In my case boost 2.0 would give me higher clocks. My card doesn't go over 58 degrees and its dead silent. Yet nVidia's drivers limit clocks and voltages based on TDP. Since I don't have a temperature or noise problem I would much rather they allow higher clocks till temperatures are closer to 70/80 degrees.
Variability on 2.0 is certainly higher but you probably get higher clocks overall.
Damn , that game is heavily CPU bound !
Ther boost target for 680 is 195W , not 170W ( this is for the 670 ) .. temp was 95°C for the 680 and 70°C for the 670 ( reference ofc,as you can still find vbios for flash them for go further )
I was not saying it is the same thing, but the temperature on 670 was allready a limiting factor, more of the tdp itself.. ( i think Nvidia have add the exact same thing of have put AMD since the 7970GHZ, the PTE .. but they have choose to use it as a limiter factor instead of as AMD a tool for allow more clock speed and voltage... ). By using this limit, Nvidia limit too the TDP on usage, but if you increase the temperature limit you hit then the TDP limit depending ofc the Asic quality of your chip.
Like i was expect price here is out of reason... 1050CHF so 1178$ ... ( cards are not available too, 1 - 2 weeks minimum for delivery, but price will not go down then.. )
I didn't like boost 1.0 (don't like AMD following suit) and boost 2.0 just seems to be even more of a train wreck.
as part of our 2013 GPU benchmark suite we put together a larger number of compute benchmarks to try to cover real world usage, including the old standards of gaming usage (Civilization V) and ray tracing (LuxMark), along with several new tests. Unfortunately that got cut short when we discovered that OpenCL support is currently broken in the press drivers, which prevents us from using several of our tests.
While I don't like boost myself, it's mainly because it more than doubles the amount of work needed for a non-misleading review. Boost in and by itself is fine, because it can provide extra performance headroom. The only problem I have is that most reviews and methods will be showing peak performance.
I don't think that Nvidia deliberately engineered boost to artificially inflate benchmark scores, but here reviewers need to take up responsibility and put the necessary extra amount of work into their articles in order to not mislead their customers.
IMHO what you need as a baseline is a stock comparison. Fine-tuned settings can only be an extra - if not for other reason just for pure matters of sample size =1.
Nvidia choose a temp target of 80°C for power, noise and longevity reasons.
I think nVidia is conservative with those setttings and they are taking into account all the possible scenarios where these cards will be placed, however I think that when reviewing a product, a case by case methods can be applied. Running these cards throttled does not serve many of the enthusiasts who are buying these. I mean it's great to know what happens at stock settings, but you should also put emphasis on how to avoid the throttling. Changing the settings is not exactly rocket science and the majority of the target audience should be capable of doing so.
reviewing a family car or a sports car should be different.
I think that when reviewing a product, a case by case methods can be applied. Running these cards throttled does not serve many of the enthusiasts who are buying these. I mean it's great to know what happens at stock settings, but you should also put emphasis on how to avoid the throttling. Changing the settings is not exactly rocket science and the majority of the target audience should be capable of doing so.
Evidently Nvidia feels there is a significant risk with having the temperature of GK110 higher than 80 degree's for a prolonged basis for enough chips that make it through qualification for it to be at that point. While it is certainly possible to increase that, it's always at user risk.
It doesn't matter what the environment is. 80 degrees on the GPU is 80 degrees on the GPU.
If the card fails after 3-4 months when someone raises the ceiling to 95 or 100 degrees or whatever, 1000 USD down the drain is going to hurt a lot more than 500 USD down the drain on a cheaper card.
Sure, show some results for higher overclocks, but stock settings should always be the focus.
Regards,
SB
Correct, but yet most reviewers did not seem to pay attention to the matter.
Yes it definitely is important to make that point known. More info is always welcome, but also provide results without throttling and information on how to avoid it.
If the card fails after 3-4 months when someone raises the ceiling to 95 or 100 degrees or whatever, 1000 USD down the drain is going to hurt a lot more than 500 USD down the drain on a cheaper card.
We did. That's why I wrote that it doubles the amount of work for a reviewer when doing it properly:
• Free Boost @open test bench
• OC-Setting (+100 MHz GPU-Offset, 85°C temp-target, 105% power target, unlinked)
• Fixed Boost @876 MHz (nv-semi-guaranteed frequency)
• Individual clock rates per game & resolution forced after doing real gaming sessions of at least 30 minutes with no loading pauses etc. at a constant air-temperature of 28°C in front of the blower fan.
You see, I did not get much sleep since saturday.
I think nVidia is conservative with those setttings and they are taking into account all the possible scenarios where these cards will be placed, however I think that when reviewing a product, a case by case methods can be applied. Running these cards throttled does not serve many of the enthusiasts who are buying these. I mean it's great to know what happens at stock settings, but you should also put emphasis on how to avoid the throttling. Changing the settings is not exactly rocket science and the majority of the target audience should be capable of doing so.
reviewing a family car or a sports car should be different.