W1zzard's Maximum Power numbers

[WhoDecidedThat]

GTX 780 TDP: 250 W
TPU MAX Power: 268 W

7970 GHz Edition TDP: 250 W
TPU MAX Power: 273 W

GTX 750 Ti TDP: 60 W
TPU MAX Power: 66 W
GTX 690 TDP: 300 W
TPU MAX Power: 334 W

7790 TDP: 85 W
TPU MAX Power: 103 W
GTX 680 TDP: 195 W
TPU MAX Power: 228 W


W1zzard's Maximum Powers some times exceed the TDP of these card. Yet, this fact is never mentioned in his reviews. My question is, why are AMD and Nvidia exceeding Board Power Limits on some of their cards?

 

[cadaveca]

TDP = Thermal Design Power.

Thermal DESIGN.

POWER OF THE THERMAL DESIGN.

Not power consumption.

however, yeah, I hear ya...many cards do exceed TDP, and if it's an aftermarket design, rather than reference, TDP doesn't apply since many offer higher clocks, and custom board designs. At the same time, W1zz does note how he tested to get those numbers, and they aren't typical usage scenarios that give those numbers, and he suppliments that with many graphs that cover all aspects of power drawn by a card. You need to consider ALL THE DATA...not just one graph.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

That still doesn't answer my question.

 

[cadaveca]

That still doesn't answer my question.

Sure it does. TDP is listed for typical usage, and you have chosen maximum power drawn graph, which isn't typical usage.

Maximum: Furmark Stability Test at 1280x1024, 0xAA. This results in very high no-game power-consumption that can typically only be reached with stress-testing applications. The card was left running the stress test until power draw converged to a stable value.

It's numbers from furmark you are asking about. And all these cards have protection built in so that when they exceed TDP(as they are expected to), the clocks and voltage of the cards are lowered.

 

[Frick]

And again, TDP is not power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

Then why don't most cards do this? Why only these 5?

 

[cadaveca]

Then why don't most cards do this? Why only these 5?

Just luck of the draw on the quality of the silicon he got.

I hear where you are coming from, for sure though. My own 780 Tis draw FAR MORE power than what W1zz got with his cards.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

Okay. So if a card like a GTX 690 is drawing more than 300W (75 W from PCIe + 225 W from 6+8 pin power) isn't it bypassing the PCIe spec?

 

[cadaveca]

Technically.. yes, you bet.

my cards, in gaming, run 104% TDP.

And yes, for a GTX690, that exceed "TDP", I would RMA. However, that is only if while under typical usage..not running Furmark.

Furmark is Furmark..nothing else you might run is similar. Gaming cards are designed to run games...not stressing applications 24/7, so any behavior while running a stressing app is kind of irrelevant.

That's why workstation cards exist..they are built and designed to used under high stressing workload, 24/7, and they cost an arm and a leg because of that, and the added customer support offered.

And it's been that way for as long as I have been an enthusiast, except a long time ago, it was W1zz's ATITool that predated Furmark.

 

[W1zzard]

Everything cadaveca said.

Think of TDP like a speed limit on the highway, that someone more or less arbitrarily decided on, nothing bad will happen if you go a bit faster from time to time, or in special situations.

The PCIe spec allows 10% inaccuracy, so 300 W on paper, 330 W real is technically still within spec.

Modern systems can deliver MUCH more power than the spec allows, otherwise hardcore overclocking wouldn't be possible, while using the same cables and interconnects