Overclock.net banner

181 - 200 of 200 Posts

·
MegaTechPC
Joined
·
19,215 Posts
Has nothing to do with being able to afford it. More watts, more heat, more noise. I want good performance, but i also watt *decent efficiency* - not great, just decent.

Radeon VII uses like 300 watts while performing less tha 2080, which uses 200 watts.

There's no way I'd get Radeon VII over 2080. I don't want any of them tho. I'll be waiting for Nvidia 7nm/7nm+
I have a beefy custom loop so any card I buy will be getting a block anyway, thus my non-caring about watts, heat, and noise. In fact, I would argue that the RVII seems to be one of those cards that actually rewards us water coolers as in some edge-case scenarios the performance under water goes far beyond a 2080 and lands more closely to the 2080Ti. The 2080 OTOH renders water cooling completely superfluous just like Pascal did before it, which is certainly good news for the mainstream GPU consumers but is disappointing to many of us enthusiasts on OCN who already have their loops built and enjoy seeing our new cards benefit from them.

GN touched on the topic of water cooling the RVII in a video yesterday (it was a bit rushed as they were leaving for Asia today and couldn't go super into depth about their findings), but they did point out that simply water cooling the card in and of itself netted them significant performance gains. Its really like a throwback video card to the Kepler/Hawaii days when water cooling your GPU's had tangible benefits that came with a sense of satisfaction for having designed and built a full custom loop in the first place!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
1660ti is a good card for gaming.
 

·
H₂O Aficionado
Joined
·
3,744 Posts
I have a beefy custom loop so any card I buy will be getting a block anyway, thus my non-caring about watts, heat, and noise. In fact, I would argue that the RVII seems to be one of those cards that actually rewards us water coolers as in some edge-case scenarios the performance under water goes far beyond a 2080 and lands more closely to the 2080Ti. The 2080 OTOH renders water cooling completely superfluous just like Pascal did before it, which is certainly good news for the mainstream GPU consumers but is disappointing to many of us enthusiasts on OCN who already have their loops built and enjoy seeing our new cards benefit from them.

GN touched on the topic of water cooling the RVII in a video yesterday (it was a bit rushed as they were leaving for Asia today and couldn't go super into depth about their findings), but they did point out that simply water cooling the card in and of itself netted them significant performance gains. Its really like a throwback video card to the Kepler/Hawaii days when water cooling your GPU's had tangible benefits that came with a sense of satisfaction for having designed and built a full custom loop in the first place!
Depends how you look at it.

I prefer to have more efficient components in my loop whenever possible. As I only have room right now for a single 360mm radiator. The less wattage (heat) in the loop, the quieter the fans will be running, the less noise. My build philosophy is to have as efficient and cool system as possible.

If you're looking for absolute performance, I do agree that the efficiency metric goes out the window. However, I'm one of the few who values the watt / performance metric on OCN. This is really why I will only consider Nvidia cards for my next purchase. I'd love to buy a RX 580 as it's more than enough for my needs but it's hard to justify it when the GTX 1660ti is faster and only uses 120w...

Even the last gen 1080 only uses a single 8 pin (175w?). Which is loads better than the Vega 56 / 64 chips. To contrast that Vega 64 appears to be a beast on water. At that point, you're easily looking at 300w.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,700 Posts
Too bad there currently are no compatible aftermarket heatsinks or blocks for the 1660Ti and the sensibly priced coolers are quite meh. GTX 1070 will run cooler and quieter unless someone comes up with of custom mounting brackets.

While I like its efficiency, ~ 20% improvement over previous gen doesn't seem to offer anything tangible other than barely lower power consumption.
 

·
MegaTechPC
Joined
·
19,215 Posts
Depends how you look at it.

I prefer to have more efficient components in my loop whenever possible. As I only have room right now for a single 360mm radiator. The less wattage (heat) in the loop, the quieter the fans will be running, the less noise. My build philosophy is to have as efficient and cool system as possible.

If you're looking for absolute performance, I do agree that the efficiency metric goes out the window. However, I'm one of the few who values the watt / performance metric on OCN. This is really why I will only consider Nvidia cards for my next purchase. I'd love to buy a RX 580 as it's more than enough for my needs but it's hard to justify it when the GTX 1660ti is faster and only uses 120w...

Even the last gen 1080 only uses a single 8 pin (175w?). Which is loads better than the Vega 56 / 64 chips. To contrast that Vega 64 appears to be a beast on water. At that point, you're easily looking at 300w.
Agreed, but it always depends on your own personal point of view. My loop has both 560 and 240 rads, a D5 pump, and a slew of Noiseblock Pro fans in it, so the cooling capacity is well beyond anything I'm ever like to be doing on my system. I just don't need to care about the efficiency of my hardware because I built the loop back in a time where you HAD to have big cooling capacity if you were to have any hope of being anywhere near the top of the OCN benchmarking section (the loop was primarily designed for pushing dual 7970's and OG Titans to the max with BIOS mods and unlimited voltages, as well as a 5GHz 3960X).

There is definitely an elegance to the kind of efficiency that Nvidia has been pumping out since Pascal and that can't be denied. But the problem for me personally is that their efficiency combined with their complete lock down of OCing control has made all their GPU's since Pascal really boring to OC and has ended up rendering water-cooling itself largely superfluous. You just don't need anything beyond a decent air-cooler to get the most out of modern Nvidia cards, and slapping on a block and keeping GPU temps down in the 40C's will not net you any additional performance anyway, which is why a card like the RVII that actually benefits from water-cooling and is far less locked down in terms of voltages seems more fun to actually use.

Of course I am coming from an OCing and benchmarking angle there and not just purely gaming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
Again the faboulous world where a VII constantly pulls 300W while a 2080 constantly pulls 200W performing better? uau are these the same persons that swap bioses on turing like socks for increasing wattage cap and then reverting back to undervolt?
 

·
Vandelay Industries
Joined
·
1,941 Posts
Depends how you look at it.

I prefer to have more efficient components in my loop whenever possible. As I only have room right now for a single 360mm radiator. The less wattage (heat) in the loop, the quieter the fans will be running, the less noise. My build philosophy is to have as efficient and cool system as possible.

If you're looking for absolute performance, I do agree that the efficiency metric goes out the window. However, I'm one of the few who values the watt / performance metric on OCN. This is really why I will only consider Nvidia cards for my next purchase. I'd love to buy a RX 580 as it's more than enough for my needs but it's hard to justify it when the GTX 1660ti is faster and only uses 120w...

Even the last gen 1080 only uses a single 8 pin (175w?). Which is loads better than the Vega 56 / 64 chips. To contrast that Vega 64 appears to be a beast on water. At that point, you're easily looking at 300w.
So here's my question to you. At what point does price come into your equation? If a 580 is enough for your needs then surely a 1060 is as well. Seeing that a 1060 uses around the same power (actually a bit less) as the 1660ti, how does the now $100 price difference apply?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
someone dreams a 20W gpu with performance of a 5450....... well, buy the 5450......
 

·
H₂O Aficionado
Joined
·
3,744 Posts
So here's my question to you. At what point does price come into your equation? If a 580 is enough for your needs then surely a 1060 is as well. Seeing that a 1060 uses around the same power (actually a bit less) as the 1660ti, how does the now $100 price difference apply?
Water blocks are hard to come by for these mid range cards & I am not willing to invest into a GPU with 6GB of VRAM at this time. Do most people water block mid range cards? No and I understand why. However, I want a silent loop and it's just a personal preference.

The RX 580 would be the best option, given it's compute performance. It's honestly a great value. However, there are few blocks for it, especially there is low availability in Canada.

https://www.dazmode.com/store/product-category/watercooling/filters/product_cat/gpu-blocks+amd-cards/ One of the few local stores here.

The GTX 1070 would be the nvidia equivalent and that opens up the door for GTX 1070 / 1080 water blocks. As well, the 1070 is about ~25% faster in most DX11 titles. So there is also that incentive. Not that I game much.

Not to mention is still uses less power than the RX 580. Which will give me more loop headroom for my CPU (3930k). If I had more radiator space, I probably wouldn't care. But I am on a single 360mm/32mm radiator. My previous GPU was about 250W (GTX 780) and temps in my loop were "OK" but I didn't have headroom to OC. If I can slash 100w from my loop, I am a happy camper.
 

·
Vandelay Industries
Joined
·
1,941 Posts
Water blocks are hard to come by for these mid range cards & I am not willing to invest into a GPU with 6GB of VRAM at this time. Do most people water block mid range cards? No and I understand why. However, I want a silent loop and it's just a personal preference.

The RX 580 would be the best option, given it's compute performance. It's honestly a great value. However, there are few blocks for it, especially there is low availability in Canada.

https://www.dazmode.com/store/product-category/watercooling/filters/product_cat/gpu-blocks+amd-cards/ One of the few local stores here.

The GTX 1070 would be the nvidia equivalent and that opens up the door for GTX 1070 / 1080 water blocks. As well, the 1070 is about ~25% faster in most DX11 titles. So there is also that incentive. Not that I game much.

Not to mention is still uses less power than the RX 580. Which will give me more loop headroom for my CPU (3930k). If I had more radiator space, I probably wouldn't care. But I am on a single 360mm/32mm radiator. My previous GPU was about 250W (GTX 780) and temps in my loop were "OK" but I didn't have headroom to OC. If I can slash 100w from my loop, I am a happy camper.
Ok so at what price does all this matter? We could always take the price difference of some cards and apply that to cooling.Does 100w of heat = $100?
 

·
H₂O Aficionado
Joined
·
3,744 Posts
Ok so at what price does all this matter? We could always take the price difference of some cards and apply that to cooling.Does 100w of heat = $100?
It's subjective. I cannot define that for anyone.

Simply put, I am trying to compact my rig. My end goal is to get this system down into the small custom case I can build to support my existing 360mm radiator. At any point I can maximize efficiency (power consumption) I will.

Is it best value? Of course not. AMD is the clear answer for best value, leading the charts at $/frame.
 

·
⤷ αC
Joined
·
11,240 Posts
Ok so at what price does all this matter? We could always take the price difference of some cards and apply that to cooling.Does 100w of heat = $100?
Depends on climate and price per kwh.


If you use a card 4 hours a day and it uses 100W more on average at the wall then that's 0.4kwh/day which is going to add up to around $40-60 over the warrantied lifespan of the card (3 years). In a warm climate with air conditioning it's doubled since you need to pump that heat out , in a cool climate where you need heat it isn't as big a deal since it is essentially an electrical heater.



If you're folding on your cards 24 hours a day there's a much bigger cost since it's 876 kwh/year. At $0.15/kwh that's going to be easily $131 a year , not including taxes / supply charges / etc.
 

·
MegaTechPC
Joined
·
19,215 Posts
A cost difference of $40-60 over 3 years is negligible. Even the proposed additional cost of $131 over a year's time works out to a little over $10 per month, which is again negligible. The argument of choosing more efficient video cards to save money on your power bill has always been a specious one as even large wattage differences between cards don't really amount to much actual savings on a typical power bill, and that's even assuming a 24/7 workload (which is not nearly representative of average PC usage).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
Efficiency counts only for datacenters, all other categories just point to price or liking
 

·
H₂O Aficionado
Joined
·
3,744 Posts
Efficiency counts only for datacenters, all other categories just point to price or liking
Any large array of GPU's benefit from efficiency; Facility management will always consider operational costs. Render farms, research facilities, shady bitcoin operations... etc.

For most users with a single gpu setup, the differences are negligible. However, as previously mentioned, users within extreme climates or where utility rates are expensive, it's still worth considering. As wattage is not only expressed by cost/kWh, but also thermal / cooling loads applied to a built environment. That heat has to go somewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
Let us remember that the 970 did have 4GB and it was used (by the firmware). Why you are trying to wink into "oh I caught you", at least be accurate and less of sleazy about it.
Calling it unusable in uppercase is like saying "I bought titans but you are stupid if you buy titans" ;)

There is a difference in marketing something that is false (hence a lie), and something that sheds better light on a product. AMD claimed, not mistakenly spoke, that the vega 56 price is going to drop to 280$ permanently, and only after reviews came out, said it was only temporary. That is a lie, not to shed better light on their product, but to intentionally influence review bottom line. Even the 4GB fiasco from nvidia with the 970 did not change the bottom line of the performance of those cards. Saying it had 4GB vs 3.5GB did not magically made the card perform faster.
As a salty 970 owner, I just want to correct 1 statement here. Nvidia flat out lied about the 970. It was sold as having 2048 kb L2 cache and 64 ROPs. It DOES effect performance, as only 3.5 gigs can be accessed at once, while the other .5 gigs are significantly slower and cannot be accessed at the same time as the 3.5 gigs. People always point to the RAM and say it only had 3.5 gigs. Your correct, it has 4 gigs, but because Nvidia skimped on performance elsewhere, which they lied about, the card is frequently referenced as only having 3.5 gigs.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970
 

·
MegaTechPC
Joined
·
19,215 Posts
As a salty 970 owner, I just want to correct 1 statement here. Nvidia flat out lied about the 970. It was sold as having 2048 kb L2 cache and 64 ROPs. It DOES effect performance, as only 3.5 gigs can be accessed at once, while the other .5 gigs are significantly slower and cannot be accessed at the same time as the 3.5 gigs. People always point to the RAM and say it only had 3.5 gigs. Your correct, it has 4 gigs, but because Nvidia skimped on performance elsewhere, which they lied about, the card is frequently referenced as only having 3.5 gigs.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-Discloses-Full-Memory-Structure-and-Limitations-GTX-970
Its kinda like that time when Nvidia offered the 1060 in both 3GB and 6GB variations yet quietly stuck a lesser GPU into the 3GB version while marketing it simply as a 3GB 1060. That's the sort of thing that Defoler will defend each and every time its ever brought up (just wait and see, I bet he quotes this post)! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
1660ti starts to make a lot more sense when you are looking at laptops tbh.
Power-to-watt ratio is really good, mobile chip is downclocked way less than for instance a 2060. In fact, it's performance is very close to stock 1660ti which is really nice.
Meanwhile there's a lot of very underclocked "max-q" 2070, 2080 which perform really bad for their price point.

And before you go tossing stones for mentioning gaming laptops, you can actually pick up a rather decent unit for less than 1k. Compared to a full rig with 144hz monitor and all, that's not too shabby.

The reasonable option seems to opt for a used or clearance sale 1070 laptop or a new 1660ti, or the occasional 2060 on a good discount.
 
181 - 200 of 200 Posts
Top