[Rumor] RX 480 Overclocking 1500+Mhz

[thedavexp]

It should be a minor upgrade at the least (wait for benches to confirm)
But by pure maths it should be atleast a 390x but with the added architectural improvements perhaps faster. Im expecting this to benefit in games more than synthetic benchmarks.

 

[3DVagabond]

It should be a minor upgrade at the least (wait for benches to confirm)
But by pure maths it should be atleast a 390x but with the added architectural improvements perhaps faster. Im expecting this to benefit in games more than synthetic benchmarks.

There were reports that the biggest improvement will be in DX12. If so, that also looks good moving forward.

 

[Element115]

I made a graph guesstimating real world power draw of a RX480 based on the link ShintaiDK provided.

And I think what everybody can agree on is that the market as been starved of real improvement. 14nm and 16nm are a godsend to gamers. There are market constraints though. Anything beyond $250-$300 is a really tough sell to most people. Most of my gaming friends (even not poor and ~30y/o) would never buy a >$300 graphics card.

 

[Silverforce11]

I made a graph guesstimating real world power draw of a RX480 based on the link ShintaiDK provided.

And I think what everybody can agree on is that the market as been starved of real improvement. 14nm and 16nm are a godsend to gamers. There are market constraints though. Anything beyond $250-$300 is a really tough sell to most people. Most of my gaming friends (even not poor and ~30y/o) would never buy a >$300 graphics card.

AMD's reference cards (even most custom cards) have gaming power usage much lower than the rated board power. The rated TDP is only met in workloads like mining or HPC.

You can look at many of their previous gen cards and the trend is as above.

RX 480, 150W board power, ~100W gaming load is about right.

 

[MrTeal]

AMD's reference cards (even most custom cards) have gaming power usage much lower than the rated board power. The rated TDP is only met in workloads like mining or HPC.

You can look at many of their previous gen cards and the trend is as above.

RX 480, 150W board power, ~100W gaming load is about right.

I would actually hope that gaming power usage will be closer to the maximum power usage with the updates to GCN. I don't necessarily think it's a good thing that the early GCN cards used much less power in games than when running specialised compute code.

 

[Headfoot]

If 1.5GHz+ cards will increase voltage to pass validation, say good bye to perf/watt.

Those cards may reach close to GTX 1070 performance but at an increase in power consumption, perhaps even more than GTX 1080.

Awesome.

I'll pay $200 every single day of the week and overclock. Is this an eco forum or is this a hardware enthusiast forum?

Overclocking cheaper hardware to match more expensive hardware is THE definitional hardware enthusiast / overclocker experience. It's what bred us as enthusiasts back in the days of the Pentium.

 

[realibrad]

I would actually hope that gaming power usage will be closer to the maximum power usage with the updates to GCN. I don't necessarily think it's a good thing that the early GCN cards used much less power in games than when running specialised compute code.

All cards are like this. Games do not push cards 100% of the time because different things happen during different times. Walking through a field will likely use less power than fighting 300 people while casting spells.

Things like mining can push cards harder because its doing the same thing over and over non stop.

 

[thesmokingman]

All cards are like this. Games do not push cards 100% of the time because different things happen during different times. Walking through a field will likely use less power than fighting 300 people while casting spells.

Things like mining can push cards harder because its doing the same thing over and over non stop.

Nvidia lists gaming TDP and AMD list highest utilization TDP.

 

[realibrad]

Nvidia lists gaming TDP and AMD list highest utilization TDP.

He was not asking for a change in how TDP is presented. What he wanted was the card to be used fully during gaming which by the nature of games wont happen.

 

[thesmokingman]

He was not asking for a change in how TDP is presented. What he wanted was the card to be used fully during gaming which by the nature of games wont happen.

I don't think most ppl realize the difference in how each company lists their TDP thus are surprised when one card has lower real world TDP vs the spec.

 

[Stuka87]

I would actually hope that gaming power usage will be closer to the maximum power usage with the updates to GCN. I don't necessarily think it's a good thing that the early GCN cards used much less power in games than when running specialised compute code.

Not sure you are grasping how nVidia and AMD rate their TDPs.

AMD = MAX power draw. ie: actual TDP

nVidia = GAMING power draw. They often go over that when doing things that heavily utilize the card.

I for one would NOT want my card to utilize every available watt when gaming.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Nvidia lists gaming TDP and AMD list highest utilization TDP.

That's simply not true. Just because you can find a few below, you can also find a few above. Like the Nano for example.

 

[MrTeal]

He was not asking for a change in how TDP is presented. What he wanted was the card to be used fully during gaming which by the nature of games wont happen.

I don't expect the cards to be fully utilized, but AMD has at least recently shown lower gaming performance per FLOP than the competition, as well as a larger delta in power consumption between gaming and compute. Case in point, 3.8TFLOPS for 7970 vs 3.1 for a GTX680 or ~6TFLOPs for a 390X vs 4.6 for a 980.

Obviously compute workloads vary (Bitcoin mining would draw less power than some games for example due to essentially zero MC load), but a shrinking delta between compute and graphics workloads would be welcome if it was caused by better gaming utilisation of the GPU resources. Hopefully as developers come to grips with DX12 and more games are released this starts to happen more.

 

[MrTeal]

Not sure you are grasping how nVidia and AMD rate their TDPs.

AMD = MAX power draw. ie: actual TDP

nVidia = GAMING power draw. They often go over that when doing things that heavily utilize the card.

I for one would NOT want my card to utilize every available watt when gaming.

Why not? I would.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I made a graph guesstimating real world power draw of a RX480 based on the link ShintaiDK provided.

Looks like I will be fine with only a 500W PSU even if I overclock the 480 to its max.

 

[ElFenix]

I don't think most ppl realize the difference in how each company lists their TDP thus are surprised when one card has lower real world TDP vs the spec.

pet peeve, you mean real world power draw vs. TDP spec.

 

[thesmokingman]

pet peeve, you mean real world power draw vs. TDP spec.

Nods.

 

[realibrad]

I don't expect the cards to be fully utilized, but AMD has at least recently shown lower gaming performance per FLOP than the competition, as well as a larger delta in power consumption between gaming and compute. Case in point, 3.8TFLOPS for 7970 vs 3.1 for a GTX680 or ~6TFLOPs for a 390X vs 4.6 for a 980.

Obviously compute workloads vary (Bitcoin mining would draw less power than some games for example due to essentially zero MC load), but a shrinking delta between compute and graphics workloads would be welcome if it was caused by better gaming utilisation of the GPU resources. Hopefully as developers come to grips with DX12 and more games are released this starts to happen more.

Games vary, compute loads usually do not. If a game is maxing out a card during moderate use, then it wont be able to do anything during scenes where more is going on. Its true that you want the drivers to be as efficient as possible, but wanting the delta to be reduced is the wrong way to look at it.

 

[psolord]

I remember overclocking my 5850 from 725Mhz to 1000Mhz. 1250Mhz for the vram too.

Still, although I had 38% overclock for the core and 25% overclock for the vram, the performance gains were closer to that 25% than the 38%.

Will polaris alleviate this with its advanced memory management/compression and what not?

I know the jury is still out until the reviews, but what has recent history shown for AMD cards?

My 7950 seemed to provide some nice gains, but that had a fancy 384bit bus as well.

 

[realibrad]

As we shrink nodes, overclocking will be reduced. Weird thing start to happen as nodes shrink, and we should get used to reduced overclocking. People seem to think that a node shrink will increase overclocking but this is not true. They are not inherently related.

 

[ElFenix]

Games vary, compute loads usually do not. If a game is maxing out a card during moderate use, then it wont be able to do anything during scenes where more is going on. Its true that you want the drivers to be as efficient as possible, but wanting the delta to be reduced is the wrong way to look at it.

If you lock FPS, then yes, you want to make sure that the card can meet the FPS target. But we're moving away from locking FPS with the sync schemes.

 

[realibrad]

If you lock FPS, then yes, you want to make sure that the card can't meet the FPS target. But we're moving away from locking FPS with the sync schemes.

But we are not moving away from games having more and less demanding situations. Even with sync'ed monitors, going from 100fps to 30pfs back to 100fps every 2 seconds will not feel smooth. Even in those situations, not every facet of a card will be used. There are times when a card may be at max fps but not using all of its resources because of other things like cpu speed, memory bandwidth ect. Saying you want the delta to be reduced is putting the cart before the horse. What you want is more fps and more consistent fps.

Games are dynamic and the power they will need is thus dynamic. Even with syncing, there will be many times where a game will go up and down in usage.

 

[Tumaras]

I think I'll wait the 10 days for some confirmation on some of this. I'm note sure I've ever seen as many faked/shopped leak benchmark screenshots and videos or news for a new vc release as the 480 has had. There are always some, but the 480 has really had a lot of them. So it's tough to guess what to believe.

Even if true, if we start to compare golden sample/custom bios $300 max oc'd 480s to the $400 *stock* 1070s it's still kind of meh. A max oc'd 1070 will still be faster than a max oc'd 480. Almost all the AIB 1070s are coming with at least a mild factory oc. It's easy to fall into the slippery slope of comparing a max oc'd card to a stock one and then saying it's then just as good, when it's a flawed comparison.

 

[Thala]

If you lock FPS, then yes, you want to make sure that the card can meet the FPS target. But we're moving away from locking FPS with the sync schemes.

Do not make generalizations. I wont accept the jitter fest, when the monitor is synched to GPU instead of the other way around.

 

[Rvenger]

He really did type that, didn't he.....

Are you really trying to instigate the other members? Your comment was not even remotely to being constructive to this discussion.

To all, if this in the slightest way gets out of line. Its getting locked. I am tired of the childish banter around here.

-Rvenger