The Misunderstanding - Presented by AMD

It's a very goo point.

The Radeon designs are definitely more advanced from a power consumption angle these days. (now if they could only issue even semi-decent linux drivers...)

I think we'll see improvements in this area from Nvidia as the fermi chip yields improve to the point that they can lower the voltages on them a bit...
 
aldamon said:
And the previous generation of AMD cards. My 4850 is a space heater.
Click to expand...

It's only 110W. Current mid-range DX11 cards start at 150+W. That's how they got away with using a single-slot cooler on the 4850 (just barely).
 
bufodr_T said:
cant believe it took this long to make that video. I think they needed more fans on the pc though to keep it cool. Maybe even a portable ac unit
Click to expand...

I was at a site recently that all the work floor PC's had a HUGE side fan taking up basically the entire left side. 12-16" beasts...
But, yeah, a window AC unit strapped on top would have been a riot.
 
aldamon said:
And the previous generation of AMD cards. My 4850 is a space heater.
Click to expand...

Lots of people confuse the temperature of the card with it's heat output, guess you are one of them. 4850s ran hot because most had a small single-slot heat-sink. When you are talking about heat output however (heat transferred from the card into the air) it really wasn't that bad.
 
JimmiG said:
Yeah, the reason I got the GTX460 was that I don't need a new case or PSU. The 5830 is too long for my case and uses too much power for my VX450W PSU. My previous card was a 4850 that hit about 90C in games and 96+C in Furmark. Only 110W though.
Click to expand...

Even with a shitty air cooler that card shouldn't be hitting any more than 70C. There was something wrong with your setup or your card.
 
Your GTX 460 is no improvement on heat output either. 155W at a load, actually uses more than the 4850 (147W at a load). Temperatures mean nothing and are not a clear indication of what kind of heat your card is putting out, power consumption numbers tell most of the story.
 
And uh, one last fun fact: The 5830 uses less power than the GTX 460 (146W versus 155W, at-load numbers).
 
Emission said:
Even with a shitty air cooler that card shouldn't be hitting any more than 70C. There was something wrong with your setup or your card.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that ... Mine hit 90c with the stock cooler, even in good air cases like the Antec 900 with fans going pretty speedy. Bumping up the fan speed on the card to 90-100% helped, but made it really noisy. The reference 4850's ran pretty hot.

Emission said:
Your GTX 460 is no improvement on heat output either. 155W at a load, actually uses more than the 4850 (147W at a load). Temperatures mean nothing and are not a clear indication of what kind of heat your card is putting out, power consumption numbers tell most of the story.
Click to expand...

Yep. Even though the card itself gets hotter, and FEELS hotter, the amount of heat it dumps into your case and into the room is still dependent on how much power the card consumes, as mentioned by Emission and others.
 
I've owned/worked with a couple 4850s (probably non-reference though, admittedly), and even with the stock coolers the temps seemed pretty under control. My XFX 4850 sat somewhere in the 50s-60s celsius load wise, but is a non-reference design with an improved cooler.

It just seems a little out of place to see numbers that high, then again, being a reference design, I wouldn't doubt it.

The piece of crap paperweights that AMD thought would be OK to cool the chips on my 4870x2 are barely worthy of cooling an Intel Celeron let alone a fairly beefy graphics processor. Aftermarket cooling ftw.
 
I have a 4870 X2, and with letting the drivers control the fan I idle at 74C in my Antec Tweleve Hundred. When I game, I never see it go above 90C, and it's rated OK to 115C. I could keep it cooler by bumping the fan up, but I've had it for years, and I don't really care that it idles that high, or that it gets up to 90C while gaming, I've never had any issues from it.

Still agree that the stock cooler sucks for it though.

I thought the ad was funny, but my first thought was that it was a play on AMD cpu's running hot. Damn them and nVidia both having green as the company color.
 
Emission said:
I've owned/worked with a couple 4850s (probably non-reference though, admittedly), and even with the stock coolers the temps seemed pretty under control. My XFX 4850 sat somewhere in the 50s-60s celsius load wise, but is a non-reference design with an improved cooler.

It just seems a little out of place to see numbers that high, then again, being a reference design, I wouldn't doubt it.

The piece of crap paperweights that AMD thought would be OK to cool the chips on my 4870x2 are barely worthy of cooling an Intel Celeron let alone a fairly beefy graphics processor. Aftermarket cooling ftw.
Click to expand...

The one 4850 with non-reference cooling was several orders of magnitude cooler than the reference one I used. The 4850 was a budget beast, and I loved it, but because of the wimpy single slot reference cooler design, I really couldn't OC it hardly at all, and even stock it really got toasty at load. It was simply powerful enough to deserve a dual slot or rear exhausting cooler in my opinion.
 
SirKronan said:
The one 4850 with non-reference cooling was several orders of magnitude cooler than the reference one I used. The 4850 was a budget beast, and I loved it, but because of the wimpy single slot reference cooler design, I really couldn't OC it hardly at all, and even stock it really got toasty at load. It was simply powerful enough to deserve a dual slot or rear exhausting cooler in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top