Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Wizer on June 30, 2009, 09:19:58 AM
-
After several days in the Beta Arena, I have discovered that I need to upgrade my video card (no question about it). I currently have a PNY Nvidia GEForce 8500 GT (512 MB) that just is not cutting it in the Beta. I am considering a BFG Nvidia GEForce 9500 GT (1 GB) DDR2 PCI-Express Card or a PNY Nvidia GEForce 9800 GTX OC (512 MB) GDDR3 PCI-Express Card. However, I don't have the technical knowledge to determine which of these cards is the better card. I always thought the X versions of the video cards were the lower end. Secondly, I like the 1 GB of display memory in the 9500 GT version. I am leaning towards the GEForce 9500 GT which cost $10.00 more, but my primary concern is whether or not it can run upcoming upgrade to AH2. I would like to hear the opinion of anyone who has either of these video cards or anyone with technical knowledge of them.
Note to Skuzzy: I was not sure if I should post this in the Beta Forum.
-
Note that the clock speeds are slower on the 1 Gb 9500 GT and will most likely give you lower performance than your current card due to lower memory bandwidth (the speed at which information can be transferred in and out of memory). The 9800 GTX (X are the high end versions of these cards) is vastly superior (not even a contest) in a number of ways but you need to be certain that you have an adequate power supply to run it.
-
This site has an excellent reference for performance on both ATI and Nvidia....
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132 (http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132)
Memory is not really what you should be looking at to judge a video card..
While it's important, it's not as important as how the card itself performs....
9800 series is a great card.. May be a bit more than that 9500, but totally worth it..
The 9800 series is in a completely different universe altogether..
-
Don't let the memory size fool you... bigger isn't necessarily better anymore. Companies like to MARKET larger memory sizes, but what they don't tell you is the LARGER memory is also SLOWER memory. Plus, Aces High will not even touch the 512MB, so going to 1GB is overkill.
DDR3 is MUCH better than DDR2. The Architecture of the 9800 GTX is MUCH MUCH better than the 9500 GT. I personally have a 9800GTX DDR3 'OC' version and I can promise you, it's nothing short of.. WOW. My GF has a 9500 (GT I think) and it seems to do well enough, but still can't touch my 9800.
For some reason, I'm seeing great deals on the 9800GTX lately (I got mine last month for $100 after rebate)... maybe because they've released the next generation NVidia cards...
Just make sure your Power Supply is good enough to handle the 9800....
-
Don't let the memory size fool you... bigger isn't necessarily better anymore. Companies like to MARKET larger memory sizes, but what they don't tell you is the LARGER memory is also SLOWER memory. Plus, Aces High will not even touch the 512MB, so going to 1GB is overkill.
DDR3 is MUCH better than DDR2. The Architecture of the 9800 GTX is MUCH MUCH better than the 9500 GT. I personally have a 9800GTX DDR3 'OC' version and I can promise you, it's nothing short of.. WOW. My GF has a 9500 (GT I think) and it seems to do well enough, but still can't touch my 9800.
For some reason, I'm seeing great deals on the 9800GTX lately (I got mine last month for $100 after rebate)... maybe because they've released the next generation NVidia cards...
Just make sure your Power Supply is good enough to handle the 9800....
Damn Tigger, excellent post! Video Card memory WILL affect the "System Memory Total" in Windows as well (XP 32 bit platforms).
-
Speaking of upgrade... my AMD X2 4200 needs a new one. I have in mind either 9600GT (Leadtek PX9600GT Power Efficient) or 9800GT. But I'm thinking that my PSU might be no powerful enough for a 9800GT ?
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/2016/netzteily.jpg)
Unfortunately, upgrading both GPU and PSU is impossible.
-
your showing a max of 29@'s on the 12V rails....my understanding is that you need a MIN of 31@ and recommended 36@....but someone else may be able to clarify that.
The other issue is that 29@ at 12v is 372W so even if you can pump the current at 70% eff your PS is only pushing 315W of continuous power. This is why guys like TD often seem to be overboard on the PS in the builds. As the loads get higher the margins get fuzzy. In the old days a 400W ps had plenty of head room with much of the usage on the other rails...now the 12V rails dominate the consumption and a top end VC will suck up over 400W's at peak. So a 650W 80% PS pushing 520W of clean continuous power may be overtaxed in a robust system...
-
9800GTX is a much better card...
-
9800GTX is a much better card...
And mostly not available here anymore - which doesn't matter as it's far out of my budget. ;)
-
Was replying to wizer there (why I seperated it). I'd be very careful with your PS. I have a 7900GT laying around. I'll know within a week or so if I need to keep it. I'd offered it to a squaddie but he declined and my intent is to offer it within the squad 1st if anyone needs an upgrade but is strapped for funds...otherwise your more then welcome to it if it fits your needs...
-
And mostly not available here anymore - which doesn't matter as it's far out of my budget. ;)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130485&Tpk=512-P3-N856-LR (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130485&Tpk=512-P3-N856-LR)
You have more than enough PS for this card. (The minimum requirement is 350W/18A).
EDIT: Upon further searching, the Leadtek you're interested in has a minimum of 400W (which puts the eVGA in a better spot), my guess is that the Ampere rating is low 20's.
-
yup, should work just fine....
-
I've just installed a BFG GeForce 9500GT on my computer this past weekend (the exact same one your describing) an so far it is performing very well on the beta...but again, this is the beta - not the final product!
PS: Don't know if this matters but I also boosted the ram from 1G to 2G's.
-
Is that 18A from a single rail or the total of all +12v rails?
-
Speaking of upgrade... my AMD X2 4200 needs a new one. I have in mind either 9600GT (Leadtek PX9600GT Power Efficient) or 9800GT. But I'm thinking that my PSU might be no powerful enough for a 9800GT ?
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/2016/netzteily.jpg)
Unfortunately, upgrading both GPU and PSU is impossible.
Lusche, if you are mostly using the new video card for AH, I think the 9600GT will match better with your CPU since it will be the limiting factor. On less CPU intense games you may get more fps benefits from a 9800GT.
Your PSU will handle a 9800GT fine.
-
Lusche, if you are mostly using the new video card for AH, I think the 9600GT will match better with your CPU since it will be the limiting factor. On less CPU intense games you may get more fps benefits from a 9800GT.
Your PSU will handle a 9800GT fine.
With a Minimum of 400 watts and 26 amps required for most 9800's, I'd strongly disagree. On paper that gives him 3 amps and 50W headroom, that card would be toast within a year.
-
The problem is identifying the true draw. I've seen review/tests with as low as 230W (roughly 19@) and figures as high as yours. The problem is that at 70% efficiency your only getting 315W of guaranteed continuous clean power (assuming the PS actually meets the label). If you look at the label it specifies 145W for the lower voltage rails....leaving 305 for the 12V rails. That gives a theoretical max of just under 26 amps....but at our 70% number we're under 19@ total...
-
29 amps on the combined 12V rails is marginal for a 9800. I wouldn't try it.
Lusche, get the 9600. You'll be able to run full bore in the game and save the rest for a new system down the road.
-
Thanks for all the input.
Yes, I will stick with the 9600. The 9800 is simply pushing it too far in regards to power consumption while not being that much better considering my CPU and the resolution im playing at. Also I'm playing mostly AHII, I originally planned to get Rise of Flight, but their DRM and upgrade policy made this game a no-go for me anyway, no matter what system I have.
-
Well, do you guys actually know what a 9800GT consumes in RL, not on "paper"?
As a worst case scenario, which would be running Furmark, a 8800GT (the 9800GT is essentially the same card) draws about 112 W.
> http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/sapphire_radeon_hd_4770/index10.php
Now, Lusches PSU can deliver a total of 350 W on the 12V rails... so, roughly 300% more. That is a substantial overhead. So much in fact that I doubt the PSU will even run in the load range where it is most efficient.
But I agree, the 9600GT fits his CPU better, unless if he wants to maximise AA and AF settings.
BTW, did you know that the 9600GT consumes on average only 10% less power then the 9800GT? So if a 9800GT is a no-go, the 9600GT is too. :lol
-
From eVGA's web-site:
9800 GTX+
Requirements
Minimum of a 450 Watt power supply.
(Minimum recommended power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 24 Amps.)
9800 GT
Requirements
Minimum of a 400 Watt power supply.
(Minimum recommended power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 26 Amps.)
9600 GT Low Power
Requirements
Minimum of a 300 Watt power supply.
(Minimum recommended power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 18 Amps.)
That looks like a lot more than 10% to me.
I know you don't believe in the manufacturer's recommendations as has been evidenced by your posts in the past but I'm pretty sure that they don't just make this stuff up. There has to be adequate overhead because a video card isn't the only thing running on a machine.
-
Well, do you guys actually know what a 9800GT consumes in RL, not on "paper"?
As a worst case scenario, which would be running Furmark, a 8800GT (the 9800GT is essentially the same card) draws about 112 W.
> http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/sapphire_radeon_hd_4770/index10.php
Now, Lusches PSU can deliver a total of 350 W on the 12V rails... so, roughly 300% more. That is a substantial overhead. So much in fact that I doubt the PSU will even run in the load range where it is most efficient.
But I agree, the 9600GT fits his CPU better, unless if he wants to maximise AA and AF settings.
BTW, did you know that the 9600GT consumes on average only 10% less power then the 9800GT? So if a 9800GT is a no-go, the 9600GT is too. :lol
Bad numbers, the average draw on a 9800GT is about 230W under load. Easy to find a number of sources but here is one...
(http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/skymtl/GPU/9800GT-ROUNDUP/ROUNDUP-68.jpg)
The other question is actually determining what is available on the 12V rail. According to the label on the PS 145W is earmarked for the lower voltage lines. As a general rule you cant use that wattage in calculating continuous power for the 12V rails, so your already at 305W. While the PS may very well push the full 450W it generally will not provide continuous clean power under load beyond its efficiency rating....so that leaves you with roughly 214W of clean power....not enough.
-
Thought I'd add a few comments, others can offer additional insight or correction as they see fit. PS's are squirrelly things....
The normal wattage you see is the rated "output". So a 500W supply is supposed to pump out that wattage while drawing more AC in correlation to its efficiency rating. Unless specifically listed as continuous output the vast majority of power supplies will provide less continuous power (even the good ones). As a general rule you can expect roughly 90%....so your 500W PS will deliver about 450W of true output under ideal conditions. Additionally not all power is available for each "rail". Many top notch power supplies will list very specific information...
(http://www.futurelooks.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/pcpower_610eps-11.jpg)
Here is an image of an actual PC power and cooling test page (shipped with PS). so this PS uses its continuous output as listed output not its "peak output" like many others.
This PS also lists its output at a specific operating temp 40C that is realistic in a well built system....many brands test at 25C or even less. As heat builds output drops markedly. note also that this unit operates at 84%+ efficiency. As a general rule the higher the rated efficiency the better the sustained output...especially at normal operating temps in real world use.
So as a general benchmark you can take the rated output and multiply by rated efficiency and then subtract any dedicated output for the low voltage rails to get a reasonably reliable worst case output for your 12v rails. Of course best case you've got a PS from a company like the one above that will eliminate a lot of the guess work. Just realize that even a PS like this will suffer significant degradation in output if the operating temps are 50C instead of 40C....thats why guys like TD make sure that they have a clean build, excellent cooling...and enough pop in the PS to start with.
-
Well, do you guys actually know what a 9800GT consumes in RL, not on "paper"?
As a worst case scenario, which would be running Furmark, a 8800GT (the 9800GT is essentially the same card) draws about 112 W.
> http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/sapphire_radeon_hd_4770/index10.php
Now, Lusches PSU can deliver a total of 350 W on the 12V rails... so, roughly 300% more. That is a substantial overhead. So much in fact that I doubt the PSU will even run in the load range where it is most efficient.
But I agree, the 9600GT fits his CPU better, unless if he wants to maximise AA and AF settings.
BTW, did you know that the 9600GT consumes on average only 10% less power then the 9800GT? So if a 9800GT is a no-go, the 9600GT is too. :lol
You've become the next "TheZohan". My figures are from eVGA's website and Leadtek's. If you paid attention to his post, he has the 450 watt PSU, hence the large "X" crossing out the two other configurations.
The use of your "giggling smilie" only further accentuates negligence of "given facts" that get "tossed aside".
Lusche, the 9600GT is the optimum card for your need.
-
OK, one after another:
Humble: Your graphs look like the consumption of the WHOLE system, not just the Video card. Most test sites are mesuring consumption for the whole system. You need some special gear to directly check the video card consumption, thus not many sites do this drill.
BaldEagle: Please check some hardware review sites and compare the power consumtion of the 2 cards. You will find they are rather closely matched. This is why you have to take manufactueres recopmmendations with a grain of salt. They tend not only to be ultra cornservative, but also take some worst case scenarios into account, that are quite unlikely but may happen. For instance, there may be someone who builds an ultra hardcore cutting edge computer with the finest and most demanding compnents, but puts in a low performance video card. In that case you need a stronger PSU as compared to the same card in a low performance budget system. I mean, no one is retarded enough to actually do this, but as long as the possibillity remains, the manufacturer must take it into account.
Masherburn:
Oh please, no need to get personal. Unlike Zohan, I have facts to back my claim up. I'm very aware that he has a 450 W PSU with plenty of oompf on the 12V Rails. As for manufacturer recommendations, see above.
-
You do not need special equipment to measure current load and/or drain. A Watt meter in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing is all you need. If you can measure the total load, you can measure the individual loads as well, if you know what you are doing.
-
The numbers are for the card itself, they match up almost exactly with the 19@ load out +/-. The issue is really in the benchmarking. A game like AH will put a lot of stress on both the CPU and GPU, not only will the load be high but the sustained operating temps will be at the systems high end. Flying in an event like FSO where your placing a high constant demand on the system for up to two hours may exceed another benchmark by a wide margin. I lean toward the 24-26@ mark over the 19@ for that reason. In addition the heat buildup may lower actual output for the PS.
IMO your under estimating the power consumption of the card and over estimating the reliability and sustained output of the PS. This is a bad combination....
I'm very aware that he has a 450 W PSU with plenty of oompf on the 12V Rails
IMO he has relatively marginal "oomph" on the 12V rail. His max amps under ideal conditions is 25@ (305W). Using a very conservative 90% continuous power we have 274W (23@). That is best case and hardly qualifies as "plenty" IMO. However if we have a less efficient unit that measures at lower then true operating temps then you could see sustained output of less then 19@'s total on the 12V rail.
I've run cards on lower output PS's fairly often and as long as you know your way around a multimeter your fine....but I also have found circumstances where you have a lot less "oomph" then the label says...
-
Masherburn:
Oh please, no need to get personal. Unlike Zohan, I have facts to back my claim up. I'm very aware that he has a 450 W PSU with plenty of oompf on the 12V Rails. As for manufacturer recommendations, see above.
Who's "Masherburn"? Good Luck in the Future. I haven't even begun to get "personal". However, I feel sorry for anyone who will take your "expertise"/"advice".
You typed "350", not I. No 9800GT that I am aware of is good to go with "350 watts" as you previously stated.
-
Humble, check these numbers for reference:
http://ht4u.net/reviews/2008/sapphire_radeon_hd4850/index7.php
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2008/test_nvidia_geforce_9500_gt_9800_gt/27/#abschnitt_leistungsaufnahme
Similar numbers but clearly statded for the whole system.
In fact, I checked hardware canucks and found this line in thier power consumption introduction:
For this test we hooked up our power supply to a UPM power meter that will log the power consumption of the whole system twice every second.
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/17320-ati-radeon-hd-4770-512mb-gddr5-review-19.html
This should make it clear.
-
Who's "Masherburn"? Good Luck in the Future. I haven't even begun to get "personal". However, I feel sorry for anyone who will take your "expertise"/"advice".
You typed "350", not I. No 9800GT that I am aware of is good to go with "350 watts" as you previously stated.
Sorry for the typo. No pun intendend. It's quite late over here, so forgive my sleepiness.
But back to the "meat". If you can show me a test from a hardware review site that indicates that 350 W on the 12V rails alone will not handle a 9800GT, I may consoder you as back in the game. Good luck.
-
Let's take a closer look at Lusche's PSU specifically:
It is rated at 450W and 70% efficiency. This gives us a real wattage rating of 315W.
Before doing this though, we have to reduce the total rated wattage by the rated wattage on the 3.3 and 5V rails. 450W-145W x 70% = 213.5W on the combined 12V rails.
Since we know that Amps x Volts = Watts then his rated 29 Amps should show 348W on the 12V rails but if we add the 145W from the 3.3 and 5V rails to this it would give us 493W which is higher than the PSU's rating. Alternately, we can take the 213.5W that we calculated were available on the 12V rails and arrive at real amps available of 18 (213.5/12), far under the PSU's rating of 29 Amps.
So what's going on here? His PSU is likely rated at peak power meaning the numbers that they show in the specs are optimistic and available only for very brief periods.
So, will this PSU run a 9600 GT (Minimum of a 300 Watt power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 18 Amps.)? Yes, because it meets the minimum required specs under continuous load. Will it run a 9800 GT (Minimum of a 400 Watt power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 26 Amps.)? Maybe but any continuous draw in those ranges will fry either the PSU or the video card.
I for one think the card manufacturers understand this and consider it when making their recommendations. Do they err on the side of safety? Most likely because look what just happened to a PSU rated at 450W with 29 Amps on the 12V rails.
And this is why running a PSU less than the card manufacturer's specs is not a good idea for the novice and is simply bad advice in a forum such as this.
BTW, If you do this exercise with a PCP&C or a certified Seasonic PSU the numbers come out very close to the rated power.
-
I'm upgrading too, I'm looking at this card any advise:
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
* Core Clock Speed 738 MHz
* Graphics Card Performance This card is compatible with the new rendering features of DirectX 10, which is featured in the Windows Vista operating system.
* Video Memory Installed 1 GB
* Technology DDR3 SDRAM 256-bit
* Memory Clock Speed 2.2 GHz
* Features:
Nvidia PhysX-Ready , Nvidia Lumenex Engine , Nvidia 3-way SLI ready , Nvidia CUDA technology , Nvidia GigaThread technology , Nvidia SLI Multi-monitor support , Nvidia GeForce 3D Stereo technology
-
Cajunn, as you may see from this thread, it's hard to judge if a certain card makes sense for without knowing the rest of the system. ;)
-
sorry for this intrusion....but with what has been said here about power I have a question. Does this all mean that if your power supply is over working other than the obvious burnout issues... it would starve different areas (cpu, graphics card, soundcard, etc) of needed power to run effectively?.
-
Cajunn, as you may see from this thread, it's hard to judge if a certain card makes sense for without knowing the rest of the system. ;)
I just had my system built, and I know my power supply is 550 or maybe 650 because I requested it. And it was built on a gaming platform, I'm running a Asus EAH4670 series graphics card right now which is 512/MD3 and I'm just going to a 1G setup. I'm running Intel dual core 2.66GHz 4 gig's of ram which I'm going to 8 gig's in the near future.
Note: I'm running Windows XP64, and I'm sticking with that as long as I can!
-
Usually (with power supplies) if a power supply is rated for 300 watts this number takes into account efficiency. So you do not need to correct output figures....
-
Thats not entirely correct. Unless specified as continuous power that number almost always refers to "peak" power. You can expect a minimum of 10% less clean continuous power. Additionally unless you know the actual conditions at test you don't know how sound the rated output is. A unit rated at "300W" at 25C will generate significantly less at 50C and might even shut down entirely at that temp. As an example the 910W silencer delivers 910W of continuous power at 50C and 1000W peak. Now if we drop down to the turbo cool (both PC power and Cooling) it delivers 510W continuous/650 Peak at 50C. So only 78% of maximum power in a top of the line mid range unit. Realize that at the tested environment this PS delivers up to twice as much power as a typical 500W generic power supply.
Take a look at the temp your system is generating and compare it to the chart below
(http://www.pcpower.com/images/psmyths-chart.gif)
without specific 411 multiplying efficiency X "rated output" will ballpark you reasonably well under normal operating conditions. Your "300W" power supply probably delivers 180-210 total Watts in normal use...
-
there is a low power 9600 gt and 9800 gt out now made by evga and galaxy.
-
sorry for this intrusion....but with what has been said here about power I have a question. Does this all mean that if your power supply is over working other than the obvious burnout issues... it would starve different areas (cpu, graphics card, soundcard, etc) of needed power to run effectively?.
Yes. You'll typically experience a grey screen, black-out, BSOD or other anomalies.
-
I just had my system built, and I know my power supply is 550 or maybe 650 because I requested it. And it was built on a gaming platform, I'm running a Asus EAH4670 series graphics card right now which is 512/MD3 and I'm just going to a 1G setup. I'm running Intel dual core 2.66GHz 4 gig's of ram which I'm going to 8 gig's in the near future.
Note: I'm running Windows XP64, and I'm sticking with that as long as I can!
Need to know how many amps it has on the 12V rails. If you open the case there should be a sticker on the PSU. You'll also need to make sure it has the right connectors (6 pin, 8 pin or 6 + 8 pin for the card).
-
Hehe, just as I thought, the silence is deafening.
I must say it's rather funny that you are still quoting manufaturers recommendations on what a certain video card draws, despite clear evidence from numerous hardware review sites, that the power consumption of a whole system (and that are rather top notch ones) including the card in question, does acutally draw less power than the minimum recommendation for the card alone.
So my point still stands: If one of you guys can prove that a 9800GT draws significantly more than 120 W (just the card, not the system!) in any application, I'm all ears. It just has to be a independent 3rd party test, no manufacturer claim.
-
See Rule #4
-
The manufacturer knows their hardware better than someone at some WEB site does.
The truth is, video cards will draw different levels of power based on what they are doing. The manufacturer specs the power draw based on an absolute worst case scenario. Just as Intel and AMD specs the CPU power draw at worst case levels as well.
They have no reason to lie about such things. Quite the opposite, they have every reason to keep that advertised power draw level as low as possible. Taking the word of someone at a WEB site (show me their credentials. Are they EE's? Systems programmers? Have they actually done circuit and/or chip design? How long? Why did they quit? How long have then been doing systems software design?) over the word of the people who designed and built the parts is a recipe for failure.
I do check out WEB site reviewers and for the most part, they do not know the difference between a sine wave and a square wave. It is quite apparent, in many cases, they read the instruction manual on using some piece of equipment, then read the numbers it spewed forth without really understanding the cause of those numbers.
If you (collectively) wish to trust them over the engineers who actually designed the parts and are fully qualified to speak to how much power those parts will use, that is your choice. It does not make it the right thing to do. It just makes it your choice.
Oh, and the name calling stops right now.
-
Hehe, just as I thought, the silence is deafening.
I must say it's rather funny that you are still quoting manufaturers recommendations on what a certain video card draws, despite clear evidence from numerous hardware review sites, that the power consumption of a whole system (and that are rather top notch ones) including the card in question, does acutally draw less power than the minimum recommendation for the card alone.
So my point still stands: If one of you guys can prove that a 9800GT draws significantly more than 120 W (just the card, not the system!) in any application, I'm all ears. It just has to be a independent 3rd party test, no manufacturer claim.
I'm sorry but your mistaken, a 9800 series card at full load will draw 230W or so of power....just that simple. A generic 450W PS doesn't even generate that much total power. As to what a specific card will draw playing AH in a sustained manner....I'm not sure. Put I can guarantee you that the PS in question does not put out anywhere near the "oomph" you think it does.
-
Skuzzy,
"Name calling" isn't an issue, some poor guy wasting some hard earned coin due to well meant but mistaken advice is the issue. Anyone with significant time around computers knows that heat is the #1 system killer. Not only does performance degrade but system life can be cut dramatically. Forgetting the likely reality that the PS in question cant generate enough power to start even if it can its taxed to its limits and generating to much heat....degrading its own performance and the entire systems life span. You do not need an uber PS....all you need for most systems is 265-330 total watts of good power. The key is understanding PS realities, as the chart I posted illustrates most new out of the box generic PS's only generate 320-350W at normal operating temps. The heat they generate doing so degrades that "out of the box" performance pretty quickly. So dropping a high demand card into a PC with a marginal PS creates a scenario where even if it appears to be OK the added system heat will kill not only the VC but the everything else within a year or so.
None of this is my thought, every quality power supply and independent review site recognizes heat and marginal PS output as the two leading "PC killers".
-
I was not referring to you humble. I was referring to Masher, as it pertains to the name calling.
Do not worry humble. If I think you said anything out of line I would comment on it. I try to stay out the conversations, as long as they make sense and do not lead someone down the wrong path.
-
I have a tough time with which video cards. For one I go against the grain of many and choose ATI. I've found them dependable. Having built 4 computers in the last 2 years and all with ATI I have yet to experience any issues. I cannot say the same for Nvidia. I had an 8600 that failed to work completely in 2 different computers. It would work but then it wouldn't run some videos. In the end it was annoying. I realize it was some type of driver issue. Still, the ATI cards worked very well from the start. Yet, there are builders, like TD and Baldeagl, who strongly prefer Nvidia. I don't doubt there experience.
The power supply requirements that many have posted about are crucial. You cannot emphasize that aspect enough when pulling a system together. It's just wrong to grab a high tech board, video card, cpu, and then have the thing wimper.
-
Hehe, just as I thought, the silence is deafening.
I must say it's rather funny that you are still quoting manufaturers recommendations on what a certain video card draws, despite clear evidence from numerous hardware review sites, that the power consumption of a whole system (and that are rather top notch ones) including the card in question, does acutally draw less power than the minimum recommendation for the card alone.
So my point still stands: If one of you guys can prove that a 9800GT draws significantly more than 120 W (just the card, not the system!) in any application, I'm all ears. It just has to be a independent 3rd party test, no manufacturer claim.
Here's a pretty good article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-radeon-power,2122.html
In it you'll find that most video cards need 110-270W from the PSU and that that is roughly 1/2 the total system power requirement so total power needs to be in the 220-540W range. Factoring in 80% efficiency (most PSU's are less efficient) means you need 275-675W for a modern video card (314-771W @ 70% efficiency). So, you need ~300W for a low end card in a "normal" system and ~700W for a high end card in a "performance" system (with anywhere from 11-32 amps respectively on the 12V rails to accomodate only the video card).
These numbers are in alignment with manufacturer specs.
The article goes further to break down the power usage of most of the components in the system. I'm curious why you insist on looking only at the video card requirement. I don't know of anyone who's running only a video card isolated from the rest of a system.
Any more proof needed?
-
Toms is a good source but the problems that exist are simple.
No clear definition of what "full load" is. We see that even when trying to spec a system for AH....benchmarks are funny things and in then I think you trust the manufacturer and his recommended minimum specs. Basically your saying that at maximum load a 9800GT is drawing less then 12@ of power at max load and less then 5@ in normal use. Practical experience negates that, anyone with significant experience building a gaming box would never go there. Looking at the explanations of efficiency raise further questions. Generally the PC power and cooling turbo-cool 510 is the benchmark for 500W units (IMO). It requires 650W to deliver 510W at 50C. This is 78% efficient at sever temps. Yet the article assumes 85% efficiency without any exploration of environment. Excess power is converted to heat and a generic 500W PS will only give 80% efficiency at 25C (if at all). At a normal 40C environment that number will be in the 65% range or less. So not only is the "500W" number normally less (450W is more likely) but actual output at 40C is normally 300W or less. Constant high demand from the GPU will cause temp increase over time lowering actual output even further. This increasing heat compunds the problem since the GPU itself is less efficient at higher temps and draws more power itself.
We see this pretty often in AH where players often state that their machine "acts up" after playing the game for a period of time. The simple reality IMO is that playing a game like AH that can consume tremendous system resources will tax even a good system during sustained play. Any system with a PS issue will suffer a lot more stress then placed via the tests we see used for comparison purposes.
So....
1) Trust the VC technical specs not a 3rd party...unless they will warranty your card when it pops
2) Realize that your PS might not be generating even 60% of its rated power after an hour of playing AH
3) Power supplies and other components laboring at the edge of their capabilities generate a lot of heat.
4) This heat further erodes performance and leads to premature system failure
Accordingly....
Build out your box in accordance with the general spec sheets that quality gaming boxes use. Please find me any top end performance PC built around even a top end 500W PS. After all the whole system "only" uses 230W max.....
By the way have I told you about a piece of property I've got....
-
well dell just sold me a gt250 hd 1 gig ddr3 that recommends 400w power supply.. I was online looking at the specs when we were talking... The thing is my ps is at 350w... Well it is there computer i just bought it couple of months ago and it still has a 2 year warranty... What I am getting at is should I trust them? They will be loosing the money out of there own pockets if things overheat because of a low ps..Right? I brought up the ps issue to him ,he told me not to worry that it would work fine...Then he tried to tell me why it would work fine ,but I just couldn't make out what he was saying...But..for another 50 buks on my account I can get US Reps anytime I call tech support :rofl Anyway please let me no what u pc literate folks think about that... :salute
-
Basically your saying that at maximum load a 9800GT is drawing less then 12@ of power at max load and less then 5@ in normal use.
Where did I say that? In my posts I stated the manufacturer recommended PSU for the 9800 GT several times as minimum of a 400 Watt power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 26 Amps. That said, if the article at Toms is right and the video card is drawing half the power from the PSU then the card would draw somewhere over 13 amps ( probably closer to 18 amps because if a 400W PSU had 26 amps on the 12V rails then about 100W would be allocated to the 3.3 and 5V rails with another 100W allocated to additional 12V components).
Please find me any top end performance PC built around even a top end 500W PS. After all the whole system "only" uses 230W max.....
By the way have I told you about a piece of property I've got....
Again, show me where I said that a top end performance machine can be built around a 500W PSU. I stated specifically that such a sytem required a minimum of 700W. I also stated that the bare minimum PSU for a low end system running a low end video card was 300W.
BTW, my own machine is running a PCP&C 750W silencer.
Spin the numbers any way you want from here on out. I'm out of here.
-
Where did I say that? In my posts I stated the manufacturer recommended PSU for the 9800 GT several times as minimum of a 400 Watt power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 26 Amps. That said, if the article at Toms is right and the video card is drawing half the power from the PSU then the card would draw somewhere over 13 amps ( probably closer to 18 amps because if a 400W PSU had 26 amps on the 12V rails then about 100W would be allocated to the 3.3 and 5V rails with another 100W allocated to additional 12V components).
Again, show me where I said that a top end performance machine can be built around a 500W PSU. I stated specifically that such a sytem required a minimum of 700W. I also stated that the bare minimum PSU for a low end system running a low end video card was 300W.
BTW, my own machine is running a PCP&C 750W silencer.
Spin the numbers any way you want from here on out. I'm out of here.
Running it on mine too. I'm through with this thread as well.
-
well dell just sold me a gt250 hd 1 gig ddr3 that recommends 400w power supply.. I was online looking at the specs when we were talking... The thing is my ps is at 350w... Well it is there computer i just bought it couple of months ago and it still has a 2 year warranty... What I am getting at is should I trust them? They will be loosing the money out of there own pockets if things overheat because of a low ps..Right? I brought up the ps issue to him ,he told me not to worry that it would work fine...Then he tried to tell me why it would work fine ,but I just couldn't make out what he was saying...But..for another 50 buks on my account I can get US Reps anytime I call tech support :rofl Anyway please let me no what u pc literate folks think about that... :salute
Well, I'm not as literate as some but man that is cutting it close. However, I have been told that every product has a built in threshold limit of 10% above specs. I sure cannot prove that. Maybe some EE's will jump in here.
-
well dell just sold me a gt250 hd 1 gig ddr3 that recommends 400w power supply.. I was online looking at the specs when we were talking... The thing is my ps is at 350w... Well it is there computer i just bought it couple of months ago and it still has a 2 year warranty... What I am getting at is should I trust them? They will be loosing the money out of there own pockets if things overheat because of a low ps..Right? I brought up the ps issue to him ,he told me not to worry that it would work fine...Then he tried to tell me why it would work fine ,but I just couldn't make out what he was saying...But..for another 50 buks on my account I can get US Reps anytime I call tech support :rofl Anyway please let me no what u pc literate folks think about that... :salute
Keep the PC and buy this to put into it. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703016 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703016)
Now I'm through with the thread.
-
Keep the PC and buy this to put into it. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703016 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703016)
Now I'm through with the thread.
wow, what a bargain! I paid around $110 for mine.
Addendum: doh, mine's a 750 quad.
-
I wasn't responding to you there Bald....
-
I wasn't responding to you there Bald....
Sorry but it seemed that way when you started out talking about the Toms Hardware article I posted then rolled into the rest of it.
-
No I was simply trying to point out that they didnt really give enough 411. If your saying (booze and potentially Toms) that a VC under full load is drawing less then half the manf recommended min power consumption then you need to revisit your procedures IMO. They also got into efficiency for a 500W power supply with regard to actual current draw. There raw numbers are flat out wrong and beyond that they don't even begin to address the operating test environment that generates those numbers. 265W has always (current hardware) been the benchmark for a decent system under normal load. As you said the VC doesn't exist in a vacuum. I have no problem with the idea that under "normal" load a 9800 draws 12@ or so (even in AH). Now if however the player is in a furball, defending a base...being attacked by a CV group...and the field is burning....what is your load out with both the CPU and the GPU maxed out for 12-15min of sustained play? How much has the operating temp of the system increased. Lets say that the case temp was 32C at the start and 45C at the end. Every part of the system degraded in performance and drew more power during that time and got less efficient...generating more heat.
Thats why a good build starts with quality components and is clean with good airflow, correct internal air pressure and well configured cooling/case fans. Any system (even a good one) will be generating less available power and consuming more while throwing off more heat during sustained play. To just say that a VC doesnt need even the manf recommended minimum power and that a "generic" PS of unknown reliability and marginal rated power has "plenty of oomph" is just incorrect IMO.
You dont need a monster PS but you need one that will deliver enough power at realistic temps. Very few generic PS's can do that reliably over time....many not ever. It doesn't really matter in a non gaming system where a 400W PS delivering 165W at 45C is actually fine. But if your running a demanding app that puts a constant high load on thr system like AH does it will show. Thats why so many people have comments like it runs (insert boxed game) just fine so AH must be badly coded, "out of date" etc. Well the reality is this is a lot more complex and demanding on your PC then the eye candy game your referring to is. I've got a PC power and cooling in my box as well...if your going to run higher end stuff you need a higher end PS....end of story. It didnt used to be this way, you can find plenty of posts here where I've told people they'd be fine with lower rated and even generic PS's. The reality is those days are gone. Now cheap power supplies are just that....cheap. And even well respected brands from days past are just known names on cheap stuff. If you run a VC that requires a separate 12V feed that lead better be attached to a PS you can trust....
-
Is a GTX 285 a good card?
I just got one for nicks on a dodgey deal :D
-
Is a GTX 285 a good card?
I just got one for nicks on a dodgey deal :D
It's a great card as long as you have the power to run it.