars back to a more detailed curve makes this even more evident.
We skipped long-term overclocking and overvolting tests, since the Radeon RX 480’s power consumption through the PCIe slot jumped to an average of 100W, peaking at 200W. We just didn’t want to do that to our test platform.
Stress Test Power Consumption
Believe it or not, the situation gets even worse. AMD's Radeon RX 480 draws 90W through the motherboard’s PCIe slot during our stress test. This is a full 20 percent above the limit.
To be clear, your motherboard isn't going to catch fire. But standards exist for a reason. All of the components around the PCIe slot and along the path from the slot to the 24-pin ATX connector will suffer from the peaks. And depending on your platform's design, audio problems may also materialize.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-...616-9.html
You know, this is a very scary thing. TOM'S and every other reviewer out there have robust enthusiasts boards. The market AMD is aiming at with their card, it's bare minimum budget guys. You know, this is off the charts. Tom's discovery was jaw dropping, and as mean as AMD fans might accuse it.....Tom's went very very light on the issue.
On their super dooper high class top of the line motherboard, they were afraid of overclocking due to the extreme violation of the PCIe power specs observed using the 480 at stock. There will be pure people buying these cards, with and troopers persuasion, then straight up popping them in crapware budget computers. Using Crap PSUs with mole to 6 pin adapter on a tiny case with bare minimum El cheapo motherboards. It is completely unfathomable. Tom's went so so light on the issue. Sure, his top of the line psu and mobo may be able to withstand such abuse but people with that kind of HW most likely we buy a comparable nice TOP of the line GPU.
AMD'S 480 is worse worse than the Fermi 480, as the Fermi was used and aimed at the top of the line enthusiasts market. Not a card that blast past PCIe specs (mobo and psu) aimed at the budget market. If Fermi was ever bad, this is far worse.