"Freak of Video Cards"

[3DVagabond]

Some of you may remember seeing pics of this card a while back. I didn't think there was any way it was for real. Wrong, I guess. But why?

Review at Tech Spot.

 

[sandorski]

I can't imagine the noise those small fans would make.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Yeah,i don't really see the point of that design,was it trying to mimmic the older voodoo video cards or something?

 

[Destiny]

maybe when connected to your mobo you can fly it like a model plane? :awe:

 

[pantsaregood]

I hate when reviewers make claims like "reduced temperatures by 15%." 68 C is not 85% of 80C. It is actually ~97%.

As for the noise, apparently it is noticeably quieter than the reference design. Judging by the size of the cooler, it looks like the fans don't have to move a particularly large amount of air to cool effectively. Lots of surface area.

 

[notty22]

Gigabyte 7970 SOC Windforce 5X - Fan Speed 100 Percent


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIEmWoleikI&feature=channel&list=UL

Gigabyte 7970 SOC Windforce 5X - Furmark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6D3xZffBq8&feature=g-hist

 

[Silverforce11]

Damn, playable at 1600p with 4x MSAA in BF3... on a single gpu.

 

[f1sherman]

I hate when reviewers make claims like "reduced temperatures by 15%." 68 C is not 85% of 80C. It is actually ~97%.

Hmm OK... although strictly speaking you are wrong,
I do get where you're coming from.

Now answer me this:
Since you are obviously not interested in comparing temperatures themselves,
in what physical quantity that depends linearly on absolute temperature are we interested in?

So that we can say "heh its only 3% improvement"
Because there are quite a few quantities that depend exponentially on T, or that are linear with power of T.

 

[Meghan54]

I hate when reviewers make claims like "reduced temperatures by 15%." 68 C is not 85% of 80C. It is actually ~97%.

I see you're not exactly math handy, are you?

So, let's try this. Take 15% of 80 (80 x .15) and what do you get? 12. Now subtract that 15% figure from 80 and you get 68. Amazing, isn't it?

Or multiply 80 by .85 (85%) and you get------68.

Or, divide 68 by 80 and you get-----you guessed it, .85 or 85%. Still amazing, right?


With your "It's 97%" statement.....when I multiply 80 by .97 (97%), I get 77.6, and when I multiply 80 by .03 (3%), I get 2.4, which when subtracted from 80 gives me 77.6. Odd, that.

Please correct my math if wrong.

 

[Jacky60]

I hate when reviewers make claims like "reduced temperatures by 15%." 68 C is not 85% of 80C. It is actually ~97%.

As for the noise, apparently it is noticeably quieter than the reference design. Judging by the size of the cooler, it looks like the fans don't have to move a particularly large amount of air to cool effectively. Lots of surface area.

Interesting take on mathematics lol! By my reckoning 10% of 85 is 8.5.
20% of 85 =17 (2x8.5). 85 minus 17 =............68!
68 is 80% of 85. So a 20% reduction seems correct although I wasn't terribly good at maths at school. The idea that 68 is 97% of 85 is so glaringly obviously wrong I'm surprised you could even write it. My maths is based on the assumption that a 20% reduction in the number of 100 idiots is 80 idiots.

 

[f1sherman]

He's talking about absolute temp you guys :ninja:

 

[3DVagabond]

Remember temperature doesn't start at zero degrees. It starts at -273c (absolute zero). So, 12/(273+80)= .034 Or, rounded off. ~3%.

Do I get a cookie?

 

[pantsaregood]

Actually, I majored in math. My math is perfectly sound.

At 68 C, a system does not contain 15% less energy than at 80 C. The zero point of the Celsius scale is not a point of zero energy or temperature. It is arbitrary. If you want to compare temperature by percentage, you have to offset your temperatures relative to a real zero. You end up with (273+68)/(273+80), which is certainly 97%.

Temperature is a measure of energy. 0 degrees is not zero energy. Therefore 2 C is not half of 4 C.

Also, joules and Celsius have a nice, linear relation.

My point is that the reviewer needs to get his facts straight. I may be wrong to say that the card ran 3% cooler (limited physics background), but it is certainly incorrect to call that a 15% drop. Comparisons make no objective sense when a zero is declared wrong.

I could declare 68 C to be the zero of some scale "G." A drop from 12 G (80 C) to 0 G is now a 100% reduction in temperature? No.

 

[f1sherman]

Your math may be fine, but semantics and/or logic fails you.

You can not compare the relative sizes of two apples,
by looking at the relative size of apple AND THE TABLE.

Oh and since you speak about energy... your 68C system radiates 13% less heat than your 80C system
, not 3%. :sneaky:

But S. Olympics etc etc, I'm out. Was nice talking to ya

 

[Jacky60]

Well if you're going to get your 'facts' right then use Kelvin not Celsius and zero Kelvin = -273.15C. Apologies for pedantry but I think you started it!. I do grudgingly accept your maths are correct in absolute terms.

 

[pantsaregood]

Oh and since you speak about energy... your 68C system radiates 13% less heat than your 80C system
, not 3%. :sneaky:

How is it 13% less? Also Kelvin is the scale that should be used when comparing temperature in this manner. Otherwise, you have no true zero.

I was using Kelvin, though I may have not made it clear. That was the reasoning behind adding 273. 273.15 would've been more accurate, as that is the definition of zero.

 

[AtenRa]

Your maths maybe right, but in engineering we take 0c as the base.

And yes, from 80C to 0C is 100% reduction in temps when 0C is the base.

 

[pantsaregood]

Your maths maybe right, but in engineering we take 0c as the base.

And yes, from 80C to 0C is 100% reduction in temps when 0C is the base.

0 C is arbitrary, just as 0 F is. If reducing to 0 C is a 100% reduction, what is a reduction to -5 C? By your reasoning, you've removed 100% of the heat already. How did you remove more heat?

The entire point here is that in both advertising and reviewing, you are being misled. Relative scales don't work the way Gigabyte is advertising.

I legitimately am curious where 13% came from though. Not accusing you of error - as I said, I have limited background in physics. The statements I made may be wrong, but I can say with absolute certainty that 68 C is not half as much heat as 80 C.

 

[AtenRa]

0 C is arbitrary, just as 0 F is. If reducing to 0 C is a 100% reduction, what is a reduction to -5 C? By your reasoning, you've removed 100% of the heat already. How did you remove more heat?

We can have more than 100% (percentage) reduction or increase of temps.

We measure the temperature, we dont have reduction of heat. We measure the percentage of reduction or increase of temps. Heat remains the same because we have the same processor as before, we only changed the Heat-sink to reduce the temps (faster heat transfer = lower temps).

 

[Keysplayr]

I hate when reviewers make claims like "reduced temperatures by 15%." 68 C is not 85% of 80C. It is actually ~97%.

As for the noise, apparently it is noticeably quieter than the reference design. Judging by the size of the cooler, it looks like the fans don't have to move a particularly large amount of air to cool effectively. Lots of surface area.

I can't believe what some arguments are over.

 

[pantsaregood]

You're right. Heat production is constant with power consumption. Temperature is a measurement of heat. Heatsinks, as you said, are designed to move heat to a different point efficiently.

I don't understand how 0 C being 100% less than 5 C is any less nonsensical than my imaginary "G" scale that is zeroed at 68 C.

Temperature is defined as "The degree or intensity of heat present in a substance or object." 0 C is not a point of zero heat. It is actually a completely arbitrary zero.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Mind blown.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Part of me thinks that all that the small fans are kind of a bad idea. But, they are pulling air, and directly above my video card in my case I have a 120mm fan pulling air out. On my set up almost zero of the heat would go into the case. And it is hard to argue with a 1260MHz Tahiti.

 

[blackened23]

Compared to

Galaxy / KFA2 GTX 680 hall of fame SOC which is factory OC'ed to 1267 in the US, and 1200 in europe (I think)

not bad

 

[RussianSensation]

Power consumption even at 1200mhz is lower than a GTX580 and just 45W more than the much slower stock GTX680. Looks like Giga used some premium components to improve the power delivery/efficiency. Not bad.

I hate when reviewers make claims like "reduced temperatures by 15%." 68 C is not 85% of 80C. It is actually ~97%.

If today we were in the Sahara desert and the daily peak temperature reached 80*C, but then subsided to 68*C towards the evening, the drop in the temperature would amount to a 15% reduction in temperature. Alternatively, the new evening temperature would be 85% of the peak daily temperature. The amount of heat the card would dissipate is still roughly the same since the power consumption wouldn't drop significantly. However, the comment they are making is related to temperature, not a 15% reduction in heat dissipation.