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

[Pariah]

Really? Same problem? My setup only goes to 3D memory clocks at 144hz.

I have no idea what the minimum settings are that trigger this. There is no discernible pattern. Like I said in my previous posts. Any combination of 2 screens will not increase my clock speeds. They only do with a third monitor added.

If you don't believe this affects AMD hardware, you need to read this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_390X_Gaming/28.html


390x one monitor - 13W
2 monitors - 89W
Playing Bluray - 98W?

980Ti one monitor - 11W
2 monitors - 13W
Playing Bluray - 14W

85W to play a bluray? Really? Takes 3W on a 980Ti. Where were the AMD people complaining about this? Too busy trolling NVidia users probably.

 

[thesmokingman]

Lmao, keeping moving the goal post eh? TPU's numbers are on the whacked side for sure. That said, I don't know how they test but their numbers obviously don't match up with others, or even my own. 98w vs 14w for bd playback, yea one is using gpu accel and one isn't or other issue. But hell that's not even the topic lol. Got nothing, quick, DISTRACT!

 

[bystander36]

double post

 

[bystander36]

What video card is that? Their older cards always clocked up. Mostly the memory, from what I recall, but their cores also went up a little as well. I'm referring to my 6950. Of course it was never tested then, but because it was an enthusiast setup, I figured it was to be expected to deal with added issues.

I'm pretty sure most of this talk about how AMD cards have, for many years also clocked up for multi displays, is just a response to 3DVegabond's insistence that this is a cover up, when the same types of things has gone on for years for both brands, with different setups.

 

[amenx]

Lmao, keeping moving the goal post eh? TPU's numbers are on the whacked side for sure. That said, I don't know how they test but their numbers obviously don't match up with others, or even my own. 98w vs 14w for bd playback, yea one is using gpu accel and one isn't or other issue. But hell that's not even the topic lol. Got nothing, quick, DISTRACT!

Heres another, 2 and 3 monitors power draw at desktop.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-01/...m-test/9/#diagramm-multi-monitor-gesamtsystem

Links have been provided to you, all we have seen in return is your say so.

 

[thesmokingman]

Heres another, 2 and 3 monitors power draw at desktop.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-01/...m-test/9/#diagramm-multi-monitor-gesamtsystem

Links have been provided to you, all we have seen in return is your say so.

Sorry I don't read german. That said, it's interesting that a 960 uses 79w playing a BD while according to TPU a 980ti uses 14w. See this is all whacked info.

 

[amenx]

Sorry I don't read german. That said, it's interesting that a 960 uses 79w playing a BD while according to TPU a 980ti uses 14w. See this is all whacked info.

Different monitors, different testing conditions may account for variations. Regardless, sources have been provided to you from well established sites where BOTH show that AMDs power draw with multi-monitors is actually worse than Nvidias... while we see from you... is nothing. Just amazed at the lengths people go to push dead-in-the-water arguments, while offering no sources or references other than they're say so, and even when they realize all is lost still refuse to give in . I would consider that borderline trolling.

p.s. google 'google translate'.

 

[3DVagabond]

I have no idea what the minimum settings are that trigger this. There is no discernible pattern. Like I said in my previous posts. Any combination of 2 screens will not increase my clock speeds. They only do with a third monitor added.

If you don't believe this affects AMD hardware, you need to read this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_390X_Gaming/28.html


390x one monitor - 13W
2 monitors - 89W
Playing Bluray - 98W?

980Ti one monitor - 11W
2 monitors - 13W
Playing Bluray - 14W

85W to play a bluray? Really? Takes 3W on a 980Ti. Where were the AMD people complaining about this? Too busy trolling NVidia users probably.

The argument isn't how much power AMD uses. Notice how you have no problems finding this reported? You can find this reported in lots of reviews. It helps with the "nVidia is more efficient" that the review sites have been putting out. nVidia using more power @ 144Hz? Nope, can't find that reported by these same sites, though. That's the issue.

 

[monstercameron]

I have no idea what the minimum settings are that trigger this. There is no discernible pattern. Like I said in my previous posts. Any combination of 2 screens will not increase my clock speeds. They only do with a third monitor added.

If you don't believe this affects AMD hardware, you need to read this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_390X_Gaming/28.html


390x one monitor - 13W
2 monitors - 89W
Playing Bluray - 98W?

980Ti one monitor - 11W
2 monitors - 13W
Playing Bluray - 14W

85W to play a bluray? Really? Takes 3W on a 980Ti. Where were the AMD people complaining about this? Too busy trolling NVidia users probably.

Was the decoding being done on the shaders or the uvd?

 

[thesmokingman]

Seems to be a total desktop pixel rate threshold to determine if idle clock is 150Mhz or 810Mhz. I see the same increase on 2 1440p monitors (@60hz stays at 150Mhz) to 3 1440p (@60hz goes to 810Mhz) or 2 1440p monitors(@120hz at 810Mhz). Two 1440p monitors (one at 120hz and other at 60hz) is at 150Mhz idle so would think one 1440p at 144hz would mean 150Mhz as well. If not a bug then another limitation to keep away artifacts\issues seen when idle clock is too low.

Yea, it's probably a CYA to prevent artifacts. On AMD I'm able to run triple 1080@144hz w/ only a bump to my main card's memory clocks though w/o artifacts.

Thanks thesmokingman, it's good to know AMD doesn't have this problem so maybe Nvidia can fix on their side. Sucks that I've been wasting all this power since last September when I bought Rog swifts.

Different monitors, different testing conditions may account for variations. Regardless, sources have been provided to you from well established sites where BOTH show that AMDs power draw with multi-monitors is actually worse than Nvidias... while we see from you... is nothing. Just amazed at the lengths people go to push dead-in-the-water arguments, while offering no sources or references other than they're say so, and even when they realize all is lost still refuse to give in . I would consider that borderline trolling.

p.s. google 'google translate'.

Are you daft or just trolling? My posts with proof of my ownership and config of said monitors and refresh rates/mhz were to help Eymar. It's also proof that AMD is not totally forcing high clocks for multi monitors at high refresh rates. I don't need to read or translate a stupid german site to see what is in front of me. D:

 

[happy medium]

AMD has the same problem with multiple monitors. No work around. No sites are covering this either. Must be a cover up...



I already posted the actual results of my card and anyone who says they can tell the difference in a 50RPM increase in a closed case with no problem ever is a liar. Not every video card has crap ergonomics like whatever you own.

This thread now has about 150 responses and over 7300 views, and only ONE poster has indicated they have a system capable of demonstrating this behavior along with mine that can reproduce it under different circumstances that affects AMD hardware as well. There has not yet been one poster who has a system capable of this that has indicated they care in the slightest.

In fact, the only people who seem to care about this are the resident AMD trolls here. Rather ironic considering this behavior also affects all but 3 AMD cards which none of you actually own.

Wow! I wonder why this post was ignored? I think it was perfectly worded and right to the point. :thumbsup:

 

[happy medium]

I have no idea what the minimum settings are that trigger this. There is no discernible pattern. Like I said in my previous posts. Any combination of 2 screens will not increase my clock speeds. They only do with a third monitor added.

If you don't believe this affects AMD hardware, you need to read this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_390X_Gaming/28.html


390x one monitor - 13W
2 monitors - 89W
Playing Bluray - 98W?

980Ti one monitor - 11W
2 monitors - 13W
Playing Bluray - 14W

85W to play a bluray? Really? Takes 3W on a 980Ti. Where were the AMD people complaining about this? Too busy trolling NVidia users probably.

The man is on a roll.... :thumbsup:

I guess both camps have a driver to fix.

 

[Azix]

Some of these things are not going to be fixed by drivers. in fact, nvidias own multimonitor "problem" was intentionally done. They clock up if one of the monitors is 144Hz to avoid issues. I am guessing AMD does the same with their VRAM for similar reasons.

I am sure one could force AMDs VRAM speeds down to a value that still maintains performance. The problem is they do not have automatic variation on that like they do with the Core. The VRAM is either on the lowest or on the highest from what I see.
someone with multimonitor should test this.

 

[amenx]

Are you daft or just trolling? My posts with proof of my ownership and config of said monitors and refresh rates/mhz were to help Eymar. It's also proof that AMD is not totally forcing high clocks for multi monitors at high refresh rates. I don't need to read or translate a stupid german site to see what is in front of me. D:

OK. And theres the problem with bringing in the multi-monitor discussion into the debate, factoring in all the variables. All you have done is transfer the 144hz single monitor debate (as PcPer article) into a 144hz multi-monitor argument and yell 'hey, same thing happens'. The german and TPU sites tested multi-monitor power draws on (apparently) on non-144hz units. Why you didnt bother to catch that and clarify, I dont know. I had the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you were arguing AMD handles multi-monitor power draw better than Nvidia regardless.

 

[know of fence]

It was surprising to see that PCPer publicized this issue, given that they advertise with product links. The income you generate from recommending a product certainly creates a bias in the reviewer, similarly does the dependence on having manufacturers ship you products ahead of time. This wasn't a review, mind you, just a one-off article.
Imagine my surprise when I saw anandtech do the same thing: flashing amazon sale links below the review. That's crazy to me! Is that the new normal, "brought to you by Carl's Jr."
Just how hard is it to make a legit buck on the internet.

 

[bystander36]

It was surprising to see that PCPer publicized this issue, given that they advertise with product links. The income you generate from recommending a product certainly creates a bias in the reviewer, similarly does the dependence on having manufacturers ship you products ahead of time. This wasn't a review, mind you, just a one-off article.
Imagine my surprise when I saw anandtech do the same thing: flashing amazon sale links below the review. That's crazy to me! Is that the new normal, "brought to you by Carl's Jr."
Just how hard is it to make a legit buck on the internet.

I'm not sure what you expect from a site. All sites use advertisement and what you might note is that advertising has gotten a lot more high tech. They show you ads of things you search and read about regardless of what you currently have on your browser at that time.

I noticed a few months ago while and after looking for kayak equipment that all sites I looked at, all the advertisement was about kayaks and equipment. If I search for TV's, all sites I visit start showing TV's. Most advertising you see on sites aren't put there by them. They are ran by adsites which give marketing that targets what you look at.

In cases where they do control it, what would you expect from a tech company? They are going to advertise tech items and if they give an article about a product, it makes perfect sense to advertise it with a link to it, in case it is something you want to buy. I know of no sites which do not do this.

 

[know of fence]

They are going to advertise tech items and if they give an article about a product, it makes perfect sense to advertise it with a link to it, in case it is something you want to buy. I know of no sites which do not do this.

The difference between ads and purchase links is that the site, gets a cut of all the sales, which makes reviews basically extended advertising.

Ideally a site with journalistic integrity recommends good product for free, for the benefit of the consumer and the company, which in turn incentivizes companies to create good products and informs consumers of what to appreciate in a monitor or a phone. Companies strive to make great products, journalists write honest reviews, consumers are well served and well informed.
All of this is ruined once subversive marketing creeps in and starts warping the review process. Companies then rely on marketing false promises to sell products and also need to pay for reviews, consumers can't trust reviewers and are less well informed, review sites have trouble attracting talent because talent prefers a job as a journalist or something else rather than a shill. Everybody loses, except share holders perhaps.

Generally profit driven industry favors exploiting naive consumers for short term profit, but the collective knowledge of a society ultimately determines the quality of products. When people understand that more FPS, megapixels or megaherz doesn't mean they get a better product, then ultimately engineers aren't forced by the very same marketing evil doers to develop bad tech with pointless characteristics "that sell". This is an old example, but it's fairly easy to come up with a list of things that aren't a real benefit to consumers, but are widely considered desirable and marketable.

Reviews should strive to call into question the usefulness of a graphics card or multi-monitor or SLI and not just compare the market offerings. That goes out the window once reviewers are in the business of selling hardware.

 

[bystander36]

The difference between ads and purchase links is that the site, gets a cut of all the sales, which makes reviews basically extended advertising.

Ideally a site with journalistic integrity recommends good product for free, for the benefit of the consumer and the company, which in turn incentivizes companies to create good products and informs consumers of what to appreciate in a monitor or a phone. Companies strive to make great products, journalists write honest reviews, consumers are well served and well informed.
All of this is ruined once subversive marketing creeps in and starts warping the review process. Companies then rely on marketing false promises to sell products and also need to pay for reviews, consumers can't trust reviewers and are less well informed, review sites have trouble attracting talent because talent prefers a job as a journalist or something else rather than a shill. Everybody loses, except share holders perhaps.

Generally profit driven industry favors exploiting naive consumers for short term profit, but the collective knowledge of a society ultimately determines the quality of products. When people understand that more FPS, megapixels or megaherz doesn't mean they get a better product, then ultimately engineers aren't forced by the very same marketing evil doers to develop bad tech with pointless characteristics "that sell". This is an old example, but it's fairly easy to come up with a list of things that aren't a real benefit to consumers, but are widely considered desirable and marketable.

Reviews should stride to call into question the usefulness of a graphics card or multi-monitor or SLI and not just compare the market offerings. That goes out the window once reviewers are in the business of selling hardware.

Assuming we are talking about the ones with direct links, I don't see a problem when those sites advertise all brands and products and when doing a review about a particular product, they give you a link.

If they cater their review to be advertisement, rather than honest, then there is a problem, but the site is already advertising these products, they just make it easier on you by giving you a link to it should the review prompt you to buy. If they leave the link off, the only thing that changes is that you have to now search for the product yourself.

And how do you expect a review site to pay their bills if they are not advertising? They are all free to view and since they get people interested in tech, they can only advertise tech. How do you think they should stay in business?

 

[Eymar]

Are you daft or just trolling? My posts with proof of my ownership and config of said monitors and refresh rates/mhz were to help Eymar. It's also proof that AMD is not totally forcing high clocks for multi monitors at high refresh rates. I don't need to read or translate a stupid german site to see what is in front of me. D:

Thanks again and I thought info was helpful and relevant to topic. I've always accepted that higher core clocks (looks like higher memory clocks still needed) were necessary for multi-monitor especially high hz models like PG279Q, but nice to see that's not the case and hopefully Nvidia follows suit with Pascal. Not every post is meant for debate.

 

[know of fence]

Assuming we are talking about the ones with direct links, I don't see a problem ...

I'm referring specifically to the amazon listing to buy Microsoft Surface below the page with "Final Words".
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9767/microsoft-surface-book-2015-review/9
Or in the case of PC per the Amazon link at the bottom
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Case-AMD-Radeon-R9-Nano-Powerful-Gaming-Small-Spaces

Not seeing a problem, doesn't mean it isn't there. Advertising is wrought with many fine lines and ethical issues that require having an understanding or or a curiosity about conflicts of interest, desire, psychology and coercion.
Advertising the same product on your site as you are reviewing is already an issue and a no-no, some companies manage to avoid that by saying "we don't know what is advertised, google selects targeted ads for the audience", but even google should be smart enough to avoid it.

I've given an honest try explaining why creeping, embedded advertising ruins everything, it's important to know that it isn't normal and that we don't have to accept it.

 

[bystander36]

I'm referring specifically to the amazon listing to buy Microsoft Surface below the page with "Final Words".
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9767/microsoft-surface-book-2015-review/9
Or in the case of PC per the Amazon link at the bottom
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Case-AMD-Radeon-R9-Nano-Powerful-Gaming-Small-Spaces

Not seeing a problem, doesn't mean it isn't there. Advertising is wrought with many fine lines and ethical issues that require having an understanding or or a curiosity about conflicts of interest, desire, psychology and coercion.
Advertising the same product on your site as you are reviewing is already an issue and a no-no, some companies manage to avoid that by saying "we don't know what is advertised, google selects targeted ads for the audience", but even google should be smart enough to avoid it.

I've given an honest try explaining why creeping, embedded advertising ruins everything, it's important to know that it isn't normal and that we don't have to accept it.

You still haven't answered my question. How can a review site stay in business without advertising the products they review?

And yes, you may note that they do recommend almost all products they review. However, they still bullet point their problems and strengths, so you can still be capable of making an informed review.

If you can figure out a way for them to stay in business without advertising, you should start up your own review site.

 

[know of fence]

You still haven't answered my question. How can a review site stay in business without advertising the products they review?

Obviously by either by not reviewing products they advertise or advertising products they don't review. There are also sites like techreport that sell user memberships. In this case the issue isn't even with advertising, it's with the review site selling hardware, which makes the review biased (towards praise) and worthless.
There are plenty of sites that earn money this way preview, infotainment, unwrapping, there are also sites that do both (not fake) review as well as fluff. But even when venues walk the line they have to maintain an appearance of credibility, separate PR slides and test results, promises and facts.
Tech-fluff sites appeal to a less criticial state of mind or audiences, who think they want the illusion and who want to be sold. So with my comment I was curious if there are still people around who also find that recent style and content shift jarring.

 

[bystander36]

Obviously by either by not reviewing products they advertise or advertising products they don't review. There are also sites like techreport that sell user memberships. In this case the issue isn't even with advertising, it's with the review site selling hardware, which makes the review biased (towards praise) and worthless.
There are plenty of sites that earn money this way preview, infotainment, unwrapping, there are also sites that do both (not fake) review as well as fluff. But even when venues walk the line they have to maintain an appearance of credibility, separate PR slides and test results, promises and facts.
Tech-fluff sites appeal to a less criticial state of mind or audiences, who think they want the illusion and who want to be sold. So with my comment I was curious if there are still people around who also find that recent style and content shift jarring.

It seems odd that a site that reviews computer tech wouldn't sell computer tech ads. I suppose it could be done, but would it be successful?

And how successful can people be with membership reviews? Do people actually buy memberships for reviews these days? Everything is so free, that seems hard to imagine.

 

[know of fence]

It seems odd that a site that reviews computer tech wouldn't sell computer tech ads. I suppose it could be done, but would it be successful?

And how successful can people be with membership reviews? Do people actually buy memberships for reviews these days? Everything is so free, that seems hard to imagine.

Internet advertising has been difficult, because of how easy it can be gamed among other things. So it's understandable that Amazon tries to cut out the ad-firm middle-man and found a way to share profit with a million monkeys and a million type writers or vivacious you-tubers, turning them into salesmen .
An economically savvy person of course would never use a review direct link, because price comparisons engines can generate direct-links to online stores with much lower price. So if you use a direct link from a review site knowingly(!) it's a kind of donation anyway. So this makes it sort of OK. Except sites only are incentivized and tend to review luxury products. Top of the line is easy to recommend from a tech point of view, the fact that it's a terrible value for your hard earned money is but a single paragraph in a 9 page review.
That's totally what we have seen with industry "review" sites, they only get sent the expensive stuff.