KingEngineRevUp
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/21648387/spy/21829695
 
Average core clocks of 1700-1750ish, that's around lower than stock Amp Holo and higher than stock 3080 Ti FE. 
 

Your graphic scores reflect this, around the Timespy GPU scores for these cards too.
 Source: https://overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/zotac_rtx_3080_ti_amp_holo_review/1 

I believe you misread the average clock speed. All those cards are over 1800MHz. Our card are well under 1800MHz and our cards are overclocked.

KingEngineRevUp

kram36

KingEngineRevUp
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/21648387/spy/21829695
 
Average core clocks of 1700-1750ish, that's around lower than stock Amp Holo and higher than stock 3080 Ti FE. 
 

 
Your graphic scores reflect this, around the Timespy GPU scores for these cards too.
 Source: https://overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/zotac_rtx_3080_ti_amp_holo_review/1 

I believe you misread the average clock speed. All those cards are over 1800MHz. Our card are well under 1800MHz and our cards are overclocked.

I'm saying what you're saying. Your average clock speeds are below all of those cards. 

You said our cards were above the 3080 Ti FE, which they are not and we are overclocked. I mean if you're going to make a point/excuse for the lack in our card's performance, maybe read what your posting first? Tell me why the performance of my card doesn't matter if it's in a i9-10940X @ 4.5GHz system or a i5-9500T @ 3.7GHz system?
 
Stock with the slider maxed out as EVGATech_LeeM instructed.
 
Time Spy regular bios graphic score 18,474 beta bios graphic score 18,539 regular bios i9-10940X graphic score 18,451
 
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/21822804/spy/21823236/spy/21648387
 
Overclock +150 GPU +1,000 Memory with slider maxed out as EVGATech_LeeM instructed.
 
Time Spy regular bios graphic score 19,059 beta bios graphic score 18,711 regular bios i9-10940X graphic score 18,893
 
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/21822983/spy/21823372/spy/21649388
 
Stock with the slider maxed out as EVGATech_LeeM instructed.
 
Port Royal regular bios score 12,430 beta bios score 12,446 regular bios i9-10940X score 12,367
 
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/pr/1148820/pr/1148860/pr/1136681
 
Overclock +150 GPU +1,000 Memory with slider maxed out as EVGATech_LeeM instructed.
 
Port Royal regular bios score 12,874 beta bios score 12,829 regular bios i9-10940X score 12,742
 
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/pr/1148780/pr/1148882/pr/1136708

Tricerakash
timespy was stock with except power sliders set to max, oced performance gave me around 19500s, max clock hovered around 1830-45

Sounds like you have a good card, but you can't just type stuff out. You need to provide links to tests showing these numbers.

Tricerakash
trying to work and do this, updated it.

Multitask in 1 screen = divide the screen in 2. grab one tab and drag it all the way to the left till you see the tab taking the split position while the other tab drag it all the way to the right.
That way you have 2 tabs in your screen😼

KingEngineRevUp
I clearly edited my post, it's even in the post you quoted me in. Reread it. You got a serious problem Kram, this isn't the first time I've had to check you on this kind of ****.

KingEngineRevUp
Average core clocks of 1700-1750ish, that's around lower than stock Amp Holo and higher than stock 3080 Ti FE. 

 
Not taking sides here, but I think this^ highlighted part is what he's disagreeing with, not the part you struck through.

Nike_7688

KingEngineRevUp
I clearly edited my post, it's even in the post you quoted me in. Reread it. You got a serious problem Kram, this isn't the first time I've had to check you on this kind of ****.

KingEngineRevUp
Average core clocks of 1700-1750ish, that's around lower than stock Amp Holo and higher than stock 3080 Ti FE. 

 
Not taking sides here, but I think this^ highlighted part is what he's disagreeing with, not the part you struck through.

Yeah it’s obvious that’s what kram is referring to. And he specifically said he was responding to this comment.

KingEngineRevUp
I got in contact with someone that owns a 3080 Ti Ventus. I'm curious about their cards behavior and will share their power draw. Doesn't hurt to see what another 350W card's behavior is like. If the Ventus has no problem pulling 350W, then EVGA should take note of the competition and fix this weird behavior of the XC3s.  

I’m glad someone did. I put a feeler out in the PPCs-Builder Club Facebook group a couple of days ago, but no one replied.

Koopa64
I'm the 3080 Ti Ventus owner. Board draw is 350W under full load. Forget TimeSpy, any moderately demanding game can hit 350W reliably on the Ventus with an unlocked framerate, I've hit 351W in Gears 5 benchmark on 4K Insane, and "114% TDP" in Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition, 4K maxed with DLSS Quality, VRS 2x running with an unlocked framerate. That is about 399W though, which seems pretty high, I'm sure it's fine though (maybe).... 
 
Here's a quick GPU-z log from the Gears 5 bench and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Ignore the high idle usage on Gears, I was using gamestream as well, which keeps the card and vram clocked. The games I used to see power draw the most on I don't have installed at the moment, as Flight Simulator took everything from my SSD, but Control and Metro EE were those.
 
It's in GDrive because apparently EVGA hates text files: JUST KIDDING removed because this is a new account. FFS. Sending it to someone else to post.
 
Bottom line is, the XC3 certainly seems to be capped. Not sure how the FE reference card gets along.
 
EDIT: Uploaded Timespy log. Graphics score of 18,944. No overclock outside of MSI's default OC, memory is at reference clocks. Also Windows Game Mode is off, that might affect scores by a few points. I would test power draw using games as well, not just Timespy though.

Can you give us the Time Spy digits to your runs? Just put this "spy/21652985" and we can make a full clickable link from it.

Koopa64
I turned my computer off already, sorry haha. I’ll take another run tomorrow and try and share it.

Do stock and overclocked runs please.

KingEngineRevUp
Hey guys, Koopa PM'd me and I wanted to share his results. 
 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/172ukon-1X0FuIig7T1Nc4IEPqynNg_Af
 
Koopa's results show us what a XC3 can do if it delivered the power draw it promised. The Ventus TDP is 350W just like the XC3, except it can access it quite easily. 
 
From Koopa's Timespy Grpahics Test 2 (not sure if he did normal timepsy or Extreme):
 

• His average clocks are 1790 MHz (NOTE the average clocks are lower because of the voltage curve MSI chose, it's at -30 on the core compared to the XC3)
• His average power draw is 344W
• His average voltage is 0.937v

Take note his voltage, he's able to sustain a higher average voltage than gsrcrxsi is able to with the beta bios. 
 
So here's some fuel to the fire. EVGA, why can your competitors 350W TDP card sustain what they advertise, 350W TDP? And yours cannot? 
 
 

Well, this just opened up a can of worms. Now, we need to get an Eagle owner to chime in. We also need to get more XC3 owners involved; make it a call to arms to find out if it’s widespread or bad batch(es). If it’s widespread, just think of how many XC3 owners who don’t overclock that don’t even realize they’re missing out on performance.

KingEngineRevUp
Hey guys, Koopa PM'd me and I wanted to share his results. 
 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/172ukon-1X0FuIig7T1Nc4IEPqynNg_Af
 
Koopa's results show us what a XC3 can do if it delivered the power draw it promised. The Ventus TDP is 350W just like the XC3, except it can access it quite easily. 
 
From Koopa's Timespy Grpahics Test 2 (not sure if he did normal timepsy or Extreme):
 

• His average clocks are 1790 MHz (NOTE the average clocks are lower because of the voltage curve MSI chose, it's at -30 on the core compared to the XC3)
• His average power draw is 344W
• His average voltage is 0.937v

Take note his voltage, he's able to sustain a higher average voltage than gsrcrxsi is able to with the beta bios. 
 
So here's some fuel to the fire. EVGA, why can your competitors 350W TDP card sustain what they advertise, 350W TDP? And yours cannot? 
 

Fantastic post!  Just what I have been saying, I'm not getting what I paid for. Thank you Koopa64 for taking time to share with us!
 

KingEngineRevUp
Kram,

When you get a chance, please stock your clocks and TimeSpy graphics 2 test for me to compare your average power draw, clocks and voltages with Koopas.

Did you want Time Spy Extreme? Thought I read you wanted Extreme? You want a stock clock run logged with GPU-Z?

kram36

KingEngineRevUp
Hey guys, Koopa PM'd me and I wanted to share his results. 
 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/172ukon-1X0FuIig7T1Nc4IEPqynNg_Af
 
Koopa's results show us what a XC3 can do if it delivered the power draw it promised. The Ventus TDP is 350W just like the XC3, except it can access it quite easily. 
 
From Koopa's Timespy Grpahics Test 2 (not sure if he did normal timepsy or Extreme):
 

• His average clocks are 1790 MHz (NOTE the average clocks are lower because of the voltage curve MSI chose, it's at -30 on the core compared to the XC3)
• His average power draw is 344W
• His average voltage is 0.937v

Take note his voltage, he's able to sustain a higher average voltage than gsrcrxsi is able to with the beta bios. 
 
So here's some fuel to the fire. EVGA, why can your competitors 350W TDP card sustain what they advertise, 350W TDP? And yours cannot? 
 

Fantastic post!  Just what I have been saying, I'm not getting what I paid for. Thank you Koopa64 for taking time to share with us!
 

KingEngineRevUp
Kram,

When you get a chance, please stock your clocks and TimeSpy graphics 2 test for me to compare your average power draw, clocks and voltages with Koopas.

Did you want Time Spy Extreme? Thought I read you wanted Extreme? You want a stock clock run logged with GPU-Z?

Normal TimeSpy is fine so we can compare apples to apples.

speedysloth

KingEngineRevUp
Hey guys, Koopa PM'd me and I wanted to share his results. 
 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/172ukon-1X0FuIig7T1Nc4IEPqynNg_Af
 
Koopa's results show us what a XC3 can do if it delivered the power draw it promised. The Ventus TDP is 350W just like the XC3, except it can access it quite easily. 
 
From Koopa's Timespy Grpahics Test 2 (not sure if he did normal timepsy or Extreme):
 

• His average clocks are 1790 MHz (NOTE the average clocks are lower because of the voltage curve MSI chose, it's at -30 on the core compared to the XC3)
• His average power draw is 344W
• His average voltage is 0.937v

Take note his voltage, he's able to sustain a higher average voltage than gsrcrxsi is able to with the beta bios. 
 
So here's some fuel to the fire. EVGA, why can your competitors 350W TDP card sustain what they advertise, 350W TDP? And yours cannot? 
 
 

I tried logging my graphics test 2 results and I have a lower average voltage as well, despite having similar power limits.
 
- Average clock = 1712 MHz (temperature was 78 degrees)
- Average power draw = 345W
- Average voltage = 0.894v
 
Everything stock including power limits.
 
Edit:
 
This is on a 3080ti XC3 Air

You mind sharing the log?

speedysloth
 
For sure. Let me know if this works
 
https://www.swisstransfer...4dd6-b904-d725f9b37d76

Your Results compared to gsrcrxsi

 
Interesting, your results are as you say they are:

• Fan 1-3: 70%  
• Average Power: 345W
• Average Voltage: 0.894v

gsrcrxsi on the beta bios, he had a +125 on his core:

• Fan 1-3: 0% (he's using a hydro copper)
• Average Power: 320W
• Average Voltage: 0.901v

The difference in your voltages are just 0.7% which is within a margin. 
 

The difference between your set-up and gsrcrxsi

 
The XC3 probably uses similar fans to the FTW3, I can't find them so we'll have to use these for now:
 
https://www.gpufanreplacement.com/collections/evga-graphics-card-fan-replacements/products/evga-rtx-3080-ftw3-cooling-fan 
 

 
These fans are 0.55A and they're 12V. At max, one would push 6.6W, so all three together would be 20W. But you had them running at 70% so I'll estimate 14W from your card was used to run the fans. I'm going to assume you have the side, back and main RGBs running too? 
 
If gsrcrxsi had a power draw of 320W average and he had fans and RGB running it's very well possible his average power draw would be up there, like at 340W. But your average voltages are the same, even though you are drawing more power. 

What does this mean? 

Because the both of you are drawing the same average voltage across the run, this leads me to believe the same thing I found here: https://forums.evga.com/I-did-some-testing-and-I-believe-I-understand-the-discrepancies-of-power-draw-between-the-3080-3080-Ti-and-3090-m3439433.aspx
 
Although you are drawing more power, that doesn't mean that power is actually going to rendering and rasterization. The extra power you're drawing is going to your fans, RGB, etc. 

Help me verify your fan power draw

Do me a favor and do the following:
 

1. Make sure your system is idling with nothing running and using your GPU
2. Open GPU-Z
3. Set fans to 0%
4. Set board power draw to average
5. Click reset
6. After 20 seconds, what is your board power draw? 
7. Set fans to 70% (like in your test) and hit reset, don't forget to hit reset
8. After 20 seconds, what is your board power draw?
9. Set fans to 100% and hit reset, don't forget to hit reset
10. After 20 seconds, what is your board power draw? 

My Hypothesis

I'm going to guess what is going on here. Because the both of you are drawing the same average voltage across the run, this leads me to believe the same thing I found here: https://forums.evga.com/I-did-some-testing-and-I-believe-I-understand-the-discrepancies-of-power-draw-between-the-3080-3080-Ti-and-3090-m3439433.aspx
 
Although you are drawing more power, that doesn't mean that power is actually going to rendering and rasterization. The extra power you're drawing is going to your fans, RGB, if someone installed a hybrid kit the pump, etc. 
 
That would explain why gsrcrxsi and you both have similar average voltages. 
 
This means the XC3 has 320W (or less) for the GPU to use to do rendering and rasterization and the other 30W is saved for peripherals and who knows what else.

But what about Koopa's Ventus? 

Koopa has a card that is designed differently. I wouldn't know how it draws its power without testing it and testing it against a water cooled Ventus. A simple test would be for Koopa to do the same fan test as you and see if the power draw goes up when he uses his fans. My guess? 

• It's possible that MSI doesn't calculate the fan power draw into the board power draw
• The fans might draw a X amount of W, but it won't show up on the board power draw probably
• If the above is true, that means the MSI card gets the full 350W of power to be used for rendering and rasterization
• This would explain why Koopa has a higher average voltage than you guys, his average voltage in the run was 0.937V
• Because he has access to 0.037V higher than you guys, his card gets to hold onto higher clocks on the voltage curve

 

What now?

If my hypothesis is true, this might be bad news. 

• EVGA might argue back that performance is as intended, the card can reach 350W TDP when all of its PWM and RGB is all used
• EVGA might say that they only promised a boost of 1665 Mhz and the card delivers that

This is not looking good for you XC3 owners but maybe things can change with a BIOs or firmware update still? We'll have to wait and see.

speedysloth
There doesn't seem to be much difference between the two. Just 2W on average. I tried it multiple times and its the same result on average. I do have the RGB currently showing. Its just a white light right now on both logos at 50% brightness.
 

Thanks for running that test. It still doesn't make sense why you're drawing 350W with no benefit. Your voltages drop just like gsrcrxsi who averaged 320W on his hydro copper...
 
You're drawing power equal to Koopa... but don't have the ability to hold voltages as high as his... Still a mystery. I'm stumped. For now, I'm out of ideas or things to test and try.

Edit: it's really not making sense to me about the fans. They're 0.55A fans, I looked at a bunch of EVGA fans and they're all rated at 0.55A and 12V
I'm surprised the power draw is so low with them at 70%. Any reading with them at 100%?