PCI-SIG Clarifies: No 300W Power Boost

[Dabombinable]

19 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

HMCC does the same thing. So does Intel. Get down in the muck and do the work yourself or quit complaining.

 

I provided a link directly from Nvidia's product brief pages, so you can go suck eggs. It's fine to be wrong, but I stick to the facts, so it's incredibly rare that I am.

 

Sometimes the luxury doesn't exist. Do the work yourself and prove my sources wrong.

Hey, at that time it was up to you to prove your argument. And you didn't.....

[patrickjp93]

3 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Hey, at that time it was up to you to prove your argument. And you didn't.....

I did prove my argument. You were the one unwilling to look at the evidence.

[Prysin]

6 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

 i knew this couldn't be true right from the beginning....just imagine how hot the slot providing 300W would be...it would probably melt.

it would never be true. The complexity of motherboards would skyrocket beyond belief. You would need all custom connector for just the power delivery to the board. The board would need to gain 2-3mm of thickness in order to gain enough copper to handle the draw without having to perforate the board with heatpipes and heatsinks.

 

At 2-3mm added thickness, no case in existence would fit the new boards, as they would actually not be able to fit into the IO cutout.

 

@patrickjp93

Not sure why you originally quoted me, or why you're so damn stuck up with not providing sources.

It is the claimant who has the burden of evidence to prove the other party wrong, not the accused. So claiming people can just "look shit up" breaks this minimum principle of discussions.

Likewise, people are equally required to provide source material when proving you wrong. If you expect people to take seriously, you, like anyone else, has to play by these simple rules of discussion. If not, all you end up with is a condecending monologue that has no educational, academical or social value, nor integrity.

[PopReference]

7 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

So stop being a scrub and make a free account.

Accounts are linked to membership companies, under email address it asks for the company, membership for businesses is $4000.

 

So, not free

[Sakkura]

17 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

It's due diligence to actually read the spec. When did our standards for tech journalism fall this far?

There is no spec. The specification for PCIe 4.0 is expected to arrive next year.

13 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

12 seconds of searching.

https://pcisig.com/specifications?field_technology_value[]=express&field_revision_value[]=3&field_document_type_value[]=specification&speclib=

The newest specification listed is PCIe 3.1a, released in December last year. PCIe 4.0 isn't listed at all.

[patrickjp93]

9 hours ago, Prysin said:

it would never be true. The complexity of motherboards would skyrocket beyond belief. You would need all custom connector for just the power delivery to the board. The board would need to gain 2-3mm of thickness in order to gain enough copper to handle the draw without having to perforate the board with heatpipes and heatsinks.

 

At 2-3mm added thickness, no case in existence would fit the new boards, as they would actually not be able to fit into the IO cutout.

 

@patrickjp93

Not sure why you originally quoted me, or why you're so damn stuck up with not providing sources.

It is the claimant who has the burden of evidence to prove the other party wrong, not the accused. So claiming people can just "look shit up" breaks this minimum principle of discussions.

Likewise, people are equally required to provide source material when proving you wrong. If you expect people to take seriously, you, like anyone else, has to play by these simple rules of discussion. If not, all you end up with is a condecending monologue that has no educational, academical or social value, nor integrity.

I do play by those rules, consistently.

 

8 hours ago, PopReference said:

Accounts are linked to membership companies, under email address it asks for the company, membership for businesses is $4000.

 

So, not free

I got one for free.

 

3 hours ago, Sakkura said:

There is no spec. The specification for PCIe 4.0 is expected to arrive next year.

The newest specification listed is PCIe 3.1a, released in December last year. PCIe 4.0 isn't listed at all.

PCIe 4 was just ratified. It becomes a purchase able product next year. Just like ISO standards or anything else, the document gets posted after an editing period to make it look pretty.

[PopReference]

Just now, patrickjp93 said:

I do play by those rules, consistently.

 

I got one for free.

 

PCIe 4 was just ratified. It becomes a purchase able product next year. Just like ISO standards or anything else, the document gets posted after an editing period to make it look pretty.

Ill fax you a cookie

[iamdarkyoshi]

21 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

It's due diligence to actually read the spec. When did our standards for tech journalism fall this far?

When advertising became a complete joke

[Prysin]

18 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

I do play by those rules, consistently inconsistently.

 

fixed it for you patrick.

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

PCIe 4 was just ratified. It becomes a purchase able product next year. Just like ISO standards or anything else, the document gets posted after an editing period to make it look pretty.

Sure, but the point is the specification hasn't been published and therefore you can't expect a tech writer to check it.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

? Would've been cool to have 300 Watts per slot.

[patrickjp93]

On 8/26/2016 at 4:32 PM, Sakkura said:

Sure, but the point is the specification hasn't been published and therefore you can't expect a tech writer to check it.

It has in draft form. PCI-SIG had copies of it at HotChips. If journalists don't want to do the work to pick them up and actually do journalism (may Kronkite rest his soul), then it's our job to harangue them!

 

On 8/26/2016 at 10:41 PM, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

? Would've been cool to have 300 Watts per slot.

No, that would've just been dangerous.

[Energycore]

On 8/25/2016 at 4:44 PM, patrickjp93 said:

It's 300W of power over the entire bus at a maximum of 75W per slot for 4 slots.

This makes so much more sense.

 

On 8/26/2016 at 10:41 PM, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

? Would've been cool to have 300 Watts per slot.

It would have been the opposite of cool.

 

It would have been burning hot.

 

On 8/26/2016 at 2:12 PM, iamdarkyoshi said:

When advertising became a complete joke

HOLY SHIT When I skimmed that page I didn't notice the craptastic truthbending lol

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

It has in draft form. PCI-SIG had copies of it at HotChips. If journalists don't want to do the work to pick them up and actually do journalism (may Kronkite rest his soul), then it's our job to harangue them!

The article was posted 2 days before the first day of HotChips. They based it on information received at IDF.

[patrickjp93]

18 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The article was posted 2 days before the first day of HotChips. They based it on information received at IDF.

So shit-tier reporting confirmed?

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

So shit-tier reporting confirmed?

Patrick confirmed to be wrong two times in the same thread (PCI specs being free, and Tom's hardware basing the article on info at HotChips)? More likely than you might think.

 

 

I wouldn't call it "shit-tier" reporting. They sat down and got a brief look at the incomplete PCIe 4.0 draft specifications and jumped to the wrong conclusion. It seems like an honest mistake that got corrected quickly.

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

So shit-tier reporting confirmed?

Yes Patrick, reporting what you're told at the Intel Developer Forum is shit-tier reporting.

[patrickjp93]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Patrick confirmed to be wrong two times in the same thread (PCI specs being free, and Tom's hardware basing the article on info at HotChips)? More likely than you might think.

 

 

I wouldn't call it "shit-tier" reporting. They sat down and got a brief look at the incomplete PCIe 4.0 draft specifications and jumped to the wrong conclusion. It seems like an honest mistake that got corrected quickly.

I didn't get proven wrong. YOu can download them for free. Just make an account.

 

3 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Yes Patrick, reporting what you're told at the Intel Developer Forum is shit-tier reporting.

People misunderstood what they were told. Quote it word for word and it's clear as a venetian crystal bell.

[Sintezza]

Its 300W combinend indeed.

I allready said that in another topic about pci-e 4.0.

Its 75W per 16X slot.

PCI-e 4.0 standard wont be any diffrent, still 300W total.

But yeah the confusion and missleadment is what you get.

Wenn so called tech sources write articles without knowing what they exaly talk about.

 

 

[patrickjp93]

23 minutes ago, Sintezza said:

Its 300W combinend indeed.

I allready said that in another topic about pci-e 4.0.

Its 75W per 16X slot.

PCI-e 4.0 standard wont be any diffrent, still 300W total.

But yeah the confusion and missleadment is what you get.

Wenn so called tech sources write articles without knowing what they exaly talk about.

 

 

You might want to fix your title then...

[LAwLz]

29 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

I didn't get proven wrong. YOu can download them for free. Just make an account.

Yes, a "free" account your company first has to pay 4000 dollars to get.

It's free in the same sense that I can get a "free" Intel CPU if I first give the store 320 dollars in a "membership fee to the buy a 6700K membership club".

 

Do I need to remind you that you also said they were "publicly available"? Last time I checked, something you need to be a member to view, as well as the company you work for having to pay a fee, is not "publicly available".

[Sintezza]

27 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

You might want to fix your title then...

What should i fix about it?

 

Wenn i first readed the article about it.

I allready laughed my ass off.

 

[Dabombinable]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, a "free" account your company first has to pay 4000 dollars to get.

It's free in the same sense that I can get a "free" Intel CPU if I first give the store 320 dollars in a "membership fee to the buy a 6700K membership club".

 

Do I need to remind you that you also said they were "publicly available"? Last time I checked, something you need to be a member to view, as well as the company you work for having to pay a fee, is not "publicly available".

Its just the "pirate the textbook that costs a lot and is only in the US" all over again.....

[patrickjp93]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, a "free" account your company first has to pay 4000 dollars to get.

It's free in the same sense that I can get a "free" Intel CPU if I first give the store 320 dollars in a "membership fee to the buy a 6700K membership club".

 

Do I need to remind you that you also said they were "publicly available"? Last time I checked, something you need to be a member to view, as well as the company you work for having to pay a fee, is not "publicly available".

It does not cost $4000. I got for free and didn't even have to ask Intel to sponsor the access.

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

It does not cost $4000. I got for free and didn't even have to ask Intel to sponsor the access.

Even if that was true (it's not, look at this page), it would still not be publicly available. You were wrong.

What was that smug thing you wrote at first? Look at the facts that are presented right in front of your face?