AssimilatorGuess I was right.

Radeon Pro 460 = 16 CUs / 1.86 TFLOPS @ 35W
Radeon RX 460 = 14 CUs / 2.15 TFLOPS @ 75W

To get the TDP to under half, AMD must be doing some crazy binning and have made massive cuts to the clocks.

I imagine Intel and Apple had some strong words over the continued absymal performance of the Iris graphics, which lead to Apple having to bundle the Radeon GPUs with these new Macbooks, making them larger, hotter, and driving up the BOM. If AMD manage to produce a Zen APU that is IPC-competitive with Haswell and delivers performance close to these "Radeon Pro" parts, they will have a winner on their hands, and Intel will be sitting in the corner kicking themselves.

AssimilatorGuess I was right.

Radeon Pro 460 = 16 CUs / 1.86 TFLOPS @ 35W
Radeon RX 460 = 14 CUs / 2.15 TFLOPS @ 75W

To get the TDP to under half, AMD must be doing some crazy binning and have made massive cuts to the clocks.

I imagine Intel and Apple had some strong words over the continued absymal performance of the Iris graphics, which lead to Apple having to bundle the Radeon GPUs with these new Macbooks, making them larger, hotter, and driving up the BOM. If AMD manage to produce a Zen APU that is IPC-competitive with Haswell and delivers performance close to these "Radeon Pro" parts, they will have a winner on their hands, and Intel will be sitting in the corner kicking themselves.

evernessinceAdoredTV (Tech youtuber) did a video on this. There are various accounts of people who have purchased regular RX 480s that only consume 80ish watts. It's very possible that AMD will release a refresh of the 400 series if they can increase die samples across the board. That power efficiency is even better than Nvidia's.

cdawallThere is tons of information floating around right now. Desktop RX460's in the 20-30w range for actual consumed power etc. There also seems to be preferential treatment for vendors to get the GPU's.

ChaitanyaThat preferential treatment makes sense, considering these laptops do sell a lot and might mean more revenue for the company.

RejZoRThis is what AMD was actually advertising at Computex what everyone thought it was RX480. RX480 was a performance on a budget, that's why it was not as power efficient as it should be.

JayzTwoCents was testing a RX480 GTR which was pulling like 40-50W less than regular RX480 while clocking higher. iirc

cdawallNot even by type of GPU, XFX is undercutting everyone else wattage wise by 40+ watts. My sapphire clocks well, but consumes 170-190w (GPU only according to afterburner) at the same clocks the XFX cards are around 125w

thevoiceofreasonYou can probably undervolt it quite a bit, I have a sapphire rx running at 1.050V at normal clocks and some people are stable at even less. XFX cards are supposed to be running on lower voltage out of the factory.

thevoiceofreasonYou can probably undervolt it quite a bit, I have a sapphire rx running at 1.050V at normal clocks and some people are stable at even less. XFX cards are supposed to be running on lower voltage out of the factory.

cdawallNot even by type of GPU, XFX is undercutting everyone else wattage wise by 40+ watts. My sapphire clocks well, but consumes 170-190w (GPU only according to afterburner) at the same clocks the XFX cards are around 125w

ChaitanyaI have noticed that, somehow XFX seems to have made those AMD gpus work for them better compared to competition. Although I was talking about prefrential treatment meted out to system partners over AIB makers.

cdawallSomeone has to be paying for preferential binning. My brothers card is just like the one from the reviews. It is the lower end XXX edition and hits 1430 on stock volts and +20% power.

ShurikNSo both XXX and GTR have lower power draw and better OC? OR just the GTR