Also I don't see any info on hardware/software setup for testing both RX 480 and other cards (ie, drivers, cpu, OS, etc...).That is odd, to say the least. Does it have something to do with the selection of games tested?
Also I don't see any info on hardware/software setup for testing both RX 480 and other cards (ie, drivers, cpu, OS, etc...).That is odd, to say the least. Does it have something to do with the selection of games tested?
someone mixed GPU power (110W) and board power (150W)Wondering why OCUK is continuing to advertise 110w TDP? I assume they are following included manuf. specs.
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/xfx-...ddr5-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-238-xf.html
It is rather academic IMO as GPU power/Memory power/board interfaces-link power all take power from the same place, in other words the PCIe power connectors of the slot and auxiliary PEG.I can't even begin with how f#cked up that post has become. The OP for example is going on and on about 110 w 150 TDP, not realizing that he's talking about 2 different things, GPU power and board power.
I'm quite sure PCI-SIG didn't just get one perfect sample and approve the product line on that
They give them on the first page, but all in all this is one of the odd reviews out there. Not only does it give very favorable test results, but on the last page the power they measured for the card is only 116W (in AotS).Also I don't see any info on hardware/software setup for testing both RX 480 and other cards (ie, drivers, cpu, OS, etc...).
I smell black magics!They give them on the first page, but all in all this is one of the odd reviews out there. Not only does it give very favorable test results, but on the last page the power they measured for the card is only 116W (in AotS).
About this adaptive age compensation: does it mean that the GPU gets slower over time?
If for some strange reason their card indeed consumes only this much (and this is such a huge if, it's very hard to believe) that would go quite some way to explain the better than average results, as the GPU would always stay at the highest clock speed of 1266MHz. Other sites have tested the performance with maximized power target (so it has the same effect on clock speed) to be almost 10% higher. But this comes at the price of an average power consumption of 180+W or so. There is a pretty high chance they screwed up something. That they somehow got a golden sample appears quite unlikely.They give them on the first page, but all in all this is one of the odd reviews out there. Not only does it give very favorable test results, but on the last page the power they measured for the card is only 116W (in AotS).
That is not how this works. This is not how any of this works.
First of all, there is no power going through any active or passive components on the motherboard. That's just plain traces, so unless the board is significantly undersized and catches fire, almost nothing to worry about.
Second, current follows the path of least resistance. If the card draws a majority of the power from the motherboard, it's because the resistance is marginally lower on that path, and AMD isn't actively balancing the power draw.
With more cards added, and even the slightest voltage drop on the motherboard - and be it only a few dozen millivolts, the draw will invert. Heck, in extreme situations, such as an Etherium mining rig, you probably won't even see more than 20-30W per card being drawn from the slot, and the rest being drawn from the 6-pin connector (which itself can easily take that power draw!).
What you *should* be worried about is spikes in power draw due to insufficient capacitor capacity on the inside, disrupting the system stability. But I don't see that happen, given that the VR setup of the 480 is pleasantly oversized.
Not sure if I should just post a silly meme or take that serious.
Just to add.
The context though is the specification of the 24-pin ATX socket in terms of power (2x12V pins) supporting all slots and other power, the riser socket, and the 6 (2x12V pins) or 8 (3x12V pins) Molex connectors, PSU rails for the 24pin connection and also PEGs, wire gauge (can be specc'd 16-24 AWG).
The 24-pin with regards to the ATX12V guide can be specc'd depending how implemented roughly from 8 to 13 amps for each of the 2x12V pin, and peaks roughly of 9 or 16 amps respectively although this is burst with around a 10-20ms duration limit I think.
The Molex PEG pins also support 8A minimum and up to 13A per pin depending again upon spec implementation.
The riser slot I have no idea but this is not guaranteed to be much more than 7-8A, and some extension risers are even less.
Cable is commonly 18AWG for the auxiliary PEGs, which is good enough to run 8.5A per pin (contact), the higher specification of 13A will require 16AWG.
For the 24-pin ATX12V, best to check the motherboard and cable to see if it is 16AWG and whether the motherboard defines connector as standard/HCS/Plus-HCS - unfortunately can be difficult information to get.
So the 480 does have some considerations if going 2x480 or overclocking as it is pushing hard against the limits or beyond even if it is briefly, along with consideration of how low-budget PSU and motherboards can handle the sort of characteristics picked up Tom's Hardware - caveat being further investigations are required to prove this beyond theirs and some other reviewers' tests to date.
But this is all from the context of power demand and distribution that has arisen from some reviews.
Cheers
Edit:
Regarding the ATX 24-pin there is also a definition for 450W-ATX12V, supporting 16A max with peak (10-20ms burst) of 19A per connector.
Thought I better mention it, even though its context is far away when one considers the mainstream consumer 480 GPU.
Then again, Computerbase cut their consumption by 33W and increased performance by ~5'ish % by undervolting their sampleIf for some strange reason their card indeed consumes only this much (and this is such a huge if, it's very hard to believe) that would go quite some way to explain the better than average results, as the GPU would always stay at the highest clock speed of 1266MHz. Other sites have tested the performance with maximized power target (so it has the same effect on clock speed) to be almost 10% higher. But this comes at the price of an average power consumption of 180+W or so. There is a pretty high chance they screwed up something. That they somehow got a golden sample appears quite unlikely.
From the PCIe x16 slot perspective, a big consideration is whether the manufacturer implemented the High Current Series specification regarding the 24-pin connector and the 2x12V contacts.Very useful info and actually quite interesting. So a low tier MoBo could get less than 200W from its 24ATX pin. We need to see how much the cards consume through the pci slot then in CF and when in CF+OC because if it doesn't changes they would be asking for almost 200W and could blow up the 24 pin...
Yet again all of this discussion and all the shit AMD is getting in reddit and other sites could be avoided with a 8pin...
As for all this controversy around PCI specs. Why don't all this sites simply test their theory and grab a cheap ass mobo and try to blow it. Because this is what everyone is afraid right? So either test and prove your theory or stfu.