Help solve global warming with v-sync/g-sync/freesync

[JimmyHackers]

there only doesnt seem to be a point because no one seems to of looked for it....at this rate im going to go out n buy my own wattage meter plug and test it on the 3 systems i have here.

 

and about low hanging fruit...

 

1.2 billion pc gamers currently and said to be 1.4 by 2020. if each of them could save 10watts of power for an hour each day...... 12,000,000,000 watts a day is 12 gigawatts a day

 

its around 0.5-0.6 kilo of co2 produced per kilowatt used......(at a coal fire station)

so 12,000 tonnes of co2 could be saved per day.

 

kinda blows team trees goals right out of the water.

 

(but seeing as 2.57 million pounds of co2 is made ever second......) anything we try is a drop in the ocean....so why bother... lets just all sit around and wait for that to happen.

[Jurrunio]

If planting treses are pointless, so is saving (with my desktop anyway) 10-30w (out of 350w) per gaming system. In that case I really have to question why you could let crypto mining go "just because it's difficult".

[Jurrunio]

4 minutes ago, JimmyHackers said:

1.2 billion pc gamers currently and said to be 1.4 by 2020. if each of them could save 10watts of power for an hour each day...... 12,000,000,000 watts a day is 12 gigawatts a day

1. Definitely not everyone's getting more frames than their monitor's refresh rate  #my_laptop

 

2. Not everyone's running their systems every hour per day

 

3. Power you save doesnt equate to carbon they burn less, since they need to keep the power supply stable and burning carbon the only stable way we have so far.

[Mick Naughty]

So I assume you’re gonna have a hard time when Christmas comes around and everyone is leaving all those dam lights on. 

[Mark Kaine]

This is really interesting, current gen of "young people" obviously know the planet is fucked and thus have given up doing anything about it since the situation is indeed "hopeless" and it's not their fault anyways, it's the previous generations fault (probably). 

 

What they don't realize however is that the situation isn't really hopeless that's just a feeling,  an impression they have because of lack of life experience,  a situation is almost never hopeless  and every little thing towards change counts - but since they've consciously or subconsciously have "given up" already they are unable to see this. 

 

What I actually mean playing at an unlocked framerate is the worst and feels the exact opposite of "smooth" . 

 

I never do it,  and now I'm even saving the planet by not playing at uneven framerates that aren't synchronized with my monitor's refresh rate.  Never knew!

[Mick Naughty]

Boomers should have lowered the frame rate on pong. This is all their fault after all. 

[Jurrunio]

14 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

it's not their fault anyways, it's the previous generations fault (probably).

it doesnt have anything to do with previous generations directly, but those in power, those with a much greater effect on the problems (i.e. crypto mining, think about each of them running tens of thousands of GPUs at a time, not counting their ASIC miners) not backing out. It just so happens (duh) that they are from the previous generation.

 

17 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

What they don't realize however is that the situation isn't really hopeless that's just a feeling,  an impression they have because of lack of life experience,  a situation is almost never hopeless  and every little thing towards change counts - but since they've consciously or subconsciously have "given up" already they are unable to see this. 

Good luck convincing people to do little things when those who could do big aren't.

[Mira Yurizaki]

5 hours ago, JimmyHackers said:

1.2 billion pc gamers currently and said to be 1.4 by 2020. if each of them could save 10watts of power for an hour each day...... 12,000,000,000 watts a day is 12 gigawatts a day

I'm going to assume you pulled that statistic from https://www.statista.com/statistics/748044/number-video-gamers-world/ Here's the problems I have with this data:

 

Who are they counting as video gamers?

Obviously this is someone who plays plays games on an electronic device, but do you consider someone who plays sudoku on their phone for half an hour a few times a week a video gamer or someone who plays MMOs for 40 hours a week?

 

What are they playing on?

This also makes the biggest difference. If they're playing on a mobile device, then it's likely they're not consuming anywhere near the 10 watts of power per hour you want them to reduce consumption by. Not to mention, what are gamers doing after they game? A gaming PC is going to consume a lot more power doing things like browsing the internet or streaming videos than a mobile device or even an ultrabook.

 

If you want gamers to use less power, it'd make a lot more sense to suggest them to:

• Use another, lower power device when doing things other than gaming.
• Don't game as long. If you want them to reduce their power consumption by 10W, as a typical gaming PC consumes around 200W-300W, then they just have to stop 2-3 minutes per hour.
• Buying only the hardware performance they need and not try to future proof their computers.
• Buying efficient power hardware
• Doing things like putting their PC to sleep and turning off other things they don't need

I mean at this point, you may as well tell us to not game any faster than 30 FPS. We can shave off even more power this way.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Mira Yurizaki

[JimmyHackers]

tbh im sure there are plenty more tweaks that can be done to reduce a pc's power draw and some that dont limit performance.

 

limiting your framerate to what your monitor can actually show you seemd like a pretty good tweak to me. Plus it seems as of yet, untested.

i didnt realizes the increased input lag would be such massive negative to some people.

 

it would be interesting to see just how much power could be saved by any means, not just my suggested tweak.

 

even if your not saving the planet you might be saving a bit of money on your electricity bill.

 

[Jurrunio]

1. not build (or at this point, ban) a currency based on pointless burn on power. I'd agree with it if they replace it with folding or boinc or something else useful like these, if not also hook up these computing workhorses to heating systems of office buildings, just like how cars warm their interior by blowing heat from their radiators into the passenger compartment

 

2. undervolt, because voltage at stock is always too much

 

3. ditch the 80+ Bronze or below PSUs, 80+ Gold isnt that expensive to go for (compared to Platinum or Titanium)

[Mark Kaine]

21 minutes ago, JimmyHackers said:

i didnt realizes the increased input lag would be such massive negative to some people.

I honestly think that's a myth / placebo, most people don't seem to understand what input lag is anyways. 

 

And how low do you think frametimes can go? Around 16ms is perfect and,  mathematically it can't go much lower anyhow. 

 

Sub zero frametimes or what?

 

 

On the contrary I'm pretty sure the de-synchronization of frame rates and monitor refresh rate could actually create some sort of additional input lag.  At least if feels incredibly laggy and jittery to me. 

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, JimmyHackers said:

limiting your framerate to what your monitor can actually show you seemd like a pretty good tweak to me.

There's a much better way to do this: don't buy hardware that overperforms. You not only save energy by getting less power hungry parts, you save money too.

 

It's stupid to buy high performance hardware and then go "now limit its performance." Just buy the right hardware for the job.

[Jurrunio]

10 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

There's a much better way to do this: don't buy hardware that overperforms. You not only save energy by getting less power hungry parts, you save money too.

 

It's stupid to buy high performance hardware and then go "now limit its performance." Just buy the right hardware for the job.

Actually an overkill card that's undervolted and underclocked is better for efficiency, tho it's no longer saving you money

[Mick Naughty]

Basically people just need to get better monitors. Get rid of the old inefficient ones and get better high refresh rate monitors. 

 

Sounds like the proper fix. 

[Mark Kaine]

11 hours ago, Mick Naughty said:

Basically people just need to get better monitors. Get rid of the old inefficient ones and get better high refresh rate monitors. 

 

Sounds like the proper fix. 

I play a lot of games which mechanics are tied to the framerate (aka fighting games,  etc)  so no, thank you very much, I'll rather keep saving the earth then than to deal with uneven frames for little to no gains

 

 

PS:

Spoiler

I totally understand though that for certain games like FPS shooters a  higher framerate is actually desirable because it can give you a competitive advantage,  in which case I agree, a high refresh rate monitor,  preferably with Gsync / freesync is a good idea if someone plays these kinds of games

 

 

 

[Mick Naughty]

11 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

I play a lot of games which mechanics are tied to the framerate (aka fighting games,  etc)  so no, thank you very much, I'll rather keep saving the earth then than to deal with uneven frames for little to no gains 

Well clearly op isn’t talking about you. 

They said gamers. So they can’t be talking to you if you aren’t doing any wrong. 

[Mark Kaine]

2 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

Well clearly op isn’t talking about you. 

They said gamers. So they can’t be talking to you if you aren’t doing any wrong. 

That's true,  but I still get people telling me I need a 144hz 1440p monitor all the time,  even though I don't even have a graphics card that could do these numbers,  I'm happy when it gets 1080/60 done without issues tbh

 

 

[Mick Naughty]

Just now, Mark Kaine said:

That's true,  but I still get people telling me I need a 144hz 1440p monitor all the time,  even though I don't even have a graphics card that could do these numbers,  I'm happy when it gets 1080/60 done without issues tbh

 

 

I use my 1440p 144hz monitor to watch YouTube. Stick to 1080p and what ever my system can achieve. Which will never be higher than the refresh rate. Not in its current state. 

[Mark Kaine]

3 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

I use my 1440p 144hz monitor to watch YouTube. Stick to 1080p and what ever my system can achieve. Which will never be higher than the refresh rate. Not in its current state. 

You won't get proper scaling that way though? (ratio 1440/1080 seems to be 1.33, so not even) 

 

I think most 144hz monitors would also support 60hz though so at least that wouldn't be a problem I guess. 

 

 

[Mick Naughty]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

You won't get proper scaling that way though? (ratio 1440/1080 seems to be 1.33, so not even) 

 

I think most 144hz monitors would also support 60hz though so at least that wouldn't be a problem I guess. 

 

 

No idea what you’re getting at. My 240hz 1080p monitor will be used as intended. 

Not trying to take such a large FPS dip just to use 1440. Unless I went back to sli. But the cpu can’t handle that. So just gonna get by with less. 

[JimmyHackers]

looks like at least one of linus team read this thread.

 

shame they didnt do a power draw test at "full power overclocked to the max+ fans 'n' rgb vomit" with the wattage meter.

 

they most definately saved power but they didnt show how much by missing out that one initial test.

[JimmyHackers]

However, we did get told its about 5 watts saved for either HDR off or v-sync/framelimiting on.

 

seeing as it was about 100watts total by the end....is almost a %5 power reduction. not massive but also not bad either.

[Mick Naughty]

So as it turns out it’s good for console gamers or those like it. 

 

Guess we’re saving the planet now. 

[xAcid9]

8 hours ago, JimmyHackers said:

However, we did get told its about 5 watts saved for either HDR off or v-sync/framelimiting on.

 

seeing as it was about 100watts total by the end....is almost a %5 power reduction. not massive but also not bad either.

Depend on game, if you're playing it at 200fps on full load then capping it to 60fps probably reduce power consumption more than 5%.

[Mira Yurizaki]

21 hours ago, JimmyHackers said:

However, we did get told its about 5 watts saved for either HDR off or v-sync/framelimiting on.

 

seeing as it was about 100watts total by the end....is almost a %5 power reduction. not massive but also not bad either.

They limited the monitor's refresh rate to 60Hz, not used V-Sync or frame limiting. In fact, they didn't use any frame limiting or frame pacing settings. They found the lowest point they could go with their hardware to meet a performance requirement.

 

The takeaway I got was adjust the hardware settings to limit the power envelope of the hardware while still meeting a performance target, not use some kind of frame limiting technology. Also partially, I felt like they were saying get the appropriate hardware for the job, at least in the case of recommending an RTX 2060 over a RTX 2080.

 

I also didn't like the comparison to a game console in a way. They're comparing modern PC hardware, one of which built on a process node two generations ahead, to a console designed back in 2015 at the latest. Though at least to their credit they said to take it as a data point.