As in, it's bad if it's Team A doing it but no issue if it's Team B which x person is a fanatic about.
-
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
- Thread starter dragonslayer
- Start date
As in, it's bad if it's Team A doing it but no issue if it's Team B which x person is a fanatic about.
Nvidia got a lot of flack for Power consumption with Fermi and the FX fiasco before that.
I don't see any double standards. Vega uses a lot of power but doesn't offer the performance to justify it. There is no double standard there. At least with Fermi the performance was there just about.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,910
because the vast majority of people want to plug it in and go..... if you need to undervolt your card to make it efficient then that does not count. (it simply CANT work in all cases because if it did then surely AMD would have lowered the voltage to begin with at the bios level?
if you are going that route then you will surely just overclock instead? my understanding that a heavily overclocked 1080 gtx is nip tuck with a heavily overclocked vega 64 but at that point the NV card will use less power... AND has physx for the odd time it is supported.
or are you suggesting this is not true?
if you are going that route then you will surely just overclock instead? my understanding that a heavily overclocked 1080 gtx is nip tuck with a heavily overclocked vega 64 but at that point the NV card will use less power... AND has physx for the odd time it is supported.
or are you suggesting this is not true?
Because it gives AMD haters an excuse to rag on AMD over something they don't actually care about, simple.
It's always been a comical double standard in the graphics card enthusiast scene that when ATi/AMD cards have noticeably higher power draw it's the end of the world because they will bankrupt their owners, destroy the planet, make the room hot, etc. Yet when it's Nvidia with the power consumption the same complainers are eagre to point out that power consumption doesn't really matter because the light bulbs worth of difference has a negligible cost effect and if anyone genuinely cares about it they wouldn't use 27" or bigger monitors.
A) Most people don;t want to be fiddling around with voltages, they care about plug and play performance.
B) The 1080 is about 5-10% faster than Vega 64
C) The cheapest 180 and Vega 64 on OCUK are both 450quid, and the 1080 has way more choices.
D) You can also undervolt the 1080 if you want lower power.
Except it is only ever AMD fans that seem to make these comments about lightbulbs. The Nvidia fans know the cost difference in electricity is minimal.
That would depend on the game being played and the specific card being tested. I owned both reference cards and out of the box the difference in performance is indistinguishable, the only noticeable difference (aside from PhysX, Freesync, etc) is the 1080 is slightly louder and the V64 produces slightly more heat.
...I can't even think how to debate that, it's not even grounded in reality lol. You think AMD fans are the ones who rag on AMD for power consumption and Nvidia fans are the ones who know it's irrelevant? :S
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,910
i am not saying no one is like you say, but to me this is not true. i use nvidia cards of late as well as intel cpus however i would have no problem going to the red camp if AMD offered a better product for my needs. (if i needed a new cpu right now chances are i would be strongly considering AMD but given i only upgrade when i need to then chances are my i7 5820K wont be struggling for ages yet)
i moaned like hell about the fermi gtx480 and the FX cards which preceeded that were rubbish imo and i made no bones about stating that opinion either.
Face it, at the very sharp end AMD are simply not at the races and have not been for some time.
IF I had a Freesync monitor it may be different but i dont and am not replacing my 4k 65 inch tv any time soon.
and physX is still a "thing" for some games too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,251
- Location
- UK.
Lol VEGA is faster than 1080 in normal PC gaming, 1080 is faster in VR, I'm guessing you have might not actually tried these cards. Oh well. I have tried em all. VEGA 64 is faster than 1080 for the most part. Cheaper too.
Vega also blows all Nvidia cards away in compute.. . I.e VEGA has more performance, but api limitation, gimp-works, kickbacks etc effect gaming performance more in the real world xD
Just have to settle for AMD being faster and cheaper in every segment expect the 1080 Ti where AMD did not release a card to compete.
Let's not even talk about Nvidia 2*** series, I read today that the GTX 2070 is a 06* Tier, meaning 1060 replacement. Derp* Nvidia bending people over so much and they are loving it xD
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
I think you have missed his point entirely. He's saying Nvidia fans has the tendency to always downplay any issue that with the Nvidia cards, and over-exaggerate any issue with ATI/AMD cards.
The only people I've seen with any kind of double standard are those 2-3 regular posters here who almost every new nVidia GPU generation mutter about them being hot, using a lot of power and "unfixable" yet that is rarely the case yet you never see them making the same accusations towards upcoming AMD products even though that has been more often true relatively speaking.
When was the last time nVidia released a card that was power hungry and didn't have the performance to match where anyone not AMD aligned withheld criticism?
That is nice but I've had around 2 years of almost Vega 64 performance out of my 1070 at a lower price than either Vega 56/64 and now ready to move on. I'd rather see the performance upfront and then upgrade to a significant performance jump.
Last edited:
1070 is not even close to Vega64 performance. It's a whole tier lower...
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,383
- Location
- Oxford
What?
a 1080 is a 180w card which trades blows with Vega 64
a 1080ti us a 250w card and well beats Vega 64 cold
my undervolted 1080ti hits 1850mhz (vs a max OX of 2050mhz) and only slips 220w or less
Were you are getting 300w for a pascal card from I have no idea .....
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,383
- Location
- Oxford
Kinda been debunked a few times this "fine wine" thing. as for vega creeping ahead, no not realy
https://youtu.be/5Gk5ca9U1IA
I said almost - on release there was ~7% difference averaged between them over a range of games - it has crept away a bit since.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,675
- Location
- The KOP
Yet Vega comes out top in all recent games so far lol 1080 was faster on release not anymore.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
See Youtube video above, looks pretty equal to me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Lower power consumption means less heat to deal with, less beefy PSUs required etc. its a bloody no-brainer that lower consumption should be preferable but people need to stop banging on about the cost of raw power consumption because it's poor argument and one that thankfully few people try to make. Stop assuming that people who mention consumption are concerned about the electricity costs - that is rarely ever the case.