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

[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.

[Eastcoasthandle]

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.

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 .

[.Tret]

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

[Beefy22]

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.

[Eastcoasthandle]

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.

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?

[Beefy22]

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.

[Eastcoasthandle]

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.

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.

[Beefy22]

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

Not necessarily, semantics is a broad field.

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.

-EDIT-

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.

[STEvil]

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.

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.

[Eastcoasthandle]

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.

[Barrok]

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%.

[Eastcoasthandle]

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%.

Actually no it's not the fault of my analogy or the other poster's analogy. The car analogy is just fine when explaining the actual load used between that program and daily programs and games used. After reading this post it's clear to me (at least it's my opinion) you simply don't understand what's being conveyed. Regardless, the difference between the load from daily programs and games (IE a car with 4 occupants) vs a stress test/torture test program (IE: a car pulling a boat) is quiet clear for some of us.

[STEvil]

Actually no it's not the fault of my analogy or the other poster's analogy. The car analogy is just fine when explaining the actual load used between that program and daily programs and games used. After reading this post it's clear to me (at least it's my opinion) you simply don't understand what's being conveyed. Regardless, the difference between the load from daily programs and games (IE a car with 4 occupants) vs a stress test/torture test program (IE: a car pulling a boat) is quiet clear for some of us.

Except the load being implied is far greater than what the car should ever attempt to handle where the truck can pull a load but the load being given is larger than average.

There are games and programs out now that can create as much or nearly as much as furmark.