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

well, the thing about revving it to no end pretty much makes sense. The ATI cards have a rev limiter, to stop you from grenading them. Car manufacturers don't tend to publish their rev limits either, but they are there. This program is asking the card to rev to 10K, but it can only do 8K without damage, so they implemented a hard-cut rev limiter. Nvidia just uses a soft-limiter (car manufacturers do this too), to keep the revs at their limit without a noticeable 'cut'.

I think this is pretty much open and shut, I can't believe we're on page 20. It's obviously been built into the design to help protect the circuitry. So why are we still talking about it? If you get a game that is asking too much of your single card, that's what they have crossfire for!!

Anytime your game is running your GPU to 99%, its pretty obvious that you don't have enough graphics horsepower to run the game at the current settings. Add another GPU and your workload per card will be cut nearly in half.

Can we put this to rest? Surely there has to be other more productive things we could be reading and typing about.

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.

---

I'm not in Nvidia's pocket. I don't know where you're taking that from. YOur wild imagination perhaps. I don't have anything to hide. I'm still working on the performance issue, and tryoing to get Perfhud to work with DXUT to do some debugging.

Just goive me time.

And i'm tired of fanboys. I already said that if Nvidia would have been at stake here instead of AMD, this thread would be here just all the same. But perhaps i would have send an email to them : they are responding to the community. AMD just didn't. That's why you see Nvidia's logo on my website, and not AMD.

I'm truly tired of answering to your post that come out of your wild imagination that i'm paid by Nvidia to crush ATI cards. We're not in X-files there, friend.

I've already spent about 8 hours on trying to load Nvidia cards better. What else do you want ? Give me time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

you are not receiving 100% the performance of an Nvidia chip.

---

PLEASE stop thinking that any test you are running, hearing about or imagining utilizes any gpu to 100%. just because the gpu-z "gpu load" thingie shows 100% it's not 100% of the complete gpu.

while companies had this much of hot fanatic supporters they dont need to answer or care about this kind of stuff.

i am pretty sure amd engineers are aware of occt now and will use it in their qualification testing. but i doubt we will hear any official word from amd about this

It kind of makes me laugh, i have had an 4870x2 for 6 months now, played just about every game and have never had any issue's other then driver problems etc. Now all of a sudden a program comes out that can make the card overheat/fail people are worrying about it. At the end of the day, people have been using the 4800 series of Ati cards for months now, a vast majority its been fine for everything they've asked the card to do. Now people are crying about it crashing with this OCCT program.
At the end of the day no one was whinning before they read this article, so why start now. Your just looking for reasons to find fault with the cards.

This thread = :horse:

With all these car analogies I have to say this, just like if you run your car at the track you void the warranty, this is the same thing. Your video card is designed to play games, if a stress program blows it up it doesn't mean it's defective. However if you play a game and it blew up, now that's a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awdrifter

With all these car analogies I have to say this, just like if you run your car at the track you void the warranty, this is the same thing. Your video card is designed to play games, if a stress program blows it up it doesn't mean it's defective. However if you play a game and it blew up, now that's a problem.

---

Thank you! No game in the world will ever do the stuff and put that much load on your GPU. 115a x 1.23v? It could blow out your (mid range) PSU too! :ROTF:

Couldn't find anything bad in the code after about 8 hours of work on it.

And PerfHUD refuses to enumerate its device in my code... seems i'm not the one encountering this error. But at least, i do have support from Nvidia, i guess i'll have to contact them. However, i won't have time to get back to this issue before Thursday, at the earliest date.

Still no answer from AMD though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awdrifter

With all these car analogies I have to say this, just like if you run your car at the track you void the warranty, this is the same thing. Your video card is designed to play games, if a stress program blows it up it doesn't mean it's defective. However if you play a game and it blew up, now that's a problem.

---

AAAAAAAAAAAand the 10 pages old debate resurfaces, with the "3d cards are designed to play games, not benchmarks" arguments.

Next, in stores, you can buy the brand new "Movie encoding-limiting" CPU, the "Office-2003 and nothing else" CPU, and the most expensive "Do whatever you want with it" CPU.

Let's be serious, a 3d card is made to display any 3d scene, not any 3d game out there.

And let's not pollute this thread that was out of such non-constructive arguments for a few pages. The card fails at a perfectly valid 3d scene, and that's the main problem.

why would it be called the 5th gear if there are technically only 4?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

why would it be called the 5th gear if there are technically only 4?

---

because of companies being cheap. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warboy

because of companies being cheap. lol.

---

not being cheap, weve seen its OCP which is companies being cautious....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

AAAAAAAAAAAand the 10 pages old debate resurfaces, with the "3d cards are designed to play games, not benchmarks" arguments.

Next, in stores, you can buy the brand new "Movie encoding-limiting" CPU, the "Office-2003 and nothing else" CPU, and the most expensive "Do whatever you want with it" CPU.

Let's be serious, a 3d card is made to display any 3d scene, not any 3d game out there.

And let's not pollute this thread that was out of such non-constructive arguments for a few pages. The card fails at a perfectly valid 3d scene, and that's the main problem.

---

microsoft wanted to put "3 applications max running" into w7 starter edition. they scrapped it, but with cloud computing gaining market share in the next decades i expect this idea to be implemented at some point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warboy

because of companies being cheap. lol.

---

No, being cheap would be using less expensive, not software adjustable, and not software readable voltage regulator circuitry. Like what nVidia did with 55nm G200.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

AAAAAAAAAAAand the 10 pages old debate resurfaces, with the "3d cards are designed to play games, not benchmarks" arguments.

Next, in stores, you can buy the brand new "Movie encoding-limiting" CPU, the "Office-2003 and nothing else" CPU, and the most expensive "Do whatever you want with it" CPU.

Let's be serious, a 3d card is made to display any 3d scene, not any 3d game out there.

And let's not pollute this thread that was out of such non-constructive arguments for a few pages. The card fails at a perfectly valid 3d scene, and that's the main problem.

---

Wait ... aren't you referring to the Atom, Core 2 Duo mainstream, and then the i7?

My 295 ran it... :)

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/8127/works1.th.jpg

About 2 minutes in I had to stop it due to heat... :p:

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7591/works3.th.jpg

I was getting above 80FPS...

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.

---

How fast do the ATI cards run this code at 1920x1200?

Here is a screenshot of a GTX280 @stock values running OCCT, with everything displayed.

http://www2.noelshack.com/uploads/occtGTX280033111.jpg

Quite stressfull already, isn't it ?

Mind you, i already contacted Nvidia about the difference in FPS on the shader code, it still does not seems right IMHO. But my test is NOT gentle on those cards. That's for the accusations of being biased.

I picked these options for my test...

Next, the goal is simple : maximise the GPU load. Here is the way to do so on those cards. Be sure to use these settings !

* Enable Fullscreen Mode
* Disable Errorcheck Mode (comparing images is NOT effective)
* Use a High resolution. Preferably the native resolution of your screen (i.e. 1920x1200 for a 24" LCD, etc)
* Shader Complexity 3 for HD4XXX cards

What do the ATI card get for FPS at 1920x1200?

the 4870 and 4890 when running the test successfully have fps which are far higher than the gtx285.... surely they should be closer... Tetedeiench's findings on this issue should be interesting....

even after amd cripple the test as with furmark, i fully expect the ati cards to keep a healthy fps lead...

£160card out performs £500card in yet another synthetic test... all i'm bothered about...:up:

There have been a lot of posts in the last few pages which have made the assumption that 82 amps current draw cannot be achieved during gameplay (only by this kind of stress test).

I just wanted to state for the record that, as I game at 2560x1600, virtually all recent games I have played suck this kind of power through my graphics card vrm's when playing at this resolution.

I only have Nvidia hardware around right now so I cannot test with any 4870 / 4890's and I am sure that the different design architectures will cause a different current draw in the same situation between ATI & Nvidia cards but I can assure you my Nvidia card draws over 82 amps in several games I tested, and some of those tests were just a quick test at the loading / option screen....

no crash here with 2 x 4890s @ 900mhz core on cat9.5 - 5 minutes run just for testings sake - will try overclocked soon

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2...522h06cpu1.png

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5414/occtnotbug.png

Well, I've been following this thread and after this "issue" surfaced, I've looked around at several other forums, searching for people having major issues while gaming at any settings with any of ATI's 4xxx series of cards and have found pretty much none. No rampant and recurrent claims of cards locking up, quitting running, etc. Of course, there are the stray complaints of driver issues and Crossfire in certain games, but just as with SLI, neither brand is perfect with multiple card setups.

But having seen no similar and recurring complaints that span hordes of users of these cards, I'm beginning to suspect this is more a tempest in a teapot than a true issue, except by those that wish it to be. Otherwise, how can one dispute the huge customer base that uses ATI 4xxx video cards and have no issues what so ever with their use in gaming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humminn55

Well, I've been following this thread and after this "issue" surfaced, I've looked around at several other forums, searching for people having major issues while gaming at any settings with any of ATI's 4xxx series of cards and have found pretty much none. No rampant and recurrent claims of cards locking up, quitting running, etc. Of course, there are the stray complaints of driver issues and Crossfire in certain games, but just as with SLI, neither brand is perfect with multiple card setups.

But having seen no similar and recurring complaints that span hordes of users of these cards, I'm beginning to suspect this is more a tempest in a teapot than a true issue, except by those that wish it to be. Otherwise, how can one dispute the huge customer base that uses ATI 4xxx video cards and have no issues what so ever with their use in gaming?

---

Since you've been following this thread, you should know that the issue here isn't occurring in gameplay as of yet, but in OCCT :welcome: