WYP
News Guru
What are your thoughts on AMD's reference RX 6000 design.
Read more about AMD's Radeon RX 6000 series GPU design.
Read more about AMD's Radeon RX 6000 series GPU design.
AMD reveals its first Radeon RX 6000 series GPU image
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
KingNosser
Well-known member
Far better than normal 
It was the lack of power on the engineering board why I thought it wasn't Navi 21 but more likely 22/23.
This thou I can live with it at least has some decent cooling, thou not a fan of red on hardware since my set up is black and blue so it's something i'd want changed out for an AIB like sapphire card or similar unless it's changeable
It was the lack of power on the engineering board why I thought it wasn't Navi 21 but more likely 22/23.
This thou I can live with it at least has some decent cooling, thou not a fan of red on hardware since my set up is black and blue so it's something i'd want changed out for an AIB like sapphire card or similar unless it's changeable
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Very nice design; like something Sapphire would do, just with more red and R's.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Avet
Active member
Looks very nice. I like it.
The 150W from 8-pin is outdated. Ancient PSUs made that limit. 8-pin can carry ~400W. This is an elaborate explanation from some form i can't remember:
The PCI-E connecter has 6 pins. They are not all used for power. For the 6 pin connector, Pins 1 & 3 are 12V & each can carry 8 Amps. Pin 2 by spec is not connected, although some PSU manufacturers do add a 12V line there. Pins 4 & 6 are Com return lines. Pin5 is Com for sensing. Using 2 lines, you get 12V*8A*2= 192Watts, much over the required 75Watts. With an 8 pin PCI-E connector, 2 Com lines are added (4&8) not a 12V & Com. There, Pins 1,2,3 are 12V, Pin 4 is a Com for the 8 pin connector sensing, Pin 5,7,8 are Com return lines, & pin 6 is for the 6 pin connector sensing. Using that config, 12V*8Amp*3=288 Watts, much over the required 150Watts. Since Mar 2005, the molex pins are required to be "HCS" rather than "Std", which each carry a max of 11Amps. So properly made, an 8 pin PCI-e can supply 12V*11Amps*3lines=396Watts of power for the graphic cards.
The 150W from 8-pin is outdated. Ancient PSUs made that limit. 8-pin can carry ~400W. This is an elaborate explanation from some form i can't remember:
The PCI-E connecter has 6 pins. They are not all used for power. For the 6 pin connector, Pins 1 & 3 are 12V & each can carry 8 Amps. Pin 2 by spec is not connected, although some PSU manufacturers do add a 12V line there. Pins 4 & 6 are Com return lines. Pin5 is Com for sensing. Using 2 lines, you get 12V*8A*2= 192Watts, much over the required 75Watts. With an 8 pin PCI-E connector, 2 Com lines are added (4&8) not a 12V & Com. There, Pins 1,2,3 are 12V, Pin 4 is a Com for the 8 pin connector sensing, Pin 5,7,8 are Com return lines, & pin 6 is for the 6 pin connector sensing. Using that config, 12V*8Amp*3=288 Watts, much over the required 150Watts. Since Mar 2005, the molex pins are required to be "HCS" rather than "Std", which each carry a max of 11Amps. So properly made, an 8 pin PCI-e can supply 12V*11Amps*3lines=396Watts of power for the graphic cards.
Tolemac
Active member
Sapphire work very closely with AMD in their gpu segment and I wouldn't be at all suprised if sapphire were making these for them.
Tolemac
Active member
Another thing that has intriged me about these new Navi cards. Buildzoid is taking a lot of interest in them. I'll stick with my 2080 super for now though until I see independant reviews, pricing and availability. If I do buy AMD though it will be a Sapphire card I just wish they would bring back the Vapor X series.
Last edited:
Nah, the PCI-SIG power limit is derived from the wires rather than the pins/anything to do with Molex's ratings for the connector. 8Amps with standard 20AWG wire would have a ridiculous Vdrop after 1m (~5%). You'd need to reduce the power to under 4.5A to get under 2.5% Vdrop in 1 meter of 20AWG cabling, hence this being the ballpark rating for sustained load. All that energy loss becomes heat within the wires, so 5% loss may not sound like much but it's a fast track to flames when you're pumping hundreds of watts through thin wires.
Last edited:
Avet
Active member
I thought 18AWG was the stndard.
Nope, 20AWG is what's the spec is designed for(with the awareness that some will still use as thin as 22AWG), and the vast majority of cables use. 18AWG will still be common ofc, but you can't design for best case scenarios.
According to Igorslab. 18AWG is the standard for GPU.
I've seen Igorslab state the correct 20AWG figure a few times recently, maybe you've read an old article based on assumptions from manufacturers defacto standards?
Last edited:
Maybe i misread since it was translated from German, but the article is from march 2020. It could be that it meant AWG18 is commonly used. AWG 20 being used for power up to 150watts.
Kleptobot
Member
And that is before you factor in de-rating the current carrying capacity of insulated conductors when they are bundled. Which alludes to the fact that the current carrying capacity of a conductor is a relationship between the cross section of the conductor/s and the insulation used (ignoring that at a certain point the conductive material will vaporise). The cross section affects the amount of heat generated per unit length and the insulation will be rated to a maximum temperature.
Larger cross section = less energy dissipated per meter = lower temperature
Higher insulation breakdown temperature allows for a smaller cross section to be used.
The Vdrop also becomes an issue at a certain point, but you could conceivably run a GFX card from hookup wire if there was nothing flammable nearby.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I've just noticed it. The side (top) design looks just like the 2080Ti FE lol.
wow, AMD trolling hard
