• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

How is Boost 2.0 better than Boost 1.0?

Jacez

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
50 (0.01/day)
I've been reading around and I'm still confused about this.

The GTX 770 is based on the same GK104 core as the GTX 680 and it's overclocked, but it takes less power and runs cooler..

W1zz says that this is because of Boost 2.0, but I'm having a hard time understanding how that works. Can anyone explain?
 
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
2,516 (0.50/day)
Location
Canada
System Name m1dg3t | DeathBox | HairPi 3
Processor 3570k @ 4.0 1.15v BIOS | q9550 @ 3.77 1.325v BIOS
Motherboard Asrock z77e iTX | p5q Dlx 2301 BIOS
Cooling Custom Water | D-14 & HR-03gt | Passive HSF
Memory Samsung MV-3V4G3D 4g x 2 @ 1866 1.35v | OcZ RpR 2g x 4 @ 1067 2.2v
Video Card(s) MSi 7950 tf3 @1000 / 1350 | Asus 5870 V2 @ 900 / 1275
Storage Adata sx900 256Gb / WD 2500 HHTZ | WD 1001 FALS x 2
Display(s) BenQ gw2750hm | 46" Sharp Quatron
Case BitFenix Prodigy - m0dd3d | Antec Fusion Remote MAX
Audio Device(s) Onboard Toslink > Yamaha HTR 6290 | Xonar HDAV1.3 > Yamaha DSP z7
Power Supply Ocz mXp700w | Ocz zx850w | Cannakit 5v 2.5a
Mouse Logitech G700s | Logitech G9x - Cable Repaired
Keyboard TT Meka G1 - Black w Cherry Blacks| Logitech G11
Software Win7 Home | Xp sp3 & Vista ultimate | Raspbian
Benchmark Scores Epeen!! Who needs epeen??
Short answer: Because it's (the algorithim) more efficient.
 
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
2,516 (0.50/day)
Location
Canada
System Name m1dg3t | DeathBox | HairPi 3
Processor 3570k @ 4.0 1.15v BIOS | q9550 @ 3.77 1.325v BIOS
Motherboard Asrock z77e iTX | p5q Dlx 2301 BIOS
Cooling Custom Water | D-14 & HR-03gt | Passive HSF
Memory Samsung MV-3V4G3D 4g x 2 @ 1866 1.35v | OcZ RpR 2g x 4 @ 1067 2.2v
Video Card(s) MSi 7950 tf3 @1000 / 1350 | Asus 5870 V2 @ 900 / 1275
Storage Adata sx900 256Gb / WD 2500 HHTZ | WD 1001 FALS x 2
Display(s) BenQ gw2750hm | 46" Sharp Quatron
Case BitFenix Prodigy - m0dd3d | Antec Fusion Remote MAX
Audio Device(s) Onboard Toslink > Yamaha HTR 6290 | Xonar HDAV1.3 > Yamaha DSP z7
Power Supply Ocz mXp700w | Ocz zx850w | Cannakit 5v 2.5a
Mouse Logitech G700s | Logitech G9x - Cable Repaired
Keyboard TT Meka G1 - Black w Cherry Blacks| Logitech G11
Software Win7 Home | Xp sp3 & Vista ultimate | Raspbian
Benchmark Scores Epeen!! Who needs epeen??
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
10,881 (1.63/day)
Location
Manchester, NH
System Name Senile
Processor I7-4790K@4.8 GHz 24/7
Motherboard MSI Z97-G45 Gaming
Cooling Be Quiet Pure Rock Air
Memory 16GB 4x4 G.Skill CAS9 2133 Sniper
Video Card(s) GIGABYTE Vega 64
Storage Samsung EVO 500GB / 8 Different WDs / QNAP TS-253 8GB NAS with 2x10Tb WD Blue
Display(s) 34" LG 34CB88-P 21:9 Curved UltraWide QHD (3440*1440) *FREE_SYNC*
Case Rosewill
Audio Device(s) Onboard + HD HDMI
Power Supply Corsair HX750
Mouse Logitech G5
Keyboard Corsair Strafe RGB & G610 Orion Red
Software Win 10
This what makes full card waterblocks so good these days ;)

Yea, it's basically thermal throttling on steroids. Awesome article, W1zz... I got it first read. At least I think I did.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
731 (0.13/day)
System Name WhiteWalker2020 / LAN Box
Processor Intel i7 6900K 4.4GHz / 2500K i5@4.5GHz
Motherboard MSI X99A Krait / Gigabyte Z68-UD3P
Cooling Full custom liquid / XIGMATEK HDT-Aegir
Memory G.Skill 32GB DDR4 3000MHz/ 4x4GB G. Skill DDR1866 Sniper
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX1080Ti SC ACX 2.0, EVGA GTX 1070 SC ACX 2.0
Storage 950 Pro 512GB M.2, 960GB SanDisk Ultra II, Intel 730 480GB and 240GB, 850 EVO 250GB, 17TB Mechanical
Display(s) 39" AMH 399A (no glass) UHD , Wasabi Mango 42" UHD IPS, Samsung 55" 4K
Case Thermaltake Core x9 / HAF 932 Red
Audio Device(s) Realtek HD-Audio On-Board
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 850W / Corsair 650TX
Mouse 2x Logitech 610
Keyboard Razer DeathStalker / Logitech G910 Orion Spark RGB Mechanical
Software Windows 10 Pro / Windows 10 64bit Professional

Jacez

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
50 (0.01/day)

With GPU Boost 2.0, temperature is also taken into account

So, let me see if I have this right..

Boost 1.0 looked at the card's power draw and if it was under specification, it allowed for a higher clock speed.

Boost 2.0 looks at the card's temperature and if it's under 80C, allows a higher clock speed, and if it's over 95C it goes back to 2D clocks.


But the GTX 770 never reached 80C, so that would mean that Boost 2.0 would overclock it to the absolute max, and it still didn't reach 80C.

Where as, the GTX 680 was being pushed equally hard (as its clock speed was not higher), and yet it reached 85C..


Am I missing something? This doesn't make any sense.. :wtf:
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
868 (0.16/day)
Location
London, UK
System Name The one under the desk / Media Centre
Processor Xeon X3730@3.6GHZ / Phenom II X4 805E
Motherboard Gigabyte P55M-UD4 / Asus Crosshair III
Cooling Corsair H70 + 2*PWM fan / Arctic Alpine 11
Memory 16GB DRR3-1333 9-9-9-27 / 4GB Crucial DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) Asus DirectCU GTX 680 / Gigabyte 560TI
Storage Kingston V200 128GB, WD6400AAKS, 1TB Seagate 7.2kRPM SSHD / Kingston V200 128GB
Display(s) Samsung 2343BW + Dell Ultrasharp 1600*1200 / 32" TV
Case C'M' Silencio 550 / Some ancient SilverStone brushed aluminium media centre
Audio Device(s) No.
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower XT 675W / EVGA 430W
Mouse Mionix Naos 3200 / Generic PS2
Keyboard Roccat Ryos TKL Pro / Evoluent Mouse Friendly Keyboard (Logitech OEM)
Software Windows 7 Ult x64
Benchmark Scores Nah.
Am I missing something?

Yes. Going "back to 2D clocks at 95 degrees" would be thermal throttling, which uses the same mechanisms, but is about protecting the card from damage, not picking the optimal clock speed.

Simplified somewhat, it's like this:

Boost 1.0 algorithm: Select the lowest of the following:
  • Maximum boost clock
  • Maximum clock that can be achieved without exceeding TDP limit

Boost 2.0 algorithm: Select the lowest of the following:
  • Maximum boost clock
  • Maximum clock that can be achieved without exceeding TDP limit
  • Maximum clock that can be achieved without exceeding temperature limit

Often it is the temperature constraint that binds, which is why you tend to see reported temperatures of almost exactly 80 degrees - this is the default temperature limit. A simple way to improve performance in this case is to turn up fan speeds - then a higher clock speed can be achieved without passing 80 degrees. Or, equivalently, you can leave fan speeds where they are but increase the temperature limit.

The main reason Boost 2.0 is better is that it allows for a less conservative TDP limit, because they don't have to worry about temperatures when they set that.
 

Jacez

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
50 (0.01/day)
Often it is the temperature constraint that binds, which is why you tend to see reported temperatures of almost exactly 80 degrees - this is the default temperature limit. A simple way to improve performance in this case is to turn up fan speeds - then a higher clock speed can be achieved without passing 80 degrees. Or, equivalently, you can leave fan speeds where they are but increase the temperature limit.

The main reason Boost 2.0 is better is that it allows for a less conservative TDP limit, because they don't have to worry about temperatures when they set that.

So, you're saying that with the GTX 680, they had to rely on Boost 1.0, which does not take temperatures into account, so they limited the TDP.

With the GTX 770, they now rely on Boost 2.0, which does take temperatures into account, making the overclocking safer and more precise, so they raised the TDP restriction.

This would explain why the card is faster, but it does not explain why, even at a higher TPD, it takes less power, run cooler and as I've just found out - far less noisy.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
868 (0.16/day)
Location
London, UK
System Name The one under the desk / Media Centre
Processor Xeon X3730@3.6GHZ / Phenom II X4 805E
Motherboard Gigabyte P55M-UD4 / Asus Crosshair III
Cooling Corsair H70 + 2*PWM fan / Arctic Alpine 11
Memory 16GB DRR3-1333 9-9-9-27 / 4GB Crucial DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) Asus DirectCU GTX 680 / Gigabyte 560TI
Storage Kingston V200 128GB, WD6400AAKS, 1TB Seagate 7.2kRPM SSHD / Kingston V200 128GB
Display(s) Samsung 2343BW + Dell Ultrasharp 1600*1200 / 32" TV
Case C'M' Silencio 550 / Some ancient SilverStone brushed aluminium media centre
Audio Device(s) No.
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower XT 675W / EVGA 430W
Mouse Mionix Naos 3200 / Generic PS2
Keyboard Roccat Ryos TKL Pro / Evoluent Mouse Friendly Keyboard (Logitech OEM)
Software Windows 7 Ult x64
Benchmark Scores Nah.
it takes less power

Most reviews show it taking slightly more power, but in any case, some binning may be at work - 28nm is now more mature, so the yields ought to be improved vs. when the GTX680 originally launched, allowing lower default voltages at any given clock speed.

run cooler and as I've just found out - far less noisy.

It has a better stock cooler.
 

Jacez

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
50 (0.01/day)
Most reviews show it taking slightly more power, but in any case, some binning may be at work - 28nm is now more mature, so the yields ought to be improved vs. when the GTX680 originally launched, allowing lower default voltages at any given clock speed.



It has a better stock cooler.

So, now you're saying that binning and a better cooler are the answers to my questions.. and not Boost 2.0, like W1zz said? :confused:
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
868 (0.16/day)
Location
London, UK
System Name The one under the desk / Media Centre
Processor Xeon X3730@3.6GHZ / Phenom II X4 805E
Motherboard Gigabyte P55M-UD4 / Asus Crosshair III
Cooling Corsair H70 + 2*PWM fan / Arctic Alpine 11
Memory 16GB DRR3-1333 9-9-9-27 / 4GB Crucial DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) Asus DirectCU GTX 680 / Gigabyte 560TI
Storage Kingston V200 128GB, WD6400AAKS, 1TB Seagate 7.2kRPM SSHD / Kingston V200 128GB
Display(s) Samsung 2343BW + Dell Ultrasharp 1600*1200 / 32" TV
Case C'M' Silencio 550 / Some ancient SilverStone brushed aluminium media centre
Audio Device(s) No.
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower XT 675W / EVGA 430W
Mouse Mionix Naos 3200 / Generic PS2
Keyboard Roccat Ryos TKL Pro / Evoluent Mouse Friendly Keyboard (Logitech OEM)
Software Windows 7 Ult x64
Benchmark Scores Nah.
So, now you're saying that binning and a better cooler are the answers to my questions.. and not Boost 2.0, like W1zz said? :confused:

These things are all inter-related, and truly I don't think anyone outside of Nvidia could give you a concrete answer to your various questions. But I stand by everything I've said, and I don't think it's necessarily incompatible with what Wizz has said.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
11,878 (2.31/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R5 5900X/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero8 impact/Asus
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu ek suprim Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in four sticks./16Gb/16GB
Video Card(s) Powercolour RX7900XT Reference/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power 2TB nvme/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd/1Tb nvme
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.dell shiter
Case Lianli 011 dynamic/strix scar2
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi/Asus stock
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
So, now you're saying that binning and a better cooler are the answers to my questions.. and not Boost 2.0, like W1zz said? :confused:

As time goes on they get better at producing chips and validation/binning plus they sometimes make slight optimisations to the chips finer points called steppings plus boost 2 has more p states (oc and std clock and volts levels) so the card and driver's run it as fast as temps and tdp allow within it's limits (set by nvidia to limit Rmas), my take on it.
 

Jacez

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
50 (0.01/day)
These things are all inter-related, and truly I don't think anyone outside of Nvidia could give you a concrete answer to your various questions. But I stand by everything I've said, and I don't think it's necessarily incompatible with what Wizz has said.

W1zz said that Boost 2.0 was the only reason for the disparity.

But what I've found is that W1zz's review is off (the card takes more power, not less), and the cooler on the GTX 770 is more efficient (vapor chamber vs. heatpipes).

So, I really don't see how Boost 2.0 has anything to do with this.
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
26,956 (3.71/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
W1zz said that Boost 2.0 was the only reason for the disparity.

But what I've found is that W1zz's review is off (the card takes more power, not less), and the cooler on the GTX 770 is more efficient (vapor chamber vs. heatpipes).

So, I really don't see how Boost 2.0 has anything to do with this.

i didn't say that. yes, the card is clocked higher than gtx 680, but boost 2.0 helps get more performance at same clock.

power consumption is lower than gtx 680. are you by any chance looking at reviews that measure full system power consumption?
 

Jacez

New Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
50 (0.01/day)
i didn't say that. yes, the card is clocked higher than gtx 680, but boost 2.0 helps get more performance at same clock.

power consumption is lower than gtx 680. are you by any chance looking at reviews that measure full system power consumption?

When I asked you why the GTX 770 was cooler and takes less power your response was "Boost 2.0 algorithm." That was it.

I started a thread on [H] and apparently, most reviewers are saying that the GTX 770 takes a bit more power, not less. They're saying that something is wrong with your review.

But I trust your reviews the most, which is why I'm confused.
 
Top