watercooling x1900xt CF are ramsinks necessary

[nealh]

not sure where else to ask this

I a mgoing to watercool a x1900xt CF ...I have 8 not 9 ramsinks..so the composite chip will have no ramsink or I could no with no ramsinks at all ...like on my x800xl

but the x1900xt cf runs much hotter than a x800xl

any thoughts....

 

[Matt2]

I have heard its fine without ramsinks but that was with a single X1900XTX IIRC, I cant say for sure with the added heat of CF.

Why not just pick up an extra set?

 

[Elfear]

I personally think ramsinks give a little bit higher oc on the memory. I've heard the composite chip doesn't need a sink as long as it has good airflow but I used a couple of sinks on mine anyway. Make sure you get some good copper sinks if you decide to throw some on.

 

[nealh]

its not that I do not want to get it.. I do not have any extra, so that means buying 8 more..another $20(I could have gotten a real inexpensive x1950xtx but by the time I sold this x1900xt it would have cost $50 becasue of extra shipping and eating a bit on the x1900xt cf to get rid of it..now the difference is $30..CRAP)....wanted to know if it would be necessary

CF= hotter???? damn it

would be likely to memory to 1600 without ramsinks

BTW the ram is rated like 1.1ns on x1900xtx and x1900xt cf..correct so that means it should max out at 900 or 1800, so why did they clock these cards so low?

BTW thanks guys

 

[lopri]

I think Neal is talking about CF version of X1900, not CF as in two cards together? Matt must be talking about the 'added heat' of the latter case.

The RAM on the card may or may not achieve the rated clock for many reasons, but one of the most pronounced reasons is the voltage supplied, which is usually determined by the card's BIOS. Since the power circuitry of the core and memory is on the same PCB in a close proximity, IHVs often take heat/power into consideration not to mention headroom for under-performing memory. (look at 7900 GTO)

 

[nealh]

Originally posted by: lopri
I think Neal is talking about CF version of X1900, not CF as in two cards together? Matt must be talking about the 'added heat' of the latter case.

The RAM on the card may or may not achieve the rated clock for many reasons, but one of the most pronounced reasons is the voltage supplied, which is usually determined by the card's BIOS. Since the power circuitry of the core and memory is on the same PCB in a close proximity, IHVs often take heat/power into consideration not to mention headroom for under-performing memory. (look at 7900 GTO)

sorry guys ..it was a single x1900XT CF..not 2 cards

Lopri...man where was my head..of course voltage on ram maybe need to be higher to get rated memory speeds...ATI may not have wanted the voltage to get 900mhz for heat issues

but I aways assumed(LOL) if the rate a chip at 1.1ns...that is "guaranteed" speed

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: nealh

Originally posted by: lopri
I think Neal is talking about CF version of X1900, not CF as in two cards together? Matt must be talking about the 'added heat' of the latter case.

The RAM on the card may or may not achieve the rated clock for many reasons, but one of the most pronounced reasons is the voltage supplied, which is usually determined by the card's BIOS. Since the power circuitry of the core and memory is on the same PCB in a close proximity, IHVs often take heat/power into consideration not to mention headroom for under-performing memory. (look at 7900 GTO)

sorry guys ..it was a single x1900XT CF..not 2 cards

Lopri...man where was my head..of course voltage on ram maybe need to be higher to get rated memory speeds...ATI may not have wanted the voltage to get 900mhz for heat issues

but I aways assumed(LOL) if the rate a chip at 1.1ns...that is "guaranteed" speed

I was talking about CF, sorry about the confusion.

Also, dont count on ever hitting anything close to 900mhz on the 1.1ns memory. I've thrown crazy amounts of voltage at my X1900XTX memory and the highest I have ever gotten it stable is 825mhz

Let me know if your experience is different.

 

[SpeedZealot369]

Personally I'd say save the money. Ramsinks don't do much and $20 is a lot IMO for that.

 

[Elfear]

Have you verified that the card has 1.1ns ram? I only ask because mine came with 1.2ns ram and I thought that all Crossfire editions cards did (can't remember if early versions had 1.1ns or not).

 

[nealh]

Originally posted by: Elfear
Have you verified that the card has 1.1ns ram? I only ask because mine came with 1.2ns ram and I thought that all Crossfire editions cards did (can't remember if early versions had 1.1ns or not).

Well..got HSF off and the x1900XT CF I have has 1.2ns ram..so best case on ram is 800..this what the other person got on early testing I should at least be close

Core seems ok at 675 on default 3D voltage which is fine

watercooling right now and temps are running idle 37/38c...load on quick 3DMArk05 was about 48/50...not great not bad...

mystock temps were 42/43 or 46 idle just cant recall...load I could get a real sense but 3D renderer in ATITRAY tool was reading 52+ after a few minutes...WC stays around 44/45C(ambient was 25-26C yesterday...it was around 85C)

I should note my radiator was getting quite a bit of dust and blew that clean..still a bit dirty..when i pull my loop apart near Xmas it will get a real cleaning

 

[nealh]

FWIW..I was running the card last night for a bit ..nothing heavy and the memory chips when I took the card out to apply 7(need to cut another sink down) were cool to barely warm....at least for everyday non 24/7 heavy gaming..LOL
ram stays pretty cool

 

[Bateluer]

I'd put ramsinks on the RAM, not sure about the composite chip though. I know my 6800GT's ramsinks got pretty toasty after the card was put under load. My X1900XT is using the stock cooler at the moment though.