The temperature based boosting was hinted a few months ago,so that is why websites need to use longer test runs. AFAIK,Jaguar does not have this.Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Geforce Titan has it too and it seems it tends to boost short benchmark runs. I asked Tarinder about it and they seem to be aware about its issues.
I could be wrong, but I'd expect consoles to use predictable clock speeds, to ensure a consistent experience. Would it be worth temp-based boosting to gain a few extra FPS?
Power/thermal budget makes sense on laptop CPUs as they have fairly limited cooling solutions, so you can use a CPU which is capable of dissipating (rough guess) 60W max with a 45W thermal solution. Rather than clocking everything down to hit 45W max, you can keep full independent CPU + GPU performance as they're rarely maxed simultaneously. Thermal budget is just a more flexible implementation, which also depends on external factors, as power and heat are effectively the same thing here. It also allows short bursts of higher clocks if the cooler has a decent thermal inertia. However, the individual Jaguar cores probably don't use much power anyway, so dropping clocks probably wouldn't buy you much extra GPU performance. Unless it's changed on the PS4 implementation, they can probably be individually gated anyway.
Richland is also more strict/intelligent about power/thermal budget it seems, deciding whether a part is actually worth clocking up or if it's going to be bottlenecked anyway.
Just thinking out loud here, so forgive less-than-brilliant layout.
Last edited by watercooled; 16-03-2013 at 05:59 PM.
OTH,it really does indicate the need for longer benchmarks,to show a more realworld indication of performance.
How would a thermal based automatic overclock affect custom overclocking? Would it be good enough for average consumers to just buy a better cooler and install it for extra performance negating the need to visit the BIOS entirely? I suspect you could get better results doing it yourself in the BIOS rather than letting the algorithm do it for you but I think it would be awesome if all you need to improve your performance was to install good cooling, would make investing in good cooling solutions more popular for gamers that aren't comfortable with tweaking BIOS settings.
The problem is that it skews benchmark runs done in reviews. Most reviews use open air testbenches,in air conditioned offices,with short 30 second runs. Before the GPU hits the thermal limit,the benchmark ends. The issue,is that in cases,where the benchmark runs have been longer,the GPU boost starts to collapse and performance decreases on average.
Hence you really need longer benchmark runs to heat the IGP or GPU up,to simulate more realworld conditions. Ultimately,anyone reading a review is expecting it to be indicative of realworld performance they will get,when they use an IGP or a discrete graphics card.
It's not really 'overclocking'. Current CPUs have their standard base clocks, plus 'boost' clocks they can reach on a certain number of cores, provided the TDP/temp limits aren't exceeded. Overclocking, as enthusiasts generally understand the term, often has a CPU drawing way more than its TDP, which of course needs a motherboard designed to provide more power without frying itself. Overclocking generally also greatly decreases the efficiency of the CPU, as well as harming stability and reliability.
If you mean some third-party motherboard feature, then I suppose overclocking based on load temperature is plausible, and probably taken into account by current auto-overclock tools already, but it's not the same thing as dynamic overclocking used on the CPU itself.
Sony don't need x86, if Nvidia had something (anything) good enough they would have been in the running. Or outsource the CPU bit to IBM like last time.
Might not be much impact to the average fps, but if it smooths out peaks of processing it could make a difference to real world play.
As for it messing up benchmarks, I think it is time for sites to revisit what they are doing anyway. Frankly most of it is a mess.
Yeah, I did type something along those lines but must have edited it out by mistake. Using thermal inertia and some way to monitor performance, it could help in such scenarios. Such a technique might not work too well for extended complex sequences though; if it does, the clocks may have been too conservative to start with.
Ah, ok. I thought for a moment that the design was made to allow the CPU to draw more power provided it was cooled sufficiently to dissipate the extra heat, forgot about TDP. Guess I thought this replaced TDP. Perhaps temperature based performance restraint will be an "unlocked" feature of the future.
IIRC, some motherboards have an option to allow all cores to boost to the full boost frequency at the same time, presumably passing the TDP.
Think you aren't far off tbh.
Old MIPS processors used to have a multiply instruction that was self clocked, so every processor ran it as fast as it could. We might be returning to those sort of ideals, which sounds like great fun to me
BAHAHAHAHAHA AGAIN:
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gam...nd-cpu-1138051
Nvidia,seems to be really be annoyed,over AMD getting the PS4 contract.
Its like some sort of damage control mode on for them. If it did not really matter,for you,then why talk about it to the world press??
Why were they not talking about the Nvidia GPU in the PS3,ie,the one which in theory was not that high end,due to the lower number of ROPs and memory bandwith,than the desktop version??
According to CD,they were not even asked by Sony about the PS4.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 17-03-2013 at 01:42 AM.
last time i checked nv dont even have an X86 license anyway....
It is amusing but he is right, consoles can only match up to the lower end of the performance spectrum when it comes to PCs. Admittedly the claim that the PS4 was ahead of PC performance seemed to be making reference to the average Dell or HP box you could get from PC World not a gaming machine. I was bemused by that claim until noticing that there was no mention of gaming hardware, just general low end PC. It is insulting to claim that consoles would out perform gaming machines for years to come when they quite clearly are miles behind before they have even launched the new versions they have been developing, so it is understandable that nVidia have responded in this way.
its amusing because he`s also wrong.
direct to metal programming will exploit everything that gpu can do ; ofc he knows this but wont admit AMD have got it right.
expect the first PS4 > ports to run worse on pc hardware simply because PC`s will need more power to run the port thanks to silly things like directx 11 layer in the way
There are currently 29 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 29 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote