*OFFICIAL* Alienware "Graphics Amplifier" Owner's Lounge and Benchmark Thread (All 13, 15 and 17)

Are you certain? Everything I've read points to a sight reduction in performance vs 8 or 16 lanes but with no real explanation why. It definitely doesn't seem like a bottleneck in the traditional sense since upgrading going up to a 1080 Ti improves things but that's why I'm searching for a more technical explanation on why any card chosen runs just slightly slower.

Here's an article that shows some numbers that are quite telling. However its really old I wish they'd revisit the article with newer hardware. Pcie 2.0 in this test sometimes is even faster than pcie 3.0! Weird.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-PCI-E-Speed-on-Gaming-Performance-518/

In any case the impact even on Pcie 2.0 x8 is really small on the hardware they used so I guess Alienware is safe on their decision. In any case AGA numbers seem better than thunderbolt across the board even though it should have "less" bandwidth.

But man...the reviews on the AGA are really sloppy. I wish a site like Anandtech would come by and do it proper.

 

I'm sure. I'm running a 1080 Ti in the AGA with my 15R3 (7700HQ) and I'm getting a ~7100 Firestrike Ultra score which is only ~200 less than an average 4790/1080 Ti desktop score. The only real bottleneck that you may experience could come from a laptop's CPU but modern mobile CPU's have gotten so good over the past few years that even that is minimal now. Unless you're running extremely CPU intensive applications, you'll notice virtually no real-world difference.

But to try and answer your question; there is no real answer, unfortunately. When comparing synthetic benchmarks, there are so many variables that can cause differences. But when it comes to real world performance, it's all pretty much equal like the article you linked shows. The main take-away is that the AGA and it's connection aren't bottlenecking cards.

 

The theoretical maximum bandwidth of PCI-e 3.0 is 8GT/s, or nearly 1GB/s per lane:

PCIe 3.0 x8 7.880MB/s
PCIE 3.0 x16 15.760MB/s

That means there's a 66.7% difference in bandwidth available between the two, or a 100% increase from x8 to x16. But there's a lot more to it than interface bandwidth: The device itself must exceed the saturation point of x8 (7880MB/s, before overhead is removed) in order to show any meaningful advantage in x16 (15760MB/s, before overhead is removed).

I run several benchmark with a GTX 1080 ti on a Desktop PC and then on my Alienware 17 r4 with AGA. From a quick look, there is a little below a 1% performance difference in PCI-e 3.0 x16 and PCI-e 3.0 x8 slots. The difference is not even close to perceptible and should be ignored as inconsequential to users fretting over potential slot or lane limitations.

By the way, this is my Firestrike & Ultra & Extreme Score (on my Alienware 17r4 with GA)





Which is what matters Score or Graphic score? Fire Strike Graphic score is 29.730

 

Graphics score is what you generally want to pay attention to with eGPU benchmarks. The mobile CPU score will bring down the overall score but not by much.

But yes, 1% difference or so is all you should see as long as you're using a external monitor. The AGA connection itself won't become a bottleneck anytime soon.

 

Thanks for that information guys! I think I can safely say I'll be okay without a full desktop for some time. I'll be keeping my 1080 from the desktop and parting out the rest.

 

Runnings such a setup for almost a year now and i cannot go back. Its way to convenient

 

Yeah sounds like I'll be fine until there's a true breakthrough in CPU technology. Lol at Intel's i9s. They named every damn thing under the sun i7 and i7 Extremes can't get extreme enough they have nowhere for the brand to go. i9 it is! I love marketing.

I hope the AGA is enough to satiate my appetite for upgrades for at least, oh, an hour or so.

 

I just got my AGA and put my "old" gtx 1080 in it. It works great but the Alienhead is supposed to light up isn't it? I've configured it in Alienfx but its not lit.

Oh well its a minor thing the performance with Gtx 1080 + 7700HQ isn't too far from when it was in my old desktop on a 4790k.

 

That's awesome. I'm still debating pulling the trigger on a 1080Ti/AGA combo to run a 4K screen!

 

That's exactly what I'm coming from (as far as a 4790k is concerned) and yes, it's not too different for gaming. If I was doing video editing and stuff I'm sure I'd notice a difference.

You should do it as long as you have an i7 quad-core processor.

 

I have to say that while I'm pleased with the performance the experience is far from seamless. It often takes a reboot or two before the GPU switch properly takes. I do make sure to fully power off as per the instructions.

Also switching between graphics settings for the 2 different GPUs is a bit of a chore. If GeForce Experience has a usable profile for your game this is somewhat alleviated but sometimes its settings are just plain inexplicable and you're often better served doing it manually.

The tech works but buyer beware.

 

Question for you about the card being too large. What dimension is preventing closure? I know the AORUS is one of the beefier Ti cards and wonder if one of the EVGA non FE cards would fit.

 

Is the thickness. Needs 3 bays and the GA only have 2.5

 

If that's the case then I'm betting an EVGA SSC or FTW would fit since they are a 2 slot config. I was planning on ordering a 1080ti this weekend to pull double duty in my desktop and then swap in the GA when I travel for extended periods.

 

All 1080 ti have good performance. I do not care if I do not close the cover. In fact, I always leave it open, even when I could close it. Those of 2 bays are very close to the wall of the cover, that I do not like because it does not cool properly.

 

Unfortunately for me closing the cover is important since my cat would love to investigate the insides if left open. I'm actually thinking about going with the Hybrid now that I've seen you can make it fit though swapping from desktop to AGA might be too much of a hassle.

 

Jajajja I have dogs.

Up on a shelf.

 

I'm considering upgrading from a ZOTAC AMP! GTX 1060 6GB to a Gigabyte G1 GTX 1080 8GB GDDR5X card ($419 brand new). I'm still using the standard graphics amplifier power supply (460W).

I was going to upgrade to a Gigabyte G1 1070 8GB GDDR5 for $362 after a $30 rebate, but for the price, I think the 1080 is more worth the price for performance; for $56 more.

The recommended PSU from ZOTAC for the GTX 1060 is 400W, while the recommended from GIGABYTE for their G1 1080 is 500W.

The G1 1080 card under the heaviest of load is somewhere around 300W; at least that I've seen.

I do NOT plan on overclocking it.

So is it necessary to upgrade the power supply in the graphics amplifier for the 1080 and if so, which one is the best upgrade?

 

I have that same card and love it. You shouldn't have to upgrade the PSU, I had a 980ti in there and it was more power hungry than the 1080 but I ended up switching the PSU so I could get less fan noise. Also with that card being blower style, it performs really well in the Amp as its blowing out the hot air instead of recirculating it through the tiny case. For the money, you can't get a better GPU.

 

Thanks! I'm just about ready to hit the confirm order button!

What drivers are you using with it?

 

I had gtx 1080 g1 (very noisy). Now I have a gtx 1080 Aorus X, much better in every way. I'm still using the orignal graphics amplifier power supply. Gigabyte recommends PSU 600w. Which power supply are compatible with this AGA? (In size and position of power connectors)

 

Firstly, does it fit in the amplifier without modification?

If so, is the performance difference compared to the GTX 1080 G1 significant?

Simply put, is it worth the extra $100 from the G1?

 

Fits, but does not close amp cover. (Not a problem for me. In fact, I enjoy the rgb colors that the card gives.)

Yes, performance is far superior. 30% more. And does not make any noise...

Yes.

 

Im currently trying to upgrade my gpu in my amplifier from a PNY Geforce Gtx 980 to Evga Geforce Gtx 1080 Ftw but running into problems.
1st: The power supply is not the reccommended size
2nd: The 1080 gpu is 1/4inch higher than the 980
3rd: My laptop is not recognizing the 1080 card

#1 I swapped out the power supply with a 650 watt supply but the 375 watt in the amplifier originally must be custom.
#2 The lid will not close completely due to the connectors plugging in on top of the 1080 gpu.
#3 Im still working on getting my laptop to recognize the new card. Im thinking the old driver is clashing with the new.

Anyone else have these problems?

 

Im having the same trouble with my new 1080 plus my latop is not recognizing the new card...

 

I had several models of msi and gigabyte and I never had this problem.

 

Ok, so this might be really obvious, but I remember the first time that I connected my 1060 in the graphics amplifier (first time using), I didn't connect the 6 pin power connector to the video card so windows wasn't recognizing it. I was a complete newbie to the setup and didn't really know how it worked until I toyed around with it.

Make sure that you have the power connected from the power supply to the video card and see what happens. Report back with what happens.

 

Try uninstall nvidia drivers whit DDU http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/display-driver-uninstaller-download.html

 

I am going to buy this Corsair cx850m power supplier to replace in my AGA.

https://www.amazon.com/CORSAIR-CX85...qid=1495856698&sr=8-1&keywords=Corsair+cx850m

 

Just the newest drivers from nvidia and the newest alienware amp driver from dell's site. I don't really go too crazy over drivers, I just use the newest ones when they come out... haven't had a problem doing it that way yet.

 

Just out of curiosity, will the Asus 1080 TI Strix fit in this? (as in close the case?)

 

No, it is a little too tall. The height requirement for the graphics amplifier is that a card can have a max height of 5 in, and the Strix 1080Ti is 5.28, direct from the asus website.

 

Yikes, thank you.

 

Not sure if it's the same problem but I have a 1080 Ti and Windows doesn't automatically recognize the new card, but there is a generic entry for the card in Device Manager. After installing new drivers and booting in with the AGA I have to manually install the 1080 Ti drivers through Device Manager, just point at the folder named after the driver version (e.g. C:\NVIDIA\DisplayDriver\382.33). Then reboot and it recognizes it properly going forward (at least until I have to install new drivers again).

This is a 13R3 with Windows Creators Update.

 

Good to know! I have had that with some drivers a while back but not in a long time.

 

850W for a single graphics card!?

I am genuinely curious...

 

Jajaa Yes, I know, leftover power. But Gigabyte recommends 600w for Aorus gtx 1080 ti extreme edition. I can not find 650w of Corsair line CX. Only have Corsair cx850m. And the price is practically the same...

I did not find another brand/model that fit like Corsair line CX.. Do you know another brand/model that has the power connector in that position?

By the way, I live in Argentina.

 

They only recommend that because they take into account some overhead for the rest of the owner's desktop but since you're powering a single card and not an entire PC with it I would wager you'll be okay. I run a 1080 regular in mine and the difference appears to be 76 watts and still under the 460 Watts the PSU puts out. If the card works with the stock PSU save your money and pretend I just bought you a round of beers. If it doesn't work you can say you told me so.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11180/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-review/16

Anandtech sees a load of 394 watts in FurMark. This is a measurement from the wall. The actual power used by the card should be lower than this.

...wait...you're not hooking up an entire PC to it, are you?

Oh yeah also if you are changing the PSU get one with cables you can remove the last thing you want is a nest of cables inside your AGA.

 

Does the AGA PSU have 460w real?

394 watts is whitout OC. I use Madvr and it requires much more power than a Furmark benchmark.

Look here https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2017/04/13/aorus-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-review/10

Power Consumption (Idle and Gaming)
In order to get an idea of a GPU's power draw, we loop the Unigine Valley 1.0 benchmark (2,560 x 1,400, 'Ultra' detail, no anti-aliasing), which is a very GPU-limited test. We use a watt meter to measure the maximum total system power draw during the test, and also take an idle reading at the Windows desktop (3,840 x 2,160).

 

When they do at the wall measurements using a watt meter it includes the computer and typically at least the monitor and some input devices to control it. At least that's how I understand it. That's going to include the CPU which is a huge chunk of that power usage.

If I recall correctly my AGA + GTX 1080 alone connected to a UPS read out less than 150W. Again that's just from memory but it sounds very reasonable for a card only enclosure. I can figure it out for sure tomorrow out of my own curiosity actually. The GTX 1080 Ti shouldn't be much higher than that. Even if the AGA isn't a clean 460 Watt output, which it should be if its rated that way, at the wall its probably going to be closer to 500 Watt in order to make the 460...still, your graphics card shouldn't be anywhere near that at all.

Actually that makes the AGA pretty cool for making a card-only power measurement.

I would balk, and perhaps stand in awe, if I saw a single card with any load use up 460 Watts. I'm almost certain an at the wall measurement includes the heft of an entire system. There is no way for your AGA to power your Alienware so your actual system's power needs won't be a factor in your calculation.

 

I have the same doubt. Yesterday I wrote to gigabyte support asking this. If the 600w recommended are only for the gtx 1080 ti or the whole system (video card, cpu, memory, disks, etc.)

Good idea of the UPS, I will try and see how much it says.

I do not think the Original PSU from Dell is 460w Real. Even the PSU Corsair is 80 plus bronze, which is why it guarantees 85% (50% load) and 82% (100% load) at an ambient temperature of 23 degrees.

 

It's for the whole system, naturally. But, they always recommend higher wattage values probably due to not all the PSU's being of the same quality (e.g. some cheaper ones are not designed for continuous operation at rated output wattage or don't provide enough power over the 12V line).

 

I check the power consumption with my UPS. I connect to the UPS (APS BackuUPS Pro 550) only the Graphic Amplifier. This is the problem, my UPS only marks up to 330w max, then it starts to screech and warns me that there is an overvoltage. So I do not know when the maximum power consumption came.

IDLE: 160-164w and running Future Strike or FS ultra, exceeds 330w.

 

Here's why they recommend 600w: power supplies have an efficiency curve and usually reach their maximum at 50% of their load, so they recommend buying a source that gives us twice the actual consumption of our equipment, so we will approach the Maximum efficiency.

The example put it in a computer that its components have a real consumption of 250W, but with a source of an efficiency of 75%, we would end up asking for 333W to our power supply, thus we pay the 250W of the equipment and the extra 83W by fault of the low efficiency of PSU.

I think in my case, change the PSU for a 650w is justified.

 

My AGA with regular 1080 FE came out to 226W just so you have another reference point. So yeah the AGA is definitely sufficient for a 1080 Ti but you are right about efficiency. A higher rated PSU (I don't know about 80 Plus certs anymore people have been calling that into question) could give you the wattage you need with less wasted in conversion from the wall, however your AGA is still more than sufficient.

I've installed the older version APS Backup 550 for some customers that has the same VA rating, it will give a maximum of 350watts to basic office equipment. It isn't your power supply that was overloaded your UPS was overloaded. That thing was designed for office gear so definitely do not run your AGA off of it. Generally for the AGA, if you were to run off a UPS, which is a good idea to protect your investment, should have a VA raiting of 1000 or greater to give you enough time to shutdown a computer that loses power with a 1080 Ti at full loads.

For reference my 1350VA UPS gives me 20 minutes to power down my AGA with 1080 which is a nice and comfortable place to be. I'd imagine that the 1080 Ti would be around 10-15 minutes. You also want your UPS to exceed your PSU by a large margin to account for power spikes that occur when powering your equipment on initially.

That being said probably any reputable brand has a higher quality PSU than what comes with the AGA. If I were you I'd get a better UPS first, if you intend to run off a UPS that is; your 650 watt aspirations will do the exact same brutalization to your current UPS.

 

Yea the.lights are on the gpu and the connectors are good. Do you think maybe its because i didnt uninstall my old gtx 980 driver before installing the 1080 driver that there bumping heads or something?

 

That can't be the reason as your table shows that the difference in efficiency is generally only like 3-4% between 50% and 100% load which is pretty insignificant.

The overclocked 1080Ti card needs up to 300W, so a 400W PSU from a good brand would have been more than enough for the amp IMHO.

 

Yea exactly the stock PSU in the AGA has plenty of headroom. It could accommodate some of the Radeons at the time which if I recall correctly used even more power than the 1080 Ti despite being a lower performer.

 

I use the stock 460W PSU in the AGA with NVidia Titan X (Pascal)
it's enough for this Video Card. Because 450W goes directly in Card, no more else.
I ran heavy graphics tests and games and PSU did well, without temperature and another issues

 

The topic of UPS has left me wondering... what happens if the power to the AGA is disconnected whilst it's running? I assume it would cause a BSOD on the laptop itself?