Actually R9 270 was already with 1x 6pin connector
R9 270's TBP is 150W, but actual average consumption is around 110W and peak (gaming, not furmark) around 120W (TPU's Asus R9 270 review)
For example R9 285's TBP (190W) and R9 280X's TBP (250W) are clearly measured on different formulas already
They could have just changed the formula for TBP (and is the mentioned TDP even same as TBP in this case?)That isn't really compatible with these news:
http://wccftech.com/xfx-radeon-r9-3...gddr5-vram-launches-april-2015/#ixzz3U4TxXZhL
I can't see how they'd lower Pitcairn's power consumption by at least 30% without somehow changing the chip. PCB optimization would only get you so far.
R9 270's TBP is 150W, but actual average consumption is around 110W and peak (gaming, not furmark) around 120W (TPU's Asus R9 270 review)
For example R9 285's TBP (190W) and R9 280X's TBP (250W) are clearly measured on different formulas already