techPowerUp! Forums

Go Back   techPowerUp! Forums > www.techpowerup.com > News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Jun 21, 2012, 09:55 AM   #1
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
 
btarunr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 14,981 (7.31/day)
Thanks: 788
Thanked 12,895 Times in 5,647 Posts
Send a message via AIM to btarunr Send a message via MSN to btarunr

System Specs

NVIDIA Releases PCI-Express Gen 3.0 Enabling Patch for Sandy Bridge-E HEDT Platform

Although pre-launch drivers of the GeForce GTX 680 let the GPU run in PCI-Express Gen 3.0 mode on Intel's Sandy Bridge-E HEDT (X79) platforms, the release drivers limited the GPU to PCI-Express Gen 2.0 on the platform. The issue carried on with GeForce GTX 670, and other graphics cards with "Kepler" family of GPUs. NVIDIA cited reasons such as the platform not being PCI-Expres Gen 3.0 "certified" although it supports the 8 GT/s mode. The company assured users that it was working on getting its hardware to work on the Sandy Bridge-E HEDT platform in Gen 3.0 mode, and until it's absolutely certain about reliability, it is forcing PCI-Express Gen 2.0 mode.

NVIDIA released a patch that enables PCI-Express Gen 3.0 mode on Intel Sandy Bridge-E HEDT (X79) platforms, which lets graphics cards based on GeForce Kepler GPUs, such as GeForce GTX 680, GTX 670, etc., take advantage of 8 GT/s per lane system interface bandwidth. The mode could come particularly handy for graphics cards that are installed on electrical PCI-Express 3.0 x8 slots, as they could end up with bandwidth comparable to that of PCI-Express 2.0 x16. The patch should be installed along with the latest stable drivers. To enable the patch, run the executable and reboot the system. To undo the patch later, run the same executable with "-revert" argument in Command Prompt. Use only if stability is not absolutely paramount, or if the hardware is not operating in a mission-critical environment.

DOWNLOAD: NVIDIA GeForce Kepler PCIe 3.0 mode-enabling patch for Sandy Bridge-E systems

Source: NVIDIA

Last edited by btarunr; Jun 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM.
btarunr is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to btarunr For This Useful Post:
Old Jun 21, 2012, 11:09 AM   #2
Aquinus
3500 Posts
 
Aquinus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Dover, New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 4,231 (8.87/day)
Thanks: 1,258
Thanked 1,309 Times in 973 Posts

System Specs

Took long enough? At least they're working on it.
__________________
MyHeat
Aquinus is online now  
Crunching for Team TPU
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 12:12 PM   #3
Rahmat Sofyan
75 Posts
 
Rahmat Sofyan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pekanbaru -Riau - Indonesia - Earth
Posts: 85 (0.14/day)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to Rahmat Sofyan

System Specs

I wonder is it kepler really built with Pciex 3.0 or what?
Or just tweaking chip from fermi and indeed still use Pciex 2.0 technology?
Rahmat Sofyan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 12:21 PM   #4
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
 
btarunr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 14,981 (7.31/day)
Thanks: 788
Thanked 12,895 Times in 5,647 Posts
Send a message via AIM to btarunr Send a message via MSN to btarunr

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahmat Sofyan View Post
I wonder is it kepler really built with Pciex 3.0 or what?
Or just tweaking chip from fermi and indeed still use Pciex 2.0 technology?
Kepler is a PCI-Express 3.0 GPU, which runs in Gen 3.0 mode on PCIe 3.0 certified systems (Ivy Bridge).
__________________

Gadgets, Phones, Tablets, Cameras, TVs, HiFi...NextPowerUp
btarunr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 12:26 PM   #5
Aquinus
3500 Posts
 
Aquinus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Dover, New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 4,231 (8.87/day)
Thanks: 1,258
Thanked 1,309 Times in 973 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by btarunr View Post
Kepler is a PCI-Express 3.0 GPU, which runs in Gen 3.0 mode on PCIe 3.0 certified systems (Ivy Bridge).
I was under the impression that IVB and SB-E both weren't PCI-E 3.0 certified, but could run 3.0 speeds according to Intel.
__________________
MyHeat
Aquinus is online now  
Crunching for Team TPU
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 01:28 PM   #6
Steven B
500 Posts
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 571 (0.20/day)
Thanks: 11
Thanked 50 Times in 33 Posts

the real truth is that NVIDIAs/ATIs GPUs don't correctly abide by PCI-E gen 3 specs an that intel's CPUs don't either, at least that is according to PLX they are the only ones who correctly abide by PCISIG.
Steven B is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 02:13 PM   #7
Dj-ElectriC
1000 Posts
 
Dj-ElectriC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Trollithia
Posts: 1,577 (1.56/day)
Thanks: 141
Thanked 643 Times in 300 Posts

System Specs

Does it really matter when the differences between X16 of 2.0 and 3.0 are that irrelevant to all of the GPUs anyway?
__________________


Battletag: HolyDiver#1664
Dj-ElectriC is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 02:17 PM   #8
cadaveca
My name is Dave
 
cadaveca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 10,766 (4.15/day)
Thanks: 4,472
Thanked 5,185 Times in 3,196 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquinus View Post
I was under the impression that IVB and SB-E both weren't PCI-E 3.0 certified, but could run 3.0 speeds according to Intel.
IVB is PCIe 3.0. SB-e..not so much, but it's possible. Not all chips can run it, apparantly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dj-ElectriC View Post
Does it really matter when the differences between X16 of 2.0 and 3.0 are that irrelevant to all of the GPUs anyway?
I've seen some very interesting stuff with PCIe 3.0 and multi-GPU. Like 30-40 % gains. I do not know if the same still holds true though.
__________________
Gadgets, Phones, Tablets, Cameras, TVs, HiFi...NextPowerUp


-Only real men play games THIS way.
cadaveca is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 02:19 PM   #9
Dj-ElectriC
1000 Posts
 
Dj-ElectriC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Trollithia
Posts: 1,577 (1.56/day)
Thanks: 141
Thanked 643 Times in 300 Posts

System Specs

I haven't, not with 680s or 7970s anyway
__________________


Battletag: HolyDiver#1664
Dj-ElectriC is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 02:27 PM   #10
cadaveca
My name is Dave
 
cadaveca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 10,766 (4.15/day)
Thanks: 4,472
Thanked 5,185 Times in 3,196 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dj-ElectriC View Post
I haven't, not with 680s or 7970s anyway
you ran 3 + cards? It's only there that it shows. I've been looking for someone else to run these tests, but have not found anyone. I've tried to get cards too ,as you know, but spending that much money on cards doesn't make sense to me, personally, as I want GTX690!

The story goes that the loss of scaling when adding third/fourth cards is due to lack of bandwidth to the GPUs, and between them. But it was done on SB-E, which is not exactly "certified" for PCIe 3.0, so noone knows exactly what the story is here, and what is going on.
__________________
Gadgets, Phones, Tablets, Cameras, TVs, HiFi...NextPowerUp


-Only real men play games THIS way.
cadaveca is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 02:29 PM   #11
Fluffmeister
200 Posts
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 278 (0.54/day)
Thanks: 120
Thanked 80 Times in 32 Posts

Here are Vega's results, big gains:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1220962/v...#post_16915399
Fluffmeister is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fluffmeister For This Useful Post:
Old Jun 21, 2012, 02:30 PM   #12
cadaveca
My name is Dave
 
cadaveca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 10,766 (4.15/day)
Thanks: 4,472
Thanked 5,185 Times in 3,196 Posts

System Specs

Yes, that's it! Thanks, Fluffy.

So, I wonder if this still holds true, or if that was part of the hack to get PCIe 3.0 as it was driver disabled...

(I saw his post on XS).

Need someone with 4 cards and 3 monitors to do some testing, or someone to loan me 4 cards of GTX680, and 4 of HD7970!


__________________
Gadgets, Phones, Tablets, Cameras, TVs, HiFi...NextPowerUp


-Only real men play games THIS way.
cadaveca is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 02:32 PM   #13
Steven B
500 Posts
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 571 (0.20/day)
Thanks: 11
Thanked 50 Times in 33 Posts

yea it also probably depends on your screen res, Vega runs very big
Steven B is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 03:01 PM   #14
INSTG8R
2000 Posts
 
INSTG8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost in Norway
Posts: 2,581 (0.83/day)
Thanks: 934
Thanked 378 Times in 320 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluffmeister View Post
Here are Vega's results, big gains:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1220962/v...#post_16915399
That's some good reading right there. Pure PC Porn! with some eye opening figures to say the least.
__________________
Sys. Specs.
i7 2600K@4.6|ASUS P67 Sabertooth|2x4096 Corsair Vengence 1600 |Sapphire HD7970 OC|WD Caviar Black 6.0Gbps 1TB x2@RAID 0|SB X-Fi Fatality Pro|TT Toughpower 1.2kW|TT Kandalf L.C.S.|Acer V243H 24" 1920x1080|Logitech G25|Logitech G500|Logitech G19|Saitek X-52 Pro|TrackIR4 w/Trackclip Pro
INSTG8R is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 09:15 PM   #15
ironwolf
200 Posts
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Pensacola, FL, USA, Earth
Posts: 214 (0.28/day)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 26 Times in 18 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluffmeister View Post
Here are Vega's results, big gains:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1220962/v...#post_16915399
and of course That's the kind of increase I like to see!
ironwolf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 10:51 PM   #16
eidairaman1
Eligible for custom title
 
eidairaman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: HTX
Posts: 10,078 (4.69/day)
Thanks: 1,359
Thanked 1,159 Times in 1,035 Posts
Send a message via MSN to eidairaman1

System Specs

"To undo the patch later, run the same executable with "-revert" argument in Command Prompt. Use only if stability is not absolutely paramount, or if the hardware is not operating in a mission-critical environment."

Why wouldnt stability be paramount in any machine?
__________________
Athlon XP USERS with COD 4 FIX
http://www.techsupportforum.com/foru...ls-202011.html
http://www.howorks.com/2011/02/24/ho...-memory-limit/
“Sometimes my level of fail is unprecedented.” -TheMailMan78
“This is what the force of a thousand suns looks like.” -3870x2
eidairaman1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2012, 10:54 PM   #17
cadaveca
My name is Dave
 
cadaveca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 10,766 (4.15/day)
Thanks: 4,472
Thanked 5,185 Times in 3,196 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by eidairaman1 View Post
"To undo the patch later, run the same executable with "-revert" argument in Command Prompt. Use only if stability is not absolutely paramount, or if the hardware is not operating in a mission-critical environment."

Why wouldnt stability be paramount in any machine?
Some prefer performance. See any extreme benchmarking user running LN2.

See, the story is that not all Intel SB-e CPUs are actually capable of running the PCIe domain at PCIe 3.0 speeds. They are all capable of running the encoding method, just not the frequency.


Because of this, it is impossible for nVidia to guarantee that a user's CPU is capable. There is a good chance that it will be, but without Intel confirming PCIe 3.0 for all CPUs(and Intel does not, specifically stating that all amy not run proper speed), there is no way nVidia could provide this "fix" without that little disclaimer.

Now, if the above posted info aobut PCIe 3.0 and multi-GPU has any rel merit, it would really make some sense for nV to provide this patch ASAP, and this really seems to have been what they have done.
__________________
Gadgets, Phones, Tablets, Cameras, TVs, HiFi...NextPowerUp


-Only real men play games THIS way.
cadaveca is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cadaveca For This Useful Post:
Old Jun 21, 2012, 11:12 PM   #18
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
 
newtekie1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 17,741 (6.49/day)
Thanks: 780
Thanked 5,113 Times in 3,704 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven B View Post
the real truth is that NVIDIAs/ATIs GPUs don't correctly abide by PCI-E gen 3 specs an that intel's CPUs don't either, at least that is according to PLX they are the only ones who correctly abide by PCISIG.
At least when it comes to nVidia cards, they do have the PCI-E 3.0 Logo on them, so they are certified by PCISIG. I'm not sure about AMD, but AFAIK it is only Intel's platform that isn't PCISIG certified which is why they can't say PCI-E 3.0.
__________________

Rig1: System Specs.
Rig2: A8-5600K@4.4GHz / AsRock FM2A75 Pro4 / 8GB Corsair DDR3-1600 9-9-9-24 / HD7560D / Samsung DVD-Burner / 1.5TB WD Green + 3x3TB WD RED in RAID5
Rig3: Athlon X2 4200+ / M4A79 Deluxe / 4GB G.Skill Pi DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 / GT430 / Sony DVD-Burner / 500GB WD
Rig4: Phenom II x6 1605T @ 3.6GHz / Asus M5A99X Evo / 8GB PNY DDR3-1600 9-9-9 / GTX470 & GTX470 / Samsung DVD-Burner / 1.5TB Seagate
newtekie1 is offline  
Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2012, 02:21 AM   #19
makwy2
200 Posts
 
makwy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 473 (0.48/day)
Thanks: 33
Thanked 88 Times in 84 Posts

System Specs

Damn it Nvidia! You shouldn't be enabling people!
makwy2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2012, 04:03 AM   #20
Xzibit
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 608 (1.58/day)
Thanks: 22
Thanked 95 Times in 74 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtekie1 View Post
At least when it comes to nVidia cards, they do have the PCI-E 3.0 Logo on them, so they are certified by PCISIG. I'm not sure about AMD, but AFAIK it is only Intel's platform that isn't PCISIG certified which is why they can't say PCI-E 3.0.
I dont think there ever been a official PCI-E 2.0 or 3.0 logo. Just the PCI Express logo.

Both Nvidia and AMD AIBs just slap the PCI-Express (Basic) logo somewhere on the box (Side or Back). Just look at Wizzard reviews for packaging screenshots.

Motherboards are different. Each motherboard maker has their own take on the PCI-E logo. Usually its the official PCI Express (Grey Frame) logo with a gen # added to it on the side or bottom.
Xzibit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2012, 02:22 PM   #21
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
 
newtekie1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 17,741 (6.49/day)
Thanks: 780
Thanked 5,113 Times in 3,704 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xzibit View Post
I dont think there ever been a official PCI-E 2.0 or 3.0 logo. Just the PCI Express logo.

Both Nvidia and AMD AIBs just slap the PCI-Express (Basic) logo somewhere on the box (Side or Back). Just look at Wizzard reviews for packaging screenshots.

Motherboards are different. Each motherboard maker has their own take on the PCI-E logo. Usually its the official PCI Express (Grey Frame) logo with a gen # added to it on the side or bottom.
There is a PCI-E 3.0 logo, it is just the PCI-E Logo with a 3.0 after it, and the card has to be PCISIG certified to have that logo. For them to legally say the card is PCI-E 3.0 the card has to be PCISIG certified. That is why Intel can't advertise their platform as PCI-E 3.0, it isn't PCISIG certified.
__________________

Rig1: System Specs.
Rig2: A8-5600K@4.4GHz / AsRock FM2A75 Pro4 / 8GB Corsair DDR3-1600 9-9-9-24 / HD7560D / Samsung DVD-Burner / 1.5TB WD Green + 3x3TB WD RED in RAID5
Rig3: Athlon X2 4200+ / M4A79 Deluxe / 4GB G.Skill Pi DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 / GT430 / Sony DVD-Burner / 500GB WD
Rig4: Phenom II x6 1605T @ 3.6GHz / Asus M5A99X Evo / 8GB PNY DDR3-1600 9-9-9 / GTX470 & GTX470 / Samsung DVD-Burner / 1.5TB Seagate
newtekie1 is offline  
Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2012, 06:36 PM   #22
Xzibit
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 608 (1.58/day)
Thanks: 22
Thanked 95 Times in 74 Posts

System Specs

Pretty sure there is no numeric logo for PCI Express

There is no mention of numeric PCI Express logo on the site nor on there guildline use of logos
Guidelines and usage says basic logo is acceptable for compliance with 1.0 spec and higher. So according to them thats there only PCI Express logo.

PCISIG Log and Guildelines

If a company chooses to add a number seperate from the logo thats just not part of the certification.
The consumer would have to look them up on the list for 3.0 certification not look for a logo on the box.
Xzibit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2012, 07:27 PM   #23
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
 
newtekie1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 17,741 (6.49/day)
Thanks: 780
Thanked 5,113 Times in 3,704 Posts

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xzibit View Post
Pretty sure there is no numeric logo for PCI Express

There is no mention of numeric PCI Express logo on the site nor on there guildline use of logos
Guidelines and usage says basic logo is acceptable for compliance with 1.0 spec and higher. So according to them thats there only PCI Express logo.

PCISIG Log and Guildelines

If a company chooses to add a number seperate from the logo thats just not part of the certification.
The consumer would have to look them up on the list for 3.0 certification not look for a logo on the box.
The part I'm talking about is covered on page 6 of their Guidelines, that states a product can't claim it is compliant with PCISIG standards unless the product in question has passed all compliance testing related to the specification. So, while there isn't a specific 3.0 logo, the product can't use the term PCI-E 3.0 anywhere, even in the documentation, unless it has passed PCISIG compliance testing. NVidia cards use PCI-E 3.0 in their packaging and documentation, which means they passed the compliance tests, and again I'm pretty sure AMD cards are the same. Intel's platform has not and hence you won't see PCI-E 3.0 anywhere in Intel's documentation or packaging. Basically the words "PCI-E 3.0" becomes the logo I was talking about.
__________________

Rig1: System Specs.
Rig2: A8-5600K@4.4GHz / AsRock FM2A75 Pro4 / 8GB Corsair DDR3-1600 9-9-9-24 / HD7560D / Samsung DVD-Burner / 1.5TB WD Green + 3x3TB WD RED in RAID5
Rig3: Athlon X2 4200+ / M4A79 Deluxe / 4GB G.Skill Pi DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 / GT430 / Sony DVD-Burner / 500GB WD
Rig4: Phenom II x6 1605T @ 3.6GHz / Asus M5A99X Evo / 8GB PNY DDR3-1600 9-9-9 / GTX470 & GTX470 / Samsung DVD-Burner / 1.5TB Seagate
newtekie1 is offline  
Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel Outs Extreme Board DX79TO, Sandy Bridge-E Platform On The Cheap btarunr News 9 Dec 14, 2011 04:53 PM
Intel Releases Core i7 ''Sandy Bridge-E'' Processors btarunr News 81 Nov 16, 2011 06:16 AM
Intel Entry Pentium G620/G850 Builds Sandy Bridge ITX Platform windwithme General Hardware 5 Aug 23, 2011 01:02 PM
Intel To Still Launch Sandy Bridge-E in 2011, But With Reduced Platform Feature-Set btarunr News 30 Jul 20, 2011 06:46 AM
Intel Sandy Bridge to Introduce New Sockets, Chipsets, Reorganize Platform Further btarunr News 119 Apr 27, 2010 11:44 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
no new posts