AMD Radeon RX 480 Clock Speeds Revealed, Clocked Above 1.2 GHz

[AsRock]

If he has set refresh monitors he could just use FRTC instead of down clocking to save power.

It helps but it's not a true solution, if you going limit the frame rate you better of limiting the power output too though some thing like Afterburner.

Just down clocking can leave it using about the same power usage, this does depend on the game too.

 

[Kanan]

...and that's what I typically do with just the one 390 if vsync isn't smooth enough.

That's what the air conditioner in the summer is for. I don't game as often as I used to and the 390 idles like a champ. I'm not too worried about consumption under load because it doesn't matter as much to me and because there are utilities that enable me to not have my GPU(s) to run at full tilt.

Another note, if I cared about power consumption, I wouldn't have invested in SB-E.

Well first of all the 390 does not idle like a champ, you never read reviews? It's one of the worst "new" graphics cards in idling (and multi monitor is a lot worse, and I guess you're using that too). Second SB-E isn't so bad at power consumption, only with too high overclocks, FX is a damn whole lot worse. Well, whatever, you can do what you want, I don't think 390 Crossfire is a good idea. I'd rather save the money for a new GPU to replace the 390 in a few months or next year.

 

[AsRock]

A single idles pretty well but as multi well that's a AMD thing they are higher than nVidia's. I do agree in waiting for a 490 or even longer though, as crossfire is going be changing in a few years if AMD keep to there plans never mind the issue's with multi cards in the 1st place.

 

[Kanan]

It's not even Crossfire... the power consumption is way too high, it's just bad in summer and yeah ecologically too. I'm glad AMD goes another route now. Crossfire on it's own is another issue, but solvable, AMD thinks it's the future, so basically the chance they are staying true to it is high, I guess it's on the way to be better than now.

 

[Aquinus]

Well first of all the 390 does not idle like a champ, you never read reviews? It's one of the worst "new" graphics cards in idling (and multi monitor is a lot worse, and I guess you're using that too). Second SB-E isn't so bad at power consumption, only with too high overclocks, FX is a damn whole lot worse. Well, whatever, you can do what you want, I don't think 390 Crossfire is a good idea. I'd rather save the money for a new GPU to replace the 390 in a few months or next year.

First of all, if your defense of that statement comes from "because reviews said so," and I'm speaking from my own personally testing, good luck. I'm more than happy to explain myself beyond "because something on the internet says so."

From my own testing using the Kill-A-Watt built into my UPS is that the 390 at idle does not use more power if you use 1, 2, or 3 displays. I did, however, notice that occasionally when doing 2D things like moving windows or doing something that substantially alters the screen that memory would occasionally clock up from the 150Mhz idle to a full stock 1500Mhz. This will increase draw from the wall by up to 50 watts on my machine, even if the GPU core is still at idle. I suspect that has something to do with making sure that certain 2D workloads don't cause visual corruption due to memory bandwidth being too low at idle clocks when driving multiple displays. Either way, while I trust W1zz to do good reviews, I suspect what he's doing is taking the highest number that gets recorded to indicate idle usage which isn't necessarily an accurate assessment of the minimum, average or, median draw at idle. Just like when a GPU is fully loaded, W1zz gives two numbers, peak usage and average usage. I would highly suggest that he do the same with idle consumption numbers as one number just simply doesn't explain the entire picture.

With said said, with two 6870s my idle from the wall was basically 200 watts regardless of what I was doing in 2d, removing one 6870 brought it to 175, and replacing the last 6870 with the 390 brought it to 150 except in some situations where it will spike to 200 and come right back down to 150, so yeah, I would call that an upgrade for me but, if memory clocks up that usage easily will read out 200 watts for very brief moments but, doesn't reflect what the draw is most of the time. So yes, the 390 does idle better you think it does and no, reviews don't offer a complete picture of exactly what's going on at idle. To get that we would at least need a "peak idle consumption" along with an "average idle consumption" to minimally describe the distribution. From my own experiences at idle, memory stays clocked down far more often that it stays clocked up.

This isn't to say that the 390 can't suck down power. It most definitely can and it will consume more than both 6870s combined when overclocked when I overclock the 390 and at stock it's super close to the same draw.

My point is that power consumption numbers at idle are pretty limited and there are no numbers for load that's anything but full tilt. The problem is that a lot of time, my GPU runs at idle or at partial load so it is my opinion that current numbers with regard to power consumption are only valuable if there are enough numbers to describe consumption over time which very few reviews seem to provide. W1zz does provide that by giving average and peak load but, nothing exists for idle when I think it should for the same reasons it's included for loaded values.

 

[Kanan]

1. I read more reviews than just TPUs.

2. The card still sucks extreme lots in idle and I don't need to have the card to know it. What you do is reading too, I just read it somewhere else.

3. Reviews can cover *anything*.

4. As I said, do what you want, but this:

This isn't to say that the 390 can't suck down power. It most definitely can and it will consume more than both 6870s combined when overclocked when I overclock the 390.

is absolutely agreeing with me, that 390 CF is a bad idea. If one card is that power hungry, two are simply too much. And on that other part Asrock was right, it's no point in going CF if you want to limit the system anyway, as to why I said go with a stronger GPU instead (must not be now).

 

[Aquinus]

1. I read more reviews than just TPUs.

That's lovely. Show me a single one that describe more than a single number for idle power consumption.

2. The card still sucks extreme lots in idle and I don't need to have the card to know it. What you do is reading too, I just read it somewhere else.

Once again, I have the GPU and I've observed its behavior. The above statement applies. Find me a single review that describes idle consumption with more than a single number.

3. Reviews can cover *anything*.

I don't care about what they can cover, I care about what they do cover.

is absolutely agreeing with me, that 390 CF is a bad idea. If one card is that power hungry, two are simply too much. And on that other part Asrock was right, it's no point in going CF if you want to limit the system anyway, as to why I said go with a stronger GPU instead (must not be now).

Since I'm obviously playing games all days. I'm not a software engineer that spends more time writing software than gaming. I honestly don't care about loaded usage because it doesn't spend most of its time loaded. I'm more than happy to spend the extra money on the rare 3-4 hours of gaming I might be able to get in over the course of a week.

Simply put, reviews give some some picture of the hardware but, I would argue that most don't give you a complete picture. When it comes to performance, we have a lot of information at our disposal but, when it comes to idle numbers, there is a lot of improve that could be had. Idle usage doesn't get nearly as much attention as loaded usage does. That's common between just about every review that includes consumption stats.

 

[Kanan]

Would it be important I'd have already linked something, it's not - the idle consumption is way too high, that's stated in many reviews and I trust them a zillion times more (than your word).

Reviews DO cover anything, yes, they do. Generally spoken.

As I said, do what you want. My opinion didn't change a inch though and this also wasn't about starting a stupid and fruitless discussion with you, it was rather some kind of tip from me to you (it's also called "help"). But do it, go for the crazy 400-600W CF. From this point on, I don't care anymore.

 

[Aquinus]

Would it be important I'd have already linked something, it's not - the idle consumption is way too high, that's stated in many reviews and I trust them a zillion times more (than your word).

Reviews DO cover anything, yes, they do. Generally spoken.

As I said, do what you want. My opinion didn't change a inch though and this also wasn't about starting a stupid and fruitless discussion with you, it was rather some kind of tip from me to you (it's also called "help"). But do it, go for the crazy 400-600W CF. From this point on, I don't care anymore.

Maybe you should answer my question otherwise, you're just avoiding the real question that needs to be answered.

Show me a single one that describe more than a single number for idle power consumption.

 

[medi01]

https://twitter.com/dankbaker/status/739880981612625920

AotS NV glitch convirmed by its devs.

 

[MikeX]

Instead of making higher binned chips, why not just make 1-4x chip on a single card. Let the dx12 handle the multi GPUs. Plus AMD only need to focus on making just one chip, reduce production cost with re-branded multi chips.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Instead of making higher binned chips, why not just make 1-4x chip on a single card. Let the dx12 handle the multi GPUs. Plus AMD only need to focus on making just one chip, reduce production cost with re-branded multi chips.

Say hello to 3dFX VooDoo 5 6000:

 

[MikeX]

ATi Rage Fury MAXX

 

[AsRock]

Say hello to 3dFX VooDoo 5 6000:

And to think AMD plan to take this to the next level .