9600GT nothing more then a 8800 GTS? & Will the GTX2 slow down when too hot?

[EastCoasthandle]

9800 GTX was never ever meant to exist like this.

This all is a very deep plot, i was told that since nvidia 9800 GX2 was NOT real competition to the AMD 3870 X2 threat nvidia worked fast and used common elements.

THIS IS HOW 9800 GTX CAME TO BE:-

3870 X2 has huge performance fig. in higher resolution than any 8800 so the team took the fastest card all ready made AKA 8800 GTX as base.

The 8800 GTX was too expensive and also did not perform that well in high resolution so they added more memory but to keep costs down they used 256bit 9600 extended PCBs.

People say that the core is a new tuned G92 but here is the catch its not, it is a core from 8800 GTS series. NO CHANGE AT ALL

This is a publicity stunt they want to take on 3870 X2 with 9800 GTX and thus 9800 gx2 will look better than both 9800 GTX or 3870 X2...!!!

Forgot to add this:- See better gameing speed's but only with those games that are made with NVIDIAs collaboration program and also the reason 9800 GTX came to be was that the patners did not like 9800 GX2 at all.

The SLI will also be based on the new layout than the older simpler one so you will get a SLI jump from 8800 GTX SLI scores...!!!

WILL UPDATE INFO ON 3 CARD SLI AFTER A WHILE

BTW 9800 GTX orignally was suppose to sport a new core all together and suppose to be launched in Q4 2008....

Source (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=178727)

I'm not commenting on the 9800GTX score as it appears fake. Its not at 2560x1600 as there is a 4 at the end that clearly shows its to be 1280x1024 resolution.

Look here (http://xs224.xs.to/xs224/08094/bs635.jpg)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now onto the GX2

here is how i heard it stright from Ajay (A tester) the 9800 GX2 has a core that not only hotter in temp than the 3870 but is also scores better i bet that you all know that but now something you dont know:-

He told me that the 9800 gx2 slows down when a certain temp is reached.. for example the core in the bottom (which has a higher temp according to ajay) will slow down from the real clock speed to a safer speed so that the bottom core has a lower temp. but this will give it lower performance....

So as per Ajay the 3870 X2 has a advantage there as all core are on the same silicon but he says that the advantage is really pointless as in some months a new nvidia card will come and right now 8800 high end cards can give the 3870 x2 a run for its money/....


source (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2804313&postcount=30)

None of this is confirmed so take it with a grain of salt.

What are your thoughts about this so called inside news?

[EastCoasthandle]

GTX rquires 28 Amps
http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=768-P2-N837-AR

GTS 512 requires 26 Amp
http://www.evga.com/products/moreinfo.asp?pn=512-P3-N847-A3&pwindow=specs&family=

9600 GT require 26 Amps, same as the GTS 512
http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=512-P3-N867-AR

8800 GT require 22 Amp
http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=512-P3-N807-AR

[Jelle Mees]

If hope that the 9800GX2 does not have temperature issues, because if that's the case, nobody will buy it...

Well, my GT is 69°C on full load at very high clockspeeds ( check pc specs on the left ).

Have sad it many times before, just buy one good case with VERY good airflow and never spend money on extra cooling for other hardware again...

[largon]

GTX rquires 28 Amps
http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=768-P2-N837-AR

GTS 512 requires 26 Amp
http://www.evga.com/products/moreinfo.asp?pn=512-P3-N847-A3&pwindow=specs&family=

9600 GT require 26 Amps, same as the GTS 512
http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=512-P3-N867-AR

8800 GT require 22 Amp
http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=512-P3-N807-AREvery single amperage rating in that list is useless.
Here's the theoretical maximum board amperages for each card based on the current delivery capabilities of PCIe x16 slot and the 6-pin power plug(s):

G92GX2: 18.75A
G92GTX: 18.75A
G92GTS: 12.5A
G92GT: 12.5A
G94GT: 12.5A
And not a single amp more.
Real world power consumptions naturally don't ever reach these figures.

[Tatty_One]

Every single amperage rating in that list is useless.
Here's the theoretical maximum board amperages for each card based on the current delivery capabilities of PCIe x16 slot and the 6-pin power plug(s):

G92GX2: 18.75A
G92GTX: 18.75A
G92GTS: 12.5A
G92GT: 12.5A
G94GT: 12.5A
And not a single amp more.
Real world power consumptions naturally don't ever reach these figures.

You beat me to that! :p

[EastCoasthandle]

Every single amperage rating in that list is useless.
Here's the theoretical maximum board amperages for each card based on the current delivery capabilities of PCIe x16 slot and the 6-pin power plug(s):

G92GX2: 18.75A
G92GTX: 18.75A
G92GTS: 12.5A
G92GT: 12.5A
G94GT: 12.5A
And not a single amp more.
Real world power consumptions naturally don't ever reach these figures.

LOL, your post comes off as if I invented those numbers. If EVGA amperage listing is useless then by all means prove it. "Theoretical" numbers (according to your post) are in fact meaningless to prove that EVGA's amperage listings for the 12V rail are incorrect ;)

Edit: For example can you properly run and OC a GTX with a 12V rail only using 20 amps?

[Solaris17]

LOL, your post comes off as if I invented those numbers. If EVGA amperage listing is useless then by all means prove it. "Theoretical" numbers (according to your post) are in fact meaningless to prove that EVGA's amperage listings are incorrect ;)

i dont undertand what your getting at he isnt using fake numbers....its simple really if youd like truth...grab a multi OC the card run 3dmark while its doing that switch you multi to amprage measure from vcore pin reads..then from mem reads add them......youll get less than 26A

[EastCoasthandle]

i dont undertand what your getting at he isnt using fake numbers....its simple really if youd like truth...grab a multi OC the card run 3dmark while its doing that switch you multi to amprage measure from vcore pin reads..then from mem reads add them......youll get less than 26A

Simple, I am talking about what amp is needed for the 12v rail not what's actually used. Therefore, regardless of what amperage is read via multimeter (which was not part of his post...using theoretical...) the issue remains the same as to what 12V rail is required. Therefore, the conclusion that the amp. required for the 12V rail as useless is incorrect according to how it suppose to be properly interpreted.

[Solaris17]

o well im kinda slow so bear with me...but with anything less than a 26 i thini it doesnt like to boot...even though it may not be needed i think i remember a time when my buddys psu didnt have the reccomended and it gave him a power wartning while he was booting.

[EastCoasthandle]

o well im kinda slow so bear with me...but with anything less than a 26 i thini it doesnt like to boot...even though it may not be needed i think i remember a time when my buddys psu didnt have the reccomended and it gave him a power wartning while he was booting.

no problem...

[largon]

LOL, your post comes off as if I invented those numbers.Huh? :confused:If EVGA amperage listing is useless then by all means prove itStarting now.

Fact #1:
G80GTX consumes <140W (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gf8800gtx-roundup_6.html) (<12A) at peaks during 3D load.

Fact #2:
When eVGA says Minimum recommended power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 28 Ampthey're no talking about the consumption of the card but a PSU that powers the whole computer. They take an "average computer" and extrapolate the power consumption of the basic components then add a crude approximation of the consumption of the VGA in question - and maybe some odd number for headroom. Well, that makes no sense what-so-ever; would one be fine with a PSU rated for 28A powering a GTX and a dual FX-64 system with 8GBs of RAM and 4 10kRPM HDDs? On the other hand, GTX in a system with an ULV C2D would be fine with just 20A of total 12V-rail capacity.

Fact #3 (result of #1 + #2):
The quoted recommended power supply and current ratings don't mean anything in the real world. But eVGA can't quote the real power consumption publicly as some people would think any generic PSU with "14A @ 12V" -rating could power their computer and a GTX. Simple, I am talking about what amp is needed for the 12v rail not what's actually used. (...)The term "amp [that] is needed for the 12v rail" has no technical basis - it basically means nothing. Only the real measureable draw figures matters. If an electrical load is allowed the amperage it inherently draws that's all it "cares or knows about".

"Theoretical" numbers (according to your post (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=683198&postcount=4)) are in fact meaningless to prove that EVGA's amperage listings for the 12V rail are incorrectThe term I used (theoretical maximum board amperage) is based on the PCIe 1.1a video card board power specifications:
- PCIe x16 slot is allowed to deliver 75W (~6A @ 12V + ~1A at 3.3V)
- PCIe 6pin power connector is allowed to deliver 75W (6.25A @ 12V)

The absolute maximum power consumption of a video card with PCIe 1.1a compliance (like G80GTX) can consume a maximum wattage of 225W (18.75A @ 12V) - so I'd like to know why you think these "theoretical" numbers" are "in fact meaningless". For example can you properly run and OC a GTX with a 12V rail only using 20 amps?Yes.
With 20A available for the VGA there's enough headroom to OC a G80GTX to a freq near double those of stock. 60% OC is doable without even exceeding the board power spec.
Though, I would like to see such a GTX specimen...

Ofcourse, one would have to provide enough 12V current for the rest of the system as well, so 20A is enough for a GTX but more often not for the complete system.

[wolf]

telling you you need more is a safe bet for any company, less sued.

my 6800ultra ran fine in an antec aria with a 300w psu, single core cpu, one hdd and a dvd rom. and that beast was said to have a minimum 480w psu. although i still reckon i was cutting it close, good thing antec make a decent psu.

[EastCoasthandle]

Huh? :confused:Starting now.
...

There is a lot of verbiage in your post that goes astray but it all boils down to what I posted before, the amperage required for the 12V rail doesn't change.

You also seem to concentrate on what you think (theoretical) to run (with no proof) vs what the company states is required on the 12V rail. As it stands most, if not all who read this thread, should take the word of what that company recommends for the 12 V rail (per what I posted before).

;)

[kwchang007]

Ok wait are you telling me a 8800 gtx is going to use 240 + watts when under load at stock speeds? Because that's alot of energy being used. The whole system will probably use more than 240 watts on the 12 v line, but not a single 8800 gtx. I can power my laptop and more on 240 watts. I can power our p4 desktop at light-medium loads on 240 watts. Trust me 240 watts of energy is plenty of energy to run one card.

[erocker]

What some of you are forgetting is that the video card isn't the only thing that runs off of the 12V rail. That's why eVGA and other card companies ask for more than the card really needs. They take into account your total 12V needs with the card and the rest of your system.

[wolf]

at least 2, 12v rails is a safe move for any mid-to-high power gfx card. not completely necessary but a safe move nonetheless.

my Coolermaster 650w has 2x12v rails rated at 18 amps each.

[candle_86]

actully a high amprage single rail is better. That is why Power PC and Cooling and Coolermaster have single Rail Kilowatt PSU's and lower. Its more effcient use of power. As for the amp rating, that lets you know how much current is avaible on the total line be it 3.3, 5 or 12V. Amps have an impact only on wattage per line nothing else, thats basic science actully, i learned that in IPC in highschool.

[wolf]

ive seen some 800w+ psu's with like 1 12v rail rated at around 40 amps..... seems logical enough if the psu is smart enough to divvy the power really well, which when your dealing with gear that expensive, its probably the case.

[largon]

What some of you are forgetting is that the video card isn't the only thing that runs off of the 12V rail. That's why eVGA and other card companies ask for more than the card really needs. They take into account your total 12V needs with the card and the rest of your system.If you read my posts (example (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=683198&postcount=4)) you'll see I didn't forget that. There is a lot of verbiage in your post that goes astrayOh... Sorry if it went over your head.
You also seem to concentrate on what you think (theoretical) to run (with no proof) vs what the company states is required on the 12V rail.You and me are talking about the amperage the card requires, eVGA about the amperage the whole computer with the card requires. Simple as that. First you quoted (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=681585&postcount=2) eVGA's figures and stated that "9600 GT require[s] 26 Amps", as if the card pulled 26A... Then I came in and corrected the figures to what each of the cards consume. Though, it has been clear from the beginning that we both were talking about the card's consumption you suddenly (without saying anything inclining to it) are talking about the system consumption along with eVGA.
NONE of us are TELEPATHIC here. Next time post what you mean. :rolleyes:As it stands most, if not all who read this thread, should take the word of what that company recommends for the 12 V rail (per what I posted before). Huh? You're telling what people what to believe? Who do you think you are? What you said ->GTX r[e]quires 28 Amps means in english that 8800GTX consumes 336W (28A @ 12V). That is incorrect. There's already enough confusion on the internet about high-end video card power consumptions and you're adding to it.

EastCoasthandle, you can't debate just by stating that "I'm right" you always have to say "This is why I'm right".

[Tatty_One]

There is a lot of verbiage in your post that goes astray but it all boils down to what I posted before, the amperage required for the 12V rail doesn't change.

You also seem to concentrate on what you think (theoretical) to run (with no proof) vs what the company states is required on the 12V rail. As it stands most, if not all who read this thread, should take the word of what that company recommends for the 12 V rail (per what I posted before).

;)

However don't they quote for the system.....not for the card which I think he stated.

[Tatty_One]

Ok wait are you telling me a 8800 gtx is going to use 240 + watts when under load at stock speeds? Because that's alot of energy being used. The whole system will probably use more than 240 watts on the 12 v line, but not a single 8800 gtx. I can power my laptop and more on 240 watts. I can power our p4 desktop at light-medium loads on 240 watts. Trust me 240 watts of energy is plenty of energy to run one card.

The 8800GTX cannot use 240 watts...thats the point, it only has the 75W PCI-E slot plus two 75W 6 pin PCI-E cables, by my maths 75+75+75 = 225W :D

[largon]

Tatty_One,
Exactly.
And the 225W figure is just a theoretical maximum power envelope the circuit board can offer. The reference card actually consumes nowhere near 225W, it's infact <150W as several measurements indicate. So why the 2nd 6pin plug? That exists only to allow scaling headroom for GTX's board; nVIDIA was forced to put another PCIe 6pin plug on it as they knew AIBs would offer overclocked versions. Properly overclocked GTX (and Ultra) would certainly peak a bit above 150W, if there was just one PCIe 6pin plug the OC'ed boards wouldn't comply PCIe 1.1a spec and AIBs could not offer pre-overclocked boards, Ultra couldnt have existed (without PCB modifications).

[EastCoasthandle]

...

As what was already stated and something I already pointed out (which you still fail to address) is the recommended amperage of the 12V rail. It's common knowledge (so I thought) that you don't include just the video card. You talk a lot of verbiage which has nothing to do with what I've posted. Regardless, it's clear at this point and there is nothing to argue about. Simple fact is that per EVGA the 9600 GT recommends 12V rail @ 26 amps as the GTS 512. Nothing you said will change that and anyone reading this would/should take the manufactures word over yours. Nothing you've posted has proven otherwise and you haven't shown anything that EVGA's recommended amperage is incorrect.


However don't they quote for the system.....not for the card which I think he stated.
That was the point of my post. I didn't say it specifically as it was my thinking that it was common knowledge. The amperage they recommend for the 12V rail for each card that I posted earlier do take more into account then just the video card. However, the Ultra is recommended a higher ampage then the GTX and so on and so on, each requiring a specific amperage on the 12V rail . If they were all at the same amperage it wouldn't matter. That's why I asked
Edit: For example can you properly run and OC a GTX with a 12V rail only using 20 amps?
Because what he was posting had no relevance to that.

[wolf]

actually ill take largon's word over a manufacturer, they often inflate figures so people don't go right on the limit and then have gear blow up....

not to mention everything largon and tatty one have posted is spot on, and anyone would do well to listen to their advice on this subject.

agreed you shouldn't just think about the vid card, the psu needs enough power for the whole system.

[largon]

As what was already stated and something I already pointed out (which you still fail to address) is the recommended amperage of the 12V rail.
I did not fail to address that. Something else failed here...
Fact #2:
When eVGA says "Minimum recommended power supply with +12 Volt current rating of 28 Amp" they're not talking about the consumption of the card but a PSU that powers the whole computer. They take an "average computer" and extrapolate the power consumption of the basic components then add a crude approximation of the consumption of the VGA in question - and maybe some odd number for headroom. Well, that makes no sense what-so-ever; would one be fine with a PSU rated for 28A powering a GTX and a dual FX-64 system with 8GBs of RAM and 4 10kRPM HDDs? On the other hand, GTX in a system with an ULV C2D would be fine with just 20A of total 12V-rail capacity.My so called "verbiage" has everything to do with what you posted (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=681585&postcount=2).
You said "8800GTX requires 28A". I corrected that.

I'm done.

[btarunr]

lulz. I'm confused now. When a reviewer mentions 'power consumption' I should infer the card's actual wattage and accordingly decide on a PSU, right? Why should I look at the card vendors' 'recommended' requirements on the PSU when they look more suggestive than recommended? A company cannot recommend such things as it could confuse/mislead a buyer into thinking the xx Amps are what the card uses by itself. Let the buyer decide on a PSU, EVGA are better off mentioning the power consumption of the card and not set recommendations for buyers though I don't say the values they put up are wrong. I buy from EVGA.

Anyways, post-release reviews for the 9800 GX2 are just a formality, I already find the HD 3870 X2 a great piece of engineering by a capable company. Finally, ATI holding performance supremacy is having a tremendous impact on the company's outlook, good.

[Tatty_One]

lulz. I'm confused now. When a reviewer mentions 'power consumption' I should infer the card's actual wattage and accordingly decide on a PSU, right? Why should I look at the card vendors' 'recommended' requirements on the PSU when they look more suggestive than recommended? A company cannot recommend such things as it could confuse/mislead a buyer into thinking the xx Amps are what the card uses by itself. Let the buyer decide on a PSU, EVGA are better off mentioning the power consumption of the card and not set recommendations for buyers though I don't say the values they put up are wrong. I buy from EVGA.

Anyways, post-release reviews for the 9800 GX2 are just a formality, I already find the HD 3870 X2 a great piece of engineering by a capable company. Finally, ATI holding performance supremacy is having a tremendous impact on the company's outlook, good.

I agree totally, and think it's a great card and hopefully will be more than a match for this GX2 and if not, I am sure we will continue to get at least good bang for buck.

Thing is, top end cards only account for 5-10% of the market share, it really does help in marketing terms though if you have a "flagship" card however and the x2 can only help, they now need to at least match the green side in the low/mid range.

[imperialreign]

I
they now need to at least match the green side in the low/mid range.

y'know - it's funny how this is the case now . . . about a year ago, ATI still dominated the mid and low range like they have for ages. Ah, the pitfalls of corporate mergers.

Although, I'm starting to get that feeling that the GF9 series is going to become equivalent to ATI's 2000 series. Looks are great before release, but the hardware just doesn't measure up, y'know . . . we'll just have to see, I guess. There have just been a lot of "curiosities" coming from the green camp over the last month or two, and things just aren't adding up, IMO.


telling you you need more is a safe bet for any company, less sued.

my 6800ultra ran fine in an antec aria with a 300w psu, single core cpu, one hdd and a dvd rom. and that beast was said to have a minimum 480w psu. although i still reckon i was cutting it close, good thing antec make a decent psu.

keep in mind, also, that every PSU company rates their units differently, and advertises differently as well. Some manufcaturers advertise the peak power output, or near to it, while others rate their unit at more nominal values. i.e. my Hiper-R PSU is advertised at 580W, although it's peak output is capable of 630W. Pushing it anywhere over 580W could start to lead to instability and potentially damage the unit, but how many PSU manufacturers rate their units closer to peak power output (considering how in the PSU market, advertising is all about the wattage, and bigger is better, right?)?

[Tatty_One]

y'know - it's funny how this is the case now . . . about a year ago, ATI still dominated the mid and low range like they have for ages. Ah, the pitfalls of corporate mergers.

Although, I'm starting to get that feeling that the GF9 series is going to become equivalent to ATI's 2000 series. Looks are great before release, but the hardware just doesn't measure up, y'know . . . we'll just have to see, I guess. There have just been a lot of "curiosities" coming from the green camp over the last month or two, and things just aren't adding up, IMO.




keep in mind, also, that every PSU company rates their units differently, and advertises differently as well. Some manufcaturers advertise the peak power output, or near to it, while others rate their unit at more nominal values. i.e. my Hiper-R PSU is advertised at 580W, although it's peak output is capable of 630W. Pushing it anywhere over 580W could start to lead to instability and potentially damage the unit, but how many PSU manufacturers rate their units closer to peak power output (considering how in the PSU market, advertising is all about the wattage, and bigger is better, right?)?

a year ago?? We would have to disagree there, a year ago in the low > mid sector, ATi had brought out the 2600XT, 2600pro and the 2400Pro, up against the 8600GTS, 8600Gt and 8500GT.......now that was a sad time all round for low/mid cards, in fact ATi didnt really have a mid ranged card at all because you could easily call the 8800GTS 320mb G80 their mid ranged offering since there were a couple of better cards than that in the range, with ATi it went from 2900XT straight down to 2600XT which was an even worse card than the 8600GTS and GT!

Now in the generation before that it was fairly close, you had in the high range the 1950XTX/1900XTX versus the 7950GX2/7900GTX......Mid was the 1950Pro/1950XT 256MB versus the 7900GTO, 7950GT and 7900GT etc etc..........I agree with everything else and TBH I would prefer the 1950XTX to the GX2 or 7900GTX.

Good PSU manufacturers dont rate at "peak" power but the mid/lower end sometimes do.

[imperialreign]

a year ago?? We would have to disagree there, a year ago in the low > mid sector, ATi had brought out the 2600XT, 2600pro and the 2400Pro, up against the 8600GTS, 8600Gt and 8500GT.......now that was a sad time all round for low/mid cards, in fact ATi didnt really have a mid ranged card at all because you could easily call the 8800GTS 320mb G80 their mid ranged offering since there were a couple of better cards than that in the range, with ATi it went from 2900XT straight down to 2600XT which was an even worse card than the 8600GTS and GT!


Perhaps I should stated about 1.5 years, then; although, IMO, Jan 07 was about when it started going downhill quick for ATI.

But, TBH, the last year has been kinda a blur for me :ohwell:

[EastCoasthandle]

lulz. I'm confused now. When a reviewer mentions 'power consumption' I should infer the card's actual wattage and accordingly decide on a PSU, right? Why should I look at the card vendors' 'recommended' requirements on the PSU when they look more suggestive than recommended? A company cannot recommend such things as it could confuse/mislead a buyer into thinking the xx Amps are what the card uses by itself. Let the buyer decide on a PSU, EVGA are better off mentioning the power consumption of the card and not set recommendations for buyers though I don't say the values they put up are wrong. I buy from EVGA.

Anyways, post-release reviews for the 9800 GX2 are just a formality, I already find the HD 3870 X2 a great piece of engineering by a capable company. Finally, ATI holding performance supremacy is having a tremendous impact on the company's outlook, good.

There is really nothing to be confused about. You have to keep in mind that both wattage and amperage are important when selecting a PSU. A review of a video card's consumption showing the wattage can change between one game to another and, can be different from your system vs the testbed used. As a consumer you want a PSU that properly powers the video card and the rest of your system through it's wattage and amperage on the rails.

Yes, a company can recommend to you what PSU will work with their products since (I assume) they were the ones that put forth the R&D to test several different PSUs to tell you what works best.