Welcome, Unregistered.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Reply
Old 08-Mar-2012, 20:50   #2226
Bo_Fox
Naughty Boy!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaotik View Post
The "dynamic clock control"-thingy needs serious investigations, ie which scenarios affect it (ie, is it really only load related, or is there app detection or some such involved, too)
That, and the overclockability too.

It would've been nice if AMD allowed the TDP slider control to be adjusted by more than just 20%. 30-40% would've been nice for most cards, should one wish to over-volt the card and overclock the hell out of it without some clock throttling.

I'm really hoping that NV isn't going to make things more complicated regarding the true overclockability in all scenarios - my GTX 460 1GB's resetting the clocks whenever I clock it too high in some games (stressing, "some" games) is annoying like hell. I miss the old days when I'd just see the artifacts without the drivers resetting the clocks.
Bo_Fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 21:02   #2227
Dave Baumann
Gamerscore Wh...
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo_Fox View Post
It would've been nice if AMD allowed the TDP slider control to be adjusted by more than just 20%. 30-40% would've been nice for most cards, should one wish to over-volt the card and overclock the hell out of it without some clock throttling.
Overvolting won't make a difference to PowerTune, so you already can without changing implied limits. Although voltage can be a variable parameter into the PT calculations, it has been implemented it as a constant because PT is tuned to be deterministic across the range of ASIC's out there, so it assumes the worst case.
__________________
Radeon is Gaming
Tweet Tweet!
Dave Baumann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 21:16   #2228
psurge
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: LA, California
Posts: 854
Default

That techpowerup article says there are dozens of power planes... does that mean different parts of the chip will use different voltages?
psurge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 21:22   #2229
Gipsel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 1,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psurge View Post
That techpowerup article says there are dozens of power planes... does that mean different parts of the chip will use different voltages?
But not dozens of different voltages. That is clearly wrong or just some kind of typo. Maybe they wanted to speak of clock domains or the number of individually power gated domains. Or it could mean that there are a lot of power plans (without the "e"), one for each possible combination of clocks in the different clock domains.
Gipsel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 21:25   #2230
Fottemberg
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2
Default

Turbo max 7% of frequency: http://www.toppc.com.tw/articles/1458/nv680/#more-1458

Es: 800 MHz to 856 MHz.
Fottemberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 21:32   #2231
boxleitnerb
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 402
Default

It probably points to the granularity of this solution. So for instance not only 100 MHz steps but smaller ones. It wouldn't make sense to clock dozens of chip parts differently, would it? How many different domains could there be? ROPS, TMUs, ALUs...that's three.
boxleitnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 21:33   #2232
Ailuros
Epsilon plus three
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chania
Posts: 8,731
Default

Funny I read initially plans and obviously missed the "e". Good thing they didn't go for power plants instead

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
It probably points to the granularity of this solution. So for instance not only 100 MHz steps but smaller ones. It wouldn't make sense to clock dozens of chip parts differently, would it? How many different domains could there be? ROPS, TMUs, ALUs...that's three.
If there's any merit to it it sounds more like ROPs/TMUs and other enchilada one, rasters/trisetups another one, one for ALUs and then possibly some others for any possible combination.
__________________
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather; because it's easier to harass rich ladies than motorcycle gangs.
Ailuros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 21:47   #2233
psurge
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: LA, California
Posts: 854
Default

@Gipsel That does seem a lot more realistic.

Though it does seems like being able to make a leakage/dynamic power tradeoff at sub-chip granularity should have some power benefits. But I'm saying that without having any idea of the costs of making the voltage tunable at that scale are.
psurge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 22:06   #2234
vking
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15
Default

Individual partitions are power gated (and a bunch of them together can be rail gated since they share the rail). But you won't have different voltages for each partition since the number of power rails itself is not going to be very large.
vking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 22:37   #2235
iMacmatician
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xDxD View Post
Well that explains the different clock numbers we've been hearing about… as well as the hot clocks / no hot clocks conflict. Maybe the CCs can run 1:1 with the core at times.

I wonder at what clocks its rumored performance levels vs. Tahiti were compared at.

Last edited by iMacmatician; 08-Mar-2012 at 22:46.
iMacmatician is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 23:08   #2236
psurge
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: LA, California
Posts: 854
Default

@Ailuros - I went back to the original article, and it does indeed talk about "power plans" (whatever that is), not planes - so much for my reading comprehension skills.

@vking - thanks. I tried reading up about it a bit more, and it looks like you would need different VRMs on the PCB for each different on chip voltage. If I'm not mistaken, it looks like AMD used 2 voltage planes on some K10s (marketed as Dual Dynamic Power Management) 4-5 yrs ago. I wonder if they are doing this on their GPUs as well...
psurge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 23:21   #2237
trinibwoy
Meh
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 10,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailuros View Post
Alas this is going to cause quite some user confusion until folks can understand how it really works.
If there are multiple clock domains and each can fluctuate independently then I'm sure everybody will be confused, not just end users. Best of luck to reviewers trying to figure out what's happening under the hood.
__________________
What the deuce!?
trinibwoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-Mar-2012, 23:49   #2238
vking
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15
Default

The way it might work is (a) work load determines voltage (within min/max bounds of course), (b) voltage determines frequency (assuming that we didn't hit thermal limit, and if we hit thermal limit it will result in voltage/frequency throttling).

So my guess would be that for any given load, minimum spec'ed frequency will be guaranteed except when thermal throttling is necessary. So barring power virus situation minimum perf is guaranteed.

Essentially this would be a closed loop overclocking (assuming my guess about how they are doing this is correct - and I don't claim any real info, just a guess), and if done right will result in a very nice perf boost over the spec.
vking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 00:28   #2239
psurge
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: LA, California
Posts: 854
Default

It would also be good if workload measurement involved multiple kinds of units, as bottlenecks shift over the course of rendering a frame (e.g. a deferred shading pass probably has minimal geometry performance requirements compared say rendering shadow buffers). Maybe one could allocate more of the power budget to the bottlenecked bits by up-clocking those, then down-clock the stuff in light use to compensate. No clue if this is what Kepler does or how feasible it is. I guess since you can't tweak your voltages all over the place, I'm assuming there's a fair bit of wiggle room for clock even at some fixed voltage.
psurge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 00:49   #2240
vking
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15
Default

Psurge,

I think GPUs are already sophisticated enough to do what you are suggesting. Even if a bunch of clock domains share the same rail (hence run at same voltage), there still is plenty of room to play with such as reducing effective frequency through pulse eating, changing dividers etc. Dynamically reconfigurable PLLs are pretty common these days as well.
vking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 01:08   #2241
Gipsel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 1,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psurge View Post
@Ailuros - I went back to the original article, and it does indeed talk about "power plans" (whatever that is), not planes - so much for my reading comprehension skills.
AFAIK, the original source of information was Theo Valich's piece over at VR-Zone, all others are referencing him. And he was writing power planes. With an "e". If that makes it more believable is another question as the earlier news on heise.de he linked indeed mentioned the dynamic clock adjustment, but first on a far smaller scale (+7% max) and secondly heise.de didn't talk about power plan(e)s at all.
Gipsel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 01:12   #2242
vking
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15
Default

If it is power "plan" then this might be referring to closed loop voltage + freq control of some kind (mobile SOC's do this a lot).

If it is power planes, then I guess that word is loosely used. Partitions are routinely power gated, but number of power rails/planes itself is going to be a very small number.
vking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 02:03   #2243
jaredpace
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 157
Default

If Nvidia can win on performance/watt then I am sold. Efficiency and eyefinity were Ati's best strong-points with their GPU.
jaredpace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 08:42   #2244
Man from Atlantis
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 728
Default

unless google tricks me, PHK has the card with press kit and return from US.. also says it's 195W and faster than 7970..






http://bbs.expreview.com/thread-49805-1-1.html
http://bbs.expreview.com/thread-49799-1-1.html
http://bbs.expreview.com/thread-49802-1-1.html
__________________
SiS 6326 > Ti 4200 > 9800XT > 9800GT > GTX 460
Celeron 366 > Celeron 1700 > Athlon XP 2500+ > E6300 > Q9650
Man from Atlantis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 09:07   #2245
xDxD
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 391
Default

[QUOTE=Man from Atlantis;1626389]unless google tricks me, PHK has the card with press kit and return from US.. also says it's 195W and faster than 7970..

cut [/QUOTE]

Wow seems excellent.....
xDxD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 09:10   #2246
Man from Atlantis
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 728
Default

dual 6 pin tower power socket..



http://we.pcinlife.com/thread-1849001-1-1.html
__________________
SiS 6326 > Ti 4200 > 9800XT > 9800GT > GTX 460
Celeron 366 > Celeron 1700 > Athlon XP 2500+ > E6300 > Q9650

Last edited by Man from Atlantis; 09-Mar-2012 at 09:15.
Man from Atlantis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 09:37   #2247
xDxD
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 391
Default

Excuse i'm with mobile device, so i can't translate now...so: http://www.computerbase.de/news/2012...force-gtx-680/
xDxD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 09:42   #2248
AnarchX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,517
Default

Only a summary of recent information/rumors.

btw.
According to PHK GTX 680(?) could be ~500 points faster than HD 7970 in 3DM11 X-score.
AnarchX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 09:47   #2249
jaredpace
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnarchX View Post
Only a summary of recent information/rumors.

btw.
According to PHK GTX 680(?) could be ~500 points faster than HD 7970 in 3DM11 X-score.
300 faster with 29x.xx driver and 500 faster with 300.xx driver?
jaredpace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-Mar-2012, 09:49   #2250
Man from Atlantis
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 728
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnarchX View Post
btw.
According to PHK GTX 680(?) could be ~500 points faster than HD 7970 in 3DM11 X-score.
also PHK expects a performance driver by AMD in reference to Pitcairn..

new bits
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHK
compared to 7970 for the advantages of the new stuff is as follows: low-voltage, high frequency (to breaking GHz), low power, low noise, high-performance (DX11 ), AA, and get the support of the business of the game.

http://bbs.expreview.com/thread-49806-1-1.html
__________________
SiS 6326 > Ti 4200 > 9800XT > 9800GT > GTX 460
Celeron 366 > Celeron 1700 > Athlon XP 2500+ > E6300 > Q9650
Man from Atlantis is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
gk110, gk210, kepler, wait for it

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.