I had been looking at building a system using the Asus 7600GS Top Silent passively cooled graphics card. A friend suggested I also consider the Asus EAX1650XT which is also passively cooled.
Has anyone experieince with either or both of these cards and can comment on first hand performance/cooling/power ?
Thanks
nVidia passive vs ATI passive
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Anand Tech has a nice review of silent cards published just recently.
The only thing this proved to me is that most cards that are silent are pretty useless at resolutions above 1024x768. Taking in to account that most LCD panels run at 1280x1024 (A 1.25 aspect ratio, the stupidest thing on the planet . . . but that's a whole other rant.) I would recomment the 7600GT that they reviewed. That or another simlarly equipped 7600GT.
Though the review doesn't have a 1650XT it is so similar to the 1600XT that you may as well tack on an additiona 0.5FPS and call it a wash.
Edit: Removed leftover [/url]
The only thing this proved to me is that most cards that are silent are pretty useless at resolutions above 1024x768. Taking in to account that most LCD panels run at 1280x1024 (A 1.25 aspect ratio, the stupidest thing on the planet . . . but that's a whole other rant.) I would recomment the 7600GT that they reviewed. That or another simlarly equipped 7600GT.
Though the review doesn't have a 1650XT it is so similar to the 1600XT that you may as well tack on an additiona 0.5FPS and call it a wash.
Edit: Removed leftover [/url]
Well I don't do much gaming so FPS numbers at high res really aren't my goal. I currently upwards of 1920x1440 for regular apps with considerably less powerful cards so that part isn't much of an issue.
Both the cards I mentioned are dual-link enabled and capable of 2560x1600. I may never get to use that but I can dream of dropping $2k for a display
Interesting review at Anandtech. It looks like the nVidia card usee about 10W less on average.
Both the cards I mentioned are dual-link enabled and capable of 2560x1600. I may never get to use that but I can dream of dropping $2k for a display
Interesting review at Anandtech. It looks like the nVidia card usee about 10W less on average.
Hmmm, if you don't care about FPS number then why was performance listed as the first item you requested? Since 2D really doesn't matter in the performance world and even the 6200LE does dual link why compare the 7600 and 1650?
Running at 2560x1600 does need around 16MB of RAM available, but any 32MB or greater card should have ample room around for any 2D applications.
I think if you are really actually not going to do any 3D gaming, or any 3D work you would be better of with something link an X300, X1300, or something similar to the 9200 or 9200LE. Though I don't have any power consumption and heat generation stats, but I'm thinking these would me much better suited for your purpose.
Running at 2560x1600 does need around 16MB of RAM available, but any 32MB or greater card should have ample room around for any 2D applications.
I think if you are really actually not going to do any 3D gaming, or any 3D work you would be better of with something link an X300, X1300, or something similar to the 9200 or 9200LE. Though I don't have any power consumption and heat generation stats, but I'm thinking these would me much better suited for your purpose.
I said much gaming. I do play one now and then casually but am not gung ho about it and frankly don't see the need for 100fps when 50fps will do Especially considering the human eye (on average) sees full fluid motion at approximately 24 fps. Performance is also relevant to more fields than just gaming.
Especially considering the human eye (on average) sees full fluid motion at approximately 24 fps. Performance is also relevant to more fields than just gaming.Actually, the human eye sees fluid motion at 24FPS in a movie theatre because of a phenomenon known as Persistance of Vision, where the contrast of the surrounding area is so great that the image is almost burned in to your eye just long enough for the next frame. On a TV things are translated and scanned at 60hz. On a monitor the same thing happens.
You notice a hige difference between 24FPS and 60FPS on a monitor. If you want to try it out there is a game I play called Ballerium (www.ballerium.com) which has a FPS slider to keep the FPS capped. I believe you can set it at 5FPS intervals from 10 or 15 up to 100.
2D performance is so negligable, an almost all cards around today do video acceleration. Even the smaller ones that I mentioned before. Though if you game I still stick beside the 7600GT rather than the GS. In the benchmarks I mentioned they only show you the average frame rate which would mean (I know it doesn't quite work like this with averages, but it makes the point) that half the frams were drawn slower than this and half faster. It's the dips during the intense parts that make an X1300 draw like a slidewhow that your really trying to avoid.
If you ever play a game like F.E.A.R. or others with similar designs the average of the GT was 66 at 1280x960 (Finally, a 1.333 aspect) and the GS was 41. Now assume that during a period of intense combat with lots of effects you will lose around 60% of your average frame rate the GT will still be running at 24 (acceptable levels), the GS will bottom out at 16, near unplayable.
I'm pretty picky when it comes to my games, but even I only have a 6800GT, I'm not planning a major upgrade until supreme commander comes out in 2007, and I'm saving already. I'm hoping by then some video card manufacturer comes out with a 'more from less' style GPU like processors are doing these days . . . one can dream.
You notice a hige difference between 24FPS and 60FPS on a monitor. If you want to try it out there is a game I play called Ballerium (www.ballerium.com) which has a FPS slider to keep the FPS capped. I believe you can set it at 5FPS intervals from 10 or 15 up to 100.
2D performance is so negligable, an almost all cards around today do video acceleration. Even the smaller ones that I mentioned before. Though if you game I still stick beside the 7600GT rather than the GS. In the benchmarks I mentioned they only show you the average frame rate which would mean (I know it doesn't quite work like this with averages, but it makes the point) that half the frams were drawn slower than this and half faster. It's the dips during the intense parts that make an X1300 draw like a slidewhow that your really trying to avoid.
If you ever play a game like F.E.A.R. or others with similar designs the average of the GT was 66 at 1280x960 (Finally, a 1.333 aspect) and the GS was 41. Now assume that during a period of intense combat with lots of effects you will lose around 60% of your average frame rate the GT will still be running at 24 (acceptable levels), the GS will bottom out at 16, near unplayable.
I'm pretty picky when it comes to my games, but even I only have a 6800GT, I'm not planning a major upgrade until supreme commander comes out in 2007, and I'm saving already. I'm hoping by then some video card manufacturer comes out with a 'more from less' style GPU like processors are doing these days . . . one can dream.