Meanwhile 3080Ti laptops pack a bunch more capabilities, draw less and are smaller than atleast the ps5.
- Status
Meanwhile 3080Ti laptops pack a bunch more capabilities, draw less and are smaller than atleast the ps5.
Indeed they can get quite noisy. Most atleast. My G15 aint too bad, alot to do with its your sitting close to it most of the time. Things have improved though, my 2013 gaming laptop was much louder than the current one.
4090 is said to be not that loud, but we will have to see more reviews
I'll be surprised and disappointed in the 4090 is louder than either current gen console. Modern GPUs are generally silent on idle and extremely quiet on load - quieter than the consoles in many cases.
Theres no reason at all a modern desktop system needs to be be louder than a console if quality components are used and fan profiles tweaked for silence.
The 4090's cooler size is allegedly larger than-need-be according to some reviewers, this due to the original samsumg process node planned (600w). These GPUs now have very reasonable power draws compared to these initial reports.
Its probably more silent than its Ampere 3090/Ti.
That claimed reason is pure BS even if rest of it is true. No-one planned these coolers before NVIDIA started designing the chips. And when NVIDIA started designing the chips they knew exactly what process they'll be built on.
What was BS was these silly comments that the GPU would draw close to a KW in power, started off with 600w and ended in 900W and more. Its 450watts under max load. Such a large powerful cooler is a good thing.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Nvidia was reporting the temp to be in the 50's C when gaming on the 4090, I doubt it will be loud at all.
Watercooled 4090 OC
3 GHz @ ~425W, ~616W @ 2,64 GHz on MSI Kombustor torturetest
Temps censored
Why is the frequency/power so different on the same(?) card?
Watercooled 4090 OC
3 GHz @ ~425W, ~616W @ 2,64 GHz on MSI Kombustor torturetest
Temps censored
Different kind of loads require different amounts of power. For example in the first one there's barely any load on memory controllers while on 2nd they're at over 50%
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 16GB reaches 3.0 GHz in 3DMark TimeSpy - VideoCardz.com
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 16GB spotted running 3.0 GHz as well This is a follow-up to the yesterday’s leak featuring GeForce RTX 4080 16GB in 3DMark tests. It is no secret that RTX 40 series will run at much higher clocks than Ampere GPUs. NVIDIA themselves have confirmed 2.85 GHz clock on their...
videocardz.com
Ada goes brrrrr (or something which AMD fans like to say in such cases).
Funny, how the marketing narrative catches on so quickly. Suddenly, people (not just here in the thread) do think that 450W is actually not so bad. Smooth move, Nvidia.
We'll see how much it is worth when AMD launches Navi31 and we can compare them both at equal power draw.
We'll see how much it is worth when AMD launches Navi31 and we can compare them both at equal power draw.
2nd pic is max power draw, 1st one is current power draw. Could be a short spike, maybe even too short to show up in the diagram.
No it's not, both are current power draws. The difference is the load.
edit: nvm, noticed "Max" there
Different load profiles and likely different temperatures.
Look at the small "max" upper left to the 616 watts. I know it's hard to read, but looking at the graph it cannot be min or even avg.
If explanation is needed: If you reset the counters in GPU-z, for a new avg. etc., the graph also resets. The graph shows very low values in the left-hand portion. So, if 615,8 watts was an avg., current draw would be much much higher, which in turn is highly unlikely. It is further corroborated by the clearly current value of GPU Chip power draw right under it.
If you meant, that it's not just a a short term spike - where's your proof or at least indication that it isn't?
- Status
Similar threads
