VGA card power dissipation
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:24 pm
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-powercons
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/ ... rcons.html
In the intro of this article, it states that the max power consupmtion is 41.3W w/o any other power supply for the agp card besides the agp slot. I have a 9000pro and was wondering whether i can just unplug the fan and not worry about it, or if i should put on a zalman northbridge cooler.
Thanks.
In the intro of this article, it states that the max power consupmtion is 41.3W w/o any other power supply for the agp card besides the agp slot. I have a 9000pro and was wondering whether i can just unplug the fan and not worry about it, or if i should put on a zalman northbridge cooler.
Thanks.
If you look at the values at computerbase.de, the 9000 pro needs more power than a 9600 pro. Please get a Heatpipe or a Silencer if you want to silence it.brian wrote: I have a 9000pro and was wondering whether i can just unplug the fan and not worry about it, or if i should put on a zalman northbridge cooler.
So, from the X-bit labs article, it seems that 9600XT is THE BEST compromise for high-performance and low power consumption/heat.
I just produced an excel chart of all Tomshardware benchmarks of 9800Pro vs. 9600XT, and 9600XT is about 40% slower than 9800PRO, however 9800PRO consumes 336% more power at idle and 207% more power at burn(games)!!!
I just produced an excel chart of all Tomshardware benchmarks of 9800Pro vs. 9600XT, and 9600XT is about 40% slower than 9800PRO, however 9800PRO consumes 336% more power at idle and 207% more power at burn(games)!!!
Re: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-power
You should probably keep some sort of good cooler on it. I put a thermocouple on the passive heatsink of my Sapphire 9600 (which is a mere 325/400mhz) and while playing Battlefield 1942 it gets as high as 135F / 57C. That's pretty warm, being that it's measured on the heatsink itself. The chip core is probably more like 65C, I would imagine.brianLp518 wrote:I have a 9000pro and was wondering whether i can just unplug the fan and not worry about it, or if i should put on a zalman northbridge cooler.
Granted there's not much airflow in my SFF, especially since I have a network card all but blocking/touching the heatsink of my videocard, but you'd need a pretty fair amount of case airflow to keep a powerful card cool passively while gaming. In normal Windows usage though it's just fine, usually around 100F, which is about 10F over case temp.
Interesting data from X-bit there, but I have to laugh a bit...
Reading the 9800XT test (wich happened to test the exact same card I have) I found this:
Anyways, now that I have mounted the AC NV3 on it I guess I'll have to get the OC-software for it installed again... 470/840MHz sounds like a nice speed to run it on...
Reading the 9800XT test (wich happened to test the exact same card I have) I found this:
Twice less of electricity? I thoughy it was "half the power"...The difference between the X800 and the RADEON 9800 XT is especially clear in the Idle mode: X800-based graphics cards consume twice less of electricity.
Anyways, now that I have mounted the AC NV3 on it I guess I'll have to get the OC-software for it installed again... 470/840MHz sounds like a nice speed to run it on...
-
- Patron of SPCR
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:57 pm
- Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
- Contact:
That excellent Xbit labs "nvidia vs. ATI power consumption" article had missing images. I emailed the editor, and she was nice enough to fix it (after two emails, though). The article contains video card power consumption data I haven't seen anywhere else.. so I am mirroring it on my webserver just in case something happens to it again:
Original source at
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/ ... er_10.html
From this chart, I think you can see why I am such a big fan of the 9600 series.. even the xt. Outstanding performance/watts ratio.
I'm curious where nvidia's 6600 and 6600gt would fall on this chart, as they are the next logical step up from the 9600 in this generation of video cards-- 2x the performance, but.. how much additional power draw?
Original source at
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/ ... er_10.html
From this chart, I think you can see why I am such a big fan of the 9600 series.. even the xt. Outstanding performance/watts ratio.
I'm curious where nvidia's 6600 and 6600gt would fall on this chart, as they are the next logical step up from the 9600 in this generation of video cards-- 2x the performance, but.. how much additional power draw?
-
- Patron of SPCR
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:57 pm
- Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
- Contact:
Update on the 6600gt. Per this techreport power consumption chart, the 6600gt consumes +15w more under full load than the 6800 (non-gt). I assume the systems were identical in both cases, except for the video card, so that should be an accurate number.
If we add that to our xbit labs chart, then the 6600gt would be peaking at 38.8w + 15w = 53.8w, which is barely 5% less than the 6800gt. It doesn't seem worthwhile, but I am skeptical that the 6600gt really draws that much power.
The non-gt cards, on the other hand, definitely draw much less power.. but cannot offer a complete 2x performance increase over the 9600xt.
If we add that to our xbit labs chart, then the 6600gt would be peaking at 38.8w + 15w = 53.8w, which is barely 5% less than the 6800gt. It doesn't seem worthwhile, but I am skeptical that the 6600gt really draws that much power.
The non-gt cards, on the other hand, definitely draw much less power.. but cannot offer a complete 2x performance increase over the 9600xt.
Try less than 3%.wumpus wrote:If we add that to our xbit labs chart, then the 6600gt would be peaking at 38.8w + 15w = 53.8w, which is barely 5% less than the 6800gt. It doesn't seem worthwhile, but I am skeptical that the 6600gt really draws that much power.
That chart you have listed has 55.39W for the 6800GT at load. 55.39/53.8 is roughly equal to about 1.0296
In another Xbitlabs article there is some figures for the power consumption of the 6600GT.
I have an interesting update about the X850 (R480 core). Hardwareluxx tested the X850 XT PE for PCIe some time ago and for AGP recently. Both are supposed to support "clock gating", which should reduce idle power draw siginificantly.
But only the AGP version is truly remarkable - a system equipped with it needs 6-10W less on idle compared to a 6600GT. The PCIe version lies in between a X800 and a 6800GT.
Wether it's only for the AGP version or it was enabled with newer driver revisions remains a mystery to me.
PCIe: http://www.hardwareluxx.de/cms/artikel. ... 01&seite=3
AGP: http://www.hardwareluxx.de/cms/artikel. ... 59&seite=3
But only the AGP version is truly remarkable - a system equipped with it needs 6-10W less on idle compared to a 6600GT. The PCIe version lies in between a X800 and a 6800GT.
Wether it's only for the AGP version or it was enabled with newer driver revisions remains a mystery to me.
PCIe: http://www.hardwareluxx.de/cms/artikel. ... 01&seite=3
AGP: http://www.hardwareluxx.de/cms/artikel. ... 59&seite=3
Last edited by jojo4u on Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hello
What about Radeon 9550? It says .13micron so it is actually just a slower RV350, which means cooler and less power consumed compared to a 9600, right?
Another query: does a 64-bit memory interface 9550 128mb consume less power and emit less heat than a 128-bit memory interface 9550 128mb?
What about Radeon 9550? It says .13micron so it is actually just a slower RV350, which means cooler and less power consumed compared to a 9600, right?
Another query: does a 64-bit memory interface 9550 128mb consume less power and emit less heat than a 128-bit memory interface 9550 128mb?
Hi all - just wanted post a very big warm THANK YOU to all posting here. I found this while surfing for info about my ti4600 and the amount of heat coming off of it. Reading through the charts here have been very insightful, and since this particular box is not for gaming, there's no reason not to downgrade to a less power hungry item.
Has anyone thought about re-compiling all of this together subjectively with conclusions, etc.?
Also - maybe its just me, but for the non-gamer, it looks like the GF4 MX series is the best bet, am I right? I've found that a 128-bit card is absolutely necessary for smooth computing in today's OS's and the GF4 MX series seems to be the lowest power hungry 128-bit cards in the charts here.
For reference - here's the link to Adrian Rojakpot Video card spec sheet listing!
Has anyone thought about re-compiling all of this together subjectively with conclusions, etc.?
Also - maybe its just me, but for the non-gamer, it looks like the GF4 MX series is the best bet, am I right? I've found that a 128-bit card is absolutely necessary for smooth computing in today's OS's and the GF4 MX series seems to be the lowest power hungry 128-bit cards in the charts here.
For reference - here's the link to Adrian Rojakpot Video card spec sheet listing!
Here is the update from Computerbase.de with the Geforce 7800. Computerbase.de had the most cards in comparism, that's why I've choosen a german page.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hard ... mverbrauch
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hard ... mverbrauch
-
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:18 pm
- Location: Illinois, USA
The wattage numbers on that bar graph seem totally blown up. Not a single card in their comparison consumes less than 150W at load? Are these all overclocked out the wazoo, or am I missing something?jojo4u wrote:Here is the update from Computerbase.de with the Geforce 7800. Computerbase.de had the most cards in comparism, that's why I've choosen a german page.
-
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:18 pm
- Location: Illinois, USA
I'm trying to compile as complete a list as I can of PCI-E VGA card consumption, from the various things mentioned in this thread. Now is a tough time to make VGA card choices if you're looking for ultra-low power (like I am -- I will need a PCI-E replacement for my 9600 pro), so a massive compiled list should be helpful. I'm going to leave SLI off the list altogether, as it is probably not of interest to 95% of SPCR readers.
Sources for wattage info:
A: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/ ... er_10.html
B: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/ ... pth_6.html
C: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/ ... -oc_3.html
D:
http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewto ... 226#183226
E:
http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx300/ ... porate.pdf
Obviously, this is very incomplete. So let's keep gathering whatever information we can find and fill in this table as much as we can.
Does anybody have any suggestions for other cards to add to this table?
I could also add a column for (rough) performance, and a column for approximate price, if people think that's a good idea.
Code: Select all
Card Idle Power Max Power Source
GeForce 6600 11 W 23 W D
GeForce 6600 GT 18 W 48 W C
GeForce 6800 17 W 39 W A
GeForce 6800 GT 23 W 55 W A
GeForce 6800 Ultra 29 W 72 W A
GeForce 7800 GTX ? 81 W B
Radeon X300 10 W 18 W E
Radeon X600 Pro
Radeon X600 XT
Radeon X700 Pro
Radeon X700 XT
Radeon X800 Pro 15 W 48 W A
Radeon X800 XL
Radeon X800 XT
Radeon X800 XT PE 18 W 63 W A
Radeon X850 XT PE ? 72 W B
A: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/ ... er_10.html
B: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/ ... pth_6.html
C: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/ ... -oc_3.html
D:
http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewto ... 226#183226
E:
http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx300/ ... porate.pdf
Obviously, this is very incomplete. So let's keep gathering whatever information we can find and fill in this table as much as we can.
Does anybody have any suggestions for other cards to add to this table?
I could also add a column for (rough) performance, and a column for approximate price, if people think that's a good idea.
Last edited by swivelguy2 on Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Planet earth
-
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:18 pm
- Location: Illinois, USA
According to Toms Hardware the Radeon X300 is based on the 9600 processor:winguy wrote:Yes power consumption of X300 is what i wish to know. Is it the replacement card for 9550/9600?
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphi ... 00-04.html
Depending on how you define replacement this might be what you mean?Toms Hardware wrote: "Technologically, Ati's Radeon X300 (RV370), also known regionally as the X300 LE, is based on the well-known Radeon 9600 graphics processor."
I am also interested in finding some power consumption figures on the X300...
Found some info on the X300, stated by ATI though, so it's hard to evaluate if we can trust the figures.
Core power:
10 W (Max ASIC power)
18 W (Max Board power)
Source: http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx300/ ... porate.pdf
Core power:
10 W (Max ASIC power)
18 W (Max Board power)
Source: http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx300/ ... porate.pdf
According to this post, the power draw of the GeForce 6600 is only 11W at idle and 23W at full load. This seems like the best PCIe GeForce card for people who are most concerned with low power and low noise (if it's fanless) and don't care so much about gaming.
First post, BTW.
First post, BTW.
That would be good news indeed! I just ordered a Gigabyte GeForce 6600 256mb, stock passively cooled. Since my PC currently has integrated graphics, I was going to monitor the power draw using my Kill-A-Watt before and after installation of the card to get a feel for how much it draws. 11-23W would be excellent power consumption for passive cooling in the SFF environment.neerlent wrote:According to this post, the power draw of the GeForce 6600 is only 11W at idle and 23W at full load. This seems like the best PCIe GeForce card for people who are most concerned with low power and low noise (if it's fanless) and don't care so much about gaming.
First post, BTW.
What about a 6200 ?neerlent wrote:According to this post, the power draw of the GeForce 6600 is only 11W at idle and 23W at full load. This seems like the best PCIe GeForce card for people who are most concerned with low power and low noise (if it's fanless) and don't care so much about gaming.
First post, BTW.
-Edit- Found this Anandtech article that compares a few PCI-E cards (X300, 6200, 6600 etc).
Last edited by winguy on Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.