290 or 970?

Rusty0611 · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:29

shankly1985 said:
Think you missed my post above. I was looking at max temp 80c the gpu will allow.
The temp range from high 60s to high 70s just like my two.
Hell I run bf4 on ultra unlocked frame rate and get no higher the 77c on both cards.

He hasn't missed your point.

The TDP stuff is all relevant. If you stick 'x' amount of watts through something that will generate 'y' amount of heat. That heat has to go somewhere.... It goes through your cooler and out your case. The actual running temp of the GPU is irrelevant because the coolers are different, the speed the fans are running at are different, the case will be different. And that's before you consider the power side of things.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:29

Gregster said:
You have 275W of heat generated by a 290, as opposed to 145W of heat on the 970. 130 extra watts of heat are being generated by the 290. That is why the 970 runs cooler and in turn quieter. If you see a review with the 970 hitting 80c, it either had a very low fan speed or it was a faulty cooler of some description.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that review where the 970 hit 80c. It would be an interesting read. Link me please.

The Nvidia TDP figures for the GTX970(145W) and GTX980(165W) are a bit weird. Either the GTX680(195W) and GTX770(230W) are overrated or the GTX970 and GTX980 are underrated.

Look at the coolers and PCBs for the GTX970 and GTX980. The GTX970 is meant to have the same TDP as my GTX660(140W).

Here are the TPU card measurements for the GTX980 and various GTX970 cards:

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/images/power_average.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_OC/images/power_average.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_970_JetStream/images/power_average.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/images/power_average.gif

The GTX970 cards are using worse binned GPUs than the GTX980 with regards to power consumption and there is apparently no reference GTX970 cards either so none of them are in the "145W TDP" class. All the GTX970 cards are close to reference GTX680/GTX770/HD7970/GTX780.

Even the reference GTX980 is in the same class as the GTX680.

As you know most of the power consumed will be lost as heat anyway,so I would class the GTX970 as GTX680 level in terms of power consumption and cooling.

shankly1985 · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:30

lovelyhead said:
I don't believe many games make use of either of those features do they? Is Physx not mostly done on the CPU?

Yeah they is just handful atm. Newer Physx games I believe do use the GPU and cpu. Arma 3 for example is cpu based and both amd and nvidia can use it.

shankly1985 · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:31

Rusty0611 said:
He hasn't missed your point.

The TDP stuff is all relevant. If you stick 'x' amount of watts through something that will generate 'y' amount of heat. That heat has to go somewhere.... It goes through your cooler and out your case. The actual running temp of the GPU is irrelevant because the coolers are different, the speed the fans are running at are different, the case will be different. And that's before you consider the power side of things.

Point or post??

Gregster · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:32

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The Nvidia TDP figures for the GTX970(145W) and GTX980(165W) are a bit weird. Either the GTX680(195W) and GTX770(230W) are overrated or the GTX970 and GTX980 are underrated.

Look at the coolers and PCBs for the GTX970 and GTX980. The GTX970 is meant to have the same TDP as my GTX660(140W).

Here are the TPU card measurements for the GTX980 and various GTX970 cards:

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/images/power_average.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_OC/images/power_average.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_970_JetStream/images/power_average.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/images/power_average.gif

The GTX970 cards are using worse binned GPUs than the GTX980 with regards to power consumption and there is apparently no reference GTX970 cards either. All the GTX970 cards are close to reference GTX680/GTX770/HD7970/GTX780.

As you know most of the power consumed will be lost as heat anyway,so I would class the GTX970 as GTX680 level in terms of power consumption and cooling.

I am just going by what Google told me the TDP was for each card.

shankly1985 said:
Point or post??

Why say that?

Ayahuasca · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:34

CAT I think you're reading into things a bit too much, people have swapped out cards for the 970/980 and checked their system wattage pull under heavy load at the wall and it's much lower.

shankly1985 · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:34

Rusty0611 said:
He hasn't missed your point.

The TDP stuff is all relevant. If you stick 'x' amount of watts through something that will generate 'y' amount of heat. That heat has to go somewhere.... It goes through your cooler and out your case. The actual running temp of the GPU is irrelevant because the coolers are different, the speed the fans are running at are different, the case will be different. And that's before you consider the power side of things.

OK I understand better now. So the core temps isn't the amount heat I would be getting pushed into the room etc.

I don't feel like I notice much heat though. My room always just right never to hot or cold.

krooton · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:35

lovelyhead said:
So in the grand scheme of things power consumption is not really an issue.

In terms of saving on leccy bill, I agree, but in terms of me being able to run a dual card set up, in a MATX case, with a 750w PSU, that is why I swapped my 290x for a 970.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:35

Gregster said:
I am just going by what Google told me the TDP was for each card.

Yes,but ultimately Google also says my GTX660 and GTX970 are in the same TDP class,so something is not right there. Even the PCBs and cooling for the GTX970 puts it more in the GTX680/GTX770 class.

Plus the definition of TDP between AMD and Nvidia is different according to some on this forum,but luckily we can get card power measurements from various websites.

Ayahuasca said:
CAT I think you're reading into things a bit too much, people have swapped out cards for the 970/980 and checked their system wattage pull under heavy load at the wall and it's much lower.

I am looking at independent reviews.

TPU uses actually quite an accurate power measurement system costing a few thousand quid.

Commercial low cost power meters are not massively accurate - you can see a general reduction in power for example,but not accurate to say 10W to 15W which is why TPU,spent the money.

Rusty0611 · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:35

shankly1985 said:
Point or post??

Whatever way round you would like it. What our GPUs run at compared to a 970 is irrelevant really. That's the important point - the rest was an elaboration on what you asked me to elaborate on from the previous page.

shankly1985 said:
OK I understand better now. So the core temps isn't the amount heat I would be getting pushed into the room etc.

I don't feel like I notice much heat though. My room always just right never to hot or cold.

Yeah something like that. I've simplified it as of course like all things the reality is a bit more complex but that's the basics of it .

You'd probably only notice it if you used something which was cooler. Like I say, to myself it was instantly noticeable. It's not a criticism of the Radeon more a simple observation.

lovelyhead · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:37

I plan on using the computer that one of these cards will eventually be in as a work / gaming computer which will be on most of the day. How is the idle power consumption on both cards?

Ayahuasca · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:42

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I am looking at independent reviews.

TPU uses actually quite an accurate power measurement system costing a few thousand quid.

Commercial low cost power meters are not massively accurate - you can see a general reduction in power for example,but not accurate to say 10W to 15W which is why TPU,spent the money.

Sorry but that's just rubbish, multiple people including myself measured power drawn at the wall, my rig with an overclocked 780 would pull around 450w at the wall whereas with this 970 it's around 330w. Seen others reporting the same thing unless everyone's power metres are broken? There's no way everyone's is that far out to not be at least somewhat accurate.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:42

lovelyhead said:
I plan on using the computer that one of these cards will eventually be in as a work / gaming computer which will be on most of the day. How is the idle power consumption on both cards?

6W to 7W difference according to TPU between reference R9 290 and GTX970 cards. However,the AMD cards have something calle Zero core which means if the monitor is not active for long periods the card switches off(supposedly).

Gregster · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:43

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Yes,but ultimately Google also says my GTX660 and GTX970 are in the same TDP class,so something is not right there. Even the PCBs and cooling for the GTX970 puts it more in the GTX680/GTX770 class.

Plus the definition of TDP between AMD and Nvidia is different according to some on this forum,but luckily we can get card power measurements from various websites.

I am looking at independent reviews.

TPU uses actually quite an accurate power measurement system costing a few thousand quid.

Commercial low cost power meters are not massively accurate - you can see a general reduction in power for example,but not accurate to say 10W to 15W which is why TPU,spent the money.

Well regardless on accuracy, TDP is higher on the 290 compared to the 970, so there is no debate about it, the 290 cooler will have to remove the heat and it could keep the card at 10c, but that heat (275W for arguments sake) will still be pumped into the case/room. The same goes for the 970, whatever the TDP is (145W for arguments sake) will still need to be removed and in turn pumped into the case/room.

Jamielicious · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:45

For pure bang for buck a 290 would win at £200 (it'd win at £220) but heat and power are real problems for the 290.

My PSU won't run a 290 though so by default the 970 wins.

lovelyhead · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:47

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
6W to 7W difference according to TPU between reference R9 290 and GTX970 cards. However,the AMD cards have something calle Zero core which means if the monitor is not active for long periods the card switches off(supposedly).

Good. What about reliability? Has the 290 had any issues? I hear there is a problem with coil whine on the 970.

lovelyhead · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:48

Jamielicious said:
For pure bang for buck a 290 would win at £200 (it'd win at £220) but heat and power are real problems for the 290.

My PSU won't run a 290 though so by default the 970 wins.

I never took that into consideration. I have a 650W Corsair PSU would that be enough for the 290?

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:49

Ayahuasca said:
Sorry but that's just rubbish, multiple people including myself measured power drawn at the wall, my rig with an overclocked 780 would pull around 450w at the wall whereas with this 970 it's around 330w. Seen others reporting the same thing unless everyone's power metres are broken? There's no way everyone's is that far out to not be at least somewhat accurate.

Then moan at TPU:

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/images/power_average.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_OC/images/power_average.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GTX_970_JetStream/images/power_average.gif
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_970_SC_ACX_Cooler/images/power_average.gif

Here are their figures for card measurements. They have a forum - go and tell them that they are talking crap.

Here are Anandtech full system measurements:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph8568/67931.png

Various Hexus measurements:

http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_cards/nvidia/Palit/GTX970/Jetstream/13.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_cards/nvidia/ASUS/Strix970/13.png

All those reviews place the GTX970 cards at GTX680/GTX770 level power consumption and getting within 20W of a GTX780 for a number of pre-overclocked GTX970 cards.

So ultimately they appear to be having some problems measuring power consumption.

Edit!!

TPU is showing about the same too:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/G/456064/gallery/power-gaming-FIXED_w_600.png

They do card measurements too and they confirm the TPU results.

Gregster said:
Well regardless on accuracy, TDP is higher on the 290 compared to the 970, so there is no debate about it, the 290 cooler will have to remove the heat and it could keep the card at 10c, but that heat (275W for arguments sake) will still be pumped into the case/room. The same goes for the 970, whatever the TDP is (145W for arguments sake) will still need to be removed and in turn pumped into the case/room.

No one is debating it,otherwise I would not be linking to reviews confirming it. But its another thing overstating it,especially since you are quite aware of the reviews as much as I am.

Gregster · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:51

Cat, you are taking power draw as the same thing as TDP and that isn't what I was saying. They are different.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Oct 2014 at 23:54

Gregster said:
Cat, you are taking power draw as the same thing as TDP and that isn't what I was saying. They are different.

They are interlinked though. Most of the power consumed is lost as heat in electrical circuits and only a fraction is converted into work.

Look at the PCBs and cooling on the cards - its GTX680/GTX770 level.

Like I said either the GTX680/GTX770 is overrated or the GTX970/GTX980 are underrated.

My GTX660 is clearly not in the same TDP class as a GTX970.