>147.3W POWER CONSUMPTION IT'S OVER, AYYMD IS FINISHED

>>55266849
>overclocked
>in furmark
>at 1.15v

You didn't even try.

>reference model

>>55266849

HELLO PAJEET

File: AMD-RX-480-Overclocking-Tool.png (192KB, 889x1247px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 889x1247px

>>55266858
Kill yourself, faggot

Even at the default 1266MHz it requires 1.15V, this GPU is shit at power efficiency

Kyle was right all along

File: 1414701268694.gif (892KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

892KB, 500x281px

>1.15v

>>55266899
.8375v for 850mhz.

Shitpost harder. Kyle was laughably wrong, and everything you posted just proves it.

Can I underclock it? AMD always gave ample amount of voltage room for their cards.

>>55267042

It worked great on 290x's so i dont see why not

>>55266899
>>55266917
I never said shit, niggas.

>>55266917
>>55266904
>>55266899
>>55266849

>That voltage

AMD is a fucking joke, that voltage is higher than a stock GTX970.
Too much for 14nm.

>>55267050
Because this is a different chip and FinFETs on top of that, they have less leakage so less of a voltage range.

This is all just made to save money, but just breeds bad press, they could have scrapped everything over 1.1V and generally have lower power consumption across the board, but they probably target everything up to 1.17V so they don't have to scrap chips that don't make the 1.11V cut, but the bad side is that more hungrier chips will be out.

Note that this 1.15V is overclocked in the OP

>>55267074

Are you being retarded on purpose ?.

>>55267084
oh, explain why do you think that?

>>55267084
Nvidiots don't have to pretend to be retarded.

>>55267090

1.1500v is with overclock, not stock config.

>>55266849
>2229 RPM
damn that must be loud as fuck. my card sounds like a jet engine above 2k rpm

>>55267113
That's is still pretty high for a card with that performance on a shrink node.

A GTX 970 at 900.2 core clock runs at 0.9310v
at 696.4 core clock it runs at 0.8500v

>>55267131
Which explains why those PCBs are carrying those heavy power phases relative to the die size. Seems AMD fucked up.

>>55267131

I guess we will find out soon, personally on a 670 so either way i need a upgrade.

>>55267131
what voltage @1500mHz?

>>55267131
What's the voltage matter if the power consumption is low? Also as someone already said AMD is pretty liberal with its voltage ranges across all its GPU and CPUs to save cost, chances are pretty high this can be undervolted.

Also do take note that if the performance is 980-tier with around 110-120W at stock clocks, the card is still a good 60% more efficient than Maxwell, which is pretty much right there around Pascal

>>55267178
Depends on the GPU, I can hit 1519 at 1.212V which is what is stock for most aftermarket cards but I can hit 1506 at 1.170v or 1506 at 1.150v if I keep the card below 55ºC which can only be done with watercooling.


Most cards can hit 1500 which is average without increasing voltage past the one provided by BOOST 2.0 itself, which is based on the ASIC quality and temperature, to get a card to provide more than 1.212v on stock clocks without modifying anything you need to get a really good silicon with a chip that could overclock to 1600mhz you get around 1.218.2v out of the box but you need really really good silicon we are talking more than 85% ASIC here which is super rare.

>>55267187
>What's the voltage matter if the power consumption is low?

>1300mghz
>147w

It doesn't. Either way it doesn't matter for home use.
That 2k rpm at 58% is worrying though, but heatsink is tiny and nobody sane buys reference cards anyway.

>>55267239
That's overclocked, and holy shit when have GPU-z sensor readouts been accurate in the least?

File: 1310483412100.jpg (36KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 413x395px

>>55266849
So the guy who claimed sources told him AMD had managed to create a product that runs significantly hotter and less efficient than Pascal was right all along?

>>55267239
That's typical for a reference cooler fan. They're so small that they don't usually get loud till around 1600 but they get annoying quickly

>>55267244
uh since forever? they use the microsoft api itself for reading which isn't different from any other monitoring software like hwmonitor.

>>55267254
>1266mghz
>1322mghz

>>55267270
What's your point?

>>55267254
No, rx cannot physically give as much heat as nvidia cards. You are just a moron

File: AMD-Radeon-RX-480-Test-Results_9.jpg (673KB, 1920x1079px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 1920x1079px

>>55267264
And since when could you read rail wattage with a fucking software tool? Guess that makes wall meters and oscillators useless.


Also, I'm gonna start posting GPU-z readouts with 110W for the 480, I guess they're correct too? Wow, look at this, 80W, and it's overclocked!

1/5

File: 1460743225692.jpg (128KB, 500x591px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 500x591px

>>55267277
dunno, thinking of life

File: AMD-Radeon-RX-480-Test-Results_8.jpg (220KB, 1914x1052px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1914x1052px

>>55267292
More overclocked, 110W this time!

Amazeballs

>>55267279
You have to admit this is pretty disgustingly shit for a midrange card though.

It's expected that high range cards run hot, but this is a midrange card, on relatively low clock speeds.

>>55267222

We would almost believe you

>>55267292
I get your point but look at the power graph there for a moment.

>>55267297
>1080p
>medium settings

File: AMD-Radeon-RX-480-Test-Results_7.jpg (681KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 1920x1080px

>>55267297
More crap.

>>55267299
No, I understand heat transfer and not a huge faggot like you.

File: AMD-Radeon-RX-480-Test-Results_6.jpg (234KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1920x1080px

>>55267310
Last one.

>>55267297
>>55267292


Different applications or games will use different parts of the GPU, meaning in some games some parts of the GPU die, physical silicion is being unused, this isn't limited to GPUs only even CPUs do the same, modern Intel CPUs can idle down to 2watts which is lower than DDR3 RAM at 1600mhz on idle.

>>55267315
No you don't

>>55267299
>a midrange card
who started this meme?
970 and 390 is midrange
960 and 380 is low end
370 and 950 is the budget build

>>55267315

You sound like a nice guy

>>55267323
You're talking about last generation grandpa.

By that logic the 580 is still a high end card

>>55267308
>gpu load 15-50%

it's weird?

>>55267074
You're exposing yourself as a tech-illiterate retard my friend. Voltage is completely irrelevant compared between two different architectures. Skylake CPUs use higher voltages than Haswell CPUs (significantly more in fact, 1.45V is safe on air, which would have Haswell on fire) despite the drop from 22nm to 14nm. Despite that, they use less power under load than the Haswell chips, even with the slightly higher TDP that's entirely down to the stronger iGPU.

>>55267340
what?

>>55267333
yes it is still high end card because it was going for $400+ when it came out

>>55267301
What's your point? That GPUs have power spikes and whoever screenshots that power spike wins the shitposting contest?

Holy fuck GPU-z is a worthless tool for reading something like power consumption, possibly worse than watt-meters due to even smaller sample size and refresh rate.

so basically its a 390x?

fuck it waiting till volta and vega

>>55267342
Oh my friend, you forgot to mention how Skylake has improved different instructions set including AVX2 which is why they can run at higher voltages without burning themselves ;)

>>55266849
>MAX
Can't GPU-z post the average reading?

>>55267363
Yes, but that's not good for clickbait.

>>55267390
these pictures were taken from live stage though, it made sense there

File: r_600x450.png (527KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 600x450px

HOLY SHIT GTX1080 CONFIRMED FOR 320W HOUSEFIRE NEEDS 120% MORE POWER THAN RX480 FOR 60% MORE PERFORMANCE

>>55267403
That one in the OP is a separate chiphell image, it's watermarked.
Everything else wasn't watermarked.
Could it be a different source?

>>55267413
Except it isn't?
Holy shit you're autistic.

>>55267424
Post again when you read the thread.

File: Radeon-RX-480-Overclocked-Power-Consumption.png (248KB, 815x529px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 815x529px

>XFX

This explains everything.

>>55267413
I'm no fan of nvidia but isn't that about right? Is GTX1080 the same size?

>>55266849
>overclock
>MAX
>MAX
>MAX

This shitpost isn't worth the effort to dignify with a shitpost.

>>55267459
150mm2 bigger

Oh wow, look at the desperation from AMDfags ITT

>>55267507
Oy vey you know what i meant. Die size

>>55267513
>shitpost
>get anally probed by your superiors
>"d-desperation!"

Don't you have a house to watch out for? It's summer and your GP104 might suddenly combust.
I recommend heat sensors connected on your own server so you can monitor away from home.

File: 1310429820535.jpg (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

>>55266849
AMD fanboys are such fucking hypocrites, I remember when the 1080 FE overclocked from from 1600 mhz well over 2000 mhz and they called it shit for overclocking.

Not we have proof the 480 doesn't even overclock further than 10% and none of you idiots are even mentioning it.

Another card that runs hot as shit and can't oc, looks like AMD delivered in typical fashion again

>>55267516
yes, and it is ~150mm2 bigger than 480

>>55267539
You mean a 400MHz overclock with 10% 3D performance increase if it doesn't throttle?

Haha.

>>55267567
Pascal has horrendous clock scaling, everything is due to the lower IPC than Maxwell.
Nvidia blew their entire load on GP100, honestly.

File: 1461381424542.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>55266849
>>55266858
>>55266869
>>55266871
>>55266899
>>55266904
>>55266917
>>55267042
>>55267050
>>55267058
>>55267074
>>55267081
>>55267084
>>55267090
>>55267092
>>55267113
>>55267126
>>55267131
>>55267142
>>55267157
>>55267178
>>55267187
>>55267222
>>55267239
>>55267244
>>55267254
>>55267263
>>55267264
>>55267270
>>55267277
>>55267279
>>55267292
>>55267294
>>55267297
>>55267299
>>55267300
>>55267301
>>55267308
>>55267310
>>55267315
>>55267319
>>55267321
>>55267322
>>55267323
>>55267331
>>55267333
>>55267340
>>55267342
>>55267344
>>55267348
>>55267350
>>55267361
>>55267362
>>55267363
>>55267403
>>55267423
>>55267446
>>55267436
>>55267471
>>55267516
>>55267567
>>55267540
>>55267587
>>55267539
>>55267531

It's
a
fucking
200$ card
Why the fucking hell are you arguing about low-end graphic cards ? You twats fucking know nobody will change their minds after any argument. What are you trying to accomplish ? Do you buy a GPU just for shitposting ? Don't you have better things to do with it ?

>>55267675
I'm more interested in the GPU and its characteristics than the card.
Now sod off.

>>55267685
Then you're a rare minority in a world of arguing fanboys.

>>55267675
>Quoting everyone ITT
Here's your (You), fucking faggot

>>55267700
There are a number of those on /g/, they're hard to find elsewhere so it's worth trudging through dirt and mud I believe.

this fucking threads are getting fucking old
for fucks sake at least argue about loonix vs winblows

>>55267675

>AMD is a struggling company
>Major GPU release

This is an interesting time for the gaming industry, but apparently your walnut does not comprehend this.

>>55267736
There's more of those on /g/ than other websites. still, those threads feel like those shit arguments, I guess it's kinda normal after all.

>>55267446
>revision
>C7

HOLY SHIT HOW DID NOBODY SEE THIS?
This GPU could have been released fucking 4 months ago!

File: 14669383864600[1].jpg (157KB, 1270x714px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1270x714px

>itt butthurt nvidiots

>>55267771
It probably was, but they had to build up stock and not do a paper launch.

File: 1466946262371.jpg (45KB, 460x354px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 460x354px

>>55267310
what did they mean by this?

no but seriously, what are these artifacts called?

>>55267761
Of course I do not comprehend why some people compare a GPU like the GTX 1070 versus the RX 480. Of course the 1070 will be better.

I just go nut because the major part of those arguments is kinda shitty.

>>55267783
Is that just the way the game handles shadows? i remember farcry 3/4 had the same issue when it loaded in detail to fast.

>AMD claim 150W card, it actually peaks at 147W
>Nvidia claim 150W card, it actually averages 150W and peaks at 200W

We see it every single time.

POWER OF A 980 for $200

Fuck I hate the AMDfags for hyping this shit up

nvidiafags reduced to actually lying about AMD cards to make it seem worse than it is

Remember the days when nvidia fanboys didn't have to make shit up?

>Nvidia fanboys threatened this badly by a $200 mainstream reference card

O I am laffin

>>55267783
>>55267819
i'm inclined to say it's an AMD thing because I used to have it on my 6950 but don't on my 770. could just be the 6950 being too slow though

>>55267821
Peak is irrelevant for both.

AMD should from now on just hide the TDP and share it only with OEMs.
Because the huge number of twats, normalfags, 'professional gamers' and shitposters from /v/ and other subhuman dwellings thinking TDP == power consumption is ridiculous.

>>55267821
>I think TDP is power consumption
See, that's where you're wrong.
150w is a TDP, AMD usually rates it for a maximum TDP while Nvidia is for a minimum.

File: proud to be envidya.jpg (103KB, 554x607px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 554x607px

>>55267829
No, not really?

>>55267783
they had an elaborate blog post about the way they filtered everything to give the game a certain look, one of those had the nasty side effect of those dots.

>>55267837
it would happen in more games then, i have a 280x and quite a few demanding games, but i have only ever seen this weird loading in during farcry when they pain shit around to fast, the gta benchmark is just getting to the fast part of it too.

>>55266849
EVERYONE LAUGH AT AMD

>>55267871
This is pretty realistic though, AMD looks good in benchmarks but in real life(benchmarks ARE NOT real life) they're usually 2-3 times slower than the Nvidia equivalent, AMD is like those concept cars that can do anything but are just cheap shit with a coat of paint on them.

>>55267142
Any 28nm 200-250mm2 chips can use >200w you fucking dipshit, absolute power usage limit is still a function of total active area. A 230mm die and any other 230mm die on the same/a similar process generally have similar power draw limits.

>Like I said 2 days ago, most review samples are having trouble reaching anything beyond 1350 MHz. The highest reported clock is 1379 MHz. The member of the PCGamesHardware team confirmed that their sample did not reach 1400 MHz.

>IT OVERCLOCKS TO +1600 MHZ AND REACHES 1070 PERFORMANCE
>BELIEVE ME, WCCFTECH SAID SO
Only 3 more days until all their dreams get crushed.

>>55267958
5 cents have been deposited into your account, pajeet.

>>55267958
Were you out of diapers during the 5000 series? It fucking WRECKKKED the 300 series. So hard that nvidia just didn't even release it, and just skipped to housefires.

>>55267958
What
In
The
Fuck
Am
I
Reading

>>55267308
>memory usage
>3800MB
>medium settings
top kek

GPU-Z power draw is not accurate. There isn't anything in the gpu actually measuring the power draw. All gpu-z does is make guesses based on random shit.

>>55267675
This is all a result of AMD overhyping the thing. The moment they announced it AMD fanboys went batshit crazy with shit like "NVidia on life support" and "AMD wins this one." Now that specs and performance is leaking though the card is looking weaker than anticipated, and NVidia fanboys are latching on to this as meaning that AMD is shit.

Personally the RX 480 hasn't shocked me yet. It is what I expected it to be, a decent mid-range card. It'll dominate in the 1080p market but will come short of being a real player in 1440p setups. I did hold out on getting my GTX 1070 in case the hype for the RX 480 turned out to be true, but honestly I was also just holding out for cheaper cards and, well, for the cards to actually be in stock.

>>55268094
It is, if it was wrong it wouldn't be there.
480 is 150W TDP and it draws 150W like the app said, there's nothing more to dicuss

>>55268151
You're getting awfully desperate, Huang.

>>55267675
Fine, but it's a mid card. HD7850 is a low end card and I can still play most new games with it on medium at 60fps.

File: ggAFCtRl[1].jpg (40KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x480px

Hopefully the official drivers will help somewhat. Bur bare in mind this is a reference cooler with a blower and the fan speed was only running at 58%

Basically let's wait and see what AIB cards are capable of with proper drivers.

BTW the XFX comes with a DP to DVI adapter cable.

http://m.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4pxozm/xfx_rx480_comes_with_a_dp_to_dvi_cable_d/

>>55267446
Great they made another card that is ROP limited.

I bet AMD does it to segment their display-target markets. P10 for 1080P/minimum VR, small Vega for 1440p/medium VR, big Vega for 2160/high VR

>>55268196
Yeah but that will not support 144hz Sadly

>>55268201
>card that is ROP limited.
You can't know that without seeing how the new shader arch improves the ROPs, they might just be either more efficient or larger.

Show me results from the wall then i'll laugh.

>>55268256
200W minmimum

AMD is truly finished

>>55268231
I almost guarantee the ROPs are the exact same 4x4 GCN design we've seen for five years.

Not even Nvidia has updated their throughput-inferior ROP architecture in any significant way for many generations.

>>55266849
already told you guys several times. just buy nvidia. safer choice. don't waste your money (or gbp).

I'm still buying a 480, and it will do an excellent job replacing my 960.

The only game I have that doesn't run at 60fps in Ultra is Dirt Rally, which only does 60fps on High with my 960.

>>55267323
>970 and 390 is midrange
>midrange
What the fuck am I reading? Fucking Apple.

>>55268196

>you have to buy a $100 adapter if you have a 144hz dvi monitor

amd everybody

When is 3DMark gonna have a proper fucking DX12 test in it anyhow. Not that shitty increasing building block test I have seen.

>>55268364
>144hz dvi monitor

It doesn't exist.

>>55268388
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZLAMNY1eR4

File: 1464839553066.jpg (60KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x450px

>>55267958
>benchmarks ARE NOT real life

File: jaden-smith-1[1].jpg (24KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x300px

>>55268415

>>55268389
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA19P3SX0298

File: 1259250022064.jpg (11KB, 289x319px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 289x319px

>>55267567
Better than a 10% overclock with a 3% performance increase on the 480

>>55267779
>hitman
>ASOTS
Why does AMD only win in games that nobody plays?

>>55267323
According to Nvidia their current lineup goes 1080, 1070, Titan X, 960, 950, 750ti, 730, 710, 210.

Right now a 960 is their mid-range. 950 is the low end. 750ti is the bargain basement gaming card. 1070 is high end and the 1080 is the flagship card.

The 960 sells for $180-240 new. The RX 480 will stomp it while undercutting the price of the 4gig. Nvidia needs a new midrange card fast.

>>55268464
oh right the ones where you need TWO cables for them to work

>>55267348
No it isn't you absolute twat, it was a high end card when it came out, now it is surpassed by low end garbage cards, who in their right mind would still call it a high end card?

>>55268509
What?

A single DL-DVI is enough. In fact, that was the only thing you could use with those overclockable korean monitors back in the day.

>>55268490
http://videocardz.com/61434/amd-radeon-rx-480-3dmark-analysis
Try again though?

>>55268501
you see it doesn't matter what nvidia or amd think

~600=flagship
~400+ = high end
~300= mid range
~180-250=low end
>=160 =budget

nvidia trying to push $400 as midrange now and you let it

>>55268547
Those are synthetic benchmarks you dweeb, it doesn't translate to the same increase in gaming performance

File: 1466356953089.jpg (51KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x960px

I only buy AMD bc of their animes anyways.

>>55268562
NOWAY!?

Do you also happen to be this guy? >>55267958

>>55268574
>animes
>3DPD
Get away from me you fucking casual.

File: power_maximum.png (33KB, 500x810px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x810px

>>55266849
1080
>TDP 180W
>draws 186

480
>TDP 150W
>draws 147

>>55268574
>3DPD

Kill yourself

>>55268524
you have problems understanding timeline

for companies, and normal people that are looking for GPU: nothing exists outside current GPU generation

>>55268578
Nope, idiot

File: killawatt-watt-meter-photo347.jpg (29KB, 375x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 375x500px

>>55268583
>this
>accurate power measurement tool

>>55268583
That's pathetic, the 480 is miles away in performance from the 1080

>>55266849
Why does GPU power draw not show up for me on GPU-Z?

>>55268611
as it is in price

>>55268591
>you have problems understanding timeline
Yet you are the one talking in the past, just stop it already. A card doesn't remain high end forever. Just like body would call a black and white tv high end in this day and age. Stop being a fucking retard

>>55268631
And in efficiency apparently

>>55268551
$300+ is high end
$200-300 is mid range
<$200 is low end

>>55268603
Holy fuck this, I went through at least 4 wall meters going from $10-40 and I fucking wish I saved that money for a proper oscilloscope.

>>55267844
OH, it's relevant. I have two systems using the same 550W PSU. One has a 2500k and a GTX 960, the other has an FX-6300 and a GTX 560. Guess which system overdraws the PSU and crashes?

Nvidia went full retard on making their cards look power efficient with Maxwell's power management bullshit. Don't even pretend otherwise

>>55268655
~$100 is low end, ~$200 is mid, and $300-500 is high end. Anything above that is mid-life crisis tier

File: r_600x450.png (63KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x450px

>>55268583
About that.

>>55268708
>175w average
Holy shit, and that much power

>>55268723
But far from a "178W maximum"
Anyhow, 175W average and 60% faster than a 480, which averages around 110W.
Which is, using simple math, how much more efficient?

>>55267539
>from 1600 mhz well over 2000 mhz
~1600MHz was just the base clock, the card ran at 1800-1900MHz in actual games, getting an extra 100-200MHz in real-world boost clock to hit over 2GHz is just 10-15% OC, which is not impressive in any way.

>>55268196
my monitor only has a DVI input
do i plug this adapter in the PC and use a DVI cable or do i plug it in the monitor and use a DP cable
is there a difference between those two?

>>55268770
Around 1-2%
Still, that's not a good way to compare, the 1080 does have GDDR5X which is more efficient and saves power there.

>>55268796
>boost clock is not overclocking
top kek

>>55268802
yes

use the adapter directly on videocard

File: img3.png (344KB, 1452x558px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1452x558px

>>55268389
>>55268389

???

>>55268832
No, are you retarded? The card at 100% stock settings runs at 1800-1900MHz. Running a product at 100% stock settings is "overclocking" now?

>>55268899
>benQ
>TN
>advertised as a MOBA/eSPORT component

AHAHAHAHAH
Kill it with fire

>>55268909
Boostclock is literally an automatic overclock you stupid motherfucker.

Educate yourself you idiot

File: DVIQA[1].jpg (74KB, 643x374px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 643x374px

>>55268509
Dual Link DVI is not a two headed DVI cable.
I though this is /g/ not reddit.

>>55267771
I don't get it. What does C7 mean in this context?

>>55268922
I'm not him, but overclocking has literally meant "running out of IC spec" for decades.
Boost clock isn't running out of spec, it's a default feature that's pretty much the same as overclocking.

>>55268922
If you're not trolling it's honestly hard for me to believe how utterly stupid and ignorant /g/ has become. You don't even know what "overclocking" even means, you're probably the most ignorant person I've interacted with, online or IRL, in the last few months and I'm completely and fully honest when saying that.

>>55267340
kinda stupid, but flying around in the city is probably the easiest load on the card, especially on "medium" (the lowest video setting)
considering that it's supposed to be between the gtx 970 and the 980 that kind of a lot at 60 fps capped is pretty expected.
my 970 gets about 60% load with everything but anti aliasing and post processing maxed out at 1440p

>>55268968
>>55268968
You fucking idiots

The two things are literally called "Base clock" and "Boost clock"

And boost clocking is a process by which the gpu automatically overclocks itself

Hold up

I have a 7870 and an el cheapo asus 144hz monitor

I'm using dldvi right now...

But I assume if I get the reference 480, that I can use the DisplayPort to drive 144hz on the monitor?

>>55268984
The idea here is that THE STOCK SETTINGS ON ANY CARD ARE BY DEFINITION....WAIT FOR IT...THE STOCK SETTINGS.

An overclock is CLOCKING THE CARD HIGHER THAN STOCK SETTINGS

Again, let me repeat THAT IF EVERY REFERENCE CARD SHIPS AT THE SAME CAPABILITY, ONLY GOING PAST THE STOCK SPEED IS IT OVERCLOCKING.

-cough- AND GO FUCK YOURSELF /v/BABBY

>>55268989

you need to buy a $120 dp to dvi-dl adapter

>>55269004
Theres no arguing with idiots like you, just shut the fuck up already

>>55268984
You literally don't know what the word "overclocking" means. On top of that you're dumb as fuck for persisting in your own ignorance instead of admitting you made a mistake and looking up what it actually means in about 15s.

>>55268950
It's a third revision of the GPU and the 7th stepping of said revision, they usually release engineering samples as the A stepping, release products are either B or C revisions.
And this is a pretty late revision with a late stepping, this GPU could have been released literally a few months earlier baring some catastrophic voltage and clockspeed failure.

>>55268989
depends on the game and your cpu
remember that amd has MUCH higher cpu usage in DX11 games. so in cpu demanding games (or pretty much any game getting over 100 fps) your cpu matters more with AMD

File: 1465972479581.webm (951KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 1280x720px

>>55269012
>I can't read English, the post

>>55269018
No you don't know what it means, you idiot

>>55266849
From what I've read, 120W is normal consumption. Considering TDP is 150W, it won't throttle even when boosting/reasonably overclocked.

>>55266869
Power efficiency won't improve with custom cards. Honestly, thus far I haven't seen a reason to get a custom 480. However, the reference 470 might be gimped by its TDP, if it's only 110W.

>>55267323
Oi, cunt, u avin a giggle m8? GTX-X60 and RX-X80 are midrange.

>>55267844
Peak consumption combined with insufficient TDP creates throttling, retard.

>>55267979
No one unironically hyped1600mhz, nvidiot.

>>55268551
>you see it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks i no im right
FTFY dummy.

>>55266849
Lmfao

Lets wait for the GTX 1060. It will be the GTX 560 Ti all over again.

Nvidia will win, again.

>>55269035
>No one unironically hyped1600mhz, nvidiot.
You must have the memory of a fucking goldfish

>>55269035
>Power efficiency won't improve with custom cards.
Sapphire/ASUS actually release 390X that were more efficient, and not by a small amount, because they bothered to undervolt them and still have a slight clockspeed increase.
More AIBs should do this for AMD since they cant be bothered to scrap high leakage chips and want to ruin their reputation for a few bucks.

>>55267292
>gpu load 0%
>fan speed 26%

vs

>gpu load 100%
>58% fan speed

>>55269033
I see you still haven't looked it up. Must be nice living in a magical world where you're always right despite the vast abundance of contradicting evidence.

>>55269067
No way, maximum power draw of AMD cards is close to the TDP?

Inconceivable.

>>55268770
>But far from a "178W maximum"
If you knew a single thing about physics, you'd know that max power draw isn't a very relevant thing by itself. You can easily get different values for it depending on the timescale you use, because power depends on time. You could potentially get ridiculous values for power if you reduce the timescale to very low levels (~picosecond) and observe electron avalanches.

>>55269080
>Must be nice living in a magical world where you're always right despite the vast abundance of contradicting evidence.
I'm not an AMD fanboy though

>>55269087
That's why it's tested with a oscilloscope and not a fucking wall meter that has a sample rate of 1 second.

>>55269102
But you're obviously a dumb as a brick shithouse fanboy though.

>>55269122
>But you're obviously a dumb as a brick shithouse fanboy though.
Again I don't know why you're accusing me of supporting AMD, I don't do that

>>55269104
Did you completely miss the point of my post?

>>55269131
GODDAMMIT FUCK OFF REDDIT

>>55269131
Then hurry back there.

Someone post the AMD anime fang girl. That'll show the jewvidiots shills.

XFX Radeon RX 480 comes with dvi to dp cable

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4pxozm/xfx_rx480_comes_with_a_dp_to_dvi_cable_d/

>>55269046
Sure, keep getting trolled, nerd. Stick your tiny dick in the 1080's overworked fan.

>>55269053
Interesting, but with such low power consumption I doubt that such a card would be worth the money.

>>55268583
I'm pretty sure there's a graph floating around that shows the 1080 consuming almost 220W while boosting.

>>55269176
Who the hell cares.

>>55269180
there were a bunch of faggots who complained about the dp only thing, just wanted to sort that out

Will a 600W PSU be enough?

>>55269082
This is OC'd version, so it would be normal to assume spike in power consumption.

I bet stock does ~120w.

>>55269190
No, better prep for a 850w upgrade.
AMD hardware is known to spike to almost 400w

File: 1466632975625.jpg (31KB, 601x508px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 601x508px

Can't believe I sold my 970 for $240 for this piece of shit.

I keep and keep getting meme'd.

God fucking dammit.

>>55269128
AMD was literally never brought up in this entire comment chain by anyone else other than you, this only highlights your stupidity. I'm accusing you of being a fanboy because you ignore reality in order to pretend that NVIDIA's products OC better than they actually do. On top of that you're completely unwilling to change your point of view despite evidence to the fact that you are wrong being widely available. You do not appear to be interested in the truth, you are interested in pretending that NVIDIA's products OC better than they actually do in practice and ignore facts that point to the contrary. So you are a fanboy, a pretty dumb one at that.

>>55269190
500W for reference, 550W Power Supply for beast mode cards apparently

>>55269203
Wait for Vega dipshit. No one hyped up Polaris for its performance.

AMD isn't completely honest with TDP either.

Sometimes it's maximum power limit.
Sometimes it's average power draw.

>Sure, keep getting trolled
>i was only pretending to be retarded

>>55269200
>amd hardware, r7 250 included by my rotten brain

File: 1444281533702.jpg (265KB, 794x768px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 794x768px

>>55269223
>claiming to know who anyone is on an anonymous Loatian botany commune

>>55268196
nice. I feared they wouldn't put an adapter in there since there are already no dvi ports on the card itself

>>55269261
Sometimes, when I shitpost on 4chan, I wonder if I ever argued with a nigger and wasted my time.

>>55269203
Even if you buy the 8GB for 240, you'll be happy with the sidegrade. Cooler, better in DX12, twice as much VRAM.

>>55269223
>AMD was literally never brought up in this entire comment chain
Yes it was
>But you're obviously a dumb as a brick shithouse fanboy though.
>>55269080
>Must be nice living in a magical world where you're always right despite the vast abundance of contradicting evidence.
All of these imply I am an AMD fanboy, which I'm not

>>55269232
>wait for fiji
>wait for polaris
>wait for vega
And in half a year you will be telling us to wait for Navi

>>55269189
its a passive one, not an active one

>>55269381
why would you need an active one

>>55269365
Buy Polaris or Vega then w8 for the next die shrink

>>55269421
Why would I buy Polaris?

>>55269426
Why would you waste your money on a GPU? Obviously because you're a /v/irgin

>>55269444
>waste money
I don't plan on buying AMD, don't worry

>>55269457
>not wasting money
>buying nvidia
Kek

>>55269486
Good job repeating my joke

/g/ would be vastly improved if they banned people for posting graphics card shit

>>55269504
What else is there to talk about, boring Linux shit?

>>55269351
Those imply you're a fanboy, not an AMD fanboy specifically. I never mentioned AMD a single time, because what AMD does is not relevant at all to how well a GTX 1080 can overclock. Since it obviously wasn't clear to you at all, I'm accusing you of being a dumb NVIDIA fanboy, because you're ignoring facts in order for NVIDIA's products to appear better than they are. AMD is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

>>55269540
Do you not get the joke?

Ffs are you autistic?

>>55269388
For anything over 1920x1200@60hz obviously

>>55266849
>falling for the overclocking meme

>>55269496
It's a pick one situation, memelord. Either you don't waste money or you buy Nvidia. You can't have both

>>55269577
> Either you don't waste money or you buy AMD.
Fixed

>be on 4chan
>look for reasonable discussion with spergs

>>55269591
>4chan is only for shitposting
Just end yourself and fuck off back where you came from.

1120 Mhz (base stock) vs 1322 Mhz (oc)

~18% OC. I'd assume with after market, this could go up to 30% max, 1450 Mhz (max).

1400 Mhz is about 25% OC, which is decent and doable.

>>55269587
Nvidia is laughing all the way to the bank with the money you earned from sucking its dick

>>55269591
REEEE

>>55266849
>88 celsius
>fan speed 58%
Why do they do this shit?

>>55269618
>with the money you earned from sucking its dick
Shit dude, are you 14? Honest question

>>55269612
okay alright I'll head back to redd it, the superior

>>55269620
They don't want to touch their fan speed for some reason.

>http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review,9.html

70C on 100% fan speed for GTX 1070.

File: 1462612623859.png (19KB, 600x463px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 600x463px

>>55267958

>>55269322
>twice more VRAM

You mean more than twice :^)

>>55268123
>This is all a result of AMD overhyping the thing
As you said next, it's not AMD's fault, AMD announced Polaris as Mid-Tier only. Vega is the one for Top-Tier. Don't give so much credit to idiot fanboys.

>>55269322
>>55269703
2.28x

>>55269620

Noise is more important to the end user than temperature is.

>>55269947
Idk man, I'd rather not have my gpu melt. My old 5850 still wouldn't up the fan by default even when it got to like 120 degrees.

>>55270009

Most people don't look at gpu temperature sensors but a screaming fan is hard to ignore. That said AMD's pcb can take staggering amounts of punishment (they seriously over engineer them) so I really wouldn't worry.

>>55270009
>5850
>120 degrees

It would throttle and then shut down before it got that high unless you're talking about the VRMs.

>>55268123
>This is all a result of AMD overhyping the thing

AMD have never overhyped it. Literally all they've ever said is that it's a mid-range card designed to hit the VR minimum spec. Blame the hardcore AMD fanboys and false-flagging Nvidiots for hyping it to the moon.

>>55267074
i-i was only pretending to be retarded guis

isnt it a le funny xDD mem??

>>55270036
>That said AMD's pcb can take staggering amounts of punishment
On what basis would you make such a claim?

>>55268196
bare in mind

>>55270131

Buildzoid and The Stilt.

>>55270174
What, did they test it or something?

So the benchmarks look like its around 390x/980 on stock and inbetween 980 and fury on OC.

Looks neat.

>>55270238
No they don't

>>55270095
Maybe he was trolling or is stupid and used fahrenheit. 120F is like 55c or something, plenty reasonable to keep the fan down til that point

Why is it that we are this close to a real release of the RX 480 and there are no real world benchmarks? Were there no press units?

All we have are people arguing about performance and pulling things from their asses because there is no data.

>>55270131
Ive got a reference 7850 rated for 110w that can handle overdrawing the power connectors to 165w, if that counts for anything

>>55268364
>144hz
>>>/v/

>>55270355
That's anecdotal evidence though

>>55270371
Yeah I'm sure /g/ is using these high end GPUs for CAD and Lightwave.

>>55270238
The benchmarks show it at or below a 390x, above a 390x when overclocked and equal to an overclocked 980 if custom versions of the card can achieve higher clocks than what the ref is currently looking like its capable of.

>>55270347
The reviews are being sat on, the nda is same day as release to increase hype.

>>55270095
Well, it didn't shut down, and that's what it was reporting on the overdrive page.

>>55270568
Eh that sucks. You'd have to be an idiot to pre-order.

>>55270404
The 7970 capable of using 300w? The 290x reference board capable of 400? The 380x board capable of sustaining 250w average draw?

Should I go on?

>>55270670
You're just saying they are though, not showing me any tests that they can take more punishment than Nvidia PCB's

>>55270647
As far as I can tell B&H is the only place to pre order in the US anyway, just the 8g version, and that just went up today.

>>55270689
The increase in power draw from overclocking to the extremes are well documented. Overclocking has been so well analyzed that a good approximate formula for figuring out the power draw has existed for decades. If you arent willing to google yourself OC reviews with power measuring you're basically admitting to being mentally substandard.

Oh and, ai dont recall anyone saying that AMD makes boards that handle more power than Nvidia, literally only you, right now in that post.
Go be a faggot cunt shill corporate cock sucker somewhere else.

>>55270207

A choice quote from Buildzoid's blog (it is from his fury x pcb analysis).

>The MOSFETs in use seem to be the same 70A beast that the 290X has so assuming you have good cooling on the VRM power and current limits are not going to be an issue because this VRM should be 420A capable.

>>55266849
Stop posting crap. The 480 is a great card, it can do dx11 and it can do even better dx12. Performance over 970.
It cant clock much high at stock because of the tdp limit, amd probably tried to create the most bang for the buck reference card.

>>55266849

nigga OP, at least wait for reviews to call amd out ok? if it sucks it sucks. but stop being a faggot

so it's another trash tier card that will most likely be out performed or have similar performance to the gtx 1060/ti which will use less power and overclock higher.

well done amd. you fucked it all again. no wonder they're banning reviews before release day. they know reviews will show them up and prove their new card is hot garbage.

>>55269037
>1060
>50% the performance of a 1080
>more expensive than 480 while being slower
nah. it would have to draw vastly less than a 480 to stay relevant.

>>55271583
>pulling numbers out of my ass

You still didn't learn, pajeet?

>>55271643
1070 is 75% of the hardware of the 1080. It would follow that the 1060 would be 50%.

If they trimmed it to 65% it would cannibalize 1070 sales with overclocking.

Either way, they don't have a smaller die ready and cutting down the 1080's die that far would end with them eating a huge amount of cost.

>>55268770
Taking a midling from a measurement is not a real measurement of power usage anyhow. Basically to get an accurate measurement it needs to be power usage>time. So you measure how much power is used over the course of 30 minutes under load on both and compare them against their performance and do the calculations that way. Just drawing a line down the middle and calling it 'average power usage' doesn't cut it.

>>55269019

there were lots of setbacks. AMD fired all their good engineers and they completely 'restructured' (sold to china) their test and assembly business only a few months ago. Vega and Zen encountered similar design issues and delays too, they've had late tapeouts and lots of respins during validation.

http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?p=267069#post267069

nshitdia BTFO XD

>>55268123
>This is all a result of AMD overhyping the thing.

that's how AMD likes to market products when he knows they're going to be lackluster or underperform. they did the same shit with bulldozer and fiji.

>>55269046
1600Mhz was Nvidia trolls using some shit rumor found on one of those Chinese shilling websites and was never proven. Nvidia trolls know that reverse trolling causes shit flinging.

Nvidiots believe putting all the load on the GPU is the best use of resources. With good drivers and non-shit Gimpworks games sharing the load on the GPU and CPU results in better performance overall whilst keeping the cost/performance/power ratio of the GPU to a minimum.

Now with DX12 that will even be more so as the ability to share those resources with GPU's from all brands and the CPU will mean a further boost. That is if the devs are not lazy console converting Jews that is. Nvidia will just continue gimping the games they have control over towards their own hardware of course.

File: exemplary_mexican_american.png (59KB, 294x380px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 294x380px

>>55266899
What over clocking app is dat?

Getting really tired of these threads.

Polaris is supposed to carry the next iteration of GCN stream processors targeting a mainstream audience at a range of $100 to $300.
It was never meant to compete in the higher performance range.
The only real, and I type it loosely, benchmark we have of any Polaris card is the RX480 with Raja at Computex. Doing some numbers here and there, we can expect it to compete or maybe even surpass the 390 and the 970 for $200.
Recent events at E3 show the RX470 and the RX460. The former being cut down Polaris 10 judging from the PCB and the RX460 being Polaris 11. In other words, the RX480 is the highest performing card in the Polaris lineup.

Since they mentioned a range of $100-$300, it puts the RX460 at a $100 and the RX470 at about $150. The latter one is very interesting. If you remember, the 7850 was a pretty cute overclocker and it was cut Pitcarn(Pitcarn PRO). If the RX470 follows, then we might have a nice card that can match the RX480 with a little OC and $50 less, making it a killer at its price.
The RX480 on the other hand is definitely within the last generation of lower high end cards, possibly surpassing them. Benchmarks point to above 390x performance, but I'm personally skeptical about it. It will be another amazing price to performance card.

If you're running anything on or above the 970 or the 390, then I would be waiting for something like Vega or fatter Pascal. The truth is that while the 1070 is an amazing card for its price, it doesn't deliver all of the high frames at 1440p or 60fps on 4K. This lineup of Pascal is very disappointing and it feels like nothing new. Look at the true Pascal line, they're monstrous chips with HBM and all that good shit. We are stuck with these chips that aren't really anything new except a little better than the 980Ti.

Also, reminder that you should WAIT FOR BENCHMARKS. 3 days left, fuck.

>>55271959
I just wish people would stop memeing from dubious at best sources.

Like the one leak which showed the new powertune control panel. They likened to say their card could barely do 1265Mhz at 1.15v, while stock was set to [email protected]
Assuming 1075mhz was the speculated 110w average draw, the math jumps power draw to 160w, above the TDP rating, probably even causing the card to power and temp throttle judging by the other settings shown. Kicker is, that voltage was way beyond what should be necessary considering the stock cards all turbo to 1266mhz.

AMD can't even put out a competitive offering as per usual. Guess I'll just get a Founder's Edition GTX 1080 before the excessive demand drives the price up even further.

>>55272911

>all turbo to 1266mhz.

I severely doubt AMD will actually implement turbo/boost as is found on cpus and Nvidia chips for their GCN architecture. Current GCN doesn't have a base clock per se, merely various stages of powertune with a maximum operating frequency.

Nvidia's gpu boost is merely a minimum the card will run at when inside thermal and power draw limits and boost is what the card can take until it hits said limits.

CPUs tend to only turbo under half core loads to maintain their rated power draw.

File: 1465590479231.jpg (81KB, 419x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 419x480px

>1266 mhz
>88 C under basic load
>midrange

holy fucking shit this card is bigger meme than the 970 ever could be

Confirmed not overclockable over 1379 mhz

Now add the cheap chinese build in inductors for insane coil whine noise and the plastic blower fan at 100% will sound like a Jet engine

top kek AMDrones on suicidal care all over again

>all the tech illiterate retards ITT shitting their pants because they have no idea what they're looking at

100% GPU load = a Furmark stress test. The GPU shows itself drawing less than 150w under maximum possible load, and on top of this its over clocked.

The RX 480 is a 100w card under normal gaming workloads.
Nvidia shills in full blown damage control mode.

Gpu temp 88c what the fuck are you even doing stick to console gaming kid

>>55275410

I don't believe you one bit. The results and test so far speak bigger words. And all I hear is Poo in Loo quality called RX 480.

Hahahaha

>>55275465

>furmark is the only metric that matters guise

Furmark causes gpus to either throttle hard or run well beyond spec.

>>55275465
Not 5 posts after I make a comment about a shitty site's shitty overclocking ability and someone talks about it like its the end all of real testing.

Pathetic.

File: 1465678348170.jpg (41KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x600px

Advanced Meme Devices

only 199$ hot shit during summer

buy now and join the rebellion

>>55275609

sounds like someone pre-ordered two of those

>>55275652
Lel no you little shilly shill

I only buy when top end non reference models are available and both sides have price comparable products

>>55269322
More than twice as much VRAM.

File: 06212016090.jpg (2MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3000px

>>55268929
>2048x1536
Nigga my 4 year old HD7750 card does 2560x1600 over DVI-I

File: power_maximum.png (35KB, 500x850px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x850px

>>55267821
Except the 1070 peaks at 154W

The 1070 has almost identical power consumption to the 480, yet is 25% faster.

>>55268167
It's hilarious how desperate AMD fans don't want the card to be 150W, even though AMD themselves have said over and over that it's 150W.

>>55268574
Is she retarded? Because she looks retarded.

>>55268703
i like that, going to card calling 500+$ cards mid life crises now.

>>55269129
Apparently he did. This moron has been trolling in AMD threads for the longest time and he has no clue what power consumption even is.

>>55275543
Furmark is just a 3D program, it literally cannot make the card run beyond spec

>>55270642
>>55270339
>>55270095

the 5000's were made before amd implemented the throttling into their cards, that was with the 6000 if i remember right.

File: oc wattage.png (12KB, 668x139px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 668x139px

>>55278841
I bet stock RX480 would peak ~120W max.

I was looking at this other site. Look at the difference between stock and OC system consumption. ~30w for about 200 Mhz OC. So thats about 150w+~30w = 180W on OC for GTX 1070. From the benchmarks of RX480, the 1330 Mhz OC reachs max of about 147w. So I'd assume the non OC mode would be sitting around 120 or maybe less.

>http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review

>>55279151
Those numbers are bullshit, the 1070 doesn't get above 154W

>>55279181
When you overclock, any voltage increase increase power consumption.

Basic overclock 101. This is seen in both vendors.

>>55268603
It actually is if you factor energy efficiency of the PSU with an offset of about 20%

File: 1412118785713.png (10KB, 327x173px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 327x173px

>mfw I bought a 1070 instead of waiting for this overhyped turd

>>55268123
Fanbois go full tard every time a new card is released and there will be these bankrupt threads forever even when new cards arent even launched

>>55279181
>http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_geforcegtx_1070_overclocking/7.htm

Similar instance here, the difference between the OC and non-OC is about 23w. Thats about 200 mhz OC too. So 154w+23w = 177w.