AMD once again violating power specifications? (AMD RX-480)

[Majestic]

3 minutes ago, SageOfSpice said:

I'm not really going to trust this until I see enough people test it.

Don't expect a plethora of reviewers running the same kit, as was stated earlier. If a test is done properly, with care, I don't see how it's invalidated simply for being the only one reporting it.

[GzeroD]

8 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Because system power is less accurate. Different cards can have different CPU loads (driver efficiency), meaning they can obfuscate the amount the card draws. It can also mean they ran a different scenario than Tom's hardware. Try running either Crysis 3 or Unigine Heaven. My system went up from 220W to 320W running Crysis 3.

 

It seems Tom's hardware uses a benchmark that specifically loads the board to it's full capacity (memory and GPU). They also explain as much in the review btw.

 

 

thanks, I was mostly looking at this image when i made that comment 

 

Which is out of line with the rest in the article 
 

especially given that this is their custom tests image

 

[AresKrieger]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Consider that those who are discussing it so much are within the enthusiast community, which is not necessarily the majority of customers. At the end of the day for a product to sell well you need good performance for the buck and good marketing. AMD has the first but it has always lacked the latter. That doesn't mean this will be a failure for them, but it certainly won't place them ahead in the market. If they ever get to that point it will be a slow process, but it could start now.

Oh I don't think it will be an outright failure, just that anyone caught in the hype will be disappointed and flame wars will have this as a topic for a while, until something else gets fanboys jimmies in a knot

[SageOfSpice]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Don't expect a plethora of reviewers running the same kit, as was stated earlier. If a test is done properly, with care, I don't see how it's invalidated simply for being the only one reporting it.

I never said it was invalidated, it's just my personal policy to never trust 1 source, no matter how reliable they may be.

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

I think this is the point when the topic of paper launches becomes relevant again in the discussion.

 

I've always been in favour of benchmarks preceding a launch by a few days at least. I believe it gives time for problems to be weeded out and removed from the public eye beforehand. I'm sure there are still people that are cool with benchmarks coming out on the launch day, but they probably haven't bought a 480 before finding out their cheap motherboard might melt.

Even if reviews come out a few days before launch its still highly likely that something will be missed anyway. As a buyer you take risks when you buy into a new product on day 1.

[zMeul]

I'm loving it, AMD finally being exposed for thy actually are - fucking liars

I'm quite curious on how exactly will they fix this because power delivery circuitry isn't "fixable" with a software switch - vBIOS update

 

they're crucifying AMD over reddit, specifically at /r/amd: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4qfwd4/rx480_fails_pcie_specification/

AMD's Robert is in full damage control mode claiming RX480 didn't failed PCIe SIG specs

Quote

The RX 480 meets the bar for PCIe compliance testing with PCI-SIG. //edit: and interop with PCI Express. This is not just our internal testing. I think that should be made very clear. Obviously there are a few GPUs exhibiting anomalous behavior, and we've been in touch with these reviewers for a few days to better understand their test configurations to see how this could be possible.

thank god for outlets like Tom's who have the guts and knowledge to dive into the in dept analysis of power usage

[Briggsy]

5 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Even if reviews come out a few days before launch its still highly likely that something will be missed anyway. As a buyer you take risks when you buy into a new product on day 1.

True, it's not foolproof, but at least it would give and time to release a prelaunch bios to lock down pcie power draw, if possible. If they gotta recall, that will be the second amd launch in a row that gets rma'd to death.

[laminutederire]

The issue with that graph in my opinion, is that Tomshardware is kinda using that card in a situation it wouldn't be normally: who the hell will try to max out games at 4K with that card expecting good results?

I'm curious to know what that experiment gives in more "usual" scenarios, such as the same game with the same settings at 1080p or 1440p. Does it causes the same issue?

If not, then there is basically not much issues for the cards users who will play at those resolutions and not at 4K. 

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

The issue with that graph in my opinion, is that Tomshardware is kinda using that card in a situation it wouldn't be normally: who the hell will try to max out games at 4K with that card expecting good results?

It just maximises board draw, games like Crysis 3 do the same at 1080p. This is goalpost shifting...

[Briggsy]

3 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

The issue with that graph in my opinion, is that Tomshardware is kinda using that card in a situation it wouldn't be normally: who the hell will try to max out games at 4K with that card expecting good results?

I'm curious to know what that experiment gives in more "usual" scenarios, such as the same game with the same settings at 1080p or 1440p. Does it causes the same issue?

If not, then there is basically not much issues for the cards users who will play at those resolutions and not at 4K. 

Vr might push the 480 just as hard.

[SageOfSpice]

2 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

The issue with that graph in my opinion, is that Tomshardware is kinda using that card in a situation it wouldn't be normally: who the hell will try to max out games at 4K with that card expecting good results?

I'm curious to know what that experiment gives in more "usual" scenarios, such as the same game with the same settings at 1080p or 1440p. Does it causes the same issue?

If not, then there is basically not much issues for the cards users who will play at those resolutions and not at 4K. 

That's an irrelevant point on the subject matter.

You wouldn't be okay with your PSU overvolting all your components, so why would you be okay with a GPU doing the same?

 

The point is that it's not a worthy final product. It's a dangerous final product, even.

[Briggsy]

4 minutes ago, SageOfSpice said:

That's an irrelevant point on the subject matter.

You wouldn't be okay with your PSU overvolting all your components, so why would you be okay with a GPU doing the same?

 

The point is that it's not a worthy final product. It's a dangerous final product, even.

It's funny, there were early leaks that said the 480 wouldn't go past 1080mhz without further bios updates because of power issues. Guess there was some truth to the rumor.

[GzeroD]

5 minutes ago, Majestic said:

It just maximises board draw, games like Crysis 3 do the same at 1080p. This is goalpost shifting...

the image you linked too is the metro last light 4k test. The "torture test" shows significantly lower GPU power consumption which is why I am questioning it. Unless I missed something (which is always a possibility, so if I did please mention it.)

[DevilishBooster]

1 hour ago, Majestic said:

That mainboard was specifically designed in-house by MSI to function as the mainboard for these units, expect precautions were taken. How is something that custom even remotely relevant. Do you think all mainboard manuf. outfit all their boards with those specifications? 

Uhm.... You do realize that in order for MSI to use a PCIe or MXM interface (or say that they are using those interfaces) in the Vortex that they still have to follow the standards that have been set as par as power limits go right? Therefore you could say that it is a point of proof that the current PCIe standardized power limits associated with ATX and ITX motherboards can handle the little tiny extra load exerted by the 480. And honestly, if you are using a motherboard that cannot handle an extra 10-15W through the PCIe/24-pin then you are using hardware that is old enough that you shouldn't be using an RX-480 with it. Any motherboard that has PCIe 16x Gen 3 slots should be able to handle the power requirements of the RX-480 just fine.

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, GzeroD said:

the image you linked too is the metro last light 4k test. The "torture test" shows significantly lower GPU power consumption which is why I am questioning it. Unless I missed something (which is always a possibility, so if I did please mention it.)

Torture tests usually involve highest GPU load to maximise the temperature. Not necessarily highest board stress.

The 4K test is therefor specifically chosen to maximise board/PCB stress. Like Crysis 3 also does.

[maulemall]

Funny that not 1 reviewer had any issue with any MBs failing.

None. Not one.

In Fact EVERY review was It's great.

But people come on this board and call AMD "Fucking liars".

Classy board.

[Majestic]

7 minutes ago, DevilishBooster said:

Uhm.... You do realize that in order for MSI to use a PCIe or MXM interface (or say that they are using those interfaces) in the Vortex that they still have to follow the standards that have been set as par as power limits go right? Therefore you could say that it is a point of proof that the current PCIe standardized power limits associated with ATX and ITX motherboards can handle the little tiny extra load exerted by the 480. And honestly, if you are using a motherboard that cannot handle an extra 10-15W through the PCIe/24-pin then you are using hardware that is old enough that you shouldn't be using an RX-480 with it. Any motherboard that has PCIe 16x Gen 3 slots should be able to handle the power requirements of the RX-480 just fine.

Those are a lot of assumptions based off of 1 sample. And I think a custom product that only fits in a proprietary machine would more easily get a free pass than a bulk product that is supposed to have wide compatibility.

 

And just like Prysin, you're simply brushing off violations of specs as "get a better system/PSU pleb". It's anti-consumerist.

[GzeroD]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

Torture tests usually involve highest GPU load to maximise the temperature. Not necessarily highest board stress.

I understand that but if it is pushing the core and memory to its maximum limits a standard game even at high settings shouldn't peak at 75w more than the artificial test. This would make me assume there was an error in test methodology or a glitch with the power delivery / power related bios leading to that spike.

[Majestic]

1 minute ago, GzeroD said:

I understand that but if it is pushing the core and memory to its maximum limits a standard game even at high settings shouldn't peak at 75w more than the artificial test. This would make me assume there was an error in test methodology or a glitch with the power delivery / power related bios leading to that spike.

What is erroneous about testing possible worst case scenario? Again, Crysis 3 at 1080p isn't unreasonable and would draw the same amount of power.

[Briggsy]

when the TDP rated at 120watts, I would generally expect the card to never go above this at stock clocks (in a reasonably cooled environment).

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2848/radeon-rx-480

[DevilishBooster]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

Those are a lot of assumptions based off of 1 sample. And I think a custom product that only fits in a proprietary machine would more easily get a free pass than a bulk product that is supposed to have wide compatibility.

No, as several people have stated previously in the thread, a standard is a standard is a standard. If MSI is going to say that their custom PCB designs follow the PCI and MXM standards, then they better damn well follow those standards and no proprietary product should ever be given a pass from the requirements of an industry standard.

[stconquest]

I have seen Tom's torture test take a Windforce GTX 980 OC (not Ti) and cause it to draw a whopping 260W-280W (not system draw).  That is roughly 100W above most testing at load with that card.

 

IDK, I would wait before flaming AMD.

[maulemall]

I think tomshardware is full of shit. What a story would it have been to have their card Blaze away... Why would you stop a test that was going to be probably the HOTTEST test on the whole freakin Internet??

Seems some nvidea pocket money has made an appearance.

[GzeroD]

the torture test and the crisis test should be similar is the problem. a major difference in results like we see here should not be happening as long as the card is not downclocking for the torture test, it makes it look like the reviewer is including the CPU power consumption or other power consumption from on board (the motherboard) devices

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, DevilishBooster said:

No, as several people have stated previously in the thread, a standard is a standard is a standard. If MSI is going to say that their custom PCB designs follow the PCI and MXM standards, then they better damn well follow those standards and no proprietary product should ever be given a pass from the requirements of an industry standard.

But no test was deducted on that board, so why is it relevant. You have no idea how the powerlayout is set up...