I was trying to search some specs on older models, but I couldn't find anything. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction. I do know that the previous-generation GeForce GTX 285 was also 105C.
Hehe I had to do some serious research into the depths of my aging memory but thanks to the aid of Google I now think I know where I got the impression that specs used to be higher and where that 120°C number is coming from.
It's because nVidia in their older drivers actually allowed card manufacturers to include settings for thresholds for when to throttle or shut down the GPU (users then could fiddle with these settings at their own risk). Depending on modifications by the card manufacturer (the custom drivers that you can download from a manufacturer's website) these thresholds were set between 115°C and 145°C. I seem to remember that nVidia recommended 120C and actually if you do a Google search with "120C GPU max temp" then you'll find a lot of people quoting that exact number as the threshold for GPUs so there must be something to it.
Anyway, the original point was that it is not at all surprising that nVidia lowered their specs (to 105C) over time and that they removed the temperature features from their reference drivers. Graphics cards keep on getting more and more complex with more and more transistors (billions of mini-circuits) crammed into a tiny space. As we know it is a great challenge for the chip makers (CPU and GPU alike) to keep the leaking currents and heat dissipation in check. It is kind of weird of nVidia to pretend as if Fermi being able to withstand up to 105°C is an achievement when some time ago in reality they themselves used to allow higher temps of up to 120°C before throttling a GPU via their own drivers.
Also, I think we all know that usually you want to stay away from the max spec as far as possible. We all know that heat is not good for electronic components and all of a sudden nVidia is trying to make us believe that they have beaten the laws of physics by means of "design"? if that is so then why do they still recommend special ventilated systems for Thermi? Come on. Who are they trying to kid?
You know if I were them and wanted to sell a product that didn't quite turn out as originally intended I'd actually do the exact same thing and claim stuff like they do but really now….
Anyways, some of these "issues" are being greatly exaggerated, at least from my experience, which is "hands on", as opposed to simply reading off the web. A threshold of 105C is not going to shorten the lifespan of a video card unless it's due to owner incompetence. I've been torturing my EVGA 470 for the last 2 days, and it has yet to exceed 85C with the fan at 75%. At idle, it doesn't exceed 50C with the fan at 40%. I don't have any kind of special cooling in my case.
Well, I was talking about the "longevity" of the cards if they run at high temps for prolonged periods of time. I wouldn't exactly call "two days" a valid "longevity" test unless we are talking about Pluto or Uranus and not Earth days
.
Seriously though I hope we can easily agree that it is well known and established that running electronic equipment at high temps or close to the maximum specs is going to lead to a higher failure rate. Of course there's going to be those cards that will still work in ten years but
on average you
will have a higher failure rate over a given period of time if you operate electronic equipment near its thermal limits. That is unless nVidia has not only managed to defy the laws of physics but those of statistics as well
.
And regarding the fan speeds it is of course difficult to judge given only a % number but assuming similar total RPM between the fan on my GTX 260 and the fan on the GTX 470 I'm sure that 75% would lead to a completely unacceptable noise level for
me.
My GTX 260 (Gainward) runs at 40% fan speed at default and I lowered that to 30% (fixed… so it stays at 30% in 3D under load, too) because I felt that 40% was a little on the noisy side already (I had a rather silent Gainward 8800GTS 640MB before that).
These are the typical myths I keep seeing posted in some forums, allow me to do a little debunking.
That is just the question, isn't it? Who is posting the myths and who is not? Let's just say I'm not quite willing (yet) to spend EUR 300+ to find out
.
Fan noise-
completely bogus, the 400 series is nearly identicle to the Radeon 5xxx in terms of sound. I think my MSI Radeon 4890 might have even been slightly louder than my new card. Another comparison
here. Unless you can tell the difference between 43db and 45db (I can't), the difference is negligible.
Well, they're comparing to the HD5870 reference design which is over six months old and barely being used anymore. Most ATI manufacturers offer much better performing, much more efficient and much more silent custom cooler designs for the HD5xxx series.
As I said that is what I'm counting on for the GTX 470 as well. My hope lies on the Gainward GTX 470 Golden Sample with the dual fan design. Unfortunately, reviews of the similarly built Palit dual fan design haven't turned out great so far (the noise level was only barely reduced under load and the card was actually louder in idle mode… WTF?) but if Gainward uses a different BIOS with different thresholds for the fan settings etc. then there might be a silent PC compatible GTX 470 on the horizon (hopefully).
Price/performance- not great right now due to limited availability, but no worse than ATI's top end cards. I only paid about $40 more than what a Radeon 5850 is currently going for, and my card is faster. I do think that the 470 and 5850 have a much better P/P ratio than the 480 and 5870.
True. It's pretty sad if I think about my GTX 260 which cost me ~EUR 190 (and which later even dropped to prices as low as EUR 169). That was some great value. I'd consider the GTX 470 great value at ~EUR 250 and my plan is to wait until either nVidia or ATI adjust their prices or bring out a new product in that price range (the GTX 465 is not interesting IMHO since it's not even that much faster than my 260 in most games/scenarios).
Power consumption- can't argue with this one, it's definitely power hungry, but it's not an issue to me. I suppose it's a valid complaint for gamers who are "sensitive" to that.
Doesn't bother me either as I said. I mostly care about the noise and the price and those two are
currently disqualifying factors. But as I said I haven't quite given up hope yet (go Gainward go!
)
