Ok. I'll just stick with 470 or 5870. I don't wanna live on the wild side :p:
Printable View
Ok. I'll just stick with 470 or 5870. I don't wanna live on the wild side :p:
Twice the power use for 10% more performance and it costs more? Please to explain the appeal here?
There is no way it can be that bad... I mean what, it's going to be only ~30% faster than the GTX285 when it has a 2x increase for the SPs, a 1.5x increase for the ROPs, a decrease in TMUs and higher clocks?Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemeanie1
So when you double 188 you get 250?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
Seems like it's the new math! Anything you don't like, just fudge the numbers blindly and call it a day!Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
I guess idle power is much more important. Will be interesting to see where it stands compared to HD5000 series.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
ehhhh no... more like 110W+...Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
some 9770s were around 130W+ iirc...
stock...
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Huh? You let your computer idle all day? I don't know about you but I turn on my computer when I need it. Anything more than that and you don't care about power consumption anyways. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBy
look here, it's sorta in the middle, 64.8W-Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/inte...n/powermax.gif
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//i...1&limitstart=6
Yes, the 9770 used more, probably used more voltage. If he has a newer revision 9650 it probably uses even less.
come on... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
unless you run GPGPU DC or have a laptop for web browsing,emails,youtube and reading, listening to music, watching movies etc, id be very surprised if your vga is loaded most of the time your pc is turned on...
qx9650 is almost half the tdp of a qx9770? sorry but that doesnt make sense... 0_oQuote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
Q9650 = 95W tdp
QX9650 = 130W tdp
huh?
My Q9400 clocked at 3.0ghz should consume almost the same as a qx9650, right? I've got less cache, but surely that wont amount to 60W. Yet, under FULL system load, I only see 180-190W. That's with an 80W video card. So, if my CPU used as you say, 110W, it'll mean the rest of my system components are drawing no power. And I trust Lostcircuits, their methodology is quite sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
edit- the 45nm c2q's were notoriously low power chips at stock, so I don't know why this would come as a surprise.
yeah, i trust MS a lot... but i know that there was quite some variation with c2q and qx tdps...
i didnt know 9770s were THAT much hotter than 9650s...
interesting... so yeah, i guess 9650s are around 80W...
DigitimesQuote:
Nvidia initial batch of GeForce GTX 400 series to have fewer cores than expected
so they'll do what they did with gtx 260 and eventually make a 'Core xxx' version, I assume?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just learnin'
They could and would only if it made sense. Until the release of a better 480 part ( die shrink ect ) I don't think there would be a place for it and even then any full 512sp part will likely be a limited run part like the 8800ultra ( on 40nm anyways )Quote:
Originally Posted by natty
Realistically people should be expecting a card that roughly matches the GTX 295 but with more vram and DX11.
unlikely...Quote:
Originally Posted by natty
shader blocks = sps
16/16 = 512 = GTX480 Ultra?
15/16 = 480 = GTX480
14/16 = 448 = GTX470
theres no room left for any beefed up 470s... only higher clocks would be possible...
They might make it 480SPs for GTX 470 and 512 for 480, although I don't think that'll happenQuote:
Originally Posted by saaya
ALL LIES I SAY..
pretty sure that fermi card is hangin out with loch ness monster and the yeti playing videogames..
I'm seeing several places that show 5870s well under 188 and 480s at closer to 290~. So my point stands, I guess you don't know either.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
5870s official TDP is 188 and 480's is 250W. If you're seeing several places that show it below 188 you're reading 5870 reviews in which power consumptions are measured. So the fact that you're saying "I'm also seeing places where 480s are closer to 290" means that you are also reading GTX 480 reviews 4 days before NDA, and there you are seeing measured power consumptions of 290W. You are making perfect sense.
Plus, 2 times 188 makes 376. Still not 290.
still, in my math, 376 is the double of 188...Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
and where are you getting the 290w number from?
Has anyone in all this even bothered to say or think that despite the 480 being clearly higher in TDP, it's not going to use anywhere near that full 250 watts unless it's running a game that is maxed out with high resource graphics replete with full use of DX11's advancements. In fact you may only see it producing that much heat on synthetic bench tests like Heaven. Too much speculation here and not enough facts. Let's wait and see what the results are. Most of the time when actual wattage consumption and heat output are measured in real world applications, you find it takes considerable less power than the max load it's capable of to run the hardware.
OEMs requested the 3xx rename.Quote:
Originally Posted by weston
There seems to be a lot of confusion about computer wattage. PSUs ain't 100% effective. Current new models have 80plus certs and a few with more, but thats best case scenarios. 80% efficiency is a realistic value and for you in 110V land maybe a little less.
This means that if you measure at the wall a 100W draw you're using 80W, the rest is heat in the PSU. This also means that a rated 500W PSU at maximum load will draw 625W from the wall..
So when you see statements like "the system draws 450W" which alludes to a killawatt measurement, that's only the maximum for a 360W PSU.