AT's latest video card testing results

[Idontcare]

Is that another case of driver optimizations not standing still?

Wow, we really don't get this kind of "performance is a moving goalpost" in the cpu world except when maybe cinebench makes a major release. My q6600 performs pretty much the same in all my apps today as it did 3 yrs ago.

 

[evolucion8]

That link is from 2008

If you read the TR review I linked (which uses newer games). The 4870 loses every benchmark, in some cases by a large margin. :thumbsdown:

Doubtful. http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/19242/9 <<Here the HD 4870 smokes the GTX 260+, in your very same link

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/19242/8

Wow, the GTX 260 beating the HD 5830 and GTX 460, talk about accurate results in your very same link.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3868/quick-look-powercolors-radeon-hd-5770-pcs-vortex-edition/2

Suddenly the HD 4870 1GB became the better buy compared to the GTX 260 in newer and more graphic intensive games with the review that dates from August 25 in 2010, From 13 tests, the HD 4870 won 7, tied 2 and lost 4.

Also I doubt that a driver tweak or magic driver will bring down the power consumption considerably, so I doubt that there's a huge difference from those "2008" results and today, so your point is quite null.

As time passes, the GTX 260 is getting old and tired, nevertheless the 192SP version, :biggrin:

 

[maddie]

I am an absolutely junior member here, but what about this suggestion.

Let everyone buy what THEY think is the best card for the price.

 

[Wreckage]

Wow, the GTX 260 beating the HD 5830, talk about accurate results.

The 5830 sucks. Granted it does not have the horrible idle power suckage like the 4870, but yeah still sucks. But at least with all that power you are using in your rig you can run eyefininty.....

The GTX260 keeps up with not only the 5830 but the 4890.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/xfx-radeon-hd5830.html

Damn impressive considering NVIDIA had 3 chips faster than it that gen.

 

[evolucion8]

The 5830 sucks. Granted it does not have the horrible idle power suckage like the 4870, but yeah still sucks. But at least with all that power you are using in your rig you can run eyefininty.....

I can run eyefinity in the same ways that you can run 3D and PhysX!! :biggrin:

The GTX260 keeps up with not only the 5830 but the 4890.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/xfx-radeon-hd5830.html

Damn impressive considering NVIDIA had 3 chips faster than it that gen.

That link is older than the one I posted

Way to cherry pick a benchmark :biggrin: The GTX 275 performed very close to the HD 4890 and was hard to pick which one was the fastest, it really depends of the games, I wonder which 3 nVidia chips were faster than the HD 4870X2??

 

[Wreckage]

That link is older than the one I posted

You post a link from 2008 and I post one from 2010. Besides we were talking about the 5830 so that's the benchmark I linked to.

Way to cherry pick a benchmark :biggrin: The GTX 275 performed very close to the HD 4890 with a slight edge going to the nVidia solution, I wonder which 3 nVidia chips were faster than the HD 4870X2??

A benchmark? that's 2 sites now that showed the 260 above the 4870. You want 3 or 4? I bet 1000 sites would not get through to you.

3 260 chips in SLI would be faster than a 4870x2

Either way, this is getting off topic and no amount of facts will change your mind so continue the argument with yourself.

 

[evolucion8]

You post a link from 2008 and I post one from 2010. Besides we were talking about the 5830 so that's the benchmark I linked to.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3868/quick-look-powercolors-radeon-hd-5770-pcs-vortex-edition/2 <<That link that I posted is from August 2010 and shows that the GTX 260 looses quite often to the HD 4870, you need to read the whole post.

"Suddenly the HD 4870 1GB became the better buy compared to the GTX 260 in newer and more graphic intensive games with the review that dates from August 25 in 2010, From 13 tests, the HD 4870 won 7, tied 2 and lost 4."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2626/9 <<That link that shows power consumption is from 2008, like I said before, I doubt that in two years, AMD or nVidia could launch a magical driver that could suddenly drop the power consumption significantly.

"Also I doubt that a driver tweak or magic driver will bring down the power consumption considerably, so I doubt that there's a huge difference from those "2008" results and today, so your point is quite null."

A benchmark? that's 2 sites now that showed the 260 above the 4870. You want 3 or 4? I bet 1000 sites would not get through to you.

3 260 chips in SLI would be faster than a 4870x2

Two HD 4870X2 are faster than 3 GTX 260 SLI, so its pointless, like your last post. Its quite incredible that you missed the links that I posted (Like the date of publishing) and instead posted incorrect claims. :awe:

 

[Janooo]

So a 60W fan will generate as much heat as a 60W lightbulb?

:\

Also if the math is so simple, please give me accurate numbers on how much waste heat each card generates. Should be no problem for you.

Sadly, yes, that is how they determine to label a 60W fan as a 60W fan and a 60W lightbulb as a 60W lightbulb.

The wattage is the power-consumption, no bones about it. Personally I blame Joule and Ohm for all this confusion, talk about a couple of real bastards

Well, this is not correct.
Electric power in to the motor is mainly transformed into the shaft power out, then there are primary and secondary resistance losses, iron, stray and mechanical losses.
Only a small portion of the power in is transformed into the heat.

 

[Idontcare]

Well, this is not correct.
Electric power in to the motor is mainly transformed into the shaft power out, then there are primary and secondary resistance losses, iron, stray and mechanical losses.
Only a small portion of the power in is transformed into the heat.

At the source of the fan, yes, where does the energy go that has been consumed doing work to move the air? Heat in the surrounding environment.

As many others have already stated in this thread, it is standards physics. Those 2W case fans in your computer case really are adding 2W of heat to your computer case/room/house. It would be awesome if that weren't true, but then we'd be violating conservation of energy laws and that is a topic for highly technical forums.

 

[Janooo]

At the source of the fan, yes, where does the energy go that has been consumed doing work to move the air? Heat in the surrounding environment.

As many others have already stated in this thread, it is standards physics. Those 2W case fans in your computer case really are adding 2W of heat to your computer case/room/house. It would be awesome if that weren't true, but then we'd be violating conservation of energy laws and that is a topic for highly technical forums.

???
If 2W of power in generates 2W of heat then where the spinning of the fan comes from? Please, read some stuff about electrical motors then we can continue.

 

[Idontcare]

???
If 2W of power in generates 2W of heat then where the spinning of the fan comes from? Please, read some stuff about electrical motors then we can continue.

A hard-drive uses electricity and an electrical motor to spin a platter, a very good analog to the fan comparison you are keen to debate...so where does the power-consumption go for a harddrive?

Does a 2W seagate drive create something less than 2W of heat? If yes then where does the balance of the energy go?

I linked this earlier: Power consumption is the "correct" unit of heat dissipation

 

[Janooo]

A hard-drive uses electricity and an electrical motor to spin a platter, a very good analog to the fan comparison you are keen to debate...so where does the power-consumption go for a harddrive?

Does a 2W seagate drive create something less than 2W of heat? If yes then where does the balance of the energy go?

I linked this earlier: Power consumption is the "correct" unit of heat dissipation

Yes, it does generate less then 2W of heat.
Have a look hear: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html

Edit: I read the article provided in your link and the author makes an assumption that the power draw equals the heat dissipation. It is not correct. The electrical motor efficiency is needed to adjust the heat dissipation. I am not sure what is the correct value for these small motors but I am sure that the heat is not 100&#37; of the power in.

 

[Idontcare]

Yes, it does generate less then 2W of heat.
Have a look hear: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html

Edit: I read the article provided in your link and the author makes an assumption that the power draw equals the heat dissipation. It is not correct. The electrical motor efficiency is needed to adjust the heat dissipation. I am not sure what is the correct value for these small motors but I am sure that the heat is not 100&#37; of the power in.

That's just showing you how much of the power-consumption is turned into heat immediately within the electrical motor itself. The remaining energy that escape that electrical motor as work is subsequently reduced to heat.

A hard-drive being a mechanically closed system is an easy engineering thermodynamics pop-quiz...the answer is that 100% of the power consumed is converted into heat.

Yes some work is done in the meantime, but the net result of all that work being done is just heat.

It is no different for a fan, just you have to step back in your definition of "the system" to include the room or wherever the airflow is going...when that air comes to a standstill through drag with its surroundings 100% of the energy added to the room by the fan into the air has become heat.

Power-consumption is just that. There is a reason that it is the only thing the electricity company bothers to track for purposes of billing you. Doesn't matter what you did with the electricity, you either immediately turned it into heat without doing any work (your ceramic heater) or you used it to do some work (operate your vacuum cleaner) and then subsequently all the energy was dissipated as heat.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, you get three laws of thermo and you need to balance the energy equation.

Unless you are putting your electricity into a perpetual motion machine, absolutely positively 100% of all that electrical energy is going to become heat.

 

[Janooo]

That's just showing you how much of the power-consumption is turned into heat immediately within the electrical motor itself. The remaining energy that escape that electrical motor as work is subsequently reduced to heat.

A hard-drive being a mechanically closed system is an easy engineering thermodynamics pop-quiz...the answer is that 100% of the power consumed is converted into heat.

Yes some work is done in the meantime, but the net result of all that work being done is just heat.

It is no different for a fan, just you have to step back in your definition of "the system" to include the room or wherever the airflow is going...when that air comes to a standstill through drag with its surroundings 100% of the energy added to the room by the fan into the air has become heat.

Power-consumption is just that. There is a reason that it is the only thing the electricity company bothers to track for purposes of billing you. Doesn't matter what you did with the electricity, you either immediately turned it into heat without doing any work (your ceramic heater) or you used it to do some work (operate your vacuum cleaner) and then subsequently all the energy was dissipated as heat.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, you get three laws of thermo and you need to balance the energy equation.

Unless you are putting your electricity into a perpetual motion machine, absolutely positively 100% of all that electrical energy is going to become heat.

Power In = Kinetic energy + Heat + ...
If the kinetic energy is not zero then how the heat can be 100%?

 

[Keysplayr]

Isn't the power being consumed the source of the generated heat?
Your "formula" does not make sense (at least to me) because if Kinetic energy consumed is not zero but for example "5", then the heat output would be 100&#37; of the energy consumed. No? The spinning fan would just be the "result" of the 100% consumption of "5" ??

 

[MrK6]

Power In = Kinetic energy + Heat + ...
If the kinetic energy is not zero then how the heat can be 100%?

Think of it this way: what happens to the kinetic energy?

IDC is explaining this in a very big picture (but also correct) way. Eventually, all inputed energy will be reduced to heat.

 

[Janooo]

Isn't the power being consumed the source of the generated heat?
Your "formula" does not make sense (at least to me) because if Kinetic energy consumed is not zero but for example "5", then the heat output would be 100% of the energy consumed. No? The spinning fan would just be the "result" of the 100% consumption of "5" ??

If a HDD electrical motor has efficiency of 20% then
Power in = Kinetic energy + Heat
5 = 1 + 4

 

[Idontcare]

Think of it this way: what happens to the kinetic energy?

IDC is explaining this in a very big picture (but also correct) way. Eventually, all inputed energy will be reduced to heat.

Yeah, I'm NOT trying to argue that electricity can't be used to do work...we do work all the time with electricity. Fans do work. Hard-drives do work. No argument there.

But the energy expended doing the work eventually becomes heat in the system, unavoidable.

And thanks MrK6 for cutting to the quick and explaining the nut of it! I was at a loss to say it differently.

 

[Janooo]

Think of it this way: what happens to the kinetic energy?

IDC is explaining this in a very big picture (but also correct) way. Eventually, all inputed energy will be reduced to heat.

That's not true. If you put peaches into a mixer and turn it on. Are they going to heat up only or they will be crushed and mixed. The kinetic energy does not transform into the heat. It does the real work.
Spinning of the HDD is a real work, moving the air is a real work.

 

[Keysplayr]

That's not true. If you put peaches into a mixer and turn it on. Are they going to heat up only or they will be crushed and mixed. The kinetic energy does not transform into the heat. It does the real work.
Spinning of the HDD is a real work, moving the air is a real work.

The peaches are fubared, but the consumed energy to make the peaches fubared by the mixers electric motor, creates 100&#37; of the heat of the energy consumed to run that motor to kill those peaches. Energy consumed is turned to heat. The "side effect" is the ruined peaches. Nothing to do with the peaches. If it takes 10W of power to demolish those peaches, then 100% of the heat of that 10W of power will need to dissipate.

 

[Janooo]

Yeah, I'm NOT trying to argue that electricity can't be used to do work...we do work all the time with electricity. Fans do work. Hard-drives do work. No argument there.

But the energy expended doing the work eventually becomes heat in the system, unavoidable.

And thanks MrK6 for cutting to the quick and explaining the nut of it! I was at a loss to say it differently.

From my link:
Power(hp) Minimum Nominal Efficiency1)
1 - 4.............. 78.8
5 - 9.............. 84.0
10 - 19........... 85.5
20 - 49........... 88.5
50 - 99........... 90.2
100 - 124........ 91.7
> 125.............. 92.4


50 hp and up electrical motors generate less than 10% of heat.
The rest is kinetic energy.

 

[Idontcare]

That's not true. If you put peaches into a mixer and turn it on. Are they going to heat up only or they will be crushed and mixed. The kinetic energy does not transform into the heat. It does the real work.
Spinning of the HDD is a real work, moving the air is a real work.

Now you are actually talking about the change in entropy of the system, again another law of thermo but again has no bearing on the energy manifold and the state of the system and the fact that energy is conserved.

From my link:
Power(hp) Minimum Nominal Efficiency1)
1 - 4.............. 78.8
5 - 9.............. 84.0
10 - 19........... 85.5
20 - 49........... 88.5
50 - 99........... 90.2
100 - 124........ 91.7
> 125.............. 92.4


50 hp and up electrical motors generate less than 10&#37; of heat.
The rest is kinetic energy.

Unless your kinetic energy is being put into a perpetual motion machine the energy is being turned into heat by the rest of the system.

 

[Janooo]

The peaches are fubared, but the consumed energy to make the peaches fubared by the mixers electric motor, creates 100% of the heat of the energy consumed to run that motor to kill those peaches. Energy consumed is turned to heat. The "side effect" is the ruined peaches. Nothing to do with the peaches. If it takes 10W of power to demolish those peaches, then 100% of the heat of that 10W of power will need to dissipate.

It's not a side effect. That's the main reason the mixer exists. The heat is side effect.
... and believe me, the heat is not 100% of the power in.

If power in was 100% heat out then electric cars would be only heaters and they would not move people around.

 

[Janooo]

Now you are actually talking about the change in entropy of the system, again another law of thermo but again has no bearing on the energy manifold and the state of the system and the fact that energy is conserved.



Unless your kinetic energy is being put into a perpetual motion machine the energy is being turned into heat by the rest of the system.

What's the efficiency of the regular combustion car engine?
When you travel 100km was the whole gas energy consumed and turned into the heat?

 

[Idontcare]

What's the efficiency of the regular combustion car engine?

efficiency at what? converting gasoline into CO2 + H2O + NOx?

When you travel 100km was the whole gas energy consumed and turned into the heat?

yes. unless you did not return to the same elevation from which you began your journey, in that case some of the energy was temporarily converted into potential energy care of gravity...or you stopped your journey at a lower elevation than you began and so not only did you convert 100&#37; of the gasoline's energy into heat but you also converted some potential energy from gravity into heat as well.

if your 100km journey was a closed-path, end-point is the same as the start-point, then yes 100% of the gasoline's energy was converted to heat by the time your trip came to an end.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/thermodynamics.htm

Thermodynamics is the Connection Between Heat and Work

Internal combustion engines

An application of the conversion of energy is the type of engine used in a car, an internal combustion engine. The way this engine works is that gasoline and air is mixed and exploded in a cylinder. That explosion is the internal combustion, changing chemical energy to heat energy.

Since gases want to expand when they are heated, they exert pressure on the piston in the cylinder, causing it to move and turn a shaft. Thus, the heat energy is converted into mechanical energy.