Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Not so very long ago, you felt in this quote below, that 20 to 40W differences in power consumption was worth at least something? Else why post it? Actually, this post shows you care about Power Consumption, Heat AND noise benefits. You don't care anymore?
"Originally posted by: Ackmed
Disappointed? Not hardly. Would I have liked more performance? No dobut. Refreshes generally do not give a huge increase in performance. From the GF3/GF3Ti, 9700Pro/9800Pro/5900U/5950U, the list goes on and on.
Lets take a look at a few points.
1. Performance is a little better, say a few percent, more in some cases. CF master cards, are now the same speed as the normal XTX. And the same price, of $449.
2. People complained that the X1900's were not HDCP compliant, the X1950 is.
3. People complained that the X1900's consumed a lot of wattage, the X1950 dropped usage, by about 20w. Not a huge amount, but some. In CF, that would be about 40w less.
4. People complained that the X1900's ran "hot". The X1950's run cooler now, about 10c less now under load.
5. People complained about the noise from the X1900's. The X1950's run much quieter now.
6. People complained that prices were going too high. The X1900XTX was a MSRP of $650, the X1950XTX has a MSRP of $450. Thats $200 less, for a little more performance, lower power consumption, cooler running, quieter running, etc.
Why would I be disappointed if the card costs $200 less than the last launch, and is better in every aspect.?"
Sorry, I know your tricks by now. Trying to start something with me, and then go run and tell your higher ups, trying to make me the bad guy. Not going to work. Its pretty sad actually, you're really stretching on this attempt, and yet you've failed miserably again. If anyone is baiting, its you again. You're going to get ignored, unless you change your ways.
When I was talking about that then, I was replying to others who made a big deal about the X1900XT's power, noise and heat. I was not one of those people. The X1950XT's are better in all areas. I simply outlined where the X1950 was better, when people were complaining that there wasnt a huge performance boost. It was cheaper, quieter, used less power, and ran cooler. A win across the board, compared to the previous card, which is what I showed.
No where in that post did I mention anything about the price difference of the lower watt usage. Which is exactly what was posted in this topic, and refuted. You are not comparing the same things, not even close. I didnt then, and still dont care if one card runs at 10c more than the other, if the heat is exhausted out of the case. I didnt then, and still dont care now if one card is slightly louder than the other. I havent changed my stance on anything in that old post you went and dug up to try and start something. Im not a flip-flopper, or a hypocrite like some people. Im sure this will get reported, and you'll try to get me in trouble again. And is probably just what you wanted. Either stop baiting, or Ill stop replying to you, and simply be the bigger man and ignore you. It starts now.
When I was talking about that then, I was replying to others who made a big deal about the X1900XT's power, noise and heat. I was not one of those people. The X1950XT's are better in all areas. I simply outlined where the X1950 was better, when people were complaining that there wasnt a huge performance boost. It was cheaper, quieter, used less power, and ran cooler. A win across the board, compared to the previous card, which is what I showed.
No where in that post did I mention anything about the price difference of the lower watt usage. Which is exactly what was posted in this topic, and refuted. You are not comparing the same things, not even close. I didnt then, and still dont care if one card runs at 10c more than the other, if the heat is exhausted out of the case. I didnt then, and still dont care now if one card is slightly louder than the other. I havent changed my stance on anything in that old post you went and dug up to try and start something. Im not a flip-flopper, or a hypocrite like some people. Im sure this will get reported, and you'll try to get me in trouble again. And is probably just what you wanted. Either stop baiting, or Ill stop replying to you, and simply be the bigger man and ignore you. It starts now.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
You can't have a conversation without the attitude can you? If you have trouble dealing with the questions I ask you, then just don't respond at all. It's better for both of us.
Actually, the only SINGLE thing I was comparing was your different stances of how miniscule or significant differences in wattages were from the old post to the one in this thread.
Old thread you seemed to believe 20 to 40W meant something.
This thread, 50 to 60W seems "miniscule".
I asked why. You wrote a book.
Actually, the only SINGLE thing I was comparing was your different stances of how miniscule or significant differences in wattages were from the old post to the one in this thread.
Old thread you seemed to believe 20 to 40W meant something.
This thread, 50 to 60W seems "miniscule".
I asked why. You wrote a book.
I told you why, and was right on target.
You didnt even compare the same things. In the old post, I was not talking about the price difference a month/year that a card with 20w would be. In this topic, we were. Once again, its not comparing the same thing. And once again, I didnt change my stance on anything. As you tried to accuse me of. I was pointing out in the old post, that there was less wattage used, for those that made a big deal about it.
Its plainly obvious, you just tried to make something out of nothing, and failed yet again. I didnt think 20w to 40w ment something in the old post, I mentioned it or those who complained about the X1900's wattage use. Which is again obvious if you read the post. And in this thread I did not say that 50w to 60w was "minuscule", I said that the price difference between the GTS and XT in watts was. Going by Creigs numbers, were 14.4 cents a month. Thats minuscule to me, and Id wager to most anyone. You tried to make something out of nothing, and failed, again.
You didnt even compare the same things. In the old post, I was not talking about the price difference a month/year that a card with 20w would be. In this topic, we were. Once again, its not comparing the same thing. And once again, I didnt change my stance on anything. As you tried to accuse me of. I was pointing out in the old post, that there was less wattage used, for those that made a big deal about it.
Its plainly obvious, you just tried to make something out of nothing, and failed yet again. I didnt think 20w to 40w ment something in the old post, I mentioned it or those who complained about the X1900's wattage use. Which is again obvious if you read the post. And in this thread I did not say that 50w to 60w was "minuscule", I said that the price difference between the GTS and XT in watts was. Going by Creigs numbers, were 14.4 cents a month. Thats minuscule to me, and Id wager to most anyone. You tried to make something out of nothing, and failed, again.
Yeah I agree...what was I trying to do?
Keys is right; your posting style *is* quite combative.
I can tell you what I was trying to do: give someone an honest reccomendation based on the facts. I said he would save money on electricity. Is that not true? You should perhaps consider the fact that if 1,000,000 used 2900XT's instead of GTS's, it could have a considerable environmental impact if nothing else.
I don't know how much it would cost per year. To me the bigger issue is the fact that you need a beefier PSU for the X2900XT. Even 90w more can get quite expensive. I'm pretty sure a 700w PSU is at least $30 more than a 600w PSU.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Not the same thing? Wattage is wattage. And I didn't say you WERE talking about the price difference a month/year. So if you weren't talking about the price difference a month/year like you say, what was it about the wattage you were talking about? POWER CONSUMPTION.
And finally, I will thank you very much if you reduce your ever present combative tone with me or anyone else here who, heaven forbid, disagrees with you. Yes, we are all tired of it and it has NO place here at AT forums any longer.
Exactly! So you shouldnt be making the claim that you woul save money on your electricity bill by going the GTS route. Unless you're worried about 14.4 cents, or in all probability, even less. So now that we have a number, are you honestly going to try and make the statement that a person would be better going with the GTS to save money on their monthly bill?
Yep, I was talking about wattage back then. The lower wattage of the X1950XT and the X1900XT. To people who complained that the X1900XT consumed too much. I made several points in how the X1950XT was a better card than the X1900XT, when peope said it was not a good refresh. Wattage, noise, and heat were all reduced, which is what I said. Not that I cared personally about the wattage at all. And I was talking about the price difference back then too. The price difference between the X1900XT and the X1950XT at launch was $200, which I posted about. Not the comparable NV card. Once again, I didnt change my stance on anything.
The simple, and sad fact is, that you went back about a year to dig up an old post, to try and show that I changed my stance on something. When I didnt even to start with. Even if I did, a person has that right, and a year in technology is nothing. Ive been to half a dozen countries in a year, half way around the world, and been to war in that year. My opinion has changed in a lot of things. But not in what I posted way back when on this subject.
My combative tone towards you? Because you disagree with me? Thats a good one. You didnt disagree with me, you tried to catch me in a flip-flop, but failed again. You used all caps, which is combative, I did not. You troll and bait me by posting after me (as always), and I ignored your first response even. So you had to post again, as always. You dig up a post thats about a year old, and try to show that I "changed my stance" on a matter. Then you try to put the blame on me saying Im combative. Ill tell you what, I wont reply to you anymore, and be the bigger man and ignore your posts. Its obvious as Ive stated before, you've got issues with me. You try to start something with me all the time, then go run and tell your higher ups that Im the bad guy. Im done with it. Dont reply back, because I wont be reading or replying. But Ive got $100 that says you will, but you accused me in the past of my ego forcing me to keep posting. Time for you to take some of your own advice.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
No need to bet, of course I'm going to reply.
Yes, I caught you in a flip flop. So what? People in here do it all the time. But you take it personally. Your paranoia is really high. I'm just here for the conversation, not to "trick" you into being yourself. Ackmed, this isn't about being the bigger man. This is about computer hardware and the discussion of said hardware. If you won't respond to my posts, that fine. But if you post something I want to agree, comment on or disagree with, I surely will continue to do so. Always have. And not with just you as you like to believe.
By the way, I use CAPS to emphasize a point, not to be combative. Sometimes I'll use "quotes". Other times I will italicize. It's to make it stand out from surrounding text. Emphasis. On rare occasions, I'll even throw caution to the wind and underline something.
Anyway, have a root beer on me and have a good night.
So sorry, it looks like you're correct. The average price per kWh in the United States is 11 cents (as of May, 2006). So it looks like it's actually going to cost someone 32 cents more per month to run an X2900XT versus an 8800GTS 320. So he'll actually be able to afford his coke every month and a half instead! :beer:
I used the 8 hours per week of gaming that was stated in the link I posted. Actually, they show the adult male plays 7.6 hours per week and the adult female plays 7.4 hours per week. I guess I could have averaged the two and used 7.5, but since I knew the monthly cost difference was going to be so miniscule I simply rounded up to 8 hours.
I think it would be next to impossible to determine an average idle time as some people use their computers only for games, some also use them for work purposes, some run F@H on their GPUs, some people shut their computers off when they're done while others let them run 24/7, etc...
Besides, the idle draw of the latest generation cards from both manufacturers are within 15 watts of each other. I would say that's close enough to be a non-factor in choosing one card of this generation over another.
The "only" I was referring to was meant to convey that the 90 watt difference only applied against the 8800GTS 320. Sickbeast's quote of "You'll probably need a PSU with a rating 100w higher than the 8800 cards need." was vague in that it sounded as if there were a 100w difference between the X2900XT and ALL 8800 series cards, so I simply clarified.
Yes, 90w is a pretty healthy power difference between the 8800GTS 320 and the X2900XT. But again, both the 8800 series cards and the X2900XT have DHES coolers which takes the hot air generated by the GPU and blows it out of the case instead of recirculating it inside. So I don't see how either card is going to substantially raise case temps.
Zstream
Diamond Member
- Oct 24, 2005
- 3,395
- 277
- 136
Sick come on, this is a stretch and you know it. Keys is not right, he only tries to bait people and it shows. Considering that most of the 320mb cards are overclocked and when running in 2d mode the Nvidia GPU use more power. So?
I also doubt in the enthusiast market 15-25 cents a month is even noticable. And no, to run a 2900XT you can run it fine on a 500W PSU.
I wait to see the come back for this one...
The "comeback" is your final warning about mod callouts!
- and to everyone else that is skating on thin ice in this thread.
Graphics moderator apoppin
Oh, come on now. That's a simply ridiculous statement. IF a million people used 2900XT's instead of GTS's? How about IF people all used passively cooled low-end video cards instead of powerhouses like the 8800GTX? Or IF people all used 17" LCDs instead of 24" or 30"? Or IF...
I think you get my point. You can "what if" all day long, but it won't change reality.
You brought up the subject "you will save money on electricity by going with the more efficient 8800". So I did the math and showed you how little that actually amounted to.
Or are you honestly trying to say that there is actually a gamer out there who would choose an 8800GTS 320 over an X2900XT for the sole reason that it's going to cost him 32 cents less a month for electricity?
apoppin, you cannot take action against someone who is responding to general comments made by somebody who happens to also be a moderator. If the comments being made are in direct relation to actions/warnings given by a moderator, then that is another matter. But moderators are also general members of the AT forums and should not be given any more or less latitude than is extended to everybody else while they are making non-moderator related posts.
I do not see where in Zstream's post that he is calling out keysplayr2003 because he is a moderator or any action he took while acting in a moderating role. Rather, it appears that the "comeback" is directed toward Zstream's assertion that keysplayr2003 tries to bait people while posting in a non-moderator capacity.
edit - Good God, I'm starting to sound like a lawyer.
You are *not* to edit out moderator comments in a post.
You do also not see Zstream's *pattern* of calling out Keys. i do. And IF you have a problem with my comments, then post in Personal Forum Issues.
Graphics Moderator apoppin
Maybe you do sound like a lawyer (are you?!?!
)... but you are correct...I didn't see any issue with what Zstream said either.. Keys decided to get into this thread and post some comments, and they were replied to... just because he's a moderator doesn't mean we have to agree with them...
But back on topic (sort of!)..
Ah yes you do need a beefier power supply for the 2900XT (most of the time), but maybe in the process of buying the beefier power supply, you've actually purchased one that is more *efficient* than your previous 300-400W'er..
Then that could possibly cancel out any extra power draw from the 2900!!
Man, this got nasty.
Anyway, I guess it's a wise choice to wait just a little bit more time. Heck, I might even end up with a 8800GTX with some patience!
Thanks everyone for your support.
Anyway, I guess it's a wise choice to wait just a little bit more time. Heck, I might even end up with a 8800GTX with some patience!
Thanks everyone for your support.
Video Cards and Graphics has historically been a turbulent place. Very strange, but lines in the sand have been drawn and if you find youself on the wrong side in the wrong crowd expect a beat down. lol, dumb
Actually I just did the *proper* math, and you save $78.84 per year on electricity by using 90 watts less, if the device is on all the time. Even if it's only on 8 hours a day, you're saving over $25 anually, which does add up.
I got the information for my calculations at this website.
It said to use 10 cents per kilowatt hour, so I did. The rate varies. People in Hawaii could theoretically save close to $150 per year by using a 320MB 8800GTS.
How did you perform your calculations?
I used: 90 watts = 90 watt hours per hour the device is run. I multiplied that times 24 hours, then times 365 days. After that I multiplied the figure by .1 to reflect the price of electricity.
Still, this a conversation about PC enthusiasts; it just doesn't seem probable that energy conservation has jack to do with anything an enthusiast cares about... I'd say looking at the conversation from the outside that you're technically correct, but your point is unfortunately irrelevant for the vast majority of peeps here.
Well, even enthusiasts have a budget, and personally I don't like having $25 of my annual hardware budget eaten up un-necessarily by using a part that is 90w less efficient. At this point, that equates to a 512MB stick of memory every year.
The additional heat output from the card is also of concern. People like Crieg are saying that the cards exhaust the heat outside of the case, but that neglects the fact that the backside of the card inevitably will give off some extra heat to the rest of the case.
I'm confident that the average 2900XT case is at least 3C hotter than the average 8800GTS 320MB case.
There's also the fact that quite often people will spend more than $25 extra per year. IMO that's a lowball figure.
cmdrdredd
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2001
- 27,052
- 357
- 126
but I don't want a card that doesn't work in my games. Give me a friggen break...
There is a game that I play all the time that to this day and I see tons of people on the forums asking for a fix, Nvidia now says they are not providing one when earlier this year they announced they would have a fix in september. It took the threat of a lawsuit to get that promise, and now it's september and Nvidia says they aren't going to fix it and blamed it on someone else. Good move :thumbsdown:
If Nvidia got their head out of their rear and actually worked on the issues they know about (texture memory leak for example) I would probably have considered it. Plus, at 1280x1024 I have no use for a gtx...even if it worked I would have not spent that much.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter