Real Power Consumption - 4870 X2 & GTX295 out of Spec!

**v_rr** · 02-03-2009, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Shintai

Its hardly no surprise I guess. Pretty sad tho. GPU makers have for along time been truely horrible. They push things too hard. We get shortlived products and the consumer ends up paying twice in the terms of power bill. not even to talk about the dustbuster effect.

I mean we sit here and talk about uhhh..this CPU uses 20-30W more. BUUH BAD CPU! 295 and 4870X2 both over 300W. One almost 400W. Both AMD and nVidia can go screw themselves honestly. One thing is sure, my next GFX card will be sub 75W.

Also there is hardly any progress. They simply just keep pumping power in. Trislot coolers cant be far away.

Just imagine a retail 300 or 400W C2Q, i7, PH2 etc. If Intel or AMD came with that, everyone here would talk about removing people from the gene pool.

I guess the reference designs everyone uses is a nice way to hide the consumption behind fake TDPs.

Hum?
Furmark is useless. Real world tests are the way to go, not crap benchmarks.

And if you want GFX <75W you have plently of them on the market.

**LiquidReactor** · 02-03-2009, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by v_rr

Hum?
Furmark is useless. Real world tests are the way to go, not crap benchmarks.

And if you want GFX <75W you have plently of them on the market.

lol, with that reason should we all here just be using Crysis/GTA4 + some firefox tabs to test our overclock stability? They do count as real world tests, that means they are better right.

**v_rr** · 02-03-2009, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

lol, with that reason should we all here just be using Crysis/GTA4 + some firefox tabs to test our overclock stability? They do count as real world tests, that means they are better right.

If your overclock don´t fail in any program or game and circunstance you use your pc, yes it is stable for it´s use

Some people only want stability to make a run for 3dmark one time, other want for 24h use. Depends on people = real world tests.

**Eastcoasthandle** · 02-03-2009, 05:09 PM

I am not sure I understand the validity of this article. Did AMD and Nvidia base their TDP on furmark? Did the author of said article contact both Nvidia and AMD to find out what was used to determine TDP and use his results as a litmus as to their claims?

After reading this article I find myself asking more questions then what this article is suppose to answer. Another concern is that the use of furmark in this fashion can give the impression to others that those results are what you get in games and other programs. The truth is (if you used furmark) is that you don't draw nearly as much power and heat in games and programs as you do with furmark (at least based on my on examination of this).

Therefore, IMO this type of review should be about pushing power consumption to the max.