GFFX Reborn? - HardOCP
- Thread starter DeeW
- Start date
Joe DeFuria said:
Hopefully that adequately conveys my feelings.
The point is, and the point I made, was that it is no indication of bad things.
And yes, he went on to state that it was a bad thing (note the comment about workstations and servers downclocking), which I also commented on.
I like how you took my two disparate comments and pasted them together to quote me out of context. Really, I do. No. Really.
Is it just me or does this all seem a bit hack for a company like Nvidia to be using these kind of overclocking tricks to compete? I understand why, but am taken a little aback. I have been overclocking for long enough to see through the trees and have to agree with WaltC, all evidence supports what he is saying. Nvidia is pulling up to the line against ATI's ferrari with a Bored out Fastback mustang on Nitro and competing. Obviously the 9700P could be beat, but look what it took to do it.
Put things into perspective and you have to really appreciate ATI.
Put things into perspective and you have to really appreciate ATI.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Please Russ...
And Walt's point, that only you seem to object to, is that it IS an indication of bad things. And yet, you continue to imply he said downclocking is bad in and of itself.
Talk about taking things out of context. HE SAID (my emphasis added):
Read that emphasized part again.
Now tell me if the GeForceFX is running on "minimal amounts of power and dissipating minimial amounts of heat at the standard MHz speed."
I really don't know what you're arguing against, Russ. Do you think that Walt believes, and is actually arguing, that the GeForceFX, all else being equal, (same heat and power issues) would be better off without speed gating?
And Walt's point, that only you seem to object to, is that it IS an indication of bad things. And yet, you continue to imply he said downclocking is bad in and of itself.
Talk about taking things out of context. HE SAID (my emphasis added):
Read that emphasized part again.
Now tell me if the GeForceFX is running on "minimal amounts of power and dissipating minimial amounts of heat at the standard MHz speed."
I really don't know what you're arguing against, Russ. Do you think that Walt believes, and is actually arguing, that the GeForceFX, all else being equal, (same heat and power issues) would be better off without speed gating?
Doomtrooper
Veteran
With downclocking this would be my main concern...from Anandtech article (this was induced by overclocking and most enthusiasts do) and of course how well a case would be cooled may trigger this.
Just getting ready to lay down some serious whoop ass and 'slide show'
The cooling of the case should never cause the FX to slow down, since all of the heat from the chip is shunted right outside the case. I'm reasonably-certain that the temperature detection only detects the heat of the chip. Even if the memory chips on the back of the core overheat, they probably will not set off the detector.
The only issue I can see is the possibility of a clogged cooler. The clogged cooler idea has been talked about enough, however.
If the FX ever throttles speed without overclocking, then that FX is defective.
This is a good thing for overclockers in a way. That is, there is less chance of damage from overclocking. But it's bad at the same time as it's going to be a little bit harder to know if the card's stable (you'd actually have to use it for a while with the overclock...instead of just letting a demo loop for a few hours).
The only issue I can see is the possibility of a clogged cooler. The clogged cooler idea has been talked about enough, however.
If the FX ever throttles speed without overclocking, then that FX is defective.
This is a good thing for overclockers in a way. That is, there is less chance of damage from overclocking. But it's bad at the same time as it's going to be a little bit harder to know if the card's stable (you'd actually have to use it for a while with the overclock...instead of just letting a demo loop for a few hours).
You and I apparently live in dimensions where the english language means different things.
WaltC is stating "Seeing it actually bump the MHz down to 300 to run 2D was a shock and an indicator of a whole lot of negative stuff which I won't go into here."
And I disagree with this because there is no factual basis behind the statement. Your big if that you've bolded there falls apart in the real world, and here's why: A device will always consume less power when operated at less frequency and less voltage.
Power is:
a) linearly proportional to speed
b) doubly proportional to voltage
higher speeds may require higher voltages (which is the reason behind people upping the voltage when they 'overclock'). The inverse of this is also true--you can lower the voltage if you lower the speed. By doing both, you will have a larger impact on the power than simply clock gating(i.e. turning the clock off to various parts of the IC and sitting idle) because leakage current is proportional to voltage and clock gating has no affect on that.
(Note that clock gating is not the same thing that you called 'speed gating')
And none of that is any indication of "a whole lot of negative stuff".
And yes, he did quite clearly IMPLY that downclocking was bad. Otherwise why would anybody be upset if it happened to them?
So, back to the statement I made a few pages ago: feel free to complain about the facts of the situation that you dislike (like it is loud, it consumes 75W when operating at full speed), but don't invent shit to complain about.
WaltC is stating "Seeing it actually bump the MHz down to 300 to run 2D was a shock and an indicator of a whole lot of negative stuff which I won't go into here."
And I disagree with this because there is no factual basis behind the statement. Your big if that you've bolded there falls apart in the real world, and here's why: A device will always consume less power when operated at less frequency and less voltage.
Power is:
a) linearly proportional to speed
b) doubly proportional to voltage
higher speeds may require higher voltages (which is the reason behind people upping the voltage when they 'overclock'). The inverse of this is also true--you can lower the voltage if you lower the speed. By doing both, you will have a larger impact on the power than simply clock gating(i.e. turning the clock off to various parts of the IC and sitting idle) because leakage current is proportional to voltage and clock gating has no affect on that.
(Note that clock gating is not the same thing that you called 'speed gating')
And none of that is any indication of "a whole lot of negative stuff".
And yes, he did quite clearly IMPLY that downclocking was bad. Otherwise why would anybody be upset if it happened to them?
So, back to the statement I made a few pages ago: feel free to complain about the facts of the situation that you dislike (like it is loud, it consumes 75W when operating at full speed), but don't invent shit to complain about.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Chalnoth said:
The Ram sink on the back of the card is 145 degrees + and is passive cooled, not all heat is leaving Chalnoth, that is so hot I would imagine some form of warning would have to labelled in case someone decided to touch it..that is very hot and would burn you.
Actually that's not true. Once the transistors have a rise time that is significant compared to the clock speed, the power will increase more than linearly. I believe this applies to pretty much any modern processor, particularly ones that are run close to the limits that their current process technology will allow.RussSchultz said: