The power consumption in watts always refers to the entire test platform. The 2D value is the normal Windows interface without load or the Aero interface (minimum value). The 3D value is measured when the CPU and graphics card are running at maximum load (maximum value). For this, we used the start screen of Mass Effect (UT3 Engine) at 1920x1200 pixels without anti-aliasing. The CPU reaches a load of 100% as a result.
Examples of power consumption with other CPU classes, where the values always refer to the entire test platform. The E2160 @ 1.8 GHz is between 17 and 32 watts less. E2160 @ 2.41 GHz is between 15 and 25 watts less. E6750 @ 2.67 GHz is between 12 and 16 watts less. Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz (G0) is between 2 and 5 watts more. And Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz (G0) is between 20 and 35 watts more.
Approximate power consumption of the test system: X38 platform on the Windows desktop is 65 watts, X38 under 3D load is 90-110 watts, the 780i platform in 2D mode is 20 watts, and the 780i running 3D is between 145 and 155 watts. Since all of these measurements were made at the power connection, the actual power supply load of the measured consumption must be calculated by multiplying the watt ratings by 0.83 (the efficiency factor).
| Power consumption in watts | 2D (Vista Desktop) | 3D (Mass Effect) |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) | 203 | 540 |
| GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) | 117 | 352 |
| GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) | 211 | 610 |
| GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) | 111 | 336 |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) | 173 | 368 |
| GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) | 235 | 462 |
| GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) | 126 | 264 |
| GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) | 182 | 302 |
| GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) | 102 | 187 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) | 127 | 277 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) | 230 | 445 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) | 126 | 269 |
| GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) | 184 | 326 |
| GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) | 103 | 198 |
| GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) | 203 | 392 |
| GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) | 115 | 239 |
| GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) | 294 | 580 |
| GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) | 154 | 313 |
| GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) | 146 | 296 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) | 138 | 256 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) | 234 | 420 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) | 127 | 240 |
| GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) | 98 | 178 |
| GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) | 164 | 277 |
| GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) | 93 | 172 |
| GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) | 155 | 253 |
| GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) | 89 | 160 |
| Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) | 242 | 460 |
| Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) | 147 | 288 |
| Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) | 177 | 367 |
| Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) | 122 | 237 |
| Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) | 132 | 350 |
| Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) | 124 | 323 |
| Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) | 95 | 216 |
| Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) | 111 | 279 |
| Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) | 88 | 192 |
| Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) | 112 | 235 |
| Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) | 89 | 167 |
| Noise level at 1 m | 2D dB(A) | 3D dB(A) |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) | 39.0 | 48.8 - 49.4 |
| GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) | 37.7 | 54.5 - 54.7 |
| GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) | 39.6 | 55.1 - 56.0 |
| GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) | 38.1 - 44.2 | 53.5 - 54.0 |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) | 38.4 | 53.6 - 54.1 |
| GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) | 37.0 | 48.6 - 49.1 |
| GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) | 36.2 | 44.7 - 45.7 |
| GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) | 37.7 | 46.4 - 47.0 |
| GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) | 36.9 | 42.6 - 43.3 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) | 36.2 | 40.3 - 40.7 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) | 38.5 | 43.7 - 44.1 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) | 36.2 | 40.1 - 40.5 |
| GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) | 37.5 | 43.8 - 44.1 |
| GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) | 36.5 | 40.4 - 40.9 |
| GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) | 36.2 | 48.4 - 51.0 |
| GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) | 35.8 | 42.2 - 42.7 |
| GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) | 38.7 | 49.9 - 50.7 |
| GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) | 37.0 | 46.5 - 48.1 |
| GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) | 36.8 | 47.8 - 48.4 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) | 36.9 | 39.7 - 40.2 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) | 37.6 | 41.2 - 41.7 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) | 36.3 | 38.2 - 38.7 |
| GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) | 48.0 | 48.0 |
| GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) | passive | passive |
| GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) | passive | passive |
| GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) | 42.2 | 42.2 |
| GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) | 40.8 | 40.8 |
| Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) | 41.8 - 42.4 | 53.7 - 54.5 |
| Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) | 35.5 | 45.5 - 46.0 |
| Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) | 36.3 | 46.0 |
| Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) | 36.3 | 41.2 |
| Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) | 36.6 | 48.3 - 49.4 |
| Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) | 36.4 | 48.2 - 48.7 |
| Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) | 36.5 | 38.7 - 39.4 |
| Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) | 36.9 | 40.2 - 40.8 |
| Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) | 36.2 | 37.5 |
| Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) | 41.7 | 41.7 |
| Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) | 40.0 | 40.0 |
For SLI and GX2, several values are specified; these refer to the individual graphics chips (GPUs). For CrossFire, the value of the primary, hotter GPU is shown in the table.
| Temperature in degrees Celsius | 2D (Vista Desktop) | 3D (Mass Effect) |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 280 SLI (1024 MB) | 48 / 50 | 82 / 83 |
| GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB) | 53 | 85 |
| GeForce GTX 260 SLI (896 MB) | 49 / 64 | 101 / 105 |
| GeForce GTX 260 (896 MB) | 45 - 49 | 105 |
| GeForce 9800 GX2 (2x512 MB) | 68 / 71 | 87 / 91 |
| GeForce 9800 GTX SLI (512 MB) | 62 / 62 | 76 / 78 |
| GeForce 9800 GTX (512 MB) | 60 | 75 |
| GeForce 9600 GT SLI (1024 MB) | 38 / 53 | 56 / 77 |
| GeForce 9600 GT (1024 MB) | 45 | 70 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS OC (512 MB) | 62 | 89 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (512 MB) | 62 / 73 | 85 / 90 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS (512 MB) | 60 | 86 |
| GeForce 8800 GT SLI (1024 MB) | 46 / 53 | 61 / 67 |
| GeForce 8800 GT (1024 MB) | 46 | 61 |
| GeForce 8800 GT SLI (512 MB) | 61 / 69 | 96 / 98 |
| GeForce 8800 GT (512 MB) | 63 | 97 |
| GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI (768 MB) | 66 / 69 | 86 / 91 |
| GeForce 8800 Ultra (768 MB) | 60 | 82 |
| GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB) | 60 | 82 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS (640 MB) | 60 | 82 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS SLI (320 MB) | 54 / 61 | 84 / 85 |
| GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB) | 53 | 84 |
| GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB) | 41 | 57 |
| GeForce 8600 GTS SLI (256 MB) | 67 / 51 | 99 / 98 |
| GeForce 8600 GTS (256 MB) | 56 | 95 |
| GeForce 8600 GT SLI (256 MB) | 48 / 52 | 65 / 73 |
| GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) | 47 | 65 |
| Radeon HD 4870 CF (512 MB) | 63 | 73 |
| Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB) | 76 | 83 - 85 |
| Radeon HD 4850 CF (512 MB) | 80 | 83 - 85 |
| Radeon HD 4850 (512 MB) | 78 | 83 - 85 |
| Radeon HD 3870 X2 (2x512 MB) | 58 | 82 |
| Radeon HD 3870 CF (512 MB) | 62 | 95 |
| Radeon HD 3870 (512 MB) | 53 | 90 |
| Radeon HD 3850 CF (256 MB) | 55 | 91 |
| Radeon HD 3850 (256 MB) | 49 | 90 |
| Radeon HD 3650 CF (512 MB) | 45 | 78 |
| Radeon HD 3650 (512 MB) | 39 | 62 |
Looks like the results for SLI and Crossfire were switched with the single card results. . .
Not a bad article, really comprehensive.
My one complaint? Why use that CPU when you know that the test cards are going to max it out? Why not a quad core OC'ed to 4GHz? It'd give far more meaning to the SLI results. We don't want results that we can duplicate at home, we want results that show what these cards can do. Its a GPU card comparason, not a complain about not having a powerful enough CPU story.
Oh? And please get a native english speaker to give it the once over for spelling and grammar errors, although this one had far less then many articles posted lately.
No 4870x2 in CF so its the worlds top end Nvidia vs ATI mid to low end.
It'd be a good article if you'd used a powerful enough CPU and up to date Radeon drivers (considering we're now up to 8.8 now), I mean are those even the 'hotfix' 8.6's or just the vanilla drivers?
Version AMD Catalyst 8.6? Why not just say i'm using ATI drivers with little to no optimizations for the 4800's. This is why the CF benchmarks tanked.
at 1280, all of the highend cards were CPU limited. at that resolution, you need a 3.2-3.4 c2d to feed a 3870... this article had so much potential, and yet... so much work, so much testing, fast for nothing, because most of the results are very cpu limited (except 1920@AA).
WTF, hd4850 SHOULD be a lot faster than 9600 GT and 8800 GT even tough they have 1Gig of ram
No 4870X2 and 1920 X 1200 max resolution tested. How about finishing the good start of an article with the rest of it...
I agree, the 4870 X2 should have been in there and should have used the updated drivers. Good article but I think you fell short on finishing it.
@pulasky - Rage much? It's called driver issues you dumbass. Some games are more optimised for multicard setups than others, and even then some favour SLi to Crossfire. And if you actually READ the article rather than let your shrinken libido get the better of you, you'll find that Crossfire does indeed work in CoD4.
Remember, the more you know.
isnt forceware 177.41 out for gt200 series? so they are using a recent driver for the nvidia cards yet not for the ATI cards...plus yes would have to agree with wahdangun the 4850 is alot faster then the 9600gt and the 8800gt i have 2 friends with both cards with q6600s one at 3.2 (9600gt) and the other at 3.0 (4850) and the 4850 machine destroys the other one even with a lower clocked cpu
but yes the article was off to a great start, maybe throw some vantage in there as well?
agree with the others. u guys should use a more recent driver for ati/amd cards, use a more game-effective cpu and REALLY should have put the 4870x2 on the fight
Version AMD Catalyst 8.6? Why not just say i'm using ATI drivers with little to no optimizations for the 4800's. This is why the CF benchmarks tanked.
Precisely; several other websites tested with 8.7 and 8.8 long before this article was published. Why couldn't you? Look at the 8.6 release notes; it doesn't even mention the HD4000 series cards as supported devices.
Brilliant guys.
and why use vista when noone that considers itself a gamer(even casual) touches with a ten-foot pole.
This is another reason why the results are tanked, in XP you get 15% more performance compared to these values
NVISION comes around and IRONicallY, a 36 page article is produced that is magically in favor of, whats that, NVIDIA!!!
After having the Mythbusters appear, you would think this would be the most comprehensive, "scientific," factual, and update article meeting Tom's usual standards.... I didn't finish reading this.
Using old drivers with no optimalisation at all fo newest card whitch was released months ago seems too strange to me. Also temperature results for 48xx are quite oposite reality, at least when compare to 8.8 catalyst.
(82 temperature in 2D 69 in 3D with no fanfix)
Pretty good, finally. Wish you would have have used an overclocked Quad so the newer GPU's could show their full potentianl, and you really should have used the latest drivers, but I give this article 2 thumbs up. Lot of good information in here.
Well the main reason why they don't have the 4870x2 and the latest drivers is simply because they made this article a couple of weeks ago. If you could just imagine how long and tedious it is to produce all these data and results. It's just sad that after finally finishing the article, a lot of new stuff has already happened(new drivers and the x2).
First I want to say that the article itself is not bad at all.
Also, I can understand why TH didn't have time to use 8.8 since it was released publicly on August 20, 2008 (Although ATI would have gladly released a beta version to TH for testing purposes).
However, AMD publicly released stable Catalyst 8.7(internal version 8.512) on July 21, 2008. That's more than a month ago. It has numerous improvements (for example, CF performance increase, improved stability and performance under Vista). To be honest, most of the improvements range from 4% to 15%. (In CF case, up to 1.7 X scaling)
TH has rarely been unfair and/or inaccurate and they always owned up to their mistakes before, and I trust them to re-test ATI products with at least 8.7 if not 8.8 to continue to uphold their values and integrity.