Sapphire Radeon 6950 2GB Toxic
Temperatures and Power Consumption
To test temperatures, we fire up FurMark and let it run for awhile until the temperatures level out. FurMark pushes GPU thermal loads extremely high, and can be considered a worst-case scenario.
Below are the FurMark "worst case" results:
Here we see the Toxic card finishes 2°C warmer at load than the reference card with stock clocks. This is a result of the factory overclock, so that’s no surprise. And since the Toxic card doesn’t come with a custom cooler, we don’t see lower temperatures as we’ve come to expect from Sapphire. So there’s nothing terribly shocking or impressive here; a reference cooler and an overclock equals higher temperatures. Pretty straightforward.
We create a baseline power draw without a graphics card installed. After a graphics card is installed, we let the system sit idle in Window for 10 minutes and then run FurMark for maximum power draw. The difference gives us the power consumption for the card. The results below are for the graphics card only. As with the temperature testing, we report results for the Nvidia 500 cards with, and without, the limiter engaged.
Here we see the 6950 Toxic faring well in relation to the competition, sitting slightly more power frugal than the GTX 570 despite the strong overclock present. Power consumption seems to scale fairly equally among the Radeon cards in proportion to the graphics horsepower available.