Jump to content
mark84

The Truth About Graphics Power Requirements V2

Recommended Posts

Wow the Larrabee and the 2900 XT use up waaaaaay too much power

True, but those are only TDP ratings so they'd likely use much less that that.

 

Nice work! Any chance you could separate out the low profile cards into their own comparison table? :)

Ummm... NO!

 

:P

 

That varies by brand essentially. Power readings by GPU will essentially still be the same though. Just find low profile cards you might like and compare them in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice.

 

 

raywand, did you really need to quote all that?

Edited by bu14-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added

- Chrome 530 GT

- 9800 GTX+ (65nm)

- GTX 295

- GTX 285

- GTX 260 (216SP 55nm)

 

Updated

- HD4550

- HD4830

- HD4830 CF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added

- GTX295 (Quad) SLI

- GTX285 3x SLI

- GTX285 SLI

- GTX285 OC

 

Updated

- HD4850X2

- HD4850X2 CF

- HD4850 CF

- HD4870 CF (2x 512MB)

- GTX295

- GTX285

- GTX260 216SP 65nm & 55nm & 55nm OC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added

- Quadro NVS 420

- HD4870X2 OC

 

Updated

- GTX 295

- GTX 285, OC, SLI & 3x SLI

- All text above and below the ASCII graphs to bring them up to date and add more info. Let me know if there's anything that you'd like to see altered/included.

- Now have over 250 readings listed!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had some issues looking for a GFX card. It seems you can get a pretty decent card for under $200 nowadays. I had to lower my specs somewhat because the target system was a Dell GX280 with a 350W PSU and no extra power connectors. I ended up purchasing the Gigabyte 9500GT (512MB) card because it didn't need extra power, and even though on the box it said I needed a minimum 400W PSU to run it, I haven't had any problems with it, and I [now] often play 3D games for hours on end without issue.

 

Also, There was no point going any beefier than the 9500GT due to the CPU bottleneck.

Edited by smadge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see you found it useful Spydog!

 

 

Added

- FirePro 2450

- HD4770

- HD4890

- HD4890 OC

- HD4890 CF (beta drivers? idles not where I'd expect)

- GTS250 1GB & 2GB

- GTX250 1GB SLI

- GTX275

- GTX275 OC

- Quadro FX 3800, 1800, 580, 380

- Quadro NVS 295

 

Updated

- HD4830 CF

- HD4650

 

 

I've also come across a German website that measures graphics card power draw much like Xbitlabs do. Thing is, they use Furmark to stress the cards. This results in higher peak readings than what Xbit produce with 3Dmark06. I've done some basic testing and with my $20 power meter from Jaycar and I agree that with Furmark my 4870X2 draws a lot more power than under any other game I play.

 

Question is should I include these results in my data? For example the 4870X2 current peak 3d readings would go up some 100W. Now Furmark isn't what you'd call a benchmark that produces typical 3d game loads, but it does provide a max possible draw. What would you guys like to see in my data, typical 3D draw (what all/most websites show) or peak 3d as shown by this German site?

 

Some links:

How they test

http://translate.google.com.au/translate?u...en&ie=UTF-8

 

Proof of why Furmark over 3dmark

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/leistungsaufn...raka/index7.php

 

Some test results:

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/leistungsaufn...aka/index13.php

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/amd_radeon_hd_4890/index11.php

 

Please let me know what you'd like me to use in future updates.

Edited by mark84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok being a thread about the truth of graphics card power draw I'll be including the data I mentioned above in my information. As far as I can tell and can test myself those results are the real deal. Might be an unrealistic load put on the cards, but the truth of the matter is that they actually can draw that much with correct software and drivers.

 

I'm also updating this f*** off complicated excel sheet so it can cater for more info, as well as churn out an extra graph type and also show a rough "data accuracy" score for each card. So the more data I have on the card and the seemingly more accurate that data is the bigger the "data accuracy" score shown.

 

I got the new graph type (sorted by make/generation, ie like the ascii graphs in the OP) figured out yesterday. When I get home tonight I should be able to get the data accuracy thing happening.

 

Updates should be posted hopefully tomorrow if all goes well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you may have noticed I haven't updated yet. Although those more keen eyed than others would've noted the excel graphs have been updated and slightly revamped to include axis labels and title, data quality ratings etc.

 

I could've had everything done and posted yesterday but I started running into data integrity problems where I had 3D power readings that were seemingly quite accurate but were magnitudes apart in terms of the data I currently have. Turns out all that data were tests carried out using Furmark (as per the site two posts ago).

 

So what I think I'll do now is split out any Furmark or any benchmark in future that puts an unrealistic load on the GPU (thus drawing max power) and call those readings 'Peak 3D draw' whilst everyday readings taken using 3DMark or games (most current data, and what most sites test with) I'll rename as 'Typical 3D draw'.

 

So most cards will end up with at least the Typical 3D power draw, and usually also idle power, then as I find data will also include 2D draw and 3D peaks.

 

This'll probably take me this coming weekend to sort out, so major update should hopefully be early next week.

 

 

 

Another problem I have is keeping the ASCII graphs in the OP updated. It's rather labour intensive to up keep as I have to manually edit everything in them. And whilst it was necessary for the pre v3 forums, now that we can embed pictures, keeping them updated, especially after this coming update seems a waste of my time. I've already figured out an excel graph basically sorted in the same way the ASCII graphs currently are so I can just drop that in instead.

 

Any thoughts or objections to that?

I know that the ASCII version is good for being able to search it (also good for search engines) and for links, less bandwidth etc, but unless someone knows how to write VBA code to output excel data into ASCII graphs in a text file or something I'm going to have to drop it.

As for the linkage to the website where the data came from for each card, I'll post all current ones from the ASCII graph in a future post here for everyones reference, then any card I add in future after that I'll simply include a URL when I post updates.

Edited by mark84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok folks, after much work I think I've completed my excel sheet updates and with it comes lots of goodies.

 

First up we now have a new data type, 'typical 3D' power draw. As shown here the type of app/game/benchmark you run can have greatly differing power draws. As such I've divided 3D power into typical and peak.

Typical 3D draw being the maximum a card will draw under normal loading. This being games and the like. Typical should be considered what the card would draw AT MOST whilst playing any regular game. (Most data from the old ASCII graphs now falls into this data set)

Peak 3D is for showing what the card is capable of pulling under extreme circumstances and should be considered extremely unlikely and rare that a card would draw that much. ATM peak is exclusively FurMark benchmark readings, though if I find any other type of benchmark/app that can pull as much or more I'll be sure to include it in this data set.

 

Second, we now have four graph types:

- Sorted by idle

- Sorted by Typical 3D

- Sorted by card generation

- Sorted by brand/generation (in OP)

 

The brand/generation one replaces my original ascii graph I had in the OP. The sort by generation (see second post) is similar to the brand/gen graph but all the brands get put together into generationally separated groups. This is simply so you can more easily find a particular card compared to the sort by 3D graph and allows you to see how it stacks up to similar cards of it's generation from other brands.

 

The sorting in these graphs isn't perfect but it's good enough. They're all sorted by at least 3 levels (though there seems to be a bug in Excel 07 where it won't sort by any more than 3 levels even if I specify more).

 

Third, I've updated the beginning part of the OP. Added stuff like software in factors that effect power, quick explanations of the 4 power types used in the graphs, and an explanation of the 'data quality' ratings I now have for each card in the graphs. Be sure to read about that last one.

 

Lastly, many cards got updated during the process, so I'm not going to list them all here, however I did add more:

 

Added

- Radeon HD 4770

- Radeon HD 4770 CF

- GeForce GTX 275 SLI

- GeForce GTX 275 3x SLI

- Radeon HD 4890 3x CF

- Radeon HD 4890 CF

- Radeon HD 4870 2GB

- GeForce 7950 GX2

- GeForce GTX 285 2GB

- GeForce 9800 GTX+ (55nm) OC

- Radeon HD 4830 (640SP) OC

- Radeon HD 3650 512MB OC

- GeForce 6600 LE

- GeForce PCX 5950

- Radeon X550

- Radeon HD 4830 (800SP)

- Radeon HD 4870 3x CF

- Radeon HD 4870 1GB 4x CF

- Radeon HD 4870 1GB 3x CF

- GeForce 9800 GTX+ 3x SLI

- Radeon HD 4850 4x CF

- Radeon HD 4850 3x CF

- Radeon HD4850 1GB

- GeForce GTS 250 512MB

- Radeon HD 4770 OC

 

Updated

- LOTS OF CARDS!!

 

As I can't provide links in the graph pictures of where I've sourced the cards data I'll be adding the URLs in the update posts I make. For past ones check the post from the guy on page two of this thread whom quotes my whole OP. Else just drop me a PM or post in here and I'll gladly give you the URLs I got the data from for a particular card.

 

The main URLs used for this update include:

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/leistungsaufn...aka/index13.php

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/amd_radeon_hd...aded/index8.php

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/zotac_geforce...275/index13.php

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2009/amd_radeon_hd_4770/index11.php

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/dis...n-hd4770_5.html

http://en.expreview.com/2009/04/24/first-r...-monster.html/9

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3520&p=11

http://en.expreview.com/2009/04/28/first-l...enchmark.html/5

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?...amp;pageid=3605

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardw...-review-20.html

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/964/7/

 

 

Let me know what you all think!!

Cheers

Edited by mark84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me know what you all think

Just my 2c...

 

...I guess currently I prefer the old ASCII bars: I mean they are more easily readable, even if they don't give a us "the big picture", and surely they help me a lot more to perform one-to-one brief comparisons (at least within the same category).

 

About the links to the information sources, may I suggest to publish both the versions (the ASCII one with those explicit sources, along with the newer fancy one)? I dunno if it's an easy fix, but if in case I will appreciate your effort very much!

 

Regards,

Urk

Edited by urk_alter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi urk_alter,

 

I agree that the ASCII graphs have their advantages but the biggest disadvantage was that they're labour intensive to upkeep manually, especially compared to the excel graphs which can be auto generated.

 

I've had an offer of help from someone regarding automating the generation of an ASCII graph and URLs from my excel sheet, so we'll see what happens.

 

If anyone wishes to help, post in here http://forums.atomicmpc.com.au/index.php?showtopic=14414 or drop me a PM.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK update!

 

Thanks to galdarian's kind donation of time and code I can now automagically output all site URLs used for each card into forum code from Excel.

Check out the bottom of the second post in this thread under the other graph types for all the URLs you could want!

 

ASCII graphs are a possibility still, but time will tell. If coloured text on these forums was enabled it'd more than likely happen.

 

Also:

 

Added

- This article to factors that affect power consumtion section.

- GTX 295 (Single PCB)

- HD4750

 

Updated

- GTS 250 1GB

- GTX 275

- GTX 285 1GB

- HD4850

- HD4890

Edited by mark84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to galdarian's kind donation of time and code I can now automagically output all site URLs used for each card into forum code from Excel.

Hi mark.

 

Please pay attention to that code: as an example, every GTS250 512MB's URLs point actually to Radeon HD4770's reviews, while every URL is build up as "http://http://..." so that no URL are currently directly reachable.

 

Hope this helps,

 

kind regards,

Urk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, totally missed that, thanks. I'll look into it.

I just checked the sheet that you gave me mark and the URL is on the wrong line by the look.

 

CopyPasta error maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@galdarian/urk_alter - The GTS 250 URLs are fine. If you look at them they benched the HD4770 and GTS 250 in the same review, so are used once in my sheet for each card.

 

Updated

- Fixed VBA code to remove extra "http://" in front of URLs.

- HD4770 CF

- Renamed HD4750 to HD4730 and updated readings

- HD4850X2 1GB

- GTX 250 2GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added

- GeForce GTX 275 1792MB

- FirePro V8700

- FireGL V7700

- FirePro V5700

- FirePro V3750

- FirePro V3700

- Quadro FX 5800

- Quardo FX 4800

- Quardo FX 3800

- Quadro FX 1800

- Quadro FX 580

- Quadro FX 380

 

Updated

- GeForce 9500 GT 512MB

- GeFerce GTX 295 (single PCB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added

- GTS 240

- FirePro V8750

- Radeon HD 4890 2GB OC

- GTX 285 4GB "MARS"

 

Updated

- GTX 285 2GB

- GeForce GTX 260 216SP (55nm) OC

- HD4730

- HD4890 OC

- GTX 295 (Single PCB)

- Several others from here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×