Nvidia claims not enough power?

[Acasia]

I've been searching through these forums and trying to search through google for others that may have come across this problem without much luck, so I now turn to posting. Currently when gaming, I get a message saying something to the effect of my BFG 6800gt isn't getting enough power and has been slowed down. I originally had this problem on a PCP&C Silencer 470. I overcame the problem by keeping a box fan blowing on the computer while gaming. Once I finally got some free money, I purchased the PCP&C 510 SLi, and am still having this problem. I would just keep running the fan on it, but I've also swapped computer desks and this solution is no longer I viable option.

The 510 is powering a dvd-rom, cdrw, a single 40gig ata harddrive. I also am running an Asus A8N-SLi premium mobo, 2 gig of OCZ ram, AMD 3500+, and a Belkin wireless networking card. Nothing is overclocked except the video card which came factory overclocked.

Temps while gaming are:
GPU core: 61 Ambient reports as: 47
CPU: 42
Mobo: 39

Voltage on the +12v line is also reading as 11.78.

Any help anyone could offer would be much appreciated.

 

[AreEss]

Bearing in mind that I don't have much experience with gaming cards, only Quadros, it sounds to me like the card itself may be bad, or potentially the motherboard. Specifically a failing or overheating VRM not delivering enough power.
You'll need to check the 12V with a multimeter; the 510SLI under that load should be pushing about 12.1V (it goes UP on the 12V under load, not down.) It's certainly adequate power for your configuration, with room to spare.

 

[MrGuvernment]

^^ for sure if 2 PSU's give the same error.

one thought, try taking out the wireless pci card, perhaps it is drawing more power then it should...

 

[AreEss]

one thought, try taking out the wireless pci card, perhaps it is drawing more power then it should...

Something I should've thought of; not really drawing too much power so much as their cruddy drivers interfering. Try turning off all wireless power management options; it may be screwing other things up indeed.

 

[Acasia]

I thought it was associated with the wireless networking card at first as well. I tried lowering the power it was using down as low as the settings would allow. Unfortunately now that I also think about it, I was having the problem before I moved back home and installed the wireless card so I don't think it's associated with that addition. Given that a new wireless networking card costs about as much as my video card does now, neither option saves me much .

 

[Least]

you have the card plugged in to the psu, right? That is usually what it says when that is the case. It only happens when you start gaming, and not when you start windows?

 

[Acasia]

Yeah the card is plugged in to the psu firmly. The odd thing is the error can't really be reproduced reliably. I mainly play WoW, and the error occurs at completely random times. I have often been able to run full raids with graphics maxed out with no errors, and then go solo some and be the only character on the screen and have the error occur. Sometimes it happens when there is a lot going on on the screen. Also FEAR will usually cause the error much faster than WoW will, but even then there are fluctuations in the error occuring. I've never had the problem occur outside of gaming and I haven't experience any problems on rebooting.

I usually have to turn the psu off in order to reset the video card as well when I do get the error. Twice I tried gaming without resetting and the computer would freeze up when I tried to exit out of the program, but the program actually ran fine until that point. I'm completely at a loss.

 

[Least]

How is the computer plugged into the electricity? Is it plugged into the wall socket or do you have a surge protector? Does it have a UPS system? Perhaps occasionally you get inconsistent power from something between the psu and the power source.

 

[Acasia]

I have it plugged into a surge protector.

 

[AreEss]

This is definitely an issue with either card or motherboard. Most likely the card, to be entirely honest. Do you have a heatsink factory installed on the rear of the card over the primary VRM assembly?

 

[Acasia]

Well taking your assesment AreEss, I gave BFG a call and they said I need to RMA the card. I'm not sure why I didn't think the card could be bad to begin with, but thank you all for the help. I'll let you know how the RMA works out .

 

[AreEss]

Well taking your assesment AreEss, I gave BFG a call and they said I need to RMA the card. I'm not sure why I didn't think the card could be bad to begin with, but thank you all for the help. I'll let you know how the RMA works out .

Sure thing. It's always easy to overlook the obvious things. To be honest, the Silencer 470 certainly could've handled your config as well, but the 510 should be good through SLI.

 

[J Macker]

I have it plugged into a surge protector.

"surge protectors" are crap. I learned this about 5 years ago, when I had a mobo fry due to power issues. Now I have 2 APCs

 

[[Spectre]]

"surge protectors" are crap. I learned this about 5 years ago, when I had a mobo fry due to power issues. Now I have 2 APCs

Not exactly. MOV based surge protectors (which many UPS's employ as well) are not ideal as the MOV does fail being that it is a sacrificial part. A series mode surge protector is far better.

 

[AreEss]

"surge protectors" are crap. I learned this about 5 years ago, when I had a mobo fry due to power issues. Now I have 2 APCs

No, CRAP surge protectors are crap. Tripp-Lite ISOBAR/ISOTELs are tiny gods which are more than capable of stopping lightning strikes. And yes, I speak from experience.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No, CRAP surge protectors are crap. Tripp-Lite ISOBAR/ISOTELs are tiny gods which are more than capable of stopping lightning strikes. And yes, I speak from experience.

They always pass their lightning check?

 

[[Spectre]]

They always pass their lightning check?

No not forever or extended periods if they are MOV based as they wear each time they absorb a surge and shunt it.

Cut and paste canned response from sticky below

_________________________________________________________________________

All surge protectors can be put into two main categories based on the way they operate: shunt mode and Series Mode

MOV Based Shunt mode Surge Supression

The important points for shunt mode protectors are:

* Cheap and simple to produce
* Limited lifetime
* Contaminate ground wire


Series Based Surge Suppression

The important points for Series Mode protection are:

* Unlimited lifetime
* No sacrificial components
* Unsurpassed voltage clamping
* Safety or reference ground is not contaminated

And i would be remiss if I failed to point out the opposing arguement for MOV's:

MOVs: Metal Oxide Varistors are commonly used for mains protection applications and are available in a wide range of clamping voltage and peak impulse current variations. MOVs are extremely cost effective components and have been proven by time to work efficiently in many applications. There are three main drawbacks in the use of MOVs namely their tendency to degrade with use, a relatively high terminal voltage when clamping high current impulses and a response time which could be considered slow when compared with silicon clamping technology. Despite these weaknesses, the MOV is perfectly suited to a number of applications.

* The ‘aging’ characteristic describes the degradation of the micro-granular structure of the material comprising the MOV. The result is an increase in leakage current drawn by the MOV at normal system voltages. If this current increase is suitably high, it is liable to drive the MOV into thermal runaway – a condition where the device is absorbing energy more quickly than it can be dissipated and it heats up to dangerous temperature levels. This hazard is effectively countered with the use of an effective thermal disconnect device which disconnects the MOV from the supply if thermal runaway occurs and should visually indicate the failure on the device on the outside of the casing. MOVs should, therefore, be chosen so that they will be exposed to surges which are well within the limits of their specified energy handling capability and should, like any other piece of industrial equipment, be checked and replaced if found to be faulty. I this is done correctly, the service lifetime of MOVs is increased dramatically and they provide a very cost effective surge protective solution.
* There is often confusion surrounding the quoted clamping voltage of a MOV and the fact that during a surge, the voltage across its terminals may reach three or four times this value. The clamping voltage is the voltage at which the MOV will begin to lower its impedance and begin drawing surge current. As this current flowing through the MOV increases, it raises the voltage across its terminals (the MOV is after all just a non-linear resistor with a very small but finite resistance and as the current through it increases, so must the voltage across it!). The fact is that in most mains applications, the equipment input is quite robust and will more than adequately be protected by a correctly chosen MOV product even if the terminal voltage does exceed the clamping voltage by 3 or 4 times for a short duration.
* The manufacturer quoted response time of the MOV is usually of the order of tens of nanoseconds which is once again more than adequate for most mains applications. Response time becomes critical when the surge is applied across sensitive silicon-based inputs which react quickly to a change in terminal voltage. The speed of response of the MOV material is almost instantaneous, however, and it is largely the inductance in the leads connecting the surge protector to the supply which causes a delay in response.

http://www.engnetglobal.com/tips/Electrical/Lightning/Ele_Lightning_2.asp

The life of an MOV is defined as the time required reaching a thermal runaway condition. The relationship between ambient temperature and the life of an MOV can be expressed by Arrhenius rate equation,

t = t0exp[Ea-f(V)]/RT

where :

(t) = the time to thermal runaway,

t0 = constant,

R = constant,

Ea = activation energy,

T = temperature in Kelvin,

and f(V) = applied voltage.

Most Arrhenius rate models impose increased voltage and/or elevated temperature to accelerate the reaction rate (i.e., degradation or time to thermal runaway) and do not adequately address the detrimental effects of surge history.2 Surge history, especially transient surges beyond rated maximums, are perhaps the greatest single contributor to reductions in varistor voltage, increased standby leakage current, and ultimate thermal runaway. When increased voltage is applied for durations longer than microseconds, physical and chemical changes occur within the many boundary layers of a multi-junction MOV device. As with single-junction semiconductor devices, these changes occur on electronic and atomic scales at rates determined by the diffusion rates of structural defects—electrons, electron holes, and interstitial vacancies and ions. The MOV’s joule heating increases rapidly and exceeds the MOV’s ability to dissipate heat causing a thermal runaway condition and ending the MOV’s effective life.

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/04_b/04_b_brown.htm

Basically as an MOV ages it begins tripping protection at lower and lower levels until it becomes useless at normal voltages.


That said their is no protection from voltage sags in surge suppressors..........

 

[runbird05]

I've had this happen to me twice in about the past 5 months, and that's it. It'll pop up, underclock the card big time, but when I check the voltages all seems fine. So I restart and everything's back to normal for a long time until it randomly happens again, so I guess it doesn't bother me very much. I too am using a 6800gt, but it's an XFX, and my psu is an Antec Smartpower 2.0 400w.