Jump to content
mark84

The Truth About Graphics Power Requirements V2

Recommended Posts

Okay, so my PSU supplies 408W on the 12V. My CPU's max TDP is 128 W. Therefore, that leaves ~280W for the GPU right? The AMD 6950 uses 176W @ Peak 3D. Does that mean my 450W XFX PSU can handle a 6950?

These readings as best as I can tell include other voltages as well, like the 5v and 3.3v from the PCI-E connector. But yeah, if you're sure about your numbers it should be ok.

If you overclock at all though, those numbers will climb rather steeply.

 

Love being brought back to this thread. So epic.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mark84,

 

I'd rather to send you a message, but actually I cannot do so, and I have to rely on a public post for my questions.

 

It would look like that right now (2012-05-11, 15:38 CET+1, probably around 11:38 pm in AUS) most of the current chart-images (png) are either corrupted or bring in some errors: eventually I cannot load anything but the standard, peak 3D ordered chart.

 

Moreover this last chart would look like also not properly sorted, so I'm not able to understand whether or not it's reliable.

 

Can you kindly give me some explanation/reassurance about?

 

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover this last chart would look like also not properly sorted, so I'm not able to understand whether or not it's reliable.

Now I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with that chart: just for example, look at the 300W level, around the Intel Larrabee row, there are also the OEM Nvidia GT3XXs, which is undoubtedly not possible (just again for example, pick the GT340 1GB: it should have a FurMark value of about 75W, at least according to the relevant URL1).

 

So, if I'm not wrong, could you kindly fix the current graphs? They are an invaluable reference for any conscious gamer/folder/builder/enthusiast.

 

Thanks a lot in advance.

Edited by urk_alter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added

- HD7870

- HD7850

- GTX 680 & OC & SLI

- GTX 670 & OC & SLI & 3x SLI

- GTX 680 4GB

- GTX 690

- Added this to the OP, to help further illustrate how fabrication process can effect power consumption.

 

Updated

- HD 7970 3x & 4x CF

- GTX 590

- GTX 580

- GeForce 310

- GeForce 315

- GeForce GT 320

- GeForce GT 330

- GeForce GT 340 1GB

 

 

 

 

It would look like that right now (2012-05-11, 15:38 CET+1, probably around 11:38 pm in AUS) most of the current chart-images (png) are either corrupted or bring in some errors: eventually I cannot load anything but the standard, peak 3D ordered chart.

How about now? Freshly uploaded. They all seem ok to me.

 

Moreover this last chart would look like also not properly sorted, so I'm not able to understand whether or not it's reliable.

Which chart are you referring to? The one sorted by idle power?

 

Now I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with that chart: just for example, look at the 300W level, around the Intel Larrabee row, there are also the OEM Nvidia GT3XXs, which is undoubtedly not possible (just again for example, pick the GT340 1GB: it should have a FurMark value of about 75W, at least according to the relevant URL1).

Ahh, yes. Looks like an error on my part. I've fixed those up now. (310, 315, GT 320 330 and 340). Thanks for pointing that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"- Added this to the OP, to help further illustrate how fabrication process can effect power consumption."

 

Wow suprised at how much savings from 40 to 28nm!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- GTX 680 4GB

It would look like wrong: 130W? The relevant URL can't help as the bar graph shows 200W and 400W.

 

It would look like that right now (2012-05-11, 15:38 CET+1, probably around 11:38 pm in AUS) most of the current chart-images (png) are either corrupted or bring in some errors: eventually I cannot load anything but the standard, peak 3D ordered chart.

How about now? Freshly uploaded. They all seem ok to me.
Yes, now I can load them properly.

 

Moreover this last chart would look like also not properly sorted, so I'm not able to understand whether or not it's reliable.

Which chart are you referring to? The one sorted by idle power?
No it was the one sort by peak 3D power. Edited by urk_alter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- GTX 680 4GB

It would look like wrong: 130W? The relevant URL can't help as the bar graph shows 200W and 400W.

 

Looking at the URL for that result it is some 50+W less than the stock reference GTX 680 2GB model. That's why it appears as ~45W less in the graphs.

 

Simply having a redesigned PCB and components can save power and is often why 3rd party cards use less power often with more RAM on board. It is quite a bit, but I can only work with the data others post up.

I didn't read the review of the card but maybe it has a lesser core voltage than the reference design. There are many factors which affect the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great thread.

Just one quick question I have a Corsair AX650 PSU and I'm wondering will it be enough to power a 7970 with a bit of overclocking?(rest of my specs in sig).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great thread.

Just one quick question I have a Corsair AX650 PSU and I'm wondering will it be enough to power a 7970 with a bit of overclocking?(rest of my specs in sig).

its enough to run two 7970 as long as you dont crank the v right up then try to run fur and linpack at the same time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great thread.

Just one quick question I have a Corsair AX650 PSU and I'm wondering will it be enough to power a 7970 with a bit of overclocking?(rest of my specs in sig).

its enough to run two 7970 as long as you dont crank the v right up then try to run fur and linpack at the same time

 

Thanks for the help Dasa, I don't think I would ever run two off it though (if I was going to do that I would look at a 800+ watt PSU) but it's good to know I can run one with some overclocking :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is the power consumption of the OC'd GTX480 lower than the not OC'd one?

 

i'm shocked by the development in the powerconsumption in general, i thought that my gf8800gtx was power greedy when i bought it ...

only the new GF600er series is a small ray of hope for greentech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is the power consumption of the OC'd GTX480 lower than the not OC'd one?

 

i'm shocked by the development in the powerconsumption in general, i thought that my gf8800gtx was power greedy when i bought it ...

only the new GF600er series is a small ray of hope for greentech

it may have been newer silicon and was able to run at a lower v than the first batch of gtx480 or maybe the load test was just a bit different as the results are based on a collection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Dasa said.

 

In addition, usually stock card results are for the first iteration of a card (all the reviewers mad rush to get their reviews out early etc) and are all based on Nvidias stock design so they can get made and shipped as quickly as possible. A couple of months later the OC variants start showing up. New drivers, new GPU chip revisions/spins can effect it, also (more likely the case) they have a custom PCB made by the 3rd party vendor, which may have been completely redesigned to be faster and more efficient (than Nvidias stock design) and probably has better quality components on board (ICs, caps, power conversion stuff etc) to facilitate better OCing, often they're more power efficient too.

 

So it can be a variety of things.

 

I explain much of this at the top of the OP.

Edited by mark84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aww graphs links are down and when clicked they lead to an add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm bugga.

 

It appears the site I had free hosting on is gone. It was hosting provided by an old work mate, so I've been lucky up until now.

I'll see if he is still doing hosting that I can maybe piggy back off of but if not... perhaps I'll have to use photobucket and alter links each time :\ also file size limits, but that also won't help with the csv file hosting.

 

Unless someone wants to offer up some free FTP hosting? Only need like 20MB max.

Looks like it's back up and running again. I've also now arranged backup hosting if I need to fall back to it.

Edited by mark84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is no longer worthy of sticky?

Do have a list of cards I need to add, just lacked the motivation.

If no one needs it any more then I'll let it go peacefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is no longer worthy of sticky?

Do have a list of cards I need to add, just lacked the motivation.

If no one needs it any more then I'll let it go peacefully.

 

I obviously cannot answer for the admins, but - for what it worths - I always found useful such your work: so I hope you'll find some motivation to keep it up to date, regardless of all.

 

With best wishes.

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

×