• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

why do people care about power consumption when it comes to AMD but not Nvidia/ intel

dragonslayer

dragonslayer

dragonslayer

Associate
Joined
9 Jul 2012
Posts
694
Location
Nottingham
So the other day I was thinking how come everyone was raging about the increase power consumption of Vega over a 1080 yet no one cares about Intel's increase power consumption in the CPU market then I realised that everyone only seems to rage when AMD is the power hungry hog so why is that?
 
They do, when the other team is worse for it they get hammers but when its your own camp its not an issue.

Saying that power consumption does have real world implications
 
I dont worry at all about power consumption specifically..... but am more interested in power consumption with relation to performance.

so if the next AMD / NV / INTEL gpu comes out, IF it uses double the power to run it BUT offers 3x the performance compared to the nearest rival, then i would consider that a good power to performance ratio.

OTOH IF AMD have a card which uses 5% less juice than a competing product but only offers 75% the performance, then i would consider that a poor power to performance ratio.

When Fermi GTX 480 1st launched damn right i moaned about it. things improved when the ...... GTX 460 i think it was came out iirc.

I am no expert on modern AMD cards so if you are suggesting the Vega 64 offers good power : performance ratio then so be it.
 
Generally it is about power consumption in relation to performance as above - if you have some crazy top end performance no one cares about power consumption - if you are struggling to match the competition on performance then additionally poor power consumption to performance becomes a negative point.
 
Power consumption is a means to an end: it generally means you can get better performance for the same wattage and you can add more cores/clock speed without adding too much to power consumption so it's more scalable, the card is also quieter and cooler and will probably overclock better.

You're right, I don't care about power consumption unless it becomes a limiting factor to the things listed above that I do care about.
 
dragonslayer said:
So the other day I was thinking how come everyone was raging about the increase power consumption of Vega over a 1080 yet no one cares about Intel's increase power consumption in the CPU market then I realised that everyone only seems to rage when AMD is the power hungry hog so why is that?
Click to expand...


i don;t know many people that care about the power consumption first hand, as in electricity costs, but as an indication of architectural efficiency it is very important. And is critical for data centers that might be running thousands of GPUs.

The problem for Vega is the performance is lower than the 1080 yet the power consumption is greater than the 1080TI. There is a big problem to overcome.
 
Power consumption doesn't bother me or anyone I know. When performance is lackluster and requires so much power, that is poor development but if power consumption is high and performance is high, nobody cares. Also to note, is the more power needed, the better the cooling needs to be.
 
D.P. said:
i don;t know many people that care about the power consumption first hand, as in electricity costs, but as an indication of architectural efficiency it is very important. And is critical for data centers that might be running thousands of GPUs.

The problem for Vega is the performance is lower than the 1080 yet the power consumption is greater than the 1080TI. There is a big problem to overcome.
Click to expand...

Lucky for AMD that Vega turned out to be an incredible miner then :P
 
I can't really remember much it seems ages ago, but didn't the Nvidia GTX 480 have a lot of criticism regarding the heat / power consumption when it was released?

Remember folks, it's overclockers uk not savetheplanet uk, stick a few solar panels on your roof lol.
 
Nelly said:
I can't really remember much it seems ages ago, but didn't the Nvidia GTX 480 have a lot of criticism regarding the heat / power consumption when it was released?

Remember folks, it's overclockers uk not savetheplanet uk, stick a few solar panels on your roof lol.
Click to expand...
I recall small number of people making a big deal of AMD consume more power and being more expensive to run than Nvidia's offering.

If people were talking about temp of the cards and that they prefer to cooler running cards offer by Nvidia then that's fine, but it is really hilarious when some people exaggerate like as if using a AMD card instead of Nvidia it would destroy bank balance or need to file for bankruptcy, when the reality the difference in the energy cost for running a AMD card vs Nvidia card is probably not more than a few quid to £10 over a year if people game only a few hours a day on average :p
 
dragonslayer said:
So the other day I was thinking how come everyone was raging about the increase power consumption of Vega over a 1080 yet no one cares about Intel's increase power consumption in the CPU market then I realised that everyone only seems to rage when AMD is the power hungry hog so why is that?
Click to expand...
This is one of the many biases that people have no matter what camp they are in and this is typical of many of the fanboys including those on here.

Personally, performance per watt is important to me as I like my PC to be completely silent even under full load.
So maximum real world power draw plus efficiency are key metrics for me.
This includes things like choosing a system that can run multiple monitors at low wattage which some cards are abysmal at.
 
Isn't it obvious? Recently Intel and Nvidia delivered top performance. If you deliver Top performance it's easy to justify high power consumption.

When your product is lagging behind competition while also being less efficient, that just shows you can't keep up.


That's it, no fanboysm or conspiracies.
 
How many of you here have overclocked GTX1080 at 2090-2190? How many of you here have GTX1080Ti at 2020 and above? (AIB overclock speed)

Did you look at the power consumption of your chip, or you believe is burning 258W as it does at 1850 clock speed of the FE?
 
Panos said:
How many of you here have overclocked GTX1080 at 2090-2190? How many of you here have GTX1080Ti at 2020 and above? (AIB overclock speed)

Did you look at the power consumption of your chip, or you believe is burning 258W as it does at 1850 clock speed of the FE?
Click to expand...

Pretty irrelevant because that is an overclock and everyone know that will have a drastic effect.

The only fair comparison is reference clocks and volts, out of the box performance across manufacturers.
 
You can usually undervolt the AMD cards by quite a lot, at the same time as upping clocks.

My Vega64 is running on 1050mv and uses 260w at full load. Plus has an extra 200mhz on the memory. When you consider the Vega64 outperforms the 1080 in most things (while now being cheaper to buy too), it's pretty good.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
You can usually undervolt the AMD cards by quite a lot, at the same time as upping clocks.

My Vega64 is running on 1050mv and uses 260w at full load. Plus has an extra 200mhz on the memory. When you consider the Vega64 outperforms the 1080 in most things (while now being cheaper to buy too), it's pretty good.
Click to expand...

Yep. At 270W i beat my gtx1080 @ 2190 performance, and that's on a lot less power consumed than the Pascal card (300W). And have posted those settings for everyone to implement them. (even reviewers to save them time) lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom