[PCPER] Testing GPU Power Draw at Increased Refresh Rates using the ASUS PG279Q

[thesmokingman]

If one were to force downclocking, would issues arise?

Perhaps some sort of fixed function hardware is used for display output, and 144 hz @ 1440P is beyond that spec, requiring the shaders to be used instead?

I'm not sure you can since it's a limitation of the design. As suggested many times, one can simply bypass it by staying at 120hz or under on the desktop. Chalk this up to one of those things that is surprising given how much rhetoric was ballyhooed over power consumption of maxwell whilst unknown to everyone it was wasting all this power...

 

[gamervivek]

I think it applies to Tonga as well. Aka all GCN 1.2. But any previous GCN is terrible with multimonitor.

285 was better but still closer to older GCN. The problem is mostly AMD keeping memory clocks high while nvidia keep them low with occasional flickers that don't get as much complaint.

Fiji cards are doing it better with HBM or maybe they're just doing what nvidia does.

 

[Azix]

What he is saying is that unless you are using multiple 980ti's, you likely would be just as happy at 120hz at the desktop or even in games. Who needs 144hz at the desktop anyway?

It's a problem, but this isn't a big problem. Most people don't have this setup, and if they do, I doubt most care that much.

some claim there is a noticeable difference.

It also happens with 1080p under some conditions. Seems to be designed to do that with multimonitor with any of the monitors being 144hz.

 

[bystander36]

some claim there is a noticeable difference.

It also happens with 1080p under some conditions. Seems to be designed to do that with multimonitor with any of the monitors being 144hz.

There is a noticeable difference between 120hz and 144hz on a static desktop? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Silverforce11]

There is a noticeable difference between 120hz and 144hz on a static desktop? I find that hard to believe.

Besides that, there's lots of usage case where gamers alt-tab, play in window mode, borderless modes etc. If its fixable, it should be fixed.

@gamervivek
I had a multi monitor setup (3x 1080p) with a 7970 awhile back, and yes, the core idles just fine but vram would not and when forced via AB, it would flicker once in awhile but worked "fine". That was probably due to lack of bandwidth, skipping a refresh if it bottlenecks. I found ~600mhz removed the flicker.

 

[Eymar]

I'd say the current issue isn't that big of deal with current workaround (set desktop to 120hz and have games use highest available via NVCP). However, would like to have known about issue sooner so being item to check as part of videocard/monitor reviews would be a good thing.

Also finding out if you have 2 1440p monitors one monitor has to be at 60hz for Nvidia to downclock to 150Mhz. I tried 2 1440p monitors @ 85hz and idle clock is @ 810hz.

 

[Azix]

There is a noticeable difference between 120hz and 144hz on a static desktop? I find that hard to believe.

The main claimed benefit of higher refresh rate on desktop, afaik, was smoothness. Static desktop would show no different even at 1hz. Maybe in desktop animations, mouse movements etc.

 

[bystander36]

The main claimed benefit of higher refresh rate on desktop, afaik, was smoothness. Static desktop would show no different even at 1hz. Maybe in desktop animations, mouse movements etc.

I'm pretty certain most are talking about the difference between 60hz and 144hz, not 120hz vs 144hz. Even in gaming, most people don't note much of a difference past 90-100hz. Some even drop their hz to 85 in some games to work well with V-sync.

The only benefit to 144hz at the desktop is the mouse movement, while it hinders video viewing, due to not being evenly divided by 30 or 60 FPS videos. Although 24hz movies would benefit, though that isn't normally a desktop thing, and more of an HTC thing.

The issue is an issue, but I find it a minor annoyance, in the same way the high clocks of past AMD cards with multi-monitors. That wasn't a big issue either. At least I never heard a lot of fuss over it. I had 6950's and just lived with it. Same on my 5870. I wasn't aware of the issue prior (I didn't use multi-monitors prior).

It is good it is being looked at for future products, but I don't think it would have an effect on a future purchase.

 

[the unknown]

Alright here's my findings from a GTX 970 and a 1080p XB240H G-Sync monitor.

First here is 144hz.

Second is 60hz.

Third is 120hz.

Pretty interesting! I guess 144hz really does just suck up the power. I guess I'll keep my default hz to 120 until this mess is fixed.

Edit: second monitor is interfering, see results below.

 

[Teizo]

In other words, it is not limited to the 980Ti. Just the 980Ti draws allot more power in general as it is a stronger card. It it affects the 970, then it will affect the 980 and on down the line....though I severely doubt anyone with a 1440p 144hz monitor will buy anything less than a 970.

That doesn't look to be a 'huge' amount though overall even though it is more than 120hz, but it would be worth using windows desktop mode in 120hz and just game in 144hz.

Then again, with a 970...you aren't going to max out 144hz anyway are you (?)....so you aren't going to be seeing 144hz...ever hardly, unless you are playing some really old game on lower detail with no AA.

- edit-

Oh, that is a 1080p monitor. Intredasting. So even 1080p 144hz monitors @ 2D desktop mode will drive up power draw in Maxwell gpus.

 

[tential]

I thought more 980Ti users would have 144 hz panels to go with their 1440p resolution. I dunno why, it just seems like I'd put those 2 together no matter what if I got a 980Ti and had a desktop.

So I guess it sucks they should have tested for this earlier, but meh just use 120hz then at the desktop?

 

[bystander36]

In other words, it is not limited to the 980Ti. Just the 980Ti draws allot more power in general as it is a stronger card. It it affects the 970, then it will affect the 980 and on down the line....though I severely doubt anyone with a 1440p 144hz monitor will buy anything less than a 970.

That doesn't look to be a 'huge' amount though overall even though it is more than 120hz, but it would be worth using windows desktop mode in 120hz and just game in 144hz.

Then again, with a 970...you aren't going to max out 144hz anyway are you (?)....so you aren't going to be seeing 144hz...ever hardly, unless you are playing some really old game on lower detail with no AA.

- edit-

Oh, that is a 1080p monitor. Intredasting. So even 1080p 144hz monitors @ 2D desktop mode will drive up power draw in Maxwell gpus.

I'd be willing to bet this isn't limited to Maxwell.

 

[the unknown]

Then again, with a 970...you aren't going to max out 144hz anyway are you (?)....so you aren't going to be seeing 144hz...ever hardly, unless you are playing some really old game on lower detail with no AA.

There are some games I get 144hz on... Dota2. CSGO. Also some other games can reach 144fps in certain scenes but it's very rare. Overall, not a big deal. I'll just keep it at 120hz and if I remember switch it to 144 when necessary.

 

[Teizo]

There are some games I get 144hz on... Dota2. CSGO. Also some other games can reach 144fps in certain scenes but it's very rare. Overall, not a big deal. I'll just keep it at 120hz and if I remember switch it to 144 when necessary.

Yeah, I imagine so. I posted that because everyone was talking about 1440p 144hz and that reso being the problem and 1080p being OK. I didn't realize until after I Google searched that model # that it is 1080p and see even though it is less, a 144hz 1080p monitor will drive up the power draw as well. An overclocked 970 can certainly get to 144fps @ 1080p in some games (even Metro in BF4 I bet and especially CSGO).

 

[Azix]

Oh, that is a 1080p monitor. Intredasting. So even 1080p 144hz monitors @ 2D desktop mode will drive up power draw in Maxwell gpus.

its because he has a second monitor. A lot of people will get caught by that if they have a 144Hz 1080p monitor and kept another monitor plugged in. When you get a fancy monitor might as well keep the old on as second screen, right? Not limited to 1440p at all.

 

[the unknown]

its because he has a second monitor. A lot of people will get caught by that if they have a 144Hz 1080p monitor and kept another monitor plugged in. When you get a fancy monitor might as well keep the old on as second screen, right? Not limited to 1440p at all.

Your comment piqued my interest so I unplugged my second monitor and ran some tests (before it was just turned off, but I supposed the GPU doesn't care about that at all.)

Here is 144hz completely idle.

Here is 144hz browsing reddit (gif's and images).

Now here is 144hz while running a 1080p stream in chrome.

And lastly here is 120hz while running a 1080p stream in chrome.

So the extra monitor was pushing the card beyond it's designed limit and making it boost into 3D mode (even when turned off). Whatever the case, I still think its a bug as it's basically quadrupling the power usage from any resolution above 1080p. Seems a tad bit overkill.

 

[3DVagabond]

It's fine that users don't mind the increased power usage (or wrong specs on their 970's that were selling in truckloads). It's not fine that it wasn't reported. Especially when all of these sites were skewering AMD for high power usage, high noise , and heat output. Turns out that nVidia when hooked to a 144Hz monitor was using much more power, would require higher fan speeds (even though we also heard about silent cards in 2D due to fans being shut off), and output much more heat. No sites reported it! That's the issue. It's simply not fair and impartial reporting.

 

[Pariah]

It's fine that users don't mind the increased power usage (or wrong specs on their 970's that were selling in truckloads). It's not fine that it wasn't reported. Especially when all of these sites were skewering AMD for high power usage, high noise , and heat output. Turns out that nVidia when hooked to a 144Hz monitor was using much more power, would require higher fan speeds (even though we also heard about silent cards in 2D due to fans being shut off), and output much more heat. No sites reported it! That's the issue. It's simply not fair and impartial reporting.

If it's such a big deal, how come you haven't been petitioning sites to test this scenario?

 

[Silverforce11]

@3DVagabond
It's probably because people don't test it.

Wonder how it behaves at 4K 60hz though? That's more demanding than 144hz 1080p.

 

[3DVagabond]

If it's such a big deal, how come you haven't been petitioning sites to test this scenario?

It's out now. You can't do anything about the past.

 

[Pariah]

It's out now. You can't do anything about the past.

That didn't answer the question. This issue has been known for a couple of years among people it actually affects. It's not just the 1440p 144hz club, it also affects certain multi-monitor setups. The reason you haven't said anything until now is because you aren't among the extreme minority of users who experience this condition, so you had no idea this was ocurring. And since this doesn't affect you, why do you even care that exists?

 

[amenx]

It's fine that users don't mind the increased power usage (or wrong specs on their 970's that were selling in truckloads). It's not fine that it wasn't reported. Especially when all of these sites were skewering AMD for high power usage, high noise , and heat output. Turns out that nVidia when hooked to a 144Hz monitor was using much more power, would require higher fan speeds (even though we also heard about silent cards in 2D due to fans being shut off), and output much more heat. No sites reported it! That's the issue. It's simply not fair and impartial reporting.

Not really a matter of equivalence since 144hz is relatively new and only affects Nv cards at that point (or above). This aside from the easy workaround (120hz desktop). Whereas little you could do about the AMD cards high power draw.

 

[Pariah]

Turns out that nVidia when hooked to a 144Hz monitor was using much more power, would require higher fan speeds (even though we also heard about silent cards in 2D due to fans being shut off), and output much more heat.

I can get this to happen when running a tri-monitor setup (2160p, 1440p, 1080p). Let me show you how increasing the GPU clock from 324MHz to 810MHz completely ruins my computing experience.

34% fanspeed is the lowest I can set it at, and is silent in my usage. After enabling the 3rd monitor, you can see the fan speed shot up to 36%. Those extra 50RPM's make it now sound like an OEM 290x. Absolutely unbearable. The temperature part is even worse. It rose from 31C up to 43C. All the paper on my desk spontaneously combusted and I now have a really nice farmer's tan on the right side of my body where my PC is. In reality, that 13C rise in temperature is totally irrelevant when added to the heat being generated by a 50" plasma TV, 39" 4k monitor and 27" 1440p monitor as well, as the rest of the computer and HT equipment the PC is connected to.

So, basically your attempts to make this into some major deal are unfounded and childish. If you weren't looking at monitoring software, you would never notice the difference on my system.

 

[Silverforce11]

Whereas little you could do about the AMD cards high power draw.

You could under-volt, because AMD allows it.

Or

R290X: -25% power limit in CC. ~50W less power usage while losing 5% performance.

 

[3DVagabond]

That didn't answer the question. This issue has been known for a couple of years among people it actually affects. It's not just the 1440p 144hz club, it also affects certain multi-monitor setups. The reason you haven't said anything until now is because you aren't among the extreme minority of users who experience this condition, so you had no idea this was ocurring. And since this doesn't affect you, why do you even care that exists?

If you read my posts instead of simply looking to discredit I state quite clearly why it bothers me.