Viewing page 4 of 5 pages.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
TEST RESULTS
Before getting to the actual test results, we first offer a baseline for comparison:
results from the test system using the integrated video on the motherboard at
the same ambient temperature. Note, neither ATITool artifact scanner or RTHDRIBL
would run on the integrated graphics chip. We used ATITool's 3D View instead
as we know from past experience that it generates a similar amount of power
consumption but without the ability to detect artifacts.
|
VGA Test Bed: Baseline Results (no external VGA card)
|
|
System State
|
CPU Temp
|
System Power
|
|
AC input
|
DC output (Est.)
|
|
Idle
|
24°C
|
80W
|
59W
|
|
CPUBurn
|
50°C
|
151W
|
117W
|
|
CPUBurn + ATITool
|
50°C
|
161W
|
125W
|
|
System fan @ 7V, 21 dBA @ 1m
|
|
VGA Test Bed: Asus EN8600GT Silent
|
|
System Load
|
System Fan Speed
|
GPU
Temp
|
CPU
Temp
|
System Power
|
|
AC input
|
DC output (Est.)
|
|
Idle
|
12V
|
55°C
|
23°C
|
100W
|
76W
|
|
CPUBurn
|
12V
|
56°C
|
48°C
|
171W
|
134W
|
|
CPUBurn + ATITool
|
12V
|
91°C
|
44°C
|
188W
|
148W
|
|
CPUBurn + ATITool
|
9V
|
98°C
|
45°C
|
|
CPUBurn + ATITool
|
7V
|
103°C
|
50°C
|
With the system fan running at the default 12V, the GPU reached 91°C,
which isn't too bad for a passive heatsink. When we dropped the fan to 9V,
the temperature rose sharply by 7°C. The fan became inaudible in our test
system at 7V and as if on cue, the GPU broke the 100°C mark. It's clear
that there's a high price to pay for silence, and system airflow is incredibly
important for a passively cooled graphics card. The CPU temperature also rose
by 5°C during this final test — the heat rising from the video card
obviously affected the processor's temperature.
The good news is that throughout testing, no instability was exhibited and
no artifacts detected by either ATITool or visual inspection of RTHDRIBL.
Our test system is very tough thermally as the only component providing system
cooling airflow is a Nexus 120mm exhaust fan, which does not push a lot of
air at any speed. Still, the EN8600GT Silent passed this portion of testing,
though at higher temperatures than we'd like. Our tests show that a little
bit of airflow goes a long way, so if your system has an extra fan, you likely
won't experience as high temperatures as we did.
|
Graphics Card Thermal Comparison:
Asus EN8600GT Silent vs. EN8600GT OC Gear
|
|
Graphics Card
|
SPL @ 1m
|
GPU
|
CPU
|
|
EN8600GT Silent
|
21 dBA
|
103°C
|
50°C
|
|
EN8600GT OC Gear
(fan @ minimum speed)
|
22 dBA
|
70°C
|
45°C
|
| System fan @ 7V |
With a much larger heatsink and no direct airflow, the Silent edition of
the EN8600GT ran 30°C hotter than the OC Gear version with only a slightly
lower noise level.
Power
A rough idea of the power consumption of the card can
be judged by comparing the total system power consumption with and without
the card installed. Our results were derived at by assuming:
1. The power consumption of the graphics card at idle
was equal to the difference in power demand between the two systems when both
were running CPUBurn.
2. The power consumption of the graphics card under load was equal to the
difference between the system with the card running CPUBurn and ATITool simultaneously,
and the baseline system running CPUBurn only. This ensured that any load on
the CPU from ATITool did not skew the results, since the CPU was running
at full load in both cases.
|
Graphics Card Power Consumption Comparison:
Asus EN8600GT Silent vs. EN8600GT OC Gear
|
|
GPU State
|
EN8600GT Silent
|
EN8600GT OC Gear
|
|
Increase (AC)
|
DC (Est.)
|
Increase (AC)
|
DC (Est.)
|
|
Idle
|
+20W
|
15W
|
+23W
|
18W
|
|
Load
|
+37W
|
29W
|
+45W
|
36W
|
In an odd twist, we found that the Silent edition of Asus' 8600GT consumed
significantly less power than the OC Gear even though it sports twice as much
memory. We were only expecting a difference of a watt or two because there
was no fan being powered by the card this time around. The drivers used were
the same, no additional software had been installed and the OC gear unit was
not hooked up during its thermal and power testing. It's fantastic that it
consumes 7W less at full load than the fan cooled version. This is probably
explained as improvements in GPU core efficiency in later production runs,
and simple sample variance... but we simply do not have enough experience
with big batches of the same GPU core types to say for sure.
| Help support this site, buy the Asus 8600 GT Silent Video Card from one of our affiliate retailers! |
|
