huh? Not quite sure I understand you properly, but if I'm reading correctly, there are two PCI express 3.0 slots on the motherboards of the Aurora (I assume this is the system you have due to having a 680 GTX). The cards seem to be connected to the secondary (top) PCI express slot on the motherboard by default, I can only imagine that this is because of closeness of the cables with the primary slot.
However, it has been suggested that because of the problems with the GTX 680, customers should try to place the GTX in the primary (bottom) PCI slot. It has been tested with some positive results but is not conclusive.
Honestly I tried to explain the best that I could. I'm still in the process of understanding all this and learning as I go. I was just told to make sure it was in the top slot I didnt quite understand it myself and my manual doesnt go over such things it seems.
Just to be more clear my pc didnt come with a gtx 680 that is something I bought recently and installed myself. The part I dont understand is when people speak in terms of primary Top or secondary bottom. How do I know which is primary top & what is secondary bottom exc..? I dont think the slots are marked.
What problems by the way if you dont mind me asking? Sorry for being such a noob I just wish I knew if my card was running at 100% or not.
Not sure exactly what model you have, but here's how it work in my R4:
Bottom slot is primary, top one is secondary.
If I have 2 cards in SLI, (like it was when I bought my rig), the monitor need to be hooked to the main card, which is the bottom one.
Since then, I replaced these 2 cards (GTX 555 oem) for a single GTX670. It need to be installed in the bottom slot.
(BTW: when i first received my rig, there was a plastic cap on one of the 2 cards, just to prevent me from connecting the monitor on in the wrong card. Problem is that Alienware installed the cover in the wrong card (bottom one). Took me a while to figure out what was wrong..)
PCIe slots are equal. If anyone is Primary, it's the one closest to the NorthBridge chipset chip and/or the main processor.
In SLI config ... Primary and Secondary is a different subject.
Is not clear what "Release" Aurora you all have ... but that determines the capabilities of the slots. Also, how many cards you have installed (single or SLI).
On My R4, I tried to install my GTX670 on the upper slot, because it was more convenient, but it didnt work. It only work when installed on lower slot. ?!
On My R4, I tried to install my GTX670 on the upper slot, because it was more convenient, but it didnt work. It only work when installed on lower slot. ?!
Ya, in the other thread ... some are reporting similar success (with 680), but it's only temporary. If anything, this points to a possible problem. Something is "broken" there ... because it shouldn't matter.
On My R4, I tried to install my GTX670 on the upper slot, because it was more convenient, but it didnt work. It only work when installed on lower slot. ?!
Ya, in the other thread ... some are reporting similar success (with 680), but it's only temporary. If anything, this points to a possible problem. Something is "broken" there ... because it shouldn't matter.
Gotta be the "broken" right? Should not matter which slot is used. I also don't think it's the Nvidia GTX 680 doing it. They work just fine in other systems.The issue my pop up when using the 680 but I don't think it is the root cause. Dell didn't mod the 680 they are using did they?
My guess has been its the new UEFI or drivers not really made for it that isn't playing nice. Just a guess but it's top of my list.
My guess has been its the new UEFI or drivers not really made for it that isn't playing nice. Just a guess but it's top of my list.
They are usually "Reference Design" but only Dell knows (and I'm sure they will never say exactly ... as usual).
Interesting hypothesis. Would explain much ... not for just this problem, but there seems to be several PCIe compatibility issues popping up here and there lately. If you say the Intel processor and chipset are good/solid ... well, just work your way back from there. Is HP doing anything mass-market high-end these days ... If so, I wonder how their new systems are fairing?
The thing about this particular problem is that it's apparently non-existent with AMD cards (even the newest ones). But even that doesn't exclude your idea.
The thing about this particular problem is that it's apparently non-existent with AMD cards (even the newest ones). But even that doesn't exclude your idea.
I thought about that too. At the time when they made the system they didn't have the 680 to test with. They only had it validated with AMD. Mabye that could explain it? What ya think?
EDIT: I just saw the chart Dell linked in the other thread. Looks like they did it again. But it wouldn't explain AMD working. I'm thinking we are looking at a few issues here. That makes sense anyway when you look at the number of people complaining. There are too many for it all to be the exact same thing but I bet most of them is from being wired wrong. The rest would be the number you would expect to just fail, bad Driver, GPU, MOBO, etcetera... Maybe?
I appreciate all the responses here and I plan to take a look into my PC again and see. However it sounds like the severity of this issue varies with some people. But I was wondering if anyone knows what scores should a normal unlocked nvidia 680 GTX should be receiving for "core" & "memory" clock speeds? It isn't so much as to my card not working as if I think it's under performing.
If you run PCmark11 you should get anything from a 8500 to 10,000. You can also compair other components in your system to scores other people get. It's free to download and run. http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/
What are you running that makes you think it is under performing? Can you list your scores or FPS?
I appreciate all the responses here and I plan to take a look into my PC again and see. However it sounds like the severity of this issue varies with some people. But I was wondering if anyone knows what scores should a normal unlocked nvidia 680 GTX should be receiving for "core" & "memory" clock speeds? It isn't so much as to my card not working as if I think it's under performing.
I did the free basic 3DMark 11 test and this is the link to my results. 3dmark.com/.../3985373
However that test left me with no choice to run at a lower rez then I normally do. I usually play 1920/1080. The main games that make me think is primarily final fantasy 14 and I'm starting to think its just the game. I cant even play on medium settings on that game without it running like trash.
Also you'll see in there for my core clock it says 705 mhz and memory clock is 3004 mhz. Does that sound normal to you? Thanks in advance.
P.S. My drivers read as unknown but I don't know how much of a impact that has on the test. I been running the new 304.79 beta drivers recently. I know that's not the problem though cause I originally played FF14 on the normal most up to date drivers.
I did the free basic 3DMark 11 test and this is the link to my results. 3dmark.com/.../3985373
However that test left me with no choice to run at a lower rez then I normally do. I usually play 1920/1080. The main games that make me think is primarily final fantasy 14 and I'm starting to think its just the game. I cant even play on medium settings on that game without it running like trash.
Also you'll see in there for my core clock it says 705 mhz and memory clock is 3004 mhz. Does that sound normal to you? Thanks in advance.
P.S. My drivers read as unknown but I don't know how much of a impact that has on the test. I been running the new 304.79 beta drivers recently. I know that's not the problem though cause I originally played FF14 on the normal most up to date drivers.
Hi :) Only got a sec because I'm at work. Your 3Dmark11 score looks to be right on the money. The free version of 3Dmark will not let you change the settings but that is a good thing because it keeps everyone at the same base. The core clock will change because of the boost. The card will clock itself up and down as needed. The driver will read as not FM approved because it's a beta.
I'm gonna point the finger at the Beta driver for your game issue. Try uninstalling the Beta driver and then install the WHQL certified driver. That 304.79 is junk I think. I can't use it ether and I know of a bunch of posts about it. It will cause flickering and low FPS. I even had a BSOD with it once. It's really bad. I bet your game performance will rock once you dump that driver.
I'm thinking we are looking at a few issues here. That makes sense anyway when you look at the number of people complaining. There are too many for it all to be the exact same thing but I bet most of them is from being wired wrong. The rest would be the number you would expect to just fail, bad Driver, GPU, MOBO, etcetera... Maybe?
What about this idea ...
When the new architecture PCIe x16 v3.0 slot is paired with a high-end PCIe x16 v3.0 capable video card ... system can't handle full bandwidth v3.0 transfers. Many different things could be causing this.
This idea is based on the fact that retail 680s seem to working fine in other systems. And, even in older Alienware machines with slightly older chipsets (supporting just PCIe x16 v2.0 transfers).
TWGAMER666
1 Rookie
•
96 Posts
0
July 26th, 2012 00:00
huh? Not quite sure I understand you properly, but if I'm reading correctly, there are two PCI express 3.0 slots on the motherboards of the Aurora (I assume this is the system you have due to having a 680 GTX). The cards seem to be connected to the secondary (top) PCI express slot on the motherboard by default, I can only imagine that this is because of closeness of the cables with the primary slot.
However, it has been suggested that because of the problems with the GTX 680, customers should try to place the GTX in the primary (bottom) PCI slot. It has been tested with some positive results but is not conclusive.
squall747
4 Posts
0
July 26th, 2012 08:00
Honestly I tried to explain the best that I could. I'm still in the process of understanding all this and learning as I go. I was just told to make sure it was in the top slot I didnt quite understand it myself and my manual doesnt go over such things it seems.
Just to be more clear my pc didnt come with a gtx 680 that is something I bought recently and installed myself. The part I dont understand is when people speak in terms of primary Top or secondary bottom. How do I know which is primary top & what is secondary bottom exc..? I dont think the slots are marked.
What problems by the way if you dont mind me asking? Sorry for being such a noob I just wish I knew if my card was running at 100% or not.
Leodagan
111 Posts
0
July 26th, 2012 10:00
Not sure exactly what model you have, but here's how it work in my R4:
Bottom slot is primary, top one is secondary.
If I have 2 cards in SLI, (like it was when I bought my rig), the monitor need to be hooked to the main card, which is the bottom one.
Since then, I replaced these 2 cards (GTX 555 oem) for a single GTX670. It need to be installed in the bottom slot.
(BTW: when i first received my rig, there was a plastic cap on one of the 2 cards, just to prevent me from connecting the monitor on in the wrong card. Problem is that Alienware installed the cover in the wrong card (bottom one). Took me a while to figure out what was wrong..)
Tesla1856
8 Wizard
•
17.4K Posts
0
July 26th, 2012 11:00
PCIe slots are equal. If anyone is Primary, it's the one closest to the NorthBridge chipset chip and/or the main processor.
In SLI config ... Primary and Secondary is a different subject.
Is not clear what "Release" Aurora you all have ... but that determines the capabilities of the slots. Also, how many cards you have installed (single or SLI).
Leodagan
111 Posts
0
July 26th, 2012 13:00
On My R4, I tried to install my GTX670 on the upper slot, because it was more convenient, but it didnt work. It only work when installed on lower slot. ?!
Leodagan
111 Posts
0
July 26th, 2012 13:00
Weird. everything is running fine (no problem for the past month), And it was also running fine when I had the 2 GTX555. :|
Tesla1856
8 Wizard
•
17.4K Posts
0
July 26th, 2012 13:00
morblore
2 Intern
•
2.4K Posts
0
July 26th, 2012 14:00
Gotta be the "broken" right? Should not matter which slot is used. I also don't think it's the Nvidia GTX 680 doing it. They work just fine in other systems.The issue my pop up when using the 680 but I don't think it is the root cause. Dell didn't mod the 680 they are using did they?
My guess has been its the new UEFI or drivers not really made for it that isn't playing nice. Just a guess but it's top of my list.
Tesla1856
8 Wizard
•
17.4K Posts
0
July 26th, 2012 16:00
morblore
2 Intern
•
2.4K Posts
0
July 26th, 2012 20:00
I thought about that too. At the time when they made the system they didn't have the 680 to test with. They only had it validated with AMD. Mabye that could explain it? What ya think?
EDIT: I just saw the chart Dell linked in the other thread. Looks like they did it again. But it wouldn't explain AMD working. I'm thinking we are looking at a few issues here. That makes sense anyway when you look at the number of people complaining. There are too many for it all to be the exact same thing but I bet most of them is from being wired wrong. The rest would be the number you would expect to just fail, bad Driver, GPU, MOBO, etcetera... Maybe?
morblore
2 Intern
•
2.4K Posts
0
July 27th, 2012 08:00
If you run PCmark11 you should get anything from a 8500 to 10,000. You can also compair other components in your system to scores other people get. It's free to download and run. http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/
What are you running that makes you think it is under performing? Can you list your scores or FPS?
squall747
4 Posts
0
July 27th, 2012 08:00
I appreciate all the responses here and I plan to take a look into my PC again and see. However it sounds like the severity of this issue varies with some people. But I was wondering if anyone knows what scores should a normal unlocked nvidia 680 GTX should be receiving for "core" & "memory" clock speeds? It isn't so much as to my card not working as if I think it's under performing.
squall747
4 Posts
0
July 27th, 2012 16:00
I did the free basic 3DMark 11 test and this is the link to my results. 3dmark.com/.../3985373
However that test left me with no choice to run at a lower rez then I normally do. I usually play 1920/1080. The main games that make me think is primarily final fantasy 14 and I'm starting to think its just the game. I cant even play on medium settings on that game without it running like trash.
Also you'll see in there for my core clock it says 705 mhz and memory clock is 3004 mhz. Does that sound normal to you? Thanks in advance.
P.S. My drivers read as unknown but I don't know how much of a impact that has on the test. I been running the new 304.79 beta drivers recently. I know that's not the problem though cause I originally played FF14 on the normal most up to date drivers.
morblore
2 Intern
•
2.4K Posts
0
July 27th, 2012 17:00
Hi :) Only got a sec because I'm at work. Your 3Dmark11 score looks to be right on the money. The free version of 3Dmark will not let you change the settings but that is a good thing because it keeps everyone at the same base. The core clock will change because of the boost. The card will clock itself up and down as needed. The driver will read as not FM approved because it's a beta.
I'm gonna point the finger at the Beta driver for your game issue. Try uninstalling the Beta driver and then install the WHQL certified driver. That 304.79 is junk I think. I can't use it ether and I know of a bunch of posts about it. It will cause flickering and low FPS. I even had a BSOD with it once. It's really bad. I bet your game performance will rock once you dump that driver.
Everything else sounds normal
Tesla1856
8 Wizard
•
17.4K Posts
0
July 27th, 2012 18:00
What about this idea ...
When the new architecture PCIe x16 v3.0 slot is paired with a high-end PCIe x16 v3.0 capable video card ... system can't handle full bandwidth v3.0 transfers. Many different things could be causing this.
This idea is based on the fact that retail 680s seem to working fine in other systems. And, even in older Alienware machines with slightly older chipsets (supporting just PCIe x16 v2.0 transfers).