New nVidia GeForce 6800 -- DUAL power connectors

shathal · Post by **shathal** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 10:43 am

Re: the above

Fair point - I do agree. However, I suspect that (in the end), this is "just" the NVIDIA reference design, and maybe some clever OEM gets the idea

.

Since it's already eating up another PCI-slot, might as well make it worth it...

At any rate. What worries me is the insistance on two seperate Molex-channels. Not just two Molex-connectors, but (supposedly) two seperate strands. With nada but fans allowed to join in.

Doesn't make a whole world of sense to me, other than NVIDIA are worried that too much power would be sucked through the one strand. For reasons named above - that doesn't make a whole world of sense to me.

ATI's "top notch" baby is also supposed to require 2 Molex connector.

I wonder if next year, they'll require their own power supply ...

Worrying ... but I still intend to get one

.

shathal · Post by **shathal** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 10:50 am

Hmmm ... upon think a little on this one.

This would make a LOT of sense for the Enermax NoiseTaker 475's approach of a SEPERATE 12V rail for the mobo.

Since this would no longer be shared out between the mobo + HD's + the rest + "the big 6800", this MIGHT make it possible to connect just the one strand.

Interesting possibility.

SMRC should get one for review, yeah

.

grandpa_boris · Post by **grandpa_boris** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:25 am

shathal wrote:SMRC should get one for review, yeah .

couldn't the conclusion be reached without any formal testing? "there is no way this thing can be quiet".

Tobias · Post by **Tobias** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:35 pm

I admitt from start, I know nothing about electronics, but can't it be that the two molex's are there because the card can't safely draw all the juice it needs from just one point. That is that the PCB on the card can't handle the amount of power needed safely if all the power came from the same source. The limitation is the card, not the PSU...

1911user · Post by **1911user** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:58 pm

The (good) reason for 2 molex connectors is the ATX power supply spec limits the amount of current that can be drawn through one molex contact. The fact that seperate power strings are recommended/required tends to indicate the wire size is the limit. The circuit board for the video card is not the limiting factor.

shathal · Post by **shathal** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:47 am

I am beginning to contemplate, whether it wouldn't just be easier to have a seperate kettle-lead going to the 6800 Ultra.

Course, there'd be a requirement for auto-sensing, as having that expensive a graphics-card go "bang", just because you forgot to switch from 110V to 220V (or vice versa) would be a bad thing.

But it'd be a nice idea, insofar as it'd reduce all that PSU headache NVIDIA (and likely - ATI too) are causing with this approach.

grandpa_boris · Post by **grandpa_boris** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:46 pm

shathal wrote:I am beginning to contemplate, whether it wouldn't just be easier to have a seperate kettle-lead going to the 6800 Ultra.

that implies 2 things: a separate PSU and rather peculiar power cabling. the power cabling can be done in a variety of ways, and probably the simplest is to use a completely separate plug. that can get ugly, but it's simple enough. a PSU that has to put out 100W+ isn't going to be small. the higher powered laptops' "brick" PSUs are probably a good guide for the sizing. it doesn't look like 6800 can survive on the 90W brick like the typical mini-ITX box would have.

jojo4u · Post by **jojo4u** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:21 am

3dcenter.de sucessfully benched the 6800U with a 300W PSU. I believe the card is sucking on the +5V lines, so with Athlon 64 and P4 there is no headache.

shathal · Post by **shathal** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am

5V rail?

That'd be interesting ... it'd make life easier as well, admittedly, but hey

.

Hmmm ... would have to find the power requirements for the critter. And I've not been able to do that yet.

Would be nice to have that cleared up...

Harpocrates · Post by **Harpocrates** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:56 pm

grandpa_boris wrote:
apocalypse80 wrote:Did you think the reference cooler was a monster?

Just take a look at this Leadtek 6800U
OK, i don't get it. the 6800 cards are already eating up 2 slots. why not vent them to the outside? why pump all that hot air back into the case, where it will only cause us grief?

I've been wondering the same thing. Perhaps Abit will come through and do something similar to their FX5900 OTES

shathal · Post by **shathal** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:54 pm

Now THAT's exactly what we need

.

Nice find

.

We can only hope someone will have the good sense of doing this. First one to find such a cooled 6800 please don't hesitate to point it out here

.

PretzelB · Post by **PretzelB** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:51 pm

I saw that Alienware is now actually offering this as an option in their computers.

Seems like I picked a bad time to buy both a 9600xt and Far Cry.

wumpus · Post by **wumpus** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:44 pm

Not really, depends what resolution you want to run

Plus, that 9600xt probably runs 5x cooler (watts) than the new nVidia 6800. The question you have to ask yourself is: what's more important? performance or noise

Stevo@ARM · Post by **Stevo@ARM** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:22 pm

I spoke to my NVIDIA factory rep the other day about the 6800 Ultra and was told this card draws up to 150W at full load

My guess is that this might be for the possible 512MB version down the road, which this GPU architecture does support. According to THG the 256MB version tested there is a mere 110W

So, anyone planing on building or buying a quiet high performance machine based upon a P4 Prescott, or forthcoming AMD-64 platform and an NVIDIA 6800 Ultra or similar class graphics card, had better be ready to raise their slient modding skills to the level of Mozart or Bethoven crafting a musical masterpiece.

At ARM Systems we are hard at work at this moment to bring this level of power in StealthPC trim to reality in the near future, and rest assured we will.

My advice however, is to throw out most of the off the shelf cases and mod components that you have become familiar with and get ready to take on this new Rubik's Cube.

AMD / Intel on CPUs and Nvidia / ATI on video are in a hyper-escalated arm's race that is progressing so rapidly that everyone had better just put on a fireman's flame retardant gear, 'cause PC's are about to double and triple their heat output over the next year. So what do the big manufacturer's think about this, well they have been planning for it for a while, so here is a teaser: Has anyone heard of The Blue Angel Acoustic Specification yet? Here's a little hint: 48 dBA @ idle and 55 dBA @ load is considered in compliance

We'll keep you posted when we are ready to release our Prescott + NV6800 Ultra StealthPC however.

jojo4u · Post by **jojo4u** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:53 am

Stevo@ARM wrote: At ARM Systems we are hard at work at this moment to bring this level of power in StealthPC trim to reality in the near future, and rest assured we will.

Be shure that you push the enormous heat directly out of the case. Since 2 years I believe that direct output ducting is a key to silent computing.

shathal · Post by **shathal** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:23 pm

150W ....... ?

Urgh.

If I need a new cooking plate, I'll consider modding a 6800 with 512 MB ...?

Not heard of that spec yet, but 55 dBA @ load is a fair bit creepy. Other than the intent of the visitors on these forums to have quiet computing, I am beginning to be concerned with H&S at workplaces.

Having a jet-engine whine into 1,000,000's of workers day in day out is bound to be bad for nerves and hearing. Bad enough we've got roughly 50% of the population whose backs are shot (what with us sitting so much), but deafness or hearing impairment is bound to spread to nigh epidemic proportions, if this is continuing.

A somewhat bleak outlook? I hope it is but pessimism and not the state of things to come...

Stevo - stop being unfair.

Open a branch in europe, THEN tempt me

.

Nowhere_man · Post by **Nowhere_man** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:48 am

wumpus wrote

The question you have to ask yourself is: what's more important? performance or noise

Performance.

Framerate is life.

silvervarg · Post by **silvervarg** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:26 am

If I recall correctly it limit of the normal PSU wires (16AWG) is 11 Amp. So if the card uses "only" 110W it should do fine to draw this from just one PSU connector using only the 12V.
If it used the 5V wire only it would just barely be able to get the 110W pulling a full 11A on both cables. I find it very unlikely that they use the 5V line to power a graphics card. They could possibly use some 5V for some circuits, but like a normal high power board the 12V is used for the processor (GPU).

Not many computers today have a PSU that can spare another 110W taxed from the 12V rail. So the PSU manufacturers will be very happy.

nutball · Post by **nutball** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:10 am

Nowhere_man wrote:wumpus wrote
The question you have to ask yourself is: what's more important? performance or noise
Performance.

Framerate is life.

It may be yours, it's not mine

Jan Kivar · Post by **Jan Kivar** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:23 am

silvervarg wrote:If I recall correctly it limit of the normal PSU wires (16AWG) is 11 Amp.

After googling I found this. 16AWG is 22 Amps, 18AWG is 16 Amps.

The page has also a calculator that calculates the voltage drop on the line. 10 Amps on two-feet (one-way) 16AWG copper cable drops the voltage by 0,2V (0,3V with aluminium) if the calculator is accurate...

Cheers,

Jan

Gholam · Post by **Gholam** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:55 am

Stevo@ARM wrote:Has anyone heard of The Blue Angel Acoustic Specification yet?

Is that supposed to bring the noise level of a PC in line with an F/A-18 Hornet? I just hope they didn't measure those F404's running on afterburners...

shathal · Post by **shathal** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:34 am

Gholam wrote:
Stevo@ARM wrote:Has anyone heard of The Blue Angel Acoustic Specification yet?
Is that supposed to bring the noise level of a PC in line with an F/A-18 Hornet? I just hope they didn't measure those F404's running on afterburners...

As I said - jet engines.

One wonders what kind of mushrooms they've been eating when they thought up "Blue Angel" accoustic spec... That's a hellish racket, rather divine serenity and silence, me lads ... tsk tsk tsk ...

Post by **Rusty075** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:40 am

Ati X800's to only need single molex

It's an interesting statement when the good news is that the card will only consume 80 watts.