S-XPS 1645 AC Power Throttle Issue Investigation

[n3verm0re]

Rather than address anything that he said, you deflected and only made your position seem even weaker. Priceless.

[Fenikkusu]

Unreasnbl should change his/her name to reasnbl lol that made total sense and I really don't see why this is continuing.

[SlyNine]

Originally Posted by khaledseif

Wrong, this is what is called reliability test, it is standard in every reliable electronics manufacturer. It exposed the flaws in the system and if the system passes the test, it will likely withstand all working conditions. In addition, all the system with flaws will not pass it.
Actually, it is specially standard for computer manufacturers, the more burning test the system passes the more reliable it is. It exposes inadequate thermal paste application, inadequate thermal heat dissipation system and similar problems.
In addition, when a chipset is design for a 100C max operation temperature, it means that it can withstand more say 110-120c, but for safety it is set to a smaller value to guarantee stability.

Whatever guys, LOL blow your crap up. Run it as hard as you can. Then when your done wasting your money time, and the companies money and time doing pointless things.

Maybe you will come down to reality and see things are built to serve a purpose. Going beyond that purpose just to see if the safety mechanism is adequate for any situation is a waste of time and resources. AMD has said, FurMark CAN HARM YOUR GPU. Why are you ignoring the makers of your GPU.

My car puts out 303 HP, if I had it pushing 303 HP for about 12 min it would die, if you did this to your car IT WOULD DIE, ask some real engineers people. They will tell you, IT IS NOT DESIGNED TO DO THAT..

[Fenikkusu]

Actually like someone above said and I know this because I spent some time as a computer engineering major, the advertised limit is NOT the limit. It is a safety cushion to ensure that the limit is never reached. Therefore stress testing (excluding overclocking) should be same as long as it's done within reasonably (I wouldn't run furmark for 48 hours or something ridiculous like that).

[gstboy]

Originally Posted by SlyNine

If you believe that leave your amp on full blast, turn your car on and leave the throttle down all the way, turn all your stereos up. Turn everything you have as far as it'll go and make something to push it as hard as you can and see howlong stuff lasts.

everything has failsafes on them, rev limiters on cars, fuses on amps. You would probably blow your speakers before you blow your amp if you turn the volume all the way up. In any case listen to what Unreasnbl said, there's failsafes built into the gpu to keep it from overheating and possibly causing a fire. Nvidia, ATI would be out of business through the countless lawsuits if they didn't have some type of limiter on their equipment.

[SlyNine]

Originally Posted by Fenikkusu

Actually like someone above said and I know this because I spent some time as a computer engineering major, the advertised limit is NOT the limit. It is a safety cushion to ensure that the limit is never reached. Therefore stress testing (excluding overclocking) should be same as long as it's done within reasonably (I wouldn't run furmark for 48 hours or something ridiculous like that).

Appeal to authority fallacy?

Maybe this situation is to unique to be compared. But regardless, AMD has suggested Furmark can hurt your 4670s.

So why do people insist that it shouldn't or can't?I can at least understand the arguments of why AMD should release something that cannot harm its self(well sort of, until I put it that way).

But when people start saying they can push there cars to the max, have their amplifiers up as far as they will go, push anything and everything to the max and it should harm it. Dude, COMON. If you are a computer engineer, you should know how foolish that is.

[SlyNine]

Originally Posted by gstboy

everything has failsafes on them, rev limiters on cars, fuses on amps. You would probably blow your speakers before you blow your amp if you turn the volume all the way up. In any case listen to what Unreasnbl said, there's failsafes built into the gpu to keep it from overheating and possibly causing a fire. Nvidia, ATI would be out of business through the countless lawsuits if they didn't have some type of limiter on their equipment.

Ok, but listen to ATI, they have said the software throttling on pre 5xxx series cards can be to slow to implement. That's why the 5xxx cards changed how they do it.

This is why I am saying we should not care about, or test with Furmark. We have pre 5xxx cards.

The problem still exists, why exaggerate it with synthetic benchmarks that are potential harmful to our computers.

[Fenikkusu]

Originally Posted by SlyNine

Appeal to authority fallacy?

Maybe this situation is to unique to be compared. But regardless, AMD has suggested Furmark can hurt your 4670s.

So why do people insist that it shouldn't or can't?I can at least understand the arguments of why AMD should release something that cannot harm its self(well sort of, until I put it that way).

But when people start saying they can push there cars to the max, have their amplifiers up as far as they will go, push anything and everything to the max and it should harm it. Dude, COMON. If you are a computer engineer, you should know how foolish that is.

I think that running something on it's max capacity for extended periods of time, may shorten it's lifespan. I don't think that it would cause an immediate failure though. What some of us are saying though is that we are not running any of these parts at their max, because of the safety measure put in place. So the risk is much much less. So I think that constantly running a test like furmark may in the long run potentially decrease the lifespan of your GPU, but you're not going to "blow it up" or something like that.

[SlyNine]

Originally Posted by Fenikkusu

I think that running something on it's max capacity for extended periods of time, may shorten it's lifespan. I don't think that it would cause an immediate failure though. What some of us are saying though is that we are not running any of these parts at their max, because of the safety measure put in place. So the risk is much much less. So I think that constantly running a test like furmark may in the long run potentially decrease the lifespan of your GPU, but you're not going to "blow it up" or something like that.

However, some GPU's have reportedly died while running FurMark. Yea it is covered by your warranty, But my point is, I'd rather figure out what games out there runs the GPU the hottest ( and assuming that takes the most power) use that with prime95 to find a more reasonable testing method.

[Kdawgca]

Looks like the thread has deteriorated into bickering, and since there is an updated thread here, I am closing this one.

Also, remember that NBR has a ignore user feature located in the Usercp...some of you guys may want to look into it...