With the disclaimer that I have no idea what the X1900 series has for normal temperatures...that sounds way too high. My 6800GT used to get that high under load and it caused crashes and artifacts until I reseated the heatsink with AS5.
If you're not getting any glitches or crashes, it might be within spec, but I'd still be wary of running at those temps every day.
I might turn out to be totally clueless and the X1900 temperatures are normally in that range though, wait for actual owners of the card to chime in to be sure
Originally posted by: lanielf
Hi, I use ATI tools, voltage is 1.425, running the 3dtest to find errors and glitches,
no glitches, but the gpu reaches 105 celcius, is it normal, should I change a setting or underclock or bring it back to the store?
thank you for you help
Wow! 105C is WAYYYYYYYYYY too high. Shouldnt go anywhere above 90C in normal load conditions. I suggest you get rid of ATI Tool and set everything back to default.
__________________
Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.8GHz
Asus P6T Deluxe X58
6GB G. SKILL DDR3 @ 1600MHz 8-8-8-20
2 x eVGA GTX 280 1GB SLI
Windows Vista HP 64-bit
Corsair TX750 750W PSU
Originally posted by: lanielf
is vf900 good enough for 1900xtx ?
It is somewhat unclear at this point. There are several reports of the VF900 not being a very sufficient cooler for the X1900XTX on various forums, yet at the same times others have reported good results.
Here is what I have gathered so far. The VF900 is marginally better than the stock cooler when the stock fan is set at default dynamically varying speeds. If both fans are set to 100% then the stock cooler will outperform the VF900 (as well as be significantly louder).
The Accelero X2 at 100% appears to outperform the stock cooler and the VF900 at 100%. Both the X2 and the VF900 will be much quieter than the stock fan at 100%, but it is unclear how much quieter the VF900 is compared to the X2.
Finally, the Thermalright V-1 Ultra may also be a serious contender for the best cooler for this card, depending on the fans that are used with it.
Right now there aren't really any thorough reviews comparing these coolers on the X1900XTX, and most of the reviews of these coolers are very poorly done and don't really account for fan speeds. This probably explains why the VF900 beats the X2 in some reviews while the X2 appears to beat the VF900 in others. Cause the VF900 is connected via fanmate directly to the PSU/MB, giving it a higher fan speed than the X2 which is connected to the video card with built in fan throttling. But if the X2 fan is cranked to 100% then it appears to retake the lead.
This is all based on various user reports on different forums though, so take it with a grain of salt.
Yeah, that stock heatsink paste is more or less thermal crust. It sucks big time. I for one am really impressed with my VF-900 though. I used to get 52 idle and 80ish for load, now I get 35 idle and 52 at load w/the vf900.
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
why do you care so much? it's a ****** video card. go outside.
Originally posted by: AzNPinkTuv
i think the vf900 would work fine for the x1900... the only thing i would see as something not wroking is that you dont have good airflow...
It does, and I agree. Case airflow always helps, but I would think that anyone who knows about the VF-900, Anandtech, or video cards also knows how case airflow should work. Something must be going on with how many people are getting drasically different temps.
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
why do you care so much? it's a ****** video card. go outside.
I have the vf900 on my x1900xt, and while it drastically reduced noise even at full fan speed, it's only about 5-10 degrees better than the stock cooler at auto speeds, and not as good as the stock cooler at 100% speed. So far after a 15 minute run of RTHDRIBL, my gpu temps level off at 83C, which isn't too bad, but as soon as I increase the voltage to OC, the temps shoot through the roof. I'm wondering now if maybe the Accelero would give me better results, but I've seen mixed reviews, with some showing the vf900 is better, while others show the Accelero is better.
Originally posted by: munky
I have the vf900 on my x1900xt, and while it drastically reduced noise even at full fan speed, it's only about 5-10 degrees better than the stock cooler at auto speeds, and not as good as the stock cooler at 100% speed. So far after a 15 minute run of RTHDRIBL, my gpu temps level off at 83C, which isn't too bad, but as soon as I increase the voltage to OC, the temps shoot through the roof. I'm wondering now if maybe the Accelero would give me better results, but I've seen mixed reviews, with some showing the vf900 is better, while others show the Accelero is better.
Hmmm...... from what I've seen the VF900 should be performing better than that. Are you sure you mounted it correctly/applied good thermal paste correctly?
__________________
Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.8GHz
Asus P6T Deluxe X58
6GB G. SKILL DDR3 @ 1600MHz 8-8-8-20
2 x eVGA GTX 280 1GB SLI
Windows Vista HP 64-bit
Corsair TX750 750W PSU
My friend's 9800XT started artifacting on the desktop at around 90C and kept it up even under a drastic underclocking. I can't believe your card is even still operating at this point. That makes Prescott feel like the arctic circle. Soon, patients will be coming in with 3rd degree burns from video cards. :Q
I applied a thin layer of AS5, like I always do. After half an hour of Oblivion it actually reaches 88C with the vf900 at full speed. Not sure what else could be the problem, but those heatpipes get plenty hot, so it must be making adequate contact with the core.
Originally posted by: munky
I applied a thin layer of AS5, like I always do. After half an hour of Oblivion it actually reaches 88C with the vf900 at full speed. Not sure what else could be the problem, but those heatpipes get plenty hot, so it must be making adequate contact with the core.
What were your idle/load temps with the stock cooler? And your idle temp on the VF900? Thanks.
Originally posted by: munky
I applied a thin layer of AS5, like I always do. After half an hour of Oblivion it actually reaches 88C with the vf900 at full speed. Not sure what else could be the problem, but those heatpipes get plenty hot, so it must be making adequate contact with the core.
What were your idle/load temps with the stock cooler? And your idle temp on the VF900? Thanks.
I havent tried Oblivion with the stock cooler, but usually under load with stock cooler and default fan speed the gpu would reach ~90C, and idle at 52C. With the vf900 it idles at 38C, but the load temps are still 88C in Oblivion.
Originally posted by: munky
I applied a thin layer of AS5, like I always do. After half an hour of Oblivion it actually reaches 88C with the vf900 at full speed. Not sure what else could be the problem, but those heatpipes get plenty hot, so it must be making adequate contact with the core.
What were your idle/load temps with the stock cooler? And your idle temp on the VF900? Thanks.
I havent tried Oblivion with the stock cooler, but usually under load with stock cooler and default fan speed the gpu would reach ~90C, and idle at 52C. With the vf900 it idles at 38C, but the load temps are still 88C in Oblivion.
Thanks. Your results are actually fairly consistent with the other numbers I have seen so far for the VF900.
Wow! 105C is WAYYYYYYYYYY too high. Shouldnt go anywhere above 90C in normal load conditions. I suggest you get rid of ATI Tool and set everything back to default.
QFT
__________________ (Main Rig ) Dell 2707wfp | CM Stacker ST-01 | Custom W/C | Etasis ET850W | Q6600 G0@3.6GHz (1.35V)| 4Gb Ballistix @1200| Evga GTX 280 | SB X-Fi Platinum on Logitech Z-680 | 2Tb storage| 2x Asus DRW 1814BLT | Skystar HD sat tuner | HP Photosmart C4180 | 20mbps @ Zyxel 661HW | Sennheiser PC160SK |
1900xtx running at 105 celcius
