EVGA HydroCopper GTX 285 Spotted

[alexp999]

The guys over at Fudzilla have got hold of a photo showing a watercooled variant of EVGA's GTX 285. The card is said to clock in at 720 MHz on the core, 2.77 GHz effective memory clock and a shader clock of 1,620 MHz. These are the same factory overclocked speeds as the recently released FTW edition of the GTX 285 from EVGA, yet being watercooled the HydroCopper version should perform much cooler. There is currently no word on pricing but the card is expected to ship soon.



Source: Fudzilla

[douglatins]

They should really put a single slot shield for this. I look ugly with the two slot one, like a blade hanging

[Charper2013]

Originally Posted by douglatins

They should really put a single slot shield for this. I look ugly with the two slot one, like a blade hanging

Id just dremel the extra grills off.

[alexp999]

Originally Posted by douglatins

They should really put a single slot shield for this. I look ugly with the two slot one, like a blade hanging

Its because it is a reference board with custom cooling, hence, the board comes with a dual slot PCI bracket.

[Exavier]

not hard to change the shield on the back though for either consumer or company...I mean really, they could at least include one..

[Marineborn]

meh...i dont like it,

[frankie827]

just to lighten up the comments on the card

i think its kinda sexy :P

[wolf]

predone w/c solutions are always a good idea imo

generally its less cost than a card + waterblock

and your hardcore nerds out there can just buy 3 and wack them in a loop, without having to worry about somehow borking 1 or more of them before theyre even ready to stick in the loop.

[frankie827]

Originally Posted by wolf

predone w/c solutions are always a good idea imo

generally its less cost than a card + waterblock

and your hardcore nerds out there can just buy 3 and wack them in a loop, without having to worry about somehow borking 1 or more of them before theyre even ready to stick in the loop.

thats very true, especially for dual gpu solutions, such as the gtx295.

[hat]

Well they probably left both brackets there cause
1. the two screw holes will help support the undoubtably massive weight of the card
and
2. probably cheaper for them to simply use existing dual-slot mounts instead of single slot mounts

Love the "FREE PhysX". Arguably, PhysX is anything BUT free because you have to buy PhysX capable hardware to be able to use PhysX. If you want to go the other way, yes, PhysX software IS totally free, but good luck running it without any hardware, so what's the point of having PhysX in the first place? Technically, PhysX is never free, because that technology has been associated with Nvidia video cards and Ageia/BFG PhysX cards. Sure you can download thier software but you can't run it without the hardware.

I could go to AMD's website and download the newest Catalyst Control Center, which I suppose would be free, but what would be the point in doing so when I don't have any AMD video cards in my computer? I would have to buy an AMD video card, then I could use CCC. So would you consider that software to be free, even though I had to pay for something else so I could use the "free" software?

Heh... I enjoyed writing that.

[frankie827]

Originally Posted by hat

Well they probably left both brackets there cause
1. the two screw holes will help support the undoubtably massive weight of the card
and
2. probably cheaper for them to simply use existing dual-slot mounts instead of single slot mounts

Love the "FREE PhysX". Arguably, PhysX is anything BUT free because you have to buy PhysX capable hardware to be able to use PhysX. If you want to go the other way, yes, PhysX software IS totally free, but good luck running it without any hardware, so what's the point of having PhysX in the first place? Technically, PhysX is never free, because that technology has been associated with Nvidia video cards and Ageia/BFG PhysX cards. Sure you can download thier software but you can't run it without the hardware.

I could go to AMD's website and download the newest Catalyst Control Center, which I suppose would be free, but what would be the point in doing so when I don't have any AMD video cards in my computer? I would have to buy an AMD video card, then I could use CCC. So would you consider that software to be free, even though I had to pay for something else so I could use the "free" software?

Heh... I enjoyed writing that.

i hope that confuses a bunch of people, because that would allow me to be one of the few who actually understood that :P

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by hat

Well they probably left both brackets there cause
1. the two screw holes will help support the undoubtably massive weight of the card
and
2. probably cheaper for them to simply use existing dual-slot mounts instead of single slot mounts

Love the "FREE PhysX". Arguably, PhysX is anything BUT free because you have to buy PhysX capable hardware to be able to use PhysX. If you want to go the other way, yes, PhysX software IS totally free, but good luck running it without any hardware, so what's the point of having PhysX in the first place? Technically, PhysX is never free, because that technology has been associated with Nvidia video cards and Ageia/BFG PhysX cards. Sure you can download thier software but you can't run it without the hardware.

I could go to AMD's website and download the newest Catalyst Control Center, which I suppose would be free, but what would be the point in doing so when I don't have any AMD video cards in my computer? I would have to buy an AMD video card, then I could use CCC. So would you consider that software to be free, even though I had to pay for something else so I could use the "free" software?

Heh... I enjoyed writing that.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Did you also notice how it is written on the box of a videocard, which as an extra feature supports PhysX? ie you buy the videocard and get the PhysX support for free.

[hat]

It was a phylosophical question dan, not a logical question. You may have infallible logic, but that infallible logic makes you phail at philosophy.

Imagine yourself stealing a car and completely getting away with it, nobody ever even notices the car is gone. Better yet imagine you go to some Microsoft seminar and Billy Gates took it upon himself to give everybody who attended the seminar a shiny new <insert your favorite car here>. Sure the car ITSELF was totally free, you paid nothing for it. However, you indirectly pay for it by putting gas into it. Kind of the same idea here.

oh btw dan, for some reason I find myself having increacingly more frequent discussions with you as day by day wears on, heh

[ShadowFold]

Wow you just made no sense hat. Good job. Maybe I'm not logically strong enough?!

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by hat

It was a phylosophical question dan, not a logical question. You may have infallible logic, but that infallible logic makes you phail at philosophy.

No offense, but if you consider that philosophy (it's written with an "i") I'm not the only one who fails at it.

[hat]

You didn't catch the car analogy, shadowfold? If somebody gave you a car, totally free, you still have to pay for the gas to put into the car so you can use it. A car with no gas is no good, just like PhysX software without an Nvidia video card (or Ageia Physx card) is no good. The car won't run, and the PhysX software will do nothing (possibly not even install in the first place) with no PhysX capable hardware detected.

You must have electricity to power a light bulb. You must have gas (or electricity) to power a car. You must have food and water to survive.

[DanTheBanjoman]

In your analogy the fuel is the PhysX software and the car is the card. The fuel would be useless without the car. It's the fuel that is advertised as free with the car not the other way around. And guess what, the fuel works with the car you just bought so yes the fuel is free, it requires nothing extra.

It doesn't make it philosophy though, read some Plato, Socrates or even Marx.

[hat]

Originally Posted by DanTheBanjoman

No offense, but if you consider that philosophy (it's written with an "i") I'm not the only one who fails at it.

That may be so coming from your point of view, not mine. Logic is fairly... "uniform", it generally works the same way every time. However, philosophy is much more open-ended, just like Science is far more open-ended than Math. In Math, there is only one correct possibility for 2+2, and that would be 4. However in Science there are so many more possibilities than Math. No two people think exactly alike. Like just now I thought "well I guess I could probably walk down the pier down yonder and get myself some super-mutant jello, some fried radroach legs, mirelurk chowder, and maybe some boatfly eyes and have myself one disgusting hell of a meal". Now that thought was probably boarderline retarded but it was pretty much the most random thing I could possibly think of. I dobut anyone's ever thought that same exact thought before, word for word.

[hat]

Originally Posted by DanTheBanjoman

In your analogy the fuel is the PhysX software and the car is the card.

Actually I was trying to make it seem like the "feul" is the video card and thy PhysX software is the card. The idea makes a whole lot more sense if you think of it that way. That analogy is broken if you apply it to a car though.

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by hat

That may be so coming from your point of view, not mine. Logic is fairly... "uniform", it generally works the same way every time. However, philosophy is much more open-ended, just like Science is far more open-ended than Math. In Math, there is only one correct possibility for 2+2, and that would be 4. However in Science there are so many more possibilities than Math. No two people think exactly alike. Like just now I thought "well I guess I could probably walk down the pier down yonder and get myself some super-mutant jello, some fried radroach legs, mirelurk chowder, and maybe some boatfly eyes and have myself one disgusting hell of a meal". Now that thought was probably boarderline retarded but it was pretty much the most random thing I could possibly think of. I dobut anyone's ever thought that same exact thought before, word for word.

Math IS a science. Science means knowledge, it revolves around facts. Things that aren't facts are considered theories and the likes. Surely theories are part of the scientific method but 2+2 will always be 4.

[hat]

Yes, I know that Math is a part of Science, but I was referring to it in more of a "school subject" kind of way. What I meant by Science being more open-minded than Math is like how you may be able to explain why stars form black holes when they implode with scientific theories, but there's no solid mathematical law/formula that you can use to prove it like you could prove the theory of relativity by stating that you and another driver are on the freeway, you are doing 50 and the other driver comes up in the other lane doing 60 and it appears that the other car is doing 10 from YOUR point of view by saying 60 - 50 = 10.

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by hat

Yes, I know that Math is a part of Science, but I was referring to it in more of a "school subject" kind of way. What I meant by Science being more open-minded than Math is like how you may be able to explain why stars form black holes when they implode with scientific theories, but there's no solid mathematical law/formula that you can use to prove it like you could prove the theory of relativity by stating that you and another driver are on the freeway, you are doing 50 and the other driver comes up in the other lane doing 60 and it appears that the other car is doing 10 from YOUR point of view by saying 60 - 50 = 10.

Those formulas do exist, we simply don't know them. And like I said, theories are part of the scientific method. Science is never open ended, we just don't know everything.

Besides, I wouldn't know what exactly is taught in the "school subject" science, as we have no subject here with that name. We have things like math, chemistry, physics, biology, etc.

Im sure this thread started on about a new graphics card release

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by kyle2020

Im sure this thread started on about a new graphics card release

That's a scientific fact

[frankie827]

i officially love this thread