Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I am running a 4870x2 with 610 watt PSU (results)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 27, 2008 2:09:33 AM

Well as the topic states, I have now successfully installed my VisionTek 4870x2 and just ran 3dMark06 (it took alot to get this thing installed because of display issues).

Results @ stock settings:
Total: 18392
SM 2.0 Score 6834
SM 3.0 Score 9494
CPU Score 4716


System specs:
Intel Q9450 @ 3.2ghz stock volts
Gigabyte GA-X48-DQ6
Xigmatek HDTS 1283 (with 120mm fan)
Corsair XMS 2x2gb DDR800
VisionTek 4870x2
ASUS DVD RW + Lightscribe
Western Digital Velociraptor
Seagate 7200.11 500gb
NZXT Apollo Orange
1 x 120mm fan (rear)
1 x120mm led fan (side)
Sythe S-flex 120mm fan (front)
Antec Spot Cool 80mm led fan
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 610 Watts

So all speculation is out of this, so far my power supply is running this card no problem even with a few extra fans. Soon to follow will be other benchmarks, but I'm just stoked that I got things up and running and its nice to have a "top of the line" rig for a few weeks /sarcasim


Steve
August 27, 2008 2:37:21 AM

It should be fine. 610w is cutting it close, but a top of the line model psu like that one should be able to handle the high load consistently. Fans draw little power, and don't matter on the large scheme of things.

18.4k on a 4870x2 seems a bit low, considering I get 15.5k on a single 8800gts, which the 4870x2 should be able to wipe the floor with. It probably has nothing to do with psu though.
August 27, 2008 2:46:34 AM

he isn't cutting it that close on the power...

most cards tend to usually take 150W or so....or at least they use too. i haven't seen the 4870x2 wattage yet, but i doubt it is severly cramping his psu...
Related resources
August 27, 2008 3:12:37 AM

the_one111 said:
he isn't cutting it that close on the power...

most cards tend to usually take 150W or so....or at least they use too. i haven't seen the 4870x2 wattage yet, but i doubt it is severly cramping his psu...


At full load, even a single 4870 takes quite a bit more than 150w, the x2 has two. Also, there is more to a PC than graphics card. That overclocked quad core cpu along with multiple hdds also take a toll.
August 27, 2008 3:17:44 AM

Ahhh.. thats right the x2 is basically crossfire, so yeah he should be able to handle it. but your right, it would be close..

I see... i should have realized that the X2 was two graphics cards basically...especially since i just read about it...

I'm sleepy forgive me :D 
August 27, 2008 3:30:23 AM

I have a 650w with 52 amps combined loading (not added up) and a similar system overall, one less hdd but also a soundcard... so I should in theory be able to run a x2 safely? I'd like to add one more pci card in the future also.
August 27, 2008 3:31:39 AM

LAN_deRf_HA said:
I have a 650w with 52 amps combined loading (not added up) and a similar system overall, one less hdd but also a soundcard... so I should in theory be able to run a x2 safely? I'd like to add one more pci card in the future also.


Sound card takes almost nothing. But it would still be close. Keep in mind most psus cannot remain stable on near max load. He has a particularily solid model.
August 27, 2008 3:33:44 AM

I would feel confident saying your fine with that PSU. When they recommend 650 watts they have to build in headroom for crappier psu's than your PC Power and Cooling unit.

I ran my 4870x2 on a Seasonic 600W with no issues (Seasonic makes some PC P&C units). I would have comfortably stayed with that unit except for needing to buy another PSU for an old system that is being handed down my pre-upgrade equipment.

With an e6600 @3.2 which probably only uses a little less power than your 45nm quad at 3.2 I was seeing typical load at the wall in the 350's with one instantaneous peak of 430w.
August 27, 2008 3:35:16 AM

Well if it helps it says it has a 85% efficiency and is rated to be in ±3% voltage regulation territory, and reviews seem to have confirmed that.
August 27, 2008 3:39:10 AM

dagger said:
It should be fine. 610w is cutting it close, but a top of the line model psu like that one should be able to handle the high load consistently. Fans draw little power, and don't matter on the large scheme of things.

18.4k on a 4870x2 seems a bit low, considering I get 15.5k on a single 8800gts, which the 4870x2 should be able to wipe the floor with. It probably has nothing to do with psu though.
http://ourworld.cs.com/dagger9066/screenshot001.jpg


How are you able to show your score in vista like that? I have to post mine onto their website to be able to see it. Do you need a registered version of it or something?


Also about the low scores, I'm running catalyst 8.8 right now and vista doesn't seem to be recognizing the driver version correctly. Not sure if that has anything to do with it.
August 27, 2008 3:43:13 AM

sciggy said:
How are you able to show your score in vista like that? I have to post mine onto their website to be able to see it. Do you need a registered version of it or something?


Also about the low scores, I'm running catalyst 8.8 right now and vista doesn't seem to be recognizing the driver version correctly. Not sure if that has anything to do with it.


I had the paid version. Last time I'll ever pay for a benchmark too. :sarcastic:  Standardized default settings were used, so it should be on even grounds.

Don't worry about the scores. I'm sure it's just lack of good driver. Things should improve as time goes on.
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2008 3:46:50 AM

Never mind, I looked it up and hes getting that on 06.
August 27, 2008 3:47:19 AM

dagger said:
I had the paid version. Last time I'll ever pay for a benchmark too. :sarcastic:  Standardized default settings were used, so it should be on even grounds.

Don't worry about the scores. I'm sure it's just lack of good driver. Things should improve as time goes on.



I'm not concerned about the scores at all. Its just a benchmark. As long as it plays my games thats all that matters. And that I got a huge jump from my old card 7900gt ko on the same system(score of ~5600).
August 27, 2008 3:56:02 AM

The reason for the scores is dagger's higher CPU clock. 3dmark06 places more emphasis on CPU than it really should.

For example I was trying out an overclock today and based on CPU speed alone my 3dmark06 score went up 4689 points (28%). This overclock will not affect any games by that great an amount but futuremarks ongoing mission to help sell more cores, faster cores, physics etc. puts disproportionate weight on things.
August 27, 2008 4:07:57 AM

I have that same PSU, it kicks ass. I'm running a 4870 on it =).
Only problem is now I can't add another 4870, due to the lack of 6 pin connectors.
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 27, 2008 5:05:02 AM

Quote:
LAN_deRf_HA wrote :

I have a 650w with 52 amps combined loading (not added up) and a similar system overall, one less hdd but also a soundcard... so I should in theory be able to run a x2 safely? I'd like to add one more pci card in the future also.


The Toughpower 650W has 48A combined from 4 rails, according to newegg specs. The Corsair 650TX has 52A on a single rail. Anyway, one of those should be enough too, just don't add too many hard disks/lights/fans/cards.


August 27, 2008 6:30:03 AM

I am using Enermax modu 82+ 625W and only isue i had with 4870x2 was when i used single 12V rail to power up both8+6 connectors on gfx and got aftifacts in games, after spliting them to diferent rails it was ok.

Only that concerns me that i cannot create profiles in CCC, it just create file with device id, but not with all other settings.
Also seems that newes ati drivers still dont fix fan controll as i have realy high temperature in 2d and temperature lover by at least 10 degres once started 3D and fan kick in.


August 27, 2008 6:50:41 AM

I'm upgrading on September 15th to either an 8750 or a 9650 on a Gigabyte 780G board. I'm also getting a 24" LCD monitor.

Is a 4870x2 worth it over a 3870x2 with that configuration? I'm a bit CPU limited now with an old CRT and my X2 processor.

I plan on upgrading my wife to a Phenom in October, and then getting her a 4870 in November, but I like the 4870x2. If I'd known these were coming out last February, I'd have kept the $450 and waited.

The 4xxx series is great, but the 4850 is "only" equal to a 3870x2 and I'm not sure the 4870 or 4870x2 are enough of a framerate boost for the added cost to this year's upgrades.

Any opinions? I mostly play LOTRO under Vista in DX10 mode (not graphically intensive) plus single player CRPG's like The Witcher. I think that Mass Effect is graphically intensive. Would the 3870x2 handle it at 1920 resolutions?

Should I follow THG's "What About The Other Card" page advice and wait for a boost of 2 ranks up? The future "5xxx" series, for example?


August 27, 2008 12:53:33 PM

No1sFanboy said:
The reason for the scores is dagger's higher CPU clock. 3dmark06 places more emphasis on CPU than it really should.

For example I was trying out an overclock today and based on CPU speed alone my 3dmark06 score went up 4689 points (28%). This overclock will not affect any games by that great an amount but futuremarks ongoing mission to help sell more cores, faster cores, physics etc. puts disproportionate weight on things.


If it had been a stock dual core, it would matter, but not in this case. He's using an overclocked quad, at 4716 cpu score, that's merely 200 lower than my 4916. Not nearly enough to explain it.

It's driver issues.
August 27, 2008 1:15:25 PM

dagger said:
If it had been a stock dual core, it would matter, but not in this case. He's using an overclocked quad, at 4716 cpu score, that's merely 200 lower than my 4916. Not nearly enough to explain it.

It's driver issues.



His score of 18392 seems to be in line with similar systems looking at ORB. I don't see any performance/driver problem.

I just searched all 3dmark06 scores with a 4870x2 and Intel quad clocked from 3100-3300.

The results range from 15148-18689.

If I change my search from clocks of 3500-3700 or more in range with your overclock I get:

16678-20882.

Futuremark is fine to test and compare but is plain old crap as a predictor of in game frame rates.

If card A scores 2x FPS in game it will not score 2x bungholio score.
August 27, 2008 1:31:15 PM

dagger said:
It should be fine. 610w is cutting it close, but a top of the line model psu like that one should be able to handle the high load consistently. Fans draw little power, and don't matter on the large scheme of things.

18.4k on a 4870x2 seems a bit low, considering I get 15.5k on a single 8800gts, which the 4870x2 should be able to wipe the floor with. It probably has nothing to do with psu though.
http://ourworld.cs.com/dagger9066/screenshot001.jpg


His score isn't all that bad.. His sm3.0 score doubled due to xfire, but the sm2.0 score only increased 1500 points due to xfire. sm2.0 is completely irrelivent in todays games. So I usually look off of the sm3.0 score and make my diagnosis based off that.. especially for the 4xxx series because of their inhereint lack of sm2.0 performance.
August 27, 2008 1:38:25 PM

No1sFanboy said:
His score of 18392 seems to be in line with similar systems looking at ORB. I don't see any performance/driver problem.

I just searched all 3dmark06 scores with a 4870x2 and Intel quad clocked from 3100-3300.

The results range from 15148-18689.

If I change my search from clocks of 3500-3700 or more in range with your overclock I get:

16678-20882.

Futuremark is fine to test and compare but is plain old crap as a predictor of in game frame rates.

If card A scores 2x FPS in game it will not score 2x bungholio score.


The 4870X2 should increase or FPS 4x over your old 7900gt ko! especially if you are running at high res with AA, you should see one hell of a dramatic increase in game playability, well worth your upgrade IMO. And for 3dmark 06... the 4870X2 will more than double the fps in games over the 8800GTS512 (with high res and aa..probably 3x more fps) but in 3dmark it will only score 3k points more...
August 27, 2008 2:21:05 PM

I game at 1920x1080(42" 1080p lcd) so thats why I figured I could really allow this card to stretch its legs. I know people don't really like crysis, but I downloaded the demo and I'm going to load it up in a day or so and get some benchmarks with that. I'm waiting on grid right now and a few others (birth day is around the corner).

I'll post up some more results as I get them.
August 27, 2008 2:37:32 PM

Crysis has good and bad levels but is still worth playing. Grid on your LCD will be a blast. I have it installed on my downstairs HTPC and play on a large screen. I'm now split on whether to play it a higher res and frame rates on my gaming computer or just keep playing it on my 720p projector.
a b U Graphics card
August 27, 2008 5:51:16 PM

@ yipsl, Id wait for the next gen. The 3870x2 is a killer card, and from what Ive seen, wont benefit by going 4870x2 by great margines. The rumored 5xxx series at this point looks to have at least 25% increases, while keeping a better thermal
August 27, 2008 6:18:20 PM

Overall, 3870x2 perform around the same as a single 4870. 4850 does not equal 3870x2, it equals a g92 8800gts/9800gtx and is significantly slower than 3870x2. 4850 only barely catches up to 3870x2 at extreme resolutions along with high af/aa, since 3870x2 scales badly with those, the opposite of 4000s generation ATI cards. Under realistic conditions, 3870x2 tends to be much faster. All those biased benchmarkers that only test using huge resolution plus 16xaf, 8xaa are just trying to mislead you.
!