schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,769
- 52
- 91
schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,769
- 52
- 91
First, you claimed that an X1900XT consumed twice the power then provided a link showing how an X1900XTX doesn't even use twice the power.
84x2 used to be 168, not 120. The X1900XTX does not use twice the amount of power a 7900GTX uses. That's undermining the X1900's power consumption by almost 50 Watts. Why don't we just hop on the bandwagon and say that the 7900GTX consumes 134 Watts at load?
The 7900GTX carries a greater performance per watt ratio however, I'm not arguing that. I'll give Nvidia props that they don't waste R&D with things that most won't use. For instance, as much as I like ATi's efforts at FP16-HDR+MSAA, I have to say that it certainly isn't a popular feature in popular games.
Ah, you're right!! Thank you for correcting me.
However, if you want to talk heat and then use a liquid nitrogen cooled CPU compared to a stock cooled CPU as an example, wouldn't the coolers between the 7900GTX and X1900's be the same analyogy? Last I checked the 7900GTX coolers had 4 heatpipes in their reference design whereas the X1900XT(X)'s only had two. Would that be an indication of greater heat? I mean if the lower-temp, greater cooled CPU is an example of more heat, wouldn't the lower-temp, greater cooled 7900GTX be an example of more heat as well of the basis of your analogy?
In addition, when someone says that GPU "x" runs hotter than GPU "y", they're not talking about when they're sitting behind their computer having it blow hot air out at them. They're talking about the temperatures they see. Such was the viewpoint I based my claim off of.
schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,769
- 52
- 91
when I said that I was looking at the 7900gt vs x1900xt power consumption. the x1900xt DOES use twice the power as a 7900gt. See here. I assumed the power consumption would increase linearly (is that a word? :Q) to the core clocks --- I didnt expect a 100mhz core clock increase to double power consumption
If the power consumption DIDNT go through the roof and stayed equal to the ratio of the 7900gt, the 7900gtx would use around 55watts which IS 1/2 the x1900xt. that is really weird though, how a small core clock increase doubles power consumption... maybe xbit has something wrong with their numbersNope - counting idle the 8800gtx is the winner. So for all you guys who called the x1950 "space heaters", lets not be hypocrites. We have a new king pig.
schneiderguy
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2006
- 10,769
- 52
- 91
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
- May 7, 2005
- 5,161
- 32
- 86
Performance per watt definately goes to the 8800GTX. This thing blows everything out of the water in ALL benchmarks. Similiar to the core2 duo lanuch really.
Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.
The 7900GTX comes within 12 watts to doubling the GT's load draw as well. I know that isn't exactly a ray of sunshine for the X1900XT but with the performance you got for the X1900XT it took nVidia two new cards to phase down the price of the 7900GT. The X1900XT performed at the level of the 7900GTX for a 7900GT price margin. It wasn't until the 7950GT and 7900GS replaced the GT that its price finally fell to where its performance was.
If the reference 7900GT's weren't severely underclocked the power consumption BS between the X19k series and the 79K series wouldn't be such an issue. We could play with "What ifs" all day.
100 Mhz isn't small depending on the cooling. And it all depends on what volts were set to achieve that 100 Mhz increase.
So don't discredit my link to Anandtech's benches while providing potentially faulty counter-links.
I'm not saying they are wrong just that the difference in power consumption is only an argument for someone not wanting to pay for a decent PSU and buy a wal-mart equivalent of 6 AA batteries to power their gaming rig.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I definitely could be, I don't follow vista or any windows OS very closely), but doesn't vista make use of some "Aero' UI that utilizes the 3d capabilities of the video card to do cool effects (real transparency in menus, 3d flipping and such, etc)? Since you're either going to be mashing windows around while you browse the web, check email, and do your general nonsense, or playing a 3d game, I guess they figured since both categories of use now use the 3d power of the video card, there's no need to differentiate between 2d and 3d. As the 8800's are DX10 cards, and DX10 is vista-only (again, correct me if I'm wrong) then the situation I've laid out seems plausible. That's my guess.
I'm basing this on my experience with XGL on SLED, as soon as the X server starts, my 7600gt goes into 3d mode, and the fan on it bumps up in speed as if I had launched a 3d game. Temps go up a bit as well. I could very well be completely off, of course. Either way, the 8800's are nice video cards, no doubt about it
I'm basing this on my experience with XGL on SLED, as soon as the X server starts, my 7600gt goes into 3d mode, and the fan on it bumps up in speed as if I had launched a 3d game. Temps go up a bit as well. I could very well be completely off, of course. Either way, the 8800's are nice video cards, no doubt about it
I think it's actually more similar to the R300. Has anyone found a game where even the GTS doesn't get playable frames at maximum visual quality settings?
Originally posted by: schneiderguy
you just dont get it, do you?
Whats to get, the 8800gtx uses more power than the x1950xtx. You can dress it up as you want, but you can't change reality. If you are trying to say more performance is worth using that much more power than say the 7900gt - well that is your subjective choice.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,209
- 50
- 91
Wow, you had a bad day huh? Even at Idle, ronnn, the 681 million transistors still require some juice. Does the 8800GTX use twice as much power at idle than the X1900's? It should, mostly because it has well over twice the number of transistors. And at load, the GTX uses somewhere around 15W more power than the X1950XTX correct? Depending on the review, thats about the average figure. How do you explain such high power usage from a significantly smaller, and significantly slower GPU???????? You're certainly forgetting a lot of factors here, ronnn, as you spew off.
8800GTX has an additional bus width of 128bits. 8800GTX has an additional 256MB of GDDR3 memory which uses more power than the GDDR4 on the X1950XTX. It has 681 million transistors on a 90nm process! 1950XTX is around 300million on 80nm is it not???
With all of these enhancements over the X1950XTX, of course it's going to use more power even at idle. There is sooooo much more to feed. And at load, there is only about a 15W difference with the GTX using more. I'd say the real pig here is the XTX. It has no real excuse to use so much power for so little performance relative to the 8800GTX. AND!!! Lets not forget the GTS which uses less power than the XTX all around and still outperforms it, sometimes by large margins.
I don't know what you ate today that disagrees with you, but, simmer down now.
I think they're meaning that the 8800GTX uses more power but gives a great deal more in performance. Because of it's high frames and great image quality its 15 more watts in a power draw isn't a big deal.Originally posted by: ronnn
Originally posted by: schneiderguy
you just dont get it, do you?
Whats to get, the 8800gtx uses more power than the x1950xtx. You can dress it up as you want, but you can't change reality.
Why the 7900GT? Why is that an example of performance that is worth using more power? Isn't that card pretty frugal in its power consumption?
No it's not. The 1950XTX is an unchanged R580 core on a 90 nm process. The X1950 Pro is an 80 nm process of the X1900GT core (R580XL I believe).
Originally posted by: ronnn
Originally posted by: schneiderguy
you just dont get it, do you?
Whats to get, the 8800gtx uses more power than the x1950xtx. You can dress it up as you want, but you can't change reality. If you are trying to say more performance is worth using that much more power than say the 7900gt - well that is your subjective choice.
PERFORMANCE-PER-WATT. Its not subjective at all.
How can something be a power "pig" when it offers the BEST performance per watt of ANY video card on the market?
A power "pig" is something that hogs up more than its fair share. And offers lackluster performance for that share of power its using.
With the G80 YOU GET SOMETHING FOR THE POWER THAT ITS DRAWING, namely the best image quality and performance seen yet.
With the X1Ks... YOU DONT. It has Low.. (brace yourself) performance per watt.
Get it yet?
SolMiester
Diamond Member
- Dec 19, 2004
- 5,331
- 17
- 76
Sorry Ronnn, was that too subtle for you?. What I means is do you study and breakdown the costs of your power bill in order to identify real life impact due to a grahic card?, or would you really notice or see any real impact?
Stop crapping on the G80. Every G80 related thread on this board you seem to aim to shoot the G80 down.
When ATI releases a card that can run modern games at high res and 16xAA and uses less power than G80, you can say whatever you want.
Until then, buy a 7300GS, save $5 on your energy bill and take some anti-diahhreal pills.
Avalon
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2001
- 7,565
- 150
- 106
Wow guys, let it go. Ronnn was clearly talking about overall power draw and you all jumped on him in an attempt to twist it into a performance per watt argument, which no one was even arguing about to begin with. It's obvious everyone agrees it wins that category.
Overall power draw? It uses less power than the X1900XTX under load.... ?
As far as 2D idle power, it isnt that far off the Radeons (+18watts over the X1900XTX), which are half as fast, and have inferior image quality.. so I'm failing to see the point?
I guess if you want a card to sit at idle with and feel good about.. then ronnn should be using nothing else but a Geforce 7... right?
Care to explain why you dont run a Geforce 7 then, Ronnn? Since this is so important to you? Lets not be a hypocrite, now.
Avalon- This guy deserves to be jumped on for this.. its unwarranted, and hes hypocritical to boot.. if he has a Geforce 7 he deserves a pass on this one. But uses a X1900XT.
No, but I would like an x1900xt. Anyways Crusader my remarks weren't aimed at you, as I know its not your style to denigrate ati cards by calling them space heaters and such. :beer:
Avalon's right. Strictly speaking from a power consumption perspective, the 8800GTX is no lightweight. Sure the the X19k series isn't either but that's not what the thread was talking about. I guess all of those who saw the trend earlier and invested in a good PSU for their X1k cards don't have to worry about it. *shrugs*
Honestly I've always thought the power consumption argument between vendors was rather weak.
Granted, Kingpin says that the G80 really isn't being stressed to it's fullest, so I wouldn't be surprised to see its power consumptions increase with DX10 software and games that will make it hurt. Just like the DX9 performances are a little misleading with the cards true potential, I think the power consumptions are a little inaccurate beings how the card really doesn't have anything to stretch it's legs with yet.
Honestly I've always thought the power consumption argument between vendors was rather weak.
Granted, Kingpin says that the G80 really isn't being stressed to it's fullest, so I wouldn't be surprised to see its power consumptions increase with DX10 software and games that will make it hurt. Just like the DX9 performances are a little misleading with the cards true potential, I think the power consumptions are a little inaccurate beings how the card really doesn't have anything to stretch it's legs with yet.
So when are we going to get some real dx10 games. This is so lame, I feel like I am still waiting for dx9 to be really used to its fullest.
edit: I must admit this exceedingly warm fall has me wondering about my own personal power consumption. I am hoping that all these companies will take green tech with some seriousness.
edit: I must admit this exceedingly warm fall has me wondering about my own personal power consumption. I am hoping that all these companies will take green tech with some seriousness.
Every thread on this forum eventually turns into an ATi vs Nvidia war. It is typical and not so amusing any more.
Ok it still is.
Ok it still is.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter