Nvidia GF100 pulls 280W

[yogurt_21]

maybe powers cheap over here but I wouldn't care if it pulled 500w by itself if it gave 500w worth of performance as compared to the gtx280. some of us still have kilowatt psu's leftover from the 2900 days.

edit: as seen here; http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Point_Of_View/GeForce_GTX_280/23.html
and here http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Point_Of_View/GeForce_GTX_280/25.html


if it keeps similar performance per watt percentage as the launch of the gtx280 I'd be happy.

and from those charts if we can assume the gtx 280 pulls more than 28w idle, 127w average, and 171w full load.

 

[air_ii]

TPU reviews measure the whole system. Not just the graphics card.

Nope.

EDIT:

"For this test we measure power consumption of only the graphics card, via PCI-Express power connector(s) and PCI-Express bus slot. A Keithley Integra 2700 with 6.5 digits is used for all measurements. Again, the values here reflect card only power consumption measured at DC VGA card inputs, not the whole system."

That's from the test. That changed a few months ago, afair.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

he has this fancy pci card thingy, very spensive

 

[3volvedcombat]

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_5670_IceQ/images/power_maximum.gif

You mean to tell me that W1z's entire system, running a hd4550 consumes the whooping 19W?!

You know whats really sad about that graph.

Look at the cards.

a GTS 250- using 150-160 watts full load.
a GTX 260 with 192-216 stream processors using 10-20 more watts.

yet the GTS250 only has 128 stream processors

and the GTX280 from GTX260, like what the hell happend

a GTX260 is maxing 180 watts and a GTX280 is doing 250watts. Did they slap a lightbulb to that or what..........

Also the ati 5000 series cards seem to rape at performance vs watt.

And i notice that only 2 low end cards use 20 watts, then jump to 60 watts with the HD 4670 200% more power needed out of no were. Wierd Wierd Wierd :shadedshu

I should vouge to say that we should start fighting back on power ussage with these cards, we have let ATI and Nvidia build these huge cards and we buy them even though we could have had a choice and maid it were ATI and Nvidia started making more efficent cards. These high end cards from nvidia mostly are really terrable, and the Hd 4870x2, what a joke power ussage.............. In my opinion ATI is leading the way with this, and nvidia needs to FINNALY change there archetexture HARD CORE for once. There really extending those chips to big sizez and trying to live with it. Just isnt going to work in my opinion.

But i love nvidia, and i love ati just as well.

 

[air_ii]

Note that this is power consumption under FurMark. In normal game situations you're nowhere near that. Look at the peak power consumptions in TPU's tests.

 

[phanbuey]

these power comparisons look wonky. If we look at W1zz's reviews then 280W is no big deal - just 31W more than the GTX280 - which is what everyone expected anyways.

if, as according to other sources, the 280 only drew 171W max load then your computer would melt from this thing.

which makes me wonder by which standard Charlie is basing his 280W figure, and also if that figure is based on ES figures.

 

[air_ii]

Charlie is talking about TDP, which is typically lower than maximum power consumption, as presented in W1zzards charts. GTX295 has TDP of 281W (as opposed to 321 in Wiz's maximum power consumption).

 

[KainXS]

it kind of makes since the GTX280 has more memory pieces and a higher core volage and more sp's.

but then flashback to the HD4850 and HD4870 and its a similar situation.

and if the TDP is 280 watts which is pretty hard to believe for a single gpu card then this card must have a very good heatsink, I think its bs

remember the tdp of their past top cards.

8800GTX = 186watts
GTX280 = 236watts
GTX285 = 205watts
GD10X = 280watts?

 

[bobzilla2009]

it's definitely possible that is the tdp, but that means that nvidia are only going to get around 30% (tops when not using extreme tessellation) more performance than the hd5870 with 50% higher tdp and around a 50-100% bigger chip. Which means if ati ever really want to blow nvidia away with some major performance, they can 'just' massively scale the next architecture, or even the current one when the yields are nailed.

 

[Super XP]

Don't worry, soon we will need a seperate 500+W power supply just for the Dual-Chip Fermi Graphics Card.

 

[Fourstaff]

I wouldn't bother speculate on the power consumption of the GF100 just yet, for all we know that once TSMC fixes their 40nm and optimisations done on the GF100, its power consumption can well be much lower than the launch product. A lot of times the launch product is faulty (Xbox 360 being probably the best example) and what we as the consumers want is a good price to performance ratio above all else (electricity bill factored in).

 

[OnBoard]

The 249W in W1zzard/s review is maximum power draw, which is higher than the TDP (it's common for GPU manufacturers). Charlie is referring to Fermi's TDP.

Cheers, I though they took the peak number they saw them benching with. Seems hight, we shall see.

a GTS 250- using 150-160 watts full load.
a GTX 260 with 192-216 stream processors using 10-20 more watts.

yet the GTS250 only has 128 stream processors

and the GTX280 from GTX260, like what the hell happend

a GTX260 is maxing 180 watts and a GTX280 is doing 250watts. Did they slap a lightbulb to that or what..........

Why GTX 280 jumps from GTX 260 is mainly because of it's insane stock voltage. 1.1875V, where GTX 260s has 1.1250V. GTX295 should be just 1.03V (but that's 55nm). Anyhow, I run mine at 1.1375V and it allows all the overclocking card is capable.

Sure there is also couple ram chips more and couple VDDC phases.

Would be quite interesting to see how much W1zzards GTX 280 would draw power, if he dropped the voltage on it. I'd guess under GTX 285 levels despite 65nm vs 55nm

 

[Deleted member 3]

Nope.

EDIT:

"For this test we measure power consumption of only the graphics card, via PCI-Express power connector(s) and PCI-Express bus slot. A Keithley Integra 2700 with 6.5 digits is used for all measurements. Again, the values here reflect card only power consumption measured at DC VGA card inputs, not the whole system."

That's from the test. That changed a few months ago, afair.

Seems you're right, just checked in newer reviews. The 285 review still had the whole system listed.

 

[AddSub]

Charlie may or may not be in AMD's pocket, but he surely hates nVidia all the way.

About the dual card. If the 280W is correct, they would have a hard time getting PCI-E approval (300W limit) with it.

Oh, his hate of nVidia is both legendary and quite obvious since he doesn't really even attempt to hide it. (Unlike some of our own "forumites".) I remember him predicting back in 2006 that G80 was going to be a complete failure. How did that work out Charlie? I bet that didn't help out his condition, his mental illness that is. He is not even a news source at this point, he is just some random nutjob blogging about his obsession. I don't see a difference between his current articles and articles by those weirdos that write about NWO conspiracies and reptilian overlords in human from. Just a crazy, crazy dude.

As for the power-draw, I doubt those figures are accurate or even "semiaccurate" and not because of the source, but I seriously doubt the power draw is going to exceed what can be seen in GT200 today, although it might not be much better than GT200. Heck, even if there is not that much improvement from the GT200 in the power-draw area, I don't see a problem with it. I've owned tons of GT200 cards (half a dozen or so GTX260/280 cards by now), I've ran them in various SLI configurations and I never got a call from the power company. If somebody's main concern is power-draw of a certain GPU, maybe they should get out of hobbies relating to high-end enthusiast PC hardware and stick to something more affordable and with less power-draw like... I don't know... knitting maybe?

Note: Also, why is it all these nutjobs keep referring to the AMD as "ATI" after all these years? I doubt there is a dozen of engineers/employees left from ATI at AMD after all the cutbacks and layoffs that occurred over the years. Charlie, the Soviet Unio... umm, ATI is gone bro, gone...

 

[Thrackan]

They're still branded ATI, so I refer to them as ATI. Just because AMD owns it doesn't mean it isn't ATI anymore.
Below pic clearly illustrates that.

 

[KainXS]

yep thracken is right, its just that ATI is a trademark of AMD now, AMD bought ATI and renamed only the company to the AMD Graphics Product Group but did not rename the brand name for its graphics cards . . . . Yet

 

[nt300]

They're still branded ATI, so I refer to them as ATI. Just because AMD owns it doesn't mean it isn't ATI anymore.
Below pic clearly illustrates that.
http://images.vizworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ati-radeon-5870.jpg

ATI is a division within AMD now. It would be foolish if AMD ever got rid of the very popular name ATI and its RED slogan.

 

[Ben_UK]

Well, 280W is a hellish figure if true.

I doubt if a "superclocked 5870" (5890?) will hold a candle to the GF100, if thats what ATi have planned to "counter" nVidia's launch.

I guess they could get close if they used some much faster RAM, and a GPU re-jig like they did with the 4890.

March / April will be an interesting time in the graphics world.

 

[mtosev]

way too much for a card like that.

 

[bobzilla2009]

ATI is a division within AMD now. It would be foolish if AMD ever got rid of the very popular name ATI and its RED slogan.

Although it's now getting the 'AMD: the future is fusion' slogan around in games now. I think the next generation may mark the end of the ATi brand, since the product recognition with the AMD logo will be there for the uninformed masses, and we all know that amd=ati anyway. It may even boost sales.

Hell, maybe they'll even change the radeon brand name. After all, joe public does probably think geforce sounds cooler.

 

[Thrackan]

Although it's now getting the 'AMD: the future is fusion' slogan around in games now. I think the next generation may mark the end of the ATi brand, since the product recognition with the AMD logo will be there for the uninformed masses, and we all know that amd=ati anyway. It may even boost sales.

Meh, there's Intel commercials all over as well. All that says is AMD is doing some marketing.

 

[bobzilla2009]

Indeed, but AMD are marketing 'AMD' not 'ATi' in games that are linked to the ATi cards, but don't really have much to do with the processor side of things. You see games with both AMD/Intel ads, but never AMD/Nvidia. So i think AMD are going to phase out the ATi brand within the next few years. Also their little ad is not too bad, and nowhere near as annoying and loud as the intel and nvidia ones ><

On a very random aside: when i was looking at how AMD are doing in the steam surveys (~30% in both markets), i saw that windows 7, in two months, has over a third of the user base of vista. So good times ahead for dx11 gaming!

Another aside: awww steam now has 2.4m users online at once at peak times! when i got it, it used to be in the 500k region so i guess pc gaming isn't dying either. Although i am worried about console gaming, i'm dreading the next generation, since i think they'll all be wii clones. MS and sony have taken big losses from the consoles, whereas nintendo have been reaping in the cash. Ah well, at least pc gaming will then have a boon in popularity from the real gamers.

 

[yogurt_21]

Indeed, but AMD are marketing 'AMD' not 'ATi' in games that are linked to the ATi cards, but don't really have much to do with the processor side of things. You see games with both AMD/Intel ads, but never AMD/Nvidia. So i think AMD are going to phase out the ATi brand within the next few years. Also their little ad is not too bad, and nowhere near as annoying and loud as the intel and nvidia ones ><

severly doubt it. in many markets ATI is far more recongnizable than amd and it would ludicrous from a marketing standpoint to get rid of the brand. Branding is the biggest driving force behind marketing and when you have an established brand like ATI with an established fanbase, it's marketing suicide to change it. (Don't confuse company branding with product branding either as it's a whole different ball game when manufacturers re-brand older cards as newer ones).

Google amd and you get 86 million hits, google ati and you get 66 million. That's alot of branding to say bye to. And between the two of them they ahve a chance at competing with intel's 166 million hits. alone amd is less than half as recongnizable as intel.

then you have to take into account nvidia which has 58 million hits, whether or not ati can bring in the sales is one thing, but on the surface more people are able to recognize the brand which again makes it marketing suicide to get rid of it.

Now if saying amd radeon becomes more common place in the future this may change, but at the moment I've yet to see anyone other than amd themselves coin that term.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

225W . And again, 188 is TDP, it draws more under FurMark (which is what W1zzard uses for maximum power consumption).

PCI Express x16 Slot: 75w
PCI Express extra pairs: 7 * 25w = 175w
Total power available: 75w + 175w = 250w


If Fermi has more than two 8-pin connectors, it has marched into insane territory.



There is only AMD now. AMD owns and continues to use the ATI, Radeon, Stream, etc. trademarks which traded ownership during the buyout. AMD has no reason to kill those trademarks because they have a good reputation. For example, Intel killed "Pentium" because when it was P4 vs Athlon 64, Pentium had a reputation for being slow,hot, and expensive. Once Core was premiered, the Pentium trademark had to be relegated to the cheap stuff.

Brand recognition is very important.

 

[Super XP]

I would have to agree. ATI is a remarkably strong name and well recognized. What AMD needs to do is keep ATI as a graphics division within the company.

ATI Radeon sounds so much better than AMD Radeon.