Godavari throttles to 1.6 GHz after 20 seconds

[Phynaz]

AMD under specifying TDP. That hasn't happened before :whiste:

 

[AtenRa]

AMD under specifying TDP. That hasn't happened before :whiste:

Yeap we have said so many times that TDP is not power consumption but feel free to ........... :whiste:


From the AT review,

A6-7400K at 65W TDP, Idle to AVX = 53W
Core i7 4765T 35W TDP, idle to avx = 56W (So much for the Intel TDP then )

A10-7800 at 65W TDP, idle to AVX = 70W
Core i5 4570S 65W TDP, Idle to AVX = 72W

FX4350 125W TDP , Idle to AVX = 92W
FX8370E 95W TDP , Idle to AVX = 127W

 

[Idontcare]

AMD under specifying TDP. That hasn't happened before :whiste:

I was told, in many impolite words and ways, that it has never happened.

 

[AtenRa]

I was told, in many impolite words and ways, that it has never happened.

I would imagine you, from all the rest, would understand the difference of TDP vs measurements of total system peak power consumption from the wall.

From the AT review,

FX4350 125W TDP , Idle to AVX = 92W
Core i7 4790K 88W TDP , Idle to AVX = 110W TDP

Core i7 5960X 140W TDP , Idle to AVX = 143W
Core i7 4960X 130W TDP , Idle to AVX = 176W

ps. Not to mention Ian used OCCT, which both AMD and Intel regard it as not real workload.

 

[Phynaz]

Keep deflecting AtenRa. We have documented proof that AMD has lied about power consumption in the past and they are doing it again.

 

[Erenhardt]

Keep deflecting AtenRa. We have documented proof that AMD has lied about power consumption in the past and they are doing it again.

Sue them and move on already...

 

[Dresdenboy]

Keep deflecting AtenRa. We have documented proof that AMD has lied about power consumption in the past and they are doing it again.

While working on ways to solve the society vs. genetically and culturally influenced human psychology problem, I missed this important topic. Do you have a link for starters?

 

[Valantar]

Some bits regarding binning, voltage, and power from the Anandtech review:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9307/the-kaveri-refresh-godavari-review-testing-amds-a10-7870k

That's all well and good, but I don't see any reference to the actual stock voltages for the tested chip. In light of this discussion, that would be very interesting - as has been said here, more than 1.4V at stock is quite ludicrous. I really, really want AMD to be successful with these chips, but some decent critical journalism seems to be warranted here. And, of course, any attempt at undervolting and re-running the same tests would be great to see. From the (wildly) inconsistent results of various APUs, I'm tempted to believe that there is something fishy with regards to stock voltages and the related power consumption/temperatures and the consequences of these. At 117W delta, the 7870K doesn't seem power limited, but how about temeprature? How else would one explain the A8-7650K beating the A10-7870K in a few tests? Perhaps AT should start logging core speeds along with the tests, adding them to the graphs (or just a 'Throttling: Y/N' mark)?

 

[LTC8K6]

This is Intel's definition of TDP, btw:

Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements.

And the Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

 

[LTC8K6]

That's all well and good, but I don't see any reference to the actual stock voltages for the tested chip. In light of this discussion, that would be very interesting - as has been said here, more than 1.4V at stock is quite ludicrous. I really, really want AMD to be successful with these chips, but some decent critical journalism seems to be warranted here. And, of course, any attempt at undervolting and re-running the same tests would be great to see. From the (wildly) inconsistent results of various APUs, I'm tempted to believe that there is something fishy with regards to stock voltages and the related power consumption/temperatures and the consequences of these. At 117W delta, the 7870K doesn't seem power limited, but how about temeprature? How else would one explain the A8-7650K beating the A10-7870K in a few tests? Perhaps AT should start logging core speeds along with the tests, adding them to the graphs (or just a 'Throttling: Y/N' mark)?

IIRC, 1.4 is Kaveri, and they reference an extra .05 volts, so 1.45V for Kaveri refresh.

Those are the stock voltages the motherboards apply. Most users report being able to run at stock speeds at much lower voltages.

 

[Lonyo]

Intel's engineers measure the power draw of hundreds of commercially available software packages and ignore the "not thermally significant" peaks. All those power measurements are averaged and a small percentage (a buffer) is added. Thus, Intel's TDP is lower than the maximum power draw.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2807/2

Intel lies!

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2326407
This thread references a document I can't find on the AMD website from a quick search, indicating AMD's definition is just as fluffy as Intel's, or anything more recent/relevant.

TDP. Thermal Design Power. The thermal design power is the maximum power a processor can draw for a thermally significant period while running commercially useful software. The constraining conditions for TDP are specified in the notes in the thermal and power tables.

TDP is measured under the conditions of all cores operating at CPU COF, Tcase Max, and VDD at the voltage requested by the processor. TDP includes all power dissipated on-die from VDD, VDDNB, VDDIO, VLDT, VTT and VDDA.

Both are as bad as each other.

 

[LTC8K6]

Both are realistic.

 

[Phynaz]

While working on ways to solve the society vs. genetically and culturally influenced human psychology problem, I missed this important topic. Do you have a link for starters?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2285799
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2289809

Next up: Abwx tries to discredit these posts.

 

[DrMrLordX]

AMD under specifying TDP. That hasn't happened before :whiste:

Some boards will tell you the vid for the chip and then proceed to feed in a higher voltage when set to auto; in fact, they're all doing that. My A88x-Pro with a UEFI from last December reads a vid of 1.2125v but feeds ~1.3v when set to auto, and feeds up to 1.36v for max turbo and the next-to-max turbo (3.8 and 3.7 GHz).

AMD's TDP numbers assume adherence to vid. Vid is going to vary from chip to chip, based in no small part to variations of leakage characteristics. A high(er)-leakage chip with a lower vid will probably still consume the same amount of power thanks to a slightly higher operational current (thanks to leakage). Some "lucky" chips may ship with a lower vid despite normal leakage characteristics and may undershoot TDP a bit, and vice versa.

Current UEFI revisions for almost every FM2+ board out there are providing more vcore than is mandated by vid or required for sane operational levels. AMD may or may not be understating TDP (look at the 7850k power draw in Anandtech's 7870 review). But the overvolting issue has nothing to do with that.

That's all well and good, but I don't see any reference to the actual stock voltages for the tested chip.

I don't either. If the board they have won't list vid, they should use a different (preferably better) board.

 

[William Gaatjes]

From that same article :

Update (May 31): Throttling problem was fixed by upgrading to P2.60 BIOS. Thanks to Roger Harshman for the hint! The processor is stable now, and runs CPU benchmarks and games without throttling and lockups. By the way, new BIOS sets lower core voltage, close to 1.45V

 

[LTC8K6]

From that same article :

Update (May 31): Throttling problem was fixed by upgrading to P2.60 BIOS. Thanks to Roger Harshman for the hint! The processor is stable now, and runs CPU benchmarks and games without throttling and lockups. By the way, new BIOS sets lower core voltage, close to 1.45V

That was post #34...

How is 1.45 volts any better than 1.48? :whiste:

 

[mrmt]

AMD under specifying TDP. That hasn't happened before :whiste:

I can't understand why they bother to release a TDP spec while they don't release the thermal datasheet that would give meaning to this TDP spec.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Keep deflecting AtenRa. We have documented proof that AMD has lied about power consumption in the past and they are doing it again.

Even I call B.S. on this one..... You're acting like every piece of silicon is manufactured perfectly and identically. There is quite a bit of variance even between two supposed identical chips (two i7 4790K's for example, one may only overclock 200 Mhz while the other might be good for 800). Power consumption is the same way and gets all mangled with variables like different motherboards / manufacturers. Neither Intel nor AMD can guarantee anything with the exact precision as you imply. Motherboard manufacturers are constantly changing BIOS settings with new updates -- further causing variances.

 

[exar333]

The review just posted on AT is a disaster. It doesnt mention any of this. But you can clearly see it in the benchmarks. It regularly scores worse than a 7850k. There is only one way that can happen...

they need to set the volts to 1.3 and rerun the benchmarks. Then again at 1.25 and maybe even 1.2.

When has AT ever done this for a CPU review? Manually messing with voltage is not something the average user does. I can see this playing an important role in a article discussing under or over clocking, but the retail CPU should be reviewed as it stands. If there is a true BIOS bug or glitch, thats different. That said, adjusting from 1.48 to 1.45 is minimal, at best.

 

[dark zero]

AMD will still throttle even with the correct design due the mediocre architecture they have..

 

[Phynaz]

Even I call B.S. on this one..... You're acting like every piece of silicon is manufactured perfectly and identically. There is quite a bit of variance even between two supposed identical chips (two i7 4790K's for example, one may only overclock 200 Mhz while the other might be good for 800). Power consumption is the same way and gets all mangled with variables like different motherboards / manufacturers. Neither Intel nor AMD can guarantee anything with the exact precision as you imply. Motherboard manufacturers are constantly changing BIOS settings with new updates -- further causing variances.

Not bothering to read posted links leads to uninformed responses like this one.

Unless you are claiming you know more about CPU power delivery than MSI?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Not bothering to read posted links leads to uninformed responses like this one.

Unless you are claiming you know more about CPU power delivery than MSI?

Nope, try again.

I'm pretty confident that the manufacturer of said CPU (AMD / Intel) knows more about its power delivery characteristics than a third party vendor (MSI). Especially a lousy one like MSI.

Considering my experience with MSI boards -- they've got terrible credibility IMO. I can't tell you how many MSI motherboards I've purchased that officially supported a particular CPU -- only to find they still didn't work correctly after the latest BIOS flash. Several MSI boards fired right up with a Trinity CPU -- but are dead to the world with a Richland installed.... despite their web site indicating full support for that specific motherboard for both CPU's. MSI is very sloppy at getting the details right.

 

[Valantar]

AMD will still throttle even with the correct design due the mediocre architecture they have..

That statement is far too vague to have any merit. While they can't match Intel for IPC or efficiency, how does that make the chips throttle?

 

[Valantar]

When has AT ever done this for a CPU review? Manually messing with voltage is not something the average user does. I can see this playing an important role in a article discussing under or over clocking, but the retail CPU should be reviewed as it stands. If there is a true BIOS bug or glitch, thats different. That said, adjusting from 1.48 to 1.45 is minimal, at best.

That's where the critical, investigative reporting I called for comes into play. If they did a proper look into AMD APU voltages, power draw and throttling, across different motherboards and APUs, that would be a quality read. What if ut turned out that >80% of APUs could run at stock speeds at 0.2V lower than stock? That would have the makings of a scandal, and really warrant looking into who has defined these stock voltages, why, and how AMD could have done differently by, say, lowering voltages and binning slightly more aggressively. Although the scale of this research would be huge, it's not much more than I expect from a site like AT.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Considering my experience with MSI boards -- they've got terrible credibility IMO. I can't tell you how many MSI motherboards I've purchased that officially supported a particular CPU -- only to find they still didn't work correctly after the latest BIOS flash. Several MSI boards fired right up with a Trinity CPU -- but are dead to the world with a Richland installed.... despite their web site indicating full support for that specific motherboard for both CPU's. MSI is very sloppy at getting the details right.

LOL.

Who keeps buying motherboards from the same manufacturer, after multiple dud experiences? D: