AMD's Upcoming RX 500 Rebrands to use LPP Process - Higher Clocks, Lower Power

[cdawall]

Unless you're buying for VR performance, power and heat efficiency, or CUDA support, then it's the 480 that is behind with it's 30-50 watt higher TDP and lack of simultaneous multi projection. By the time DX12 or Vulkan is the only supported API for new games, both cards will be outdated.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Armor/12.html

Half a frame behind at 1080p, looks like the difference between the cards is that the 1060 is faster at every DX11 game, and just behind in DX12 games. Just how long are you willing to stick to a 480 to make that jump in performance really worth it while everyone else is playing DX11 games that are still coming out in 2017?

I mean if the argument is features... Umm well there is a reason people don't bitcoin on nvidia. Amd supports 6 video streams per gpu etc.

I also don't normally stick with cards that long out side of the 7950's I have. I play at 4k and with two cards that were purchased at separate times. The 480's fit my needs better. I am personally waiting to see what Vega does and to see if nvidia can release something with a short pcb that will fit in my case. If the 1080Ti hit with a water block and sub 10" pcb I would own one, but it sounds like I'll be waiting for Vega to do that.

 

[Kanan]

Well to be fair it shows them within 1% of each other at all resolutions on all games DX11 and DX12...That is using reference cards as well which I am curious which setting W1z is using as far as testing on the 480 goes. They have two options now with the whole power fiasco.

Hardly a fiasko, only people reading these websites even knew about it, the other ones simply enjoyed the GPU, and it worked pretty normal too. We're talking about a few fucking watts here. The media is to blame for making a "fiasco" out of it, but for me it never was. What a joke, really.

And RX 480 is faster than 1060, if you compare non-throttling custom cards to custom GTX 1060. Ref AMD cards are just bad, some exceptions confirm the rule.

 

[medi01]

performance summary

1060 is generally faster at anything DX11

Bullshit.

That's why you actually shouldn't use TPU benchmarks. (show me improvement listed below on TPU site)

DX11
On release (July 2016), the GTX1060 was around 12% and 8% better than RX480 in 1080P and 1440P. Now (Dec 2016), the GTX1060 is 2% and 0% better than RX480 in 1080P and 1440P.

DX12
On release (July 2016), the GTX1060 was around 3% and 4% worse than RX480 in 1080P and 1440P. Now (Dec 2016), the GTX1060 is 6% and 6% worse than RX480 in 1080P and 1440P.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review.html


So no, not really.

And all that ignoring huge adaptive sync premium on nvidia compatible monitors.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Bullshit.

That's why you actually shouldn't use TPU benchmarks. (show me improvement listed below on TPU site)

DX11
On release (July 2016), the GTX1060 was around 12% and 8% better than RX480 in 1080P and 1440P. Now (Dec 2016), the GTX1060 is 2% and 0% better than RX480 in 1080P and 1440P.

DX12
On release (July 2016), the GTX1060 was around 3% and 4% worse than RX480 in 1080P and 1440P. Now (Dec 2016), the GTX1060 is 6% and 6% worse than RX480 in 1080P and 1440P.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru.../73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review.html


So no, not really.

And all that ignoring huge adaptive sync premium on nvidia compatible monitors.

lol hardwarecanucks? Really man? Dude those guys are a known joke around here. I can tell you're new to this.

 

[cdawall]

Hardly a fiasko, only people reading these websites even knew about it, the other ones simply enjoyed the GPU, and it worked pretty normal too. We're talking about a few fucking watts here. The media is to blame for making a "fiasco" out of it, but for me it never was. What a joke, really.

And RX 480 is faster than 1060, if you compare non-throttling custom cards to custom GTX 1060. Ref AMD cards are just bad, some exceptions confirm the rule.

Over pulling the pcie by more than a couple watts on a card that shouldn't have drawn more than 95w to begin with would be a fiasco to me as a company. That's called not delivering.

 

[eidairaman1]

Over pulling the pcie by more than a couple watts on a card that shouldn't have drawn more than 95w to begin with would be a fiasco to me as a company. That's called not delivering.

Known as not staying with in power specs of PCISiig

 

[Kanan]

Over pulling the pcie by more than a couple watts on a card that shouldn't have drawn more than 95w to begin with would be a fiasco to me as a company. That's called not delivering.

You're easily exeggerating. It got fixed later anyway, so who cares.

95W is wrong anyway, RX 480 drew a few watts more than 150 (the TDP of the card), RX 470 and 460 did their jobs as intended.

 

[cdawall]

You're easily exeggerating. It got fixed later anyway, so who cares.

95W is wrong anyway, RX 480 drew a few watts more than 150 (the TDP of the card), RX 470 and 460 did their jobs as intended.

I'm not. Go look at everything raja said and what was released on the embedded market. The 480 was never meant to be a 150w gpu. The crap process at freaking glofo sucked AGAIN.

It also still isn't fixed the band aid still pulls the absolute max of spec. That is no good for xfire setups or older boards.

 

[Kanan]

I'm not. Go look at everything raja said and what was released on the embedded market. The 480 was never meant to be a 150w gpu. The crap process at freaking glofo sucked AGAIN.

It also still isn't fixed the band aid still pulls the absolute max of spec. That is no good for xfire setups or older boards.

I don't care what Raja said, a lot of people are doing mistakes, that's called being "human". RX 480 was tuned to be as fast as possible to be more competitive on the market, that's the reason why they upped the TDP to over 150W.

It pulls the max of spec? Last time I checked, the "maximum of spec" wasn't too much. Also it's _not_ pulling the maximum of spec, it's pulling about 10-15 W less after the update through driver. So it's good for everything, otherwise give me hard facts, examples of systems that blew AFTER the fix.

I also read, pulling *more than spec* is no problem on modern mainboards (as long as it's only 5-10 W), say mainboards not older than 8 to 10 years. You're really making something out of nothing.

 

[Frick]

Seriously? Did you check his GPU in system specs?

And since when are we not allowed to make comments about a brand without being labeled a fanboy? Some people can actually see things objectively, you know!

Everything on the internet is objective, but most objective of them all are opinions. This is a fact.

 

[cdawall]

I don't care what Raja said, a lot of people are doing mistakes, that's called being "human". RX 480 was tuned to be as fast as possible to be more competitive on the market, that's the reason why they upped the TDP to over 150W.

It pulls the max of spec? Last time I checked, the "maximum of spec" wasn't too much. Also it's _not_ pulling the maximum of spec, it's pulling about 10-15 W less after the update through driver. So it's good for everything, otherwise give me hard facts, examples of systems that blew AFTER the fix.

I also read, pulling *more than spec* is no problem on modern mainboards (as long as it's only 5-10 W), say mainboards not older than 8 to 10 years. You're really making something out of nothing.

That wasn't a mistake he was quoting what should have been released. What we ended up with instead was a typical "oh shit" product released well past its efficiency curve.

Good news is they have already released an RX480 embedded solution that consumes 95w TDP for the entire board to include the memory and at full desktop GPU speed. That is again what gives further food to this fire. Yet again AMD was horribly let down by GloFo and is forced to release something that is nowhere near what they bragged about in the press. This is bad for EVERYONE.

Also some food for thought for you. Would you consider the Gigabyte X99M-gaming 5 to be a modern motherboard? Two different boards with two different brands sets of 480's and neither could run crossfire at stock settings stable. Mind you these were in two completely different machines with different power supplies, processors, ram, SSD etc. Same exact over drawn issue. Luckily modern boards just shut off instead of catching on fire like the ones of old do. This problem was with the drivers released in 2017 so it is post power fix. The problem still exists, the driver fix was nothing more than a bandaid. Remember they were drawing 6.7A off of the 12v rail which exceeds the 5.5A spec. After 16.7.1 they draw 5.6A off of the 12v rail of the motherboard which...drum roll please....STILL EXCEEDS SPEC.

The card design literally looks like it should draw 95, cooler is barely adequate at 150w, absolutely excellent at 95w however. With the powerplan of the reference card that puts 47w off of the mobo and 47w off of the PCI-e 6 pin. Both of those numbers are normal and well within spec. This yet again points towards a card that should have been 95w and was designed to be 95w, but GloFo failed to deliver yields that were that efficient and we got what we got.

Take your freaking blinders off.

 

[Kanan]

That wasn't a mistake he was quoting what should have been released. What we ended up with instead was a typical "oh shit" product released well past its efficiency curve.

Good news is they have already released an RX480 embedded solution that consumes 95w TDP for the entire board to include the memory and at full desktop GPU speed. That is again what gives further food to this fire. Yet again AMD was horribly let down by GloFo and is forced to release something that is nowhere near what they bragged about in the press. This is bad for EVERYONE.

Also some food for thought for you. Would you consider the Gigabyte X99M-gaming 5 to be a modern motherboard? Two different boards with two different brands sets of 480's and neither could run crossfire at stock settings stable. Mind you these were in two completely different machines with different power supplies, processors, ram, SSD etc. Same exact over drawn issue. Luckily modern boards just shut off instead of catching on fire like the ones of old do. This problem was with the drivers released in 2017 so it is post power fix. The problem still exists, the driver fix was nothing more than a bandaid. Remember they were drawing 6.7A off of the 12v rail which exceeds the 5.5A spec. After 16.7.1 they draw 5.6A off of the 12v rail of the motherboard which...drum roll please....STILL EXCEEDS SPEC.

The card design literally looks like it should draw 95, cooler is barely adequate at 150w, absolutely excellent at 95w however. With the powerplan of the reference card that puts 47w off of the mobo and 47w off of the PCI-e 6 pin. Both of those numbers are normal and well within spec. This yet again points towards a card that should have been 95w and was designed to be 95w, but GloFo failed to deliver yields that were that efficient and we got what we got.

Take your freaking blinders off.

Which blinders? I wanted a explanation and I got one. Thanks

Still the GPU works for most users, you have to admit that.

 

[cdawall]

Which blinders? I wanted a explanation and I got one. Thanks

Still the GPU works for most users, you have to admit that.

I have two.