OCCT 3.1.0 shows HD4870/4890 design flaw - they can't handle the new GPU test !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightstar

A higher OCP limit may have been appropriate for these designs. But I'm not an EE and I don't work for AMD designing video cards do you?

---

W1zz doesn't work for AMD designing cards either but I am willing to take his word for it that there is probably enough overhead for a higher OCP limit. And even if he is wrong, there are lots of cards out there to choose from with a beefier power section.

Quote:

---

Your dismissal of OCCT as a valid application is illogical.

---

I did no such thing.

Quote:

---

What is misrepresented is that this card is able to function in a stable manner at the specified frequency.

---

Feel free to dig up some product literature that says that.

Quote:

---

If you are reading these forums indeed 1%< you. If you are posting here your part of an even smaller group. I didn't wan't to be the guy to say it but this is "Xtreme systems", not "Good enough systems" or "Mildly defective systems".

---

The 99% represents normal users. I said "the rest of us" in describing extreme users, clearly including myself in the group of OCCT users and overclockers (ie. the 1%). How was that not clear from my posts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Then maybe you should ask Nvidia why the MUL isn't 100% efficient or maybe why your code doesn't fully load Nvidia cards?

Anyone try running a renamed .exe on Nvidia cards?

---

I'll look into it. The temps are skyrocketing as well as the VRM usage. I do wonder why the FPS is below, but that's about it.

I'll try to look at it next week. I promise you it'll be done ASAP. But i probably won't have enough time before the end of the next week, looking at my schedule.

I do wonder if this is not caused by an optimization on a function AMD did, and Nvidia didn't do. I'll do some testing.

Havent been XS in a while and so missed thread. My reference hd 4890 crashes when heavily overclocked. Only OCCT used to do this and I suspected it was due to the 85A load, something nothing else could. Since no game even come anywhere close to this figure, I don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

I'll look into it. The temps are skyrocketing as well as the VRM usage. I do wonder why the FPS is below, but that's about it.

I'll try to look at it next week. I promise you it'll be done ASAP. But i probably won't have enough time before the end of the next week, looking at my schedule.

I do wonder if this is not caused by an optimization on a function AMD did, and Nvidia didn't do. I'll do some testing.

---

How the nVidia and ATI architectures handle complex/transcendental functions is a bit different. You could try some shaders that do square roots, exponentials, logs, sine/cosine, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

How the nVidia and ATI architectures handle complex/transcendental functions is a bit different. You could try some shaders that do square roots, exponentials, logs, sine/cosine, etc.

---

That's what i'm doing, don't worry. I'm looking at the combination i found, and seeing if i can optimize it for both architectures :D

If it comes from the shader that is. And if that part of the shader is at stake, and the more i look at it, the more i doubt it. i'll test it and let you guys know.

I have an Asus 4870 with Glaciator heatsink. Non-reference design, no problems with OCP but... it has 1,20V GPU stock and it generates errors on absolutely stock settings.
Assuming this is a valid stability testing program - not good at all :p:.
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7366/4870stock.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightstar

Tetedeiench, please superimpose a maze over your GPU test with a little mobile furry donut to navigate said maze. Then we can call it a game and be done with the illogical dismissal of this problem.

---

do that and i doubt you will get anywhere near that load

Time to build higher quality pwm circuits, were are moving into 1GHz frequencies and yet have such cheap designs, resulting in ringing or unacceptable temperatures.

i dont know, does anyone design a car that can go 1000 miles on a highway in 1st gear ? technically that would be valid driving too
i'm a car noob, so i might be wrong.

I did some tests:
Used latest dx9 updates set catalyst 9.5 to defaults, set fan to 90% to prevent overheating set gpu and mem to 750 /900 default clocks(temps never got above 60 degrees in any tests performed ).
Used Furmark(OpenGL) : renamed it to something else ,set rez 1920 X1200 set full screen and ran benchmarking and stability test and ran without a problem no artifacts no crashes no vpu restarts and vddc curent max was 80 A using gpu-z 0.3.3
So i failed at making it go above 83 A but let's see if it matters because no games ever make it reach that limit.
Next i used ATT (DX9): this lil app has a very small 3d-render test and in less than 3 min it made my card crash(computer restarted) !!! i was watching gpu-z and vddc curent never got above 57 A so that seemed weird?
I then used OCCT(DX9): gpu test in window mode on low rez 1024 x758 shader complexity default 0 and it crashed(computer restarted) even faster then ATT and there is no way it got to 83 A using those settings.
Why does it matter that att and occt never reached 83A and still crashed ?
Because my card Gainward 4870 512 reference design is unstable in games like crysis unreal 3 mass effect dx 9 (winxp 32) even on stock clocks and games never reach that high vddc .
After reading http://www.geeks3d.com/?p=3246 it made me think that maybe the catalyst drivers are buggy or the last dx9 update isn't getting along with the catalyst drivers(ati have been focusing on dx10 optimizations) or contains some shader bug that afects ati cards in some way ,that would explain why some reference cards don't crash (they don't have the latest dx9 update).
Any other explanation as to why only directx stuff crashes?
ps: i am not a 3dguru so don't get mad if i did something wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluedevil

I did some tests:
Used latest dx9 updates set catalyst 9.5 to defaults, set fan to 90% to prevent overheating set gpu and mem to 750 /900 default clocks(temps never got above 60 degrees in any tests performed ).
Used Furmark(OpenGL) : renamed it to something else ,set rez 1920 X1200 set full screen and ran benchmarking and stability test and ran without a problem no artifacts no crashes no vpu restarts and vddc curent max was 80 A using gpu-z 0.3.3
So i failed at making it go above 83 A but let's see if it matters because no games ever make it reach that limit.
Next i used ATT (DX9): this lil app has a very small 3d-render test and in less than 3 min it made my card crash(computer restarted) !!! i was watching gpu-z and vddc curent never got above 57 A so that seemed weird?
I then used OCCT(DX9): gpu test in window mode on low rez 1024 x758 shader complexity default 0 and it crashed(computer restarted) even faster then ATT and there is no way it got to 83 A using those settings.
Why does it matter that att and occt never reached 83A and still crashed ?
Because my card Gainward 4870 512 reference design is unstable in games like crysis unreal 3 mass effect dx 9 (winxp 32) even on stock clocks and games never reach that high vddc .
After reading http://www.geeks3d.com/?p=3246 it made me think that maybe the catalyst drivers are buggy or the last dx9 update isn't getting along with the catalyst drivers(ati have been focusing on dx10 optimizations) or contains some shader bug that afects ati cards in some way ,that would explain why some reference cards don't crash (they don't have the latest dx9 update).
Any other explanation as to why only directx stuff crashes?
ps: i am not a 3dguru so don't get mad if i did something wrong

---

Thanks for your tests ;) However, this bug can be reproduced with furmark if you bump the vGPU a little, as furmark is a tad less efficient than my test. It bumps the A on the VRM (and temps too), and you have the very same crashes.

I'm working on the fps on the Nvidia architecture at the moment. i'll keep you updated on my findings.

I would love a new feature in OCCT. :)

A graphics test that generated a 50% Graphics workload, and a 50% PhysX workload, at the same time.

But that's another thread...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...44#post3806644

I could't resit having the programmers ear, that made such a handy App. :up:

Carry on with your discussion. (Derail end.)

I've spent about 4 hours on the FPS "problem", and cannot find the cause. Everything i tried that seem to augment the FPS is simply simplifying the shader code once compiled, and thus augmenting the efficiency on both architecture once used. Truly.

I'd think the difference between the ATI FPS score and the Nvidia Score is due to the way they implemented the Shaders. The latter are still under heavy load, mind you. I asked users to do some testing on their Nvidia cards, and here are the results. Overclocked, they could get a GTX280 to 114A :
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4052/aroxx.jpg

I'm trying to get a screenshot @ stock values, which is what you are going to ask next. I do wonder if the latest value is @stock. I asked the user to do it.

Unfortunatly, the card i have is a GTX285, without VRMa readings :(

Mind you, i'm not abandoning that fast the matter, i'll still investigate. But the test is already really stressfull on those cards. That's why i'm starting to think the FPS value is "normal".

tet, install nvidia perfhud. very useful for debugging such things

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

I've spent about 4 hours on the FPS "problem", and cannot find the cause. Everything i tried that seem to augment the FPS is simply simplifying the shader code once compiled, and thus augmenting the efficiency on both architecture once used. Truly.

I'd think the difference between the ATI FPS score and the Nvidia Score is due to the way they implemented the Shaders. The latter are still under heavy load, mind you. I asked users to do some testing on their Nvidia cards, and here are the results. Overclocked, they could get a GTX280 to 114A :

Mind you, i'm not abandoning that fast the matter, i'll still investigate. But the test is already really stressfull on those cards. That's why i'm starting to think the FPS value is "normal".

---

Hmmm... so this test also shows that you are not receiving 100% the performance of an Nvidia chip.
Why would you purchase a product that you cannot fully utilize?

See, same argument can go both ways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Hmmm... so this test also shows that you are not receiving 100% the performance of an Nvidia chip.
Why would you purchase a product that you cannot fully utilize?

See, same argument can go both ways...

---

Please, everybody understood you want to defend ATI/AMD by any means, every arguments you want to find, so let's try to quit the fanboyism for a bit...

As the architecture are different, the apps and test will give different results, and, globally, you'll have a ranking. But every test taken one by one will give you a different ranking, or performance rating for the cards.

I'm waiting for the RivaTuner VRMA screenshot @ stock.

More, i said i didn't give up on the issue. I'm following wizz advice right now, as i did hit the limit of what i could do manually. I'm still working on it.

Tetedeiench, I've loved OCCT since version 1 but there is not point in declaring this a design flaw. Every single game on the market runs completely fine on the ATI 4800 series, I've got my ATI 4850 @ 715/2150. (I'm debating between 720/2180 and 715/2150)

Does it fail the test? Yes, in less than 5 minutes. Does it run all my games for 6 hrs straight every single day? Yes. It's stable. What you need to do is put an approximate 90% load on the card, and monitor it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Hmmm... so this test also shows that you are not receiving 100% the performance of an Nvidia chip.
Why would you purchase a product that you cannot fully utilize?

See, same argument can go both ways...

---

Not really. It's probably loading the NV cards 100% also. It's just that the ATI cards whip the nVidia cards when it comes to processing this shader code.



Tetedeiench, I'm curious about the nature of the instructions you are sending these cards. Is it mostly really simple instructions like FP/INT multiplies, adds, etc. Or are you using the complex functions more like sin, cos, log, etc. Or is it a mixture of simple and complex functions? It is interesting that there is such a gap between how well the two architectures handle this code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

Please, everybody understood you want to defend ATI/AMD by any means, every arguments you want to find, so let's try to quit the fanboyism for a bit...

As the architecture are different, the apps and test will give different results, and, globally, you'll have a ranking. But every test taken one by one will give you a different ranking, or performance rating for the cards.

I'm waiting for the RivaTuner VRMA screenshot @ stock.

More, i said i didn't give up on the issue. I'm following wizz advice right now, as i did hit the limit of what i could do manually. I'm still working on it.

---

And you seem to be in Nvidia's pocket...
Get off your high horse and take a look at the numbers, they don't make sense.
You agree they don't make sense and then dismiss there is a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

Not really. It's probably loading the NV cards 100% also. It's just that the ATI cards whip the nVidia cards when it comes to processing this shader code.



Tetedeiench, I'm curious about the nature of the instructions you are sending these cards. Is it mostly really simple instructions like FP/INT multiplies, adds, etc. Or are you using the complex functions more like sin, cos, log, etc. Or is it a mixture of simple and complex functions? It is interesting that there is such a gap between how well the two architectures handle this code.

---

As I stated and showed, it is not loading Nvidia cards 100%, Tet even agreed to this.

Also why are you asking him about his code? He obviously has something to hide and doesn't want any to know what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

And you seem to be in Nvidia's pocket...
Get off your high horse and take a look at the numbers, they don't make sense.
You agree they don't make sense and then dismiss there is a problem.


As I stated and showed, it is not loading Nvidia cards 100%, Tet even agreed to this.

Also why are you asking him about his code? He obviously has something to hide and doesn't want any to know what it is.

---

He agreed that the NV cards aren't as fast, not that they aren't being loaded 100%.

I'm asking him about his code because I am genuinely curious about how the differences in the architectures play out in real code. Instead of grabbing for straws to find any gotcha that I can use to insult Tetedeiench and dismiss the entire issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

He obviously has something to hide and doesn't want any to know what it is.

---

Clearly you are no use to this thread looking at your last 5-6 posts. Please stay out of it. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W1zzard

i dont know, does anyone design a car that can go 1000 miles on a highway in 1st gear ? technically that would be valid driving too
i'm a car noob, so i might be wrong.

---

Well, Based on Car terminology. It would be like this. In ATi's case.


They designed a very competing and good car. But little does the consumer know that it has a 5 speed transmission. But the 4th gear is missing. This helps cut production costs. Casual people don't know this 4th gear is missing. Only Enthusiast level people know.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Car analogies are the worst, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nfm

Time to build higher quality pwm circuits, were are moving into 1GHz frequencies and yet have such cheap designs, resulting in ringing or unacceptable temperatures.

---

Exactly :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Car analogies are the worst, lol.

---

They just keep getting worse and making less and less since :confused: