Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Power consumption - few myths from this forums busted
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/msi-afterburner-undervolt-radeon-r9-fury,4425.html
1. Fury is really more efficient than GTX980. And faster.
2. Frequency has minimal effect on power consumption, major contributor is voltage.
3. You should always undervolt your hardware as much as you can. Unfortunately, on NVidia GPUs undervolting means automatic lower performance. But CPUs (both brands) and AMD GPUs - just do it.
1. Fury is really more efficient than GTX980. And faster.
2. Frequency has minimal effect on power consumption, major contributor is voltage.
3. You should always undervolt your hardware as much as you can. Unfortunately, on NVidia GPUs undervolting means automatic lower performance. But CPUs (both brands) and AMD GPUs - just do it.
Comments
Also one other note:
4. This also works for r9 380 and R9 390. Considering that you can undervolt them quite a bit, and you have to OC GTX960/970 to get same performance, efficiency really isnt any kind of argument since differences are much smaller than (certain) people are saying.
Of course, thats if you have a vague idea of what youre doing, if youre a dummy...well youll always pay much more than you should. or believe other dummies.
P = I * V
P - power
I - current
V - voltage
Nvidia cards are already optimized, they are new tech unlike AMD that is using old technology and needs to squeeze every little bit of performance out of it, thus you end up with massive overclocks and overvoltages.
Somewhat bitter-sweet results...
not long ago there was discussion about this where certain people claimed that frequency is as important as voltage. While frequency certainly has some effect on power consumption its not relevant enough (when we speak about small changes like 5-10-15% increases). Its also notable that to get higher OC you will have to raise voltage, which will again be major contributor, while raising frequency without touching voltage will not result in very notable increase in power consumption.
For scope of these forums you dont need theory at all since there is so many actual data/tests around that theory is superficial in this case. Even you can do your own tests.
Effects of these are:
You either want to raise frequency as much as you can without touching voltage for better performance and very small power consumption increase OR undervolt as much as you can without changing frequency for very notable power consumption/heat/noise effects (AMD GPUs only)
Thing with NVidia GPUs is that they are already tweaked and any lowering of voltage will result in lower performanace.
This is useful for both - those who already own GPUs and for those who intend to buy new as there is lot of missinformations floating around.
Gdemani - fact that AMD GPUs are overvolted (means they could have clocked them much higher on stock voltage) is actually opposite of what you claim.
You could argue that they should have tested more and get better statistical values and set actual stock settings better, but thats irrelevant since you have more or less full control over GPUs and can tweak them as you wish.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yup, you would be getting a monologue void of any touch with reality
Unlike you, Quizzical gives a fair analogy from both sides.
AMD cards NEED high voltages so they can keep their wafer yields, the chips wouldn't be stable otherwise. They use high voltage and power consumption to supplement the deficiency in technology.
Because you can go lower with voltage on already overvoltaged card does not make it any better card. Good business? Likely so.
It is not how high you can OC that matters but how low you can go with your power consumption. Increasing power consumption is easy, keeping it low is the difficult stuff.
Pointless debates about HW as always...
Amd is just bad to high power con and to high temps and buggy software.
and no u should never undervolt as it makes your hardware unstable [mod edit]
Malabooga said:
No, increasing power consumption isnt easy. In fact Its in hard locked. You can come back when you figure out why.
And try not to contradict yourself in your posts because they dont make much sense that way. Just in this one posts you contradicted yourself 3 times. I get the picture how it could feel "pointless" to you.
As far as AMD and Nvidia goes. I will never go back to using a AMD graphics card ever. I have done so two times over the last 10 years (AMD/ATI) and between the crappy / buggy control panel software, piss poor crossfire support (frame stuttering) and lackluster performance of the hardware, I can honestly say nothing short of Nvidia going out of business would I ever switch back to AMD/ATI. Even then I would consider some 3rd option before switching back to AMD/ATI.
I recall at one point a few years back he had like 3, 4, 5, or more help me build threads a day. One by one he took the time to write out his thoughts and reasoning in detail. Ask and answer questions to each person in great detail. We all know how long and his posts can be. He did a lot for this forum and community. There are certainly others who are just as helpful that I trust as well, without question. But Quizzical, I am sure it seemed like another job back when this section was really busy. That's been awhile ago. That to me is why he stands out.
Not on his dick. He did a lot for this community. It's not saying other people don't know just as much. The difference is he took the time to help people with sound unbiased advice. Stuck to their budgets and even pointed them to other options that might suit their needs better. HE TOOK THE TIME. Then people who have done very little if anything for the community come in and try to shit on him for it? Doesn't seem to bother him. Just funny.
One of the problems with attempting to under-volt hardware is that vendors increasingly have the voltage change as the frequency does. Intel and AMD have both done this in CPUs for a long time, and Nvidia does this with their "GPU boost".
Another problem with undervolting is that if you undervolt the chip too far, you make it unstable. How far you can go varies a lot by chip. It also depends some on your temperature and power supply. If decreasing my power consumption by 10% makes my computer crash once per hour, I'm not interested.
Now, you usually can undervolt (or overclock) to some degree with pretty good stability, but there's a considerable question of how far you're willing to push it and how much risk you're willing to accept. Vendors are usually pretty conservative about how they'll set voltages, as if 1% of the cards you send out are unstable because you set the voltage too low, you get a bad reputation--even if they would have been stable in a better cooled case with a better power supply.
Still, unless you're willing to consider the Fury Nano as AMD's entry (which does reduce voltage more aggressively to bring power consumption down) and compare it to a pure desktop version for Nvidia, Nvidia Maxwell GPUs typically offer better energy efficiency in most games than AMD GCN cards. The question isn't so much whether that's the case, but whether you should care.
In a desktop, usually the answer to that is, not very much. But if you do really, really care about energy efficiency, then the real solution is not to buy Nvidia today. It's to wait a few more months for 14/16 nm GPUs to come out which will be massively more efficient than what you can get today, and then get one of those. I'm not saying everyone should wait; if all you care about is price and performance, the next generation may take a while to beat the current on performance per dollar. But if energy efficiency is the goal (e.g., if you're getting a laptop), the next generation is close enough that I'd wait.
That is a lot of bootlicking considering advices you received and praise are notoriously lacking any support in actual data and reason, ignoring evidence at face value and in the end very likely resulted in unoptimized builds and lost money.
The proof being this very thread
Let's make a small comparison:
We have a guy that helps people on a daily bases, always gentle, with tons of information and even to the point of searching for deals for people with nothing in return. Then we have people like you that always talk sarcastic, vague, mocking people, "LOLing" all posts that say anything that you don't agree with and something I noticed on a daily bases not really trying to help people but just trying to sound superior and thus trolling them.
I don't know what Quizz has done to you that you have to always go after him and his opinions, but I'm sure most people on this forum would rather take his word than yours.
Sorry if I sound harsh, but it's the truth.
And why I am "going after him"? Because he is dead wrong, in better case just off, most of the time...
Just look above:
1) There is no word in the article about Fury X
2) He makes an argument that Fury X, that isn't even being the topic, is much faster than GTX 980 and that the speed difference will make up for power consumption difference.
It does not bother him that Fury X also cost almost 50% more of GTX 980, completely uncomparable cards and silly argument he is making.
3) The problem is that actual "undervoltaging" isn't as much undervoltaging nor as much actual power/heat saved, because for that he would need to read the article in the first place but he never reads nor provide anything...
The list can go on and on...
Yup, I am not nice and I could not care less but when I say something, you can bet it will be well founded, unlike when Quizzical is posting something.
I am not here to compete with him or trying to persuade you about anything. It is up to you what information you pick up and how you process it.
Also, when talking about power consumption, especially for a build the also requires performance you have to look at power consumption in relation to performance...that is a no-brainer.
It is irrelevant as to whether or not someone is bothered by price-performance, when the article is talking about performance-power consumption ratio. This is a matter of priorities, and price is not exactly a factor in the discussion (yet).
You seem like the type of person that tries to convince others by being the loudest person in the room. I would reconsider this strategy, especially because you seem to be motivated by a pseudo-innocuous attempt to persuade people, but you're kind of failing at it.