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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biker

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.

---

What are those recent games?
Crysis Warhead at 1680x1050 on my HD4890 draws 42A on average and 47.40A at peaks. But then again, such comparison between nV&ATi hardware is totally pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biker

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....

---

Point is its a VRM design flaw/corner-cut in ATi reference cards ONLY thats been said.

So any talk about 'Games don't crash/ My Nvidia card pulls 10000Amps and don't crash WTF' is irrelevant at this point in the thread. Maybe not irrelevant when he started it, but if you read the thread, its irrelevant now.

If the card is incapable of limiting itself without a crash based on high load, or simple dealing with high load, A STOCK CLOCKS AND VOLTAGES, its a design flaw. And the reason I'm saying its a design flaw is that OTHER manus who used NON-REFERENCE cards spent the money for their customers to make the power circuitry that DOES work in all situations.

Who cares if your "new test" causes issues with certain cards, lastr I checked it was the performance and stability of GAMES that's important, not "tests".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vienna

[...] performance and stability of GAMES that's important, not "tests".

---

Agree it's a test but what if a game needs 82A from VRM's? Will be 2 choices:
- end user will stare at a black screen and curse ATI
- game developer will phone to ATI and ATI will tell him to reduce something from graphics because they don't need end users to curse them.
Anyway ATI never stops to amaze me.
PS. How come that the rest of ATI's models are fine? http://i43.tinypic.com/2ui96bn.gif

Because they dont need more than 82Amps on a 3 phase budget VRM and the OCP is set higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

I fail to see that as a valid mecanism. It is not a valid OCP. Why ? Because of two things. One which is funny, one less :
[LIST][*]Let's imagine that in a future i want to turn OCCT GPU:3D test into a benchmark. That is NOT planned, but let's say i want to (after all, this code is pretty efficient, isn't it ? would be interesting to get some scores out of it). As ATI slowed down some cards because of an engineering problem, i wouldn't be able to do so. That would defeat the purpose of the benchmark. That's the very same problem as 3dmark's optimization, but backwards

---

Facepalm + Sigh....

No, it wouldn't be the same issue as the 3dmark(or any program for that matter) "optimizations". As long as the output is not touched, or changed, then all they are doing is artificially limited your program to prevent damage.

If ATi goes and through their drivers and modify the way it OUTPUTS, then yes its an issue, but by limiting the performance and not changing the output at all? Sure, having to limit performance in the name of stability is disappointing, but ultimately null point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burebista

Agree it's a test but what if a game needs 82A from VRM's? Will be 2 choices:
- end user will stare at a black screen and curse ATI
- game developer will phone to ATI and ATI will tell him to reduce something from graphics because they don't need end users to curse them.
Anyway ATI never stops to amaze me.
PS. How come that the rest of ATI's models are fine? http://i43.tinypic.com/2ui96bn.gif

---

Wrong, there is a third choice, ATi implents a fix in the drivers and limits the performance slightly. Heres my issue with the whole thing as long as the OUTPUT remains the same, then performance limited or not, who gives a damn.

Its like the TLB bug, the issue affected 0.001% of people, the fix caused a overall performance drop of around 25%. Luckily with GPU's, you can fix the way the GPU/card performances in the specific(0.001%) application, instead of having to castrate the WHOLE thing.

Sure, its a disappointment that the performance of that specific(0.001%) application is lowered, but how often do you think it will be detrimental to you enjoyment? Probably never. Again, the amount of games/programs which *might* affect by this is almost none(0.001%).

Again, luckly any "bug fixes" in drivers would only affect that one specific program and not cause a huge drop all across the board. as long as the output is not changed or degraded, who cares.

If the game you love to play is somehow effected by this, and loss caused by the fix doesn't fit your *performance* requirements, then go buy a card that does. Last I checked ATi never guaranteed the the performance of all games and programs will meet a certain level, and neither does nVidia for that matter.

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?

---

I'm having problems with my 4850, it is stock and never been overclocked. Far Cry 2, Brothers In Arms Hell's Highway and Call of Duty. I upgraded my system thinking it was anything but the Video card. So if it were only this test, I wouldn't give a flying flickering #uck but that's not the case. This test crashed on me even at lower settings. Maybe my card is bad.

I pulled the 3870 from my wife's rig. It Ran the test and all 3 of the Games perfectly. I have five computers in my house, they all have ATI video cards and I'm pretty anti-nVidia for the record. X800, X1800XT, 3650, 3870 and 4850.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

I'm having problems with my 4850, it is stock and never been overclocked. Far Cry 2, Brothers In Arms Hell's Highway and Call of Duty. I upgraded my system thinking it was anything but the Video card. So if it were only this test, I wouldn't give a flying flickering #uck but that's not the case. This test crashed on me even at lower settings. Maybe my card is bad.

I pulled the 3870 from my wife's rig. It Ran the test and all 3 of the Games perfectly. I have five computers in my house, they all have ATI video cards and I'm pretty anti-nVidia for the record. X800, X1800XT, 3650, 3870 and 4850.

---

I think it is, it shouldn't be doing that at all. I'd RMA it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

What are those recent games?
Crysis Warhead at 1680x1050 on my HD4890 draws 42A on average and 47.40A at peaks. But then again, such comparison between nV&ATi hardware is totally pointless.

---

When playing @ 2560 x 1600 these games pull higher amps for me:

Crysis
Crysis Warhead
Mass Effect
Empire: Total War
GTAIV

1680 x 1050 = 1764000 pixels

2560 x 1600 = 4096000 pixels (more than double)

More than double the pixels seems to mean higher current draw (at least on my current hardware)....

The highest thus far is Empire Total war which draws a *lot* of current when displaying the campaign map at 1600P....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

Point is its a VRM design flaw/corner-cut in ATi reference cards ONLY thats been said.

So any talk about 'Games don't crash/ My Nvidia card pulls 10000Amps and don't crash WTF' is irrelevant at this point in the thread. Maybe not irrelevant when he started it, but if you read the thread, its irrelevant now.

If the card is incapable of limiting itself without a crash based on high load, or simple dealing with high load, A STOCK CLOCKS AND VOLTAGES, its a design flaw. And the reason I'm saying its a design flaw is that OTHER manus who used NON-REFERENCE cards spent the money for their customers to make the power circuitry that DOES work in all situations.

---

That misrepresents my post.

I have read this thread diligently from start to finish and I am soooooo far from a fanboy the concept is ridiculous.

All I was attempting to contribute was the fact that at very high resolutions the current draw through ALL brands of graphics card vrm's is increased.

I was just trying to find some games that when played at this resolution (2560 x 1600) approach 80 amps in current draw...

I just wish I had an ATI card to test with atm because when gaming with my Nvidia card at 2560 x 1600 the current levels are almost in the zone where OCCT helps some reference 4870 / 4890's to fall over.

Now I know that Nvidia and ATI cards will have different current draws in the same situation due to dufferent architecures and configurations etc so I would be very interested if someone could test with ATI hardware @ 2560 x 1600 just to see if the current draw gets over 80 amps at this resolution when gaming...

Anyone out there with ATI hardware and a 30" screen? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG

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

---

Thanks for the post...

Yes, if (2) 4890's get almost 140 FPS @ 1920x1200, and my 295 get's close to 80 FPS, the loading isn't right.

It flat out should be closer selecting the same options...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biker

I would be very interested if someone could test with ATI hardware @ 2560 x 1600 just to see if the current draw gets over 80 amps at this resolution when gaming...

Anyone out there with ATI hardware and a 30" screen? :)

---

Just tried Warhead at 2560x1600 enthusiast settings and played a bit of the ice level while running GPU-Z in the background.
The max was 60.3 A
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7...ead2560.th.png

I would only add my opinion: "I don't play OCCT, neither Furmark nor this stupid tests means something to me .. if it crashed after 8 hours play of Crysis, then it means something."

Its same stupidity as Linpacks etc. its load that cant be created normal way.. eg. its meaningless.

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...

---

Here is one piece of answer on the very same computer, with a GTX280 :
OCCT vrmA usage : 84.68 A
http://www2.noelshack.com/uploads/occtGTX280033111.jpg

Furmark vrmA Usage (the donut is not taken as the user had a beautiful black box showing) : 79.84A
http://www2.noelshack.com/uploads/furmarkGTX050607.jpg

I'm currently asking what Furmark configuration the user used. And especially if he could retake the screenshot to include it in the pic (so that i don't get accusation like "you faked it - blablabla", even if it is easy to fake - sigh). But no - i'm not gentle on Nvidia cards. I asked him to use the same resolution as OCCT to be able to compare them.

I did not drop that FPS matter yet, mind you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

Here is one piece of answer on the very same computer, with a GTX280 :
OCCT vrmA usage : 84.68 A
http://www2.noelshack.com/uploads/occtGTX280033111.jpg

Furmark vrmA Usage (the donut is not taken as the user had a beautiful black box showing) : 79.84A
http://www2.noelshack.com/uploads/furmarkGTX050607.jpg

I'm currently asking what Furmark configuration the user used. And especially if he could retake the screenshot to include it in the pic (so that i don't get accusation like "you faked it - blablabla", even if it is easy to fake - sigh). But no - i'm not gentle on Nvidia cards. I asked him to use the same resolution as OCCT to be able to compare them.

I did not drop that FPS matter yet, mind you.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like you're trying to say that a GTX280 drawing ~84 amps is the same as a 4870 drawing ~84 amps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like you're trying to say that a GTX280 drawing ~84 amps is the same as a 4870 drawing ~84 amps.

---

No. The user told me that my test was biaised because too gentle on Nvidia chips. Like castrated on purpose, i put a limiter if i found the "Nvidia" string somewhere, because i worked for them. Like i was paid by Nvidia to kill AMD cards, something like that.

He didn't say that "clearly", but that what's transpired from his posts.

I'm just saying that my test is more stressfull on ATI cards than Furmark.

And that my test is more stress full on Nvidia cards too than Furmark.

So he can't accuse me of being a Nvidia spy, or anything like that. Unless furmark is also paid by Nvidia, of course.

now, the readings being what they are, they are definitly NOT the same.

Especially since those were made in Windowed mode. Not fullscreen. That in itself makes a huge difference.

well clearly the gtx 295 should perform about the same as my 2 4890s (which do not crash @ 900mhz core)... but it doesn't at all, its off by nearly 40% performance wise

so whats the problem? your not putting the same performance load on the nvidia cards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG

well clearly the gtx 295 should perform about the same as my 2 4890s (which do not crash @ 900mhz core)... but it doesn't at all, its off by nearly 40% performance wise

so whats the problem? your not putting the same performance load on the nvidia cards

---

I'm just puzzled why the author didnt compare ATI Vs NV performance before naming the thread "HD4870/4890 design flaw".

It's obvious by now that the benchmark isnt loading the cards equally. Anyway back to playing some real games! ;)

is it possible that the nvidia card cannot simply keep up with these kinds of tasks? i thought ati cards also killed nvidias in furmark?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

is it possible that the nvidia card cannot simply keep up with these kinds of tasks? i thought ati cards also killed nvidias in furmark?

---

They do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

is it possible that the nvidia card cannot simply keep up with these kinds of tasks? i thought ati cards also killed nvidias in furmark?

---

The load just proved that my test isn't gentle on Nvidia cards.

And yes, i'm starting to think the Nvidia cards cannot keep up at those kind of tasks, but they are still giving all they've got, looking at their power consumption.

Seems like the configuration he used for furmark is as follows : 1680x1050, extreme burning, no AA. I don't know if it is fullscreen or not.

OCCT GPU was 1024x768, windowed mode. The OCCT conf can be seen on the screen. I asked him to redo it at the same res than OCCT for a good comparison.

GTX295 should perform on par with 2 4890s,but it doesn't.The only thing that could be responsible for this is the code in the test(and no,I'm not implying it is deliberate attempt by the author).It could be that test is really not stressing Nv cards as much as ATi's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

GTX295 should perform on par with 2 4890s,but it doesn't.The only thing that could be responsible for this is the code in the test(and no,I'm not implying it is deliberate attempt by the author).It could be that test is really not stressing Nv cards as much as ATi's.

---

It is not the code, it is the architecture that is not as effective as ATI on those particular instructions.

I did contact Nvidia about that matter. Let's give the matter some time. Aside from the FPS value, the vrmA rating shows that the cards are put under heavy stress, which is want we want.

I remind you that OCCT is *NOT* a benchmark. For that, use 3Dmark ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

GTX295 should perform on par with 2 4890s,but it doesn't.The only thing that could be responsible for this is the code in the test(and no,I'm not implying it is deliberate attempt by the author).It could be that test is really not stressing Nv cards as much as ATi's.

---

Then you must have a hard time understanding this graph:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...275oc/ra3u.png

Take a look at the 2560x1600 test. See how horrible Nvidia cards are. This Red Alert 3 benchmark is confirmed by several other hardware review sites in addition to Xbitlabs.

Do you think that the game is "really not stressing Nv cards as much as ATi's"?

It is a known fact that when it comes to FP16 texture filtering throughput, a 4870 has over 20% higher fill-rate than a GTX 280 as shown in a 3dMark Vantage test. Do the numbers 1.2 TFLOPS for a 4870 and 933 GFLOPS for a GTX 280 mean anything to you? Perhaps this OCCT benchmark is pushing somewhere close to 1.2 TFLOPS?

I checked my cards found one that had Vitec 9853 regulator on it

shut down on full screen(1680x1050) and 1024x768

but I was able to run 20 OCCTGPU's at once
Now that's a stress test :rofl:


http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/e...tresstest2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

Do the numbers 1.2 TFLOPS for a 4870 and 933 GFLOPS for a GTX 280 mean anything to you? Perhaps this OCCT benchmark is pushing somewhere close to 1.2 TFLOPS?

---

I have shown that those numbers don't make sense. Nvidia cards still should be performing better then they do. With the numbers from a GTX285, they are not using the MUL to it's full potential, one of the things that was supposedly "fixed" from G80. It is not performing at the 1.06TFlop(MADD+MUL) level nor at the 708GFlop(MADD) level but an inbetween. Basically the MUL is only being exploited ~45% of the time.

Sure, it is loading the cards but it is not exploiting all the shaders that the G200 has to offer.

People are complaining that they cannot fully utilize their RV770 cards, since some have to be downclocked to be stable in OCCT.
The flipside is that you are also not getting full advantage of all that G200 has to offer with the results of OCCT.
When using a G200 you are only receiving ~82% of the performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

Then you must have a hard time understanding this graph

Take a look at the 2560x1600 test. See how horrible Nvidia cards are. This Red Alert 3 benchmark is confirmed by several other hardware review sites in addition to Xbitlabs.

Do you think that the game is "really not stressing Nv cards as much as ATi's"?

It is a known fact that when it comes to FP16 texture filtering throughput, a 4870 has over 20% higher fill-rate than a GTX 280 as shown in a 3dMark Vantage test. Do the numbers 1.2 TFLOPS for a 4870 and 933 GFLOPS for a GTX 280 mean anything to you? Perhaps this OCCT benchmark is pushing somewhere close to 1.2 TFLOPS?

---

Agreed.

It's been mentioned many times in the past that the ATI cards pack more punch on paper. It appears this program is actually coded so well it proves that very point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

I have shown that those numbers don't make sense. Nvidia cards still should be performing better then they do. With the numbers from a GTX285, they are not using the MUL to it's full potential, one of the things that was supposedly "fixed" from G80. It is not performing at the 1.06TFlop(MADD+MUL) level nor at the 708GFlop(MADD) level but an inbetween. Basically the MUL is only being exploited ~45% of the time.

Sure, it is loading the cards but it is not exploiting all the shaders that the G200 has to offer.

People are complaining that they cannot fully utilize their RV770 cards, since some have to be downclocked to be stable in OCCT.
The flipside is that you are also not getting full advantage of all that G200 has to offer with the results of OCCT.
When using a G200 you are only receiving ~82% of the performance.

---

1.06TFlop for MADD+MUL still isnt as good as 1.2TFLOP for 4870 cards. Please elaborate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

1.06TFlop for MADD+MUL still isnt as good as 1.2TFLOP for 4870 cards. Please elaborate.

---

Here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

I wasn't trying to prove a point, I was simply answering a question.
I can see where he might have been headed by asking that question though.

4890 is what ~10-15% behind a GTX285 with both at stock on average in "normal" games and apps?
Yet with OCCT, the 4890 is ~56% faster, using the 83FPS vs 53FPS.
However this app is programmed it stresses every part of the chip to the max, or at least quite a bit more than other "normal" apps/games.

Also none of the numbers, i.e. FPP, seem to add up.
4890@850mhz= 1.36Tflops
GTX285@1476mhz= 1.06Tflops(MADD+MUL), .708Tflops(MADD)

1.36/1.06= 1.28x greater (1/2 the FPS difference)
1.36/.708= 1.92x greater (amusing since it doesn't mean anything but = largons power draw increase)

Simply using max theorectical FPP is not an accurate way to estimate performance but in this case it seems to be related. Since this app has been said to use simple shaders to completely load the ALUs, you could come to the conclusion that the MUL is only being used ~45% of the time.

Basically, the way this app is programmed it is able to use the 4890's architecture to the max and seems to not fully load Nvidia cards, persay.

Edit- Anyone know what the stock volts for a GTX280 is under load? 1.3-1.4v?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

Point is its a VRM design flaw/corner-cut in ATi reference cards ONLY thats been said.

So any talk about 'Games don't crash/ My Nvidia card pulls 10000Amps and don't crash WTF' is irrelevant at this point in the thread. Maybe not irrelevant when he started it, but if you read the thread, its irrelevant now.

If the card is incapable of limiting itself without a crash based on high load, or simple dealing with high load, A STOCK CLOCKS AND VOLTAGES, its a design flaw. And the reason I'm saying its a design flaw is that OTHER manus who used NON-REFERENCE cards spent the money for their customers to make the power circuitry that DOES work in all situations.

---

QFT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

I have shown that those numbers don't make sense. Nvidia cards still should be performing better then they do. With the numbers from a GTX285, they are not using the MUL to it's full potential, one of the things that was supposedly "fixed" from G80. It is not performing at the 1.06TFlop(MADD+MUL) level nor at the 708GFlop(MADD) level but an inbetween. Basically the MUL is only being exploited ~45% of the time.

Sure, it is loading the cards but it is not exploiting all the shaders that the G200 has to offer.

People are complaining that they cannot fully utilize their RV770 cards, since some have to be downclocked to be stable in OCCT.
The flipside is that you are also not getting full advantage of all that G200 has to offer with the results of OCCT.
When using a G200 you are only receiving ~82% of the performance.

---

This point has been made how many times now, for how many days? Is it really relevent to the thread at this point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

QFT


This point has been made how many times now, for how many days? Is it really relevent to the thread at this point?

---

"QFT?" Even though it has been shown in some cases that reference cards don't crash with OCCT?
I believe that has been pointed out and stated a few times in the thread but both of those have to be repeated since people either choose to ignore those statements or don't read the entire thread...
Also that specific post was buried by other's trivial posts, so I don't find it surprising that people missed it plus it was never properly addressed or disputed.

There are quite a few flaws/problems with the theory that people have brought up in this thread and haven't been addressed. Just because some want to dismiss them doesn't mean they are forgotten...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

"QFT?" Even though it has been shown in some cases that reference cards don't crash with OCCT?
I believe that has been pointed out and stated a few times in the thread but both of those have to be repeated since people either choose to ignore those statements or don't read the entire thread...
Also that specific post was buried by other's trivial posts, so I don't find it surprising that people missed it plus it was never properly addressed or disputed.

There are quite a few flaws/problems with the theory that people have brought up in this thread and haven't been addressed. Just because some want to dismiss them doesn't mean they are forgotten...

---

That wasn't directed at just you. I should have made that clear in the post, sorry.

I haven't seen one post here with anyone with a refrence card with a 3phase vrm that didn't crash that verified that ccc was using default settings and not forcing any post processing.

People crying foul because much like Furmark Nvidia cards aren't seeing the same framerates even though the vrms are definetly getting a work out is getting old and isn't really relevent at this point. Unless there is new as to why that is I just don't see why that matters in this thread. Is this one point supposed to invalidate the test? Although, you are the only one making a point while mentioning this.

Although I do agree that no other app will draw this kind of power from your vrms. I don't even feel comfortable running this test on much lower settings than this on my GTX280 since the vrms hit 100c in seconds, no game comes anywhere near that. I also wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia was using some driver tricks since like you pointed out the difference in performance should be lower, and in most power consumption tests that I have see the GTX280 draws more than a 4870 as well and my overclocked gtx280 hits a little lower than 82A (but I may have had multisampeling enabled in the control panel) in 1920x1080 fullscreen. Lastly we don't even know where this 82A even comes from, that number dosen't make sense since it can't be each vrm and it's not all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

That wasn't directed at just you. I should have made that clear in the post, sorry.

---

My bad as well since I thought it was.:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

I haven't seen one post here with anyone with a refrence card with a 3phase vrm that didn't crash that verified that ccc was using default settings and not forcing any post processing.

---

The couple of times I went through the thread I thought there was a couple, I don't think they have a CCC SS though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

People crying foul because much like Furmark Nvidia cards aren't seeing the same framerates even though the vrms are definetly getting a work out is getting old and isn't really relevent at this point. Unless there is new as to why that is I just don't see why that matters in this thread. Is this one point supposed to invalidate the test?

---

No, more like we still don't know for sure if it really is the VRMs at fault, though it seems likely. The point is that certain people were "crying" because RV770 owners could not use the full potential of their cards, a sad argument. With how many times this was brought up and by looking at the performance results, I noticed that even with this "simple" code you also cannot fully utilize G200.

Again, not wanting to keep repeating what has been posted previously but I need to fully explain myself.:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

It does. Check if your PCB is the reference one (it does not have to do with temperature, but with VRM). Check also if you forced V-sync in the driver, or Antialiasing, or Anistropic, or anything like that.

Also make sure you followed the configuration stated in the first post (shader complexity 3, fullscreen, high resolution, no error check).

---

Do I have to put everything back to default?

I'm currently forcing the AA and AFs. vsync is always off. You didn't mention any of those in the first page.

which nonreference 4890 cards pass occt ?

thanks

my reference XFX xxx edition (with 8+6-pin power) pass @ 900mhz no problem.

thanks sniipedogg

if its not too much to ask.. would someone make list of the reference/nonreference cards that pass or dont pass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

thanks sniipedogg

if its not too much to ask.. would someone make list of the reference/nonreference cards that pass or dont pass

---

Second that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P4rD0nM3

Do I have to put everything back to default?

I'm currently forcing the AA and AFs. vsync is always off. You didn't mention any of those in the first page.

---

If you want to reproduce the crash : yes. Forcing AA lower the load on the GPU, as applying AA is less effective than calculating frames from my test ;)

That's why you don't have the problem ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Here...

---

Perhaps more of Nvidia's processing power are "reserved" for PhysX calculations. I wouldnt be surprised if many of those transistors are wasted anyways on 32 ROPs, 512-bit memory interface, and espeically PhysX.

After all, nothing ever pushes closer than 99% of the theoretical maximum. Some of the older cards were so inefficient, like G92 cards, in only getting within 75-85% of the theoretical maximum for fillrate tests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

Perhaps more of Nvidia's processing power are "reserved" for PhysX calculations.

---

according to nvidia nothing is reserved. when an app requests cuda, the driver will set some shaders aside for that task for the lifetime of that cuda application.

Would this qualify as a glaring example of how nvidia uses TWIMTBP and its game developer "support" to optimize games for its lower powered cards? maybe its not but it kinda seems that way

the 4870 reference cards crash in intensive games like crysis, crysis warhead, unreal 3 gta 4
it depends on shader complexity used in the scene resolution AA AF applied core and memory clocks
heat can make the problem even worse because you don't need to reach 83A as the vrm's get get hotter the limit goes down ,i made my card crash in OCCT gpu test 600X400 window shader complexity 0 when it spiked repeatedly to about 78 A
idk if there is such a thing as vrm aging but that could make the things even worse.
crysis default gpu benchmark reaches about 60 A on 1600x1200 (default clocks) and more shader intensive scenes like the battle on the boat get the vrm's even hotter and combined with even higher vrma load end up crashing the card ---i have experienced this a few times .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluedevil

the 4870 reference cards crash in intensive games like crysis, crysis warhead, unreal 3 gta 4
it depends on shader complexity used in the scene resolution AA AF applied core and memory clocks
heat can make the problem even worse because you don't need to reach 83A as the vrm's get get hotter the limit goes down ,i made my card crash in OCCT gpu test 600X400 window shader complexity 0 when it spiked repeatedly to about 78 A
idk if there is such a thing as vrm aging but that could make the things even worse.
crysis default gpu benchmark reaches about 60 A on 1600x1200 (default clocks) and more shader intensive scenes like the battle on the boat get the vrm's even hotter and combined with even higher vrma load end up crashing the card ---i have experienced this a few times .

---

Unlikely, others are only seeing ~40a or so in games.

One thing that is a given is that 4870/4890 cards have way higher TFLOPS numbers. If there is one program that pushes it as close as possible to the theoretical maximum, this must be it.

Many others report it heating up their Nvidia cards higher than ever before, and also pushing their GTX 280 cards to 80A, just shy of the 82A ceiling.

That is all we really know for now, until more findings can be made. The rest are just theories for now.

i want 40 A QQ
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3255/amps.th.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluedevil

i want 40 A QQ
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3255/amps.th.jpg

---

I thought you said it was crashing?
Also you running two monitors? 797df and 797MB?

like i said in my previous post (witch you should read ) there are certain conditions that have to be met for the card to crash in crysis
it depends on shader complexity used in the scene(the carrier scene fights at the end of the game for example) because shader complexity = more vrma current amperage ,high resolution ,low AA AF applied, core and memory clocks used (overclock makes things a lot worse ), and most important is heat because after hours of gameplay the vrm's get very hot making them inefficient and the vrma current does not need to pass the 83A limit to crash anymore , it can happen on lower than 83A
i showed you my card at vrma 58.94 A in the gpu benchmark found in the crysis folder using default clocks and 1600x1200 rez
the scenes rendered in the benchmark are not the most intense ones found in the game so the vrma didn't get higher .also notice the temps are not that high and that means the vrm's are working great so of corse it didn't crash !!!!!!
also i am runing only one monitor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluedevil

like i said in my previous post (witch you should read ) there are certain conditions that have to be met for the card to crash in crysis
it depends on shader complexity used in the scene(the carrier scene fights at the end of the game for example) because shader complexity = more vrma current amperage ,high resolution ,low AA AF applied, core and memory clocks used (overclock makes things a lot worse ), and most important is heat because after hours of gameplay the vrm's get very hot making them inefficient and the vrma current does not need to pass the 83A limit to crash anymore , it can happen on lower than 83A
i showed you my card at vrma 58.94 A in the gpu benchmark found in the crysis folder using default clocks and 1600x1200 rez
the scenes rendered in the benchmark are not the most intense ones found in the game so the vrma didn't get higher .also notice the temps are not that high and that means the vrm's are working great so of corse it didn't crash !!!!!!
also i am runing only one monitor

---

Yes, I did read your post. Wasn't exactly 100% clear... which is why I asked for clarification.

So you play with no AF? Wow, don't think I could ever do that.

I'm sure I can make any game crash on any of my Nvidia cards when they are overclocked...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Yes, I did read your post. Wasn't exactly 100% clear... which is why I asked for clarification.

So you play with no AF? Wow, don't think I could ever do that.

I'm sure I can make any game crash on any of my Nvidia cards when they are overclocked...

---

dude i'm sure you can but my point is i didn't overclock the card it would only make it more likely to crash because higher clocks = more vrma amperage and i don't need that it crashes fine on it's own

Hmmm... this could explain my unexplainable crashes... That means that I probably am fine with my power supply and this whole time it was actually this VRM bug thing. I bought this second Power supply booster thing because I thought I was pushing my power supply to much causing these random crashes. I have nice after market sinks on my cards and don't know how hot they are getting now a days (the VRMs) but, I can check real quick.


Edit:

Here are some pics, first one is me showing where I kicked up the clocks up a little for my test.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/184...ingitup.th.jpg

Second is showing the voltage that I bumped them up to.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/387...oltages.th.jpg

Third is a pic of my VRM temps of my GPU0 which apparently was the only one that Furmark used?? They both get used on everything else I play or benchmark with.

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/1852/bigheat.th.jpg

Fourth shows the temp of the one, GPU the test hit up.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/6590/someheat.th.jpg



The point is thought hat I get these random crashes or black screens and a reboot is needed while playing GTA 4 as mentioned on some other site I seen this story on. I have also expierienced it while playing COD 4 and playing it hard like blasting every one for a long time.



Edit again: I ran OCCT GPU Test and it just locked up and rebooted my PC. That is to funny, I know that the CPU is stable because I have IntelBurnTested it not to long ago.

I wish people would learn how to use Imageshack...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truehighroller

Hmmm... this could explain my unexplainable crashes... That means that I probably am fine with my power supply and this whole time it was actually this VRM bug thing. I bought this second Power supply booster thing because I thought I was pushing my power supply to much causing these random crashes. I have nice after market sinks on my cards and don't know how hot they are getting now a days (the VRMs) but, I can check real quick.

---

The aftermarket heatsinks are probably the culprit, many of those aftermarket designs provide poor cooling of the VRM.

"Oh no, my computers unstable, LOOK some guy on the interwebs found a flaw(which btw only becomes apparent under *unusually high* load), that MUST be why my card is breaking, even though the problem that the guy uncovered has nothing to do with my situation!"

truehighroller and bluedevil, I highly doubt its this "flaw" causing your issue.

I got powercolour 4890 and added accelero s1 rev.2. I noticed that vrm is pretty hard to cool down. I think my powercolour has a shutdown temperture max on the vrm if the vrm goes over 90*c to the range of 95*-110* my system restarts. As you can see my vrm amp is 32.66. Runs furmark fine at 900/1000 and can run indefinitely. I can overclock it to 980/1150 and run games if I can keep the temps cool, but if I ran benchmarks and the gpu uses 100% all the time the amount of heat produce exceeds the amount heat taken off by the fan. Don't think I have reached the 82/83amp the enormous amount of heat produced by the vrm seem to hit the limit for reference design. Which I think is poorly designed I think the non-reference powercolour design seem better and they say its 10+*c cooler.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1852/4890oc2.jpg

So any body care to comment on this one for me? What should I do? Is there anything I can do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cal_guy

The aftermarket heatsinks are probably the culprit, many of those aftermarket designs provide poor cooling of the VRM.

---

Want me to post pics of my cooling setup for them for you? I will.:shrug:


Here is a pic of my cooling setup.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6901/1022096.jpg

Another PIC.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9351/1022097x.jpg

Tell me what you think. I actually used a posting in this site to figure out what to put heat sinks on. If I need to and can I will order better cooling for the VRMs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truehighroller

Want me to post pics of my cooling setup for them for you? I will.:shrug:


Here is a pic of my cooling setup.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6901/1022096.jpg

Another PIC.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9351/1022097x.jpg

Tell me what you think. I actually used a posting in this site to figure out what to put heat sinks on. If I need to and can I will order better cooling for the VRMs.

---

I run an HR-03 on my GTX280 which uses the same vrms and I picked up some enzotech mos c-1s and they perform pretty well with a 120mm fan mounted on the drive bays across from the card. A little worse than on the stock cooler at 100% fan speed and alot better than the thermalright vrm plate. You may want to pick up a pack.

I remember I couldn't use a HR-03 on the 4870 because there are so many tiny hot chips on the card you need about a dozen extra (custom) heatsinks. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

I run an HR-03 on my GTX280 which uses the same vrms and I picked up some enzotech mos c-1s and they perform pretty well with a 120mm fan mounted on the drive bays across from the card. A little worse than on the stock cooler at 100% fan speed and alot better than the thermalright vrm plate. You may want to pick up a pack.

---

I can get some but, will they work? Not only that I am guessing I will have to cut those down to fit under my heat sinks, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truehighroller

I can get some but, will they work? Not only that I am guessing I will have to cut those down to fit under my heat sinks, right?

---

These vrms run hot, I wouldn't cut them down. I would nicely bend the pins down before mounting them. They should work fine as long as they see some airflow. I would imagine that even a cut down one would work better than what you are using now but I would do anything possible to avoid cutting them down.

What I don't understand is that people here at Xtreme Systems are blaming the programmer because he wrote a program that runs the gpu's at their maximum capacity has has found what appears(at least for now) to be a design flaw. These same people would be having fits if their cpu did the same thing when stress testing it at stock speeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElAguila

What I don't understand is that people here at Xtreme Systems are blaming the programmer because he wrote a program that runs the gpu's at their maximum capacity has has found what appears(at least for now) to be a design flaw. These same people would be having fits if their cpu did the same thing when stress testing it at stock speeds.

---

It does happen to CPUs at stock speeds... with certain applications and code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

It does happen to CPUs at stock speeds... with certain applications and code.

---

What applications/code?

I'm not talking about the TLB bug or a 1.13GHz Pentium 3 or anything like that. I'm talking about a CPU with good reputation, like a C2D E6600 with stock cooler.

That 82A theory is wrong.

I just ran this test on my reference 4870, went above 83 (84A) exactly and it was happy being there. That was at shader complexity 0 and 1600x1200.

Turned it up to shader complexity 1, crashes immediately. Shader complexity 3, immediately blows up.

Anyways, this doesn't make much sense (how it crashes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truehighroller

Here is a pic of my cooling setup.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6901/1022096.jpg

Another PIC.
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9351/1022097x.jpg

---

That tiny ramsink'ish thing you have on the VRMs is terribly inadequate for Volterra chips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElAguila

What I don't understand is that people here at Xtreme Systems are blaming the programmer because he wrote a program that runs the gpu's at their maximum capacity has has found what appears(at least for now) to be a design flaw. These same people would be having fits if their cpu did the same thing when stress testing it at stock speeds.

---

its just odd seeming the ATI carda re running nearly double the FPS as the competing nvidia cards ... thats why theres many arguments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahmad

That 82A theory is wrong.

I just ran this test on my reference 4870, went above 83 (84A) exactly and it was happy being there. That was at shader complexity 0 and 1600x1200.

Turned it up to shader complexity 1, crashes immediately. Shader complexity 3, immediately blows up.

Anyways, this doesn't make much sense (how it crashes).

---

Well, i've got news from you, this has been confirmed from AMD themselves now, according to hardware.fr, a reference in france as you can tell by the name. Here's the article :
http://www.hardware.fr/news/10235/ra...-probleme.html

They reproduced the problem, and here is AMD's official position, which is interesting (let me translate interesting parts for you, besides the "we confirm the issue" for you, you can check it with google trad if you want) : (oh, and TDP = Thermal design power = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power )




...

"This test (GPU:3D from OCCT) loads the Radeon with a charge so well balanced between texturing units, ROPs, computing units and memory that they all function to a very high percentage. The power supply stage wasn't designed to handle such a charge. It's thus shutting down, in security mode, to protect the card, which requires a reboot of the computer.

AMD indicated us that this is a deliberate choice to protect the power supply stage components from overheating or overintensity (? don't know if this term is correct), both being obviously linked. If AMD GPUs can protect themselves in case the TDP is being surpassed, by reducing their frequency, they are incapable of communicating with the power supply stage controler, and cannot act if this one is surpassed by the load, its sole resort being of shutting down the card.

It has been a few years since the VRM have been switching from analogical to numerical, providing a full monitoring. RivaTuner provides plugin that can give you access to those values. AMD was the first one to use such VRM on the X1950Pro, and it seems unconceivable that AMD didn't think it would be useful to use those values. AMD indicates that this problem will be fixed in later GPUs.

For AMD, it is normal to design a Power supply stage that is not in function of the maximum power consumption of the GPU, because there's a huge difference between the theorical maximum and the maximum that is usually seen in practical applications. All the recent chips can draw more current than their TDP and have mecanism that can maintain them between these limits. However, what is not normal, is to have conceived a a power supply stage that does not correspond to the TDP. With the HD4870, 4870x2 and 4890, AMD fixed a limit to the TDP that is not possible to attain with the reference PCB. Imagine, for instance, a GPU that is capable of drawing 100A before going into protection mode and a power supply stage that is going into protection mode at 90A.

To justify themselves, AMD insist on the fact that that no practical case will charge the GPU as much. You have to want it to be able to do it, and use a very specific code. Nothing says that it is not possible to have such code on a GeForce (BTW, I'm working on it, seeing if i cannot optimize it for GeForce. it'll probably be a different algorithm). Note that the problem is highly unlikely to appear in GPGPU computing, as in this mode, most GPU units are Idling, thus drawing less current.

Those justifications from AMD changes nothing to the design error they made. Even if the problem appearing is very unlikely, nothing tell it won't happen again. And this is a door open to viruses and such malicious softwares."

...

(they say they did not reproduce the problem on a 4 phase card and on a 3 phase non-reference design card, that were using different components).
Nonetheless, the fact that we did not reproduce it on those cards might be due to two things : either the VRMs are more powerful, or they are unprotected. While nothing indicates that the VRMs are going over their limits,in the doubt, we advise you not to abuse of this test on your Radeon cards.

AMD told us he is not planning any modification to solve the problem on existing products. However, AMD may review its limits on the GPU so that it could go into protection mode before the power supply stage. AMD may also use, in asoftware way, the values sent by the VRM monitoring to reduce the GPU frequencies automatically and avoid the crash. AMD may also propose a new reference design, especially for the HD4890, but nothing is sure ta the moment. AMD insist on the fact that the problem foes not occur on any existing application (other than OCCT, of course). A justification which doesn't sound right to us because the Radeon switch from the "reliable" category to the "almost reliable" category.

Should you avoid those Radeons ? We won't go as far, even if it would be logical for somebody who would like to avoid any potential problem to let aside the reference boards from AMD, or even, in doubt, buy a GeForce.

Needless to say that Overclocked cards will encounter this problem or different ones in OCCT. In that case, neither AMD or the manufacturer is responsible if at stock values the card doesn't show any problems".





As for the "don't abuse from the test", i'd say that by default, the shader complexity 0 is selected, and that value will never provoke the bug Radeons are encountering. That's the safety measure i took. Don't ditch my test ;)

Sorry for the quality of my translation. I'm doing my best... it's not that easy you know ;) And my english is far from perfect, as you may have already seen.

What's important to note (IMHO) :

• AMD acknowledges the problem on very specific app code
• The problem will be fixed in later cards by linking the Power supply stage monitoring info to the GPU info. I still find it weird to design a GPU that cannot function at 100% of its capabilities... truly, this is leaving me... abashed. However, they did not say they're planning to castrate OCCT. If that's true, i'm happy they're not doing it "app by app". Their approach is the good approach IMHO. The best approach would be a card that can handle everything at full speed. Which is what, marketingly, everybody boasts. I wonder why 3d cards functions differently than any other hardware in the PC field...
• The tester did reproduced it, and did a very great job at isolating the problem
• AMD is planning alot of modification to get around the problem. It is important to them. Maybe even a new reference board ! Wow. So much for a problem that does not exist... sorry, i'm savoring a bit the moment after the flame war we had here, even recently ;) Please, just let me pass this line ;) It's the only one i will write about it.

That's all about it. Sorry for the poor quality of the trad, perhaps google trad will do a better job at it, i'll let you read the one you like better ;) Trust me, i tried to do my best, and to be as close to the original test as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

It does happen to CPUs at stock speeds... with certain applications and code.

---

Which ones? Link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

Well, i've got news from you, this has been confirmed from AMD themselves now, according to hardware.fr, a reference in france as you can tell by the name. Here's the article :
http://www.hardware.fr/news/10235/ra...-probleme.html

They reproduced the problem, and here is AMD's official position, which is interesting (let me translate interesting parts for you, besides the "we confirm the issue" for you, you can check it with google trad if you want) : (oh, and TDP = Thermal design power = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power )




...

"This test (GPU:3D from OCCT) loads the Radeon with a charge so well balanced between texturing units, ROPs, computing units and memory that they all function to a very high percentage. The power supply stage wasn't designed to handle such a charge. It's thus shutting down, in security mode, to protect the card, which requires a reboot of the computer.

AMD indicated us that this is a deliberate choice to protect the power supply stage components from overheating or overintensity (? don't know if this term is correct), both being obviously linked. If AMD GPUs can protect themselves in case the TDP is being surpassed, by reducing their frequency, they are incapable of communicating with the power supply stage controler, and cannot act if this one is surpassed by the load, its sole resort being of shutting down the card.

It has been a few years since the VRM have been switching from analogical to numerical, providing a full monitoring. RivaTuner provides plugin that can give you access to those values. AMD was the first one to use such VRM on the X1950Pro, and it seems unconceivable that AMD didn't think it would be useful to use those values. AMD indicates that this problem will be fixed in later GPUs.

For AMD, it is normal to design a Power supply stage that is not in function of the maximum power consumption of the GPU, because there's a huge difference between the theorical maximum and the maximum that is usually seen in practical applications. All the recent chips can draw more current than their TDP and have mecanism that can maintain them between these limits. However, what is not normal, is to have conceived a a power supply stage that does not correspond to the TDP. With the HD4870, 4870x2 and 4890, AMD fixed a limit to the TDP that is not possible to attain with the reference PCB. Imagine, for instance, a GPU that is capable of drawing 100A before going into protection mode and a power supply stage that is going into protection mode at 90A.

To justify themselves, AMD insist on the fact that that no practical case will charge the GPU as much. You have to want it to be able to do it, and use a very specific code. Nothing says that it is not possible to have such code on a GeForce (BTW, I'm working on it, seeing if i cannot optimize it for GeForce. it'll probably be a different algorithm). Note that the problem is highly unlikely to appear in GPGPU computing, as in this mode, most GPU units are Idling, thus drawing less current.

Those justifications from AMD changes nothing to the design error they made. Even if the problem appearing is very unlikely, nothing tell it won't happen again. And this is a door open to viruses and such malicious softwares."

...

(they say they did not reproduce the problem on a 4 phase card and on a 3 phase non-reference design card, that were using different components).
Nonetheless, the fact that we did not reproduce it on those cards might be due to two things : either the VRMs are more powerful, or they are unprotected. While nothing indicates that the VRMs are going over their limits,in the doubt, we advise you not to abuse of this test on your Radeon cards.

AMD told us he is not planning any modification to solve the problem on existing products. However, AMD may review its limits on the GPU so that it could go into protection mode before the power supply stage. AMD may also use, in asoftware way, the values sent by the VRM monitoring to reduce the GPU frequencies automatically and avoid the crash. AMD may also propose a new reference design, especially for the HD4890. AMD insist on the fact that the problem foes not occur on any existing application (other than OCCT, of course). A justification which doesn't sound right to us because the Radeon switch from the "reliable" category to the "almost reliable" category.

Should you avoid those Radeons ? We won't go as far, even if it would be logical for somebody who would like to avoid any potential problem to let aside the reference boards from AMD, or even, in doubt, buy a GeForce.

Needless to say that Overclocked cards will encounter this problem or different ones in OCCT. In that case, neither AMD or the manufacturer is responsible if at stock values the card doesn't show any problems".





As for the "don't abuse from the test", i'd say that by default, the shader complexity 0 is selected, and that value will never provoke the bug Radeons are encountering. That's the safety measure i took. Don't ditch my test ;)

Sorry for the quality of my translation. I'm doing my best... it's not that easy you know ;) And my english is far from perfect, as you may have already seen.

What's important to note (IMHO) :

• AMD acknowledges the problem on very specific app code
• The problem will be fixed in later cards by linking the Power supply stage monitoring info to the GPU info. I still find it weird to design a GPU that cannot function at 100% of its capabilities... truly, this is leaving me... abashed. However, they did not say they're planning to castrate OCCT. If that's true, i'm happy they're not doing it "app by app". Their approach is the good approach IMHO. The best approach would be a card that can handle everything at full speed. Which is what, marketingly, everybody boasts. I wonder why 3d cards functions differently than any other hardware in the PC field...
• The tester did reproduced it, and did a very great job at isolating the problem
• AMD is planning alot of modification to get around the problem. It is important to them. Even a new reference board ! Wow. So much for a problem that does not exist... sorry, i'm savoring a bit the moment after the flame war we had here, even recently ;) Please, just let me pass this line ;) It's the only one i will write about it.

That's all about it. Sorry for the poor quality of the trad, perhaps google trad will do a better job at it, i'll let you read the one you like better ;) Trust me, i tried to do my best, and to be as close to the original test as possible.

---

so it's like a lot of people said... its not really a design floor at all it just a safety measure sort of thing..

although personally id prefer to have the order the other way around to what amd have did (so gpu goes to 80a or w/e then v-regs to 90 as an example) that would be easiest way to get around it and very very easy to implement.

Saying that they DID say the only way your going to manage to do this is if you do TRY to actually make it happen...

it does make sense in a way that your not going to expect someone to max the card in every way it can etc..

but hey congrats on your find, wonder if/when you find the code for Nvidia cards that they have it the same was as ati, or the opposite....

tbh im GUESSING that it will be the same.. as they use the same volterra vrm's lately as on the ati cards in question.



end of line it seems like. There's nothing to worry about anyway as you have to actually go out of your way to make this happen..
and if you do worry everything will be fixed in next card's by ati.


sooooo


carry on as normal people :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004

so it's like a lot of people said... its not really a design floor at all it just a safety measure sort of thing..

although personally id prefer to have the order the other way around to what amd have did (so gpu goes to 80a or w/e then v-regs to 90 as an example) that would be easiest way to get around it and very very easy to implement.

Saying that they DID say the only way your going to manage to do this is if you do TRY to actually make it happen...

it does make sense in a way that your not going to expect someone to max the card in every way it can etc..

but hey congrats on your find, wonder if/when you find the code for Nvidia cards that they have it the same was as ati, or the opposite....

tbh im GUESSING that it will be the same.. as they use the same volterra vrm's lately as on the ati cards in question.



end of line it seems like. There's nothing to worry about anyway as you have to actually go out of your way to make this happen..
and if you do worry everything will be fixed in next card's by ati.


sooooo


carry on as normal people :rolleyes:

---

Ya. a Safety measure..... forgive the car analogy... but its like a safety measure that causes a Fiat engine to cut out at 60mph... in the body of a Ferrari. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004

so it's like a lot of people said... its not really a design floor at all it just a safety measure sort of thing..

although personally id prefer to have the order the other way around to what amd have did (so gpu goes to 80a or w/e then v-regs to 90 as an example) that would be easiest way to get around it and very very easy to implement.

Saying that they DID say the only way your going to manage to do this is if you do TRY to actually make it happen...

it does make sense in a way that your not going to expect someone to max the card in every way it can etc..

but hey congrats on your find, wonder if/when you find the code for Nvidia cards that they have it the same was as ati, or the opposite....

tbh im GUESSING that it will be the same.. as they use the same volterra vrm's lately as on the ati cards in question.



end of line it seems like. There's nothing to worry about anyway as you have to actually go out of your way to make this happen..
and if you do worry everything will be fixed in next card's by ati.


sooooo


carry on as normal people :rolleyes:

---

It is a design flaw. Why ?

• Because it triggers before the TDP
• Because there's no link between the GPU and those measures
• And AMD acknoledges this implicitly by taking steps, going as far as thinking of building a new reference design board

Please, read it all befoire answering. it IS a design flaw. You should never be able to trigger that safety measure, especially at stock speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetedeiench

It is a design flaw. Why ?
Please, read it all befoire answering. it IS a design flaw. You should never be able to trigger that safety measure, especially at stock speed.

---

Unless you use specially prepared code that has nothing to do with real applications or games. Why do you fail to acknowledge that every time?

Yeah, we know "its your baby", but cmon! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

Unless you use specially prepared code that has nothing to do with real applications or games. Why do you fail to acknowledge that every time?

Yeah, we know "its your baby", but cmon! :rolleyes:

---

Because we all know that you could use a very similar piece of code for a nice bit of graphics in a lot of scenarios. Thats why.

I still think this is bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: my self. I want it fixed. I will call their asses because I seriously think that I am having some sort of issue atleast wth my one video card. I think my other one might be fine. I have noticed that my one card gets way hotter then the other one and yes I know the one at the top of the two will natuaraly get hotter.

I don't know, I will do some further trouble shooting but, IMO with all the fans and heatsinks I have I shouldn't be having issues like this. Which Heatsink is the best one to use with these things all aound for the VRMs? I still have the original heatsinks if some here can tell me how to use the plate to cool these things down better I would be very greatfull.

Gainward 4870 512 ddr5 reference model
crysis patch 1.2 1600x1200 no AA AF (catalyst settings on default) palyed about 5 min carrier level fighting the aliens on the deck but the temps get higher after 30min 1 hour of continuous play
i didn't use the riva tunner osd ingame because that limits the voltage regulator curent Amps to about 60 thus giving a false reading but the riva tunner monitor runing in the background does not and shows the true value witch you can see in the screenshot is 72.48 A
my best bet is the vrm's get hot (i have seen them at over 100 C ) can't handle the load making them less effective and the card crashes under the 83A limit or it reaches the 83A limit ingame witch i can't be certain because the crashes seem to apear after about 30 mins to 1 hour of gameplay and are to random to monitor
i am not using dual screens
btw my card seems to squeal witch it shouldn't because ati use digital vrm's (not sure about the term)
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2949/52748904.th.jpg