Real Power Consumption - 4870 X2 & GTX295 out of Spec!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallacy

We (german Hardware-Mag HT4U) have got some meassurings of power consumption of current graphics cards for you. The results represent the power consumption of the graphics cards only, these values are not the consumption of the whole system. If you´re interessted in the way how we meassure -> go here. The article is in german, but i think tables, pictures and charts are multilingual ;).

Instead of 3DMark06 we used FurMark as load. Furmark causes a much higher power consumption than other tools (for a comparison go at the end of this page). With FurMark most notably the High-End-Cards dramaticly exceed TDP and even more worse: PCI-Express-Specification.

For example: A HD 4870 X2 (TDP of 286 Watt) consumes 373 Watt with Furmark. GTX 295 isn´t much better in this case 289 Watt (TDP) vs. 317 Watt (Furmark). For TDP-versus-Reality-values of other cards go here:
http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/leistun...a/index14.php]

Some Cards even don´t work within PCIe-Specs using Furmark. For Example, 4870 X2 consumes over 200 Watt from the 8-Pin-Connector (specified for 150 Watt). GTX295, 285 exceed the Maximum of 6-Pin-Connector (75 Watt) with in both cases about 100 Watts.

For an overview of consumption of all tested cards, go here.

Hope you´ll find some interessting informations in the article :).

---

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=387997

Ridiculous power draws...
I see 8800GT uses 111W vs 214W with 285... Where is the progress in that I ask...

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/leistun...index14.php%5D

Its hardly no surprise I guess. Pretty sad tho. GPU makers have for along time been truely horrible. They push things too hard. We get shortlived products and the consumer ends up paying twice in the terms of power bill. not even to talk about the dustbuster effect.

I mean we sit here and talk about uhhh..this CPU uses 20-30W more. BUUH BAD CPU! 295 and 4870X2 both over 300W. One almost 400W. Both AMD and nVidia can go screw themselves honestly. One thing is sure, my next GFX card will be sub 75W.

Also there is hardly any progress. They simply just keep pumping power in. Trislot coolers cant be far away.

Just imagine a retail 300 or 400W C2Q, i7, PH2 etc. If Intel or AMD came with that, everyone here would talk about removing people from the gene pool.

I guess the reference designs everyone uses is a nice way to hide the consumption behind fake TDPs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Its hardly no surprise I guess. Pretty sad tho. GPU makers have for along time been truely horrible. They push things too hard. We get shortlived products and the consumer ends up paying twice in the terms of power bill. not even to talk about the dustbuster effect.

I mean we sit here and talk about uhhh..this CPU uses 20-30W more. BUUH BAD CPU! 295 and 4870X2 both over 300W. One almost 400W. Both AMD and nVidia can go screw themselves honestly. One thing is sure, my next GFX card will be sub 75W.

Also there is hardly any progress. They simply just keep pumping power in. Trislot coolers cant be far away.

Just imagine a retail 300 or 400W C2Q, i7, PH2 etc. If Intel or AMD came with that, everyone here would talk about removing people from the gene pool.

---

Couldnät agree more. :up:

I don't have to pay for power at college, or at least not an extra bill on top of what I already pay :D I guess I should start F@H on my 4870x2 to add to my WCG :rofl:

I don't honesty care how much power these things uses as long they bloody work and that there is a powerful enough PSU out there to power the things.

Senseless drivel :shakes:

LOL, that's the problem here--- you guys keep on buying 4870X2's and GTX 295's like hot cakes!!! As long as there's enough demand for those cards from suckers with 1000W PSU's, Nvidia and ATI will continue to focus on those cards.

Me, i'm a retired SLI veteran.. it's just not worth the headache or troubles just to have 8x FSAA over 4x FSAA in a few newer games.

Since we're at it, why not badmouth all the people who drive sportscars?

Yet again efficiency is on the backburner for GPU makers :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Since we're at it, why not badmouth all the people who drive sportscars?

---

Already done that ;) (Unless its a Tesla I guess!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Already done that ;) (Unless its a Tesla I guess!)

---

Or a diesel ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Its hardly no surprise I guess. Pretty sad tho. GPU makers have for along time been truely horrible. They push things too hard. We get shortlived products and the consumer ends up paying twice in the terms of power bill. not even to talk about the dustbuster effect.

I mean we sit here and talk about uhhh..this CPU uses 20-30W more. BUUH BAD CPU! 295 and 4870X2 both over 300W. One almost 400W. Both AMD and nVidia can go screw themselves honestly. One thing is sure, my next GFX card will be sub 75W.

Also there is hardly any progress. They simply just keep pumping power in. Trislot coolers cant be far away.

Just imagine a retail 300 or 400W C2Q, i7, PH2 etc. If Intel or AMD came with that, everyone here would talk about removing people from the gene pool.

I guess the reference designs everyone uses is a nice way to hide the consumption behind fake TDPs.

---

Hum?
Furmark is useless. Real world tests are the way to go, not crap benchmarks.

And if you want GFX <75W you have plently of them on the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

Or a diesel ;)

---

No, I would say pure electric cars. Hybrid cars and cars like the volt is just a joke. There is a plan here in Denmark to have 100000(From TV news) pure electric cars running in 2011 together with an american organization and the biggest power company here. I´m not sure how many cars there are here. Something around 1 or 1½million.

http://www.betterplace.com/press-roo...oduce-environm
http://earth2tech.com/2009/01/27/bet...c-car-project/
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009...-place-do.html

The key would be standardlized batteries. Cars will have a 160km(100miles) range on a charge. And charging stations would simply swap battery. Its faster than putting fuel on your car today. You can ofcourse also charge it at home.

Just another site that confirms the terrible GDDR5 power consumption at idle ;)

EDIT: and high clocks, just like the HD4870 is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Just imagine a retail 300 or 400W C2Q, i7, PH2 etc. If Intel or AMD came with that, everyone here would talk about removing people from the gene pool.

I guess the reference designs everyone uses is a nice way to hide the consumption behind fake TDPs.

---

Not if It could play super Pi :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v_rr

Hum?
Furmark is useless. Real world tests are the way to go, not crap benchmarks.

And if you want GFX <75W you have plently of them on the market.

---

lol, with that reason should we all here just be using Crysis/GTA4 + some firefox tabs to test our overclock stability? They do count as real world tests, that means they are better right.

Power consumption results on XS?

LOL

That said though, I do enjoy using my nc10 for internet/light office work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

lol, with that reason should we all here just be using Crysis/GTA4 + some firefox tabs to test our overclock stability? They do count as real world tests, that means they are better right.

---

If your overclock don´t fail in any program or game and circunstance you use your pc, yes it is stable for it´s use

Some people only want stability to make a run for 3dmark one time, other want for 24h use. Depends on people = real world tests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Since we're at it, why not badmouth all the people who drive sportscars?

---

Yeah! Why not? Hummer stopped making H1's in 2006 because we decided that they slurped way too much gas.

Furthermore, Hummer sold 54,052 H2's in 2006 and only 6,095 H2's in 2008. A huge difference, eh?

I am not sure I understand the validity of this article. Did AMD and Nvidia base their TDP on furmark? Did the author of said article contact both Nvidia and AMD to find out what was used to determine TDP and use his results as a litmus as to their claims?

After reading this article I find myself asking more questions then what this article is suppose to answer. Another concern is that the use of furmark in this fashion can give the impression to others that those results are what you get in games and other programs. The truth is (if you used furmark) is that you don't draw nearly as much power and heat in games and programs as you do with furmark (at least based on my on examination of this).

Therefore, IMO this type of review should be about pushing power consumption to the max.

Higher power consumption is one thing, but that's pretty drastically out of specification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

Yeah! Why not? Hummer stopped making H1's in 2006 because we decided that they slurped way too much gas.

Furthermore, Hummer sold 54,052 H2's in 2006 and only 6,095 H2's in 2008. A huge difference, eh?

---

In fairness to the hummer, that doesn't take into consideration that the H3 exists - so it's really more like 54k vs. 27k. Still a huge difference, mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallacy

If you´re interessted in the way how we meassure -> go here. The article is in german, but i think tables, pictures and charts are multilingual .http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=387997

---

Yep, explaining the science behind the results is multilingual, graphs, tables and charts are very good ways to let us reproduce these results and follow the exact procedures.

Also, since when are cards 100% efficient?:rolleyes: VRM's, PWM's, caps?
Conducting these sort of tests with no background knowledge in EE is somewhat amusing. Plus, there are always unknown anomalies that can happen, nothing is 100% accurate/foolproof.

Edit- There are many possible explanations for these results and for this community to jump to conclusions is simply sad...:down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Since we're at it, why not badmouth all the people who drive sportscars?

---

<shrug> go ahead. Corvette can get near 30mpg on the highway so I don't see a problem. Pretty impressive really.
And you badmouthing me won't stop me from driving my Camaro :p:

/offtopic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

<shrug> go ahead. Corvette can get near 30mpg on the highway so I don't see a problem. Pretty impressive really.
And you badmouthing me won't stop me from driving my Camaro :p:

/offtopic

---

+1

The Corvette is an amazing piece of machinery and I dread the day that my only choice in cars is some impotent econobox.

Back OT- Forgive my ignorance, but isn't pulling more power than the spec allows bad for parts longevity? If the PSU has enough amps on the 12V rail, what other shortcomings might there be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XS Janus

Ridiculous power draws...
I see 8800GT uses 111W vs 214W with 285... Where is the progress in that I ask...

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/leistun...index14.php%5D

---

Err.. its like twice as fast?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

No, I would say pure electric cars. Hybrid cars and cars like the volt is just a joke. There is a plan here in Denmark to have 100000(From TV news) pure electric cars running in 2011 together with an american organization and the biggest power company here. I´m not sure how many cars there are here. Something around 1 or 1½million.

http://www.betterplace.com/press-roo...oduce-environm
http://earth2tech.com/2009/01/27/bet...c-car-project/
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009...-place-do.html

The key would be standardlized batteries. Cars will have a 160km(100miles) range on a charge. And charging stations would simply swap battery. Its faster than putting fuel on your car today. You can ofcourse also charge it at home.

---

And how is the electricity generated.

Will the current installed electrical grid supply the demand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

And how is the electricity generated.

Will the current installed electrical grid supply the demand?

---

That's the big issue right now. A bunch of all-electric cars would put an enormous strain on the power grid.

Can someone translate their testing methodology? IE: how was power draw on a single 8-pin determined and how was overall power consumption determined?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

And how is the electricity generated.

Will the current installed electrical grid supply the demand?

---

Just wait, electricity will be rendered from...

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/1993/18250841fn4.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Can someone translate their testing methodology? IE: how was power draw on a single 8-pin determined and how was overall power consumption determined?

---

You pop up at the best times Sky.

I can only go so far as the Babblefish translator which is terrible.

Quote:

---

How describes in the previous chapter, tension and river of the different supply lines must be measured to the determination of the capacity. We begin with the unproblematic stress measurement. For this a circuit analyzer came from the house Temna to the employment in this test, which agrees up to a right-of-comma position with our calibrated reference measuring instrument. The respective tensions were based directly at the PCI express Slot and/or on the PCIe-6-Pin or 8-Pin plug contacts.

For the current measurement we set Temna on the contactless measurement over a pliers ammeter - again from the house. The measurement of the current supply over the additional 6-Pin and 8-Pin-Stecker did not represent particular problems in this way. For the measurement of the power input over the PEG Slot however some changes were necessary. In order to be able to determine the rivers by means of pliers ammeters, current loops had to be soldered to the appropriate pins of the PEG Slots.

With the Zangenampermeter it concerns a TrueRMS, or too well German, real time rms measuring instrument. This is necessary, since with a diagram map not around a purely Ohm's load separate themselves it around a reactance acts, which exhibit a power input with high transient portion.

---

That is a big WTF from me on that one. Was it a clamp meter or a daughter board used like they use at ATI and Nvidia? Also, did whatever they are talking about cause any resistance between the card and whatever measuring device was used? So many questions and not a UN translator in sight. ;)

Clamp meter

If you look at total power consumption, these cards draw a lot of power. But if you're folding, these cards are way more energy efficient than your typical CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dieqast

Just wait, electricity will be rendered from...

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/1993/18250841fn4.jpg

---

hahaha that pretty much explains it all.. stuff like this gets ridiculous...:shakes:

Furmark is a GPU power virus. Of course it can cause the card to exceed it's TDP.
HD4870X2 consumes >100W more in Furmark than it peaks in games / other benchmarks. GTX285 peaks at bit less than 150W in real world situations.

HT4U's measurements are useless.

Agreed, the whole article, this thread, its all completely useless. its like hooking a huge yacht to the back of a sportscar, driving it up a big mountain, and saying "OMFG Look how bad it is on gas"

The sports car wasn't made to pull a yacht.
The video card wasn't made for the software equivalent of pulling a yacht.

the video card is designed for what? To play games. So find the most power-hungry game on the market, and that is your test. If its not a game, it doesn't apply, simple as that.

That being said, I have a 1KW supply, and I waste my fair share of watts rendering. I agree, as long as its stable and fast, I don't care how much power it draws (to an extent). There are efficient video cards out there for people who want them. I am not one of those people.

Wow! Just Wow! I don't even know where to start with this, but since it's not worth my time I won't except to say they do not have th capability to measure power on these cards.

Saying that, what they draw is irrelevant. These are performance cards. It takes power to run them. They are not for the meek or the penny pincher. They are neither cheap, nor cheap to run. Blasting performance cards isd about as rediculous as saying a top fuel dragster is inefficient...well DUH! What do you expect? It's almost as if these people think they are gonna get that kind of power for free like it will just magically appear from osmosis.

It's irrelevant how much power these things consume. I could care less. The only thing I look at with a video card is what is gonna give me the best performance. That is the only thing I look at. If I wanted "efficiency" and cheap to operate I sure as heck would not be looking at 400-500 dollar max performance video cards.

:rofl: Man, I'm cracking up here on this. It just defies logic.

How many motherboards have auxiliary pcie power connectors? This article lets you know that they could be of some use if you are really stressing the vga. My board has a regular 4 pin auxiliary power by the pcie1 and it has a sata style auxiliary right by the pcie2.

I wonder what a 4870x2 would draw with a voltmod and oc, lol.

TDP doesn't always mean MAXIMUM power draw, but can be also intepreted as AVERAGE power draw. There has been talk around AMD's TDP and Intel's TDP which are also not measured the same... This also explains why TDP is lower than actual power consumption.

The whole article shouldn't be named "real world power consumption of latest GPUs", but "What's the worst case scenario for latest GPUs concerning out of spec power draw with no relation to everyday use". I don't know how many of us play Furmark all day long, but it's interesting to read that the cards actually exceed specs instead of shutting down to minimize the chance of damaging other components.

1) TDP is one thing, power consumption is another
2) furmark is not representing real-world, so it's useless for drawing conclusions about the real world.
3) Anyway, I found the article usefull because it confirms what I was thinking about the power consumption of 4870X2 and GTX 295: 4870X2 is wasting more energy; it's significantly hotter, thus louder when it's on load.

/OFF TOPIC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

No, I would say pure electric cars. Hybrid cars and cars like the volt is just a joke.

---

The hybrid cars are the most energy efficient cars available at the market that have decent performance and can satisfy the average-joe's needs.

Quote:

---

There is a plan here in Denmark to have 100000(From TV news) pure electric cars running in 2011 together with an american organization and the biggest power company here. I´m not sure how many cars there are here. Something around 1 or 1½million.

---

That plan is very ambicious. I don't beleive that it will be realised in 2011.

Quote:

---

The key would be standardlized batteries. Cars will have a 160km(100miles) range on a charge. And charging stations would simply swap battery. Its faster than putting fuel on your car today. You can ofcourse also charge it at home.

---

The key is to let better technologies enter the market. There are batteries with several times larger energy capacity then the best Li-ION batteries, capapble of recharching to full capacity within 30 min.

Hey, but let's not forget that there is engine using pure water as fuel. The only reason why we are still driving cars on fossil fuels are the big boses who want to milk as much money as they can from the old and outdated tech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

And how is the electricity generated.

---

Mostly in the nuclear power plants.

Quote:

---

Will the current installed electrical grid supply the demand?

---

I doubt, but it's a piece of cake to upgrade the power network, ofcourse if you have money.

I see that most of you don't care about power consumption, but these cards draw power way above the specs of the cables and connectors.
About using Furmark: Isn't it my decision what software I run on my GPU? If I decide to run Furmark on it, I expect that the card still operates according to the power connector specs, and that the on card power regulation can handle all the load a software can generate (according to the test, the GPU voltage regulation got really hot).
Also, if I want to use the GPU for computation - do I have to limit the load to (let's say) 80% to not burn the card/my computer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

That is a big WTF from me on that one. Was it a clamp meter or a daughter board used like they use at ATI and Nvidia? Also, did whatever they are talking about cause any resistance between the card and whatever measuring device was used? So many questions and not a UN translator in sight. ;)

---

They used clamp meters, to measure the power output of the pci-e connector they soldered cables to the connectors of the pci-e slot, for the extra power connectors they used the clamp meter directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

And how is the electricity generated.

Will the current installed electrical grid supply the demand?

---

Mainly windmills at night. And then there is hydropower from norway aswell at night. Both are "uncontrolled" and thereby having large excess capacities at night and with windmills also when its very windy.

Its calculated that 700 windmills can keep the entire danish carpark running on electricity. Even making gas into electricity is a large plant would be more efficient that out in the car :p:

But again, we also burn biofuel for CO2 neutrality. So its a win/win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mibo

I see that most of you don't care about power consumption,

---

Well when we talk about gaming performance, power consumption is irrelevant. Also, for somebody willing to spend $500 for a graphics card, the delta in the bills doesn't matter at all. And don't forget, this is XS.

Quote:

---

but these cards draw power way above the specs of the cables and connectors.

---

The "specs for the connectors and the cables" are BS. The cables and the connectors of every PSU can carry significantly more current and operate at significantly higher voltage than the max the PSU can give in a worst case scenario and for a long period.
On the other side, the connectors on every graphcis card are designed to carry on much more than the needed power flow. No wonder no body has issues with the electric cable installation on an overvolted and OC-ed cards which are consuming way more energy than @stock.

Quote:

---

About using Furmark: Isn't it my decision what software I run on my GPU?

---

It's also your decission if you are going to OC the card, increase voltage and work in a high ambient temperature.

Quote:

---

If I decide to run Furmark on it, I expect that the card still operates according to the power connector specs

---

Again these "specs" are a crapload of BS.

Quote:

---

, and that the on card power regulation can handle all the load a software can generate (according to the test, the GPU voltage regulation got really hot).

---

If there were issues, there were going to be lots of dead cards, especially 4870X2's due to thier very high operating temeperature.

Quote:

---

Also, if I want to use the GPU for computation - do I have to limit the load to (let's say) 80% to not burn the card/my computer?

---

You can safely use your card @stock for whatever computing purpose you want. Heck, you can OC your card and limit it to (let's say) 120% and not burn the card/computer. ;)

You know the companies are not paying huge sums of money to their engineers without a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v_rr

And if you want GFX <75W you have plently of them on the market.

---

+1 take your mitts off the mid to high end, people already pay for the cards through the nose compared to the flagship cards of olde

FurMark isn't a prefered benchmarking tool since it pushes GPUs above and beyond what they are specified to run at. You can't say that just because a FurMark produces abnormally high power consumption and that the GPUs are running out of spec. It is the PROGRAM that causes the GPUs to run above and beyond, NOT the GPUs themselves.

I've seen the way ATI tests for power consumption and they run every game you can think of at multiple resolutions to determine their max board power consumption and I am sure Nvidia does the same thing. However, I would go so far as to say that FurMark is buggy in the fact that it loads the GPU in ways it was not meant to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

I wonder what a 4870x2 would draw with a voltmod and oc, lol.

---

I had 2x4870x2's (850/950 - stock volts) and i7 965 @ 5Ghz pulling in excess of 900 watts. Nelly accounted for about 375w (peaked at 417) the vgas took the rest :up:

and AMD did make it so FurMark would run using much less power (and less performance) with one of their drivers. FurMark is definitly the worse case scenario, and i think it does show us that the card companies should build their cards to cut off the super FPS if the power goes too high. while this may not be a real case, imagine if a game was able to pull that much power out of your card, it wont take long for you to smell something going wrong, hoping that the company knew about it soon enough to limit its output.

and btw if AMD made a CPU that was 2x 940s using 8 cores and generating 300w and costing about 500$ i would buy it. to some of us, the power draw isnt that crazy, we dont all keep out systems at load 24/7, but when we use them, we must enjoy them. i have a 2900xt that runs at 1.35v in 3D applications and overclocks to 950mhz, im scared to know how much power it uses then, well more like curious.

so this means 33% of your 4870 - 4870X2 is idling while playing games :O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 003

Err.. its like twice as fast?

---

Thats what I meant... where's the progress
:rolleyes:

All the specs are tested under worst-case scenario, too. All those connectors can supply their rated current with ambient temperatures at their max rated (usually 80-100 degrees C), and for 100% duty... which means 24/7/365. Pushing their limit at regular room temperature for a few minutes is child's play.

Does the article mention any of the video cards crashing during the test?
Does it mention anything melting?
Does it mention any problems whatsoever?

not that I saw. So, what's the big deal? "Look how far past spec we can push this stuff" Cool. That's what this industry's all about!

I think instead of adding more and more power connectors to these cards, they definitely should be working on a high-current standard for power supplies and connectors.

Its just stupid to connect an 8 pin power connector that is just full of small-guage powers and grounds, a single 8 AWG pair will supply video cards doubling today's power draws. It would look alot cooler, too ;) I say just give me a power supply with a terminal strip, say 10 terminals of +12V and ground, and let me wire it myself, so I can spec whatever size cable fits my needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vinister

Its just stupid to connect an 8 pin power connector that is just full of small-guage powers and grounds, a single 8 AWG pair will supply video cards doubling today's power draws. It would look alot cooler, too ;) I say just give me a power supply with a terminal strip, say 10 terminals of +12V and ground, and let me wire it myself, so I can spec whatever size cable fits my needs.

---

couldnt agree with you more. i had a 265W TEC that i wired to a PSU by using a molex, and it turned from white to yellow and was pretty hot. im sure the wire was doing ok, but it was still enough to damage the plastic connector. they should offer PSUs with real wire connectors and different gauge wires paired with black/red and yellow/black, or any color and black. truth is people would need to use alot of wire as they change things around, and companies love nothing more than repeat customers due to disposable parts.

while it wouldnt be for normal people, many of us who build custom computers can wire the parts together like childs play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

FurMark isn't a prefered benchmarking tool since it pushes GPUs above and beyond what they are specified to run at. You can't say that just because a FurMark produces abnormally high power consumption and that the GPUs are running out of spec. It is the PROGRAM that causes the GPUs to run above and beyond, NOT the GPUs themselves.

I've seen the way ATI tests for power consumption and they run every game you can think of at multiple resolutions to determine their max board power consumption and I am sure Nvidia does the same thing. However, I would go so far as to say that FurMark is buggy in the fact that it loads the GPU in ways it was not meant to be.

---

So should we stop using Linpack and other tools which utilize CPU's to their full potential as well?

The GPU's were rated at a "working" power usage level which is fine by me, but to say that we cannot measure their full peak power draw because they never attain that doesnt sit right with me. Who's to say that some GPGPU application(s) might not use more of the GPU? What if a game comes out that uses the GPU more, are they going to have to write "idle" routines into the next driver release so you dont go over the allotted power draw (ie: Furmark renaming)?

I think two things should happen.

1: They should be rated at their peak.
2: More reviews should be done like this.

I can't help but disagree. Its abusing the product.

You can buy a car and tow a boat with it if you like, but its abusing the product, and it will break it. Its not the company's fault, because although the car was able to pull the boat, thats not what the car was designed for.

This is the exact same situation.

While your hardware will run a silly test like furmark, it was simply not designed to. It might break it. Lucky for us, they are built well enough that they don't break, they just don't get their advertised fuel economy ;)

GTX 260 looks very efficient at full blast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vinister

I can't help but disagree. Its abusing the product.

You can buy a car and tow a boat with it if you like, but its abusing the product, and it will break it. Its not the company's fault, because although the car was able to pull the boat, thats not what the car was designed for.

This is the exact same situation.

While your hardware will run a silly test like furmark, it was simply not designed to. It might break it. Lucky for us, they are built well enough that they don't break, they just don't get their advertised fuel economy ;)

---

+1 best analogy and exactly the case with fur mark :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

So should we stop using Linpack and other tools which utilize CPU's to their full potential as well?

The GPU's were rated at a "working" power usage level which is fine by me, but to say that we cannot measure their full peak power draw because they never attain that doesnt sit right with me. Who's to say that some GPGPU application(s) might not use more of the GPU? What if a game comes out that uses the GPU more, are they going to have to write "idle" routines into the next driver release so you dont go over the allotted power draw (ie: Furmark renaming)?

I think two things should happen.

1: They should be rated at their peak.
2: More reviews should be done like this.

---

+1

The car manufacturer would only guarantee that his product works for "normal use".

That "normal use" is what we discuss about.

"normal use" of a cpu: run every software you want on it - and still the cpu will not exceed specifications. (prime, occt, ...)

"normal use" of a gpu: for me: run every software you want on it - and still the gpu does not exceed specifications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mibo

+1

The car manufacturer would only guarantee that his product works for "normal use".

That "normal use" is what we discuss about.

"normal use" of a cpu: run every software you want on it - and still the cpu will not exceed specifications. (prime, occt, ...)

"normal use" of a gpu: for me: run every software you want on it - and still the gpu does not exceed specifications.

---

wouldn't call burning programs to make the processor/GFX as hot as it can be "normal"

^Indeed.
If power viruses are "normal use", then what is "abnormal use"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mibo

+1

The car manufacturer would only guarantee that his product works for "normal use".

That "normal use" is what we discuss about.

"normal use" of a cpu: run every software you want on it - and still the cpu will not exceed specifications. (prime, occt, ...)

"normal use" of a gpu: for me: run every software you want on it - and still the gpu does not exceed specifications.

---

Exactly... If your car overheated everytime you pushed it to the max would you accept that as well? I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Mainly windmills at night. And then there is hydropower from norway aswell at night. Both are "uncontrolled" and thereby having large excess capacities at night and with windmills also when its very windy.

Its calculated that 700 windmills can keep the entire danish carpark running on electricity. Even making gas into electricity is a large plant would be more efficient that out in the car :p:

But again, we also burn biofuel for CO2 neutrality. So its a win/win.

---

I'm sorry but the electric/hybrid car market is a big joke. Mainly because the arabs won't let an actual substitute for gas on the market, because that means less money for them. This may sound very childish and/or unlikely but you just have to look at the amount of good ideas for "clean" energy that get thrown in the bin for unclear reasons.

Look at what we have now. :banana::banana::banana::banana: electric cheapo cars that won't even do 100mph and that will run out of battery charge in less than 100miles. Or that failure of the hybrid prius, which gets its ass spanked by the newer 1.3/1.4l diesels in terms of mpg and performance. The market REALLY does want you to overlook the green cars as of now.

Back on topic, I'm sure the cards weren't designed to run a very heavy stress test. If you game/render/work on them and they overheat, then that's another matter. AND if they draw double than what they're advertised to draw, then you have the right to complain. I mean, just look at how big the stock gfx cooling solutions are getting.. Soon we'll need a case with its own airflow just for the card itself. The problem is that both NV and AMD will not back down on their specs/anything, since we still buy them no matter what they draw, because they're the best of their league..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slay0r

I'm sorry but the electric/hybrid car market is a big joke. Mainly because the arabs won't let an actual substitute for gas on the market, because that means less money for them. This may sound very childish and/or unlikely but you just have to look at the amount of good ideas for "clean" energy that get thrown in the bin for unclear reasons.

Look at what we have now. :banana::banana::banana::banana: electric cheapo cars that won't even do 100mph and that will run out of battery charge in less than 100miles. Or that failure of the hybrid prius, which gets its ass spanked by the newer 1.3/1.4l diesels in terms of mpg and performance. The market REALLY does want you to overlook the green cars as of now.

Back on topic, I'm sure the cards weren't designed to run a very heavy stress test. If you game/render/work on them and they overheat, then that's another matter. AND if they draw double than what they're advertised to draw, then you have the right to complain. I mean, just look at how big the stock gfx cooling solutions are getting.. Soon we'll need a case with its own airflow just for the card itself. The problem is that both NV and AMD will not back down on their specs/anything, since we still buy them no matter what they draw, because they're the best of their league..

---

First fo all. Arabs have nothing to say. This is something the entire country is geared towards. Secondly I think you failed to understand the concept of the bettery changing stations. Its no different than putting gas on your car. Its just faster with the battery change.

And hybrids was always a joke. Same reason the Volt is an utter disaster (But thats just how GM works and why they can never be saved). Pure electric is the way. Plus a gas/diesel engine is so horrible in efficiency that you can get twice the power by putting the fuel into a powerplant, convert it to electricty and then charge a battery and use it in a car.

In terms of the power consumption. Furmark is not really a power virus. And even if, can the GPUs throttle when they overheat? The answer is no.

Its seen ebfore, atleast with older nVidia cards that drivers+game pushed the GPUs beyond their limits. And there is artificial limits in both nVidia and AMD drivers to keep games running within the power profile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martijn

Exactly... If your car overheated everytime you pushed it to the max would you accept that as well? I don't think so.

---

It's like you buy a scooter motorbike, designed for a city ride and you complain becouse it failed climbing on a rocky mountain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

First fo all. Arabs have nothing to say. This is something the entire country is geared towards. Secondly I think you failed to understand the concept of the bettery changing stations. Its no different than putting gas on your car. Its just faster with the battery change.

---

Well.. My thought was generalized to the world as a whole, I wasn't referring to one country, not yours so to speak, since I frankly don't know what goes on over there in particular because I'm not documented enough! I can just take your word for it. As for the battery changing thing, I replied down below.

Quote:

---

And hybrids was always a joke. Same reason the Volt is an utter disaster (But thats just how GM works and why they can never be saved). Pure electric is the way. Plus a gas/diesel engine is so horrible in efficiency that you can get twice the power by putting the fuel into a powerplant, convert it to electricty and then charge a battery and use it in a car.

---

While to an extent we may agree here, I'd rather have a not so efficient diesel that can do 1000miles with one tank of fuel rather than have to stop every tenth of that to swap batteries!

Quote:

---

In terms of the power consumption. Furmark is not really a power virus. And even if, can the GPUs throttle when they overheat? The answer is no.

Its seen ebfore, atleast with older nVidia cards that drivers+game pushed the GPUs beyond their limits. And there is artificial limits in both nVidia and AMD drivers to keep games running within the power profile.

---

I don't know enough about power castration within the driver to elaborate a proper comment on this, but it doesn't sound completely true. If it was the case, overclocking would give gains until the power profile maximum is reached, then start being useless. Is this the case or I'm misunderstanding your reasoning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martijn

Exactly... If your car overheated everytime you pushed it to the max would you accept that as well? I don't think so.

---

But that's not the problem here.......just pushing something to the max on occasion is not the issue.....the issue is how Furmark overworks the card(s) in an unrealistic scenario.

Take this analogy......you are looking at purchasing a used car and you have two Honda Civics to choose from.

The first is one owned by a middle-aged couple who used the car "sensibly," meaning while it was accelerated at WOT (wide open throttle) to merge onto interstates, etc., it spent the majority of its life "putting" around at under 75% of its max use.

The other Civic is owned by a "tuner." Wing, engine "massaged" internally with replaced pistons and head which raised compression ratio, Nitrous injection, and raced nightly for a year or so.

Which do you buy for longevity and hopefully the car won't need major repairs during your payments?

Naturally, you'd take the "sensible" Civic. Why? The "tuned" Civic has been thrashed within an inch of its life, has been run flat out so much that failure is inevitable. After all, the adage that the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long applies to almost everything.....candles or computer components.

So, push a car to its limit ALL the time and a major failure will happen much sooner than one driven "easier."


What I really don't understand is the fascination a lot of "O'Cers" have in running Furmark or Linpack for hours and hours at a stretch, esp. in a heavily overclocked system.

True, overclocking can create instability, but to "test' for stability by running a system flat out for hours just to try to catch some sign of instability seems rather senseless to me.

I O'C for fun and to get a little "free" speed out of my system......don't we all here? On the other hand, I'm not running Linpack or Furmark for hours trying to get instability to show up......

If my O'C is unstable, it'll show up in a gaming situation....or it won't boot worth crap, or the system will freeze when opening programs....all signs the O'C is too high and I need to back off.

But, instead, you get those that obsess about running programs that run their components at the ragged edge for hours and then wonder why they get overheating problems, early component failures/death, etc.

What's that? You're depending on ultimate stability for something "mission critical," which is what I always hear as the reason for this obsessive testing..... To that I retort, if you're depending on an ultra stable system for things like CAD design or quality HD conversion, etc., run a fast but stock speed system. Seems to work for people who depend upon ultra stable systems for their work, like graphic artists at Industrial Light and Magic or Pixar. (You honestly think they'd take a chance using overclocked sytems that have the chance of data corruption? Not on your life..........)

Blaming the video card makers for having too much power, more than "advertised," being consumed running Furmark is akin, at least to me, to blaming a car manufacturer for your gas mileage sucking when you've been driving down the interstate for hours at 100mph.....


And if running Linpack and Furmark seems just dandy to you, try this test for stability on your own vehicle you've got parked outside your house.

Go start it up, leave it in neutral or park or whatever, block the wheels so it cannot move, and put a brick on the accelerator pedal so the engine is running wide open. Come back 6 hours later and see if your car is still running.......that's about what Furmark is doing for your video card.

Sorry for the ramble, but throwing around blame and astonishment that Furmark makes video cards draw more power than what the card makers say they do is silly.....Furmark, while a 3D program, is a wholly unrealistic test...it runs the card wide open without a single pause anywhere, something no game does, even Crysis. To not expect the video card to draw more than advertised power when running wide open without pause at all is an unrealistic expectation and should not surprise anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slay0r

I don't know enough about power castration within the driver to elaborate a proper comment on this, but it doesn't sound completely true. If it was the case, overclocking would give gains until the power profile maximum is reached, then start being useless. Is this the case or I'm misunderstanding your reasoning?

---

Misunderstood it. Power profiling would not have any effect on overclocking.

To put it short. 9 work, 1 idle. If you does it 10 times per second or 1billion times per second doesnt change the power profile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vinister

I can't help but disagree. Its abusing the product.

You can buy a car and tow a boat with it if you like, but its abusing the product, and it will break it. Its not the company's fault, because although the car was able to pull the boat, thats not what the car was designed for.

This is the exact same situation.

While your hardware will run a silly test like furmark, it was simply not designed to. It might break it. Lucky for us, they are built well enough that they don't break, they just don't get their advertised fuel economy ;)

---

I have to agree with this car analogy here. a good while back I use to have a Olds Firenza and one of my friend's truck broke down (a 1980 something Ford Explorer). I towed him some 10 miles back home. When I got home the anti-freeze in the radiator boiled like a hot tea pot. Clearly, that vehicle was not design to tow a vehicle at twice it's size and weight.

So yes, even though you can take a CPU or GPU to it's extreme maximum doesn't mean you are suppose to. So I agree here.

Edit:
Forgot to mention that not only did I have to top off the antifreeze but, I also had to change the oil and replace the gas as well do to the towing. Having done this was I suppose to assume that was the average MPG I usually received had I not towed the car? Was 1200 miles the best I could get out of the antifreeze and motor oil because of that tow? Of course not, and it would be silly to think so. The same applies when you use programs like that as a means to determine power consumption and heat.

I love the car anology but I think it is a little of both. First of all you can't run a program like FurMark or Linpack, run a product far outside of its normal parameters and then point to it and say: "it is consuming more power than the manufacturer stated!" Power consumption is a slippery slope that can vary from app to app or even from chip to chip within the same SKU.

What needs to be done is a broad range of tests from gaming to worst case scenarios like Furmark to normal gaming to Folding. That way we can have an idea of average power consumption since let's be honest; none of us will sit there all day while FurMark runs on our computers. What DOES matter to us is the efficiency or lack thereof in the tasks we use our computers for on a day to day basis.

There are many ways to generate an influx of interest to a site and one of those is to create a controversy which people talk about. This is exactly what is happening here since I feel that while this test is one of the more accurate when determining power consumption, so much more could have been done in order to get a better idea of overall power consumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

I love the car anology but I think it is a little of both. First of all you can't run a program like FurMark or Linpack, run a product far outside of its normal parameters and then point to it and say: "it is consuming more power than the manufacturer stated!" Power consumption is a slippery slope that can vary from app to app or even from chip to chip within the same SKU.

What needs to be done is a broad range of tests from gaming to worst case scenarios like Furmark to normal gaming to Folding. That way we can have an idea of average power consumption since let's be honest; none of us will sit there all day while FurMark runs on our computers. What DOES matter to us is the efficiency or lack thereof in the tasks we use our computers for on a day to day basis.

There are many ways to generate an influx of interest to a site and one of those is to create a controversy which people talk about. This is exactly what is happening here since I feel that while this test is one of the more accurate when determining power consumption, so much more could have been done in order to get a better idea of overall power consumption.

---

on a side note, if someone were to do a full battery of tests like you suggest I would also like to see a test of the powerconsumption at full load using the stock cooler versus the power consumption at full load using a fullcover waterblock. Everyone says the cooler components run the more efficient they are, but the question is then how much more efficient

Is that why there is always an insane amount of scalding hot air coming from the back of these things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZOMGVTEK

Is that why there is always an insane amount of scalding hot air coming from the back of these things?

---

Any GPU that is forced to create a high load will produce what you suggest. So, I don't really understand your question. Any other time or set of circumstances would solely depend on your tolerance for heat.

I think the car anology isn't all that great and here is why. Sure, you wouldn't ask a corvette to pull a boat but you could easily go find a vehicle (truck, suv) that CAN pull the boat. So, there is a way to take that massive load and pull it within specs of a vehicle. Can the same be said of furmark? Can you find a Graphics card (maybe the Quadro) that is capable of that load like you can find a car that is capable of the load as well?

I think its funny that we can find programs that stress CPU's, 8 threads 100% max but once you find a GPU program that 100% max stresses the GPU that all of a sudden thats a bad program and no one should use it because it could harm the card... weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barrok

I think the car anology isn't all that great and here is why. Sure, you wouldn't ask a corvette to pull a boat but you could easily go find a vehicle (truck, suv) that CAN pull the boat. So, there is a way to take that massive load and pull it within specs of a vehicle. Can the same be said of furmark? Can you find a Graphics card (maybe the Quadro) that is capable of that load like you can find a car that is capable of the load as well?

I think its funny that we can find programs that stress CPU's, 8 threads 100% max but once you find a GPU program that 100% max stresses the GPU that all of a sudden thats a bad program and no one should use it because it could harm the card... weird.

---

Nah, that car analogy is spot on. However, it depends on your understanding of it. What's being implied here is what the device's intended and expected use is (IE: the intended or expected use of a corvette). Once you understand that should it be clear why it was used in that context. :up:

Edit:
Oh BTW, it's not programs that initially stress CPUs beyond spec that determines stability. It''s the applications and games you use that will determine stability. As that is (or should be) the focus of why you are trying to OC to begin with. And, those everyday applications and games are usually the real reason why you decided to overclock to begin with ;).

I must be in the wrong place. I didn't know this was an automotive forum.

my system with an e8400@4.2GHz and a gtx 295 runs 180W (from the wall) at idle :p:
and i have gtx 295 @ 640 core.
i think i get >80% efficiency with the antec sg-850W

@ load i see the power meter reading at around 380W

i expect load reductions with 40nm gpu's and perhaps a 65W quad core :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Any GPU that is forced to create a high load will produce what you suggest. So, I don't really understand your question. Any other time or set of circumstances would solely depend on your tolerance for heat.

---

I was not aware that the 4870x2 would consume 400 watts under a heavy load at stock clocks. So overvolted and overclocked is going to be pumping some seriously insane levels of heat. One could likely near 500w of draw with a modded card, and that is getting a little crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Oh BTW, it's not programs that initially stress CPUs beyond spec that determines stability. It''s the applications and games you use that will determine stability. As that is (or should be) the focus of why you are trying to OC to begin with. And, those everyday applications and games are usually the real reason why you decided to overclock to begin with ;).

---

IMO your interpretation is completely off(not trying to be arse or troll either). A stress test/program often times represents the max theoretical load any given component will be subjected to...

EX) I could game with my 8800GTS @ 837mhz core/2106mhz shader all day long(assuming I wished to subject myself to 100% fan speed) but could only fold @ 821 mhz core/2052mhz shader. If I had sold my card claiming 837/2106 stable to someone who wanted to fold that would be a lie, period. Which is why you test for stability with highest possible load scenario, you can only say 100% stable if it can pass a ~100% load scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefy22

IMO your interpretation is completely off(not trying to be arse or troll either). A stress test/program often times represents the max theoretical load any given component will be subjected to...

EX) I could game with my 8800GTS @ 837mhz core/2106mhz shader all day long(assuming I wished to subject myself to 100% fan speed) but could only fold @ 821 mhz core/2052mhz shader. If I had sold my card claiming 837/2106 stable to someone who wanted to fold that would be a lie, period. Which is why you test for stability with highest possible load scenario, you can only say 100% stable if it can pass a ~100% load scenario.

---

Why is it off? You really didn't explain so in this post. If the actually intent is to validate your OC for games or everyday applications (for example) then any additional load created by another program is invalid.

100% stable isn't define by exceeding the load of the device in question. It's the ability to run your programs and games without issue. This is were we disagree. This is why I don't see the relation between posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZOMGVTEK

I was not aware that the 4870x2 would consume 400 watts under a heavy load at stock clocks. So overvolted and overclocked is going to be pumping some seriously insane levels of heat. One could likely near 500w of draw with a modded card, and that is getting a little crazy.

---

Maybe I don't understand. However, I don't see the reasoning of this post to the OP nor why you quoted my post with this response. Is there a game that draws 400 watts from this GPU under load?

I don't see what the problem is. I have run a renamed furmark for hours on the stock cooler and now with water cooling and have never had a problem with my 4870x2. It's a great program for testing overclocks though maybe a little overkill if you only care about game stability.

Sure, while it is running furmark it is probably drawing more power then specification, but my power supply can handle it no problem. In spec or out of spec doesn't matter to me much as long as it's stable.

If folding is the load you are overclocking for then you need to be stable for that, if your gaming is the load you put on your GPU then you overclock for that. its very simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG

If folding is the load you are overclocking for then you need to be stable for that, if your gaming is the load you put on your GPU then you overclock for that. its very simple.

---

Agreed, you base your stability on the applications and games you use daily. Stress test/burn test applications don't necessitate stability for other applications and programs if that amount of load is not required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Why is it off? You really didn't explain so in this post. If the actually intent is to validate your OC for games or everyday applications (for example) then any additional load created by the program is invalid.

100% stable isn't define by exceeding the load of the device in question. It's the ability to run your programs and games without issue. This is were we disagree. This is why I don't see the relation between posts.

---

Semantics... We disagree and that is how the posts relate.

I guess I could be persuaded to see your side if it was phrased as:

100% gaming/app stable and then listed the games/apps, because there is no guarantee if it's unstable under max load(stress test) that it will be stable on all games/apps. Your definition of 100% stable is not an absolute, therefore stability is relative and it's interpretation subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefy22

Semantics... We disagree and that is how the posts relate.

I guess I could be persuaded to see your side if it was phrased as:

100% gaming/app stable and then listed the games/apps, because there is no guarantee if it's unstable under max load(stress test) that it will be stable on all games/apps. Your definition of 100% stable is not an absolute, therefore stability is relative and it's interpretation subjective.

---

No, it's not semantics. Semantics is arguing about the wording of my context when what's implied is the same. :up:

In the end, stability should never be based on just stress test/burn test applications that can place a load on your PC component higher then what's normally used in the daily applications and games you use. It should be based on those applications and games.

you dont see extreme overclockers saying "oh, well that 6ghz cpu clock isn't 3d stable so its not a valid superPI score" thats ridiculous, you clock for your application, not the most extreme one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

No, it's not semantics. Semantics is arguing about the wording of my context when what's implied is the same. :up:

---

Not necessarily, semantics is a broad field. ;)

Quote:

---

In the end, stability should never be based on just stress test/burn test applications that can place a load on your PC component higher then what's normally used in the daily applications and games you use. It should be based on those applications and games.

---

^ I agree, I just feel a distinction is warranted. :up:

-EDIT-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG

you dont see extreme overclockers saying "oh, well that 6ghz cpu clock isn't 3d stable so its not a valid superPI score" thats ridiculous, you clock for your application, not the most extreme one.

---

Irrelevant(straw man), they've never claimed stability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefy22

Not necessarily, semantics is a broad field. ;)

---

Based on the example given it's no longer a broad field but a very specific on. However, to each his own, what's implied remains the same. :up:

Exactly why i won't buy one of those cards, though the GTX260 doesn't do too bad. Lets hope 40nm cards can do better.

40nm should help power consumption but AMD & Nvidia, and now Intel, are always fitting the most performance possible into a certain TDP. Unfortunately, that won't be changing for quite awhile here.

does no one remember ATI modifying the drivers to not run at maximum for FuRMark? They knew it would run at a much higher power than what it was built to do. and even if it wasnt going to hurt the video card, they dont want to hear stories about people blowing up a 500W PSU cause they said it would be enough for their products. they have a list of certified PSUs, imagine if that list meant nothing.

they constantly adjust their drivers, and i bet one of the reasons is to ensure they stay in their power profile. running furmark as a different program is no different then abusing the product, and if something breaks, they wont feel sorry.

as interesting as this article is, its irrelevant if they do anything that 90% of the population woulnt do, but honestly since this is XS, it is pretty cool to see such high power consumption. now id like to see how hot the parts get, anyone got a thermal camera?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Nah, that car analogy is spot on. However, it depends on your understanding of it. What's being implied here is what the device's intended and expected use is (IE: the intended or expected use of a corvette). Once you understand that should it be clear why it was used in that context. :up:

Edit:
Oh BTW, it's not programs that initially stress CPUs beyond spec that determines stability. It''s the applications and games you use that will determine stability. As that is (or should be) the focus of why you are trying to OC to begin with. And, those everyday applications and games are usually the real reason why you decided to overclock to begin with ;).

---

Nah, the car analogy has its flaws. It has a point as well, but the car implied by the analogy is a commuter vehicle it seems, not anything meant to tow (or the ability).

A small truck vs large truck towing capacity would make for a better analogy. Both were bought with the capability to tow, but one is meant to tow a heavier load. Both can tow a heavy load but only one can do it "legally" or without sustaining damage from the work load.

That said, when I buy a piece of hardware I expect it to perform to its full advertised level when I want and for the warrantied time period. CPU's and GPU's are not sold as performing at 80% (number from the air) of their maximum performance... in fact there is no documentation provided which states that running your CPU/GPU at maximum performance could damage it and no software provided to tell you if you are going over the limit..

I dont disagree that furmark is a torture test that pushes things to their limit, but I believe it is a disservice to advertise a performance product as such if it is not capable of running at peak performance for its expected life cycle (realistically there will be down/idle time). Furmark is not the only application which can stress a GPU to full or very near full capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

Nah, the car analogy has its flaws. It has a point as well, but the car implied by the analogy is a commuter vehicle it seems, not anything meant to tow (or the ability).

A small truck vs large truck towing capacity would make for a better analogy. Both were bought with the capability to tow, but one is meant to tow a heavier load. Both can tow a heavy load but only one can do it "legally" or without sustaining damage from the work load.

That said, when I buy a piece of hardware I expect it to perform to its full advertised level when I want and for the warrantied time period. CPU's and GPU's are not sold as performing at 80% (number from the air) of their maximum performance... in fact there is no documentation provided which states that running your CPU/GPU at maximum performance could damage it and no software provided to tell you if you are going over the limit..

I dont disagree that furmark is a torture test that pushes things to their limit, but I believe it is a disservice to advertise a performance product as such if it is not capable of running at peak performance for its expected life cycle (realistically there will be down/idle time). Furmark is not the only application which can stress a GPU to full or very near full capacity.

---

We can only agree to disagree then. I still believe that the car analogy is spot on. The example I provided on top of the car analogy really drove home the point. I simply can't justify the use of a torture test program as a means to determine stability for games/programs that don't require such loads.

i dont know, those numbers dont make sense... compare them to whole system power consumption meassurements of several other sites and youll see it doesnt add up...
those numbers are too high, i find it hard to believe them... they must have gotten something wrong...

Perhaps their clamp meter wasn't calibrated or not calibrated properly. Actually it makes me wonder if they were using an AC (incorrect) or DC (correct) or dual mode clamp meter and how they converted the reading (mA or A) into Watts. That would explain the extremely high readings they received from the PCI-E power cable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

We can only agree to disagree then. I still believe that the car analogy is spot on. The example I provided on top of the car analogy really drove home the point. I simply can't justify the use of a torture test program as a means to determine stability for games/programs that don't require such loads.

---

See, that is the fault with your analogy. Truck companies TEST their trucks for maximum payload. Who cares if 98% of the people never reach that payload, or if the "regular" payload is alot less. The fact is the truck companies give you the maximum payload and the truck is 100% capable of that. Graphics card companies, according to this article, seem to give you a maximum wattage but not when the card is being pushed at 100%.

And if a game came out that ran your GPU to 100% load you'd be making your GPU work too hard.

Maybe thats why Crysis plays like crap, it has a cap.


SKYMTL - makes sense. Could probably get a PCI-E riser card and cut the power supply lines with a dremel or something then solder in some wires in a loop to stick the clamp through, might get more reliable readings.

After many days of registration-process, i finally got it to post here ;). Firstly i want to say, that due to the many request of non-german-readers, we decided to translate our article on graphics card power consumption into english. I think this will be interessting for some people here:

Power consumption of current graphic cards (English Version)

At this point i don´t want to go to deep into the discussion about FurMark. I think our viewpoint get´s pretty clear if you read the whole linked article. We know about the fact, that FurMark is a worst-case-scenario, but we treat the tool also as such (you´ll get what i mean, if you read the article).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Perhaps their clamp meter wasn't calibrated or not calibrated properly. Actually it makes me wonder if they were using an AC (incorrect) or DC (correct) or dual mode clamp meter and how they converted the reading (mA or A) into Watts. That would explain the extremely high readings they received from the PCI-E power cable.

---

Sorry, but that's not the proper way to go about things. I can´t blame you for not reading our test methods, because you propably don´t understand german language (Now you can, because we translated it ;) ). But nevertheless throwing arround assumptions without any justifaction that are simply not true just to make our results to look wrong isn´t the nice way :(. Just as editor yourself (i assume your writing for Hardware Cannucks) you should know, that such a behaviour can be really frustrating for an author.

Quote from our article, that hopefully will clarify things:

Quote:

---

The Temna-device is a True-RMS-clamp-meter. This is necessary because the graphics card isn´t purely ohmic but a reactance with transients. This current clamp was calibrated using a Fluke 9100 Universal Calibration System (Standard calibration like described in DIN EN ISO 9000 / 9001 referring to DIN EN ISO/ IEC 17025 (ISO Guide 25). Measuring Tolerance: up to 30A: +-0,08% +2mA, up to 105A: +-0,08% +11mA.

---

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/power_c...ics/index5.php
You see, our meassuring-devices are calibrated well. And as you can even see in the picture, we used the DC-Mode of our current-clamp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

i dont know, those numbers dont make sense... compare them to whole system power consumption meassurements of several other sites and youll see it doesnt add up...
those numbers are too high, i find it hard to believe them... they must have gotten something wrong...

---

One more time, our load-results are that high because we used FurMark as load. Have look at this comparison of tools. As you can see FurMark is much more demanding than 3DMark06. I think these 3DMark06-results should be pretty much what you expected, right? But you can also see, that there are many games that are more demanding than 3DMark06, not only FurMark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

as interesting as this article is, its irrelevant if they do anything that 90% of the population woulnt do, but honestly since this is XS, it is pretty cool to see such high power consumption. now id like to see how hot the parts get, anyone got a thermal camera?

---

We have one :P.
http://ht4u.net/reviews/2008/messtechnik/index8.php
And we are currently working on an separat article that will deal with the temperatures of the 4870 (and the high voltage regulator temperature). And yes, we´ll do some pictures with our thermal camera ;).

Greetings,
Leander [HT4U]

Thanks for dropping in and explaining a bit Kylian. I dont think SKYMTL was trying to be rude in how he phrased what he said, just a bit direct maybe ;)