AMD Details Driver Fix For Radeon RX 480's Controversial, Spec-Exceeding Power Draw (pcworld.com) 157
AMD's 150-watt Radeon RX 480 apparently draws more power than it is supposed to. According to Tom's Hardware blog, AMD's new graphics card used an average of 168W under load. Furthermore, the publication found that card pulled up to a whopping 90W over the motherboard's PCI-E slot, far exceeding the 75W maximum the slot it rated for. PC Perspective's findings were similar, with Witcher 3 title consuming over 190W of sustained power draw when the RX 480 was overclocked. Worse, the blog discovered that AMD's card drew 7 amps over the PCI-E slot's +12v rail, which is rated for 5.5 amps maximum. These issues could theoretically (but not likely) damage lower-end motherboards in extreme circumstances, writes PCWorld. The chip company last week addressed the concerns, noting that it will soon release a software fix. In a new statement to PCWorld, the company adds:"We promised an update today (July 5, 2016) following concerns around the Radeon RX 480 drawing excess current from the PCIe bus. Although we are confident that the levels of reported power draws by the Radeon RX 480 do not pose a risk of damage to motherboards or other PC components based on expected usage, we are serious about addressing this topic and allaying outstanding concerns. Towards that end, we assembled a worldwide team this past weekend to investigate and develop a driver update to improve the power draw. We're pleased to report that this driver -- Radeon Software 16.7.1 -- is now undergoing final testing and will be released to the public in the next 48 hours. In this driver we've implemented a change to address power distribution on the Radeon RX 480 -- this change will lower current drawn from the PCIe bus. Separately, we've also included an option to reduce total power with minimal performance impact. Users will find this as the "compatibility" UI toggle in the Global Settings menu of Radeon Settings. This toggle is "off" by default. Finally, we've implemented a collection of performance improvements for the Polaris architecture that yield performance uplifts in popular game titles of up to 3%. These optimizations are designed to improve the performance of the Radeon RX 480, and should substantially offset the performance impact for users who choose to activate the "compatibility" toggle.
Take the PCIe logo off the box (Score:5, Insightful)
These cards may or may not damage your motherboard, but there is zero doubt that in the default configuration -- not some out of spec hacked BIOS configuration -- they are not compliant with the PCIe standards.
Putting that PCIe logo on the box is therefore deceptive marketing and AMD should be held accountable here.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, they fixed it with new drivers, in the default configuration you'll either get current drivers or if you choose to install old drivers from media you'll be prompted to upgrade very quickly if not at install time (I know current NVidia installers check for updates from the web at install time).
Re:Take the PCIe logo off the box (Score:5, Insightful)
The new drivers in the default configuration are still out of spec with PCIe.
The fix that AMD applied is to route more power from the 6-pin PCIe power cable to reduce the power drawn from the motherboard. The motherboard is now supposed to be in-spec (of course, independent testing is necessary) but by defintion the 6-pin PCIe cable, which was already providing more than the specification-rated 75W, is definitely out of spec.
Now as a practical matter, the extra power draw through the 6-pin cable will not cause problems with any halfway decent PSU. However, just saying "oh it won't damage your computer in a practical scenario" is not the same thing as complying with the PCIe specification. Actual compliance with PCIe is required to show the logo on the box and advertise compatibility.
The fact that there is now going to be a non-standard "optional" mode that complies with PCIe is nice, but unless it's the default mode out of the box, it's not enough.
Re: (Score:2)
The fix that AMD applied is to route more power from the 6-pin PCIe power cable to reduce the power drawn from the motherboard. The motherboard is now supposed to be in-spec (of course, independent testing is necessary) but by defintion the 6-pin PCIe cable, which was already providing more than the specification-rated 75W, is definitely out of spec.
Now as a practical matter, the extra power draw through the 6-pin cable will not cause problems with any halfway decent PSU. However, just saying "oh it won't damage your computer in a practical scenario" is not the same thing as complying with the PCIe specification. Actual compliance with PCIe is required to show the logo on the box and advertise compatibility.
While you're technically correct (best kind etc.) the truth is that those leads can handle at least twice that much current, and if you have a single-rail PSU (which is now typical) it's really quite irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens when Nvidia sees AMD do this and get off scot free, then decides to do it themselves and draws slightly more than AMD is doing? Do we really want to encourage a race to the bottom where no one knows what cards are in-spec and which cards aren't?
It's not unusual for cards to need more than 150W, or even 225W. What I want is for cards to tell me how much current they need right up front, and be honest about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Be honest about the spec too. If it takes more power cables, build more sockets for them on the card, for goodness sake. Plenty of video cards have a pair of 6-pin (8-pin?) cables running to them.
I have a 1 kW PSU in my gaming rig for goodness sake, take all the power you need AMD but follow the damn specs!
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think that not already the case? Slot power consumption has never been enforced in the history of PCs.
It's laughable to think that nVidia is only being constrained by their belief that AMD is rigidly honoring specs. Neither are.
Re: (Score:2)
What I want to know is, what happens using the generic Windows driver? Or what happens when using the open-source Radeon driver in Linux?
Re: (Score:2)
what happens using the generic Windows driver?
Then they'll have a barely functioning PC. It's not like the generic Windows chipset / audio drivers, the generic VGA driver doesn't support the HW acceleration.
Or what happens when using the open-source Radeon driver in Linux?
It'll get fixed too?
Re: (Score:2)
Good!
Re:Take the PCIe logo off the box (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong again. The RX 480 uses the 6-pin cable as an 8-pin cable. It ignores the sense pin and uses it as a ground, which is how it is wired. This gives 3 pairs and allows you to pull as much as an 8-pin while still being in spec with regards to power draw, though out of spec with regards to implementation.
It's completely safe. It's not the first card to draw past spec on the 6-pin or 8-pin cables, and it won't be the last.
If you look at 6+2 pin cables on PSUs, you'll see that the +2 pins are simply extensions of the 6-pin plug. You're not getting more physical pairs in those 6+2 pin cables, yet you're drawing up to twice the current! OUT OF SPEC!!! DOOM AND GLOOM!!! Oh wait, it's completely fine.
Read the specs and look at the physical implementations.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at 6+2 pin cables on PSUs, you'll see that the +2 pins are simply extensions of the 6-pin plug. You're not getting more physical pairs in those 6+2 pin cables, yet you're drawing up to twice the current! OUT OF SPEC!!! DOOM AND GLOOM!!! Oh wait, it's completely fine.
What about the PSU? Most cables (esp. modular ones) will happily mix 6 and 8 pin versions with the 2-pin ground-only bit on the side, but some older 6-pin-only versions do exist. You'll find these on older PSUs that might not be able to handle the extra amperage.
On a side note, if you're worried about the cables themselves, be more worried about crimp and solder joints.
Re: (Score:2)
If the PSU lets you draw the power, then it's good. If the PSU has a 6-pin connector on the PSU end and various modular cables to give you 6, 6+2, 2x6, 1x8, 2x8, whatever pin combinations, then it's good.
Assuming you trust your PSU to do what it says it can.
If you're using adapters/splitters beyond what the PSU comes with, or if you're running a bunch of other shit on +12v then you can overdraw on your +12v rail of course. But shit should just shut off at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what I read. Sounds like PCIe power is reduced with the new diver. In addition, an option was added to further reduce total power consumption. This option is "separate" to the PCIe power issue.
In this driver we've implemented a change to address power distribution on the Radeon RX 480 -- this change will lower current drawn from the PCIe bus. Separately, we've also included an option to reduce total power with minimal performance impact.
So they were working on the drivers and decided to add a feature. This feature is off by default but could be useful for those with limited cooling in their cases. However, the PCIe power issue is fixed in all cases.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure he meant the 6-pin aux power cable running to the card, but he could have just said that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
is more like have a comment history and know if you are trolling.
Re: Registered Slashdot username (Score:1)
Alternatively if the Coward had provided a link to a forum where he (or somebody) discussed the failure, that could help too. I try to always po
Re: (Score:2)
If you've worked "at the top levels" in tech/finance for 3 decades, you could have retired 2 decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
AC has delusion, methinks. Or maybe he cleans the offices of the top level....
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because we all know that your Slashdot ID is just as traceable as your actual name, social security number, etc.
Get over yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Take the PCIe logo off the box (Score:4, Insightful)
Transient spikes above the average are not the issue here and there's actually a whole different section of the PCIe power specification that deals with the maximum transient spike levels and the maximum allowed rate-of-change in current draw. As long as the transients don't exceed the ratings in the specification they are OK and are to be expected.
The issue here is that on average the Rx 480 was easily drawing well above the limits for a motherboard slot. Over the long-term, this sustained out of spec power draw can cause problems on motherboards, particularly cheap motherboards. When you consider that a low price was a major advertising point on the Rx 480 launch, expecting all of the Rx 480 owners to be running premium X99 motherboards that cost $300+ -- which is exactly what AMD did when demonstrating the Rx 480 on-stage at Computex -- is unrealistic.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue here is that on average the Rx 480 was easily drawing well above the limits for a motherboard slot. Over the long-term, this sustained out of spec power draw can cause problems on motherboards, particularly cheap motherboards. When you consider that a low price was a major advertising point on the Rx 480 launch, expecting all of the Rx 480 owners to be running premium X99 motherboards that cost $300+ -- which is exactly what AMD did when demonstrating the Rx 480 on-stage at Computex -- is unrealistic.
Demonstrate how this damage can occur. Show your math. Find me a motherboard with traces so thin that shit will burn out at a sustained 85 W. Or find a PCIe connector that has pins thin enough to burn up.
Spec sheets and math or STFU.
Re: (Score:3)
No damaged components have been demonstrated or proven. Yes, you do need to prove things when you're making such allegations. The most detailed "report" of damage was proven to be a troll.
AMD didn't "write a whole new driver". They simply underclocked the card a bit.
Standards exist for a reason and they are written by people who are a whole lot smarter than arrogant d-bags named "sexconker" who have never designed a single product in their lives but sure have god complexes.
The RX 480 is standards-compliant and has passed all PCI SIG testing. PCI SIG does not enforce or even test for power draw. All those smart people must have a reason for not testing for power draw. I wonder if they've read spec sheets for
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Putting that PCIe logo on the box is therefore deceptive marketing and AMD should be held accountable here.
So should nVidia, perhaps? [bestofmicro.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Read CajunArson's post above... your chart shows spikes, which are accounted for in the spec, not the average draw being above spec.
The reality is that there apparently already are motherboards that have probably died because of AMD's egregious violation of the specs; there are probably PSUs that have also died because of these cards.
The motherboards and PSUs that died were likely within spec, but couldn't handle a PCIe card that was running out of spec. That's the bottom line here.
The card should have used
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that there apparently already are motherboards that have probably died because of AMD's egregious violation of the specs
"Egregious violation", really? Even the standard tolerances apparently allow for up to 82 W. Not to mention that other designs won't have the same problem and improved drivers won't have the same problem. That's really an end-of-the-world situation, is it?
Now we have a bigger mess... the cards, running IN spec, don't perform the same as all the benchmarks that have been done.
Don't perform the same? Yeah, some people measured that they're actually up to 5% faster. [legitreviews.com] :D
Re: (Score:2)
It is egregious: The electrical specifications for PCIe only allows for 75 W max sustained power draw from a PCIe slot, and some leeway for transient spikes in power draw. AMD had a sustained power draw above even the transient spike limits.
The PCIe electrical specifications allows a card to draw 300W max, using slot+connectors to PSU
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AMD reference design, so AMD's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that there apparently already are motherboards that have probably died because of AMD's egregious violation of the specs; there are probably PSUs that have also died because of these cards.
Motherboards? Sure. PSUs? Doubtful. A few more watts when practically all PSUs are single-rail isn't going to affect anyone. Back when dual-rail power supplies were the norm, that was a real concern.
I don't want to diminish the severity of motherboard damage, whether to traces or to VRM components. But let's not make stuff up.
Re: (Score:2)
These cards may or may not damage your motherboard, but there is zero doubt that in the default configuration -- not some out of spec hacked BIOS configuration -- they are not compliant with the PCIe standards.
Putting that PCIe logo on the box is therefore deceptive marketing and AMD should be held accountable here.
Unless Bill Clinton says it's ok.
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually a write up that is worth a read by an electrical engineer on /r/amd [reddit.com]
So if what he is saying is true it makes me wonder if maybe it's actually many motherboards that are non-compliant with PCI-e. Honestly I've seen some crappy boards with sub-standard components (anybody remember the great capacitor plague [wikipedia.org] around 15 years ago?) so it would not surprise me.
Re: (Score:2)
PCI SIG neither enforces nor tests power draw compliance. They don't care.
They don't care because it's not an issue. It's not the first device (or GPU) to overdraw on the slot and it won't be the last. You could draw double the spec and be fine in most cases. The worst case scenario is going to be an unstable system that shuts down on high load if you've got a crappy +12v rail feeding the main ATX connector.
Does the software update effects performance? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It says so right there in the article, you get a choice of keeping the same performance, or dropping power draw. That means that if you don't lower the power draw, these cards are going to continue to draw 190W in some cases, and in doing so, draw 115W of that over a 75W 6 pin PCIe connector instead of over the motherboard PCIe connector. Burned out PSUs instead of motherboards, here we come!
Re:Does the software update effects performance? (Score:5, Informative)
Burned out PSUs instead of motherboards, here we come!
Exceedingly unlikely. The excess power draw through the motherboard was already being fed by the PSU.
Most PSUs have a single 12V rail that supplies all components in the system, including the motherboard.
As a result, the 12V rail is typically rated to supply most of the PSU's wattage. I would expect no issues unless the total system draw is near the PSU's capacity.
E.g., I have a 400W Seasonic PSU that can supply ~350W on the 12V line. I have an older GPU rated for 200W, and it has worked fine for years.
Swapping in the RX 480 with its 150-180W draw would cause no issues---especially after this driver fix. All power above the 75W limit for the PCIe slot will now be drawn from the ancillary power connector, as it should be. This is the same as previous cards, among them the 250-300W monstrosities marketed as Fury/Titan.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing - the RX480 isn't really a high end card. It's pretty firmly low end to mid range.
Re:Does the software update effects performance? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best-selling brand of power supply by far right now is probably EVGA. I just got my first one on the basis that they have become the go-to, I'll find out in a little while what I think of it. Corsair and Cooler Master are probably both more popular than Seasonic or be quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
Several Corsair and Cooler Master PSUs *are* Seasonics rebadged. And no, EVGA power supplies are not at all common choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
So it's going to draw to much directly from the PSU instead then?
I mean, if the default mode doesn't reduce overall power draw, but it does reduce draw from the motherboard, that means it must increase draw from the 6 pin PCIe connector. If the card can draw up to 190W, and only 75W of that is coming from the motherboard, that means 115W is being drawn over a 6 pin PCIe connector which is only designed to have 75W pulled from it. I fully expect the issue to simply move from burned out motherboards to burned out power supplies.
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
If there's an 8pin connector rated at 150W, why the hell are AMD using a 6pin not 8pin connector?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because (according to them) the card only draws 150W - 75 from the mobo, 75 from the 6 pin connector. It turns out it doesn't only draw 150W though.
Re: (Score:2)
They're using a 6-pin as an 8-pin by using the sense pin as an additional ground. They've segregated the RAM and GPU power in such a way that without a 6-pin cable the card won't power up, so you don't need the sense pin on the 6-pin cable.
Other designs using the RX 480 will have 8-pin cables, 8-pin and 6-pin cables, etc., if for no other reason than to appeal to people who blindly believe this is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's an 8pin connector rated at 150W, why the hell are AMD using a 6pin not 8pin connector?
Perusing various posts suggested to me that it's actually a connector whose wires are rated at around 300W. You can have two connectors on the wire at 75W each, and there is 100% headroom left for overage. There is nowhere near that much headroom available on the PCIe connector, which some might say is a flaw. The 6-pin connector itself has no trouble delivering 150W.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are multiple things referred to as PCIe connectors...
1) The slot on the motherboard
2) The 6 pin PCIe power connector
3) The 8 pin PCIe power connector
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but only the first makes any kind of sense. The other connectors have nothing to do with PCIe - they can be on any sort of card, the PCIe part is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right - but they also state that the compatibility mode is optional. The assertion that in non-compatibility mode, it still only draws 75W from the motherboard implies it draws all the rest straight from the 6 pin power connector. 6 pin power connectors are only specced to deliver 75W.
Re: (Score:2)
The 6-pin cable can give you 150 W and still be in spec with regards to draw since they're functionally using it as an 8-pin by dropping the sense and using it as an additional ground.
The ATX12v spec lists recommended wire gauges and current ratings on the +12v rail. Running a 6-pin as an 8-pin is non-standard but completely within spec with regards to power draw and miles safety.
Check the ATX12v Power Supply Design Guide.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you think the power comes from on th
Re: (Score:2)
It does matter, if the 12V traces on the motherboard are spec'd to handle the proper wattage, and you pull a greater wattage through them. You will obviously get extra heat, but some shit boards may actually burn out from being run in overload.
Re: (Score:2)
Most power supplies run all 12V connections on a single output rail.
Whether it uses a 6-pin or 8-pin connector, the graphics card will draw power from the PSU in the exact same way.
Most of the time. It is possible that older PSUs have split 12V rails, which may cause problems. PSUs old enough to have split 12V lines will probably not have PCIe-compatible 6-pin and 8-pin connectors though. Those connectors were specifically designed for PCIe devices, so I would be very surprised if they are present on anythi
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that by making it draw the correct amount from the motherboard, and not changing its power draw at all, they will cause it to draw too much from the 6 pin PCIe power connector. Those connectors are *also* only specced to deliver 75W. This software update is just shifting the problem to a different connector.
As you rightly observe, the correct solution is to include an 8 pin connector on the card, but it's too late to do that on all the shipped cards now.
Thanks, early adopters! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think this will be fixed? How many electrical engineers does it take to fix a lightbulb? None, let the software team patch around it.
It is hard to imagine that AMD missed this... (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD has smart people working for them, how they missed this and launched the card I'm at a loss to explain...
Unless they didn't miss it and hoped no one would notice... Or the left hand didn't talk to the right hand...
As for the extra power coming from the 6-pin PCI-E connector, that doesn't bother me so much, most modern power supplies can do that just fine.
I said *most*, some won't be able to, this is indeed a problem, but for most people the fix is just to update the drivers and the few that it isn't, to put it in "compatibility mode"
The problem is, the people who need *compatibility mode* are exactly the people who won't know that and won't do it.
I think it is a mistake to not make compatibility mode the default and let people manually adjust to the higher draw mode.
Re:It is hard to imagine that AMD missed this... (Score:5, Interesting)
they didn't miss anything
this is one of those cases where the spec is wrong
you CAN safely draw 100W from the PEG slot
you CAN safely draw 170W from a 6Pin (worst case crappiest psu on the planet scenario)
every single high end card on the market takes the PCI-e spec and throws it out the window frankly
the issue was blown out of proportion by a few users that knew nothing of which they spoke and stated it as fact
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the spec may be overly conservative, but that's neither here nor there. but it can't be "wrong" by definition. the spec is the spec. it might be based on old data, and a relaxation might be in order, but really... the connector technology hasn't changed. whatever the reason for the conservatism, nothing material has changed.
is a spec relaxation warranted? maybe. but that's not the same thing as "the spec is wrong".
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with a spec is not that it's wrong, is that's it's a spec. A spec can't be wrong, a spec just is.
People design to specs, that's why specs exist. An entire industry can ignore the spec and everything is fine. The problem occurs when someone then suddenly complies with the spec exactly and then something melts. Who's fault is it then? The person who obeyed the spec?
AMD is right to be called out about it, as is everyone else. If the hardware supports more then then spec should be revised, but until
Re: (Score:2)
If no one follows it, it's not a spec that matters. Specs have no moral authority - the standard is what people do, not what's on paper. The Logo on the other hand, that's about the spec. If the mobo vendors were designing only to the spec, that would make for real issues, but fortunately they aren't.
Perhaps the right answer here is to move the spec to match reality. Smart standards groups do this. When everyone is cheating, it's no longer cheating, it's the new standard.
Re: (Score:2)
If no one follows it, it's not a spec that matters.
You're right, and then we're back to AMD is at fault for producing something that claimed to comply with a spec when it blows up something that actually complies with a spec.
Specs don't matter either. They just are. It doesn't matter if they are used or not used. The only thing that matters is if you claim you have used them that you comply with them or assume liability if you don't. There really isn't more too it than that.
Perhaps the right answer here is to move the spec to match reality.
That is completely true. But until such a time as that common spec is published peop
Re: (Score:2)
Useful standards describe what the industry actually does. That way, implementing to the spec gives you actual interoperability. Standards committees have no sort of moral authority to tell implementors what they should do, instead they describe what an interoperable system looks like.
In this case, it's clear that providing more power through the PCI slot is a useful, helpful thing to do. There's no magic about 75W - it's just a number, far below what the circuit traces allow.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right one way but the problem is the other.
Implementers have a moral authority to obey they spec that they claim they are following, especially when they then proudly display the logo on the box.
In this case, it's clear that providing more power through the PCI slot is a useful, helpful thing to do.
There should be a new spec that takes this into consideration.
There's no magic about 75W - it's just a number, far below what the circuit traces allow.
And this is where you fall down. How much current do the circuit traces and the connector allow? Are they all the same? 100% of the time? Does the spec require that traces for the 75W handle more than 75W or is that just manufacturers building some
Re: (Score:2)
(I mentioned the bit about the Logo upthread.) The problem with that reasoning about the spec is the customer. If it's true that most high-end vid cards are already cheating, and someone naively makes a consumer motherboard to spec, instead of to that reality, their product will fail in common use. They'll get terrible reviews on Amazon and Newegg, and enthusiasts who buy that part will have a terrible customer experience.
It's too bad the 3.0 spec didn't adjust for this, but of course that would have cast
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect just one of us has actually worked on a standards committee.
Consider yourself lucky. I'm on multiple, both industry and internal to a multinational, and they suck! It's a life draining experience which makes you question why you even bother becoming an engineer if all you do is take great ideas and water them down by a committee which doesn't want to implement and is not too infrequently not without bias.
But again you're drawing conclusions on the wrong side of the argument. Standards and specs just are. Whether or not they are widely used or not is irrelevant to th
Re: (Score:2)
you CAN safely draw 100W from the PEG slot
Not from every motherboard... Some I'm sure you could, but some will fry if you try it...
you CAN safely draw 170W from a 6Pin
No, not from every power supply... some, sure, they are designed for it, but many are not... the wires aren't thick enough, the amps may not be there...
every single high end card on the market takes the PCI-e spec and throws it out the window frankly
Nope, sorry, but you're wrong.
the issue was blown out of proportion by a few users that knew nothing of which they spoke and stated it as fact
I think Tom's Hardware knows a hell of a lot more than you do...
Idiots like you are why Hillary is going to win the election, because people like to think they know stuff, when really they don't.
Re: (Score:1)
Odds are they just didn't think it was an issue after testing. Others did, so they addressed it. There is a whole universe of bizarre people out there who overclock their cards well above PCIe specs, yet get bitchy when AMD does something similar. There are also people who think that following specs to the letter is important, usually on principle. In practice, it hardly matters on a mid-range system like the cards are intended for. AMD's just a magnet for ire, and gamers and techies love their witch-hunts.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest issue is not the draw from the 6 pin connector from the PSU, rather the draw from the PCIe slot.
That draw is regulated by the motherboard and that is not a given that the mobo will not just roll over and die and maybe take some other system components with it along the way.
Heck if the mobo dies and you still even have the RAM and CPU surviving who knows if you can find a replacement for that CPU. Most times when my mobos have kicked it I've just gone ahead and upgraded my system.
Maybe that is A
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that boards are designed with the spec as a minimum, knowing that devices can overload those 12V lines. That doesn't mean that every board from every manufacturer is designed that way - there could definitely be some cheap piece of shit that is at 95% of it's design rating when at the spec, and if something starts overloading that power connection it lets out the magic smoke...
High end motherboards killed (Score:2)
Ironically, they were reports of X99 and 990FX motherboards killed, so high end boards aren't sized for oversized PCIe slot current either.
For the 6pin, no need to give a crap.
A 400W PSU is likely fine.
Re: (Score:1)
there we exactly two claims about boards dying (both where later proven false)
and none where proven
again rumor people not fact
Re: High end motherboards killed (Score:1)
Yup, nvidia really went all out with the FUD for this card. The price/performance ratio for this card is just too good.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much CajunArson is getting paid.
Re: (Score:2)
If price is a primary concern then don't buy anything. You still can get by on a 15-year-old desktop.if you download youtube video or use software to open them in external player.
If you want to play recent games.. then you need more performance than needed for 480p video editing or running VMs.
Ug, class action lawsuit time (Score:2)
so much wrong with this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second, since when do graphics cards draw anything other than fan power from the PCI-E slot when they have external power hooked up? I've been told by many people that it draws nothing from the motherboard in that case.
Every card has the potential to be different. Some cards won't produce video when you don't plug in the additional power but the machine will still POST and (from the disk activity) boot. Some cards will produce video, but they will announce that they are running in degraded performance mode because the additional power is not connected. And mind you, these are both examples of behavior from nVidia cards...
You can't even run a GPU on 2 separate power circuits from a PSU safely anyway.
GPUs have on-board VRMs now.
Re: (Score:2)
The draw from the slot was over the limit even at stock clocks.
Wait (Score:2)
I would just wait for the third party solutions that come with an 8 pin connector.
So AMD messed up on the reference design. Once the XFX, Sapphire and Asus versions come out, how many people would still spring for the reference version?
Re: (Score:2)
You can get a 4GB reference version now for $199 and unlock it to use all 8 GB.
That's amazing performance/cost. If my local Best Buy had them in stock I'd jump on it. Thankfully, they don't. I'm trying to hold out for the HBM2 cards in early 2017.
Don't overclock, then (Score:1)
Is it a surprise that overclocking the card causes it to draw more power than it was designed for? Is it a surprise that as designed it is close to the limits of the power specs of the bus? It seems the problem isn't the card, but forcing the card into a configuration that it wasn't designed for. Here's a car example - back in the day, when they had distributors, you could manually changed the timing to improve performance. However, if you advanced the timing, too much, you could damage the engine. Is th
AMD overclocked themselves (Score:2)
" It seems the problem isn't the card, but forcing the card into a configuration that it wasn't designed for."
This is exactly the issue, but the nvidia launches have had AMD worried about benchmark results so they chose a power/clocking profile that is too much for the board as it was designed. So they're backpedaling and offering a setting to make the card a few percents slower in the driver revision talked about in the blurb.
The car analogy is a car making company made a small fuck up.
Overclocking is Your Responsibility (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, it's about running a demanding game or two, which you can hardly blame the user for.
More for the lawyers (Score:2)
Not fatal but AMD will have to make changes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
foder e morrer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Now go back to troll school, and apply yourself this time.
Re: (Score:2)