Which manufacturer is going to be ready with 5850/5870 blocks?

[Pen3]

I went to do another test but this time i had to increase my voltage to 1.35 since my old 1.3 is not stable at 1060 anymore and i dont know why.
There is not just the voltage increase that has changed but also my VDCC Current jumped from 40A to 70-80A which made my VDDC go from 45 to 75
It is winter here and my heater also kicked in so my ambient is really high right now.
My GPU loop is MCP355 XSPC Top, Two MCR220 and 4 Yate L. 1/2 Tube 4 Ft. no Elbows


Anyone know why my VDCC went up soo high?

[fornowagain]

Well I would have said from the VDDC current that the actual VGPU was higher than 1.35v.

[Vapor]

My guess is the VRMs are sending the kill/throttle signal intermittently. Unlike with previous gens, throttling isn't done in software any more, it's done in hardware.

FurMark and OCCT make recent ATi cards pretty angry

[gabe]

slow down your fans gabe, to his levels, and then lets see whats left of thet 3C difference.

doing now - will run them at 5v instead of 12v. In fact, I'm going to set up the card EXACTLY as he is, and let the fun roll! good or bad, I will publish the result.

Personally I wouldn't dare draw any conclusions, there are far too many variables between two systems for a fair comparison. Loop and air flow rates for a start. I'd also want to see a couple of mount values for an average. With the same rig in a reasonably controlled environment and I'd accept it.

The reason why I'm so interested in this is that these loops are reasonably similar other than the fans; its the same heat exchanger, he is using DDC, and I am using MCP650, but I am also using quick-disconnect fittings (horribly restrictive); so if anything, my flow is much more restricted than his.

regarding the fans, I do concur; see above.

Starting to sound like a pssing match to me.

Nah.. I'm cool. No one's claiming this is a scientific test here, not me anyways. These are users first impressions. I'm seeing something of interest in what I see as a comparable environment and I'm just pointing it out; sorry if it's showing my block in a favorable light for now. Should I throw in a couple more blocks in that loop to make it look worse? J/K

[Waterlogged]

Nah.. I'm cool. No one's claiming this is a scientific test here, not me anyways. These are users first impressions. I'm seeing something of interest in what I see as a comparable environment and I'm just pointing it out; sorry if it's showing my block in a favorable light for now. Should I throw in a couple more blocks in that loop to make it look worse? J/K

gabe, I wouldn't compare 2 identical systems built by the same person that were being run in a climate controlled room to each other much less two different ppl with different blocks. The simple reason is all the variables fornowagain alluded to, some of which are completely out of the realm of you or other end users ability to control (chip height or it just may be a hotter chip being just 2 of many) . We have to constantly say this to newbs when they question why their system doesn't match the performance of some other system that is nearly identical to theirs. I'm surprised someone who's been in the game as long as yourself would even go down that road.

[gabe]

gabe, I wouldn't compare 2 identical systems built by the same person that were being run in a climate controlled room to each other much less two different ppl with different blocks. The simple reason is all the variables fornowagain alluded to, some of which are completely out of the realm of you or other end users ability to control (chip height or it just may be a hotter chip being just 2 of many) . We have to constantly say this to newbs when they question why their system doesn't match the performance of some other system that is nearly identical to theirs. I'm surprised someone who's been in the game as long as yourself would even go down that road.

Cool off Dude, as I said earlier this isn't a scientific review; this is users exchanging impressions on similar builds. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it might give an incentive to babalouj to re-install his block to see if he gets better results. For all we know, he might have a bad mount. Fixing this would be a positive outcome wouldn't you say?

So, I did as promised and reset my bench to exactly his settings, safe for fan voltage (could only drop to 7v as I couldn't find the 5v adapters.. we just moved in, lab is still a mess..)

Now, the current draws are nominally similar between the two cards (mine's a tad higher for whatever reason), and ambients are the same (cool day in socal):



We now observe a 7C Delta in GPU temp between the cards. The scale is such that a bad mount of his block is quite likely.

@babalouj: I'd take a look at that thermal grease imprint if I were you, and make sure you tighten everything down nice and snug when you re-install.

[gabe]

I went to do another test but this time i had to increase my voltage to 1.35 since my old 1.3 is not stable at 1060 anymore and i dont know why.
There is not just the voltage increase that has changed but also my VDCC Current jumped from 40A to 70-80A which made my VDDC go from 45 to 75
It is winter here and my heater also kicked in so my ambient is really high right now.
My GPU loop is MCP355 XSPC Top, Two MCR220 and 4 Yate L. 1/2 Tube 4 Ft. no Elbows


Anyone know why my VDCC went up soo high?

Well I would have said from the VDDC current that the actual VGPU was higher than 1.35v.

Yes, it's very possible that the voltage tweak went amok. He's drawing 70A, and VDDC temps went way up, which confirms it. For reference, my card was only drawing 50A at the same voltage.

Try to push the GPU frequency.. if it goes way up, then you know you have much more voltage than 1.35

Now if you don't want to take a chance with your card, you could also try to reset to default, redo the O/C and then see if your current draw is still the same after that.

[Waterlogged]

Cool off Dude, as I said earlier this isn't a scientific review; this is users exchanging impressions on similar builds. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it might give an incentive to babalouj to re-install his block to see if he gets better results. For all we know, he might have a bad mount. Fixing this would be a positive outcome wouldn't you say?

Absolutely.

I'm chill. . .we're cool , it's just your comparison post reads like "yours vs. mine. . .I'm better. . .neener" which bugged me a bit due to what I mentioned in my prior post.

btw, any new word on the DDC 3.x5's?

[gabe]

Absolutely.

I'm chill. . .we're cool , it's just your comparison post reads like "yours vs. mine. . .I'm better. . .neener" which bugged me a bit due to what I mentioned in my prior post.

btw, any new word on the DDC 3.x5's?

Not yet. It's p***ng me off

[Utnorris]

Personally, I like to see these little comparisons of average setups versus some controlled enviroment. In my opinion, they are more real life as what to expect, granted two are not enough, but it's like overclocking. We all look to see what the average user is able to get out of their chip, or in this case video card, and we draw a conclusion that we should be able to mirror those results to a certain degree. There is a reason why the I7 920 is so popular amongst overclockers and that's because so many folks were able to overclock it above 4Ghz with ease and not in a controlled environment, and more importantly, very different environments. I don't think we should take these results as a "fact", but it is nice to see some results, if nothing else we get to see the improvements that a FC block can bring to the HD5870, regardless of the brand of block.

[millertime359]

It is nice to see these real-world test, but just as waterlogged said, it needs to be kept in perspective. There are alot of newbies that come onto this forum that would see gabe's post and automatically think that his block is better than the Koolance block. They would then get Gabe's block and not be able to reproduce his results and then come back complaining about it.

The 5870s do look promising though. My question is, do these OC's make any difference in FPS in say Crysis?

[Hondacity]

It is nice to see these real-world test, but just as waterlogged said, it needs to be kept in perspective. There are alot of newbies that come onto this forum that would see gabe's post and automatically think that his block is better than the Koolance block. They would then get Gabe's block and not be able to reproduce his results and then come back complaining about it.

The 5870s do look promising though. My question is, do these OC's make any difference in FPS in say Crysis?

for once i agree with you...

and yes the oc's do make them faster...you should try overclocking...and benching

[Utnorris]

First, I agree that noob's might take it as a "fact", however, if they do then oops, they should have done the research. We have stickies for a reason and we all started as a noob and we all made some mistakes, but you learn from them or at least you should. Gabe was not claiming block supremacy, only that the results were interesting. Was he skating the line? Probably, but so what, all reps do, it's part of the learning curve. My point is, let's not turn this thread into "smack down" just because Gabe may or may not have skated the line. It's nice to see results regardless of who is giving them. Unless it's an official review done by somone independent and respected, it shouldn't be met with a lot of scrutiny, just my opinion.

Enough of that stuff. Yes, getting a 20-30% increase out of your card will help your FPS. Does it make a difference? If it's a difference between 25 and 30fps, then yes, because that's the difference between playable and not playable. If it's the difference between 100 and 150fps, then no it would make little difference in game play. But, and I say "but", it can make a huge difference in your benchmarks. Just go check out the HD5800 series overclocking thread and you should get an idea of how much of an overclocking monster these cards are. Usually, you can get a 7-12% overclock out of a card and these are blowing that away on stock cooling. It helps that you can adjust the voltages, which, in my opinion, is why you have to cool the vrm's to get the most out of the card.

[millertime359]

for once i agree with you...

and yes the oc's do make them faster...you should try overclocking...and benching

That is a first Honda, I'm amazed.

I guess I should of worded my question a little bit better. I noticed that shader clock is turned all the way off on most of the screen shots and that is where the OC question came from. I'm still a noob myself, but I though that the shader clocks help with gameplay. I think I may have to venture into the GPU forums and read up on that then.

Thanks guys.

[Pen3]

ok it just got worse.
i uninstalled then reflashed the card with asus5870 bios and redid everything. This time however i am seeing 90A+ in VDDC current draw....
Anyone have any ideas on whats wrong? I am just going to flash back to the stock bios for now see if itll fix the problem.

EDIT: With stock bios at 900/1300 i am seeing 60-65A... You think my card is a bad one?

[Hondacity]

That is a first Honda, I'm amazed.

I guess I should of worded my question a little bit better. I noticed that shader clock is turned all the way off on most of the screen shots and that is where the OC question came from. I'm still a noob myself, but I though that the shader clocks help with gameplay. I think I may have to venture into the GPU forums and read up on that then.

Thanks guys.

gpu-z don't show the shader speed from ati cards..thats it. nvidia cards makes the shader speed available for gpu-z.

[Razrback16]

Here's a picture of the inside and back of our block.. we changed a lot with this block.



Also, new front picture

Definitely appears to be passive cooling on the VRMs...can you confirm Dean? Thank you.

[Razrback16]

We might not be first to market, but at least, I'll be first to publish our temperature data:



As you can, these temps are after 2 1/2 hours of Furmark, O/C'd to 970Mhz.

All VDDC's remain at a nice 45~46C avg.

We need more voltage options in the AMD O/C tool!!!

3D mark Vintage scored 19534.

This is the pre-production prototype in bench action (forgive rough edges/poor pic):

Awesome VRM temps Gabe. I apologize if you've posted this, but could you post a picture of the internal waterpath of the block?

Thank you!

[millertime359]

gpu-z don't show the shader speed from ati cards..thats it. nvidia cards makes the shader speed available for gpu-z.

OIC, Thanks Honda.

[Eddy_EK]

Definitely appears to be passive cooling on the VRMs...can you confirm Dean? Thank you.

It is not passive, but the water flow is more distant from VRMs than with EK block.

Passive cooling would mean for example heatsink without fan blowing on it.

[beast200]

It is not passive, but the water flow is more distant from VRMs than with EK block.

Passive cooling would mean for example heatsink without fan blowing on it.

hi

quick qustion

why are the spacers not fittied / machined into the copper block

heres mine fitted
@1000 & 1275mem 1.25 volts

[Hondacity]

[kooolance]dean

invisible o-ring?

i like the internals

[Razrback16]

Passive cooling would mean for example heatsink without fan blowing on it.

Thanks for the response Eddy -- although this would meet my definition of passive which would mean no active water or air flow to cool the material meeting the object being cooled. Appreciate the response.

[Utnorris]

@ Beast200 - Simple, cost. They would have to use a piece of copper that was as thick as the parts with standoffs and then machine all the copper off. It's a waste of copper, time consuming and very expensive. You have two choices, include spacers like EK or add the standoffs on afterwards like Koolance did. Both are effective at keeping the PCB from being warped.

[leo_bsb]

after reading all posts I think I have a bad mount.
I don't know why only my card have so bad VRM temps.
I did not change the voltages, with stock frequencies I got 80º on VRMs too. I don't know why the current draw is so high either.