RX 480 is apparently killing pcie slots

Stereodude said:
Don't worry, the design team is in China and they don't celebrate the 4th of July.
Click to expand...
I worked for Intel for 15 years, and in my experience there, when a problem that was public and/or damaging arose in a released product, the responsible team had no weekends. no vacations, and no holidays until it was fixed - regardless of where they lived.
 
Last edited:
Ieldra said:
Why would you need a chip redesign? The board has a 6+1 power design right? Usually the distribution is based on some partioning of the power phases to determine load ratios no? Am I right?

A 1:2 ratio on a 150w board should result in 2 phases pushing 50w from the motherboard, and the remaining 4 pushing 100w from the six pin
Click to expand...
It could be a crude simple implementation or pretty advanced with IC not only monitoring the 2 12V interfaces but also distribution (not suggesting this is dynamic but configurable) - the latter is probably debatable as I bet most consumer cards are more basic in terms of partition-distribution.

Regarding load-partitioning.
Bear in mind that power-performance is measured in terms of GPU Logic-PLL power, memory power, various onboard/PCie link power.
Separate to that is the power sensor IC for the two 12V supply connectors.
Cheers
 
CSI_PC said:
It could be a crude simple implementation or pretty advanced with IC not only monitoring the 2 12V interfaces but also distribution (not suggesting this is dynamic but configurable) - the latter is probably debatable as I bet most consumer cards are more basic in terms of partition-distribution.
Click to expand...
Reading between the lines in AMD's statement, its possible that the memory subsystem draws its power entirely from the PCI-Express slot, so AMD is going to down-clock (and probably down-volt) the memory subsystem to bring the card back into compliance with the spec.
 
The pcie plug can generally handle more than the spec no problem, it's a firm connector. Problem with the slot is that it's not really a tight fit (otherwise you'd never be able to press the card's edge into the slot lol). High current connectors need pressure. After seeing the high-wattage 295 chart somewhere in this thread, no reason the 480 should be doing what it's doing on the slot. Better to move any overage to the 6-pin, imo. Poor Radeon they just can't seem to get a break. They should pump out the same card with a switch that toggles between gaming and htpc mode (80% perf and 65% power, etc), something actually interesting for once.
 
Ieldra said:
Why would you need a chip redesign? The board has a 6+1 power design right? Usually the distribution is based on some partioning of the power phases to determine load ratios no? Am I right?

A 1:2 ratio on a 150w board should result in 2 phases pushing 50w from the motherboard, and the remaining 4 pushing 100w from the six pin
Click to expand...

because "mechanical" automated power balance in the PCB, power phases manage nothing regarded the power balance from PCI-E connectors or slot, this is generally achieved by signal switch and gates which I normally call "mechanically", in theory the GPU can request all the power from the PCI-E slot or the PCI-E connectors but it have no direct way to control it that's why I said earlier that if the problem if caused entirely by the "mechanical" parts of the PCB then it would need an entirely redesing of the card because even adding 2x6pin, or 8pin will fix nothing as the card will still looking by balance the power directed to the VRM 50/50, so you can add as much PCI-E power connectors, but the load between PCI-E connectors and PCI-E slot will be still split 50/50. the card PCB shows indeed digital voltage calibration and scale chips however these aren't capable of decide from what part receive the power to be delivered to the VRMs, as much as I can guess because im by no means any GPU designer the split current load it's managed "mechanically" by micro-optotriacs and mosfets as request of the GPU, the best AMD possibly could do via drivers it's just limit the performance of the card with micromanagement of the voltage/clocks the same way they did with the Nano however as Nano versus Fury X proved this just will remain with a less capable and weaker RX 480, every review out there will be irrelevant because the card may need to drop about 10% of the clocks to remain between PCI-E specifications, any other change will indeed require a BIOS flash. underclocking the vRAM to 7ghz will require a bios flash, change the power request and power load lines will also require a BIOS flash, so at the end of the day no matter what they do they will indeed cripple the performance of the RX 480 by clocks or by vRAM speed the will end with a less performer card by raw bandwidth or by raw shader performance..
 
Michaelius said:
Claymore's Dual Ethereum+Decred GPU Miner v4.7 (Windows/Linux)

mining rig which survived 3 years with 3x280X inside after few hours of 3x480 mining
Click to expand...

That's an interesting one. I'm looking at the pinout on the 24-pin ATX connector, and it looks like it's one of the 3.3v connections that took the brunt of it?

He doesn't mention it in that thread, but in other threads he says he had several days of instability (random reboots) with the 3x480s prior to the melting. He also mentions that he had a temp monitoring program, but the cards (being new) weren't supported by it. He was also using unpowered ribbon cables to connect the cards to the mobo.
 
LOL I see Allyn has finally snapped a little (ok too strong a wording) on PCPer and responded to a poster who was saying the opposite and claimed they were an electrical engineer.
His response to John Smith.
Allyn Malventano said:
As a nuclear trained electronics technician, I'm telling you that these are literally microsecond peaks that are not present long enough to heat up even the smallest contact area. The sustained is what matters.
Click to expand...
I did not know this, although I thought he was in the Navy as an electronics engineer.

Loving the various comments on both PCPer and Youtube regarding these recent articles.
Sorry if already posted, but their follow-up video is pretty good.




Cheers
 
Ieldra said:
Wondering what you can do if you find yourself with a dead board.
Click to expand...

Be pissed at AMD for the rest of eternity? I would be surprised if AMD started compensating. Not sure if many people would bother sueing.

GaryJohnson said:
That's an interesting one. I'm looking at the pinout on the 24-pin ATX connector, and it looks like it's one of the 3.3v connections that took the brunt of it?

He doesn't mention it in that thread, but in other threads he says he had several days of instability (random reboots) with the 3x480s prior to the melting. He also mentions that he had a temp monitoring program, but the cards (being new) weren't supported by it. He was also using unpowered ribbon cables to connect the cards to the mobo.
Click to expand...

Yeah and that he underclocked them. It's 2016, a graphics card shouldn't make your rig implode or possibly burn down your house. Safeties should be built in. This is ethically wrong from an engineering standpoint.
 
Last edited:
CSI_PC said:
LOL I see Allyn has finally snapped a little (ok too strong a wording) on PCPer and responded to a poster who was saying the opposite and saying they were an electrical engineer.
Was to John Smith.

I did not know this, although I thought he was in the Navy as an electronics engineer.

Loving the various comments on both PCPer and Youtube regarding these recent articles.
Sorry if already posted, but their follow-up video is pretty good.




Cheers
Click to expand...


In automation land we'll go to 400% all the time. The electronics calculate the load and make sure the peak doesn't last too long and fry anything. Similar to what the power electronics on these cards should be doing...
 
Yes! I'm curious about this now, but way too lazy to do the research myself, but HOW MANY CARDS even go above the ATX spec on the 6/8 pin connectors when you max out their power limiter AT STOCK CLOCKS !? I thought the increased power limit still had to stay within specs, and even if it were to go over spec, on the psu connectors, NOT the pcie. It's ridiculous honestly.
 
Dayaks said:
Be pissed at AMD for the rest of eternity? I would be surprised if AMD started compensating. Not sure if many people would bother sueing.

Yeah and that he underclocked them. It's 2016, a graphics card shouldn't make your rig implode or possibly burn down your house.
Click to expand...

Well maybe it didn't. Maybe his MB, PSU, or those dubious unpowered ribbon cables were faulty all along, but the previous cards he was running didn't reveal the defect. Or maybe just one of the three 480s had a defect. You get defective hardware sometimes, it happens.
 
GaryJohnson said:
Well maybe it didn't. Maybe his MB, PSU, or those dubious unpowered ribbon cables were faulty all along, but the previous cards he was running didn't reveal the defect. Or maybe just one of the three 480s had a defect. You get defective hardware sometimes, it happens.
Click to expand...

It happened on the ATX connector so all that other items you listed are mostly irrelevant.

Strange that we know for a fact these cards are all out of spec and are hazards. Sure, maybe it was a bad ATX connector.

I don't know why AMD addressed the issue and are creating a fix if there's no problem and no risk.
 
Last edited:
Ieldra said:
Yes! I'm curious about this now, but way too lazy to do the research myself, but HOW MANY CARDS even go above the ATX spec on the 6/8 pin connectors when you max out their power limiter AT STOCK CLOCKS !? I thought the increased power limit still had to stay within specs, and even if it were to go over spec, on the psu connectors, NOT the pcie. It's ridiculous honestly.
Click to expand...

well that's an interesting question indeed, but as the usage of dual eight pin PCI-E connector isn't a standard yet, so every card with dual 8 pin power connector is going outside PCI and ATX standards. xD. I hope to not cause an entire wave of threads about dual 8 pin GPU.. =).
 
Last edited:
Michaelius said:
Claymore's Dual Ethereum+Decred GPU Miner v4.7 (Windows/Linux)

mining rig which survived 3 years with 3x280X inside after few hours of 3x480 mining
Click to expand...

The reddit response is terrible.
A guy from above created a thread on the AMD forum.
Another person posted (#5) who suffered the same issue had put time into addressing it on Reddit.
The thread got demoted, him banned and now the top reddit thread he reports is PCI-E slots support up to 300W.

PCI-E slot died with RX 480 | Community
HELLO. THIS IS /u/ALKALADUR
I am the author of the reddit thread you have linked to, my reddit username is /u/Alkaladur.
The moderators on reddit have banned from the r/AMD subreddit.
In addition to this, my thread is now longer showing at the top of the subreddit.
Instead a thread that claims the RX480 is not out of spec, and that the PCI-E slots can use 300W is AT THE TOP OF THE SUBREDDIT.
Needless to say considering all the time and effort I put into exposing this problem, I am feeling very angry towards to the r/AMD subreddit.
Please publicize the information here in this forum thread on reddit, and please continue to link to my reddit thread
THE INFORMATION IN THIS THREAD: RX 480 powergate problem has a solution • /r/Amd
IS FALSE.
PLEASE LINK TO MY THREAD RX480 fails PCI-E specification • /r/Amd
Click to expand...

Way to go, this is going to need a big rug!

ps the last link to his thread is a great summation of many peoples experience, what he has found out and the responses.
 
Last edited:
CSI_PC said:
LOL I see Allyn has finally snapped a little (ok too strong a wording) on PCPer and responded to a poster who was saying the opposite and claimed they were an electrical engineer.
His response to John Smith.

I did not know this, although I thought he was in the Navy as an electronics engineer.

Loving the various comments on both PCPer and Youtube regarding these recent articles.
Sorry if already posted, but their follow-up video is pretty good.




Cheers
Click to expand...


Pretty good video.
 
PCI base spec actually allows for 300W or more board which basically covers the following situations; 6+8pin and 8+8 pin, but obviously that actual bus can only provide 66w max

Yes reddit response is shit, tell those guys to inbox me their stuff i'll put it in the monster thread
 
Dullard said:
His conclusion? Don't run the 480 on an old/cheap mobo. Sounds reasonable (y)
Click to expand...

But at the RX480's price point, that is exactly who a large portion of the market for this product will be... people without a lot to spend, whose pc's might be older, or weaker than a high end board. And after watching the techlab video where the current was measured... The 3.3v line has .79A current, but the 12v line had 11.1 Amps! The PCIE spec says the maximum wattage on the 12v line is 5.5A (no tolerance).. nearly double was measured.. Shit is gonna be frying, and I wouldn't even trust one in a high end motherboard. That's waaay too far out of spec.

I wonder how in the hell this even made it out of AMD like this....

Let's just hope this can be fixed in the bios of the RX480... If the power envelope changes enough, all the reviews on this card will need to be redone after the issue is fixed, to see how it affects performance.

AMD should be replacing anyones fried mobos, regardless of brand or age...

Edit: After watching the PCPER video, they said AMD's response is that they are not worried about this because the motherboard safety feature will shut off the machine.... wow. Which is BS because we have seen now multiple videos where they are able to play games and measure current at nearly double the connectors' specification.. and they can complete their tests.. A motherboard/PSU's current protections generally just look at total draws... They are not necessarily going to catch too much pull in a very specific spot (single pcie lane).

God help you if you try cross-firing these.
 
Last edited:
Dayaks said:
Be pissed at AMD for the rest of eternity? I would be surprised if AMD started compensating. Not sure if many people would bother sueing.
Click to expand...
They love AMD too much to sue. A dead board is a small price to pay for keeping their system Nvidia free. :ROFLMAO:
 
IIRC a lot of nuclear electronic engineers are in fact Navy as the Navy has some of the most experience with nuclear energy thanks to so many ships/subs being nuclear powered.

As far as this thread is concerned, barring some fatal flaw with the GPU itself (which I doubt) I have a feeling that custom AIB cards are not going to exhibit this flaw at all.

So much for all the people claiming that the RX 480 was going to draw 150 W MAX in threads pre-release.
 
Algrim said:
IIRC a lot of nuclear electronic engineers are in fact Navy as the Navy has some of the most experience with nuclear energy thanks to so many ships/subs being nuclear powered.

As far as this thread is concerned, barring some fatal flaw with the GPU itself (which I doubt) I have a feeling that custom AIB cards are not going to exhibit this flaw at all.

So much for all the people claiming that the RX 480 was going to draw 150 W MAX in threads pre-release.
Click to expand...
Lol I should start quoting those people, they're the same ones calling me a troll.
 
If AMD is working on a fix, then it's safe to say that they too have found the evidence and this is indeed a real issue.
Would be interesting to see what the solution would be. If they had to downclock these reference card, then I'm guessing they would have to limit any overclocking too.

The only good thing is that if it's a board design issue, then it should not affect custom AIB cards
 
razor1 said:
I didn't. did I? I stated the people that were asking for pictures they are now up lol. First off they didn't even believe the guy had the card lol, I think you should just go along now and do your thing. Cause it just won't work with me if you are going to try to put words in my mouth. I got at least 7 years on ya in taking apart and putting systems together so go figure.
Click to expand...
I didn't put any words in your mouth. All I did was quote you, quoted others, and picked things apart. Granted, it might not have been you specifically who I mentioned had later on told a couple of those people that "no you're not seeing things correctly" (paraphrased), but my point was that there are almost 'teams' here. Those that thing one way, those that thing another way, those that aren't too sure. So I apologize for using a generalized "you" to refer to everyone who was of similar mind on this matter as you are. Nevertheless, the point still remains that you claimed, in quite a definitive tone, that "this is proof of a melted/burned board" and from all I saw from the pics (the same pics you viewed) is there aren't any indications of melting or burning. In all honesty, given the state of that gray power cord I added as a "bonus" image, I wouldn't be surprised of that strange film near the battery ends up being cat urine *shrug*

However, and this is just to cover my bases to save us both time, if you're trying to say that my Disclaimer had anything to do with you saying I was putting words in your mouth, I assure you that my inclusion of that was an after-thought. It wasn't a response to anyone's comments, and purely was added to clarify to everyone that I'm really a neutral party in all of this. Everyone is so quick to point fingers, that I felt it was only fair to highlight all the problems with that system. Which on that note, as I saw someone else mention (not you razor), and I don't know even if it was a comment directed at me or not, but I want to reiterate that I wasn't picking that guys system problems apart to insult or slam the person. I even came out and said that I run an open-bench system and due to pets it isn't spotless most of the time... all I was doing was pointing out all the things that make me question the initial condition of that machine before an RX 480 was ever shoved in it.


Ieldra said:
Morning guys, don't have too much time to read throigh all the new comments right now, but can I get a quick tl:dr as far as the reported issues go?
<snip>

Is the pictures we had from ocn by 'roquen' correct? Someone annotated it earlier but I can't find the posts thanks :)
<snip>
Click to expand...

Indeed, that was my post, back on Page 13 I believe it was: RX 480 is apparently killing pcie slots

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

In any event, there's too much nonsense happening, and waaayyy too many posts happening per-hour in this thread for me to both have the motivation to continue debating with people over (especially when all I'm doing is playing Devil's Advocate by pointing out the obvious), nor the patience [see: time] to dedicate to reading and replying to the vast amount of new posts in between visits.

I wish all teams the best of luck on this debate, regardless of which side your own, what color your root for, or what planet you're from.

With that, I leave you all with my take, just in case it hadn't been clear yet:
I have no idea if AMD pulled the wool over anyone's eyes by deliberately configuring the RX 480s to draw power the way the cards are currently. Unfortunately, with the fact that the 480 is under the supervision of the Radeon Technology Group (RTG), I'm also uncertain as to whether or not I can "trust" that they didn't do this as some kind of shady nVidia-esque marketing strategy, just to get the card to look better than they had originally hoped it was going to. What I've seen from Raja has been questionable, and that makes me call his judgement into question, which isn't helped much by the fact that AMD (and by association RTG) is an underdog that really really needs a win. Overall I am an optimist, but am definitely a realist as well.
At the end of the day all I do know, and have never claimed otherwise about, is that the RX 480 does indeed have a problem right now. I've not scoured the net to find results/claims of dead motherboards, so I don't know how many are out there (Roquen's and the 3x480 Miner in this thread, but I didn't read his report), but there have been a couple instances of systems with toasted slots. The catch, though, is the condition these were in before receiving the RX 480... as really for all we can know, both could've easily have croaked next month regardless of whether they had been running a 480. We'll just never know :\

For me to be totally onboard with "RX 480s are Killing PCIe Slots/Motherboards", I would need to see:
- Brand new AM2 and/or AM3 motherboard tested, from manufacturers like ASRock, ECS, HP, Dell for the low end systems, in addition to middle-grade systems from ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI.
- Used motherboards (preferably the same models and revisions as tested above)
- Brand new, similar era-Intel motherboards, from same or similar manufactures as above
- Used motherboards of the same Intel models above.
- Brand spanking new, high end, 80+ Platinum power supplies, to rule out them completely, which have also been properly tested to determine very low ripple on every rail... even ground plane. No cross-talk either.
- No cobbled-together current and voltage hardware (no offense TecLabs, as I think you guys did an amazing job, and I do feel you still contributed worthwhile information), which means purpose-built PCIe riser slots that have no ribbon cables, and all its own integrated monitoring hardware. Why? Because, Fluke-built or not, the long multimeter leads skew results and multimeters themselves vary in accuracy, even between the same models. Ribbon cables, we all know the problems there.

I feel I'm 70% sure that RX 480s are to blame, but there's just way too many other variables that give me reasonable doubt to question if they would, no matter what, kill pretty much everything they're stuck into. Until then, verdict is still out.

*drops mic* lol
 
Well we will see how the short term solution corrects or gets closer the pcie slot power in spec. I could care less about the 6 pin power connector being over powered from a rather conservative spec.
 
So this is why nVidia only sells 100 cards the first week ...
 
Brodaddy said:
Don't they test for this kind of thing?
Click to expand...
Have to admit I am flabbergasted that AMD allowed this outcome.

First they have no competition in their segment. Sorry old generation hardware, especially with node shrinks, count little to none at all. The 1070/1080 are in a different segment/league/price point. They didn't need 1266mhz. They could have gone with 1200mhz flat and still responded quite well in reviews with less issues with power usage.

Second they had to know there are a plethora of people out there constantly searching for fodder to berate AMD users with, so why hand it to them on a silver plate?

Hopefully this gets handled quickly. The 290/X fan/heat issue lasted too long till the AIBs came out that completely alleviated the original issue.
 
nope, need wattage testing and amp testing over the pci-e bus with less voltage on the GPU and less frequency. And if each one of the variables are down clocked separately that would be the best.

You mean wattage and amp testing at base clocks on the pci-e bus, yes that has been done.
 
razor1 said:
nope, need wattage testing and amp testing over the pci-e bus with less voltage on the GPU and less frequency. And if each one of the variables are down clocked separately that would be the best.
Click to expand...
pendragon1 said:
has anybody done testing with it at its base clock?
Click to expand...
I would love to see abit more in depth testing with different alternatives to ascertain if some of the solutions we thought up actually would work. I mean undervolting seems plausible but only one site seems to have tested but not very extensively, more of a quick check with some positive results.
 
I'm pretty sure undervolting by itself won't work, cause that would automatically increase amp draw, need both undervolting and downclocking both have to be done. But yeah need to see both of them done seperately then jointly to see what the best alternatives are. If its just a driver fix this is what AMD will be messing around with.
 
yeah at the base clock of 1120MHz. I haven't seen it or I just missed it in the whole mess of things. just wondering if at base with no boost enabled if it still runs out of spec.
 
yeah pcper and toms hardware , the boost clocks were there too, you can see when the clocks go down and voltage goes down based on load and boost levels, the amps go up, its already out of spec on the amp side of average around 30% and it goes up from there. But this is normal that should happen as volts go down amps go up that will sustain the total power the chip needs.
 
They clocked the card a bit too high, likely because they were a bit shocked about the specs of the 1070/1080 cards. I hope they can somehow fix this through software updates, but it seems many doubt it.. so much for much needed competition sigh.
 
I went and looked at the pcper vid again and they stress that it is "at stock, no overclocking, no over volting"(@10:35) but that will still have boost enabled. so its running higher than the 1120 base. frequency isn't mentioned it just repeated that its "at stock". they also say that the original pcie max was 25W and the bumped it to 75W. how did they triple it without a problem?!
 
trandoanhung1991 said:


He describes the problem around 2:00 mark.
Click to expand...


That was a very good video and everything I was thinking, he eventually said, haha.
Thank you for sharing that, it was very informative.

Also, AMD is complete fail for only having a single 6-pin PCI-E (75 watt) connector on their stock RX480 GPUs, especially when older motherboards and the older PCI-E specifications can only provide 75 watts themselves (total 150 watts), yet the RX480 utilizes more than 160 watts.
Seriously, AMD couldn't have put a single 8-pin PCI-E (150 watts) connector on their stock model to alleviate this issue?

Was the cost just too much?
More like their lack of logic and reasoning that was too much...
 
pendragon1 said:
I went and looked at the pcper vid again and they stress that it is "at stock, no overclocking, no over volting"(@10:35) but that will still have boost enabled. so its running higher than the 1120 base. frequency isn't mentioned it just repeated that its "at stock". they also say that the original pcie max was 25W and the bumped it to 75W. how did they triple it without a problem?!
Click to expand...

each version of the pci e has different specs, so as they increased the pci-e spec number so did the voltage amps and wattage.

yeah they still have boost enabled, but as voltage goes up, amps go down through the bus, Its all about the end wattage. If you need 150 watts to do 1266mhz, you need a certain amount of amps and volts to get that wattage, amps and volts will be inversely proportional to each other based on the wattage. So lets say they need 120 watts for 1120mhz. And right now its using 1.3 volts at base, not sure if this is what is right now,

If you had 1 amp and 1 volt that's equal to 1 watt.

You need to split the volts up on the different rails you have 5 volt rail and the 3.3 volt rail each one delivers amps based on what the wattage of the card needs.

Right now the 5 volt rail is using more than the pci-e spec allows and not even talking about the 3.3 volt rail on top of that.

This is why we need to see each one of those changes based on the clock frequency changes to see what would the best outcome would be to preserve the clock speed as close to the original ref design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top