Wouldn't that extra current draw simply be manifested as heat? I mean, if a processor draws 50 watts, it's gonna generate 50 watts of heat. It's not doing any heavy lifting; those electrons are pretty easy to carry back and forth across the processor.Edward Ng wrote:Er I don't have any measurements on 6800; never even touched or used one before. I've got a 6800GT and a 6600GT, and the 6800GT is water cooled.
Wow, that 11nm is seriously leaky.
Xbitlabs says the 6800 core runs at 1.22V, whereas the 6600GT runs at ~1.48V. Also, the 6800 runs at 350MHz, the 6600GT at 500MHz. To balance that, the 6600GT has 8 pixel pipes and 3 vertex, versus the 6800's 12 and 6. So, let's do some algebra:
(1.48^2 / 1.22^2) * (500 / 350) * ( [8+3] / [12+6] ) = 1.28 times more power for 6600GT.
Now, we compare the load power of the 6600GT to the 6800, according to Xbitlabs' figures: 48.9W / 38.9W = 1.23. The closeness could be a coincidence, because I made a lot of nonsense assumptions in my calculation. But the two numbers are close!
So, faced with all this evidence that the 50W figure is accurate, how can Ed's fanless Aerocool VM-101 work fine for the GPU, when it's unlikely that a CPU anywhere near 50W would function with the same cooling setup? (...or would it?) The lower-speed Athlon 64's pull under 50W with CPUBurn, but I doubt a fanless videocard cooler would work on an A64, even if you could figure out how to mount it. Midrange graphics cards pulling 40-50W often come with something that more closely resembles a northbridge cooler than a CPU cooler. Maybe it's simply because GPU's are okay with higher temperatures than CPU's... or maybe there's some kind of "conspiracy of science" going on here!