X800XT + MCW50-T worth it ?

[PTK]

Was just wondering if that was worth the hassle ? I think X800XT's are ~ same temps or maybe even lower than 9800XT's.

That would be the only part watercooled with BI2X + 2x 120mm fans.

So a good idea or not ? Or should i go just with normal watercooling on the X800XT ... when i get it ;).

Pe-Te

[XanderF]

I think the opinion I've seen on the MCW50-T is that it's fine and all for newer cards...assuming you replace the TEC component with a higher power one.

IIRC., the stock TEC component is only 76w - not really enough for a modern GPU.

[arj]

I've just installed DDM4-1 on my X800XT-PE, load temps is about 5 degrees less compared to plain watercooling (I used normal DDM4 before this), mid 30's vs low 40's. Note that I'm living in a hot country where my airconditioned room is about 28 degrees. I'll be upgrading the stock 80W Pelt to 169W Pelt soon.

I'm using a BIX2 with 2 12cm fans as well. The X800XT-PE temps are definitely lower than the 9800XT.

[Jade]

My x800xt runs at about 80c load with the stock cooler. Thats WAY more than my 9800pro 256. I am able to run 1.85v through my 9800 on air so I think the x800 produces quite a bit more heat.

[thesaucier]

You would have to upgrade to at least a 176 pelt for sure but it is a nicely made unit and easy to upgrade.

[arj]

Just did a run of 3D Mark 03 with a core speed or 650Mhz (1.6v)!:D Not bad for an 80W Pelt. Will dump some ice into the res later and see how far I can push it.......

[saaya]

jade, there must be something wrongt with your rig.

are you meassuring in a closed case? whats the ambient temp? are you sure the termometer is working alright?

check out xbitlabs article about modern gpus power consumption :)

a x800xt produces def less heat than a 9800xt!

you should def go for a 172W tec though, or even a 227W tec if you can power it, as a 80W tec only removes around 50W of heat.

a card that pulls 60-80W of energy produces 60-80W of heat. not all heat is produced on the gpu though, id say 40-50W is comming from the gpu, 10-20W is comming from the memory, and 10W is comming from other components on the card.

so an 80W tec is barely enough to remove the heat the gpu produces. a 172w tec removes around 120W of heat iirc, so it would keep your gpu @ - degrees even when you oc and vmod your card and it produces up to 100W of heat (yeah, modern cards are running just as hot as modern cpus nowadays! :eek: )

[Jade]

These temps were taken from the on-die sensor so they arent wrong. And there are plenty of other people with the same temps as me stock.

I know what xbit labs says, I have read it before. From what I have experienced 1st hand though, the x800 produces a lot more heat at lower voltage than 9800s.

[saaya]

modded ,yes. unmodded, i dont know... its not only xbitlabs, thg hardocp and even respected sites like 3dcenter, tecchannel and chip.de have reported those power meassurements.


the only explanation to me is that:

9800xts run hotter than i thougt

or/and

the x800 hsf s are smaller and cool worse than the 9800xt hsf

or/and

the x800s memory produces less heat and the gpu produces a bigger percentage of the overall heat wich means higher temps for the gpu at same overall videocard heat production.

[=[PULSAR]=]

I have an X800XT and have it vmodded to 1.6V and my zalman fanless cooler can pull of 57C at full load a big drop from the 83C full load of stock cooler. Do you think I have enough cooling power to throw a 80w TEC under it?

[thesaucier]

Originally posted by =[PULSAR]=
I have an X800XT and have it vmodded to 1.6V and my zalman fanless cooler can pull of 57C at full load a big drop from the 83C full load of stock cooler. Do you think I have enough cooling power to throw a 80w TEC under it?

No

[Jade]

....saaya im confused now.... :(

[saaya]

why?

[Jade]

Well if the x800 supposedly does produce less heat than the 9800 cards, then why is a larger hs/f needed at lower voltage?

But I dont know how so many sites could be wrong. Maybe I misunderstood the articles?? :confused:

[saaya]

the x800 heatsink is smaller than the 9800 heatsink as far as i know

and lower volts doesnt mean it consumes less energy and produces less heat, just look at prescott.

ampere x volts = Watt

if you lower the volts you dont always get less watts. cpus have a pretty fixed ampere value, wich means when you lower the volts of a cpu the watts do indeed decrease, but whenever there is a new stepping and changes are made in the design the ampere characterisitics of the cpu CAN change.

for example a barton at the same volts as a tbred pulls more ampere wich means it consumes more energy and dissipates more energy (all it does is actually change the form of the enrgy from electricity to heat as energy doesnt disspear but only gets converted from one type to another you might remmeber from physics classes)

prescott for example has huge ampere requirements wich means it consumes way more electricity and prioduces way more heat than a northwood at the same volts.

its for those ampere requirments that some "prescott ready" claimed boards dont work with prescott chips, at least not stably as the prescott is pulling more amperes than originally planned, and the boards were designed to handle.

hope i could help you :)