VGA card power dissipation

brianLp518 · **Joined:** Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:24 pm **Posts:** 21

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.

jojo4u · **Posted:** Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:41 am

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.

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.

alexb · **Posted:** Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:32 pm

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)!!!

AZBrandon · **Posted:** Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:44 am

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.

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.

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.

Bishamon · **Posted:** Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:43 am

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:

Quote:

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.

Twice less of electricity? I thoughy it was "half the power"...

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...

wumpus · **Posted:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:53 pm

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?

wumpus · **Posted:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:07 pm

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.

Tephras · **Posted:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:43 pm

Ah, finally! I've been waiting for those pics to revive for a long time. Well done.

sthayashi · **Posted:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:12 pm

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.

Try less than 3%.
That chart you have listed has 55.39W for the 6800GT at load. 55.39/53.8 is roughly equal to about 1.0296

wumpus · **Posted:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:32 pm

It seems wrong to me that the 6600gt would draw almost exactly the same amount of power as the 6800gt. In other words, I don't trust my own numbers I just made up. Anyone care to comment?

Tephras · **Posted:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:47 pm

In another Xbitlabs article there is some figures for the power consumption of the 6600GT.

wumpus · **Posted:** Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:03 am

Ah, U D man.

So 6600gt consumes ~18w idle and ~48w load. That's better; roughly equivalent to the 5700 ultra in terms of power usage, and only about 20% more than the cool-ish 6800.

jojo4u · **Posted:** Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:17 pm

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

winguy · **Joined:** Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:31 am **Posts:** 447

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?

DyJohnnY · **Joined:** Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:04 am **Posts:** 98

OK, there are the consumption numbers...any way we can get detalied rails power breakdown?

edit: nvm, found them

for the 6600gt

edit2: anyone seen numbers for 6600gt AGP? the one above is PCI-E

midiman · **Joined:** Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:39 am **Posts:** 33

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!

winguy · **Joined:** Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:31 am **Posts:** 447

Are there links to power consumption / heat dissipation comparisons of low-end (or entire) PCI-E graphics cards line-up?

jojo4u · **Posted:** Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:17 am

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

swivelguy2 · **Posted:** Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:46 am

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.

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 · **Posted:** Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:25 pm

swivelguy2 wrote:

The wattage numbers on that bar graph seem totally blown up. Not a single card in their comparison consumes less than 150W at load?

Whole system power, as usual

swivelguy2 · **Posted:** Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:21 am

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.

Code:

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

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.

winguy · **Joined:** Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:31 am **Posts:** 447

Yes power consumption of X300 is what i wish to know. Is it the replacement card for 9550/9600?

madman2003 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:12 pm

More likely a replacement for the 9200. The X600 is a replacement for the 9600.

swivelguy2 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:04 pm

madman2003 wrote:

More likely a replacement for the 9200. The X600 is a replacement for the 9600.

Yes, but the performance of the X600 is quite lame, being only a slight improvement on the 9600 series. ATI realized this, and is rolling out the X700 to be their mid-range performer.

Hyphe · **Posted:** Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:37 am

winguy wrote:

Yes power consumption of X300 is what i wish to know. Is it the replacement card for 9550/9600?

According to Toms Hardware the Radeon X300 is based on the 9600 processor:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050208/geforce_6200-04.html

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."

Depending on how you define replacement this might be what you mean?
I am also interested in finding some power consumption figures on the X300...

Hyphe · **Posted:** Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:33 pm

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/RadeonX300_Corporate.pdf

neerlent · **Posted:** Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:15 pm

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.

AZBrandon · **Posted:** Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:04 pm

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.

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.

winguy · **Joined:** Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:31 am **Posts:** 447

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 ?

-Edit- Found this Anandtech article that compares a few PCI-E cards (X300, 6200, 6600 etc).

perplex · **Posted:** Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:26 am

i think the undisputed graphics card for 0% gaming is matrox g550 from what i've read around the internet :roll:

VGA card power dissipation

Who is online