bit-tech.net

Performance per what?

Comments 1 to 25 of 84

Reply
DougEdey 20th May 2007, 19:29 Quote
I've been moaning about this for ages, it'll take a good 18months before we see a significant decrease in GPU power consumption.
The_Beast 20th May 2007, 19:35 Quote
if you get a low power consuming computer you don't get performance, if you want performance you have to buy a power hungry monster, there is no in between
DougEdey 20th May 2007, 19:37 Quote
AMD have proven that to be wrong, remember the 35W AM2 X2 3800+ they bought out?

At the time it was top notch.
LeMaltor 20th May 2007, 19:40 Quote
I did mean to ask this the other day, just how high can PSU's go? I understand about having more than one maybe if it ever came to it, but are we ever going to see like 10K watt PSUs lol
Firehed 20th May 2007, 19:48 Quote
This is why I had a massive eye-roll when you guys did the ~750w PSU roundup, with plans for a 1kw roundup shortly after. I mean, PCIE provides something like 3x the power that AGP did through the slot, and from the beginning we've been using connectors that double that. Now we've got a pair of even bigger connectors?

And I remember back when a 500w PSU was massive overkill...
LeMaltor 20th May 2007, 19:53 Quote
I think we should be more worried about our electricity bills that saving the planet, if you want to save the planet, turn your computer off and dont use it at all, as Tim Westwood would say "Go hard or go home!"
Nexxo 20th May 2007, 20:52 Quote
I just upgraded my ATi Radeon 9800Pro. Because my watercooling setup is finely balanced at a ceiling of about 230Watts, I did not want to get anything that would contribute significantly more heat to the system. Imagine my surprise when I found that an ATi XT1650Pro runs about 2.5 times faster than the 9800Pro, but at fewer Watts: about 45W instead of 48W. Gotta love that die shrinkage...

Yet the heatsink on the XT1650Pro is decidedly meatier than on the 9800Pro. What gives?

Marketing gives. Nobody wants to buy a GPU with a weedy-looking heatsink, because they believe it won't perform. People want big-ass cards with big-ass sinks, promising power like steroid-crazed body builders, like people want big PSUs and big radiators and big bore tubing and big pumps with listed flowrates that they simply not achieve in reality.

Let's change the script, guys. Efficiency is a good modding criterion too.
Kipman725 20th May 2007, 21:03 Quote
meh more transistors = more computational power = more heat

in the long term the heat disapation will increase. In the very long term it may decrease due to new tech but for now we are stuck with it.
Ramble 20th May 2007, 21:09 Quote
In other words, manufacturers should stop using efficiency as the only performance meter and start looking at the overall picture?
Nexxo 20th May 2007, 21:10 Quote
Not necessarily. The XT1650Pro has about 50 million more transistors than the 9800Pro, but runs cooler. It is a matter of building hardware to be more efficient, as well as more powerful. Nobody wants a PC 5 years from now that uses 5000 Watts.
Tim S 20th May 2007, 21:13 Quote
Look at the Core 2 as an example - more performance than chips manufactured on the same process node with double the TDP. It's all in the design and that proves that it can be done.
leexgx 20th May 2007, 21:15 Quote
thay need to add power states into the GPUs like CPUs do

like when not in game mode auto Downclock and use less power
Bindibadgi 20th May 2007, 21:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Not necessarily. The XT1650Pro has about 50 million more transistors than the 9800Pro, but runs cooler. It is a matter of building hardware to be more efficient, as well as more powerful. Nobody wants a PC 5 years from now that uses 5000 Watts.

In respect though, the 9800pro was the fastest card of the 9xxx series. You'd have to compare it to the HD2900 XT ;)

But then again I spose 320 Stream processors is a bit more than 8 pixel shaders
LeMaltor 20th May 2007, 21:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
thay need to add power states into the GPUs like CPUs do

like when not in game mode auto Downclock and use less power

Dont they have that already with 2D and 3D mode?
Gordy 20th May 2007, 21:33 Quote
I run my main machine on single 120w psu. It runs all the games I want on a 24in display yet does need to treble my electricity bill to do it.

So they can create systems that require very little power, its just they wouldn't be able to claim its the fastest ever blah blah blah.

"For what its worth its a intel core duo laptop chip with 2gb of dd2 and a sapphire x800 gto2 with full sized hard disc and a laptop dvd writer."
Tim S 20th May 2007, 21:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMaltor
Dont they have that already with 2D and 3D mode?
They do, but does a high-end chip really need to run at 500MHz in order to drive an Aeroglass desktop smoothly?
Mankz 20th May 2007, 21:38 Quote
I have to say that I think with the 8800 SLi and Quad core we've about reaced the top of wattage requriments. I'm pretty sure by the next gereration or at the second for sure, the companies will be looking to make high performance products with low power requirements.

For example, a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo, 2Gb of RAM, 15", 160Gb and an X1600 GPU can all be powered by under 65W (all be it they are mobile)......
Krikkit 20th May 2007, 22:00 Quote
I agree completely with the sentiment Tim - before I moved to uni (and had to start paying my own power bills), I didn't give a toss about how much power my computer used, but now it's a real concern.

Looking at the new-gen GPU's, power consumption's gone mad. Intel have managed a decent effort with C2D, because it's a powerful processor for a reasonable TDP, but the graphics boys have just gone completely mad these days.
atanum141 20th May 2007, 22:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardOCP
Performance per What?

bit-tech’s own Tim Smalley has posted an editorial on the use of Performance pet Watt as a standard on PC components. Mr. Smalley feels that maybe we need to consider making some changes to the system at hand.

Let’s start with the CPU manufacturers, because they have been responsible for a large percentage of any system’s power draw since the day the megahertz race started. Out of the two, Intel has been the biggest culprit of poor energy efficiency in the past when its 130nm to 90nm die shrink actually resulted in a 25 percent increase in thermal design power (TDP).

Kyle's Note: Anyone that has not been seriously considering PPW in their hardware evaluations for a while now should be questioned about their opinions overall. You can read here, here, and here where power consumption and performance heavily weighed on our conclusions. As for his tree hugger stance on thinking about the planet where PPW is concerned, well, that made me laugh. Market demand will shape the CPU and GPU future, and I know most tech companies are already fully embracing higher PPW usage scenarios. Think R700 for starters.

Comments

Quote:
Performance per What?


A second comment regarding what we put on this site? Whats Kyle at H trying to do? I swear he's starting a E-Beef.

Bit & H are my two faves, but taking little diggs at Bit are starting to anoy me.
Krikkit 20th May 2007, 22:47 Quote
That's very gay tbh. I can see the point he tries to make, but if you can save yourself money and have a stonkingly fast bit of hardware, why not?
sam.g.taylor 20th May 2007, 22:58 Quote
I'm actually undervolting my processor to lower my power usage, and as sort of a long-term stress phase before I start overclocking.
Tulatin 20th May 2007, 23:36 Quote
Erm, the article did seem to miss the fact that as eco-friendly and power saving as the C2D chips are, when you throw a little voltage at them, their TDP shoots right back up. Hell, my E6400 is in 150W land with 1.55v @ 3200.

As to power draw, a quad core (or even 4x4) system with a few GB of ram and dual 2900's would hurt :(
LAGMonkey 21st May 2007, 00:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkit
I agree completely with the sentiment Tim - before I moved to uni (and had to start paying my own power bills), I didn't give a toss about how much power my computer used, but now it's a real concern.

Looking at the new-gen GPU's, power consumption's gone mad. Intel have managed a decent effort with C2D, because it's a powerful processor for a reasonable TDP, but the graphics boys have just gone completely mad these days.

QFT, once you start paying the bills you turn everything off! TV, lights, VCR, digital box...hell anything and everything that uses power goes off and you only need lights when you cant phyisically see and your eyes cant adujst quickly enough!

lord knows how im going to have a gaming machiene in the future when i want to save money.
Anyone know the power consumption on a fully flat out nano-itx board? maybe it can be run from a solar pannel!!!
Krikkit 21st May 2007, 00:31 Quote
You do get a tax rebate if you install a solar panel in/on your house iirc, a grant at very least.
completemadness 21st May 2007, 00:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkit
You do get a tax rebate if you install a solar panel in/on your house iirc, a grant at very least.
is that in the US or UK ? (sounds US like to me)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums