The 480: power consumption, PCI-E powerdraw

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
The card is 150W board power. If you run +50% power limit, that obviously is exceeding it's specs. What?

The issue of exceeding spec on stock power config according to AMD, will be fixed in the next driver. But they aren't going to fix overclocking, if you want to do it, and your motherboard or PSU is capable, it's your choice. -_-

Also, they are all sold out on Newegg?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...=1&N=100007709 601203818&Tpk=RX480&ignorear=1

Strangely no issues. Though from the tests I've seen, I wouldn't recommend this card for someone on Phenom or C2D LGA 775. Those older motherboard are more sensitive to PCIE 75W exceeding the limit.

Here's an idea, NV should get their marketing act together and hire a few actors to test old rigs & 2x RX480s and get them to post their blown PCs on forums, that would do a lot of PR damage for AMD.
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
It is a 170W card. So it runs outside the spec after you put it into your PC.

And second how can the card run outside the spec when you only increase the power limit? Do you know how insane this sounds? The card clocks itself higher without any modification. This is like a car manufacture selling a boost function but when the buyer uses it he will lose the warranty...
 

Eymar

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2001
1,646
14
91
The card is 150W board power. If you run +50% power limit, that obviously is exceeding it's specs. What?

The issue of exceeding spec on stock power config according to AMD, will be fixed in the next driver. But they aren't going to fix overclocking, if you want to do it, and your motherboard or PSU is capable, it's your choice. -_-

Also, they are all sold out on Newegg?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...=1&N=100007709 601203818&Tpk=RX480&ignorear=1

Strangely no issues. Though from the tests I've seen, I wouldn't recommend this card for someone on Phenom or C2D LGA 775. Those older motherboard are more sensitive to PCIE 75W exceeding the limit.

I doubt most of the buyers will see issues before driver fix as either they run with Vsync (limiting power draw), cpu will not cause games to be GPU limited, MB and/or PSU are able to run a videocard out of pci-e spec.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
It's a 150W card that's running anywhere under to around 163W from various reviews. Basically right at it's limits or exceeding the rated spec. Let's see what their driver fix will do. It could simply be a small under-volt.

So on NV GPUs recently, if you increase the power limit only, will the card boost higher? It auto clocks because it's given more power.

The difference is AMD allows +50%, NV allows +7 to 20%.

-------------------------

On another issue, the actual PCB design itself is very stupid.

https://youtu.be/plC7tOYIqBw?t=53m55s

AMD split up the VRM power channels to separate power from 6pin and PCIE, ie, the 6 pin delivers power to half of the VRM banks and the MB delivers the other half.

This is not how GPUs are normally designed. They should have combined the power sources and draw extra via the 6pin. So if the card is OC, it will draw the extra via the 6 pin and not split 50-50 with the MB which will run over-spec.

So even if they fix this in stock config, when OC, it will exceed 75W from the MB.

It's just an awful design, like someone took a shortcut, when designing for Polaris 11 to run off PCIE slot power, and scaling it up to Polaris 10 SKU, they just added extra VRM phases and put those on the 6pin rather than re-designing it.

It is literally designed to not be stable OC at all, period, even if your PSU and rails are good. Push it too far, your system shuts down to OCP through the MB.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
I doubt most of the buyers will see issues before driver fix as either they run with Vsync (limiting power draw), cpu will not cause games to be GPU limited, MB and/or PSU are able to run a videocard out of pci-e spec.

The point is if you have a PCIE rev2 or 3 motherboard, you will be fine because these are designed to handle greater than 75W over the slot. But it's not ideal, you don't want to run it over-spec even if it's capable. Certainly at stock it should never do that.

This is why there's no issues reported of people's system shutting down due to over-current protection and AMD didn't notice it was an issue in testing since they didn't test older PCIE rev 1 motherboards.

Have to LOL at AMD being stupid again though. They went and fix their reference cooling (82C is ~GTX reference temps, $699) and noise, but went full retard on the power design of the PCB.

For those not understanding my above post, basically due to the way they designed the VRM and power input, even if the RX 480 has a 8pin, it would STILL draw 50% of it's power through the MB slot. The fix for this is a different PCB design. If anyone intends to buy custom 480s, make sure the PCB is different, not just reference PCB + custom cooler. It would still suck for OC.
 
Last edited:

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
39
86
The point is if you have a PCIE rev2 or 3 motherboard, you will be fine because these are designed to handle greater than 75W over the slot. But it's not ideal, you don't want to run it over-spec even if it's capable. Certainly at stock it should never do that.

This is why there's no issues reported of people's system shutting down due to over-current protection and AMD didn't notice it was an issue in testing since they didn't test older PCIE rev 1 motherboards.

Have to LOL at AMD being stupid again though. They went and fix their reference cooling (82C is ~GTX reference temps, $699) and noise, but went full retard on the power design of the PCB.

They've been doing propaganda TDP since at least 7950.

290/x was when they went full retard with it though, and believed their own propaganda TDP so much that they under-provisioned the pin layout massively.

They continued to do so again with the Fury/X.

The reason they keep doing it is because people refuse to call them out on it.

In other words, its the fault of the people who cover for their deception every time.

Battered wife syndrome in full effect.
 
Last edited:

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
Almost wish it had coil whine so we didn't have to reread the same stuff over and over.

I think it's a bit humorous some of the abstract complaints we hear about AMD hardware when nVidia has nothing to compete with it.
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
The point is if you have a PCIE rev2 or 3 motherboard, you will be fine because these are designed to handle greater than 75W over the slot. But it's not ideal, you don't want to run it over-spec even if it's capable. Certainly at stock it should never do that.

This is why there's no issues reported of people's system shutting down due to over-current protection and AMD didn't notice it was an issue in testing since they didn't test older PCIE rev 1 motherboards.

Have to LOL at AMD being stupid again though. They went and fix their reference cooling (82C is ~GTX reference temps, $699) and noise, but went full retard on the power design of the PCB.

For those not understanding my above post, basically due to the way they designed the VRM and power input, even if the RX 480 has a 8pin, it would STILL draw 50% of it's power through the MB slot. The fix for this is a different PCB design. If anyone intends to buy custom 480s, make sure the PCB is different, not just reference PCB + custom cooler. It would still suck for OC.

Yeah, AMD is retarded. They should rather do a limited availability launch with better binned and tuned chips while people will be talking about how good the perf/$ is and how it will age well enough to match a 980 Ti by 2018, instead an immediate deal killer for a ton of people.
 

JDG1980

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2013
1,663
570
136
They've been doing propaganda TDP since at least 7950.

290/x was when they went full retard with it though, and believed their own propaganda TDP so much that they under-provisioned the pin layout massively.

Nonsense. The 7950 had a nominal TDP of 200W. Yet according to TPU's measurements, it never used more than 179W, even during FurMark. Peak gaming was only 144W. There was so much headroom that they later released a boost clock BIOS upgrade, which increased clocks from 800 to 925 MHz and still never passed 187W even in the most demanding loads.

As for the Hawaii cards are concerned, Anandtech reports that AMD never provided an official TDP in any of their documents or specifications. They did say the "average gaming power scenario" was 250W, and TPU's figures match that (Average gaming power consumption: 236W in Quiet mode, 246W in Uber mode). We know AMD used a subpar cooler on the reference 290/290X, but there was no meaningful violation of the PCIe spec. The reference 290X had 1x8-pin and 1x6-pin connectors, which means it's allowed to draw up to 300W, and even under FurMark it only got up to 315W at most. An extra 15W spread over two PCIe power connectors isn't going to damage anything, not even close. The chip, board, and power delivery subsystem were fine; it was just the cooler that was terrible.
 

JDG1980

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2013
1,663
570
136
Have to LOL at AMD being stupid again though. They went and fix their reference cooling (82C is ~GTX reference temps, $699) and noise, but went full retard on the power design of the PCB.

For those not understanding my above post, basically due to the way they designed the VRM and power input, even if the RX 480 has a 8pin, it would STILL draw 50% of it's power through the MB slot. The fix for this is a different PCB design. If anyone intends to buy custom 480s, make sure the PCB is different, not just reference PCB + custom cooler. It would still suck for OC.

I don't think the reference model was ever designed for overclocking. But they should have been able to keep the power draw below 150W (75W slot + 75W 6-pin connector) at all times. I believe there was a last-minute clock push combined with poor binning and that for whatever reason the new power management features that were supposed to offset this didn't work, so we got the fiasco we have now. Multiple people report that undervolting the card reduces power consumption without any stability problems, even when mildly overclocked. Here's a report of someone who dropped the max voltage to 1.090v and overclocked to 1340 MHz at the same time. (No power consumption figures, unfortunately). I'm looking forward to the reported driver fix AMD is discussing, because it looks like there's really some room for improvement here. If we go by JagatReview's test, undervolting could reduce power consumption by 38W! The worst result observed by TPU was 167W, so this could get the power consumption down near 130W - closer to what most of us expected in the first place, and well within PCIe spec if it's being split half-and-half.

Definitely a QC fail on AMD's part. They should have done this right in the first place. At this point the only thing to do is fix it as quickly and effectively as possible, and do better next launch.
 

SimianR

Senior member
Mar 10, 2011
609
16
81
Well, I had a feeling that we were going to be saying it but: They really should have had aftermarket cards available from the get go. If there was anything I thought AMD learned from the R9 200 series launch was that it would probably be better to let your board partners to do the heavy lifting. Having some aftermarket cards ready right off the bat with better power delivery (at least an 8 pin connector for starters) would have been great. Hopefully we'll see some of those cards soon.
 

bononos

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2011
3,894
162
106
The point is if you have a PCIE rev2 or 3 motherboard, you will be fine because these are designed to handle greater than 75W over the slot. But it's not ideal, you don't want to run it over-spec even if it's capable. Certainly at stock it should never do that.
.........

Are you sure that the pcie 2/3.0 standard specifies 300W from the socket itself? I'm sure its still a maximum of 75W. According to the faq, v3.0 "The PCIe Card Electromechanical (CEM) 3.0 specification consolidates all previous form factor power delivery specifications, including the 150W and the 300W specifications.". Consolidation means the ad hoc molex power supply method is now part of the spec.

300W is a hefty increase and such a proposed spec would have to increase the number the pins or beef up the traces which is not the case.
 

Newbian

Lifer
Aug 24, 2008
24,781
845
126
Almost wish it had coil whine so we didn't have to reread the same stuff over and over.

I think it's a bit humorous some of the abstract complaints we hear about AMD hardware when nVidia has nothing to compete with it.

They do... the 960 Strix but even the rx 480 kills it by being a more power hog from the mb.
 

sirmo

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2011
1,014
391
136
I have an rx480.. sweet card. Also it's in a computer with a really crappy mobo I picked up in a local Tiger Direct before they went out of business.. 20 hours of gaming so far.. no issues.
 

SolMiester

Diamond Member
Dec 19, 2004
5,331
17
76
Almost wish it had coil whine so we didn't have to reread the same stuff over and over.

I think it's a bit humorous some of the abstract complaints we hear about AMD hardware when nVidia has nothing to compete with it.

Err, what?
 

hsjj3

Member
May 22, 2016
127
0
36
It's a 150W card that's running anywhere under to around 163W from various reviews. Basically right at it's limits or exceeding the rated spec. Let's see what their driver fix will do. It could simply be a small under-volt.

So on NV GPUs recently, if you increase the power limit only, will the card boost higher? It auto clocks because it's given more power.

The difference is AMD allows +50%, NV allows +7 to 20%.

The above is very important. As it is, Nvidia gives a hefty headroom (8-pin for a 150W card, GTX 1070 for example) AND limits the max power to something sensible.

AMD meanwhile gives zero headroom, AND allows the card to overdraw power by 50% on top of that? It's a recipe for disaster man.
 

.vodka

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2014
1,203
1,537
136
Err, what?

He's right.

nV has 1070 and 1080 right now in their lineup. Maxwell parts are being EOL'd as new Pascal parts fill out the remaining slots in the lineup.

No, discounted 970 isn't competition for the RX 480 although both have similar performance, 980Ti cards are in fire sale because no one would buy that instead of a 1070 or 1080. Once 1060 hits 970/980 are going to be replaced, if rumors are right this will happen in the next week or two.

One has to be a bit insane to buy 28nm hardware this late in the game, so early in the start of 14/16nm class hardware that clearly show tangible benefits over the old hardware. GCN is nearly an industry standard at this point thanks to both present, future consoles and current APIs like DX12/Vulkan, Pascal is more GCN like and seems to handle compute loads better than Maxwell, if one cares for a card's longevity a 970 plus its weird memory segmentation just isn't a viable buy today.


As of now AMD seems to be selling out whatever RX 480 stock they can produce, just like nV and the 1070 and 1080. Different market segments being serviced by different products in different categories. Vega 10/11 fill out nV's 1070/1080 slot on AMD's part, GP106/1060 fills out RX470/480 slot in nV's lineup, all coming in the following weeks and months.


RX460/P11 I don't know, maybe there's a cut down GP106/GP108/GTX1050 around or lower. GP102 as the next Titan/1080Ti, I don't know if Vega can stand up to that.

--------------------------------------

As for the RX480 reference PCB, this reminds me of the R9 290/x reference launch for different reasons. R9 290/x reference PCB is built like a tank and has a nuclear power station for a VRM as most AMD reference PCBs do, yet the cooling solution was crap for a 300w TBP design. Decently cooled cards arrived months later. Irreversible damage done. Product image tarnished so bad a refresh with decent cooling in the 300 series couldn't completely live down.

The RX480 has a decent cooling solution for the price, providing similar temperatures and noise levels to what nV gets with their reference blower that now carries a $100 founder's edition tax/ripoff, yet we have overvolted dies everywhere with lots of reports of undervolting WHILE overclocking and keeping temperatures and power in check after that. Forums, AMD's subreddit, it's everywhere. Yields can't be that bad if there are so many reports like that.

Poor factory voltage adjustment that leads to:

  • Noisier than necessary product
  • Slower than it could be because that extra voltage leads to higher temperatures that keep the GPU off the maximum boost clock at all times.
  • Board power peaking higher than 150w
  • Weird PCB power design that although having passed PCIe certification doesn't play nice with crappy hardware, and is certainly not helped by the higher than necessary voltage. Actually seems more suited to the RX470.


Image tarnished, not as bad as the R9 290/x, but it could have been better. Now if we have custom boards and cooling coming in the next week or two, we're still on time for some of that tarnish to go away.

Sapphire Nitro model seems decent... a Sapphire rep said it has a more traditional power balancing between the PCIe slot and connectors, has an 8pin power connector and also has decent open air cooling that helps get clocks at maximum boost and lowers power consumption thanks to lower temperatures, this could be translated to higher clocks and performance just like it happened to the 300 series.


There are reports that some of the fancy power management tech shown in the Polaris slides isn't enabled. I suppose there could be some truth to that, supposedly Polaris 10 calibrates voltage at startup and therefore if there's so much variability in each die produced voltages should be all across the board in all the samples... it doesn't seem to be that way, 1.15v as load voltage seems to be repeated here and there. Supposedly there's a driver fix coming July 5, maybe this just lowers voltage across the board to a more reasonable point for stock clocks, or enables the remaining power management stuff. Who knows. It's all strange.

In spite of that, this time GF could have failed AMD in lots of ways and maybe AMD couldn't resort to other means of maximizing yields on an early process other than overvolting across the board, it's difficult to see where the blame is to be put here. If this were TSMC silicon (one less variable that differs, seeing how nV's products behave on their process) then it would be clear there's something at fault on AMD's design. Maybe P10 silicon starts behaving better in the following batches as the process is fine tuned, maybe P10 is just a pipe cleaner for the real deal (Vega and Zen), who knows.

As a counter example you have Phenom IIs and FXes out there on different processes and architectures that can be undervolted 0.1-0.3v depending on how high stock clocks are pushed on each part while retaining complete stability, so I don't know if this is AMD being AMD as usual, or if there's actually someone somewhere at fault for this.


If I didn't have a 290 Tri-X / 390, sure, I'd buy a RX 480. I'd just wait for custom cards and boards. 1080p60 at such a low price is a great deal. This card is certainly much more affordable where I live (Argentina) compared to more traditional stuff like 970/390





TL;DR should we have custom boards and cooling in the following week or two, all of this can be more or less forgotten and we can get to see P10 as it should have been from the beginning.
 
Last edited:

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
As for the RX480 reference PCB, this reminds me of the R9 290/x reference launch for different reasons. R9 290/x reference PCB is built like a tank and has a nuclear power station for a VRM as most AMD reference PCBs do, yet the cooling solution was crap for a 300w TBP design. Decently cooled cards arrived months later. Irreversible damage done. Product image tarnished so bad a refresh with decent cooling in the 300 series couldn't completely live down.

That guy really seems to know what he is talking about...Much better than the countless annoying YT face cam attention whores parroting the same old shit everybody already knows.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
Err, what?

Right now nVidia doesn't have anything to directly compete with the 480. Whenever that happens we seem to find some new metric that AMD is failing at. Frame pacing (not with crossfire. that was legit), hot VRM's, or something we never even considered before.
 

renderstate

Senior member
Apr 23, 2016
237
0
0
I love the fact that if AMD advertises features that don't seem to exist in the shipping product is because they haven't enabled them yet, not because they are lying.

You see..we must understand AMD cannot possibly lie, they just don't enable. It's yet another thing they forgot to do before shipping the (not so)final product. It's just life, this stuff happens..
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,167
3,862
136
I love the fact that if AMD advertises features that don't seem to exist in the shipping product is because they haven't enabled them yet, not because they are lying.

.

Lol,somme people are still waiting for a driver to enable Async on Maxwell, almost one year that it was promised...

Hey, guess what, it s not enabled, Nvidia rep said at the time...
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |