Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › Truth on GTX580 Furmark Temps and Consumption
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Truth on GTX580 Furmark Temps and Consumption - Page 4

post #31 of 80
The question is what is the 580? A rebranded 480 with an unlocked gf100 and a new cooler?
post #32 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBcobra View Post
The question is what is the 580? A rebranded 480 with an unlocked gf100 and a new cooler?
The chip is basically a GF100 w/full speed support for FP16/64-bit texture filtering and improved z-culling technology (mostly seems geared towards improving tessellation performance). And it also sports around 6% more CUDA cores (no SM's are locked, unlike the GF100).

These features slightly improve perf per clock vs GF100 in most situations.

Of course the card itself also sports higher clocks and a different style of cooler that seems to be quieter, and perhaps performs better. It has a few million less transistors, I'd imagine probably because they eliminated some Tesla-only feature from this chip, but that's just a guess.

Oh, and it also has this power-limiting technology described in this post.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 d0 @ 4.0ghz (1.30v, 20x200 +ht -turbo) rampage iii extreme gigabyte gtx670oc windforce 2gb (1337/1750/1.162v) 3 x 2gb corsair xms3 pc12800 (9-9-9-24-1T@1600MHz) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
raptor X(os),2tb deskstar (apps),1tb spinpoint(bu) plextor px-712sa - still the best optical drive... se7en 64-bit home premium (oem) asus vw266h 25.5" (1920x1200) 
PowerCase
abs sl (enermax revolution) * single 70A rail 850w silverstone rv-03 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 d0 @ 4.0ghz (1.30v, 20x200 +ht -turbo) rampage iii extreme gigabyte gtx670oc windforce 2gb (1337/1750/1.162v) 3 x 2gb corsair xms3 pc12800 (9-9-9-24-1T@1600MHz) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
raptor X(os),2tb deskstar (apps),1tb spinpoint(bu) plextor px-712sa - still the best optical drive... se7en 64-bit home premium (oem) asus vw266h 25.5" (1920x1200) 
PowerCase
abs sl (enermax revolution) * single 70A rail 850w silverstone rv-03 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 80
Wow, Nvidia fanboys are going to be pissed off at this...

BIG TIME.

Good thing I stick with ATI
post #34 of 80
Why would NVIDIA fanboys get pissed? I am happy with the 580 .
ThermoChilled
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1100T ASUS Crosshair IV Extreme EVGA GTX 580 SuperClocked STT WX200UB2G7 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
VelociRaptor WD6000HLHX Sony Optiarc AD-7260S Arch Linux x86_64 + JWM NEC MultiSync PA241W-BK 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Topre Realforce 87UKB Corsair CMPSU-850AX Lian Li Tyr PC-X500FX Logitech G9x 
Mouse Pad
ZOWIE GEAR P-TF 
  hide details  
Reply
ThermoChilled
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1100T ASUS Crosshair IV Extreme EVGA GTX 580 SuperClocked STT WX200UB2G7 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
VelociRaptor WD6000HLHX Sony Optiarc AD-7260S Arch Linux x86_64 + JWM NEC MultiSync PA241W-BK 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Topre Realforce 87UKB Corsair CMPSU-850AX Lian Li Tyr PC-X500FX Logitech G9x 
Mouse Pad
ZOWIE GEAR P-TF 
  hide details  
Reply
post #35 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kand View Post
Find out with your 5850's. It's simple as renaming furmark.exe to something else.
It is there.

Link:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2841/11
post #36 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by windfire View Post
Quote:
Why is this? AMD believes that the instruction streams generated by OCCT and FurMark are entirely unrealistic. They try to hit everything at once, and this is something that they don’t believe a game or even a GPGPU application would ever do. For this reason these programs are held in low regard by AMD, and in our discussions with them they referred to them as “power viruses”, a term that’s normally associated with malware. We don’t agree with the terminology, but in our testing we can’t disagree with AMD about the realism of their load – we can’t find anything that generates the same kind of loads as OCCT and FurMark.
Yup. Thanks.

Quote:
This brings us to Cypress. For Cypress, AMD has implemented a hardware solution to the VRM problem, by dedicating a very small portion of Cypress’s die to a monitoring chip. In this case the job of the monitor is to continually monitor the VRMs for dangerous conditions. Should the VRMs end up in a critical state, the monitor will immediately throttle back the card by one PowerPlay level. The card will continue operating at this level until the VRMs are back to safe levels, at which point the monitor will allow the card to go back to the requested performance level. In the case of a stressful program, this can continue to go back and forth as the VRMs permit.

By implementing this at the hardware level, Cypress cards are fully protected against all possible overcurrent situations, so that it’s not possible for any program (OCCT, FurMark, or otherwise) to damage the hardware by generating too high of a load. This also means that the protections at the driver level are not needed, and we’ve confirmed with AMD that the 5870 is allowed to run to the point where it maxes out or where overcurrent protection kicks in.
This also means that..

ATI's no "saint" either.
Edited by Kand - 11/15/10 at 1:02am
Karthe-TransAM
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500k Costa Rica @ Stock for now P8P67 PRO 3.0 Inno3d GTX 660 (Nvidia Reference design) 4x2GB G-Skill Ripjaws X @ 1600Mhz CAS7 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
WD5000AAKX (OS) WD5000AAKS Barracuda 1TB 7200.12 Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2312HM Ducky DK1008 Cherry Blue Corsair AX650 NZXT Phantom White 
MouseMouse Pad
X-710BH QCK 
  hide details  
Reply
Karthe-TransAM
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500k Costa Rica @ Stock for now P8P67 PRO 3.0 Inno3d GTX 660 (Nvidia Reference design) 4x2GB G-Skill Ripjaws X @ 1600Mhz CAS7 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
WD5000AAKX (OS) WD5000AAKS Barracuda 1TB 7200.12 Windows 7 Ultimate 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2312HM Ducky DK1008 Cherry Blue Corsair AX650 NZXT Phantom White 
MouseMouse Pad
X-710BH QCK 
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kand View Post
Yup. Thanks.



This also means that..

ATI's no "saint" either.
This 'safety feature' is particularly obvious for the HD5970 because many would like to try to overclock it to the frequency of a HD5870.

Legion Hardware found a downclocking of 25% from 875MHz to 500MHz : (see graph below)
Link:http://www.legionhardware.com/articl...roblems,2.html

And, AMD's Dave Baumann explained it:

Quote:
The Legion FurMark results tell me that the 5970 is doing exactly what it was designed to do. There are protection measures in place that kick in when thermal or power levels exceed maximum permitted levels, so the card was taking the correct actions to protect both itself and the motherboard.

Now, I would also like to note that this particular benchmark (FurMark) was coded primarily as a stress test. It is certainly not elective in how it utilizes the GPU, as the application basically lights up the entire card to create or emulate maximum power draws and scenarios. No real world app or game does that for an extended period of time. FurMark was lighting up everything, with average power draws exceeding the requirements of any standard app by 20-40 percent.
Link:http://www.geeks3d.com/20091125/rade...-with-furmark/
post #38 of 80
It is perfectly fine for Nvidia to do this for esoteric apps like Furmark. I do have a problem if the over-current protection is triggered in games though; that means the card was engineered inadequately.

Perhaps future reviews should test power consumption with and without over-current protection to give readers a better understanding of the product.
Stardust Speedway
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 2500k Asus P8Z68-V Pro MSI HD 6970 16 GB Samsung DDR3 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial M4 128 GB Samsung 830 256 GB Hitachi Deskstar 5K3000 2 TB Western Digital Black 1 TB 
CoolingOSKeyboardPower
Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 Windows 7 Professional 64-bit CM Storm QF Rapid Cherry Blue Antec TruePower New 750 W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone TJ09-B Steelseries Sensei Puretrak Talent Asus Xonar DX 
  hide details  
Reply
Stardust Speedway
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 2500k Asus P8Z68-V Pro MSI HD 6970 16 GB Samsung DDR3 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial M4 128 GB Samsung 830 256 GB Hitachi Deskstar 5K3000 2 TB Western Digital Black 1 TB 
CoolingOSKeyboardPower
Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 Windows 7 Professional 64-bit CM Storm QF Rapid Cherry Blue Antec TruePower New 750 W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone TJ09-B Steelseries Sensei Puretrak Talent Asus Xonar DX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #39 of 80
fermi is and will remain a powerhungry + a family barbecue card
post #40 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riou View Post
It is perfectly fine for Nvidia to do this for esoteric apps like Furmark. I do have a problem if the over-current protection is triggered in games though; that means the card was engineered inadequately.

Perhaps future reviews should test power consumption with and without over-current protection to give readers a better understanding of the product.
Both companies do not design their cards (especially the top end ones) to run Furmark. I have no doubt they have the engineering skill to achieve that (if they want to) but this will come at the expense of the consumers as the price of the cards will be driven higher. I think not many end users like this to happen.

I think both AMD and Nvidia do not expect such a game in the foreseeable future. Not only a game has to surpass the limit, it needs to sustain this power draw for ''an extended period of time''. A few seconds? Maybe. 10 minutes and more? Hardly.
And even if so, Nvidia says this can be adjusted with an updated driver.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: NVIDIA
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › Truth on GTX580 Furmark Temps and Consumption