For those considering a RX 480 this video shares useful info about causing potential system failure with cheap or older motherboards that can't supply enough power to the pci-e slot: https://youtu.be/rhjC_8ai7QA
Yeah, what's the deal with that power overdrawing?
---------- Post merged on 03-07-2016 at 01:26 AM ----------
Here is one review: http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-pcie-power-issue-detailed-overclocking-investigated/
Bottom line - don't overclock it. Wait for custom designs to come out which have extra power connectors.
---------- Post merged on 03-07-2016 at 01:26 AM ----------
Here is one review: http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-pcie-power-issue-detailed-overclocking-investigated/
Bottom line - don't overclock it. Wait for custom designs to come out which have extra power connectors.
They designed it with only a single 6 pin connector so if an application requires more power than the 6 pin connector can deliver (for whatever reason) it'll attempt to get that from the PCI-e slot. Some motherboards can't support this very well so the PC shuts down when this happens. It can happen even at stock speeds with no overclocking if you have a finicky motherboard that can't properly support the power draw from the PCI-e slot. Most GPU's get the majority of their power from the PSU and don't rely so heavily on the PCI-e slot which is why this is a problem with the 6 pin RX 480's (they don't receive enough power from the PSU).
Last edited:
All power comes from the PSU. Also when the RX480 goes beyond its 150W board power as specified by the PCI SIG, it loads the PCIe slot and the power connectors rather evenly with ~80 W. However, the slot and board are more likely to cause problems or even take damage from that than the 6-pin connector/power cords; it's therefore a stupid oversight by AMD to let this happen. But custom boards by the board partners, which will be the absolute majority of sold cards, should definitely fix that, or the AIBs are even more incompetent.
Last edited:
Desk suggestions:
I have a relatively small desk (approx. 110 cm long) where I keep my monitor, speakers, keyboard, mouse, etc. Currently I have my computer on the carpet which isn't entirely terrible since my case (Fractal Design Define R4) has some sort of short legs and is pretty well sealed. I want, however, to have it a bit elevated to avoid dust among other things (and make vacuuming easier). I don't want to buy one of those tacky "computer desks" or a massive (and expensive) solid wood office desk. Is there some kind of short and long table I can get somewhere, that could support such a wide and heavy case? I suppose I could also try and make it myself with a wooden plank and something solid underneath.
So, ideas?
I have a relatively small desk (approx. 110 cm long) where I keep my monitor, speakers, keyboard, mouse, etc. Currently I have my computer on the carpet which isn't entirely terrible since my case (Fractal Design Define R4) has some sort of short legs and is pretty well sealed. I want, however, to have it a bit elevated to avoid dust among other things (and make vacuuming easier). I don't want to buy one of those tacky "computer desks" or a massive (and expensive) solid wood office desk. Is there some kind of short and long table I can get somewhere, that could support such a wide and heavy case? I suppose I could also try and make it myself with a wooden plank and something solid underneath.
So, ideas?
Well, that problem is easy to solve...
Use a CPU stand!
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/183-1941361-0391407?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=CPU+stands
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=CPU+stands&N=-1&isNodeId=1
[/URL]
Use a CPU stand!
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/183-1941361-0391407?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=CPU+stands
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=CPU+stands&N=-1&isNodeId=1
[/URL]
Of course all power comes from the PSU, but what I was referring to (and probably should have specified) is direct power from the PSU instead of having it being routed through the PCI-e slot. The specifications for PCI-e shows the maximum power draw from PCI-e at 75 watts and the RX 480 will draw more than 80 watts, putting it out of spec and causing crashes on certain motherboards.
And you're correct, hopefully aftermarket cards will add more power connectors to solve this problem. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up about the issue and to let people know they should avoid the reference cards if AMD doesn't solve this problem.
@volsung: I prefer a deep desk, to have more distance for the monitor. At least 75cm deep (around 29"-30"). There aren't many desks like that. You can simply get a table - it often works just as well. Ikea ones are too flimsy. You need something more solid to hold a heavy computer.
Last edited:
Thanks @M4xw0lf and @Gilrond-i-Virdan. I have actually looked into Ikea desks but they do feel too flimsy. Maybe I will look for a regular table instead. I know some computer desks come with some sort of computer stand with wheels and I'd be into something similar: a short, sturdy table thing with or without wheels. Say, 10 to 20 cm above ground, but wide and strong enough to hold a computer. Do they make/sell those?
Thanks @Phinnway. I saw some on Ebay too but I'm undecided about whether I want the computer tower on the desk itself or slightly hidden. I am fond of large, study office desks but they can be quite large.
I do have an idea now. Browsing and searching led me to this:
which I could probably set up by myself from Ikea components. I'll see what I can do and report.
I do have an idea now. Browsing and searching led me to this:
which I could probably set up by myself from Ikea components. I'll see what I can do and report.
Not sure if my Pa is just some super AMD fanboy or if he is talking any shred of sense, hoping someone without a bias can give me a decent answer because I see a lot of back and forth, when it comes to the next big upgrade (Keeping DX12 in mind) should I be looking at a GTX 1080 or one of these shiny new AMD cards.
Supposedly (says my AMD fanboy Pa) the AMD one's will be better suited for DX12 and as such be better moving forward.
Any concrete stuff or is my Pa just full of rubbish?
Supposedly (says my AMD fanboy Pa) the AMD one's will be better suited for DX12 and as such be better moving forward.
Any concrete stuff or is my Pa just full of rubbish?
@Laux-Antille It's a bit early to tell, but AMD seems to be more ready for the newer APIs, namely DX12 and Vulkan (I'm an Nvidia user by the way, but not a fanboy; I changed "colours" many times in the past 
). Tests show that especially on games with asynchronous computing (which is an important part of the newer APIs) they overperform compared to Nvidia cards, while Nvidia cards finally stopped performing "worse" than DX11 versions with Pascal (in that they are performing the same now...). It's apparent with RX 480 which sometimes performs better than a 980 Ti in some DX12 games, which is not its competition at all.
However, this might be because DX12 and Vulkan is not widespread yet, and Nvidia simply did not focus on them because of that. So they might perform much better with their next generations, as the APIs become more common. As it stands though, AMD has the lead here. The issue is though, even with that lead, they don't have GTX 1070 and 1080 beat with RX 480. You might go with stuff like Fury X, but they are old cards with less efficiency now. You might want to wait for Vega cards to decide, if you can wait. If not, we need to wait and see factory overclocked RX 480s and so on. Maaaaaybe their crossfire performance will have you covered, but it's usually not that good to rely on multiple GPU setups.
Long story short: yes, AMD is better in new APIs; no, it's not certain if they'll stay that way; it is definitely a certainty that even with the advantage here, RX 480 loses compared to a 1070 or a 1080. Anyone else want to join in here? I might have missed some things.
). Tests show that especially on games with asynchronous computing (which is an important part of the newer APIs) they overperform compared to Nvidia cards, while Nvidia cards finally stopped performing "worse" than DX11 versions with Pascal (in that they are performing the same now...). It's apparent with RX 480 which sometimes performs better than a 980 Ti in some DX12 games, which is not its competition at all.However, this might be because DX12 and Vulkan is not widespread yet, and Nvidia simply did not focus on them because of that. So they might perform much better with their next generations, as the APIs become more common. As it stands though, AMD has the lead here. The issue is though, even with that lead, they don't have GTX 1070 and 1080 beat with RX 480. You might go with stuff like Fury X, but they are old cards with less efficiency now. You might want to wait for Vega cards to decide, if you can wait. If not, we need to wait and see factory overclocked RX 480s and so on. Maaaaaybe their crossfire performance will have you covered, but it's usually not that good to rely on multiple GPU setups.
Long story short: yes, AMD is better in new APIs; no, it's not certain if they'll stay that way; it is definitely a certainty that even with the advantage here, RX 480 loses compared to a 1070 or a 1080. Anyone else want to join in here? I might have missed some things.
^^ AMD cards are currently better optimized for DX12. The reason why is DX12 shares many similarities with Mantel, an open-source API developed by AMD a few years back. Microsoft took all the good ideas from Mantel and incorporated them into DX12. As a result, AMD engineers are currently more experienced with DX12 than Nvidia engineers are, but it won't stay that way for long.
Power-wise, the RX480 is roughly comparable to a GTX 970 (on DX11 games) and a GTX 980 on DX12 games. The GTX 1080 is a far more powerful card - even more powerful than a Titan X. It's designed for people who always need to have the latest and greatest product, or who have a lot of cash to throw around. The RX480 is designed for people who are looking for a serviceable card with a great value proposition. For those looking for something in between there is the GTX 1060 and GTX 1070.
And for those who are wondering why low-end cards are suddenly on par with last generation's high-end card, it's because there was a breakthrough in GPU architecture. This is also why a new generation of consoles was announced this year.
edit: If you do go for the RX480, you probably want to get the version that has 8GB of vRAM. It's a little more expensive, but you wouldn't want to get stuck with only 4GB of vRAM for the next generation of games.
Power-wise, the RX480 is roughly comparable to a GTX 970 (on DX11 games) and a GTX 980 on DX12 games. The GTX 1080 is a far more powerful card - even more powerful than a Titan X. It's designed for people who always need to have the latest and greatest product, or who have a lot of cash to throw around. The RX480 is designed for people who are looking for a serviceable card with a great value proposition. For those looking for something in between there is the GTX 1060 and GTX 1070.
And for those who are wondering why low-end cards are suddenly on par with last generation's high-end card, it's because there was a breakthrough in GPU architecture. This is also why a new generation of consoles was announced this year.
edit: If you do go for the RX480, you probably want to get the version that has 8GB of vRAM. It's a little more expensive, but you wouldn't want to get stuck with only 4GB of vRAM for the next generation of games.
Last edited:
It's a bit early to tell, but AMD seems to be more ready for the newer APIs, namely DX12 and Vulkan (I'm an Nvidia user by the way, but not a fanboy; I changed "colours" many times in the past
However, this might be because DX12 and Vulkan is not widespread yet, and Nvidia simply did not focus on them because of that. So they might perform much better with their next generations, as the APIs become more common. As it stands though, AMD has the lead here. The issue is though, even with that lead, they don't have GTX 1070 and 1080 beat with RX 480. You might go with stuff like Fury X, but they are old cards with less efficiency now. You might want to wait for Vega cards to decide, if you can wait. If not, we need to wait and see factory overclocked RX 480s and so on. Maaaaaybe their crossfire performance will have you covered, but it's usually not that good to rely on multiple GPU setups.
Long story short: yes, AMD is better in new APIs; no, it's not certain if they'll stay that way; it is definitely a certainty that even with the advantage here, RX 480 loses compared to a 1070 or a 1080. Anyone else want to join in here? I might have missed some things.
Insanely comprehensive, and incredibly quick, thank you.
I wasn't planning to upgrade for a while, I have a 980 still at the mo' it'll last for a while longer, looks like it'll just wait for the next big cards. These new ones don't seem like that big an upgrade and surely all this DX12 stuff isn't too extreme. (Also I'd never take anyone who put together such a great analysis as a fanboy of anything, it had no bias) cheers.
Thanks @Phinnway. I saw some on Ebay too but I'm undecided about whether I want the computer tower on the desk itself or slightly hidden. I am fond of large, study office desks but they can be quite large.
I do have an idea now. Browsing and searching led me to this:
which I could probably set up by myself from Ikea components. I'll see what I can do and report.
That's actually what I had in mind, as I understood you didn't want to buy a new desk, but only a stand for your PC.
Not exactly. The story is more complicated. AMD developed Mantle, and decided to open source it. MS saw it as a threat to their lock-in, so they asked AMD to make DX12 for them (before open Mantle will come out). And AMD did. There was documentation published for DX12 which shows that it's a verbatim copy of Mantle one practically. I.e. MS didn't do it, they simply could not do such huge work in such a short time.
Then AMD gave Mantle over to Khronos, since they wanted it to be cross vendor, not locked to their hardware. It became Vulkan.
So basically the only reason MS jumped the gun with DX12 is because they understood that Vulkan will become a reality one way or another, so they hired same AMD to preserve MS lock-in. In this sense AMD helped everyone by boosting Vulkan release with Mantle, and at the same time messed things up by helping MS to release DX12. Really weird from developers' perspective, but for AMD it was about being paid by MS. I think they made a mistake publishing Mantle so early saying they'll open it, without actually opening it up until much later. It gave MS too much advantage to run ahead and mess things up for everyone with their lock-in.
So, surely AMD are more experienced in DX12. They created it. Vulkan is also almost a direct creation of them through Mantle, but it had more collaborative input from many other groups including Nvidia.
---------- Updated at 08:32 PM ----------
@Laux-Antille: see above.
Last edited:
Interesting news. Needs to be confirmed though. But if the overclocking capabilities would be similar with custom-made AIB designs and the performance scaling with the clock speed increases holds up, the card may be able to beat a 980 consistently. For that price, that would be nothing but miraculous. I'm really excited to see benchmarks for custom RX 480s and GTX 1060s
http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-overclocked-air-water/
http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-480-overclocked-air-water/