Let RX 580 Overclocking hype train begin.. LOL

[Anarchist4000]

Wouldn't Radeon Chill be most useful on low-end cards? AMD launched the RX 560, 550, I'm assuming Chill would be best on those, as well as previous low-end cards. Although, I think AMD needs to market the Chill feature more towards low-end gamers, and through the games they already support. Like, hey, your poor, but guess what? buy this card to play LoL at 60 fps for $80. Better than Intel graphics. And etc. But best way would be to toss these in OEM stuff and mention in big letters, ENABLE RADEON CHILL.

It's potentially more useful in some high end products. VR for example where rendering above x framerates is pointless and lower frame times significant. If a card is already running max to achieve a framerate, Chill won't help much.

 

[Bankie]

Seems like you're just as well off to set a max frame rate target as opposed to using Chill. I tested Chill set at 60/144 with League of Legends last night whereas I normally use a profile that limits FPS to my monitor refresh (144hz). Temps and boost clocks turned out to be exactly the same but Chill added 'judder' when scrolling across the map that wasn't present at a steady 144fps.

This is with a 470.

 

[Peppercorn]

RX 580 is highly recommended by HardwareCanucks:

So I’m going to wrap this up here and now. I think the RX 580 is the best possible drop-in upgrade solution that money can buy provided your PSU is up to the task of powering it and there’s full awareness of the very limited overclocking headroom. Not only can this card offer superlative 1080P performance but it has the chops to power through high detail level 1440P content as well. NVIDIA’s GTX 1060 6GB can’t even come close, even when EVGA’s Superclocked edition is thrown into the mix.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...127-amd-rx-580-8gb-performance-review-20.html

 

[DooKey]

Viral marketing going around these parts.

 

[Chimpee]

Viral marketing going around these parts.

Someone has to make people get excited for a rebadged of the RX480.

 

[cybereality]

I think it's true. If you are a 1080p gamer and haven't upgraded in a while, it's still a good buy (even if it's not exciting to the high end segment).

 

[Shintai]

I think it's true. If you are a 1080p gamer and haven't upgraded in a while, it's still a good buy (even if it's not exciting to the high end segment).

If you need a costly space heater? Its hard to see its a good buy. 9Ghz 1060 cards are out. RX480 is much cheaper with minimal performance penalty.

And the performance per $.

 

[razor1]

So where are all those 1500 mhz rumors now, and 220 watts for 1060 gtx performance, looks like a respin really helped this thing?

I don't understand why people expect pixie dust to happen just because its AMD. Can we sit back down and get back to reality, instead of magic that AMD can only produce?

How many people thought I made this up?

Look this card is water cooled, power maxed on a 8 pin, that is 225 watts with a +100 mv, This card is maxed out in many more ways than one. But hell you guys want just a little above 1060 performance for 225 watts, ya know that is getting close to 1080ti power usage levels right?

https://videocardz.com/68526/amd-radeon-rx-580-first-benchmarks-and-overclocking

And no the 1500 mhz results don't show a power bug or too much, it is vdroop. The card is asking for too much power that what is connectors can have and its not getting that juice. So it can't sustain it with just one 8 pin connector. Now damn if it needs more than 225 watts, what is the point of over clocking this card like that, I mean the water block costs 70 bucks, you are in the 1070 territory in price.

 

[NKD]

So where are all those 1500 mhz rumors now, and 220 watts for 1060 gtx performance, looks like a respin really helped this thing?

I don't understand why people expect pixie dust to happen just because its AMD. Can we sit back down and get back to reality, instead of magic that AMD can only produce?

How many people thought I made this up?

Getting 1485 core and 2250 memory here in my second rig at 1.2v or 1.21 average according to GPUz. Staying in the 60c temp range. That's the max voltage I can give my card. Afterburner says around 185w power. This is with fan on auto.

 

[Shintai]

Getting 1485 core and 2250 memory here in my second rig at 1.2v or 1.21 average according to GPUz. Staying in the 60c temp range. That's the max voltage I can give my card. Afterburner says around 185w power. This is with fan on auto.

185W GPU die only? So it may be as high as 225W board power.

 

[CSI_PC]

Unfortunately Afterburner is not measuring the whole of the card/TDP-TBP as it comes down to what it can from the sensors available.

The 580 that is more stable in terms of performance-power envelope with higher frequency will give a better figure than 480 and even then it is at 225W at 1450MHz when measured accurately (only Tom's and PCPer can do this due to the use of scopes with isolated GPU, hardware.fr is next closest).

And here it is at 200W with the MSI 580 at 1393Mhz.

Cheers

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I think it's true. If you are a 1080p gamer and haven't upgraded in a while, it's still a good buy (even if it's not exciting to the high end segment).

I just replaced my 380 with a Gigabyte RX580 and I am impressed with the results....

 

[razor1]

Getting 1485 core and 2250 memory here in my second rig at 1.2v or 1.21 average according to GPUz. Staying in the 60c temp range. That's the max voltage I can give my card. Afterburner says around 185w power. This is with fan on auto.

Can't use afterburner for measuring power. That is GPU only.

I've only seen one review so far hit 1500, Jayz2cents, he hit 1530 and it wasn't fully stable, clocked it back down to 1500, it was a sapphire nitro special edition, so the gold samples are out there but it costs a shit load more and guess what 230 watts power usage, you get 1080ti power usage for 1060 performance. Great card *sarcasm* Just shows us one thing, rx 580 from the rx 480 not much as changed from a power perspective. They are following the same power curves.

 

[Shintai]

Ye, there goes some 40-50W for boardpower due to memory, VRMs etc. So 185W is more like 225-235W. The perf/watt metric is diabolically awful.

 

[razor1]

yeah its perf/watt is horrid its worse than Maxwell. Surprisingly close to Fury X but hard to do a compare with the Fury X's AIO.

AMD had to do this though, cause the out of the box overclocked 1060's were creaming the rx 480

 

[NKD]

Can't use afterburner for measuring power. That is GPU only.

I've only seen one review so far hit 1500, Jayz2cents, he hit 1530 and it wasn't fully stable, clocked it back down to 1500, it was a sapphire nitro special edition, so the gold samples are out there but it costs a shit load more and guess what 230 watts power usage, you get 1080ti power usage for 1060 performance. Great card *sarcasm* Just shows us one thing, rx 580 from the rx 480 not much as changed from a power perspective. They are following the same power curves.

So GPU only power is still good so are we just looking at gddr5 memory taking shit load of power here? My GPUz average is in the 170s at 1485. Peak it did state 219 but I don't consider peak the regular usage. I would rather take average.

 

[lolfail9001]

So GPU only power is still good so are we just looking at gddr5 memory taking shit load of power here? My GPUz average is in the 170s at 1485. Peak it did state 219 but I don't consider peak the regular usage. I would rather take average.

We are looking at your card consuming as much power as stock 1080 Ti, kinda.

 

[legcramp]

Yes, everyone knows the RX 580 is just an over-volted RX 480 that consumes more power and the 1080Ti consumes about the same amount of power but is way faster. When did everyone care soooo much about power consumption anyways? I mean do you guys run your stuff at stock speed or something? lol

 

[sirmonkey1985]

Yes, everyone knows the RX 580 is just an over-volted RX 480 that consumes more power and the 1080Ti consumes about the same amount of power but is way faster. When did everyone care soooo much about power consumption anyways? I mean do you guys run your stuff at stock speed or something? lol

i'd say at the mid range where the RX480/580 are sitting at power consumption is an important consideration when buying, especially when you consider it's sitting at basically 1060 performance while using way more power for the same price up front. when you get to the 1070/80/80ti who the hell cares, if you're spending that kind of money then power consumption is the last thing on your list to worry about.

either way it's all relative to where you live though in my opinion, but the three things i always looked at when i was living in california was performance comparison between cards from both sides then upfront cost/savings compared to potential power usage cost/savings. so depending on where you live saving 30-40 dollars up front might be worth the extra cost from the higher usage you'll pay in electricity over the period of time you own the card and in some cases it might not be worth it.

 

[Shintai]

Yes, everyone knows the RX 580 is just an over-volted RX 480 that consumes more power and the 1080Ti consumes about the same amount of power but is way faster. When did everyone care soooo much about power consumption anyways? I mean do you guys run your stuff at stock speed or something? lol

Its easier to overclock and cool and a 120W part than a 225W part. And then there is TCO and room/case temperature. Why get 100W more heat if its not doing anything.

 

[lolfail9001]

Yes, everyone knows the RX 580 is just an over-volted RX 480 that consumes more power and the 1080Ti consumes about the same amount of power but is way faster. When did everyone care soooo much about power consumption anyways? I mean do you guys run your stuff at stock speed or something? lol

Energy is not free, you know.

 

[JustReason]

Yes, everyone knows the RX 580 is just an over-volted RX 480 that consumes more power and the 1080Ti consumes about the same amount of power but is way faster. When did everyone care soooo much about power consumption anyways? I mean do you guys run your stuff at stock speed or something? lol

Because it fits their narrative. Look at the responses you got so far. I mean yes it matters but to see some of these posts it seems to be the only thing that matters.

 

[razor1]

So GPU only power is still good so are we just looking at gddr5 memory taking shit load of power here? My GPUz average is in the 170s at 1485. Peak it did state 219 but I don't consider peak the regular usage. I would rather take average.

Look you got mid range performance at enthusiast power usage, that sounds really good to you? How the hell does AMD expect Polaris which is a mid range card which should be the best perf/watt GPU in the line up, which is on 14 nm, worse at perf/watt than a gtx 970 on 28nm worse yet the gtx 970 wasn't the most efficient card in that gen, the gtx 980 was. That is a great leap in technology...... Polaris shows all the same signs that Granada, Hawaii, Fiji, had.

It just shows AMD is pushing Polaris way too much to keep up with the over clocked 1060's. That is bad it puts those overclocked 1060 at like 45% more efficient, another words you can save 25 to 50 bucks on a less wattage power supply, so effectively lower lowering or equalizing the cost of the 1060.

 

[CSI_PC]

So GPU only power is still good so are we just looking at gddr5 memory taking shit load of power here? My GPUz average is in the 170s at 1485. Peak it did state 219 but I don't consider peak the regular usage. I would rather take average.

Not really it is also efficiency and the power that needs to be pumped into the GPU and memory.
Nvidia can use lesser rated components and yet have much less leakage-power gating/static-dynamic power characteristics overheads/etc and while also using more power hungry memory that still does not impact their GPUs anywhere near as much as AMD.
Also depends what the window sensitivity is with GPUz.

It is all relative, but AMD is still playing catchup in this area, and when OC or at the higher limits of the performance envelope (voltage-frequency-relative performance) that extra demand is not coming from the memory but power mostly from the GPU and its power stage.
Cheers

 

[razor1]

Because it fits their narrative. Look at the responses you got so far. I mean yes it matters but to see some of these posts it seems to be the only thing that matters.

What F'in narrative? We know what the power usage of the rx580 is, we can see it in the 20 or 30 reviews out there, it uses anywhere from 180 watts all the way up to 240 ish watts based on which model and overclocks, that IS CRAP power usage when you have a gtx 1080 which is ~60% faster at 180 watts, you have a 1070 which is 30% faster at 150 watts, and then you have a 1060 at 120 watts.

When silicon is pushed that much out of the box that isn't good for the electrical components either. Higher voltage, higher temps, higher amps, over sustained amount of time damages silicon and electrical components more (more chance to too)

 

[NKD]

Look you got mid range performance at enthusiast power usage, that sounds really good to you? How the hell does AMD expect Polaris which is a mid range card which should be the best perf/watt GPU in the line up, which is on 14 nm, worse at perf/watt than a gtx 970 on 28nm worse yet the gtx 970 wasn't the most efficient card in that gen, the gtx 980 was. That is a great leap in technology...... Polaris shows all the same signs that Granada, Hawaii, Fiji, had.

It just shows AMD is pushing Polaris way too much to keep up with the over clocked 1060's. That is bad it puts those overclocked 1060 at like 45% more efficient, another words you can save 25 to 50 bucks on a less wattage power supply, so effectively lower lowering or equalizing the cost of the 1060.

No it doesn't. But I don't give two shits about power as long as I pay cheap price for that performance. 1080 is also doubled the price so that is irrelevant to me. You are getting what you pay for. I have a 1080 I know the value behind it. I am Not going to stick in another 1080 in a mid range rig, plus it has free sync monitor.

Paying 240-260 is not bad. Yea it uses more Power but amd is giving you more performance then rx 480 at the same price. Do hell with 50 more watts as long as it's running cool. Now if the card was pushing 300+ watt then may be I would think about it. My card doesn't even get close to 240w. If never even hits 70c.

 

[lolfail9001]

Do hell with 50 more watts as long as it's running cool.

That's kind of hilarious to read because the latter is actually utterly irrelevant. Objectively irrelevant.

 

[NKD]

That's kind of hilarious to read because the latter is actually utterly irrelevant. Objectively irrelevant.

glad you had a laugh. My point being if it was running hotter Likely won't retain the clock speeds. And I got the card primarily for freesync on my second rig.

 

[Shintai]

My card doesn't even get close to 240w.

Only 225-235W for 1060 performance?

 

[razor1]

No it doesn't. But I don't give two shits about power as long as I pay cheap price for that performance. 1080 is also doubled the price so that is irrelevant to me. You are getting what you pay for. I have a 1080 I know the value behind it. I am Not going to stick in another 1080 in a mid range rig, plus it has free sync monitor.

Paying 240-260 is not bad. Yea it uses more Power but amd is giving you more performance then rx 480 at the same price. Do hell with 50 more watts as long as it's running cool. Now if the card was pushing 300+ watt then may be I would think about it. My card doesn't even get close to 240w. If never even hits 70c.

Running cool means shit you know that, So you would go with get a card that burns more electricity for the same performance? You do release the 1060 gtx overclocked versions are in the same price ranges right?

A person with a gtx 970 or gtx 980 form last gen is a better buy! They could have used their card for 2 generations and at the end spend the same amount of money!

I don't get it, do you just want to advocate a poor product to what else is out there?

Yes its a poor product, you don't get anything over the gtx 1060 outside of burning much more electricity.

 

[THUMPer]

I heard the 580 was melting the PCI-E slot! ZOMGBBQ. Is this true? Will my motherboard melt? My mom bought me this thing I don't wanna get spanked.
\sarcasm

 

[razor1]

hmm no haven't see anything about that.

 

[THUMPer]

I would not be caught dead buying a 1060 anyway. I also wouldn't buy a 580. haha. I run a 390x and it's been fine. I understand the power argument, and while it's a good one, I think most people are looking at cool RGB LED's and not power numbers.

 

[NKD]

Running cool means shit you know that, So you would go with get a card that burns more electricity for the same performance? You do release the 1060 gtx overclocked versions are in the same price ranges right?

A person with a gtx 970 or gtx 980 form last gen is a better buy! They could have used their card for 2 generations and at the end spend the same amount of money!

I don't get it, do you just want to advocate a poor product to what else is out there?

Yes its a poor product, you don't get anything over the gtx 1060 outside of burning much more electricity.

I have freesync so I got a midrange amd card. 50w is not a concerning factor to me. Freesync takes priority. So 1060 is out of the picture. power argument is legit but it's one that is bottom of the list to me. As long as performance/price are there.

 

[THUMPer]

I have freesync so I got a midrange amd card. 50w is not a concerning factor to me. Freesync takes priority. So 1060 is out of the picture. power argument is legit but it's one that is bottom of the list to me. As long as performance/price are there.

I would agree. I have a 144hz freesync monitor. I can play BF1 at 80-120 fps at 1440p mixed settings and get a great gaming experience. But someone else will say"Yeah but I can play ultra at 140 fps gsync" But they probably suck at the game anyway so it doesn't matter to me.

 

[CSI_PC]

I would not be caught dead buying a 1060 anyway. I also wouldn't buy a 580. haha. I run a 390x and it's been fine. I understand the power argument, and while it's a good one, I think most people are looking at cool RGB LED's and not power numbers.

I do think it was the power numbers and thermals (meaning indirectly noise as well) for the performance that hurt the 290/290X sales.
390/390x tried to improve on noise by using a larger slot solutions and be 2.5 to 3 slots, which is what we also see now from AMD with the 580 but the positive with the 580 is that it can sustain better frequencies at the higher end of the envelope.

TBH I think Nvidia is totally pricing themselves out of the lower market with the 1060 refresh and its MSRP in custom form as it is getting uncomfortably close to the cheaper 1070 custom cards (£50 difference here in UK) , while AMD is also pushing their prices higher and those on 390x feel the price for performance does not warrant the upgrade or people scrabble to get the seriously lowered priced 480s before they all go.

I did love some of the bargain sale 390X 8GB MSI cards back in the day, sold too quickly for me to get one bah.

Cheers

 

[legcramp]

And to those of you who are bitching about power consumption still, how much time do you game that loads the video card to max speed vs. sitting idle every day? I am going to guess you probably don't game at all and spend the majority of your time making love to Intel/Nvidia.

 

[lolfail9001]

And to those of you who are bitching about power consumption still, how much time do you game that loads the video card to max speed vs. sitting idle every day?

Enough that paying for 1060 over 580 after a year of usage would make 1060 cheaper.

 

[THUMPer]

My gaming PC is off 18 hours out of a 24 hour day.

 

[Briguyatx]

Only 225-235W for 1060 performance?

You realize this is effectively like caring about gas mileage on a performance car, instead of only caring about price/performance for the money? At least for me, power has never been a consideration.