Actually, I'd rather not argue at all. However, I can't stand when people try to fearmonger and use scare tactics based on false information to push their opinions on others. The entire TLDR of this thread, as per BlackDove's opinion, is that playing PS2 is harmful to the components of a user's computer - which is false, and is what I'm here to disprove.
Oh good you agree that this games menus are bugged and exhibit a power virus like behavior which has been reported by a bunch of people on the forum for over a year then.
All youve done is lie, misquote me and confuse things like TDP and power consumption and argue about VRAM which hasnt been used in over a decade. You did post a lot of stuff that proved my point for me though lol. Please try to get back on topic now that there are links to Intel and Nvidia documents describing TDP and boost so theres no reason to be confused.
Nope The fact that a component can exceed TDP has no implication as to whether or not PS2's UI and menus act as a power virus. Do you honestly believe yourself to be more informed than the software engineers at SoE that has produced their own in house engine? Do you sincerely think they would allow any component of their game, developed by Autodesk or not, to act as a power virus ever since closed beta? You give yourself too much credit.
See people? He can't keep on track. I find it funny how people hop in this thread and say I like to argue, while BlackDove continues to twist words and bring in elements to the discussion that's irrelevant to the topic while troll bating at the same time. As such, I'm done with this thread. BlackDove has done nothing to prove his point, nor has he taken the time to produce test samples to prove or disprove the issue with scaleform. Yes, it's a resource hog, but no, it's not a power virus. For the people who are just now entering this thread, take what BlackDove says for a grain of salt. If any component of the game was harmful to your computer, SoE would have patched it by now. They aren't stupid, despite what BlackDove seemingly wants others to believe.
Oh yeah because its never happened before right? Lol. Starcraft 2s menus or Nvidias 196.75 drivers melted plenty of GPUs. Yeah no big company ever.screws up with software releases. I guess that must explain the tens of GB of ps2 patches and why microsoft, adobe, oracle etc release fixes for critical flaws in their software constantly? Ok..
How is it not a GPU power virus if it does the same thing as FurMark/Kombustor/OCCT, if not more so? Which BTW you've done nothing to disprove. And I didn't just "hop in this thread." I was the first one to reply and I've been following it the entire time. Sure, BlackDove loves to go off-topic, but then again, you also straw man way too much. Keep drinking the SOE Kool-Aid. You give them and yourself too much credit.
Done nothing to disprove? I posted a video monitoring temps and usage! LOL FurMark/Kombustor/OCCT enforces maximum GPU stress, loading it to 100%. As you can see, the GPU usage and temperatures in the above video were perfectly normal. But whatever, keep thinking what you want to think. It's pretty obvious you have something against SoE and/or Autodesk and don't wan't to look at the facts.
Lavans : the issue with your video, is that you aint running at 100% load, which makes the power stay within 100% aswell... but if youre running at 100% gpu load in this game, thats where Things go crazy. Look at the temps and power % in this screen, where ive let it burn for a while http://i.imgur.com/J61Quh2.jpg Look at furmark for comparison - you can even see here, that the temps aint really moving, as the power % is waaaay lower. http://i.imgur.com/Bus46AZ.jpg And just a second ps2 screenie, cause the first ones werent with voltages - the temps are low here, cause i took screenie after less than 1 min. http://i.imgur.com/tMhpEF0.jpg So as you can see, the voltages, frenquencies, and basically everything is identical in ps2 and furmark, yet ps2 uses WAY more power, and produces WAY more heat. There deffo is something fishy with ps2, that makes it use this much power... there is basically nothing going on in the game that would justify that power usage on the gpu's, aside of a badly written code.... but Again, the same can be said about cpu usage in this game, and basically everything else.
To be the devils advocate: You just stated that Planetside behaves not like the well established power virus Furmark. Thread closed. No seriously. I really doubt the way you guys try to prove your point. Over countless of pages the point was that the power limit gets exceeded by Planetside way more than by other games. Now you post a screenshot of Furmark and what do we see? It doesn't exceed the power limit. Since we know that Furmark is a power virus we can conclude that looking at power limit alone isn't the way to go here. Many posts may be ignored because of this. Then the second thing I have to critisize: Please rearrange your data. The way these Riva Tuner statistics are ordered leaves a lot of space for misunderstandings. Having to guess which percentage means what and what temperature is actually referred to is not very useful when having a discussion like this. Third: Both sides obviously exclude information that don't support their argumentation. While you can surely do that if you want to, this doesn't make you seem trustworthy. Example: Dragam takes the temps as example that something is fishy about Planetside 2 although not even mentioning the fact that PS2 loads both CPU and GPU while Furmark obviously does not. 4th: Planetside is not the only game to use scaleform. Why did seemingly nobody have the idea to test other games with the same technology against Planetside? Here is where I would start the research: http://gameware.autodesk.com/usage/games 5th: This thread gets linked almost everywhere where people are having problems with heat or performance completely ignoring all circumstances and claiming that what the opening post describes as proven facts. This helps absolutely nobody. It is spam. It hurts this discussion and can only result in a mindless **********.
^How do you know his cards aren't detecting FurMark code and thus triggering overcurrent protection and throttling them back? I've got no problem with his RTSS OSD readout. I think it's pretty self-explanatory to anyone who uses it on a regular basis. And if you can't decipher it, well, you don't belong in this discussion anyway. In a well-cooled system, why should it matter whether CPU and GPU are simultaneously loaded or only GPU? Plus he's using an AIO liquid cooler on the CPU, so it's not like it's dumping all the excess heat back into the case. PlanetSide doesn't load the CPU that much anyway compared to other games, so it doesn't produce much heat. Look at his overall CPU load in the screenshots of PS2 vs. FurMark, 20% vs. 18% respectively. Big difference. I don't know about others, but I've tested a bunch of games in my own library that use Scaleform (it's been the de facto middleware solution for building game UI's in AAA titles of the last few years) and none of their UI's exhibit the same charactrsitics as the one in this game. If I recall, the example I used earlier in this thread was Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which is another UI-heavy game. As I noted, opening up a fullscreen 2D menu in that game makes basically no difference in GPU usage (it might go up a few percentage points at most, which is within margin of error) and no increase in heat. Doing the same thing in this game instantly maxes out my cards. I think the resource drain of opening up a fullscreen UI element in PS2 might have something to do with the fact that the engine is still visibly rendering in real-time the game world behind it. DX:HR pauses rendering behind its transparent menus; most games simply cover it up, e.g. weapon loadouts in BF3/BF4 (which don't use Scaleform). If the solution is as simple as making the menus opaque and stop rendering in the background while a fullscreen menu is open, well, I honestly don't know why SOE hasn't done it yet.
Smagjus : 1. Well, ive posted countless of screenshots from various applications and games, and all of them (aside from planetside 2) is on approximately 1 to 1 ratio with gpu load vs power usage. Furmark is a confirmed power virus, yes, but even that will top off at something like 125 % (with its spikes), while planetside 2 will spike as high as 180% power usage, which is FAR beyond anything else ive seen. What can be concluded from that? I dont know, but something isnt right about it, and the increased thermals go right in hand with the massive power consumption. 2. The data is perfectly arranged for me, but i can see how it can be tricky knowing what is what, since well.. you Arent me so ill just clear that up: FPS, frame latency gpu 1 temp, gpu 1 load, gpu 1 power, gpu 1 clock, gpu 1 volt gpu 2 temp, gpu 2 load, gpu 2 power, gpu 2 clock, gpu 2 volt gpu 1 memory clock, gpu 1 memory usage cpu core 1 load, cpu overall load, cpu hottest core, cpu voltage 3. As Octiceps correctly says, cpu load doesnt affect my gpu temps / load / power due to the fact that the airflow goes to my gpu's first, and the radiator for my cpu is placed in the top of my case, blowing the air out. https://imageshack.com/i/5i36wkj 4x 140mm fans mounted on the side, 2 of which are blowing directly into the gpu's, 1x 200mm fan in the front blowing air in, 1x 140mm fan placed just infront ol the gpu's blowing air in, 2x 140mm fans placed on top of the radiator blowing air out, 1x 140mm fan placed in the back blowing air out. And plenty of room between the gpu's for airflow. All of this is basically the reason for the very low temps for 680's with reference coolers... aside from planetside 2 that is. 4. Well... thats a good question - i didnt really think of it tbh. I have all the Batman games installed, so ill do some testing, and return with screenies of that later, but from what i recall, they ran very cool. 5. Uhm, i dont know if you are refering to me on that one, but i havent really participated in any other threads than this one lately.
The answer on this question does not matter as it doesn't change the point I made. You didn't even try to get my point. I don't want to be bothered by you on this level. @Dragram Didn't see that. Do you have this information in your signature? Because I can't see them since I have them disabled (got annoyed by the countless of profile links in them). So when Planetside runs hotter than Furmark then this should be a save sign that Furmark gets detected by the card/driver. Btw, @Dragram, regarding that last paragraph - no, It is not you ---------- I will probably be benching in a few weeks. I also have an energy meter or how this thing is called in English. The problem is that my GTX 670 is in RMA and my current HD 5770 doesn't seem to have the kind of boost Keplers use. There are also no reliable tools to monitorthe card's data. It is overclocked and undervolted but no tool can even read the voltage.
Again, power usage/consumption is not the same as Power Target. Also, your Power Target is hitting 180% with a silly overclock, not stock speeds. Also, Power Target can go up (or down) regardless what the GPU usage is at. Simply adjusting Power Target does nothing for your card, good or bad. What you want to look at to determine power consumption is voltage. Total power draw is determined by GPU usage and voltage, not Power Target.
"Didn't see that. Do you have this information in your signature? Because I can't see them since I have them disabled (got annoyed by the countless of profile links in them). So when Planetside runs hotter than Furmark then this should be a save sign that Furmark gets detected by the card/driver. " Fair enough, but yeah it says in my signature CPU : i7 4930k @ 4,7 ghz - GPU : 2x gtx 680 sli @ 1250 core, 6800 mem MOBO : Rampage IV formula - RAM : 4x4gb 2133mhz cl9 dominator platinum SSD : OCZ Vector 256gb - HDD : WD Black 3TB, Toshiba 3TB CASE : CM Cosmos 2 - CPU Cooler : Corsair H110 PSU : Thermaltake 1200watt - Soundcard : Creative SB 5.1 Pro Speakers : Logitech z560 - Headset : Sennheiser PC360 Mouse : Logitech G700 - Keyboard : Logitech G710+ Monitor : Asus PB278Q - Controller : Razer sabertooth elite My signature^^ There is a fair chance that it is due to the driver protecting against damage in Furmark... but that side, the temperatures i experience in planetside 2 isnt seen anywhere close in other games - crysis 3 will top off at 81c, and that game is a power hog aswell ! But if you look at all the screenies from the other games in the screenshots i posted a few pages back, they all top off in the 70s (including bf4), while planetside 2 tops off at 85c. Im 100% certain that it is directly connected to the MUCH higher power usage in planetside 2 - but what could be causing that massive power consumption? I dont think even SOE knows tbh.
Way to contradict yourself. Then why don't you enable them? You're potentially missing out on lot of pertinent info, as is the case here. And why is your own sig an ad? LOL the irony.
Again, that is with your silly overclock. According to your stock screen shots, PS2 is the second lowest heat producer at 68c. Skyrim, Crysis, and BF4 run hotter than PS2 on your system at stock settings.
Lavans : The power target is how much watt you allow the Card to use. So at a given power target, the Card will regulate first voltage, then clock, then gpu load to stay within the power target. This is proven on the following screenshot, where the voltage has been completely lowered, the clock has been completely lowered so that no boost is present, and the gpu load is lowered... all so it can stay within the standard 180 watt power target. http://i.imgur.com/SWkZHtI.jpg And id just like to add, that i havent ever experienced another game, that was so power hungry, that the gpu load couldnt reach 100% due to the stock power restrictions. Regarding heat at stock settings, all games will reach approximately the same temps, due to the power target being at 180 watt. The difference is that while other games can fully load and fully boost at stock settings, planetside 2 cannot.
Correct. Volts * Amps = Watts Cards are hard locked at a specific voltage. For a GTX 680, it is hard locked at 1.175v A GTX680 cannot exceed 1.175v, no matter how high the Power Target is, unless it's a modded card or a custom card with a silly overclock.
