NVidia Maxwell 2 cards

C

caycep

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
87
So...the GTX 970 and 980 are coming out, with not just performance improvements but what seems like a huge power consumption drop. A new sweet spot for SFF builds?

For my usual uses, I don't really overclock and don't really need the fancy liquid coolers or radiators (at least that is what I assume)...the limiting factor is really GPU. Definitely interested in seeing how GTX 970 or a 960ti card could do in these cases.
 
While for SFF not much changes today, since the GTX780Ti and Titan Black were no issue with the SFX 450W PSU's, the new GTX 970 and 980 both show a lower power consumption and thus less heat.
Silverstone started rolling out their 600W SFX PSU's as a replacement for the 450W, so the reduced power consumption isn't really opening new doors.

The most interesting would probably be the GTX 960, if it has a short PCB. I was hoping for the GTX 970 to have one, but considering it's a binned GTX 980 it won't happen I guess.
 
Phuncz, it's the same as the 670/680. The 670 reference had a short card but many vendors found it easier to design for a single PCB, so initial non-reference 670s used the 680 PCB. Same with 970, the reference is a short card, and you see that e.g. on one of the the Zotac models. However, for some of the non-reference you will see the 980 PCB (or variation), e.g. the other Zotac model 970.

Edit: Oh, and the point I actually wanted to make was that low power consumption of the 970 might allow watercooled SLI in a SFF case when using the SX600-G. But I'm not sure a small case exists for mATX+SFX+SLI.
 
Aha, I thought I saw the reference GTX 970 having a full-size board. Now that changes a lot :)
 
If there is a good short GTX 970, I'd be tempted to make something like machupo's Neutronium or the NFC S3 mini as a scratch build.

The power consumption is low enough for me to use it with a DC power board and it would be plenty powerful for my needs! :D
 
I found a picture of the back of the zotac GTX 970 from OCUK

pM8a96x.png


Here is a picture of the Asus mini GTX 760 for comparison :)

card2_small.jpg


I think the 970 looks a tad bit longer, but it is still pretty short!
 
Ahh- you are right, you can even see the Asus pcb extending further above the bracket.

What do you think of the Zotac card? I dislike the fact that that the shroud and pipes extend past the pcb, but at least we know other manufacturers may use this short pcb...
 
rawrr said:
What do you think of the Zotac card? I dislike the fact that that the shroud and pipes extend past the pcb, but at least we know other manufacturers may use this short pcb...
Click to expand...

The ZOTAC standard 970 above, and the similar-sized Inno3D 970, would be perfect if they made the cooler smaller to match the short PCB using only 1-fan (similar to the Sapphire R9-285 ITX, and the ASUS/MSI mini/ITX cards).

Was considering buying the ZOTAC, but I'm waiting it out for a smaller 970. Hopefully, someone makes one soon!
 
I'm going to replace my water cooled 290x with a stock 980. Too many benefits to switch over for me to ignore.
 
I reckon two of the Zotac 970s on a mATX board with a couple of EK Thermospheres or reference block if/when they make one could make for an interesting SFF build.
 
Found another short'ish 970 tonight, which now makes 3: The ZOTAC 970 "Standard" (ZT-90101-10P), the Inno3D 970 OC "HerculeZ X2" (N97V-1SDN-M5DSX), and the ELSA 970 S.A.C (GD970-4GERX).

Overlayed, and then resized to match the PCIe (might have slight perspective differences), it seems the Inno3D is the largest, then the ELSA, with the ZOTAC being the shortest...

4i45cuE.jpg
AbEtsef.jpg
27uX2nk.jpg
K5HYSjd.jpg




Damn. If I actually knew what the hell I was doing, I'd just buy the ZOTAC and slap an Alpenföhn Peter 2 VGA cooler kit on there (using my 2 bottom F12 case fans connected to the 970 fan headers)..

pjp9QtB.jpg


That just looks so sweet. Good idea, bad idea? :confused:
 
Phuncz said:
While for SFF not much changes today, since the GTX780Ti and Titan Black were no issue with the SFX 450W PSU's, the new GTX 970 and 980 both show a lower power consumption and thus less heat.
Silverstone started rolling out their 600W SFX PSU's as a replacement for the 450W, so the reduced power consumption isn't really opening new doors.

The most interesting would probably be the GTX 960, if it has a short PCB. I was hoping for the GTX 970 to have one, but considering it's a binned GTX 980 it won't happen I guess.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking hypothetically...if you didn't need a huge card to play Game of the Month, whatever that is...could you shrink a NCase M1-ish case even smaller....smaller PSU's, etc?
 
caycep said:
I'm thinking hypothetically...if you didn't need a huge card to play Game of the Month, whatever that is...could you shrink a NCase M1-ish case even smaller....smaller PSU's, etc?
Click to expand...

You could do something like SG05 with outer looks of M1 and try to cut space somewhere like limiting card length
 
Last edited:
SaperPL said:
I'm not sure though how psu and cpu fans would interact in this situation so maybe psu should suck air from the outside.
Click to expand...

Haha, that's the eternal SG05 question :)

You just flip the CPU fan upwards and the PSU helps direct the air out of the case.
 
Yeah this would do too but not every cooler has the standard fan that can be mounted both ways

Oh yeah, didn't realise that's same config as SG05 xD
 
Last edited:
SaperPL said:
Yeah this would do too but not every cooler has the standard fan that can be mounted both ways
Click to expand...

Oh? I admit I'm not familiar with low profile air coolers since the last years. In the past used Scythe which have removable clips to hold the fan, and recently I did a build with the NT06-Pro that also has such clips.
 
Aha! Now that you show the pictures, I realise I had a blind spot about the existance of such coolers :)
 
I wonder if the ST30SF could comfortably handle the GTX 970? Total system draw tests from various outlets hover just over/under 300W, but they rarely mention if those figures are draw from the wall, or compensated for PSU efficiency.
 
EdZ said:
I wonder if the ST30SF could comfortably handle the GTX 970? Total system draw tests from various outlets hover just over/under 300W, but they rarely mention if those figures are draw from the wall, or compensated for PSU efficiency.
Click to expand...

Yeah but most sites test with heavily OC-d processors! So i think you shouldn't worry much.
 
EdZ said:
I wonder if the ST30SF could comfortably handle the GTX 970? Total system draw tests from various outlets hover just over/under 300W, but they rarely mention if those figures are draw from the wall, or compensated for PSU efficiency.
Click to expand...

I think so depending on the CPU and other hardware. I just tested a 5820K and GTX 980 (both at stock clocks) and was pulling 328W from the wall running FurMark and Prime95: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041108182&postcount=853

The ST30SF can do 22A on the 12V (264W) so I think with a lower power CPU it should handle the GTX 970 but it'll be cutting it close.
 
Btw guyz, did you any of you notice the upcoming Intel Broadwell launch?

Check out the Core M-5Y70 processor benchmarks. If they don't lie it's comparable to i7 4650U and current M mobile i5's (standard, not ultra low voltage ones).

Broadwell launches in october as Core M in ultranotebooks BUT it is said intel will launch desktop processors in Q1 2015.

What's awesome about that? Mentioned 5Y70 is a 4W 14nm dual core/quad threaded cpu meaning quad core desktop cpu with performance of current standard i7's like 4770 will pull something like 9 to 12 watts which is quite awesome.

Whats best of getting this huge performance per wat jump at this moment is that microsoft and sony just launched their new "next gen" consoles and game engines will be optimized for them so even if intel was to launch a 16 core/32 threaded cpu it most likely change what is needed to play games with decent details at this point.

So we either get a desktop 12W i7 14nm with current i7 performance or it will be branded as i3 or pentium or whatever else if i7 gets 16 cores OR we get a itx board with Core M.


For me the 5Y70 is just enough for everything I do considering that I'm using my Xeon E3 1230v2 on half of its power most of the time when not compiling unreal binaries (what I don't do often at home)
 
You seem to be over-simplifying many aspects. A CPU isn't like lego blocks, where you just add blocks until the base is full. They can't just connect multiple CPU cores and call it a day. If it was that simple, we wouldn't still be on quad-cores for the high-end desktop CPU (ignoring X58 -> X99 enthusiast class). Cost-wise, this isn't realistic either.

They would also not launch an 8-core $1.000 CPU in September if the plan was to start selling 16-core CPU's for mainstream to high-end 6 months later.

The power reduction has also been less than spectacular in the last 5 years than you expect it to be within 6 months. They've reduced the TDP from 95W for the Quad-Core i7-870 to 88W for the Quad-Core i7-4790K and the power consumption numbers in reviews show that these are indeed relevant ratings. The performance has almost doubled though.

The Core i7 4650U is also nowhere near the Core i7-4790K we have now and it makes no sense to make these for desktops. A single 120mm radiator or a good air cooler can already keep these below 60°C without an issue or noise.

There is also one aspect many do not consider: because AMD is still struggling to keep up (even at a distance) with Intel on the CPU front, Intel has no motivation to hurry development.

Another often overlooked aspect is that most don't need more performance. While I can agree that audio/video editing, rendering and other professional content creation can benefit from more performance, Intel offers the X99 platform and if that isn't enough, you can always splurge $3.000 on the 16-core Xeon E5-2698.
 
Phuncz said:
You seem to be over-simplifying many aspects. A CPU isn't like lego blocks, where you just add blocks until the base is full. They can't just connect multiple CPU cores and call it a day. If it was that simple, we wouldn't still be on quad-cores for the high-end desktop CPU (ignoring X58 -> X99 enthusiast class). Cost-wise, this isn't realistic either. E5-2698.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know, I did extrapolate here quite a bit just to say might get more powerfull cpu's in the high end rather than getting desktop 10W i7's

Phuncz said:
They would also not launch an 8-core $1.000 CPU in September if the plan was to start selling 16-core CPU's for mainstream to high-end 6 months later.
Click to expand...
You're right, maybe, but things like that did happen few times.

Phuncz said:
The power reduction has also been less than spectacular in the last 5 years than you expect it to be within 6 months. They've reduced the TDP from 95W for the Quad-Core i7-870 to 88W for the Quad-Core i7-4790K and the power consumption numbers in reviews show that these are indeed relevant ratings. The performance has almost doubled though.
Click to expand...
Thats because of intel's tick-tock planning - each time they get smaller litography next thing what they do is use it up to maintain the same slope of TDP reducing not to rush changes on the market.

I did compare i7 980 which is 130W TDP to 45W TDP i7 4770T - by the passmark benchmark page they are almost the same in performance, maybe 4770T is 0.5% better. Which means intel dropped power consumption by 65% within less than 2 years and one litography scale drop from 32nm to 22nm.

Phuncz said:
The Core i7 4650U is also nowhere near the Core i7-4790K we have now and it makes no sense to make these for desktops. A single 120mm radiator or a good air cooler can already keep these below 60°C without an issue or noise.
Click to expand...
I didn't compare 4650U to 4790K - did compare it to the 4W Broadwell. 4650U has like 40% of 4790K performance and has 2 cores instead of 4.

Phuncz said:
There is also one aspect many do not consider: because AMD is still struggling to keep up (even at a distance) with Intel on the CPU front, Intel has no motivation to hurry development.
Click to expand...
You're right, but Intel might be interested in rushing things because of current consoles and mobile market - consoles now are AMD based and until recently there were only ARM cpu's in mobile devices.

Phuncz said:
Another often overlooked aspect is that most don't need more performance. While I can agree that audio/video editing, rendering and other professional content creation can benefit from more performance, Intel offers the X99 platform and if that isn't enough, you can always splurge $3.000 on the 16-core Xeon E5-2698.
Click to expand...
Yeah thats what I said, meaning that intel might be interested in going for huge power consumption drop in consumer market instead of maintaining the constant drop rate with performance improvements.


Overall I believe we should be seeing some 15W cpu's with performance of 4770's sooner than later.
 
SaperPL said:
You're right, maybe, but things like that did happen few times.
Click to expand...
I can't remember a single time this has happened (at Intel), launching a faster mainstream/high-end CPU that is about twice as powerful for 1/3rd the price.

SaperPL said:
I did compare i7 980 which is 130W TDP to 45W TDP i7 4770T - by the passmark benchmark page they are almost the same in performance, maybe 4770T is 0.5% better. Which means intel dropped power consumption by 65% within less than 2 years and one litography scale drop from 32nm to 22nm.
Click to expand...
That's the problem right there, you are comparing a three year old $600 enthusiast CPU with a downclocked 1 year old $300 mainstream CPU. You can't derive anything from that, except that the performance of the two parts is comparable from two totally different product lines with 2 years between them.

SaperPL said:
I didn't compare 4650U to 4790K - did compare it to the 4W Broadwell. 4650U has like 40% of 4790K performance and has 2 cores instead of 4.
Click to expand...
You were talking about the Core M 5-series as being comparable to the Core i7 4770 but with 9-12W (I guess TDP). Since the 4770 has 5% lower TDP than the 4790K but also >10% less performance (but also 10% cheaper), it made more sense for me to compare the more efficient component.

But it is relevant to the discussion as U-type CPU's don't go into desktops, they go into low-power devices, like NUC, tablets and ultrabooks. On the desktop there is no real low-power Intel CPU, just downclocked and binned "normal" CPU's. So if a new efficient CPU is on the horizon, it would stack up against the 4790K (for desktops), not the 4650U (for ultrabooks).

SaperPL said:
You're right, but Intel might be interested in rushing things because of current consoles and mobile market - consoles now are AMD based and until recently there were only ARM cpu's in mobile devices.
Click to expand...
I don't think Intel cares about this beyond the fact that it's now x86 instead of ARM. There was too less of a profit margin to earn, considering how much they earn from mainstream and enterprise.
 
I didn't say that 16core Broadwell would be priced the same as current 4core i7

I did compare 980 to 4770T to show how power requirements dropped - obviously if you were to compare 980 to current 8core enthusiast i7's there would be huge difference in performance rather than power consumption but what does it matter?

What I meant isn't that the next top i7's will be the ones with 15W but that we should see cpu's from intel with power of current i7's and 15W TDP in the next generation, whatever the name and price it'll be.
 
Annoyingly, it looks like there are only a handful of cards using blower coolers, and all but one use custom designs with a tiny radial fan (so hot and loud). The one exception is the Manli GTX970-NV which uses the very nice NVTTM cooler, but doesn't seem to be available to actually buy from anywhere.
 
On my end there's palit and gainward with their's custom blowler type 970's, not NVTTM though.
 
Maybe a noob question but here it goes.

I use an i7 2700k at stock and an mITX board MSI B75IA-E33, at 2.0 PCI-E speed beacuse it's a Sandy Bridge cpu.
Currently i have a MSI GTX 760 OC 4 GB Twin Frozr IV - so far in games that are GPU bound, it;s always 99% load for the video card and the cpu bearly goes over 30-50 % on all cores + HT.

My question:

If i get the MSI GTX 980 or 970 will i have any bottleneck?

Not interested in OC the the cpu and neither to the cards.
Just plug it and the cards will run at max potential?

Thank you.
 
Rorschach said:
If i get the MSI GTX 980 or 970 will i have any bottleneck?
Click to expand...
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Between an i7-2700k and an i7-4770k you might occasionally see differences in the single-digit range at most. It won't be a problem.
 
Perfect.
Thank you.


Long:
Yeah even 10 fps i don't mind, from what i see it's under that so i'm set.
So it seams that at the current rate of CPU progress from Intel i maybe catching the end of the silicon era with my 2700k. :D Hope they will prove me wrong and hope Intel will solder them back again on the mainstream chips, maybe with Skylake. That was my main reason in not getting Ivy/Haswell.
 
EdZ said:
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Between an i7-2700k and an i7-4770k you might occasionally see differences in the single-digit range at most. It won't be a problem.
Click to expand...

Looking at this, even if im itching to get 970, having i5 750 would new procesor be a good idea? Im getting a feeling that yes.
 
It depends - go lookup cpu performance here http://cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

If you go for i7 or Xeon E3 with HT you'll get 2-3x the cpu performance depending on the model.
but your cpu is still good enough to run games with 970 so maybey updating the card at the moment is better option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top