bit-tech.net | XFX GeForce 7950 GT 570M Extreme

Firehed 15th September 2006, 03:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkReaper
Am I the only one who winced at the idea of 100+ degree temperatures?

I've seen them before (heck, I've seen my laptop hit 85c)... at least GPUs are meant to withstand that level of heat, even if it's not ideal.

IanW 15th September 2006, 06:00

Bandwidth warning:- We've been slashdotted on this review.
(Still sticking with my ATi 9600XT 'cos my mobo only takes AGP and my wallet is on a starvation diet).

Kipman725 15th September 2006, 08:31

ouch 100c... I wouldn't be happy running a card that hot. My current card reaches 36c maximum. It's a coolish running 5900xt with an overvolted artic coller though :P

Tim S 15th September 2006, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by phide
Not from what I understand. My understanding of the term is as follows:

The frame buffer is an allotment of onboard storage dedicated to storing frame data for output to the display. The size of this frame buffer is dependent on bit depth and resolution, and is typically in the ballpark of 4-8MB. This frame buffer is also utilized for performing simple post-process effects such as color "grading" and frame buffer distortion. It is not the entire chunk of onboard storage - if it were, there would be no room for other buffers or for onboard texture storage. As the name implies, it is solely a buffer.

Is this not correct? When did we start referring to onboard video memory as the "frame buffer", and why would such a misnomer be typically accepted and used? Do nVidia and/or ATi specifically refer to onboard memory as the frame buffer?

I apologise and I stand corrected - I've had my terminology pickled up. I did some more research myself last night when I got home and your understanding is correct. I've made the requisite change in the article. Thanks.

[USRF]Obiwan 15th September 2006, 10:04

looks like a nice card. But 100c in passive cooling is a lot. Especialy if you put this card in a allready crowded and not much fan cooled HTPC. But i think that is not going to happen anyway, because it would not fit into a HTPC with this kind of heatsink setup. Unless you get insane with the dremel and make some 'room' for the heatsink... sticking out top of the HTPC.

If you 'mod' this nicely, this would be the 'cool' factor when you get visitors to watch your latest dvd on your 50" plasma. Your amazed visitors would proberly ask you what the strange silver ribbed thing is, that is sticking out of the HTPC hoot. You could always answer that this is the future of satalite discs. But the visitors would be look at you in disbelieve. So you tell them the thruth. And then you could watch them ROFL all over your floor...

well.... eh... right..

JADS 15th September 2006, 13:01

You know the excessive heat and bland design of most cards these days is caused primarily by the excessively short product cycle of around 6 months.

If we could convince ATI and nVidia to work on 15 month product cycles the GPU engineers would be able to spin the design a few more times around the fab and hopefully get some good power savings, the board manufacturers would be able to create their own novel designs with the extra time, consumers wouldn't constantly feel shortchanged due to the rapidly shifting GPU technology, etc...

Kudos to XFX though for coming out with something original.

atanum141 15th September 2006, 13:06

Its not even going to be funny when the next gen of cards require their own psu.......not funny.

WhiskeyAlpha 16th September 2006, 14:46

I know a lot of people have mentioned this already but 100c???

And, I also know that others have said that this is an acceptable temperature for a gpu core but tbh, if my 7900gt hit 100c I would probably sh*t myself!

Infact, I was worried about mine hitting the high 50s so I bought a new heatsink lol.

M4RTIN 16th September 2006, 15:39

my x1800xt used to hit 100c with a vf-900 on it.. had an insane overclock, but still it was perfectly stable at those temps

Muunsyr 16th September 2006, 15:46

Tim, how were the temps measured? Just through the driver control panel?

And has anyone compared driver measurements to a calibrated temp probe (specifically for GPU's/nVidia GPU's)? I would be interested in seeing what the difference is, if any.

Tim S 16th September 2006, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muunsyr
Tim, how were the temps measured? Just through the driver control panel?

And has anyone compared driver measurements to a calibrated temp probe (specifically for GPU's/nVidia GPU's)? I would be interested in seeing what the difference is, if any.

I've just reported the temperatures I was seeing in the driver. I hadn't seen any artifacting without a fan, but I burned myself on the heatsink when removing the card after completing all of the benchmarks. I left the card installed and went off to play some CS: Source for 20 mins and then went back to look at the temperature after quitting CS.

I then went back and did some further testing with an 800RPM fan blowing across the I/O slots.

Tim S 20th September 2006, 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by phide
Not from what I understand. My understanding of the term is as follows:

The frame buffer is an allotment of onboard storage dedicated to storing frame data for output to the display. The size of this frame buffer is dependent on bit depth and resolution, and is typically in the ballpark of 4-8MB. This frame buffer is also utilized for performing simple post-process effects such as color "grading" and frame buffer distortion. It is not the entire chunk of onboard storage - if it were, there would be no room for other buffers or for onboard texture storage. As the name implies, it is solely a buffer.

Is this not correct? When did we start referring to onboard video memory as the "frame buffer", and why would such a misnomer be typically accepted and used? Do nVidia and/or ATi specifically refer to onboard memory as the frame buffer?

I'm very curious about the proliferation of this term.

EDIT: Scoured around a bit more. Here are some definitions from a few folk:

I see nothing here that would indicate the frame buffer encompassing texture storage and other buffers, such as the accumulation buffer, the back buffer and the z-buffer.

To drag this one back up.... I'm just going through an NVIDIA reviewer's guide at the moment - here's a quote:

"The GeForce 7900 GS includes a 256MB frame buffer (256-bit memory interface)"

Based on that, I would say that my initial terminology was fine...

Ikera 21st September 2006, 00:48

I don't think 7950 GT is much better then 7900 GT. I have XFX GeForce 7900 GT 520 Xtreme and it runs good at 600MHz Core and 1800 MHz Mem and i get over 6000 score on 3Dmark 06. The temp. does go up to 76c but that's as high as it gets.

Log in

XFX GeForce 7950 GT 570M Extreme

Comments 26 to 38 of 38