(Tested) ASUS GeForce GT 440 Review

ASUS GeForce GT 440 review index

6 – ASUS GT 440 Power Consumption and Overclocking

ASUS GT 440, FurMark 1.9.0

For the power consumption and overclocking test, I used the upcoming FurMark 1.9.0. The graphics workload in the new FurMark 1.9.0 has been slightly increased, leading to more power consumption (few watts in more). But this extra graphics workload can make the difference with high overclocking settings.

The total power consumption of the testbed at idle with the GT 440 is 90W.

With default settings (GPU @ 823MHz, Vcore @ 1.100V), the total power consumption of the testbed stressed by FurMark (FurMark settings: 1920×1080, fullscreen, Burn-in mode, dynamic background, no AA, no postfx) is 180W with a max GPU temperature of 67°C.
P = (180-90) * 0.9
P = 81 watts

where 0.9 is the PSU efficiency factor. For the Corsair AX1200 PSU, this factor is around 0.9 (see this article, there is a graph of the AX1200 efficiency).

This result is interesting because the power consumption of the car alone is greater than the TDP (65W). This is normal because the TDP represents the power consumption for typical 3D applications like games and not of a GPU stress test like FurMark. What’s more, the GT 440 is not equipped with a power limiter like on GeForce GTX 500 or Radeon HD 6900 Series. On a HD 6900, even under FurMark, we can’t excess the maximal TDP because of the power limiter. For example, the TDP of a HD 6950 is 200W and the power consumption under FurMark is 204W.

81W is more than the max power the PCI-Express slot can supply (75W). Actually it’s a theoretical limit and high quality motherboards can supply more than 75W.

Here, a properly designed power limiter would have limited the power draw to around 75W…

At idle, the GPU temperature is 30°C and under load, this temperature does not exceed 67°C. And the noise level? Under FurMark stress test, we can hear a little the fan but it’s more than tolerable. We are very very far from the noise of the GTX 480 reference cooler…

Now let’s see the OC caps of this card. I only rose the GPU core clock because GPU voltage tweaking is not available in SmartDoctor or in Afterburner. The GPU voltage or Vcore or VDDC = 1.100V. In the next lines, TPC stands for Total Power Consumption of the testbed. The burn-in test is done with FurMark 1.9.0.

  • GPU: 840MHz, TPC: 182W, GPU temp: 68°C – Burn-in test: PASSED
  • GPU: 860MHz, TPC: 184W, GPU temp: 69°C – Burn-in test: PASSED
  • GPU: 880MHz, TPC: 186W, GPU temp: 70°C – Burn-in test: PASSED
  • GPU: 900MHz, TPC: 186W, GPU temp: 70°C – Burn-in test: PASSED
  • GPU: 910MHz, TPC: 186W, GPU temp: 70°C – Burn-in test: PASSED
  • GPU: 930MHz, TPC: 190W, GPU temp: 71°C – Burn-in test: PASSED

Why did I stop at 930MHz? Because under other tools like TessMark or 3DMark11, the GPU clocked at 930MHz produces artifacts. Then it’s not a stable GPU core clock. As I said in this GTX 560 Ti overclocking article, the goal is to find an OC setting that is stable for a certain set of applications. And for the overclocking of this GT 440, the set of applications is:

{FurMark 1.9.0, 3DMark11, TessMark}

After few tests, I found that 910MHz is a stable GPU core clock for my applications set.

Anyway it’s interesting to see that 930MHz is still stable under FurMark. That means that the power circuitry and GPU quality are very good and that the motherboard has a very powerful PCI-Express slot because: (190-90) * 0.9 = 90W! For a GPU overclocked at 930MHz, the PCI-Express slot must supply 90W!!!

That’s why ASUS’s GT 440 deserves the FurMark Approved award:

ASUS GT 440, FurMark Approved

Keep in mind that this award does not represent the max overclocking setting but rather an indication of the quality of the power circuitry, GPU and the cooling system.

What is the RTI? RTI stands for Return To Idle: it’s the time taken to return to idle temperature right after full load stress test. In our case, the GT 440 takes 240 seconds to go from 71°C to 29°C. We can also define a kind of cooling factor:
cooling factor = dT / RTI_time
dT = 71 – 29
RTI_time = 240
cooling factor = 0.175
The higher the cooling factor, the better the cooling system is.

The overclocking award is:

ASUS GT 440, Geeks3D OC validation

I submitted one 3DMark11 score with GPU @ 910MHz:

Remember, with a GPU at 823MHz, the 3DMark11 score is P1303

Here is a comparative table of the power consumption of the card ALONE (not the total power consumption of the system):

Power: 352W – EVGA GTX 580 SC (core: 880MHz, Vcore:1.082V) – OC settings
Power: 330W – ASUS ENGTX580 (core: 871MHz, Vcore:1.088V) – OC settings
Power: 324W – EVGA GTX 580 SC (core: 797MHz, Vcore:1.082V – default settings)
Power: 298W – ASUS Radeon HD 6950 (core: 840MHz, Vcore: 1.300V) – OC settings
Power: 290W – ASUS ENGTX580 (default settings)
Power: 276W – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6970 (core: 940MHz, Vcore: 1.175V) – OC settings
Power: 272W – ASUS Radeon HD 6950 DirectCU II (core: 950MHz, Vcore: 1.150V)
Power: 272W – EVGA GTX 480
Power: 260W – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6970 (core: 880MHz, Vcore: 1.175V)
Power: 225W – ASUS ENGTX560 Ti DirectCU II TOP (core: 900MHz, Vcore:1.025V)
Power: 220W – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6870 (core: 1000MHz, Vcore: 1.300V) – OC settings
Power: 204W – ASUS Radeon HD 6950 DirectCU II (core: 810MHz, Vcore: 1.100V)
Power: 197W – ASUS Radeon HD 6950 (core: 810MHz, Vcore: 1.100V)
Power: 185W – ATI Radeon HD 5870
Power: 155W – SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6870 (core: 900MHz, Vcore: 1.175V)
Power: 147W – ASUS EAH6870
Power: 135W – MSI N460GTX Cyclone 768D5 OC
Power: 81W – ASUS GeForce GT 440 @ 823MHz

ASUS GeForce GT 440 review index

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


↑ Grab this Headline Animator