Sunday, March 6th 2016

ASUS Intros GeForce GTX 950 Graphics Card with Slot-only Power

ASUS unveiled the a new GeForce GTX 950 graphics card that relies entirely on PCIe slot power. The GTX950-2G features a full-height, dual-slot design, with a simple monolithic heatsink cooling the GPU; and a pair of 70 mm spinners cooling it. The cooler shroud follows the same design theme as ASUS' mainline Z170 series motherboards, such as the Z170-A. The VRM design by ASUS keeps power draw of the GPU under 75W, and hence relies entirely on PCIe slot power. The GPU is clocked at 1026 MHz, with 1190 MHz GPU Boost, and 6.60 GHz (GDDR5-effective) memory. The company did not reveal pricing.
Add your own comment

33 Comments on ASUS Intros GeForce GTX 950 Graphics Card with Slot-only Power

#26
xorbe
rruff, post: 3428649, member: 154486"
Maybe if I'm bored I'll play with downclocking my 950 and see what it will do.
Besides the Titan X, I also have a 960 to downclock / flash, but I have no tools to reliably measure just the power delivered to the gfx card.
Posted on Reply
#27
rruff
xorbe, post: 3428680, member: 102945"
Besides the Titan X, I also have a 960 to downclock / flash, but I have no tools to reliably measure just the power delivered to the gfx card.
Me neither. I wonder how accurate the total power level in Nvidia Inspector would be.
Posted on Reply
#28
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Frick, post: 3428644, member: 23907"
I've been thinking about this, are there limiters in place? Is it even possible for cards to pull moee than 75W?
There are no limiters in place, at least not on the board level. And cards can, and do, pull more than 75w from the PCI-E bus. Sometimes with disastrous results.

rruff, post: 3428649, member: 154486"
Maybe if I'm bored I'll play with downclocking my 950 and see what it will do.
I'm guessing without the turbo and just running at the base clock the card would be close to 75w, though I'm still guessing a little over.
Posted on Reply
#29
rruff
newtekie1, post: 3428684, member: 20670"
I'm guessing without the turbo and just running at the base clock the card would be close to 75w, though I'm still guessing a little over.
TPU tested the card I have and said it maxed at 122W (no OC). Stock boost clock is 1354 so 14% over reference. Stock vram is at reference. Even if you saved 14% (and you won't) you are only down to 107W.
Posted on Reply
#30
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
rruff, post: 3428698, member: 154486"
TPU tested the card I have and said it maxed at 122W (no OC). Stock boost clock is 1354 so 14% over reference. Stock vram is at reference. Even if you saved 14% (and you won't) you are only down to 107W.
The ASUS Strix 950 tested here only hit 103w, and averaged 95w, and average boost was 1398MHz. I think if they use that same basic design and keep the clock down to the base 1024MHz of a stock 950, they might just get it close to that 75w mark.
Posted on Reply
#31
rruff
newtekie1, post: 3428702, member: 20670"
I think if they use that same basic design and keep the clock down to the base 1024MHz of a stock 950, they might just get it close to that 75w mark.
They aren't though. Specs say 1190 boost.

I'll be interested to see where this power saving magic comes from if someone does a detailed review. They say efficient VRMs in this one and the R7 360 50W card as well.
Posted on Reply
#32
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
rruff, post: 3428709, member: 154486"
They aren't though. Specs say 1190 boost.

I'll be interested to see where this power saving magic comes from if someone does a detailed review. They say efficient VRMs in this one and the R7 360 50W card as well.
That is the thing though, the card doesn't have to run at the boost clock. It can run at the base clock all the time, and never go to the boost state, or go to the boost clock for a fraction of a second every once in a while and then run at the base clock 99% of the time.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment