RX 480 Pics and Benchmark Leaks Emerge from China

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Yup, it should be less power, less heat, and less fan speed.

 

AMD dun goofed this one.

the picture also shows 62*C - that's 11*C lower than a 1070?

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Not good enough.

You missed the /s

[AlwaysFSX]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

You missed the /s

Nope.

[Lays]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Kios said:

 

So IF (Big IF though) video is true (4k max settings, no FPS to help us) then it should be probably 390x level of performance, with a really small possibility of performance close to a 980 ti. Would you agree on that? or what i am supposing is BS

If it's near 390x performance, it's not even close to 980 ti.

 

The 980 ti is like 40% faster than a 390x.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Nope.

What exactly are you expecting? The leak shows it using less power than a 960 and running cooler than an AF 960 (62*C - look at the thermal shots) on a blower cooler while performing like a 980 for less money than some 960s >.<

[AlwaysFSX]

5 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

What exactly are you expecting? The leak shows it using less power than a 960 and running cooler than an AF 960 (62*C - look at the thermal shots) on a blower cooler while performing like a 980 for less money than some 960s >.<

I expected better, AMD said this card would be amazing and run cool, so far they're lying.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, AlwaysFSX said:

I expected better, AMD said this card would be amazing and run cool, so far they're lying.

So 62*C is not cool? Well then, by that logic the 1080 running at 85*C is melting?

[AlwaysFSX]

4 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

So 62*C is not cool? Well then, by that logic the 1080 running at 85*C is melting?

Nope, it's not. Just trying out your logic though since you seem to know what you're doing.

 

AMD is letting everyone down here.

[Prysin]

13 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

Clockspeeds are the main factor for higher temps. Not the only one, but main. Voltages etc, not going in specifics. And that higher power draw even more so backs up what I'm saying. 200W vs 100W and same temps? I am absolutely comparing apples to oranges here because from info that we have, if NV can deliver higher clockspeeds, noticeably better performance and higher power draw at the same temps, then they did the better job. No arguing that I am jumping to conclusions (as in leak info conclusions, I still expect everything and nothing from Polaris at the same time), we know nothing about the fans speeds, if those leaks are even true, yada yada yada, but everything stands. Either way, I'll be getting an AMD card this year just to be clear, but doesn't change the fact that based on this info (which again, may or may not be true), NV did a better job in everything except price. 

i shall correct you

 

Clock speeds has NOTHING to do with heat, not directly.

 

The way silicone chips functions is that to obtain higher clock speeds and retain stable performance, they need higher voltage.

 

The way you calculate power draw is P (watt) = U (volt) x I (amp).

In order to increase stability with higher clocks, more volt is needed, as you can only have so much amps. Amps is what heats up the chip. By introducing more amps, you strain the conductors more, this friction causes heat.

Voltage increase leakage (the ability for a signal to jump from one trace to another or ground). Leaks are BAD. To control leakage you must balance amps and voltages.

BUT, third element is resistance.

 

the more amps, the more heat, the more heat, the more resistance, the more voltage you need to push through the conductors to overcome the resistance and maintain the same power draw.

 

basic mathematics when it comes to electricity.

 

 

However, due to the design of the transistor and pipeline, which is NOT equal between the two (three) vendors, you CAN NOT compare how frequency switching and voltage affects each GPU.

 

What you are trying to do, is compare apples to bananas. Not another apple.

 

[Bouzoo]

7 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

You're comparing Intel to Samsung actually... - if the 1070 needs 50% fan speed for 70*C and the RX 480 needs 30% fan speed, what would that mean? Also, the COOLER is not the same - comparing temps is SO pointless as  - fan speed, cooler, GPU, voltage - EVERYTHING is different - all we know is the 480 is more efficient than the 1070 using 70W less to power more compute cores and that is to be expected. Pascal is a modded version of Maxwell on 16nm - it's performance stems from higher clockspeeds and thus more heat than Maxwell. And we already know GCN scales MUCH better with clockspeed as evident by a 1200MHz 390 beating the 1500MHz 970.

If it needs 30% then that's great, but I've said it, we don't know that, there was a video where it hit 71.9C but it's private now, probably due to NDA and all, and I'm sure it's much, much higher than 30%. But that's my speculations. And don't now cherry pick 62 becaue it's a lower temp, there is evidence of it hitting 72C. For it to be more efficient we have to wait for results, it may and may not be. We don't know it's more efficient, and now you're comparing apples to oranges saying it's more efficient because it powers more compute cores, and those are different architectures. For it to be impressive, I'm expecting it to run at least 15-20% coller than a 1070 if it's gonna perform much worse. Running at same temps with ~45% worse performance (agaan, based on leaks), is horrible.

[Bouzoo]

7 minutes ago, Prysin said:

-snip-

That's why I said, voltages and all, not going into specifics.  I know how it works, I've been OCing my cards for years (and my current one is garbage in that regard). And I said that I am comparing apples to oranges (or bananas if you want), I never claim for it to be a proper comparison, so I don't see a problem here. 

I mean I went to a technical school, I know how electronics work.

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

If it needs 30% then that's great, but I've said it, we don't know that, there was a video where it hit 71.9C but it's private now, probably due to NDA and all, and I'm sure it's much, much higher than 30%. But that's my speculations. And don't now cherry pick 62 becaue it's a lower temp, there is evidence of it hitting 72C. For it to be more efficient we have to wait for results, it may and may not be. We don't know it's more efficient, and now you're comparing apples to oranges saying it's more efficient because it powers more compute cores, and those are different architectures. For it to be impressive, I'm expecting it to run at least 15-20% coller than a 1070 if it's gonna perform much worse. Running at same temps with ~45% worse performance (agaan, based on leaks), is horrible.

BUT YOU CAN NOT MAKE THAT COMPARISON - unless the 480 is using Nvidia's cooler it's NOT POSSIBLE to compare temps

[Bouzoo]

6 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

BUT YOU CAN NOT MAKE THAT COMPARISON - unless the 480 is using Nvidia's cooler it's NOT POSSIBLE to compare temps

You mean just like how you compared which one is more efficient? Either way, AMD is doing something bad here or leaks are false. You were complaining how GTX 1080 runs hot at 85C, and a card that has almost 100% worse performance running at 10C lower temp is acceptable? It's not. 

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

You mean just like how you compared which one is more efficient? Either way, AMD is doing something bad here or leaks are false. You were complaining how GTX 1080 runs hot at 85%, and a card that has almost 100% worse performance running at 10C lower temp is acceptable?

I am looking at power draw. 480 uses 70% less power and achieves 50% less performance than a 1070 - that would make it more efficient.

[Prysin]

5 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

I expected better, AMD said this card would be amazing and run cool, so far they're lying.

temperatures of the core is not related to actual heat displaced.

 

a FX 8320 running 4.77GHz on a 92mm Noctua NH-D9L will sit around 57c on 80% fan speed (thats my own results btw).

a i7 4790k on a 240mm AIO with 50% fan speed, at stock clocks sits around 49c in the same room under the same conditions.

 

There is no question that a 92mm cooler with 80% fan speed is nowhere NEAR as efficient at cooling as a 240mm AIO at even 20% fan speed.

 

The difference comes in the design of the CPU, IHS, TIM and cooler.

The FX is producing nearly 200W, whilst the i7 is producing barely 80w. However the FX is "Soldered", and moves heat MUCH faster from the core to the top of the IHS and further to the cooler. Whilst the i7 is using a TIM that is good at moving heat, but not nearly AS good.

 

However GPUs are cooled directly on DIE. They do not use a IHS.

Likewise. the RX 480 cooler is using a copper slug embedded into a ALU heatsink, compare that to a massive copper vaporchamber mounted onto a even bigger heatsink.

 

Obviously, the bigger heatsink, and the much more efficient vapor chamber, will transfer heat from the GTX die in a order of magnitude more efficient then a simple copper slug will.

 

 

[Agosto]

9 minutes ago, Prysin said:

i shall correct you

 

Clock speeds has NOTHING to do with heat, not directly.

 

The way silicone chips functions is that to obtain higher clock speeds and retain stable performance, they need higher voltage.

 

The way you calculate power draw is P (watt) = U (volt) x I (amp).

In order to increase stability with higher clocks, more volt is needed, as you can only have so much amps. Amps is what heats up the chip. By introducing more amps, you strain the conductors more, this friction causes heat.

Voltage increase leakage (the ability for a signal to jump from one trace to another or ground). Leaks are BAD. To control leakage you must balance amps and voltages.

BUT, third element is resistance.

 

the more amps, the more heat, the more heat, the more resistance, the more voltage you need to push through the conductors to overcome the resistance and maintain the same power draw.

 

basic mathematics when it comes to electricity.

 

 

However, due to the design of the transistor and pipeline, which is NOT equal between the two (three) vendors, you CAN NOT compare how frequency switching and voltage affects each GPU.

 

What you are trying to do, is compare apples to bananas. Not another apple.

 

 

 

Lots of incorrect stuff going on here.

The same chip running at higher clocks (but same voltages) WILL use more power, since it's switching faster.

The whole more heat=more resistance is FALSE when you're talking about semiconductors: in fact, resistance in semiconductors decreases with temperature.

You can't just use DC calculations for this kind of stuff (if you want to go deep enough) since it's not a simple DC circuit.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, Agost said:

 

 

Lots of incorrect stuff going on here.

The same chip running at higher clocks (but same voltages) WILL use more power, since it's switching faster.

The whole more heat=more resistance is FALSE when you're talking about semiconductors: in fact, resistance in semiconductors decreases with temperature.

You can't just use DC calculations for this kind of stuff (if you want to go deep enough) since it's not a simple DC circuit.

the same chip

 

last time i checked, the RX 480 was made by AMD and the GTX 1070 was made by Nvidia.

 

and yes heat increases resistance. Not directly at silicone level, but at solder and VRM level. I should have clarified that better. The basic principles still holds true.

[Bouzoo]

4 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

I am looking at power draw. 480 uses 70% less power and achieves 50% less performance than a 1070 - that would make it more efficient.

Actually I'll agree, if that turns out to be true. If that leak is false, everything what I just said partially doesn't hold ground. More efficient, yes. But still bad temps when compared to NV. 

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

Actually I'll agree, if that turns out to be true. If that leak is false, everything what I just said partially doesn't hold ground. More efficient, yes. But still bad temps when compared to NV. 

A vapor chamber performs better than a small aluminium heatsink - nothing surprising about that

[Agosto]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

the same chip

 

last time i checked, the RX 480 was made by AMD and the GTX 1070 was made by Nvidia.

 

and yes heat increases resistance. Not directly at silicone level, but at solder and VRM level. I should have clarified that better. The basic principles still holds true.

I wasn't referring to these cards, but in a general case. You said that clockspeed has nothing to do with heat (directly related to power dissipated), which is false

Moreover, the whole 

Quote

the more amps, the more heat, the more heat, the more resistance, the more voltage you need to push through the conductors to overcome the resistance and maintain the same power draw.

makes no sense, since higher temps on the chip lead to higher power consumption, just as I said before. You can't just ignore the silicon, since it's where the power will be dissipated. Remember that VRM have big MOSFETs, and you know, those are made with semiconductors.

[YubinTheBunny]

22 minutes ago, Lays said:

If it's near 390x performance, it's not even close to 980 ti.

 

The 980 ti is like 40% faster than a 390x.

Well, I wouldn't say 40%, it's more like 20-25% in most of the gaming benchmarks. Still quite the large margin though, but even if the RX 480 performs like a R9 390x that's not bad considering the msrp is only going to be like $200 (usd) (Plus it's going to consume less power, and going to be smaller to). 

[Mr.Kios]

1 minute ago, YubinTheBunny said:

Well, I wouldn't say 40%, it's more like 20-25% in most of the gaming benchmarks. Still quite the large margin though, but even if the RX 480 performs like a R9 390x that's not bad considering the msrp is only going to be like $200 (usd) (Plus it's going to consume less power, and going to be smaller to). 

Yeap i cannot believe it to reach 980 ti performance, though i would be happily surprised if it could come even 15% away from 980 ti. My expectations are more like 390x or 5% better than the 390x. If it does that i consider it a big success, if it is exactly like 390x then i still consider it a success. If it goes like 15% less than a 980 Ti then the hype is real. Still, we don't have official info, and the leaks, i consider them to be hyped as hell, so i cannot take them to be true. We ll see down the road how it will match up.

[AlwaysFSX]

55 minutes ago, Prysin said:

temperatures of the core is not related to actual heat displaced.

 

a FX 8320 running 4.77GHz on a 92mm Noctua NH-D9L will sit around 57c on 80% fan speed (thats my own results btw).

a i7 4790k on a 240mm AIO with 50% fan speed, at stock clocks sits around 49c in the same room under the same conditions.

 

There is no question that a 92mm cooler with 80% fan speed is nowhere NEAR as efficient at cooling as a 240mm AIO at even 20% fan speed.

 

The difference comes in the design of the CPU, IHS, TIM and cooler.

The FX is producing nearly 200W, whilst the i7 is producing barely 80w. However the FX is "Soldered", and moves heat MUCH faster from the core to the top of the IHS and further to the cooler. Whilst the i7 is using a TIM that is good at moving heat, but not nearly AS good.

 

However GPUs are cooled directly on DIE. They do not use a IHS.

Likewise. the RX 480 cooler is using a copper slug embedded into a ALU heatsink, compare that to a massive copper vaporchamber mounted onto a even bigger heatsink.

 

Obviously, the bigger heatsink, and the much more efficient vapor chamber, will transfer heat from the GTX die in a order of magnitude more efficient then a simple copper slug will.

To be fair, I'm being 100% sarcastic. Their temperatures and power draws are AMAZING.

[Mr.Kios]

So more overwatch gameplay shows 1080P ultra all filters on hovering about 95-108 fps.
source: 

 

[Briggsy]

2 hours ago, AlwaysFSX said:

AMD is letting everyone down here.

It's mostly the circle-jerking idiots at /r/AMD that are causing the let down and spreading over-hype to the rest of the internet. Every rational piece of data says the 480 sits between the 390 and 390x at stock, but somehow its going to beat the FuryX because the AMD echo chamber says so.