Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 34

Thread: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

  1. #17
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N. Yorkshire
    Posts
    11,193
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked
    1,091 times in 833 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Mortar
      • CPU:
      • AMD 2700X (Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3)
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Patriot Viper 2 @ 3466MHz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB WD Black
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus Gold 750W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-V359
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    woah madness! Power usage might be 'interesting'

  2. #18
    HSK
    HSK is offline
    Over Worked & Under Paid HSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    West London
    Posts
    2,369
    Thanks
    451
    Thanked
    139 times in 111 posts
    • HSK's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Z87-Pro Socket 1150 DVI HDMI DisplayPort 8-channel Audio ATX Motherboard
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 4770K 3.50GHz Socket 1150 8MB Cache
      • Memory:
      • Corsair Vengeance LP Memory CML16GX3M2A1600C9 16GB 1600MHz CL9 DDR3
      • Storage:
      • Seagate 2TB BARRACUDA 3.5" SATA-III Hard Drive - 7200RPM 64MB Cache X 2 + Samsung 256GB 840 Pro SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Point Of View 8800GTS 512mb PCIE DVI
      • PSU:
      • Corsair Professional AX860 Fully Modular 80 PLUS Platinum 860W PSU
      • Case:
      • Corsair Graphite 600T Mesh Black Case
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 69cm (27")
      • Internet:
      • Plus.net

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    "Limited Edition 1/1000"

    So it looks like they might only be dropping a thousand of these monsters. Price will be pretty monster too.

  3. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Blackpool, Lancashire
    Posts
    416
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked
    16 times in 14 posts
    • superscaper's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI GT725
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core 2 P9500
      • Memory:
      • 4 GB DDR2
      • Storage:
      • 500 GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Mobility HD4850
      • PSU:
      • 120W
      • Case:
      • MSI GT725
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Ultimate 64

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanky123 View Post
    On a 32 bit OS.
    What's that got to do with it?

  4. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    247
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    8 times in 8 posts
    • Barkotron's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X99-A
      • CPU:
      • i7 5820K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Crucial Ballistix Sport
      • Storage:
      • 128GB Samsung 850 Pro (OS), 512GB Samsung 840 Evo (Games), various other SSD/HDD (storage, work)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Inno3d GeForce GTX 980
      • PSU:
      • Hiper Something Something 800W-ish
      • Case:
      • Define XL
      • Operating System:
      • Win 8.1 x64 (fun!), Win2012 R2 (work)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Hazro HR27WD
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 120Mb

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    Quote Originally Posted by superscaper View Post
    What's that got to do with it?
    32-bit OS = 4GB virtual address space, graphics cards included.

    4GB virtual address space - 8GB Graphics RAM = -4GB virtual address space available for everything else to use.

    Not that it would show up like that, but something's going to go badly wrong somewhere. I don't know if you'd even be able to boot into an OS tbh. I wouldn't even want to use one of these cards on a 32-bit system, although I'd be interested to see what happened.

  5. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Blackpool, Lancashire
    Posts
    416
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked
    16 times in 14 posts
    • superscaper's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI GT725
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core 2 P9500
      • Memory:
      • 4 GB DDR2
      • Storage:
      • 500 GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Mobility HD4850
      • PSU:
      • 120W
      • Case:
      • MSI GT725
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Ultimate 64

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    Quote Originally Posted by Barkotron View Post
    4GB virtual address space - 8GB Graphics RAM = -4GB virtual address space available for everything else to use.
    It's nowhere near 1:1 though. 8 GB of Graphic RAM would not take up 8 GB of virtual address space. Yes you'd take a hit but you wouldn't necessarily lose all the available RAM or even necessarily have problems. Not saying you wouldn't have problems but there's nothing to explicitly point to having any problems on a 32 bit system.
    Last edited by superscaper; 29-05-2009 at 10:39 AM.

  6. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    247
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    8 times in 8 posts
    • Barkotron's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X99-A
      • CPU:
      • i7 5820K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Crucial Ballistix Sport
      • Storage:
      • 128GB Samsung 850 Pro (OS), 512GB Samsung 840 Evo (Games), various other SSD/HDD (storage, work)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Inno3d GeForce GTX 980
      • PSU:
      • Hiper Something Something 800W-ish
      • Case:
      • Define XL
      • Operating System:
      • Win 8.1 x64 (fun!), Win2012 R2 (work)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Hazro HR27WD
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 120Mb

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    Quote Originally Posted by superscaper View Post
    It's nowhere near 1:1 though. 8 GB of Graphic RAM would not take up 8 GB of virtual address space. Yes you'd take a hit but you wouldn't necessarily lose all the available RAM or even necessarily have problems. Not saying you wouldn't have problems but there's nothing to explicitly point to having any problems on a 32 bit system.
    Nope, that's exactly what happens.

    http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

  7. Received thanks from:

    superscaper (29-05-2009)

  8. #23
    I'm ITX
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    2,415
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked
    159 times in 148 posts

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    I have a strange feeling this won't work very well

  9. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Herts
    Posts
    151
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    10 times in 7 posts
    • Nelviticus's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI MPG Z390 Gaming Plus
      • CPU:
      • Core i5-9600K
      • Memory:
      • 32 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000
      • Storage:
      • 512GB Samsung 970 Pro SSD, 2TB Samsung EVO 860 SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GeForce GTX 1060 3GB (EVGA)
      • PSU:
      • EVGA SuperNOVA 750 G2
      • Case:
      • be quiet! Silent Base 600
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 64-bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2410 24", Samsung 22"
      • Internet:
      • 100 Mbps cable

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    I'm sure this "your graphics card will eat up your address space" stuff is just hogwash but I'd love to see someone at Hexus look into it properly. When I upgraded from a 256MB card to a 512MB card - on a 32-bit system with 4GB of RAM - my available memory dropped by precisely zero bytes. It was 3.25GB with the 256MB card and it remained at 3.25GB with the 512MB card.

    The way I understand it, your system doesn't address the gfx card's memory directly, it addresses the gfx card itself and the card addresses its own video memory.

    To complicate matters though if you run a game which can take advantage of huge amounts of video memory it will probably need to keep a copy of video memory in main (system) memory, which I imagine can lead to problems when you have oodles of gfx memory on a 32-bit OS.

    So "the way I understand it" could be summed up as 'barely', 'vaguely', 'based on hearsay and ill-informed conjecture' or quite probably 'wrongly'. But I'd love to see someone look into it properly.

  10. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    238
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    • Boogle's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Rampage Formula
      • CPU:
      • Intel Q9450
      • Memory:
      • 4GB PC-8500 G.Skill
      • Storage:
      • Samsung F1 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX Radeon 5870
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX620
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster ACTS840
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2707WFP + 2x Dell 2708WFP
      • Internet:
      • 4Mbit ADSL Aquiss

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    I suspect you'd lose 2GB virtual address space since it's SLI on a single card. If it were two physical cards, then you might lose 4GB space (although I suspect the card or chipset will have a condition in it to deactivate cards that would use up all the addressable space).

  11. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    247
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    8 times in 8 posts
    • Barkotron's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X99-A
      • CPU:
      • i7 5820K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Crucial Ballistix Sport
      • Storage:
      • 128GB Samsung 850 Pro (OS), 512GB Samsung 840 Evo (Games), various other SSD/HDD (storage, work)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Inno3d GeForce GTX 980
      • PSU:
      • Hiper Something Something 800W-ish
      • Case:
      • Define XL
      • Operating System:
      • Win 8.1 x64 (fun!), Win2012 R2 (work)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Hazro HR27WD
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 120Mb

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelviticus View Post
    I'm sure this "your graphics card will eat up your address space" stuff is just hogwash but I'd love to see someone at Hexus look into it properly. When I upgraded from a 256MB card to a 512MB card - on a 32-bit system with 4GB of RAM - my available memory dropped by precisely zero bytes. It was 3.25GB with the 256MB card and it remained at 3.25GB with the 512MB card.

    The way I understand it, your system doesn't address the gfx card's memory directly, it addresses the gfx card itself and the card addresses its own video memory.

    To complicate matters though if you run a game which can take advantage of huge amounts of video memory it will probably need to keep a copy of video memory in main (system) memory, which I imagine can lead to problems when you have oodles of gfx memory on a 32-bit OS.

    So "the way I understand it" could be summed up as 'barely', 'vaguely', 'based on hearsay and ill-informed conjecture' or quite probably 'wrongly'. But I'd love to see someone look into it properly.
    Sounds like "something else" (physical/bios-related maybe) was preventing you seeing all your installed RAM anyway, so when the extra 256MB from the virtual address space was chomped with the new graphics card, it didn't effect the amount of physical RAM you saw.

  12. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    238
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    • Boogle's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Rampage Formula
      • CPU:
      • Intel Q9450
      • Memory:
      • 4GB PC-8500 G.Skill
      • Storage:
      • Samsung F1 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX Radeon 5870
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX620
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster ACTS840
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2707WFP + 2x Dell 2708WFP
      • Internet:
      • 4Mbit ADSL Aquiss

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelviticus View Post
    To complicate matters though if you run a game which can take advantage of huge amounts of video memory it will probably need to keep a copy of video memory in main (system) memory, which I imagine can lead to problems when you have oodles of gfx memory on a 32-bit OS.

    So "the way I understand it" could be summed up as 'barely', 'vaguely', 'based on hearsay and ill-informed conjecture' or quite probably 'wrongly'. But I'd love to see someone look into it properly.
    A basic optimisation of video games is to delete textures from system memory once they're sent to the GPU. The API (DX/OpenGL) and driver then handles the texture from there, either keeping it in system memory of video memory - but not both places at the same time. The same goes for vertex data, although quite often vertex data is kept in system memory by the game if it's likely to be updated/changed or needed for collision detection / other uses. The exception to all of this is DX, when the context is lost, DX dumps all the video memory so the game needs to reload it all (hence why alt+tab with DX games can take forever).

    The virtual address space info is correct, to a point. As you said we don't know exactly how graphics cards work, and that's on purpose by the manufacturer. Basically a device is accessed through memory addresses, anything that isn't mapped can't be used directly. So all public registers are always mapped to virtual memory, that's so the driver and other programmers can tell the device what to do. Now, device memory is often mapped to virtual memory as well so that it can be filled up quickly 'in one big lump' (and read for that matter). I suspect in the case of devices with LOTS of memory (like GPUs with large framebuffers) not all the memory is addressed. The disadvantage is you have an extra level of indirection, and you can't just send a load of data in one go, it has to be sent in waves and the GPU then moves it around or just changes the memory mappings. To the programmer this is invisible, the driver / API handles this, so to the programmer, they can address all the memory as if it were continuous. I suspect this may be another reason why sending new data to the GPU can result in heavy performance penalties - outside of just basic bandwidth constraints, and other optimisations from static rather than dynamic data. Edit: Would just like to point out, that under no circumstances would the driver access the 'GPU itself', that would mean sending data to registers and then the GPU moving that to memory. It would be ludicrously slow to do this, since you would be working on very small pieces of data at a time (128bit GPU, say 10 registers, that's barely over 1MB total), and requiring GPU cycles purely for moving data. The graphics card will present video memory directly for filling in large chunks, how big these chunks are... well, who knows. It could even be arch-specific (guessing here), so a 64bit arch exposes all the memory, while 32bit exposes, say 256MB.

    Back in ye olde DOS days, the 1:1 mapping of virtual memory was a pretty accurate assessment, a lot of apps accessed devices directly without using drivers. But in Windows and other OS, we now have drivers which abstract the device. This means it's up to the manufacturer as to how they expose and map everything.
    Last edited by Boogle; 29-05-2009 at 12:45 PM.

  13. #28
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,023
    Thanks
    1,870
    Thanked
    3,381 times in 2,718 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    With XP it's as some people are describing.

    But in the Vista WDDM and the direct10 model the video ram is addressed as part of the system virtual memory address space. The problem comes if you're playing a directX9 game which is therefore written to address the virtual address space on the card rather than the system. Prior to SP1 vista duplicated the cards virtual address space in this situation causing a huge amount of the virtual address space to be taken up, and the larger the vid card ram the worse the problem. Read MS KB940105 for more details.

    Post SP1/kb940105 it's less of a problem, but the vram is mapped to the system virtual address space, leaving fewer addresses available for everything else, drastically so in 32bit systems when the card has a large amount of memory.

  14. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    247
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    8 times in 8 posts
    • Barkotron's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X99-A
      • CPU:
      • i7 5820K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Crucial Ballistix Sport
      • Storage:
      • 128GB Samsung 850 Pro (OS), 512GB Samsung 840 Evo (Games), various other SSD/HDD (storage, work)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Inno3d GeForce GTX 980
      • PSU:
      • Hiper Something Something 800W-ish
      • Case:
      • Define XL
      • Operating System:
      • Win 8.1 x64 (fun!), Win2012 R2 (work)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Hazro HR27WD
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 120Mb

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    With XP it's as some people are describing.

    But in the Vista WDDM and the direct10 model the video ram is addressed as part of the system virtual memory address space. The problem comes if you're playing a directX9 game which is therefore written to address the virtual address space on the card rather than the system. Prior to SP1 vista duplicated the cards virtual address space in this situation causing a huge amount of the virtual address space to be taken up, and the larger the vid card ram the worse the problem. Read MS KB940105 for more details.

    Post SP1/kb940105 it's less of a problem, but the vram is mapped to the system virtual address space, leaving fewer addresses available for everything else, drastically so in 32bit systems when the card has a large amount of memory.
    That's not quite the same thing, although it does show why this area gets so confused. Each application on a 32-bit Windows system (by default, ignoring e.g. the /3GB boot.ini switch) gets 2GB of virtual address space "of its own" for it to manage the way it sees fit. This is not the same virtual address space as the 4GB system virtual address space. That KB article discusses applications running out of their virtual address space because the application itself has been written to use that address space to keep a copy of the video RAM.

    The issue with MMIO on 32-bit systems is that eating into system virtual address space can cause actual Physical RAM to be masked out of the system, which means that those physical RAM chips can't be used, which means you start paging sooner and don't get the benefit of all the RAM you've installed.

    Scenario:

    Windows Whatever 32-bit
    4GB physical RAM
    1GB Video Card Of Whatever Flavour You Prefer

    Assuming nothing else is clouding the issue (as seen in Nelviticus' post), this system would show up, under System Properties, as having slightly under 3GB of physical RAM installed. 4GB, minus the various MMIO slots of the different devices making up a reasonably small chunk, minus the 1GB chunk used for MMIO to the video card RAM.

    This shouldn't be all that much of a problem unless you actually start using more than 3GB-minus-a-bit of that physical RAM, at which point you're going to start swapping out, which is a massive performance hit. That last 1GB won't get used at all, so you've wasted however much money it was you spent on it.

    I have absolutely no idea what would happen if you tried to put one of these cards in 32-bit system, let alone 2. There's no way to map that 4GB as well as the rest of the MMIO stuff without it overflowing the available 32-bit memory address space. I'd guess Windows would just refuse to boot, but to be honest I have no idea.

    Best bet - go to a 64-bit OS and install as much RAM as you can afford . There's not much reason not to these days.

  15. #30
    Anthropomorphic Personification shaithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Last Aerie
    Posts
    10,857
    Thanks
    645
    Thanked
    872 times in 736 posts
    • shaithis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77 WS
      • CPU:
      • i7 3770k @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB HyperX 1866
      • Storage:
      • Lots!
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Fury X
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T (White)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell 3007
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb Fibre

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    A couple of caveats...just to muddy the waters a little more

    There are ways around it, although for home use the price is rather excessive compared to installing a 64 bit OS......

    Windows Server Enterprise Editions will allow many Gigabytes of RAM in 32bit.

    And 32bit apps can address 4GB of RAM if compiled to be LMA aware.
    Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
    HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
    HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
    Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
    NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
    Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive

  16. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Slough
    Posts
    439
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked
    28 times in 24 posts
    • Main's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock 939 Dual sata-2
      • CPU:
      • A64 X2 4200 @ 2.7Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 2Gb Corsair XMS DDR400 2-3-3-6
      • Storage:
      • Various discs all over the place
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire HD4870 512mb
      • PSU:
      • Antec NeoHE 550W
      • Case:
      • Antec P160
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 RC
      • Monitor(s):
      • BenQ FP241W
      • Internet:
      • BT "up to 8mbit" @ ~7mbit

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    That thing is going to sound like a jet engine just to get enough air through it...

  17. #32
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,023
    Thanks
    1,870
    Thanked
    3,381 times in 2,718 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: News - ASUS sandwiches two GeForce GTX 285 GPUs, creates a graphics monstrosity

    Quote Originally Posted by Main View Post
    That thing is going to sound like a jet engine just to get enough air through it...
    Does the 285 require more cooling than the 275 then?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Asus GeForce 9800 GTX detailed and pictured
    By Azza in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 24-03-2008, 12:22 PM
  2. ASUS Unveils External Graphics Card
    By GoNz0 in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-04-2007, 12:01 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 29-01-2007, 09:04 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2007, 11:30 PM
  5. Asus 'Extreme TOP Edition' nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX
    By EasterEEL in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-10-2005, 05:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •