GPU temps VS performance

[AkitoBob]

I'm currently trying to finish up some research before I buy a laptop. My question is this: Does the Nvida Geforce Go 7900GS have a low operating temp/watt usage (compared to any GTX or ATi 1800xt) or is the best performer per temp/watt the x1600? Also, (and I guess this goes out to KN) how hot does the x1600 tend to get under load (and conversly, whats the normal operating temp of the 7900GS).

The reason I ask is my friend got a laptop last year with a 6800 ultra (great card, boo alienware) and the damn thing has to be played with a cookie sheet or it'll burn you. Are similiar temps observed with the x1600/7900GS or do they manage to perform as laptop parts instead of desktop parts shoved into laptops?

 

[killernotebooks]

The cooler the system, the more performance you can coax out of it.

The problem is, the 7900 GS isn't incredibly powerful to start with compared to the 7900 GTX.

The x1600 is an embeded chip (in the Wakizachi and Eliminator) and it doesn't get too hot. It gets far less hot in an Intel system than the AMD.

I don't use the 7900 GS, I suppose I could, but the cost of the chips are so close, I don't think you want to save $100 on someting like the GPU.

The x1600 won't get as hot as your friends system; especially on your legs. The 7900 GTX can get hot when pushed. I probably wouldn't want it on my legs for a hard core games after 30 minutes or so. I would recommend a laptop cooler.

 

[AkitoBob]

I understand that the GS is a gimped version of the GTX. That's a given. However, relative to most other cards, it is still powerful but also has the bonus of being the direct result after production shift to 90nm which (I thought) lowered its heat output and power usage.

Right now, I'm thinking of either waiting for one of your 15.4s with a Core 2 Duo with the x1600 for the portability of a 15.4 screen or seeing if a 17 inch with a low wattage low(er) temp highend card (ala GS) is the correct way to go. Either way, I win cause im on an old athlon xp 2000+ with a 9600xt.

Basically, I understand that the high end cards are going to increase the laptops thermal output dramaticly and the mid rang cards are a good level below them. I'm just checking to see if theres a viable "mid rang high end card" that has best of both worlds (lower idle/load temps of a x1800/7900gtx and better performing than a x1600/7600). How this works out in my mind is: if I can get a 7800GT (which I think is what the 7900GS is basically) with a significantly lower heat output (30-50% is my goal and thus my question) that, while hotter than a x1600/7600, is closer to the mid range cards in terms of temp, I want that because then I fullfill my goal of having a low heat/highend card.

Hell... now I'm even thinking (while looking at GTX/GS/x1600 specs on other monitor) maybe the GTX isn't all THAT hot. Besides, redding of the legs = building character.

 

[killernotebooks]

the bonus of being the direct result after production shift to 90nm which (I thought) lowered its heat output and power usage.

Remember, any time you pack more resistors intot he same space, you are going to have MORE heat.

You don't want a 7800 GTX as it has MORE wattage/hotter than even the 7900 GTX if I remember right, I think it is 10 watts more. The 7900 GS is 20 watts I think, the 7900 GTX is 30 or 35 and the 7800 was some unGodly high number, mayby 55 (that is all off the top of my head so please research this on your own to verify)

I can more than likely stick a 7900 GS card in the Executioner, I can even get my hands on 1 256 MB version of the 7900 GTX for it (or anyone else who needs one): $455.

For a 15.4" system I can get a 7600 with 512 MB, that's a nice little bump to a x1600 w. 256 MB. That is more portable, but still... the 7900 GTX is THE way to go for hardcore B.A.M.F.er's such as anyone who would own a K/N. It really comes down to:
1. What do you need the system to do graphically.
2. How large a system can you handle.
3. How much jing-a-ling do you have to spend.

 

[AkitoBob]

Well I have the money for the Exec but after thinking it all over, I don't really NEED the GS/GTX/uberomgcard. It's just something nice to have + better future proofing.

Plan on my order once the 15.4's get a bios update for Core 2.

On a different note, would the 7600 with 512mb even be able to compete with a x1600 256mb? I thought it was pretty far behind spec wise to the point where just slapping on memory wouldn't really help.

http/killernotebooks.com/support/support_mobile_gpus.aspx

 

[killernotebooks]

I don't really NEED the GS/GTX/uberomgcard

Oh everyone needs it once they have it.
Then you can look down on the common swine and say things like, "I always wonder how you poor fools can even read web pages with only 256 MB of video memory?"

Work on looking all aloof while shaking your head with sympathy in your eyes so your friends know you are biting back your words about their emaciated systems. Yet, you do not empathize with their plight... alas, how could you; YOU have a 7900 GTX. How could you imagine what they are going through?

Reminding them constantly that, "they simply aren't powerful enough to handle the 7900 GTX". Best to keep a 3D ViewMaster around for such an occasion to hand to them while saying, "Here, this is a little more GPU than you're used to." Right when you can tell they're about to say something you can add dryly, "Light".

7600/x1600 - you should really try to tailor the GPU to the games you play as most will prefer one to the other. It could make the difference.