bit-tech.net

BFG Tech GeForce GTX 285 H2O

Comments 1 to 25 of 29

Reply
phuzz 9th March 2009, 12:23 Quote
Hmm, good timing or bad? I've just spent the past hour pricing up a new watercooling system, and then this review crops up. The prospect of someone else fitting the block and a guarantee is very tempting, I've killed a gfx card before tring to fit a block to it, not something I want to repeat...
logan'srun 9th March 2009, 12:25 Quote
I think to really test the cooling efficiency of the block you should have used a 120.2. It's not very common at all to see anyone cool a GPU anymore with just a 120.1. Look at the builds being done and you'll even see that ppl are splitting the loops between the GPU and the CPU/NB so that the heat of each line is contained to itself. Couple that with a 120.2 and you have a better test.
Plus, what fan were you using? If no fans at all, I'm not surprised at all by the results. . . Be better have a high quality fan with that rad, especially when if you're spending the money on the card/block you're not gonna go cheap and get some low performing fan to cool your rads with.
Baz 9th March 2009, 12:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan'srun
I think to really test the cooling efficiency of the block you should have used a 120.2. It's not very common at all to see anyone cool a GPU anymore with just a 120.1. Look at the builds being done and you'll even see that ppl are splitting the loops between the GPU and the CPU/NB so that the heat of each line is contained to itself. Couple that with a 120.2 and you have a better test.
Plus, what fan were you using? If no fans at all, I'm not surprised at all by the results. . . Be better have a high quality fan with that rad, especially when if you're spending the money on the card/block you're not gonna go cheap and get some low performing fan to cool your rads with.

Eh?

It was super cool at both idle and load using just a 120.1 radiator - not sure I see the merit is unnecessarily using a 120.2.

I was fitted with a high airflow 120mm fan to my knowledge - certainly not a cheap low flow model.
Claave 9th March 2009, 13:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Eh?

It was super cool at both idle and load using just a 120.1 radiator - not sure I see the merit is unnecessarily using a 120.2.

I was fitted with a high airflow 120mm fan to my knowledge - certainly not a cheap low flow model.

Yeah, like what he said. The fan was a Ruilian Science RDM1225S, which is a high-airflow model.
RosTo 9th March 2009, 13:04 Quote
Please correct card name spelling in all the standings from H20 to H2O. Thank You!
Claave 9th March 2009, 13:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosTo
Please correct card name spelling in all the standings from H20 to H2O. Thank You!

Done!
Undercloacker 9th March 2009, 13:48 Quote
The mem clock on this nice and steady card is 666MHz
But why are there no Clocked cards around?
If u gonna make a Water cooler card, make it have at least 702MHz :S
perplekks45 9th March 2009, 14:14 Quote
What about temps after the final overclock?

Oh, and it would've been nice for us lazy readers if you just included the 4870X2 results in the overclocked graphs. :)
Claave 9th March 2009, 15:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
What about temps after the final overclock?

Oh, and it would've been nice for us lazy readers if you just included the 4870X2 results in the overclocked graphs. :)

Yeah, but then we'd have to overclock the X2 to be fair to it, and then all the other comparison cards to be fair to them. And by then there'd be no coffee left in the whole building... :D
logan'srun 9th March 2009, 15:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
[
Eh?

It was super cool at both idle and load using just a 120.1 radiator - not sure I see the merit is unnecessarily using a 120.2.

I was fitted with a high airflow 120mm fan to my knowledge - certainly not a cheap low flow model.

But this is exactly what I pointed out. How common is it to have a 120.1 cooling your GPU? Especially a 285? not very common at all. Take a look at all the build logs here or at xtreme (for example), and you're not going to find ppl using a 120.1 for their GPU. I just don't feel that's an accurate real world test. Most builds being done today are multiple rads (120.3+120.2) in big cases - maybe in someones SFF or lanbox do you see a 120.1, but not desktops. . .

And try updating your fans a little, I googled that fan Claave listed, and uh. . nice model - google returned with 13 results and it was all forum rants from 2004 or earlier. Is that company in business still? If the fan is 4+ years old there's a big part of your problem as well. Try mounting that fan with a San Ace or Scythe S-Flex F and then report the differences. . .
capnPedro 9th March 2009, 15:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undercloacker
The mem clock on this nice and steady card is 666MHz
But why are there no Clocked cards around?
If u gonna make a Water cooler card, make it have at least 702MHz :S

666 sounds cooler. Plus it's guaranteed to work on every card; a bad card might be flakey at 702, so it's up to the user to push it and test the stability of the OC.
wgy 9th March 2009, 15:56 Quote
im starting to find the "comments" page filled rants or "tounge in cheek" comments a little tiresome.

(quite ironic)

I did like the review though :D
perplekks45 9th March 2009, 16:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claave
Yeah, but then we'd have to overclock the X2 to be fair to it, and then all the other comparison cards to be fair to them. And by then there'd be no coffee left in the whole building... :D
Point taken and agreed... but I'm lazy. :p
Krikkit 9th March 2009, 16:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan'srun
But this is exactly what I pointed out. How common is it to have a 120.1 cooling your GPU? Especially a 285? not very common at all. Take a look at all the build logs here or at xtreme (for example), and you're not going to find ppl using a 120.1 for their GPU. I just don't feel that's an accurate real world test. Most builds being done today are multiple rads (120.3+120.2) in big cases - maybe in someones SFF or lanbox do you see a 120.1, but not desktops. . .

And try updating your fans a little, I googled that fan Claave listed, and uh. . nice model - google returned with 13 results and it was all forum rants from 2004 or earlier. Is that company in business still? If the fan is 4+ years old there's a big part of your problem as well. Try mounting that fan with a San Ace or Scythe S-Flex F and then report the differences. . .

Should we test every possible variation of cooling loop? That's a ridiculous idea, as the loads on any loop, the actual flow rates, the airflow and a hundred other factors will completely change the temps you'll see at home. A 120.1 with a high-flow fan provides a benchmark to see what your temps might be like.
logan'srun 9th March 2009, 16:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkit

Should we test every possible variation of cooling loop? That's a ridiculous idea, as the loads on any loop, the actual flow rates, the airflow and a hundred other factors will completely change the temps you'll see at home. A 120.1 with a high-flow fan provides a benchmark to see what your temps might be like.

I'm sorry that everyone is quick to judge. All I suggested was changing the rad size and the fan to something that everyone uses today. I never mentioned the other hundred factors that you want to talk about, because I agree with you (surprise?), you want a benchmark test that you can use for all WB's regardless of if it's for CPU/GPU. Benchmark to me is a bigger rad+better fan. Sorry that I have an opinion.

Gr8 artikle d00d, you roxxxx00rs!!!!! kkthxbuhbye

Happy now?
Krikkit 9th March 2009, 16:40 Quote
I'm not criticising you for raising a good point, I just don't agree with you. It's great to see folks who think and criticise. That's what the forums are all about. :)
Turbotab 9th March 2009, 17:27 Quote
Enough brass to keep Fred Dibnah happy! I was wondering why the GTX 260 & 280 (Forceware 180.84 ) were tested with different drivers to the GTX 285 & 295 (Forceware 181.20). I'm currently debating whether to buy a GTX 260 "216" or a Powercolor 4870 1GB, and wanted to see how the GTX faired against the 4870 with the lastest drivers? P.S. both cards are around the same price.
500mph 9th March 2009, 19:03 Quote
I believe that all the cards have been tested with the same setup, and I do not think that it would be fair in the benchmarks and the people who do them to change the standard to a 120.2 or a 240. There is nothing wrong with that fan, even it is slightly old. It is a quality fan that has most likely been used for other benchmarks.
I get your point, but I think we should just stick to the standards.
Goty 9th March 2009, 23:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan'srun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
[
Eh?

It was super cool at both idle and load using just a 120.1 radiator - not sure I see the merit is unnecessarily using a 120.2.

I was fitted with a high airflow 120mm fan to my knowledge - certainly not a cheap low flow model.

But this is exactly what I pointed out. How common is it to have a 120.1 cooling your GPU? Especially a 285? not very common at all. Take a look at all the build logs here or at xtreme (for example), and you're not going to find ppl using a 120.1 for their GPU. I just don't feel that's an accurate real world test. Most builds being done today are multiple rads (120.3+120.2) in big cases - maybe in someones SFF or lanbox do you see a 120.1, but not desktops. . .

And try updating your fans a little, I googled that fan Claave listed, and uh. . nice model - google returned with 13 results and it was all forum rants from 2004 or earlier. Is that company in business still? If the fan is 4+ years old there's a big part of your problem as well. Try mounting that fan with a San Ace or Scythe S-Flex F and then report the differences. . .

A 3C rise over idle temp with a single 120mm radiator is pretty strong evidence that temps will be just fine with a larger radiator. It's not like performance is suddenly going to decrease when going to a better setup.
konstantine 10th March 2009, 00:42 Quote
The 9.2 driver for ATI cards has been available for a while now,Why to use old drivers...? According to PCGH, the new 9,2 driver has accelerated the radeon cards in some game significantly.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2009/02/9.2_RC1_CodWaW.png
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2009/02/9.2_RC1_CrysisWarhead.png

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2009/02/HighendSGPU_vs_MidrangeMGPU_CrysisWarhead_1920.png
perplekks45 10th March 2009, 01:31 Quote
Not dead, just restricted.
Review can be found here:

Catalyst 92 RC1 accelerates Radeon cards noticeably.
Turbotab 10th March 2009, 03:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
Not dead, just restricted.
Review can be found here:

Catalyst 92 RC1 accelerates Radeon cards noticeably.

Thanks for the link, now I have to find Ati 9.2 vs Nvidia 182.08! These chaps have a good review of GTX 260 216 standard and Palit Oc'ed vs 4870 1GB, both with newer drivers. The 4870 is around 1 or 2 frames slower than the standard "216" in most games at 1920x1200, but when it does lead, it does so by a considerable margin, however in those games the Nvidia still offers highly playable framerates. Choice is a female dog!
Apologies, for the hijacking the GTX 285 talk, just too expensive. At least when the DX11 cards launch, we can convince ourselves we need one for err, compatibility reasons, thats sounds reasonable:o

http://www.guru3d.com/article/palit-geforce-gtx-260-sp216-sonic-review--test/
konstantine 10th March 2009, 03:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbotab
Thanks for the link, now I have to find Ati 9.2 vs Nvidia 182.08! These chaps have a good review of GTX 260 216 standard and Palit Oc'ed vs 4870 1GB, both with newer drivers. The 4870 is around 1 or 2 frames slower than the standard "216" in most games at 1920x1200, but when it does lead, it does so by a considerable margin, however in those games the Nvidia still offers highly playable framerates. Choice is a female dog!
Apologies, for the hijacking the GTX 285 talk, just too expensive. At least when the DX11 cards launch, we can convince ourselves we need one for err, compatibility reasons, thats sounds reasonable:o

Check this review from xbitlabs.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gainward-hd4850-1024mb-gs_6.html#sect0
Tim S 10th March 2009, 09:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by konstantine
The 9.2 driver for ATI cards has been available for a while now,Why to use old drivers...? According to PCGH, the new 9,2 driver has accelerated the radeon cards in some game significantly.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2009/02/9.2_RC1_CodWaW.png
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2009/02/9.2_RC1_CrysisWarhead.png

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2009/02/HighendSGPU_vs_MidrangeMGPU_CrysisWarhead_1920.png

It would take the best part of three weeks to re-run every benchmark on every graphics card we're comparing the BFG to and, frankly, doing that every month isn't something we have the bandwidth for. We do work to update our drivers at least once a quarter though while at the same time adding new games into the mix (if there are any tweaks to our suite that need making). The last 'performance update' we did featured around 800 individual test results with each one being an average of three runs. That's 80 hours of benchmarking right there without even breaking a sweat.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums