I'd do that to if it weren't so much more expensive to make a bunch of water loops.
I think I'll stick with massive heatsinks for high end aircooling lol.
Printable View
I'd do that to if it weren't so much more expensive to make a bunch of water loops.
I think I'll stick with massive heatsinks for high end aircooling lol.
Yeah, or massive air. Either way, the starting clocks aren't too terribly important, as long as it can clock well when modded, IMO.
3870 = 105W TDP, 3870X2 = 190W TDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caveman787
4850 = 110W TDP, 4870=160W TDP.
I´m not dumping on ATIs parade. I´m just not jumping the hype race.
Anyway, show me how a real 4870X2 with 4870 clocked GPUs would be doable without a 3 sloot cooler design or a dustbuster. Plus something that the power connectors would allow.
So yes, it is impossible with 4870 speed GPUs.
yet the 4850 can reach 4870 speeds and Gddr5 supposedly takes less powersso it could be possible.
Funny how gtx200 hype was fine lol.
I dont think GT200 hype was fine. But it was small.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caveman787
Do I need to say minicores, shared memory etc?
You do know 75W is supplied on PCIe 1.0 via the slot? Or 150W on PCIe 2.0, but thats irrevelant since it goes for the lowest dominator.
So 4850= 75W+75W=150W possible.
And you type like someone familar ;)
Slot+6pin+8pin matches precisely what 2 4850 would require.
pci-e 2.0 is specified for 300W max. so i dont think we wont see the X2 at 4870 clocks.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
75+75+150=300w...
Since when does two 4850, which should need under 200w, now need 300w?
It is definitely possible for there to be higher binned cores on the R700 and still stay under the 250w.
I asume you would not OC your X2 card then. Because there wouldnt be any headroom at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
4870 is 160W, 2 is 320W. If we look on 3870 vs 3870X2 (105 vs 190) only 20 watts TDP was saved. Or perhaps that wasnt better binned cores...
Maybe I should also remind you of the 3870X2 with connectors?
http://www.sdbear.com/2/lib/200801/29/361/1.jpg
Did it need 300W?
The 3870X2 (225W) ate more than 2x the power of a single 3870 (105W), due to obvious voltage increase for 850 MHz core. It traded blows with the 9800GX2 for the highest power consumption, depending on which games were being played.
I guess the 4870X2 will actually have lower speed cores (lower than 750 MHz) or at least *slightly* lower voltage with carefully selected quality cores in order to meet the 300W TDP limit. Almost guaranteed that it wont be any higher than 750, since ATI wont have any competition for their king-of-the-hill 4870X2 that completely destroys the 9800GX2.
ATI better be using a slightly higher speed GDDR5 memory, at least 3800 or 4000 MHz rather than 3600 MHz for a single 4870, since it should be more important for players who use those cards to game at 2560x1600 resolution. It was a stupid move by ATI to do GDDR3 instead of GDDR4 on 3870x2 cards.
wait aren't you proving my point?
The Power will be shared between the 2 and since somethings wont be requiring power since they wont be there.
Besides I'm sure 300 watts would be enough.
Regardless enough speculation I'll wait and see but either way I know the R700 is gonna be a powerhouse.
Eh just because ATI can lay back and enjoy there moment doesn't mean there gonna do like Nvidia did and start screwing over there customer's. Atleast I hope not.
It wouldn't be smart for them to try and screw their customers as they need to regain their market share. You won't be able to that without having a seriously good price/performance ratio.
BTW, I'm sure power draw for the R700 will be smaller than 225 Watts otherwise they would not use the card with two 6-pin PEG connectors, just check it here:
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../R7001-big.jpg
Yeah I noticed that to but we don't know under what kinda load that card was.
Heck we don't even know if that card was fully functioning lol.
But You very well could be right and a lower tdp would technically be better because it's gonna be fairly hard to cool 2 cores that close together I'd assume.
Remember that the 3870x2 also had higher clocks, meaning they saved 20w will increasing the clocks quite a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
There is obviously quite a bit of power savings that happened in the 3870x2 and to imply that none of that will happen with the R700 is simply ludicrous...
GDDR5+unknown memory setup+smaller PLX+one PCB and probably countless other stuff.
3870 base card was already lower TDP than even a 4850 is. Yet the exact same design as a 3870X2 can now hold 4870s with a 50W higher TDP than a 4850? Or 55W higher than 3870 for each GPU? Someone just made 100W TDP go away?Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
I´m not saying nothing is happening. Even with 4850 GPUs there would be a 10W or more savings. But you suggest something way beyond in the excess of 100W.
Helmore´s picture is also pointing towards it.
No I am not...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I am suggesting that someone is relaying incorrect numbers.
A 40-50w savings is all that would be needed.
Also Im amazed no ones thrown out the idea of conservative TDP as in the card will most likely be well within the number.
Plus since powerplay isn't working right maybe there wasting power on both end's load and idle. Because the 4870 pulling so much more juice then the 4850 doesn't seem to make much sense.
When is the R700 information and reviews gonna start showing up august?
I'd say you are just speculating here :D
LOL..missed the reviews? Why you think the 4870 uses so much? Why do you think a 3.2Ghz Yorkfield uses so much (100%) more than a 2.66Ghz? Replace those with 4870 and 4850 and you got your answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caveman787
Or why do you think a 8800Ultra uses so much more than a GTS?
When you reach the limits power consumption increases drasticly. At a certain point you would simply pour in power without gaining any performance.
Lol yeah well that's all we can do at this moment.
Though we all wish we knew exactly what it was like.
Whats your view guys on whether its worth buying factory oc cards (like the diamond xoc) for the higher binned chips rather than buying reference and oclocking it yourself. is it worth it for higher binned chips or not :shrug:
So far i buy stock but i might pay more if there really is a gain for the extra money.not totally convinced though :shakes:
duh... i would recommend you to check out the 8pin connector -> the pci-e 8pin connector only has 2 more ground wires nothing more... imho the introduction of the 8pin connector was one off the biggest ripoffs :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
Number of connectors is no indication of what a card can consume.
They only time higher binned cards that are pre overclocked do much better is if the up the voltage for more overclock headroom.
For $50 more i'm not sure it's worth it unless you get alot more headroom.
Yeah it doesn't tell you how much it takes but it gives you the ability to better guess.
so if R700 has two cores @ 625mhz, what do you guys expect the highest core OC to be before we reach temperature limitations, or limitations due to power draw?
I bet we're going to see 900mhz R700 overclocks in this very forum! ;) It will be funny to see if those cards are pulling 299 watts @ load :)
Ive always thought i could do whatever the manufacturers could do for free with a bit of advice,, the oc are usually conservative but theres that element of chance it could go much higher..
I think id pay a little bit more maybe but im still not decided
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
I think that the pc in the photo isn't working and that is only for demonstration. Just look at the cpu fan. It isn't working !!! So, they only had 2x6-pin cables and so they put them, because if it isn't working, it doesn't matter. All of the above of course is pure speculation.