GeForce FX heat concerns

[gordy]

are there alternatives to control this? i'm not to crazy about having a device with the temperature of a thousand white suns sittin' right under my cpu - altho my basement could use a pc/space-heater...

[jAkUp]

yes... its called an ati radeon 9700.


actually some watercooling should do the trick

[Mike89]

Sure. The alternative is to get yourself some oven mitts and a good set of ear muffs.

Jeez Nvidia, what the hell were you guys thinking to come out with this card?

[lagadu]

considering that there's an edition from hercules of the 9700pro that features a watercooler AND still keeps the pci slot free, i'd say that it'd be pretty possible to make a watercooled, SILENT FX...

[volt]

You know, most of us thought (in the beginning at first) that NVIDIA put this huge fan to satisfy the overclocking community. It's the other way around heh

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by gordy
are there alternatives to control this? i'm not to crazy about having a device with the temperature of a thousand white suns sittin' right under my cpu - altho my basement could use a pc/space-heater...

Well, most of the heat will be diverted straight out the back of the case...though that back heatsink did get quite warm. I'd say it will heat up your case less than you'd think, probably less than the Radeon 9700 Pro (again, since most of the heat will be diverted straight out of the case...).

[Mike89]

From what I've read so far I would think the FX would still heat up the case more than the 9700 Pro.

I wonder what's going to happen to that plastic housing after repeated use, I would figure it's going to get quite hot.

I think this is a case of just trying to get too much from the 128 memory bus and running the clocks/memory over the top. I think this was probably not Nvidia's first choice but they found themselves in desperate catch up mode (from underestimating ATI, which frankly I did too) and went to drastic extremes.

There is a case to made for going too extreme for what you get and Nvidia did just that, IMO.

[Nv40]

people have been so busy with the geforceFx-ultra
heat issues and noise, than they have completely ignored
this other facts ...

1)GeforceFX (non-ultra) will have a regular standar good looking heatsink/fan.. no bigger than many of the radeon9700pro ones..

2) the card *IS* competive to the radeon9700-non pro
and sometimes much faster... in apples vs apples *high quality* modes.. also faster than R95xx ones
its performance is more than 2x times than the Geforce4 in aa+af modes .. is this a bad card ?

3)it has *all * the directx9 features PS+/VS+ of the GeforceFx-ultra.. means future proof.. sooner or later ATi will add more
pixelshaders and vertex shaders in their cards too..


4)it will priced at $299.. which its not a bad price for a
starting retail card with all its cinematics features...
(the sweet spot i think is $250 ,for that price ,the temptation
will be to high) :)

5) and it would ship with all those really good looking demos
that i will really like to play someday .. :)

and i think the prices would be in a very short time even lower ..
with the introduction of the R350/Rv350
this ATI /NVidia competition will make prices better
for everyone.. ;)

[LORD-eX-Bu]

lol, why would you pay that much for a Non-ultra GFFX when you can get a 9700 Pro or any current ATI card for less than that? :eek: :D Really, nVIDIA dropped the ball they have no excuse. I thought that the .13mu process was supposed to run cooler and consome less power, WTF? I bet its not really the .13mu process they are using, they are just trying to pass it off as that because they couldn't work it out, so they reverted to .15mu and screwwed it up anyways :p

[tazdevl]

Originally posted by Nv40
people have been so busy with the geforceFx-ultra
heat issues and noise, than they have completely ignored
this other facts ...

1)GeforceFX (non-ultra) will have a regular standar good looking heatsink/fan.. no bigger than many of the radeon9700pro ones..

2) the card *IS* competive to the radeon9700-non pro
and sometimes much faster... in apples vs apples *high quality* modes.. also faster than R95xx ones
its performance is more than 2x times than the Geforce4 in aa+af modes .. is this a bad card ?

3)it has *all * the directx9 features PS+/VS+ of the GeforceFx-ultra.. means future proof.. sooner or later ATi will add more
pixelshaders and vertex shaders in their cards too..


4)it will priced at $299.. which its not a bad price for a
starting retail card with all its cinematics features...
(the sweet spot i think is $250 ,for that price ,the temptation
will be to high) :)

5) and it would ship with all those really good looking demos
that i will really like to play someday .. :)

and i think the prices would be in a very short time even lower ..
with the introduction of the R350/Rv350
this ATI /NVidia competition will make prices better
for everyone.. ;)

And you know this for a fact? where's your source?

As mentioned, why spend $299 on a card that's slower than a 9700 which will still cost less? You can grab a 9700 Pro for less than $300 already.

[legion88]

Originally posted by Mike89
From what I've read so far I would think the FX would still heat up the case more than the 9700 Pro.



The amount of heat that is going to be generated is 100% dependent on the amount of power the GPU consumes. Simple law of conservation of energy.

The more power it uses, the more heat is generated. So how much power does the 9700Pro GPU uses? How much power does the FX Ultra GPU uses? (Keep in mind that the fan itself uses energy and therefore releases heat. But we are ignoring this to keep it simple.)

The one that uses the most power will be the one that generates the most heat.

The sole purpose of the GPU "cooling" solution is to divert heat that is generated by the GPU away from the GPU, which in most situations means that the heat (in the form of hot air) would be trapped in the case since most cases do not have a slot cooler or similar device to blow heat out of the case.

Back in the day, I used to have one of those slot coolers. It allowed me to overclock my TNT2 Ultra more than simply putting a better fan/heatsink combo.

NVIDIA created the one-piece slot cooler/graphics card combo.

[intercede007]

Isn't this a discussion for the NVIDIA graphics card forum?

[Nv40]

Originally posted by [eNv]-LORD-eX-Bu
lol, why would you pay that much for a Non-ultra GFFX when you can get a 9700 Pro or any current ATI card for less than that? :eek: :D Really, nVIDIA dropped the ball they have no excuse. I thought that the .13mu process was supposed to run cooler and consome less power, WTF? I bet its not really the .13mu process they are using, they are just trying to pass it off as that because they couldn't work it out, so they reverted to .15mu and screwwed it up anyways :p

well good question...
i have paid $300 for my Geforce4 since FEB 2002 ,one year using
it ,with none drivers or game issues...and still is working well
it all my games... thats what i call good card ...
in fact i still have a geforce2 gts 32megs since 2-3 years ,now in my second machine as its working as good as my Geforce4 here.
and it even doesnt stop there... but doesnt matter , the experience have been nothing short that excelent..

not saying that there are no ATI users with same experience as me.. but as far as i know still Nvidia has better overall reputation in the driver department.. than ATI.. and a side note, is the fact that there are many new games outhere (i know about 4 or 5 )
very good solid titles that will be optimized for Nvidia hardware...
to use those extra pixel shaders/vertex shaders features...
(where developers have told.. geforcefx users will be the luckiest one .) because NVidia is more agressive working with game developers ,and think this doesnt needs to be even questioned here...

so the choice *at least for me* is not always of "which" card will give me a few more FPS than another card ,
(when the end result is unplayable frame rates-> in both cards)
like the unrealt2003/Serioussam2 and other incoming cpu limited
games in high resolution/quality benchmarks..

but more on which card will give you the less problems in the future and will work better for your needs ...
im a gamer ,but also a ->3dartist and as a matter of fact
Nvidia give me *peace of mind*, knowing that the overall best experience in all the Games/aplications and diferent Operating sistems .. like Windows/linux and so on ,that *i work*/will work will be nothing less that Good.
maybe in *todays* games PS2.0+/VS2.0+ and Nvidia Cg..
doesnt matter.. but for many profesional *today* aplications you will be very sorry to discover that your card does not support an a couple of Nvidia features... :)

as you see ,not everyone have the same needs ,
for some gamers ATI is the way to go ,for others like me Nvidia.
if everyone have the same needs , then how MAtrox/TRIDENT
/3dlabs/and other companies sells video cards ?

so as i said ..the geforceFX-non ultra really good card ...
and i think that Nvidia can sell it very well .despite all the bad
reviews about its big brother the ultra...
it can steal a good number of RADeon9700/pro sales
it only needs to be competitive in the PRices too..

[noko]

I think we struck on the overclocking potential of the GPU (REMOVE THE FRICKING HEAT). GPU does 500mhz, what if much better cooling is applied?? That I think is the secret in getting the GF FX to really perform. If someone finds a more eloquent and more efficient means of cooling they will probably have a rather fast card. This also sounds like the problem with DDRII memory - - remove the heat - - someone is going to have alot of fun I believe. Now how soon can we find out depends on when Nvidia really starts releasing this card.

Now IQ I expect to improve with newer drivers.

Performance I expect to improve with newer drivers. At least 10-20%.

I still think the Radeon 9700 Pro is the better buy but the GF FX does have potential. I wouldn't buy a GF FX Ultra but the GF FX maybe worth it.

[Kruno]

I expect the R300 drivers to have an larger performance increases about 30%. :)

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
I expect the R300 drivers to have an larger performance increases about 30%. :)
The R300 increasing more due to drivers (between now and "final maturity") than the FX is silly.

[Kruno]

Originally posted by Chalnoth
The R300 increasing more due to drivers (between now and "final maturity") than the FX is silly.

Sif. :p

Ati could be holding back, Ati could also improve and optimise for specific games like nVidia have done.

Just stating some possiblities. :)

[Chalnoth]

Regardless of how much ATI is "holding back," nVidia hasn't yet optimized the drivers much at all. nVidia has much further to go.

[Kruno]

Originally posted by Chalnoth
Regardless of how much ATI is "holding back," nVidia hasn't yet optimized the drivers much at all. nVidia has much further to go.

LMFAO @ your sig. :D

nVidia could have been optimising the drivers before the reviews came out. :)

[Filburt]

Originally posted by Chalnoth
Regardless of how much ATI is "holding back," nVidia hasn't yet optimized the drivers much at all. nVidia has much further to go.

That's being pretty optimistic. If they optimize at the pace they've been doing so for the past 7 odd months they've had to do it...it'll be optimized to even baseline acceptable levels by the end of the year.

You seem to conveniently forget this card is horrendously late...and thus what you claim to be such newly developed drivers...are really the product of over 6 months of development. Looking at the results we have today...it doesn't seem logical to think they are somehow going to get a lot better anytime soon. I seem to remember replying to a similar post of yours in this fashion...

Anyhow, Chal...honestly I think you're really reaching here man :/

[Demiex]

nv30 was delayed because of the .13 micron process right? How's ATI handling that? Can't be that smooth of a transition, but they say R350 is right around the corner. hrmph. Well all see in the next month :)

Demiex

[Demiex]

Oh yah, quick question then a reply depending on the answer. Were the drivers for the nv30's created from scratch? Or off of previous drivers? I mean i guess it would make sense that they have to start completely over given the, im thinkin, dramatic change in hardware capabilities, and the DX9 capabilities.

Demiex

[Filburt]

Originally posted by Demiex
nv30 was delayed because of the .13 micron process right? How's ATI handling that? Can't be that smooth of a transition, but they say R350 is right around the corner. hrmph. Well all see in the next month :)

Demiex

I think nVidia's problems ran into difficulty with TSMC's unusual low-k application process. They use Black Diamond which is a CVD low-k process as opposed to the typical "spin-on" low-k dielectrics. This may have caused some design and/or material conflicts during fabrication. Also, the omission of low-k meant that they would need EXTREMELY high quality chips to come out of the fab in order to hit the 500mhz target...let alone 400mhz.

[Chalnoth]

Originally posted by Filburt
You seem to conveniently forget this card is horrendously late...and thus what you claim to be such newly developed drivers...are really the product of over 6 months of development.
I don't see how in matters. nVidia hasn't had working silicon for very long at all. I really don't see why this is different fromany other product. All of their new architectures have taken a couple of years to develop. Why haven't the drivers of past products been perfect at availability?