• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

The first "proper" Kepler news Fri 17th Feb?

Gibbo said:
For example, when I ran Heaven earlier my GPU clock increased too 1201MHz, yet when I was playing Quake III it stayed at 1006MHz. Yet I had not changed any of the settings in afterburner.
Click to expand...

Quake 3 will undoubtedly be CPU-limited. The 'boost' auto-overclock will be a function of current GPU load, as well as current power draw and framerate.

If GPU load is sitting at well below 100%, there is little reason to increase core clockspeed.
 
What kind of PSU ratings do people reckon to give the 680 enough juice considering it's boosting capacity?

My Corsair 520Watter supports my 285GTX that seems to have a similar overall system power consumption figure to the ones leaked from Toms. That's on older hardware also. Reckon it should be fine?
 
maybe I shouldnt be bringing this up but ...
what was that whole thing with alxandy about? ... did you feel nvda wasnt coming out with a quality product and then so this started a flame war?

and how are you feeling now in regards to nvda's product now that you learned more (suppose you will learn more tomorrow).
 
Sin_Chase said:
What kind of PSU ratings do people reckon to give the 680 enough juice considering it's boosting capacity?

My Corsair 520Watter supports my 285GTX that seems to have a similar overall system power consumption figure to the ones leaked from Toms. That's on older hardware also. Reckon it should be fine?
Click to expand...

Yes, that will be fine !
 
Duff-Man said:
Quake 3 will undoubtedly be CPU-limited. The 'boost' auto-overclock will be a function of current GPU load, as well as current power draw and framerate.

If GPU load is sitting at well below 100%, there is little reason to increase core clockspeed.
Click to expand...

Clock changing like that always worries me as there is always some situation that catches it out.
I have always found power draw to be directly proportional to GPU load not clock speed, essentially higher clocks don't heat the core or draw more current they just allow the potential for higher load related current draw.
It's more than likely just another power state in the bios, Fermi had 3.

It would surprise me if this is benchmark related function, enthusiasts are smart enough to pick this up and Nvidia would get a real slating.
 
JAKUS said:
Clock changing like that always worries me as there is always some situation that catches it out.
I have always found power draw to be directly proportional to GPU load not clock speed, essentially higher clocks don't heat the core or draw more current they just allow the potential for higher load related current draw.
It's more than likely just another power state in the bios, Fermi had 3.

It would surprise me if this is benchmark related function, enthusiasts are smart enough to pick this up and Nvidia would get a real slating.
Click to expand...

The reason power draw appears to be a function of GPU load is because of power gating circuitry on the chip. Power draw IS a function of frequency, however. The faster these transistors switch the more it draws because MOSFETs in CMOS design are such that they dissipate most of their power during switching and very little other wise.
 
xsistor said:
The reason power draw appears to be a function of GPU load is because of power gating circuitry on the chip. Power draw IS a function of frequency, however. The faster these transistors switch the more it draws because MOSFETs in CMOS design are such that they dissipate most of their power during switching and very little other wise.
Click to expand...

Far from me to argue with you as you are far more current with modern digital electronics than me...but sorry that's not my findings, Just put a power meter on the PC and run a GFX bench clocks and volts will stay in (p0) state for fermi but power will change massively.

You know what, ignore that, I just realised I don't know what is really happening inside the GPU between light and heavy rendering being totally honest, maybe you could humour my ignorance on that ?
 
JAKUS said:
Far from me to argue with you as you are far more current with modern digital electronics than me...but sorry that's not my findings, Just put a power meter on the PC and run a GFX bench clocks and volts will stay in (p0) state for fermi but power will change massively.

You know what, ignore that, I just realised I don't know what is really happening inside the GPU between light and heavy rendering being totally honest, maybe you could humour my ignorance on that ?
Click to expand...

I realize now that my post may not have been very clear. What I meant was, yeah, when you increase load you will see higher power draw. The reason for this is because there are more circuits active. Modern CMOS circuits, especially the modular ones like processors, use transistors to switch off chunk of circuitry at low loads.

But for a given circuit the power draw varies with frequency. What happens when you increase the load is more circuit elements switch on, so while you had 10 % of the chip drawing power before, you may now have 50% of it drawing power.

So that's a different cause altogether from what happens when frequency is varied. But for any given circuit in the on state (i.e. not power-gated or switched off), increasing frequency will increase power draw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom