6800 vs. 6800GT Thermal Observations:

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I recently upgraded from a 6800 vanilla to a 6800GT, both cards are AGP 1
slot eVGA's.

One of the things I noticed is that the idle and operating temperatures of
the GT are significantly less than the vanilla. For example, the vanilla is
a 56/68 (idle/operating) and the GT 52/63 with an ambient
case/cpu/environment temp of 27/38/21 degrees C.

Operating frequencies are vanilla 380/890, GT 400/1100. Both have dual speed
fans, very quiet in either speed (both cards are highly recommended btw.)

I understand that the advanced memory on the GT is better, (there is a CU
heatsink on the GT's memory, not on the vanilla) but should not the core be
the same, if not hotter? More pipes working = more heat?

Q: Is the thermal management on the GT so much better than vanilla that it
can show lower numbers? I have evidence it does...who can second it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-vs-nv-power.html

This article in fact shows the contrary. The 6800 vanilla is supposed to run
at lower voltage, too, 1.22 V versus 1.35 V on the 6800GT.

I am assuming your two cards have identical cooling systems? If so, then
it's an interesting find...

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"Friendly Guru" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:to6dnYgNKsPqyi7cRVn-rA@comcast.com...
> I recently upgraded from a 6800 vanilla to a 6800GT, both cards are AGP 1
> slot eVGA's.
>
> One of the things I noticed is that the idle and operating temperatures of
> the GT are significantly less than the vanilla. For example, the vanilla
is
> a 56/68 (idle/operating) and the GT 52/63 with an ambient
> case/cpu/environment temp of 27/38/21 degrees C.
>
> Operating frequencies are vanilla 380/890, GT 400/1100. Both have dual
speed
> fans, very quiet in either speed (both cards are highly recommended btw.)
>
> I understand that the advanced memory on the GT is better, (there is a CU
> heatsink on the GT's memory, not on the vanilla) but should not the core
be
> the same, if not hotter? More pipes working = more heat?
>
> Q: Is the thermal management on the GT so much better than vanilla that it
> can show lower numbers? I have evidence it does...who can second it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ga2dnVzVR4zrSS7cRVn-tw@rogers.com...
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-vs-nv-power.html
>
> This article in fact shows the contrary. The 6800 vanilla is supposed to
run
> at lower voltage, too, 1.22 V versus 1.35 V on the 6800GT.
>
> I am assuming your two cards have identical cooling systems? If so, then
> it's an interesting find...
>


Thanks for the link...just read the 6800 sections and according to the
article, the extra power consumed should equate to more thermal
activity..and higher temps...

So I pulled the case apart to check out the cards...sure enough, the cooling
is *not* the same. They look similar, sealed heat pumps, sinks on both sides
of the card (more on the front) but the weight of the two is significantly
different, already mentioned is the slab of copper over the end of the GT,
not present on the regular.

This GT is still running cooler than the vanilla, maybe a combination of
differing heatsinks and perhaps a slightly borked vanilla core/mem? I am
very happy with my current readings!