Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did the new AMD video cards fail?

1234568

Comments

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,211
    filmoret said:
    laserit said:
    Holy problems Batman

    I've got over 20 computers, 6 high end rigs running Cad's. Probably over 50-60 rigs over the last 25 years, lost count. I haven't had a  single graphic card issue period, over all those years.

    I wonder how many people ever blow the dust out of their systems.
    What cards you using?
    Quite a range

    Each system is upgraded/replaced as needed. All my Cad systems run on Nvidia cards and their hand me downs. I'm currently running a gtx1080 at home, my Cad at work runs my old Titan X, others are  gtx980, a Titan, a couple gtx780's and a gtx680.

    90% of my cad work is in sheet metal and I'm not dealing with monstrous assemblies. I'm a job shop, I run six seats of Solidworks and a single seat of Autocad Inventor.

    The office systems, I don't bother with. My IT supplier takes care of them. Nowadays most the office computers run on integrated graphics. My IT supplier has historically preferred Nvidia products.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,911
    Cleffy said:
    The eVGA thing really isn't nVidia's fault. nVidia only makes the chip which runs cool. They can't be held accountable if the board partner doesn't cool the VRM. MSI did something similar as well by pushing the voltage on a card well beyond its limits a few years ago. The only instance I can think of where nVidia or AMD was responsible for frying cards was the 8500m/8600m. A driver update caused these chips to run out of spec frying them.
    Since 2006, nVidia has had a worse record for driver updates. The only anomaly I can think of in the last decade with AMD was with UI overlays in nVidia sponsored titles out of the blue. I am pretty sure that was something outside AMDs control as rolling back the drivers did nothing to correct the issue. It was fixed a month later. It's just the benefit of updating only 2 architectures verse updating 7.
    The infamous GTX590 catching on fire was pretty much nVidia's fault, as there were only reference designs for that card available if I recall.

    And the 364.xx drivers bricking cards - supposedly screwed up fan control and fried cards for some people, which is probably not vendor specific.

    But yeah, the EVGA thing is vendor specific.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,934
    edited November 2016
    laserit said:
    filmoret said:
    laserit said:
    Holy problems Batman

    I've got over 20 computers, 6 high end rigs running Cad's. Probably over 50-60 rigs over the last 25 years, lost count. I haven't had a  single graphic card issue period, over all those years.

    I wonder how many people ever blow the dust out of their systems.
    What cards you using?
    Quite a range

    Each system is upgraded/replaced as needed. All my Cad systems run on Nvidia cards and their hand me downs. I'm currently running a gtx1080 at home, my Cad at work runs my old Titan X, others are  gtx980, a Titan, a couple gtx780's and a gtx680.

    90% of my cad work is in sheet metal and I'm not dealing with monstrous assemblies. I'm a job shop, I run six seats of Solidworks and a single seat of Autocad Inventor.

    The office systems, I don't bother with. My IT supplier takes care of them. Nowadays most the office computers run on integrated graphics. My IT supplier has historically preferred Nvidia products.
    It would be interesting to see how an RX 480 8GB would stack up against some of those other cards. It's at the bottom of the price range. If you ever do use an AMD card make a thread and let us know how it compares for what you do.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    Ridelynn said:
    Cleffy said:
    The eVGA thing really isn't nVidia's fault. nVidia only makes the chip which runs cool. They can't be held accountable if the board partner doesn't cool the VRM. MSI did something similar as well by pushing the voltage on a card well beyond its limits a few years ago. The only instance I can think of where nVidia or AMD was responsible for frying cards was the 8500m/8600m. A driver update caused these chips to run out of spec frying them.
    Since 2006, nVidia has had a worse record for driver updates. The only anomaly I can think of in the last decade with AMD was with UI overlays in nVidia sponsored titles out of the blue. I am pretty sure that was something outside AMDs control as rolling back the drivers did nothing to correct the issue. It was fixed a month later. It's just the benefit of updating only 2 architectures verse updating 7.
    The infamous GTX590 catching on fire was pretty much nVidia's fault, as there were only reference designs for that card available if I recall.

    And the 364.xx drivers bricking cards - supposedly screwed up fan control and fried cards for some people, which is probably not vendor specific.

    But yeah, the EVGA thing is vendor specific.
    Dont forget the RX 480 is drawing too much power and frying motherboards.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,911
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    Cleffy said:
    The eVGA thing really isn't nVidia's fault. nVidia only makes the chip which runs cool. They can't be held accountable if the board partner doesn't cool the VRM. MSI did something similar as well by pushing the voltage on a card well beyond its limits a few years ago. The only instance I can think of where nVidia or AMD was responsible for frying cards was the 8500m/8600m. A driver update caused these chips to run out of spec frying them.
    Since 2006, nVidia has had a worse record for driver updates. The only anomaly I can think of in the last decade with AMD was with UI overlays in nVidia sponsored titles out of the blue. I am pretty sure that was something outside AMDs control as rolling back the drivers did nothing to correct the issue. It was fixed a month later. It's just the benefit of updating only 2 architectures verse updating 7.
    The infamous GTX590 catching on fire was pretty much nVidia's fault, as there were only reference designs for that card available if I recall.

    And the 364.xx drivers bricking cards - supposedly screwed up fan control and fried cards for some people, which is probably not vendor specific.

    But yeah, the EVGA thing is vendor specific.
    Dont forget the RX 480 is drawing too much power and frying motherboards.
    I do remember hearing that, and I was going to include that in this list, but I couldn't find a reliable source. Seems the people with fried motherboards were also overclocking, and that was part of the problem. The 590s and 364 driver, I could find reports of people having issues with everything at stock vaniilla settings.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,911
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    HardOCP has a good article out today. Notice they don't even mention the 1050 at all, which leads me to think they have more or less the same conclusion as some of us have made - if you need to spend less than that on a GPU, your better off looking at other options.

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/10/30/msi_geforce_gtx_1050_ti_gaming_x_vs_amd_radeon_rx_470/1

    The whole video card range from $100-$200 is complicated and muddled with video card after video card overlapping each other in price. Gamer’s needs vary, gamer’s budgets vary, and most of the time your wallet does the talking on which video card you can afford.

    At the very low-end, we would bypass the AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB video card for the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti instead. Just don’t spend too much on that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, if you can get one for around $139 you will be getting a video card that is very capable at 1080p. Don’t forget it has a lot of overclocking potential as well. What you don’t want to do however is overspend on one.

    If you are going to spend $160 or upwards, you really should be shooting for the AMD Radeon RX 470 at the least now. Even a reference spec Radeon RX 470 is going to smash the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, even overclocked. The gameplay experience is going to be massively better. If you can snag a card that has some overclocking potential you will find big gains to be had on the Radeon RX 470’s performance in games. It also does really well in DX12 currently.

    But they ARE talking about the 1050.  Maybe you missed something here.
    There is a 1050, and there's a 1050 Ti. They are two different cards, at two different prices.

    HardOCP only evaluated the Ti version.

    Maybe I have missed something, but I don't think it was what you pointed out.
    I wasn't aware that the 1050 is even available for testing.  
    The 1050 is in stock at Newegg right now, for ~$110-$140. The 1050 Ti is also in stock, for ~$140-$180.
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    edited November 2016
    Ridelynn said:
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    HardOCP has a good article out today. Notice they don't even mention the 1050 at all, which leads me to think they have more or less the same conclusion as some of us have made - if you need to spend less than that on a GPU, your better off looking at other options.

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/10/30/msi_geforce_gtx_1050_ti_gaming_x_vs_amd_radeon_rx_470/1

    The whole video card range from $100-$200 is complicated and muddled with video card after video card overlapping each other in price. Gamer’s needs vary, gamer’s budgets vary, and most of the time your wallet does the talking on which video card you can afford.

    At the very low-end, we would bypass the AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB video card for the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti instead. Just don’t spend too much on that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, if you can get one for around $139 you will be getting a video card that is very capable at 1080p. Don’t forget it has a lot of overclocking potential as well. What you don’t want to do however is overspend on one.

    If you are going to spend $160 or upwards, you really should be shooting for the AMD Radeon RX 470 at the least now. Even a reference spec Radeon RX 470 is going to smash the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, even overclocked. The gameplay experience is going to be massively better. If you can snag a card that has some overclocking potential you will find big gains to be had on the Radeon RX 470’s performance in games. It also does really well in DX12 currently.

    But they ARE talking about the 1050.  Maybe you missed something here.
    There is a 1050, and there's a 1050 Ti. They are two different cards, at two different prices.

    HardOCP only evaluated the Ti version.

    Maybe I have missed something, but I don't think it was what you pointed out.
    I wasn't aware that the 1050 is even available for testing.  
    The 1050 is in stock at Newegg right now, for ~$110-$140. The 1050 Ti is also in stock, for ~$140-$180.
    wut ima buy one right now.

    Ok got one on order still in stock.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros Member EpicPosts: 2,924
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    HardOCP has a good article out today. Notice they don't even mention the 1050 at all, which leads me to think they have more or less the same conclusion as some of us have made - if you need to spend less than that on a GPU, your better off looking at other options.

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/10/30/msi_geforce_gtx_1050_ti_gaming_x_vs_amd_radeon_rx_470/1

    The whole video card range from $100-$200 is complicated and muddled with video card after video card overlapping each other in price. Gamer’s needs vary, gamer’s budgets vary, and most of the time your wallet does the talking on which video card you can afford.

    At the very low-end, we would bypass the AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB video card for the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti instead. Just don’t spend too much on that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, if you can get one for around $139 you will be getting a video card that is very capable at 1080p. Don’t forget it has a lot of overclocking potential as well. What you don’t want to do however is overspend on one.

    If you are going to spend $160 or upwards, you really should be shooting for the AMD Radeon RX 470 at the least now. Even a reference spec Radeon RX 470 is going to smash the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, even overclocked. The gameplay experience is going to be massively better. If you can snag a card that has some overclocking potential you will find big gains to be had on the Radeon RX 470’s performance in games. It also does really well in DX12 currently.

    But they ARE talking about the 1050.  Maybe you missed something here.
    There is a 1050, and there's a 1050 Ti. They are two different cards, at two different prices.

    HardOCP only evaluated the Ti version.

    Maybe I have missed something, but I don't think it was what you pointed out.
    I wasn't aware that the 1050 is even available for testing.  
    The 1050 is in stock at Newegg right now, for ~$110-$140. The 1050 Ti is also in stock, for ~$140-$180.
    wut ima buy one right now.
    You're better off saving your money and getting GTX 1060 instead.
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    HardOCP has a good article out today. Notice they don't even mention the 1050 at all, which leads me to think they have more or less the same conclusion as some of us have made - if you need to spend less than that on a GPU, your better off looking at other options.

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/10/30/msi_geforce_gtx_1050_ti_gaming_x_vs_amd_radeon_rx_470/1

    The whole video card range from $100-$200 is complicated and muddled with video card after video card overlapping each other in price. Gamer’s needs vary, gamer’s budgets vary, and most of the time your wallet does the talking on which video card you can afford.

    At the very low-end, we would bypass the AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB video card for the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti instead. Just don’t spend too much on that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, if you can get one for around $139 you will be getting a video card that is very capable at 1080p. Don’t forget it has a lot of overclocking potential as well. What you don’t want to do however is overspend on one.

    If you are going to spend $160 or upwards, you really should be shooting for the AMD Radeon RX 470 at the least now. Even a reference spec Radeon RX 470 is going to smash the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, even overclocked. The gameplay experience is going to be massively better. If you can snag a card that has some overclocking potential you will find big gains to be had on the Radeon RX 470’s performance in games. It also does really well in DX12 currently.

    But they ARE talking about the 1050.  Maybe you missed something here.
    There is a 1050, and there's a 1050 Ti. They are two different cards, at two different prices.

    HardOCP only evaluated the Ti version.

    Maybe I have missed something, but I don't think it was what you pointed out.
    I wasn't aware that the 1050 is even available for testing.  
    The 1050 is in stock at Newegg right now, for ~$110-$140. The 1050 Ti is also in stock, for ~$140-$180.
    wut ima buy one right now.
    You're better off saving your money and getting GTX 1060 instead.
    I dont care man,  I'm buying it right now before its out of stock till mid DEC.  Its like crack I cannot resist.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • GladDogGladDog Member RarePosts: 1,017
    filmoret said:
    filmoret said:
    GladDog said:
    Torval said:
    filmoret said:
    Quizzical said:
    filmoret said:
    SlyLoK said:
    13lake said:
    1050 non-Ti competing with 470 ?, lol i almost choked on water laughing at this now :)
    Indeed. The 470 IMO is the best bang for your buck on the market right now. 
    Again I ask.  What makes you think the GTX 1050 is going to run like the GTX 950?  All the benchmarks are showing the rx 470 comparable to the GTX 970.  Common sense man, the 1050 is going to be faster then the 970.  
    The GeForce GTX 1050 has 5 compute units with a max clock speed of 1455 MHz.  The GeForce GTX 970 has 13 compute units with a max clock speed of 1178 MHz.  Maxwell compute units are very close to lower end Pascal compute units, so on paper, you'd expect the GTX 970 to be a little over double the performance of a GTX 1050 if the bottleneck is something that happens inside of compute units--as it usually is unless it's memory bandwidth.

    Speaking of which, the GeForce GTX 1050 has a 128-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 GHz.  The GeForce GTX 970 has a 256-bit GDDR5 memory bus clocked at 1.75 MHz.  So the GTX 970 has double the memory bandwidth of the GTX 1050.

    So why would you expect the GTX 1050 to be in the same league as the GTX 970 outside of a handful of weird corner cases?
      Its kinda odd they made this card better then the RX 460 but not as good as the 470.  I saw some benchmarks and you are right.  It looks like they are just aiming to destroy AMD"s 460 market.  Man NVIDIA really came out full force against AMD this year.  I was going to buy the 460 but when they got the 1050 for just 10$ more then I'm getting it.

    http://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/nvidia-gtx-1050-release-date-specs
    I'm not sure where the 460 is supposed to fit in the market but it's not really gaming. The 1050 is barely a gaming card. It works okay for low end games, but then so do SoCs.


    The 460 is an entry level gaming card, but its real worth is that it is what you mate to an A-12 APU system to get proper dual graphics.  This is a cheap way to get nearly 480 level graphics in a budget system.  I doubt such a rig would be truly VR ready, but it would likely play all of the games that are out and most of the upcoming games as well.
    You saying the apu gfx can be combined with the gpu with dx12 or something?  Because I have never heard of anyone using both at the same time for gaming.
    Ok I looked it up and AMD does have this ability.  But right now its very limited and not currently available with the RX, R9 cards.
    If you have an AMD card and you look at the catalyst settings, there are settings for APU/GPU graphics.  The stuff on their website is old, but the settings still apply.  Because I have an Intel CPU, those settings are grayed out and not available to me.  I just helped a friend set up dual graphics on her A8 desktop with an R7-360.  The graphics performance level was about where an R9-380 was.  Not great, but still not bad for a video card she paid $100 for a little less than a year ago.

    Hmm, I just upgraded to the latest Catalyst drivers, and the dual graphics settings are not viewable anymore because I am using an Intel CPU.

    As far as the settings being limited, a lot of people look at the RECOMMENDED card and assume you are wasting your time to add a faster card.  Well, that is the choice that gets the most bang for your buck.  But a faster card still benefits, since some of the video processing is offloaded to the video system on the APU.  It is just that the faster the primary card, the less the GPU video can help.  But you still get better video.


    The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!


  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    The gtx 1050's have sold out already.  They got a ton of the Ti's still available though.  If you are in the 100$ range then the gtx 1050 is best choice.  180$ range you want the RX 470.  If you are in 200$ range the gtx 1060 and RX 480 seem to be about the same.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,121
    edited November 2016
    I wouldn't recommend cross firing at this point. Crossfire/sli are really hit or miss. For the majority of games it doesn't work well. Hopefully that changes in DX12 and Vulkan as the process is more streamlined and easier to apply. That being the APU + weak GPU combo. It's much cheaper just to start with the 880K and a decent GPU.
    For the APU/GPU switching, I would also avoid it. It seems to have always been buggy. Same thing with Optimus. You have to route the video output through the IGP, which can sometimes limit the output.
  • GladDogGladDog Member RarePosts: 1,017
    edited November 2016
    Cleffy said:
    I wouldn't recommend cross firing at this point. Crossfire/sli are really hit or miss. For the majority of games it doesn't work well. Hopefully that changes in DX12 and Vulkan as the process is more streamlined and easier to apply. That being the APU + weak GPU combo. It's much cheaper just to start with the 880K and a decent GPU.
    For the APU/GPU switching, I would also avoid it. It seems to have always been buggy. Same thing with Optimus. You have to route the video output through the IGP, which can sometimes limit the output.
    I dunno, I helped a friend do the A-8 R7-360 dual graphics and it worked extremely well with ESO.  She was able to get max graphics like that.
    Post edited by GladDog on


    The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!


  • ZzadZzad Member UncommonPosts: 1,401
    edited November 2016
    The GTX 1070 is the best value of this new generation of cards.
    Amazing power for a a very fair price.
  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros Member EpicPosts: 2,924
    Zzad said:
    The GTX 1070 is the best value of this new generation of cards.
    Amazing power for a a very fair price.
    I know I'm happy with it.
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    edited November 2016
    GladDog said:
    Cleffy said:
    I wouldn't recommend cross firing at this point. Crossfire/sli are really hit or miss. For the majority of games it doesn't work well. Hopefully that changes in DX12 and Vulkan as the process is more streamlined and easier to apply. That being the APU + weak GPU combo. It's much cheaper just to start with the 880K and a decent GPU.
    For the APU/GPU switching, I would also avoid it. It seems to have always been buggy. Same thing with Optimus. You have to route the video output through the IGP, which can sometimes limit the output.
    I dunno, I helped a friend do the A-8 R7-260 dual graphics and it worked extremely well with ESO.  She was able to get max graphics like that.
    So far every test I have seen for the dual480's have greatly increased fps for every game they tried.  I think this is working for them.  I wouldn't shy away from it.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,035
    edited November 2016
    filmoret said:
    GladDog said:
    Cleffy said:
    I wouldn't recommend cross firing at this point. Crossfire/sli are really hit or miss. For the majority of games it doesn't work well. Hopefully that changes in DX12 and Vulkan as the process is more streamlined and easier to apply. That being the APU + weak GPU combo. It's much cheaper just to start with the 880K and a decent GPU.
    For the APU/GPU switching, I would also avoid it. It seems to have always been buggy. Same thing with Optimus. You have to route the video output through the IGP, which can sometimes limit the output.
    I dunno, I helped a friend do the A-8 R7-260 dual graphics and it worked extremely well with ESO.  She was able to get max graphics like that.
    So far every test I have seen for the dual480's have greatly increased fps for every game they tried.  I think this is working for them.  I wouldn't shy away from it.
    Then take a look at this test:
      https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_CrossFire/

    The problem with CrossFire is that while it's good in the games that support it, there are always also a lot of games that don't support it. It's building a computer so that you could play 75% of games, when the other option is to buy a single graphic card that would be able to play 100% of games.
     
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited November 2016
    Zzad said:
    The GTX 1070 is the best value of this new generation of cards.
    Amazing power for a a very fair price.
    30% faster and 100% more expencive than RX480 (and thats looking old games, in new ones.....even worse lol)

    Yeah its a real "treat" lol.....quite similar to treats your dog leaves for you on that lawn every day lol
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    Some new benchmarks looks very solid.  They just did these tests a few days ago.  You can click the link and sort through the 15 games.  They definitely have some games where the rx480 is faster then the GTX 1060.  But most of the time its the opposite.



    http://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-gtx-1050-review/
    wee.png 75.1K
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,456
    Average frame rates?  Bah!  They should do a geometric mean, instead.  That way, you don't overweight games that give everything high frame rates and underweight games that give everything low frame rates.
  • GladDogGladDog Member RarePosts: 1,017
    filmoret said:
    Ridelynn said:
    Cleffy said:
    The eVGA thing really isn't nVidia's fault. nVidia only makes the chip which runs cool. They can't be held accountable if the board partner doesn't cool the VRM. MSI did something similar as well by pushing the voltage on a card well beyond its limits a few years ago. The only instance I can think of where nVidia or AMD was responsible for frying cards was the 8500m/8600m. A driver update caused these chips to run out of spec frying them.
    Since 2006, nVidia has had a worse record for driver updates. The only anomaly I can think of in the last decade with AMD was with UI overlays in nVidia sponsored titles out of the blue. I am pretty sure that was something outside AMDs control as rolling back the drivers did nothing to correct the issue. It was fixed a month later. It's just the benefit of updating only 2 architectures verse updating 7.
    The infamous GTX590 catching on fire was pretty much nVidia's fault, as there were only reference designs for that card available if I recall.

    And the 364.xx drivers bricking cards - supposedly screwed up fan control and fried cards for some people, which is probably not vendor specific.

    But yeah, the EVGA thing is vendor specific.
    Dont forget the RX 480 is drawing too much power and frying motherboards.
    If that problem existed, it is fixed now.  I just got an XFX RX-480 8GB card, and it is running great!  This card has an 8 pin power connector, and that extra 25w seems enough to keep the thing running reliably.

    90+fps playing ESO in Cyrodil with utter max settings, including detection range, particles and water on max settings, makes me very happy.


    The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!


  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    Quizzical said:
    Average frame rates?  Bah!  They should do a geometric mean, instead.  That way, you don't overweight games that give everything high frame rates and underweight games that give everything low frame rates.
    Actually I messed up.  There was only 1 occasion where the 480 did better then the 1060.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,744
    The chart summary shows what we figured out a while ago.
    Nvidia performs about 10% better.. and Nvidia costs about 10% more..
    Harbinger of Fools
  • flashmemoryflashmemory Member UncommonPosts: 4
    edited November 2016
    The problem with the Polaris architecture is they over sold it or basically because they couldn't compete with Nvidia offering they pumped up the Mhz. Cards are no where near what they were suppose to be when first talked about at AMD. When it was revealed the Polaris 10 series was annouced as a 95W  part but the whole card draws so much more sometimes 200W+. This is even more than the TDP of 150W. This is just for the reference design. AMD fix that but for non reference design   the overhead can go higher with overclocking. That is why you rarely see big OC non reference design cards.

    There is a few chips that actually perform to spec and you can see them go to the embedded market. They have a high ASIC quality and  those usually suppose to clock very high but perform to spec with low voltage. However, with AMD it some how doesn't translate that way. Even with High ASIC you have terribly low stability. 


    And actually in many cases lower ASIC can handle higher voltage but needs higher voltage to hit a stable OC which is why you don't see nearly as much overclocking headroom on models unlike nvidia 1060 which seem to  perform with good quality chips across the entire line. It is pretty crazy but it is how it is.

     In my opinion they have a massively high rate of variability on their low/high Asic which translate to failure on the green team. In many cases you can say Intel and Nvidia delivers much better Asic quality both on the low and high to their customers. I hope Zen doesn't end up like Polaris.. It will suck.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,456
    The problem with the Polaris architecture is they over sold it or basically because they couldn't compete with Nvidia offering they pumped up the Mhz. Cards are no where near what they were suppose to be when first talked about at AMD. When it was revealed the Polaris 10 series was annouced as a 95W  part but the whole card draws so much more sometimes 200W+. This is even more than the TDP of 150W. This is just for the reference design. AMD fix that but for non reference design   the overhead can go higher with overclocking. That is why you rarely see big OC non reference design cards.

    There is a few chips that actually perform to spec and you can see them go to the embedded market. They have a high ASIC quality and  those usually suppose to clock very high but perform to spec with low voltage. However, with AMD it some how doesn't translate that way. Even with High ASIC you have terribly low stability. 


    And actually in many cases lower ASIC can handle higher voltage but needs higher voltage to hit a stable OC which is why you don't see nearly as much overclocking headroom on models unlike nvidia 1060 which seem to  perform with good quality chips across the entire line. It is pretty crazy but it is how it is.

     In my opinion they have a massively high rate of variability on their low/high Asic which translate to failure on the green team. In many cases you can say Intel and Nvidia delivers much better Asic quality both on the low and high to their customers. I hope Zen doesn't end up like Polaris.. It will suck.
    There's so much wrong here.  Where to begin.

    For starters, I don't think you know what an ASIC is.  A GPU is not an ASIC, and a CPU especially is not an ASIC.

    Polaris is the mid range to low end of AMD's new lineup.  The high end is Vega, and isn't out yet.

    Like all other AMD GPUs to launch in the last five years, Polaris has PowerTune, so it can cap power consumption at 150 W.  You can raise the cap to overclock if you like, but that's on the end user.  AMD messed with PowerTune to allow power consumption to go higher in the boards they gave reviewers at launch, but that's just a method of cheating at reviews.

    Polaris does clock higher than AMD's 28 nm GPUs, but Pascal clocks a lot higher yet.  So I'm not sure why you accuse AMD of having "pumped up the Mhz" as though it's a bad thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.