Dont understand...hd4850 10w idle @ 68c
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Dont understand...hd4850 10w idle @ 68c
Looking at some early info about amds upcoming hd4850 graphics card. Some people have got these cards early and are reporting idle temps at around 68c. I thought these cards were to burn around 10w idle?
the cooling solution would have to be almost absurdly bad to hit ~70C with only 10W of heat. also, given they're supposed to pull 100W+ at max load, the card would likely burst into flames if the cooling solution is that bad. seems more likely the temp measurement is just wrong.nutball wrote:The one isn't automatically incompatible with the other.
-
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:25 am
Well we have (in this thread at least!) very little information about what the cooling was in the tests reported.jaganath wrote:the cooling solution would have to be almost absurdly bad to hit ~70C with only 10W of heat. also, given they're supposed to pull 100W+ at max load, the card would likely burst into flames if the cooling solution is that bad. seems more likely the temp measurement is just wrong.
The shots of HD4850 cards I've seen are your typical 1-slot graphics card heatsinks, with a plastic cover and a fan. Quite clearly optimised for high-heat, high-airflow. Turn the fan off, then what? No forced air cooling, no convective cooling, what are you left with? Conductive cooling through a couple of bits of plastic and fibreglass?!
Or not, if this preview is correct:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/724-2/p ... -4850.html
But who knows, maybe it was a different system...
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/724-2/p ... -4850.html
But who knows, maybe it was a different system...
That 4850 is quite a blurry card, me thinks
4850 for <100 Watts would be awsome; maybe I could run that together with my (mobile) core duo, and a 2.5" hdd on my 220 Watt brick (more than half the power consumption taken by the card ).
Regarding the test; maybe the 3870 bottlenecks the system such that the cpu can't work at full throttle, possibly causing less power consumption than expected, but not directly related to gfx power consumption
Re: Dont understand...hd4850 10w idle @ 68c
Apparently the fan profile turns on late and turns on slow, so the card will get that hot.drjunk wrote:Looking at some early info about amds upcoming hd4850 graphics card. Some people have got these cards early and are reporting idle temps at around 68c. I thought these cards were to burn around 10w idle?
Couple of guys on OCAU have 4850's already, and claim that changing the thermal compound to AS-5 has given a 20deg drop at idle, 10-15 at load for temps.
When it comes down to it it is a pretty basic cooler though, it's not meant to be the high-end even though it performs that way.
Personally i can't wait to see what the 4870 can do, I have a feeling we may see passive versions of both. I figure if my 8800GT can run passive, they can.
Another power consumption graph:
Source: Hardware.fr
It doesn't use much more power than a 8800GT... passive cooling is still worth a try IMO.
Source: Hardware.fr
It doesn't use much more power than a 8800GT... passive cooling is still worth a try IMO.
I linked that one earlier in the thread Notice 352W system load compared to 319W with the HD3870.
But, things just get more and more weird.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ati-r ... wercolor/7
HD 2900 XT 391 Watt
Radeon HD 3850 259 Watt
Radeon HD 4850 Force3D 269 Watt
Radeon HD 4850 Powercolor 269 Watt
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/21.html
Looks like we're going to have to wait for a while, until Xbitlabs gives us exact power consumption figures.
But, things just get more and more weird.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ati-r ... wercolor/7
HD 2900 XT 391 Watt
Radeon HD 3850 259 Watt
Radeon HD 4850 Force3D 269 Watt
Radeon HD 4850 Powercolor 269 Watt
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/21.html
Looks like we're going to have to wait for a while, until Xbitlabs gives us exact power consumption figures.
All things considered AMD seem to have had a bit of a cockup with this one.
Its directly comparable to the 8800GT in the following ways.
Price.
Performance.
Power Consumption.
So why would anyone actually buy one of these over the competition (excluding fanboys and people who prefer red to green).
The 8800GT is an established item in the market, I just dont get what AMD has brought to the table with this item, its not faster as the same price point, and its not cheaper at the same performance.??? Someone please enlighten me.
On that note, the 4870 benchmarks, tests etc etc have not hit the net yet, will that be as intimidating (sarcasm!) to nVidia as the 4850 seems to be.
nVidia are also about to launch (in a months time) a re-hash of the 9800 GTX called the 9800 GTX+, which is really going to make AMD hurt if the 4870 fails to deliver.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... x9800-tips
Andy
Its directly comparable to the 8800GT in the following ways.
Price.
Performance.
Power Consumption.
So why would anyone actually buy one of these over the competition (excluding fanboys and people who prefer red to green).
The 8800GT is an established item in the market, I just dont get what AMD has brought to the table with this item, its not faster as the same price point, and its not cheaper at the same performance.??? Someone please enlighten me.
On that note, the 4870 benchmarks, tests etc etc have not hit the net yet, will that be as intimidating (sarcasm!) to nVidia as the 4850 seems to be.
nVidia are also about to launch (in a months time) a re-hash of the 9800 GTX called the 9800 GTX+, which is really going to make AMD hurt if the 4870 fails to deliver.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... x9800-tips
Andy
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=57 ... pert&pid=3
Starting on page 3 of the review linked above, there is not a mind blowing performance difference between those 3 cards in most of the tests, and may I add that in some of the tests the 8800GT beats the 9800 GTX.
NOTE:
The 8800GT in question has been factory overclocked to 700MHz (from the standard 600MHz - the RAM has also been given a boost).
The 4850, looks rather good next to the 9800GTX for the money (£90 price difference), but the 9800GTX is a rip off compared to an overclocked 8800GT available for £136 (BFG - 675MHz core).
Either way, it seems that the 4850 (as of right now) look like good value for money for a high-end part so long as it is avaliable at ~ £100 ($200 was the price I saw quoted).
It has my fullest blessing
Andy
Starting on page 3 of the review linked above, there is not a mind blowing performance difference between those 3 cards in most of the tests, and may I add that in some of the tests the 8800GT beats the 9800 GTX.
NOTE:
The 8800GT in question has been factory overclocked to 700MHz (from the standard 600MHz - the RAM has also been given a boost).
The 4850, looks rather good next to the 9800GTX for the money (£90 price difference), but the 9800GTX is a rip off compared to an overclocked 8800GT available for £136 (BFG - 675MHz core).
Either way, it seems that the 4850 (as of right now) look like good value for money for a high-end part so long as it is avaliable at ~ £100 ($200 was the price I saw quoted).
It has my fullest blessing
Andy
-
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:06 pm
- Location: New Hampshire, US
- Contact:
the TechPowerUp review shows the 4850 outpacing the other cards in higher resolutions, and in just about every game.
You forgot to mention: In low resolutions. The same thing applies to the new NVidia models. Basically all the introduced cards show significant gains in 1920x1200 and up. For lower res, "old" cards are usually plenty enough. (But only until game designers start cramming more effects in their engines, but that's still ahead of us.)andyb wrote:All things considered AMD seem to have had a bit of a cockup with this one.
Its directly comparable to the 8800GT in the following ways.
Price.
Performance.
Power Consumption.
Jeez....Even the gtx280 burns less power when idle...Matija wrote:I linked that one earlier in the thread Notice 352W system load compared to 319W with the HD3870.
But, things just get more and more weird.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ati-r ... wercolor/7
HD 2900 XT 391 Watt
Radeon HD 3850 259 Watt
Radeon HD 4850 Force3D 269 Watt
Radeon HD 4850 Powercolor 269 Watt
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/21.html
Looks like we're going to have to wait for a while, until Xbitlabs gives us exact power consumption figures.
what is wrong with the 4850 idle power consumption. I was seriously considering buying one, but after seeing the results I am a bit confused.
More then 40watts idle consumption is outrageous. My current card doesnt even burn that much under load (a seriously overclock 7600gs sonic). 40 more watts under desktop operations is a kill for me considering a whole system power consumption of about 90 watts at idle right now.
At least the 62C idle temp of the card is now explained.
More then 40watts idle consumption is outrageous. My current card doesnt even burn that much under load (a seriously overclock 7600gs sonic). 40 more watts under desktop operations is a kill for me considering a whole system power consumption of about 90 watts at idle right now.
At least the 62C idle temp of the card is now explained.