Disable GeForce GTX 580 Power Throttling using GPU-Z

[KainXS]

I have been wondering, when non reference versions of the GTX580 start coming out whats the chance that some of those non reference card don't even use the chips to throttle and run at full blast.

 

[newtekie1]

I have been wondering, when non reference versions of the GTX580 start coming out whats the chance that some of those non reference card don't even use the chips to throttle and run at full blast.

I doubt we'll see non-reference GTX580s any time soon. I mean how many non-reference GTX480s are there? I can really only think of 2, and I'm sure that is because nVidia just lifted the restrictions on the PCB design.

 

[qubit]

Ummmm...there most certainly has been.

Yeah, Zubasa reminded me here:

The 4870X2 uses more power under furmark than the GTX580.

And that card came out quite some ago, too. Guess that's why I'd forgotten about it.

 

[newtekie1]

Yeah, Zubasa reminded me here:



And that card came out quite some ago, too. Guess that's why I'd forgotten about it.

Yep, and the GTX480 outperformed it while using less power, yet everyone wanted to harp on the GTX480 for being so power hungry, but I doubt any of them even bats an eye at the HD4870x2's power consumption...

 

[qubit]

I doubt we'll see non-reference GTX580s any time soon. I mean how many non-reference GTX480s are there?

There's the MSI Lighting:

Product page.

 

[KainXS]

I guess there will never be a dual 580 then . . . . . .

 

[newtekie1]

There's the MSI Lighting:

http://img.techpowerup.org/101113/N480gtx_1ightning_1.jpg

Product page.

Yes, that is one of the 2 that I said I can think of, the other one being from Gigabyte.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Palit/gainward often have non-reference pcbs out pretty quickly.

 

[Over_Lord]

I guess there will never be a dual 580 then . . . . . .

everybody needs heaters in winters, so dont worry, all hope aint lost!

 

[Mussels]

This is a great feature and yet more to W1zzard for putting it in.

However, as the throttling is designed to prevent hardware damage to card and mobo, how is this going to be prevented when the card is run past its limit?

its probably best not to do this if you're on stock cooling. for example, a full coverage waterblock oughta be safe to mess around with this.

 

[OneMoar]

and the point of this is ?

it wont help over-clocking any
and it puts EVEN greater stress on already overtaxed components
and on you're wallet
edit:
and you WILL blow the mofsets off the card if you push those littles things any-harder
there not ment to handle that high of a sustained load and thats why nvidea put the limiter in place

 

[ty_ger]

What amazes me is how many people think this is some major limitter that will hinder performance or kick in when the card goes over a certainly current level.

It is software based, it detects OCCT and Furmark and that is it. It will not effect any other program at all. Anyone remember ATi doing this with their drivers so that Furmark wouldn't burn up their cards?

No, OCCT and Furmark are only examples of the types of programs which trigger the OCP. They never said that only OCCT and Furmark triggered the OCP. It appears that NVIDIA has been pretty thorough in adding "artificial load" programs to the list of programs which trigger the OCP.

So far, OCCT, Furmark, EVGA OC Scanner, and Kombustor are confirmed to trigger the OCP cap. I am sure there are more that I am not aware of. GPU Tool? ATItool?

and you WILL blow the mofsets off the card if you push those littles things any-harder
there not ment to handle that high of a sustained load and thats why nvidea put the limiter in place

You know this for a fact? Do you have a link to the MOSFET datasheet?

 

[HillBeast]

Why are people going on about how this is so dangerous? You're all acting as if we've never used FurMark before.

"Oh noez! This program will put a graphics card with a lower TDP than it's predecessor to it's limits! MOSFETs will blow up!"

How many GF100s blew up from Furmark? I am not saying none, but the number will be VERY low. Stop your whining. The GF110 is a much lower TDP and will put lower stress on the MOSFETs than the GF100 did, and as far as I am aware: it uses roughly the same, if not better, power circuitry than the GTX480.

SHUDDAP! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN STOP YOUR TROLLING!

 

[bakalu]

GPU-Z developer and our boss W1zzard has devised a way to make disabling this protection accessible to everyone (who knows what he's dealing with), and came up with a nifty new feature for GPU-Z, our popular GPU diagnostics and monitoring utility, that can disable the speed throttling mechanism. It is a new command-line argument for GPU-Z, that's "/GTX580OCP". Start the GPU-Z executable (within Windows, using Command Prompt or shortcut), using that argument, and it will disable the clock speed throttling mechanism. For example, "X:\gpuz.exe /GTX580OCP" It will stay disabled for the remainder of the session, you can close GPU-Z. It will be enabled again on the next boot.

DOWNLOAD: TechPowerUp GPU-Z GTX 580 OCP Test Build

Sorry, My english is not good.

I have read your article and have followed that article, and here is test results of my ASUS GTX 580.

ASUS GTX 580 @ 810/1013 vCORE=1.075v, FAN SET 85%, ROOM TEMP 30oC

Maximum Temp with Furmark - 70oC

Maximum Temp with Crysis Warhead (I plays map Train and Airfield of Crysis Warhead in 30'), FAN SET 75% - 81oC

Maximum Power Consumption of Core i7 965 @ 3.6GHz + ASUS GTX 480 when running Furmark

Maximum Power Consumption of Core i7 965 @ 3.6GHz + ASUS GTX 580 when running Furmark

Maximum Power Consumption of Core i7 965 @ 3.6GHz + ASUS GTX 580 when playing Crysis Warhead

 

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

Anyone know how to make the fan run @ 100%? Somewhat capped in 85% in precision..

 

[HTC]

@ bakalu: Any chance you could rename the EXE Furmark to whatever you like and run it again with your 580? If @ anytime you see the temp rising too much, please interrupt the program but do post a screenie after.

 

[knopflerbruce]

I assume that folding@home works properly, even when working on the toughest WUs?

 

[newtekie1]

No, OCCT and Furmark are only examples of the types of programs which trigger the OCP. They never said that only OCCT and Furmark triggered the OCP. It appears that NVIDIA has been pretty thorough in adding "artificial load" programs to the list of programs which trigger the OCP.

So far, OCCT, Furmark, EVGA OC Scanner, and Kombustor are confirmed to trigger the OCP cap. I am sure there are more that I am not aware of. GPU Tool? ATItool?

Yes, they did say that only OCCT and Furmark trigger the OCP. From the master mouth, the same person that made the tool to disable it:

At this time the limiter is only engaged when the driver detects Furmark / OCCT, it is not enabled during normal gaming.

 

[ty_ger]

Quote:

Quote:
No, OCCT and Furmark are only examples of the types of programs which trigger the OCP. They never said that only OCCT and Furmark triggered the OCP. It appears that NVIDIA has been pretty thorough in adding "artificial load" programs to the list of programs which trigger the OCP.

So far, OCCT, Furmark, EVGA OC Scanner, and Kombustor are confirmed to trigger the OCP cap. I am sure there are more that I am not aware of. GPU Tool? ATItool?

Yes, they did say that only OCCT and Furmark trigger the OCP. From the master mouth, the same person that made the tool to disable it:

Quote:
At this time the limiter is only engaged when the driver detects Furmark / OCCT, it is not enabled during normal gaming.

Well, I am sorry, but W1zzard is not an employee of NVIDIA. What I was stating was that NVIDIA never stated that only OCCT and Furmark triggered the OCP protection cap. I am sorry to say that it appears that W1zzard was wrong when he made that statement. OCCT and Furmark are only examples of the types of programs which the drivers detect as 'artificial loads'.

 

[W1zzard]

What I was stating was that NVIDIA never stated that only OCCT and Furmark triggered the OCP protection cap

thats exactly what nvidia told me

 

[newtekie1]

Well, I am sorry, but W1zzard is not an employee of NVIDIA. What I was stating was that NVIDIA never stated that only OCCT and Furmark triggered the OCP protection cap. I am sorry to say that it appears that W1zzard was wrong when he made that statement. OCCT and Furmark are only examples of the types of programs which the drivers detect as 'artificial loads'.

thats exactly what nvidia told me

Yeah this^

 

[ty_ger]

thats exactly what nvidia told me

Don't know what to say to that. There is evidence all over the net that EVGA OC Scanner and MSI Kombustor also trigger the OCP cap. NVIDIA lies?

 

[slyfox2151]

Don't know what to say to that. There is evidence all over the net that EVGA OC Scanner and MSI Kombustor also trigger the OCP cap. NVIDIA lies?

kombuster and such are exacly the same program as furmark. so ofc there going to trigger it as well.. there the same thing when it comes down to it.

 

[qubit]

its probably best not to do this if you're on stock cooling. for example, a full coverage waterblock oughta be safe to mess around with this.

Yeah, watercooling definitely sounds like a good idea for this.

Ya know, I think I read somewhere (was it on TPU?) that the throttle is there to also protect the mobo, as well as the card. However, I don't quite understand why motherboard damage could happen: the PCI-E slot is rated for 75W, so the card will simply pull a max of 75W from there, in order to stay PCI-E compliant and the rest through its power connectors, therefore the risk to the mobo shouldn't be there.

Anyone have the definitive answer to this one?

 

[slyfox2151]

Yeah, watercooling definitely sounds like a good idea for this.

Ya know, I think I read somewhere (was it on TPU?) that the throttle is there to also protect the mobo, as well as the card. However, I don't quite understand why motherboard damage could happen: the PCI-E slot is rated for 75W, so the card will simply pull a max of 75W from there, in order to stay PCI-E compliant and the rest through its power connectors, therefore the risk to the mobo shouldn't be there.

Anyone have the definitive answer to this one?

+1

WTF.


how would the GTX5xx dmg the motherboard?