- Status
cyberkuberiah
Distinguished
- May 5, 2009
- 812
- 0
- 19,010
[citation][nom]JeanLuc[/nom]Why do you want dual x16 slot when it offers no extra benefit? You might want to give this a read before you start clicking that thumbs down button, and if you do disagree please tell me why I'm wrong.Even the most powerful card in the world can't saturate an x8 slot according to that source.[/citation]
i am talking multi gpu . look at how far cry loses 11 fps(ouch) http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3649&p=2
i am talking multi gpu . look at how far cry loses 11 fps(ouch) http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3649&p=2
"We’ll never know how much power the motherboard could potentially provide, simply because thermal protection kicks in long before over-current protection would be needed."
Why not trying to mount a heatsink/fan on top of the voltage regulator so that we'll know the quality of vrm's and see if an overcurrent protection such as ASRock's exists?
Why not trying to mount a heatsink/fan on top of the voltage regulator so that we'll know the quality of vrm's and see if an overcurrent protection such as ASRock's exists?
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,582
- 92
- 66,190
[citation][nom]doron[/nom]"We’ll never know how much power the motherboard could potentially provide, simply because thermal protection kicks in long before over-current protection would be needed."Why not trying to mount a heatsink/fan on top of the voltage regulator so that we'll know the quality of vrm's and see if an overcurrent protection such as ASRock's exists?[/citation]
It has a tiny sink, and the space is so tight that another sink would have to be stacked atop that one. Sounds like a lot of effort to make a mediocre board good, when a good overclocking board costs only a few dollars more.
It has a tiny sink, and the space is so tight that another sink would have to be stacked atop that one. Sounds like a lot of effort to make a mediocre board good, when a good overclocking board costs only a few dollars more.
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
I'm sure I can't filter search engine choices to "Maximum VRM Wattage" on our local price comparison database. Is there a way to differenciate between those that can and those that can't sustain 200W for the cpu?
Might have to order an i5 system for someone later today, so might want to know (only going to consider gigabyte boards)
Might have to order an i5 system for someone later today, so might want to know (only going to consider gigabyte boards)
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,582
- 92
- 66,190
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]I'm sure I can't filter search engine choices to "Maximum VRM Wattage" on our local price comparison database. Is there a way to differenciate between those that can and those that can't sustain 200W for the cpu? Might have to order an i5 system for someone later today, so might want to know (only going to consider gigabyte boards)[/citation]
Look at the original review, Gigabyte did well.
Look at the original review, Gigabyte did well.
The boards tested were Intel boards in the $100-$150 range.. how about MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, etc? how do they hold up to the stress tests in 1156, I'd be intersted to know.. because I'm considering buying one of those, and if they don't hold up well.. maybe the manufacturers can be embarassed enough to lower some prices? (I hope, but not holding my breath 
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,582
- 92
- 66,190
[citation][nom]tmc[/nom]The boards tested were Intel boards in the $100-$150 range.. how about MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, etc? how do they hold up to the stress tests in 1156, I'd be intersted to know.. because I'm considering buying one of those, and if they don't hold up well.. maybe the manufacturers can be embarassed enough to lower some prices? (I hope, but not holding my breath[/citation]
I think you're lost. The boards tested were MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, etc.
I think you're lost. The boards tested were MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, etc.
ASRock survives by the skin of their teeth. A BIOS update to turn on protection that should have been on to begin with. Now here's hoping all the manufacturer's can keep cranking out stable BIOS updates to correct other, albeit smaller, glitches. Come on Gigabyte!
[citation][nom]dan__g[/nom]FYI: Power consumption of switching cmos silicon increases with the square of voltage, and linear with frequency. The increases shown here seem to be in line with that, rather than the stated decrease in voltage regulator efficiency (which certainly does decrease, but probably much less).[/citation]
Right, that's correct for a CMOS gate, but it's also a good approximation for a fully loaded CPU, when a very large portion of the gates are switching. At idle, leakage currents are taking a much higher portion of power consumption, and there also areas of the CPU, which never get idle, and the P/V curve is tending to more approach a linear rise with voltage increase (rather than squared at full load).
SMPS losses are composed of the switching losses part, which is mostly constant (eventually rises with the number of phases in use) with loading, and the conduction losses, which rise squared with loading, and linear with temperature (RdsON raises with t).
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Efficiency is usually inversely proportional to heat[/citation]
The reason why PSU efficiency is lowering a bit with increased temperatures, but nothing spectacular, is explained above.
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Two important numbers are needed to get a reasonably-accurate estimate of the CPU power draw when given the above global wattage numbers. The first is Intel’s 95W maximum TDP for the stock Core i7-870 processor and the second is power-supply efficiency, which has been independently rated at 90%.[/citation]
Just a suggestion: Why do you try to theorize about PSU efficiency, TDP, and other unaccounted for factors, and heavily guesstimate, when there is a much simpler and much more accurate way to measure CPU (including VRM losses) power consumption?
Just take a clamp wattmeter (preferably the one which has a transducer capable to measure DC, e.g. Hall)... on the 12V wires supplying the CPU VRM.
The rest of the "power consumption and efficiency" blurb is even more hilarious...
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Can you turn that into a more accurate estimate than 200W to 240W, where all that can be proven is that it's "high, but less than 240W"?[/citation]
Crashboy, if such technical details are way over your benchmark beancounter level, at least don't make fun of more knowledgeable persons.
Right, that's correct for a CMOS gate, but it's also a good approximation for a fully loaded CPU, when a very large portion of the gates are switching. At idle, leakage currents are taking a much higher portion of power consumption, and there also areas of the CPU, which never get idle, and the P/V curve is tending to more approach a linear rise with voltage increase (rather than squared at full load).
SMPS losses are composed of the switching losses part, which is mostly constant (eventually rises with the number of phases in use) with loading, and the conduction losses, which rise squared with loading, and linear with temperature (RdsON raises with t).
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Efficiency is usually inversely proportional to heat[/citation]
The reason why PSU efficiency is lowering a bit with increased temperatures, but nothing spectacular, is explained above.
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Two important numbers are needed to get a reasonably-accurate estimate of the CPU power draw when given the above global wattage numbers. The first is Intel’s 95W maximum TDP for the stock Core i7-870 processor and the second is power-supply efficiency, which has been independently rated at 90%.[/citation]
Just a suggestion: Why do you try to theorize about PSU efficiency, TDP, and other unaccounted for factors, and heavily guesstimate, when there is a much simpler and much more accurate way to measure CPU (including VRM losses) power consumption?
Just take a clamp wattmeter (preferably the one which has a transducer capable to measure DC, e.g. Hall)... on the 12V wires supplying the CPU VRM.
The rest of the "power consumption and efficiency" blurb is even more hilarious...
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Can you turn that into a more accurate estimate than 200W to 240W, where all that can be proven is that it's "high, but less than 240W"?[/citation]
Crashboy, if such technical details are way over your benchmark beancounter level, at least don't make fun of more knowledgeable persons.
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,582
- 92
- 66,190
[citation][nom]ossie[/nom]Why do you try to theorize about PSU efficiency[/citation]
Either you're wrong or 80plus.org is. The efficiency chart for the power supply is relatively flat, so we know that most of that 240W is going into the CPU voltage regulator.
So the question remains, how much power is coming out of the voltage regulator? Why don't you give it a shot?
A clamp meter could tell us that only 220W of that 240W is going into the VRM, but we still don't have a clue what's coming out.
Either you're wrong or 80plus.org is. The efficiency chart for the power supply is relatively flat, so we know that most of that 240W is going into the CPU voltage regulator.
So the question remains, how much power is coming out of the voltage regulator? Why don't you give it a shot?
A clamp meter could tell us that only 220W of that 240W is going into the VRM, but we still don't have a clue what's coming out.
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Either you're wrong or 80plus.org is. The efficiency chart for the power supply is relatively flat, so we know that most of that 240W is going into the CPU voltage regulator.So the question remains, how much power is coming out of the voltage regulator? Why don't you give it a shot?[/citation]
When do you grow up crashie? A serious argument isn't this onesided! You post your views: Someone else disagrees, and instead of trying to argue with the person you just try to make him look incompetent. Don't you realize that it doesn't work in a civilized enviroment? I might've in elementry school, but out here in the real world most of your readers actually use their brains for something. Time you should start doing that too to be honest. You're always just trying to bully your way around the forums if someone disagrees with you.
When do you grow up crashie? A serious argument isn't this onesided! You post your views: Someone else disagrees, and instead of trying to argue with the person you just try to make him look incompetent. Don't you realize that it doesn't work in a civilized enviroment? I might've in elementry school, but out here in the real world most of your readers actually use their brains for something. Time you should start doing that too to be honest. You're always just trying to bully your way around the forums if someone disagrees with you.
[citation][nom]bucifer[/nom]I would be great to see how the more popular i7 860 or at least i5 750 scale with the voltage. I don't think i7 870 is a popular choice because of it's price (people would go for socket 1336)[/citation]
I agree 100%. I guess lots of people want a stable, fast and long lasting new system with 64 bit Windows 7 these days. I just bought a system with Asus Sabertooth, i7 860 and a Noctua NH-U12P SE2 cooler. I'm expecting 3.4 to 3.6 GHz for years. Graphics, memory and drives are easily replaced, but the base platform will remain.
I agree 100%. I guess lots of people want a stable, fast and long lasting new system with 64 bit Windows 7 these days. I just bought a system with Asus Sabertooth, i7 860 and a Noctua NH-U12P SE2 cooler. I'm expecting 3.4 to 3.6 GHz for years. Graphics, memory and drives are easily replaced, but the base platform will remain.
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,582
- 92
- 66,190
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]When do you grow up crashie? A serious argument isn't this onesided! You post your views: Someone else disagrees, and instead of trying to argue with the person you just try to make him look incompetent. Don't you realize that it doesn't work in a civilized enviroment? I might've in elementry school, but out here in the real world most of your readers actually use their brains for something. Time you should start doing that too to be honest. You're always just trying to bully your way around the forums if someone disagrees with you.[/citation]
Actually, I'm simply looking for any information that could make the estimate better. A clamp meter gets a little closer, but I'm hoping someone has "the magic bullet".
Actually, I'm simply looking for any information that could make the estimate better. A clamp meter gets a little closer, but I'm hoping someone has "the magic bullet".
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
I'm not an expert on power stuff, but what's holding someone back from plugging a voltmeter and an ampere meter between psu and the atx and cpu power plugs? I know the ampere meter must be quite good to sustain the wattage, but I don't think it's unreasonable for someone like thg to solder one between. Especially on the cpu power it should be easy as it's just 2 wires - the atx plug might become a bit of a mess with serveral meters on it. Anyway that's how I'd do it if something like it doesn't already exist - except I'd ask someone with an education in electricity to do it for me.
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,582
- 92
- 66,190
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]I'm not an expert on power stuff, but what's holding someone back from plugging a voltmeter and an ampere meter between psu and the atx and cpu power plugs? I know the ampere meter must be quite good to sustain the wattage, but I don't think it's unreasonable for someone like thg to solder one between. Especially on the cpu power it should be easy as it's just 2 wires - the atx plug might become a bit of a mess with serveral meters on it. Anyway that's how I'd do it if something like it doesn't already exist - except I'd ask someone with an education in electricity to do it for me.[/citation]
Yes, it would be great to know the current on every line, but the clamp meter or standard ameter on the CPU line is a great idea too (less information overload). I'd still love it if someone could find a way to measure actual CPU amperage rather than CPU+VRM amperage.
There's a rumor Core i7's have built-in current detection, it would be GREAT if it were a readable sensor.
Yes, it would be great to know the current on every line, but the clamp meter or standard ameter on the CPU line is a great idea too (less information overload). I'd still love it if someone could find a way to measure actual CPU amperage rather than CPU+VRM amperage.
There's a rumor Core i7's have built-in current detection, it would be GREAT if it were a readable sensor.
xpslover007
Distinguished
- Jun 2, 2009
- 13
- 0
- 18,510
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,582
- 92
- 66,190
[citation][nom]xpslover007[/nom]WTF, why would you chose not to include 1920x1200 for these benchmarks.[/citation]
Why would any site need 1920 for a motherboard review? All they really need is an ultra-low resolution to test CPU performance, and an ultra-high resoltion to test PCIe bandwidth. That's two settings: 1024 super-low details and 2560 ultra-high details. Everything between those two settings is a waste of time.
Why would any site need 1920 for a motherboard review? All they really need is an ultra-low resolution to test CPU performance, and an ultra-high resoltion to test PCIe bandwidth. That's two settings: 1024 super-low details and 2560 ultra-high details. Everything between those two settings is a waste of time.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - and the CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram