NVIDIA 9500 GT Clock Throttling?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Chinese website eXPreview says that they notice the GeForce 9500 GT they were testing would throttle back to 200MHz at idle, presumably to save power. According to the write up, the driver they were using was 174.74.

While we are testing 9500GT, we found this is interesting: the card have a function similar to PowerPlay. When the card is idle, the core clock will go down to 200MHz automatically. The driver we are using is 174.74. We are not sure what the tech will be called, maybe NVIDIA will still call it “PowerMizer”?
Click to expand...
 
sounds ok to me so long as it doesn't throttle while gaming or if it can be disabled.
 
I wonder if this throttling ability is able to distinguish between desktop Aero3D and gaming 3D.
 
I don't like down throttling period. Makes me wonder why a company dosen't stand behind there clock speeds. If I buy a chip that says it is clocked at 600MHz then I want it ALWAYS running 600Mhz not just in certian conditions...
 
maleficarus said:
I don't like down throttling period. Makes me wonder why a company dosen't stand behind there clock speeds. If I buy a chip that says it is clocked at 600MHz then I want it ALWAYS running 600Mhz not just in certian conditions...
Click to expand...

Aye but the choice would be there for those who do want it. Don't want to throttle? Disable it. I'm fairly sure the ability to disable it will be included in Detonator drivers. I want my video card to live a little bit longer, not burn up prematurely just because it needs 600MHz for me to do work in MS Office or while watching DVD movies on my HTPC.
 
maleficarus said:
I don't like down throttling period. Makes me wonder why a company dosen't stand behind there clock speeds. If I buy a chip that says it is clocked at 600MHz then I want it ALWAYS running 600Mhz not just in certian conditions...
Click to expand...

1. My guess is the option will be there to disable it.

2. No chip will run for rated speed for infinity. Heat kills...it always does.

3. Your comment about "standing behind your product" is quite unfounded and to the point of libel.

4. This "throttle" update has been asked for since Vista came out. There is no reason to run a 3D card @ full power just to render the Aero Interface and its windows. BTW, in XP your card was "throttled" because you weren't using the 3D engine with 2D applications.
 
In my experience, throttling does indeed reduce performance. In theory, processors should instantly transition when a workload is detected. However, in the real world, the load detection and transition eat up a few cycles.

A while back I ran some game benchmarks with this feature enabled and disabled on an AMD processor. There was a noticeable drop in FPS when enabled. I haven't done any benchmarks with Intel SpeedStep, but I suspect it reduces performance as well.
 
gtg465x said:
In my experience, throttling does indeed reduce performance. In theory, processors should instantly transition when a workload is detected. However, in the real world, the load detection and transition eat up a few cycles.

A while back I ran some game benchmarks with this feature enabled and disabled on an AMD processor. There was a noticeable drop in FPS when enabled. I haven't done any benchmarks with Intel SpeedStep, but I suspect it reduces performance as well.
Click to expand...



a few cycles is less then one second, opening and running a game should keep enough load on a cpu to keep it from throttling or steping back. was the game/benchmark not using the entire cpu or atlease one core?
 
I welcome this I want my chip to run as cool as possible and cut down on sounds hopefully with better throttling.

I don't see any performance difference at all since when I load up games is the time everything gets faster so its already good to go when the game is ready to play
 
Trepidati0n said:
1. My guess is the option will be there to disable it.

2. No chip will run for rated speed for infinity. Heat kills...it always does.

3. Your comment about "standing behind your product" is quite unfounded and to the point of libel.

4. This "throttle" update has been asked for since Vista came out. There is no reason to run a 3D card @ full power just to render the Aero Interface and its windows. BTW, in XP your card was "throttled" because you weren't using the 3D engine with 2D applications.
Click to expand...

That is the problem I have. There should be an option to enable it not disable it! I don't really like the idea of buying a video card that says its rated speed is XXX but only in 3d applications while in idle mode or whatever its YYY. No that dosen't wash well with me at all. And it really does make me wonder about stability. Would you buy chips from Intel if there core2's were say 2.4GHz but all throttle down to 1.4GHz while not playing video games? Of course not, so why should we allow that for GPU's?
 
maleficarus said:
That is the problem I have. There should be an option to enable it not disable it! I don't really like the idea of buying a video card that says its rated speed is XXX but only in 3d applications while in idle mode or whatever its YYY. No that dosen't wash well with me at all. And it really does make me wonder about stability. Would you buy chips from Intel if there core2's were say 2.4GHz but all throttle down to 1.4GHz while not playing video games? Of course not, so why should we allow that for GPU's?
Click to expand...
That comparison doesn't make any sense. You are ALWAYS using your cpu. you are NOT always using your GPU.

On the other hand, CPUs DO throttle. What's that Intel tech, speedstepping? The AMD is called cool'n'quiet.
 
Modred189 said:
That comparison doesn't make any sense. You are ALWAYS using your cpu. you are NOT always using your GPU.

On the other hand, CPUs DO throttle. What's that Intel tech, speedstepping? The AMD is called cool'n'quiet.
Click to expand...
As a side note, they can actually disable entire cores, especially in laptops.
 
maleficarus said:
That is the problem I have. There should be an option to enable it not disable it! I don't really like the idea of buying a video card that says its rated speed is XXX but only in 3d applications while in idle mode or whatever its YYY. No that dosen't wash well with me at all. And it really does make me wonder about stability. Would you buy chips from Intel if there core2's were say 2.4GHz but all throttle down to 1.4GHz while not playing video games? Of course not, so why should we allow that for GPU's?
Click to expand...

I hope you don't use this logic on cars and their horsepower ratings.
 
II wish my 8800GTX would power itself down to the minimum. I use my PC for work during the day and could do without the heat & noise while running Excel.
 
maleficarus said:
That is the problem I have. There should be an option to enable it not disable it! I don't really like the idea of buying a video card that says its rated speed is XXX but only in 3d applications while in idle mode or whatever its YYY. No that dosen't wash well with me at all. And it really does make me wonder about stability. Would you buy chips from Intel if there core2's were say 2.4GHz but all throttle down to 1.4GHz while not playing video games? Of course not, so why should we allow that for GPU's?
Click to expand...

I have my E2160 throttle down when I am not playing games or doing video encoding. I welcome it. Less power when you don't need it.
 
maleficarus said:
Would you buy chips from Intel if there core2's were say 2.4GHz but all throttle down to 1.4GHz while not playing video games?
Click to expand...

My Core 2 Duo is 3.0 GHz when loaded, and 2.0 GHz when idle, thanks to SpeedStep. It ramps up and down almost instantly when needed, as easily verified using CPU-Z. No stability problems or anything; similar with the AMD Cool & Quiet technology that's on Athlon 64's and above. What's wrong with saving power with pretty much no downside?
 
maleficarus said:
That is the problem I have. There should be an option to enable it not disable it! I don't really like the idea of buying a video card that says its rated speed is XXX but only in 3d applications while in idle mode or whatever its YYY. No that dosen't wash well with me at all. And it really does make me wonder about stability. Would you buy chips from Intel if there core2's were say 2.4GHz but all throttle down to 1.4GHz while not playing video games? Of course not, so why should we allow that for GPU's?
Click to expand...

Just like every core 2 processor out there does?

Do you have any clue how computers work? Why the hell would you want your hardware wearing itself out running unused cycles?
 
I don't use the feature I have it turned off in BIOS. Whats this about saving power? Is this a "green" thing or something? lol
 
Sorry guys but I must laugh here...

You got video cards soaking up shit loads of watts, you got guys with 20 case fans and who knows what else. You got guys running out buying 1000 watt PSU's...and now all of a sudden you guys are concerned about saving power by down throttling?

LOL
 
codegrinder said:
a few cycles is less then one second, opening and running a game should keep enough load on a cpu to keep it from throttling or steping back. was the game/benchmark not using the entire cpu or atlease one core?
Click to expand...

CPUs don't just throttle up to full speed and stay there while you're playing a game. They measure load continuously (and load is always changing during gameplay) and adjust the speed of the CPU depending on how high the load is.

I've tested with multiple games. Try it yourself if you don't believe me, but I'm telling you the performance is reduced when these power saving functions are enabled unless they've implemented some solution to this within the last year or so.
 
gtg465x said:
CPUs don't just throttle up to full speed and stay there while you're playing a game. They measure load continuously (and load is always changing during gameplay) and adjust the speed of the CPU depending on how high the load is.

I've tested with multiple games. Try it yourself if you don't believe me, but I'm telling you the performance is reduced when these power saving functions are enabled unless they've implemented some solution to this within the last year or so.
Click to expand...

That's true, in that a CPU doesn't care whether you're in a game or not, just what the load is. I'm seriously doubting it has much effect on performance though, especially for most of us without high-end SLI/Crossfire and thus mostly GPU-limited, except maybe those playing low resolutions where the CPU again matters more. Do you have any measurements (e.g.: with FRAPS) on just how much throttling actually does affect framerates?

maleficarus said:
You got video cards soaking up shit loads of watts, you got guys with 20 case fans and who knows what else. You got guys running out buying 1000 watt PSU's...and now all of a sudden you guys are concerned about saving power by down throttling?
Click to expand...

Another bit of trivia...power supplies only give out power when needed. A system drawing only 250W-500W (like most systems even us enthusiasts have) will draw the same amount of power from a 500W supply as from a 1kW supply. So why go for the 1kW supply? Often they're better constructed and more efficient (and thus use less power), and it prolongs the life of the power supply not to be running them at full bore all the time.
 
farfromhome said:
My Core 2 Duo is 3.0 GHz when loaded, and 2.0 GHz when idle, thanks to SpeedStep. It ramps up and down almost instantly when needed, as easily verified using CPU-Z. No stability problems or anything; similar with the AMD Cool & Quiet technology that's on Athlon 64's and above. What's wrong with saving power with pretty much no downside?
Click to expand...

Thanks to speedstep? Why would anyone want to slow down there PC? I thought we buy upgrades for MORE speed not less....

Now before we get into the "it saves hardware argument" let us be realistic here. How many times you going to upgrade in the next year or two? Probably at least one time. And some of you guys 2 times maybe even as high as 3. So unless there is a real threat of your hardware having a melt down and wearing out in 12 to 18 months why even be concerned about it? Most video card today offers 3 year warranties. Now I don't know about you but most will have upgraded that before the warrantee could ever be used. You got a 3 year old video card your still using that isn't a back up server or one that you handed down to your 80 year old grandmother?

Not intended for some stupid flame war here, just looking at this realistically....
 
maleficarus said:
Thanks to speedstep? Why would anyone want to slow down there PC? I thought we buy upgrades for MORE speed not less....
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to be getting is that it throttles down when idle. Why do you care if the PC is doing nothing at 2.0 GHz or 3.0 GHz? It's still doing nothing. As soon as it's doing stuff again, it runs at full speed and stays running at full speed until it doesn't have anything to do again. It's really not all that hard a concept to grasp.
 
farfromhome said:
That's true, in that a CPU doesn't care whether you're in a game or not, just what the load is. I'm seriously doubting it has much effect on performance though, especially for most of us without high-end SLI/Crossfire and thus mostly GPU-limited, except maybe those playing low resolutions where the CPU again matters more. Do you have any measurements (e.g.: with FRAPS) on just how much throttling actually does affect framerates?
Click to expand...

I don't still have the measurements, but I remember roughly what the results were. I was running an Athlon 64 3500+ with a 7900 GT. The performance difference was on the order of magnitude of about 65 FPS with Cool’n’Quiet enabled vs. 70 FPS with it disabled. It's not a huge difference, and maybe not even noticeable, but it's a difference nonetheless.
 
The problem with this power saving stuff is that without an easy way to disable it completely, it causes problems with accelerated desktops such as Compiz Fusion.

Because of the lack of an easy option to turn it off in the driver, I had to do a stupid hack that forces the GPU to run at full power all the time when running compiz. Otherwise it's choppy and not worth using. The driver doesn't throttle the clock speed up fast enough and it causes things like the wobbly window effect to not work.
 
Modred189 said:
That comparison doesn't make any sense. You are ALWAYS using your cpu. you are NOT always using your GPU.

On the other hand, CPUs DO throttle. What's that Intel tech, speedstepping? The AMD is called cool'n'quiet.
Click to expand...

I just hope the GPU transistions are smoother than AMDs cool'n'quiet. I do a bit of CAD and 3d modeling work, most of the time my integrated intel graphics can handle it fine on my crappy laptop, but anything complicated is even too much for my 6600GT in my desktop pc. Rotating components in a 3d view, having the GPU throttle up/down.... I just really hope the gpu throttling is fast.
 
maleficarus said:
I don't like down throttling period. Makes me wonder why a company dosen't stand behind there clock speeds. If I buy a chip that says it is clocked at 600MHz then I want it ALWAYS running 600Mhz not just in certian conditions...
Click to expand...

I agree. I feel the same way about cars, which is why I always floor it at stop lights.

On a related note, does anyone know how I can get my AC to run 24x7, but not continue to cool (or heat) when the temperature is at 72? I just want the compressor running, just in case the temp goes up to 72 or drops below 71.

I'm also wondering if there's a way to for me to run a light 24x7, but not actually have them put out any light while I'm asleep? :rolleyes:
 
maleficarus said:
Sorry guys but I must laugh here...

You got video cards soaking up shit loads of watts, you got guys with 20 case fans and who knows what else. You got guys running out buying 1000 watt PSU's...and now all of a sudden you guys are concerned about saving power by down throttling?

LOL
Click to expand...

1. virtually nobody needs 1000 watt PSU. GPUs don't use nearly as much power as enthusiasts would have you believe.

2. If install 5 scythe fans in my cases, they'll use up something 5 watts (assuming I run them at full speed)....actually, that's not true, because some use less tan .10 amps

3. even if I put in 20 fans, they'd still waste less power than GPUs waste at the desktop.

4. there's a difference between wasting money/energy to accomplish some goal. It's another when you want it to run at full speed, even when it's not doing anything.

It's analogous to jacking your car up whenever you park it, restarting the engine and putting a brick on the pedal to floor it, just because the car should always run at full speed, even if you're not going anywhere.
 
maleficarus said:
Sorry guys but I must laugh here...

You got video cards soaking up shit loads of watts, you got guys with 20 case fans and who knows what else. You got guys running out buying 1000 watt PSU's...and now all of a sudden you guys are concerned about saving power by down throttling?

LOL
Click to expand...

as soon as you wipe that smug off your face and listen to what we say, read this:

it's not about saving power. It's about saving hardware. You spent $550 on the latest and greatest and you don't want it to fry in under a year because of the heat it puts out. Throttling reduces the heat when you don't need it (ie: typing up a report in Word) and extends the life of the video card.

What's so goddamn hard to figure out?
 
You guys are freakin paranoid.
I already do this with RivaTuner and my card. 335core when the card is unused. 740core on anything. Works like magic and stays cooler. What is everyone so defensive about? How is using less power a bad thing?

This is not a bad thing, this is a feature.
 
As already mentioned, RivaTuner is a useful tool for enabling this type of feature on existing hardware. The main motivator in my case was lowering the noise output on my Leadtek 6600GT a few years ago. I had the core clock scale down from 500MHz to 200MHz and the fan voltage drop from 100% to 40%. This had the effect of making the fan inaudible at 1 meter while idle.

The system wasn't perfect though. The main problem with it was that launching some 2d applications caused the fan speed to temporarily increase; I think iTunes was one of the main offenders. I've since moved on to a passive cooling solution for the video card, so, as sound is no longer an issue, I've not enabled Riva Tuner in a while.

I was surprised when I bought an 8600GT that the option to scale down the clock speed at idle wasn't present in nVidia's drivers. As far as I'm concerned this option should be enabled by default for all video cards with a corresponding GPU core voltage drop as well. The option to disable it is also required, though, in case it conflicts with certain software including accelerated desktop environments and distributed computing clients.

Hopefully over the next several years the power saving features being developed for next generation CPUs will be applied to GPUs as well. I suppose as integrated graphics move from the northbridge to the CPU this will happen naturally.
 
The 3800 series has similar thing with what they call "Powerplay." However, there's a bug with it where it downclocks in middle of some games and next Catalyst drivers (8.4) should be able to resolve it.
 
Its actually the heating up and cooling down that wears off components (pcb in particular) not so much heat. If anything, It might add some to your fans life if they last through all the throttling in the first place.

Other then that its basically a power saving feature (as advertised) at the cost of some added shock to your system from throttling up and down. Power saving can be quite significant from what ive seen on cpus and theres always the option to turn it off for those who dont want it. Its about time nvidia wakes up if you ask me, ATI has had it i think for quite a while.
 
farfromhome said:
Another bit of trivia...power supplies only give out power when needed. A system drawing only 250W-500W (like most systems even us enthusiasts have) will draw the same amount of power from a 500W supply as from a 1kW supply. So why go for the 1kW supply? Often they're better constructed and more efficient (and thus use less power), and it prolongs the life of the power supply not to be running them at full bore all the time.
Click to expand...

While that is true, power supplies have an efficiency sweet spot, usually at about 80% load.... So a 1000W supply at 40% load is going to be less efficient than a 600W power supply at 67% load.
 
Radagast~mod said:
While that is true, power supplies have an efficiency sweet spot, usually at about 80% load.... So a 1000W supply at 40% load is going to be less efficient than a 600W power supply at 67% load.
Click to expand...

First off, I agree that 1kW is indeed overkill for most people and that 600W-799W is reasonable for most [H]'ers, and lower for non-enthusiasts. The point remains is that you can't get a power supply with design and build quality as good as the 1000W+ Thermaltake Toughpowers or the BFG ES-800W (note the ES) in lower wattages. The platforms themselves simply cost too much to make it worth it.

As for efficiency though, judging from reviews of current power supplies though, the sweet spot seems to have moved to closer to 40%, at least for some PSU's. Looking at jonnyGURU's review of my power supply (Tt Toughpower 750W), for example, the efficiency peak is actually at 40%, where it is 83% efficient, then dips slightly and stays steady at 82% efficient until it's at 80% load. As another example. according to PC Perspective, the peak efficiency for the Corsair 450VX is at 250W, or 55% of its rated power. Note that those are both high-efficiency power supplies that stay very efficient (80+) throughout most of their range though, as are most high-quality power supplies people should consider.
 
Unless I missed it being pointed out already, here is one for power. Laptops. Do you you want your laptop to run as fast as possible 100% of the time and use up a lot of battery power, or do you want it to try to keep running of the battery for as long as possible and slow down some stuff when you don't need it running balls to the wall.
 
farfromhome said:
Note that those are both high-efficiency power supplies that stay very efficient (80+) throughout most of their range though, as are most high-quality power supplies people should consider.
Click to expand...

That's great, except that even if you had 2 8800GTs, your system would likely idle at well under 200w. If you have one GPU, you can make that south of 100W (form the PSU, not the wall). And if in SLI, all but one graphics card shut down and the one was kept at whatever level was required to run the windows desktop, even they'd be under 100W.

Now if you're doing extreme overclocking, then all bets are off, but if an 8800 system can go balls to the wall and not pull more than 200w, then i don't see where the need for 700W comes in....not even for most of the sigs I see on [H]. Maybe most [H] posters are only [h] ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top