We’re not going to spend too much time talking about load temps/noise for the 270X since the reference design will not be for sale, but briefly we can see that AMD’s blower lets it get relatively warm. That or AMD (and NVIDIA) are exceeding PCIe specs and drawing more than 150W.įor idle temperatures there are no big surprises. 7850 by comparison is 20W less we have always worked on the assumption that AMD was slightly overstating their TDPs on the first generation GCN products, and that would certainly be the case here. More significantly we can see both the HIS 270 and GTX 660 topping out within 1W of each other, illustrating the 150W wall. We still have a difference between the HIS and Asus cards, but at 7W it’s not nearly as much as under Crysis. This test also highlights the difference between the GTX 760 and 270X in maximum power consumption the 270X will draw less power on average, but it’s ultimately rated for more than the GTX 760.Īs for the 270 cards, everything clusters together. All 270 series cards are exceeding their 7800 series predecessors, with the 270X approaching the power consumption of the 7850 Boost. Meanwhile for FurMark, we see some compression as power consumption becomes largely a function of programmed TDP limits. It also means there’s a small but meaningful difference between the 150W 270 and the 130W 260X. Though regardless, the 270 is going to be more power hungry than the outgoing 7850, despite the identical TDPs. However if we were to normalize the HIS 270 to the GTX 660’s Crysis 3 performance, the power consumption difference of 5W would likely vanish if not reverse. Note that in either case, this is going to be more than the GTX 660. Some of this will be performance based, but for whatever reason the Asus card seems more power hungry in general. Despite the minor clockspeed differences between our 270 cards, the Asus card is drawing a total of 18W at the wall more than the HIS card. To that end the 270X at 267W at the wall is drawing more power than the 7870 and GTX 660, but less than the GTX 760 and quite a bit less than the 280X. This goes both for comparing the 270 series to the 7800 series on a hardware basis, and comparing it to the 7700 series on a price/performance basis. First and foremost, because AMD is still on Pitcairn and still on TSMC’s 28nm process, power consumption has nowhere to go but higher in tandem with performance. Moving on to load power consumption, there are a few things to look at. At 78W for our 270X and 80W for our 270 cards, idle power consumption is fairly average, though for what it’s worth nothing here can touch the GK106 based GTX 660, which consistently measures a few watts lower at the wall. Starting as always with idle power consumption, nothing has changed since the 7800 series. Unlike the 280X and 290 series these are very narrow ranges – just 25MHz to 50MHz – so our clockspeed uncertainty here from the coarse reporting is similarly low. All of our cards report that they’re at their boost state throughout their entire benchmark runs. Looking briefly at clockspeeds, as these are all PowerTune Boost 1.0 cards, the boost capabilities are very coarse grained.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |