Viewing page 5 of 7 pages.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
TEST RESULTS
BASELINE, with Integrated Graphics: First, here are the results of
our baseline results of the system with just its integrated graphics, without
a discrete video card. We'll also need the power consumption reading during
CPUBurn to estimate the actual power draw of discrete card later.
|
VGA Test Bed: Baseline Results
(no discrete graphics card installed)
|
|
System
State
|
CPU
Temp
|
System Power
|
|
AC
|
DC (Est.)
|
|
Idle
|
22°C
|
73W
|
Unknown
|
|
CPUBurn
|
39°C
|
144W
|
115W
|
|
Ambient temperature: 21°C
Ambient noise level: 11 dBA
System noise level: 12 dBA
|
Asus EN9400GT SILENT:
|
VGA Test Bed: Asus EN9400GT SILENT
|
|
System
State
|
Sys. Fan Speed
|
SPL
@1m
|
GPU
Temp
|
CPU
Temp
|
System Power
|
|
AC
|
DC (Est.)
|
|
Idle
|
7V
|
12 dBA
|
48°C
|
23°C
|
85W
|
64W
|
|
CPUBurn
|
49°C
|
41°C
|
157W
|
126W
|
|
CPUBurn + FurMark
|
69°C
|
42°C
|
171W
|
138W
|
|
CPUBurn + FurMark
|
9V
|
15 dBA
|
69°C
|
38°C
|
170W
|
137W
|
|
CPUBurn + FurMark
|
12V
|
18 dBA
|
65°C
|
33°C
|
170W
|
137W
|
|
Ambient temperature: 21°C.
|
The thermals of the EN9400GT Silent were very low during testing, staying
below 70°C even when airflow was strictly limited. Increasing the speed
of the only system fan to 9V did not improve the GPU temperature,and pumping
it up to 12V resulted in only a 4°C difference. The card's fairly low power
consumption and the heatsink's simple yet efficient design compliment each other
well. It is an excellent combination for a silent PC.
Power
The power consumption of an add-on video card can be estimated by comparing
the total system power draw with and without the card installed. Our results
were derived thus:
1. Power consumption of the graphics card at idle - When CPUBurn is
run on a system, the video card is not stressed at all, and stays in idle mode.
This is true whether the video card is integrated or an add-on PCIe 16X device.
Hence, when the power consumption of the base system under CPUBurn is subtracted
from the power consumption of the same test with the graphics card installed,
we obtain the increase in idle power of the add-on card over the
integrated graphics chip (Intel GMA950). (The actual idle power
of the add-on card cannot be derived, because the integrated graphics does draw
some power — we'd guess no more than a watt or two.)
2. Power consumption of the graphics card under load - The power draw
of the system is measured with the add-on video card, with CPUBurn and FurMark
running simultaneously. Then the power of the baseline system (with integrated
graphics) running just CPUBurn is subtracted. The difference is the load power
of the add-on card. (If you want to nitpick, the 1~2W power of the integrated
graphics at idle should be added to this number.) Any load on the CPU from FurMark
should not skew the results, since the CPU was running at full load in both
systems.
Both results are scaled by the efficiency of the power supply (tested
here) to obtain a final estimate of the DC power consumption.
|
Power Consumption Comparison (DC)
|
|
Card
|
Est. Power (Idle)
|
Est. Power (Load)
|
|
Asus EN9400GT Silent
|
11W
|
23W
|
|
PowerColor SCS3
HD 4650
|
15W
|
28W
|
|
Asus EAH3650 Silent
|
18W
|
39W
|
Our EN9400GT Silent sample exhibited very low power consumption, beating out
both the PowerColor HD 4650 and Asus HD 3650. Idle power consumption, we feel,
is still not low enough. A modern integrated graphics chip uses about the same
amount of power on full load as the EN9400GT when idle.
| Help support this site, buy from one of our affiliate retailers! |
|
