It's the same old story, Toyota. Sites turn the volts up all the way, and turn the clocks up, and call it a day. They did the same with the 7970. If it gives them another 10MHz for an additional .2v and raises the power consumption by 100w, they do it.
It's the same old story, Toyota. Sites turn the volts up all the way, and turn the clocks up, and call it a day. They did the same with the 7970. If it gives them another 10MHz for an additional .2v and raises the power consumption by 100w, they do it.
Toyota:
You're getting way too excited about this, calm down. I think the GTX 780 has a bit more leeway at stock voltage, but if you over-volt the kepler chip is just as bad in terms of power consumption. The thing is, a lot of GTX 780 cards don't have OV capability and won't get super high overclocks, but will get moderate overclocks. I would put the SC ACX in this category. Once you over-volt the kepler, though, the same rule applies. Power consumption through the roof.
I think the main difference with the 290X is that the built in OC mechanism automatically ties over-voltage with overclocking. Therefore as far as I can tell there isn't a way to overclock at stock voltage (which is what the 780 SC ACX does) unless 3rd party utilities support the 290X. So, essentially, the picture looks like this. I think the 780 has more OC headroom at stock voltages for moderate overclocks. This will allow typical 780 boards to reach 1100mhz, such as the SC ACX. That's actually the card i'm using as well, and I like it quite a bit. I think what these other guys are saying though is that Kepler uses a ton of power as well once over-volted - but only a few (2 or 3) GTX 780 cards support OV capability. Or you can use a modified BIOS to get up to 1.3V on any 780 card from what I understand - so basically when you over volt either the 290X or the GTX 780, power consumption will go through the roof. But most 780s don't have OV capability beyond +37mV unless you modify the BIOS. The point remains though, these guys are talking about over-voltage and you're talking about stock voltage. Of COURSE stock voltage overclocks don't use a lot of power. No joke!
I feel like you and they are talking about two different things. OV overclocking and non-OV overclocking are vastly different in terms of power draw. You're talking stock overclocking, they're talking OV overclocking.
Going on, you're both right AND wrong on this issue. The GTX 780 absolutely will use a similar amount of power above normal when over-volted as the 290X. But you are correct on the issue that at stock voltages that the GTX 780 has more wiggle room than the 290X - and I don't even think the 290X has the capability for stock voltage overclocks. Yet. So this is another area where we're back to where we started with the 290X cooler. It sucks. It's going to limit overclocking headroom. And adding insult to injury, you can't overclock without overvolting. Pretty dumb all around, but hopefully 3rd party utilities can address the latter part of the equation.
You're getting way too excited about this, calm down. I think the GTX 780 has a bit more leeway at stock voltage, but if you over-volt the kepler chip is just as bad in terms of power consumption. The thing is, a lot of GTX 780 cards don't have OV capability and won't get super high overclocks, but will get moderate overclocks. I would put the SC ACX in this category. Once you over-volt the kepler, though, the same rule applies. Power consumption through the roof.
I think the main difference with the 290X is that the built in OC mechanism automatically ties over-voltage with overclocking. Therefore as far as I can tell there isn't a way to overclock at stock voltage (which is what the 780 SC ACX does) unless 3rd party utilities support the 290X. So, essentially, the picture looks like this. I think the 780 has more OC headroom at stock voltages for moderate overclocks. This will allow typical 780 boards to reach 1100mhz, such as the SC ACX. That's actually the card i'm using as well, and I like it quite a bit. I think what these other guys are saying though is that Kepler uses a ton of power as well once over-volted - but only a few (2 or 3) GTX 780 cards support OV capability. Or you can use a modified BIOS to get up to 1.3V on any 780 card from what I understand - so basically when you over volt either the 290X or the GTX 780, power consumption will go through the roof. But most 780s don't have OV capability beyond +37mV unless you modify the BIOS. The point remains though, these guys are talking about over-voltage and you're talking about stock voltage. Of COURSE stock voltage overclocks don't use a lot of power. No joke!
I feel like you and they are talking about two different things. OV overclocking and non-OV overclocking are vastly different in terms of power draw. You're talking stock overclocking, they're talking OV overclocking.Going on, you're both right AND wrong on this issue. The GTX 780 absolutely will use a similar amount of power above normal when over-volted as the 290X. But you are correct on the issue that at stock voltages that the GTX 780 has more wiggle room than the 290X - and I don't even think the 290X has the capability for stock voltage overclocks. Yet. So this is another area where we're back to where we started with the 290X cooler. It sucks. It's going to limit overclocking headroom. And adding insult to injury, you can't overclock without overvolting. Pretty dumb all around, but hopefully 3rd party utilities can address the latter part of the equation.
Last edited:
wand3r3r
Diamond Member
- May 16, 2008
- 3,180
- 0
- 0
Instead of resorting to name calling why don't you read what is written (carefully since you're missing the point).
You are clearly skewing the results of a single overclock with overvolting. What more is there to say? It's not about defending the 290x, it's about false claims implying overclocking the 290x by 7% uses 200w more power. The bulk of the additional watts are from more voltage. The card can barely handle the stock uber mode, much less more juice.
wand3r3r
Diamond Member
- May 16, 2008
- 3,180
- 0
- 0
You're getting way too excited about this, calm down. I think the GTX 780 has a bit more leeway at stock voltage, but if you over-volt the kepler chip is just as bad in terms of power consumption. The thing is, a lot of GTX 780 cards don't have OV capability and won't get super high overclocks, but will get moderate overclocks. I would put the SC ACX in this category. Once you over-volt the kepler, though, the same rule applies. Power consumption through the roof.
I think the main difference with the 290X is that the built in OC mechanism automatically ties over-voltage with overclocking. Therefore as far as I can tell there isn't a way to overclock at stock voltage (which is what the 780 SC ACX does) unless 3rd party utilities support the 290X.
So, essentially, the picture looks like this. I think the 780 has more OC headroom at stock voltages for moderate overclocks. This will allow typical 780 boards to reach 1100mhz, such as the SC ACX. That's actually the card i'm using as well, and I like it quite a bit. I think what these other guys are saying though is that Kepler uses a ton of power as well once over-volted - but only a few (2 or 3) GTX 780 cards support OV capability. Or you can use a modified BIOS to get up to 1.3V on any 780 card from what I understand - so basically when you over volt either the 290X or the GTX 780, power consumption will go through the roof. But most 780s don't have OV capability beyond +37mV unless you modify the BIOS. The point remains though, these guys are talking about over-voltage and you're talking about stock voltage.
Of COURSE stock voltage overclocks don't use a lot of power. No joke!
The irony is that I'm sure he has seen that too, however he chooses to ignore voltage increases = dramatic power usage increases.
Slomo4shO
Senior member
- Nov 17, 2008
- 586
- 0
- 71
P = f*c*V^2
P= power, V= Voltage, f= frequency c= capacitance. Power scales the same for every processor, the only variable is the capacitance. Simple physics isn't within the grasps of everyone... I am sorry, I have no remedy to cure the blind. :'(
4GHz to 4.6GHz = 15% increase in clock speeds and 68% increased power consumption. This stepping isn't linear and voltage increases play the larges role in power consumption.
Last edited:
Dude! You're referring to stock voltage overclocking (moderate) whereas they're talking over-voltage overclocking. If you over-volt either chip, power draw will easily go 200W higher than normal. If you DO NOT over-volt either chip, power draw does not change appreciably.
That said, most OC 780 cards do have more wiggle room for overclocking moderately at stock voltages. I do agree on this. Most OC edition 780 cards will allow you to easily get 1050-1100mhz. In fact, my SC ACX card hits nearly 1100 out of box without overclocking. And it's quiet - something that probably can't be said of the 290X cooler at 60%+ fanspeed. Therefore we're back to where we started with the 290X. AMD screwed up by not improving the cooler, and it's just unfortunate - a lot of people will buy OC 780s instead precisely for that reason.
Yes, he's talking stock volt overclocking whereas you guys aren't. But the 290X isn't excused from this matter IMO - here's my question. Why doesn't the 290X allow stock voltage overclocks? I think that AMD made a product that performs exceptional at stock, but AMD should have had the foresight to create a better cooler so these arguments about noise / OC'ing never would have happened in the first place. AMD could have prevented all of this, but didn't. Also, the slider in CCC from the screenshots i've seen don't allow stock voltage overclocking. That has to be the stupidest thing i've ever seen.
I don't know man. I'm torn on the 290X. I like the 290X performance wise because it performs extremely well - but i'd have to say if I were a new GPU purchaser I would lean towards the OC GTX 780 cards. I do think the 780 can OC better at stock voltage. I could be wrong, though, and if I am apparently CCC doesn't let you even do that.
Last edited:
The Inno I-Chill 780, despite its higher clock @ 1006mhz uses 21w less power than Evga SC 780 @ 967.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/geforce-gtx-780-evga-gigabyte-inno3d_6.html
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34196977&postcount=1
You must have ignored it earlier, but here is what we are talking about applied to CPU's. CPU and GPU's behave similarly in this aspect.
I think you are really confused about this whole 200w power increase. There is overclocking, there is overvolting, and there is overclocking and overvolting. You can overclock without overvolting and not draw much more power. You can overvolt without overclocking and draw a lot more power. You can do both and draw insane amounts of power.
If you win the chip lottery you can do things like undervolt and still get the same performance/clocks all while using less power. You can probably even take 100 different GPU's of the same make and not get the same power consumption out of them when tested. They will be in the same ballpark, but some will use less and others more.
Many on this forum can explain these facts to you far better than me. I probably have less than 1/64th the knowledge of most posters on these forums, but I'm here to learn about these types of things, not make statements as fact about things I do not understand
I thought P=I*V?
Common guys, please lighten up and try not to argue so much. At least be more civil; no need for name calling.
Arguing? We're educating
I swear I looked at some 290x reviews that actually showed it using less power in Uber mode because the fan was keeping the chip cooler. I'll have to look.
Because they dont need to. The vast majority of buyers will be running at stock and will never ponder these issues. I am sure if AMD had targetted you as a typical buyer, things would be different.
In any case, perhaps 3rd party utilities can address this issue. The built in OC mechanism in CCC is so screwed up that it's hard to determine any real overclocking headroom. I think. Any 290X owners around here? Am I correct in that CCC ties OV'ing to OC'ing? That's what it appears like in screenshots that i've seen. Also, you have to wonder about throttling while overclocking. I think you might be able to prevent this with a high fan speed or uber mode, but this brings the cooling issue back up for the 290X.
In any case, Toyota's point was not entirely invalid. There are a lot of OC780 cards that have moderate OC capability at stock voltages. Now they certainly won't be monster overclocks that a classified, HOF or lightning would get, but nonetheless. Hopefully we can get an OC vs OC review somewhere at some point, I haven't seen one yet. Like I said, i'm torn on the 290X. Performance is outstanding. Yet so many issues and complaints could have been prevented if AMD had not gone cheap with that cooler. Better stock OC'ing, better noise output, etc, etc. I still can't believe they cheaped out on it. You can be assured that a lot of people will prefer OC 780s precisely because of this reason.
Last edited:
Slomo4shO
Senior member
- Nov 17, 2008
- 586
- 0
- 71
Power for resistive circuits is actually I^2*R which can be converted to (V^2)/R which is the same as I*V. There are multiple was of setting up the equation
http://www.princeton.edu/~mrm/tutorial/Sigmetrics2001_tutorial.pdf
http://www.siliconintelligence.com/people/binu/perception/node13.html
Last edited:
wand3r3r
Diamond Member
- May 16, 2008
- 3,180
- 0
- 0
Oh, I agree fully (underwhelming cooler). I'm more or less sick of FUD and that's why I try correct it.
I think they made a huge mistake too, only after the titan / 690 / 780 has the stock cooler been shown what can be done. I will only go aftermarket myself.
About the overvolting, AFAIK AMD hasn't limited it. I don't think voltage is ever in the CCC though, it's always been afterburner and other manufacturer OC tools? Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Supposedly the only issue at the moment is that Afterburner hasn't been updated to allow overvolting on the 290x yet. They are flashing the BIOS to Asus's so they can use the ASUS oc tool which apparently only plays nice on their own bios. I may be wrong though, this is just what I've picked up so far.
I also agree, the aftermarket 780's present a good alternative to a loud 290x. I wouldn't even buy the reference 290x so I can see why people would go 780. I will wait to see the aftermarket 290x's since they are probably going to correct the noise (and reduce the heat a bit) therefore allowing better overclocking.
So the cooler criticism is valid imo. The card itself is great, and brought more affordability to the high end and a reduction in price gouging. I find the 4k and high resolution particularly interesting since I am awaiting the chance to go 4k.
i think amd is trying to cut costs everywhere they think is reasonable or not really needed. they know that their partners will make good aftermarked cards. for the sake of marketing i think they should have done this with the 290x and it would be an all kill
Slomo4shO
Senior member
- Nov 17, 2008
- 586
- 0
- 71
I think this is what you are looking for:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_480_Amp_Edition/27.html
Wait, WHAT? Why would you think the cooler on the 290X is justified? Some people cannot use aftermarket cards and that is all AIBs will produce. Furthermore, aftermarket 780s are here now while aftermarket 290X cards aren't - with the recent 780 price cuts, that changed everything. Additionally, you generally must use reference blowers in small form factors and the 290X just doesn't work as well as the 780 or Titan there.
They should not have skimped, period.
i think i was not clear enough. they should have done a better cooler on the 290x so this card would have been a no brainer to buy or at least less concerning that it is now
el etro
Golden Member
- Jul 21, 2013
- 1,581
- 14
- 81
EDIT: In order to make GTX 780 perform like 290X, you will end with a card consuming about to the same power(comparing reference boards of GTX 780 and 290X). Anyone remember GK110 power consumption per clock+voltage scaling? Same history here. for 290X too.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/5...overclocked-reference-video-card/index22.html ( a example of what can happen, see 290X@1060Mhz and 780 Lightning power consumption)
- GTX 780 custom version have more robust PCBs with better power control and superior cooling. Even mainstream aftermarket solutions like DCU/ACX/TWFZR/WINDF have much better boards(cooling+electrics) than reference boards. GTX 780 is not an exception of this. -
What i'm trying to tell is that we have to wait what custom Hawaii cards can do is terms of thermals and power consumption. AIBs can release a premium card that locks on 1000 Mhz under any gaming condition, make 10db less of noise, and have 30W of power consumption(in this department 30 watt will be a miracle to achieve, based on what i see) reduced. Or they can release a card locked on 1100Mhz with no noise, with always less than 90ºC in gaming(my reference GTX 670 goes up to 86º in gaming) and still making no more noise than GTX 690.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/5...overclocked-reference-video-card/index22.html ( a example of what can happen, see 290X@1060Mhz and 780 Lightning power consumption)
- GTX 780 custom version have more robust PCBs with better power control and superior cooling. Even mainstream aftermarket solutions like DCU/ACX/TWFZR/WINDF have much better boards(cooling+electrics) than reference boards. GTX 780 is not an exception of this. -
What i'm trying to tell is that we have to wait what custom Hawaii cards can do is terms of thermals and power consumption. AIBs can release a premium card that locks on 1000 Mhz under any gaming condition, make 10db less of noise, and have 30W of power consumption(in this department 30 watt will be a miracle to achieve, based on what i see) reduced. Or they can release a card locked on 1100Mhz with no noise, with always less than 90ºC in gaming(my reference GTX 670 goes up to 86º in gaming) and still making no more noise than GTX 690.
Last edited:
Slomo4shO is right on this, there must be crazy temperature related static leakage involved.
Keeping gpu temperature in check - ie under 70C level, even heavily overvolted 780@1.26v consumes mere 40W more than at 1.179 stock volts.
Voltage/Clocks
Power/Clocks
So once we keep those temps down, power consumption drops significantly
Source
Keeping gpu temperature in check - ie under 70C level, even heavily overvolted 780@1.26v consumes mere 40W more than at 1.179 stock volts.
Voltage/Clocks
Power/Clocks
So once we keep those temps down, power consumption drops significantly
Source
I could be reading this wrong, but doesn't that graph show otherwise? The 70°C 290X is pulling 218W, while the 95°C 290X is pulling 185W...
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,209
- 50
- 91
We would need to see the clocks and what FPS it is pulling to determine if that fan speed/voltage is worth it. Hard to tell just from that chart. It could be with a huge overclock and a boatload more FPS.
Ok, what that picture shows is what Tom's attempted to do to match what aftermarket 290x's are going to look like. They set the temp target to 70C which is why the fan speed is so high. At 70C this card uses a mere 8 watts more than the titan, and is probably quite a bit faster because it is likely not throttling. The lower temperature number is how much the card was likely using when it throttled to maintain the 70C number they set. They state that the 185-218 is the range of power consumption numbers they saw through the benchmark. Lowest, and max. I like what Tom's did there because it shows exactly what poeple should be waiting for in the aftermarket cards.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290x-hawaii-review,3650-29.html
All the doom and gloom FUD about 290x power consumption is exactly that. FUD.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter