Is the AMD's GPUs' power consumption a problem?

[MacWas]

The title says it all but there's a bit more depth to it, however, I'll try to be quick.

I want to build a PC for 800 pounds (GBP) and am buying either the R9 380 (4GB) or GTX 960 (4GB)... But here's the dilemma.

The R9 380 has sliiightly better performance than the 960 but what I'm really worried about is the power bill... x) In my house, we have to go to the shop to top up our electricity and don't want to go to the shop constantly to keep playing my games... and saving money/the planet is cool too. So is the R9 380 still worth it, despite the power and heat issues? Because I don't feel like going with NVIDIA as they're real dickheads with their Gameworks shit.

There's also the option of Polaris or Pascal (Mostly Polaris). I read that Polaris might come out in April. Errrr... no. Now they say July to September and I can't wait that long so here's the thing:

I don't want to support NVIDIA's bullshit
I don't want to pay more for electricity with AMD
I cooooould go with NVIDIA for a bit then get an AMD Polaris card later on
But I don't know if the 960 will last long (Because of Gameworks and Polaris being 'round the corner).

So someone please either weigh the pros and cons for me or throw something else into the mix of my thoughts to consider.
pls.
Thanks.

[Fulgrim]

The cost difference is only noticeable over a long period of time, with long operating times where the card runs under heavy loads. I.e rendering

If you're just a regular gamer, then it's only a few extra quid over the course of a year.

[I am an SSD]

2 minutes ago, MacWas said:

So someone please either weigh the pros and cons for me or throw something else into the mix of my thoughts to consider.
pls.
Thanks.

Yeah you have a fair point. You're looking at a 35% less power consumption ( only for gpu) with the 960...

 

But honestly speaking, the power consumption values make a difference only if you game for more than 4 hours a day. sorry I dont have hard data to back it up, but I read somewhere that the difference is noticable in you electricity bill only in that case. 

 

In case you are a serious gamer, putting in a lot of hours a day, id go for the 960. because ultimately it gives you more performance/dollar. Otherwise take the AMD. 

[Fetzie]

If you are only gaming (i.e. you are loading the graphics card for a few hours per day) then the cost difference will be negligible.

[vanished]

Sounds like you've got two reasons to wait for Polaris: 1: anyone at though point should probably just wait anyway, and 2: they promise to be fixing the ridiculous power draw (in fact, it looks like they will whip current gen nvidia cards!)

[MacWas]

5 minutes ago, Fulgrim said:

The cost difference is only noticeable over a long period of time, with long operating times where the card runs under heavy loads. I.e rendering

If you're just a regular gamer, then it's only a few extra quid over the course of a year.

The game will probably be under heavy load. I'm expecting 60FPS at all times, probably capping it at 65 where possible to conserve the lifespan of the card and the electricity bill.

 

 

4 minutes ago, I am an SSD said:

Yeah you have a fair point. You're looking at a 35% less power consumption ( only for gpu) with the 960...

 

But honestly speaking, the power consumption values make a difference only if you game for more than 4 hours a day. sorry I dont have hard data to back it up, but I read somewhere that the difference is noticable in you electricity bill only in that case. 

 

In case you are a serious gamer, putting in a lot of hours a day, id go for the 960. because ultimately it gives you more performance/dollar. Otherwise take the AMD. 

I'll most likely be playing for around 3-5 hours on school days and up to maybe 8? hours on the weekends.

 

6 minutes ago, Fetzie said:

If you are only gaming (i.e. you are loading the graphics card for a few hours per day) then the cost difference will be negligible.

Will be playing an average of 4.5 hours a day.

[Fetzie]

It'll hardly be noticeable if you're only gaming for 4-5 hours a day on average. It isn't like a GPU is running at 100% while gaming either.

 

That said, if you can cope with waiting until the end of June, there'll be more powerful cards for the same price with vastly lower power consumption available.

[MacWas]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Sounds like you've got two reasons to wait for Polaris: 1: anyone at though point should probably just wait anyway, and 2: they promise to be fixing the ridiculous power draw (in fact, it looks like they will whip current gen nvidia cards!)

Yeah. I really want to wait for Polaris but the truth is that I'm an impatient cunt. I've only ever had a PS2 (Around 2007 ), a Wii (Around 2010) and a Wii U in 2014 so I want something with graphics that will baffle me and be like nothing I've used before. I really want this PC and will have the money by June or July and that's when my school holidays begin so I want something to occupy my time during that and honestly, releasing a GPU in the "Back to school" season is stupid because people won't have time to use the GPU's ;-;.

[Fetzie]

2 minutes ago, MacWas said:

Yeah. I really want to wait for Polaris but the truth is that I'm an impatient cunt. I've only ever had a PS2 (Around 2007 ), a Wii (Around 2010) and a Wii U in 2014 so I want something with graphics that will baffle me and be like nothing I've used before. I really want this PC and will have the money by June or July and that's when my school holidays begin so I want something to occupy my time during that and honestly, releasing a GPU in the "Back to school" season is stupid because people won't have time to use the GPU's ;-;.

If you'll only have the money around June/July then that is perfect timing to buy a Polaris/Pascal graphics card

[I am an SSD]

6 minutes ago, MacWas said:

The game will probably be under heavy load. I'm expecting 60FPS at all times, probably capping it at 65 where possible to conserve the lifespan of the card and the electricity bill.

 

 

I'll most likely be playing for around 3-5 hours on school days and up to maybe 8? hours on the weekends.

 

Will be playing an average of 4.5 hours a day.

8 hours? Go for the 960 man....

 

I may be wrong about this (someone correct me if i am ) but AMD cars run hotter too which means less lifespan??

 

Either way a 960 sounds better for you (especially since you're considering power draw) ...even if you hate Nvidia and all that.

 

Performance wise AMD in this case. Check for fps difference on games and see if it is worth it to you. 

[MacWas]

Just now, Fetzie said:

If you'll only have the money around June/July then that is perfect timing to buy a Polaris/Pascal graphics card

Yes but from what I've read, the Polaris GPU's (Which I reallllllly want) will be out July-September and Pascal will release them in June or July but with the 1080 and 1070 first, then the 1060 later... This sucks because the 1080 will most likely be the equivalent of the 980Ti and 1070 of the 980 so the prices will be quite high. Even the 1060 might be more expensive than the 380 or 960 I'm planning to get now and might become useless quite fast because of NVIDIA's shitworks. Honestly, at this point, I might just save as much money as I can until I can buy a 380/960, probably the 960 and see how long I can last until my patience snaps and I just but it.

[MacWas]

3 minutes ago, I am an SSD said:

8 hours? Go for the 960 man....

 

I may be wrong about this (someone correct me if i am ) but AMD cars run hotter too which means less lifespan??

 

Either way a 960 sounds better for you (especially since you're considering power draw) ...even if you hate Nvidia and all that.

 

Performance wise AMD in this case. Check for fps difference on games and see if it is worth it to you. 

I'm on the NVIDIA side at the moment. It just feels like it'll be better for the time being until the new ones come out. I'll just let a few ideas come into the mix (If there are any more) and see what I'll have then. Thanks for the contribution, by the way.

[I am an SSD]

Just now, MacWas said:

I'm on the NVIDIA side at the moment. It just feels like it'll be better for the time being until the new ones come out. I'll just let a few ideas come into the mix (If there are any more) and see what I'll have then. Thanks for the contribution, by the way.

No problem...though if you are okay with waiting a little bit, the arrival of the new cards will mean the old cards will go for much cheaper....it will be more profitable to get something then...but your choice of course, since you said you'll be going with polaris anyway and you just need an intermediate card

[MilkJugg24]

The extra cost of running a card would be the increase in cost of the PSU. You electric bill won't really feel anything. People make out the extra wattage to be a deal breaking point, I never understood why.

[don_svetlio]

36 minutes ago, MacWas said:

The title says it all but there's a bit more depth to it, however, I'll try to be quick.

I want to build a PC for 800 pounds (GBP) and am buying either the R9 380 (4GB) or GTX 960 (4GB)... But here's the dilemma.

The R9 380 has sliiightly better performance than the 960 but what I'm really worried about is the power bill... x) In my house, we have to go to the shop to top up our electricity and don't want to go to the shop constantly to keep playing my games... and saving money/the planet is cool too. So is the R9 380 still worth it, despite the power and heat issues? Because I don't feel like going with NVIDIA as they're real dickheads with their Gameworks shit.

There's also the option of Polaris or Pascal (Mostly Polaris). I read that Polaris might come out in April. Errrr... no. Now they say July to September and I can't wait that long so here's the thing:

I don't want to support NVIDIA's bullshit
I don't want to pay more for electricity with AMD
I cooooould go with NVIDIA for a bit then get an AMD Polaris card later on
But I don't know if the 960 will last long (Because of Gameworks and Polaris being 'round the corner).

So someone please either weigh the pros and cons for me or throw something else into the mix of my thoughts to consider.
pls.
Thanks.

5$ yearly at most - people are fucking retarded when it comes to power bills - 80W 4 hours a day won't matter considering a fucking fridge uses 2000W >.< 24/7

[don_svetlio]

14 minutes ago, I am an SSD said:

8 hours? Go for the 960 man....

 

I may be wrong about this (someone correct me if i am ) but AMD cars run hotter too which means less lifespan??

 

Either way a 960 sounds better for you (especially since you're considering power draw) ...even if you hate Nvidia and all that.

 

Performance wise AMD in this case. Check for fps difference on games and see if it is worth it to you. 

Wrong, Wrong and wrong again - the difference between the 380 and 960 in the real world is actually 30W - that is less than 3$ yearly assuming 5 hours daily usage at max load.

The 380 runs cooler than most cards - people act as if every AMD card is a reference 290X >.<

[don_svetlio]

33 minutes ago, I am an SSD said:

Yeah you have a fair point. You're looking at a 35% less power consumption ( only for gpu) with the 960...

 

But honestly speaking, the power consumption values make a difference only if you game for more than 4 hours a day. sorry I dont have hard data to back it up, but I read somewhere that the difference is noticable in you electricity bill only in that case. 

 

In case you are a serious gamer, putting in a lot of hours a day, id go for the 960. because ultimately it gives you more performance/dollar. Otherwise take the AMD. 

35% is literally 3 times more than it is - the 960 draws 150W due to GPU Boost 2.0 The 380 draws around 170W at stock (and that's on a bad day) - the difference is 10% at most - that's less than fucking 3$ yearly >.<

[I am an SSD]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

Wrong, Wrong and wrong again - the difference between the 380 and 960 in the real world is actually 30W - that is less than 3$ yearly assuming 5 hours daily usage at max load.

The 380 runs cooler than most cards - people act as if every AMD card is a reference 290X >.<

How is my third point wrong? id like to know

[don_svetlio]

Just now, I am an SSD said:

How is my third point wrong? id like to know

380 is 15% more powerful and usually 20$ cheaper. Even if it adds 20$ worth of power bills over 5 years it's still better value considering it's more powerful from the get go and it's over 40% more powerful with DX12

[I am an SSD]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

380 is 15% more powerful and usually 20$ cheaper. Even if it adds 20$ worth of power bills over 5 years it's still better value considering it's more powerful from the get go and it's over 40% more powerful with DX12

my third point..how i said AMD gives better performance with the 380

[don_svetlio]

Just now, I am an SSD said:

my third point..how i said AMD gives better performance with the 380

Sorry, got them mixed up.... too many posts ._.

[Stefan1024]

4 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

5$ yearly at most - people are fucking retarded when it comes to power bills - 80W 4 hours a day won't matter considering a fucking fridge uses 2000W >.< 24/7

Not sure about your fridge, but ours is about 250 watts under full load and way less when not opened every 5 minutes.

But on the GPU power draw difference I agree. When you activate frame rate controll the power consumption dropps and other factors like the power consuption of the monitor (they can draw from 20 watts to 150 watts) play a bigger role than the two GPUs.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Stefan1024 said:

Not sure about your fridge, but ours is about 250 watts under full load and way less when not opened every 5 minutes.

But on the GPU power draw difference I agree. When you activate frame rate controll the power consumption dropps and other factors like the power consuption of the monitor (they can draw from 20 watts to 150 watts) play a bigger role than the two GPUs.

Fuck, why are there 3 zeroes there ._.

[BrightCandle]

In the UK (you mentioned pounds) typically electricity and top ups especially cost around £0.20 per Kilo watt hour. I assume the above 30W difference is accurate so it would take 33.3 hours (1000/30) to consume a single KWH and hence £0.20. So At 4.5 hours of usage a day and 365 days a year is 1642.5 hours a year, divide that by the hours to cost you 20p gives us 49.275 * 0.20 =  £9.86 in a year at 4.5 hours every day. Its not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

 

The main issue with additional power consumption are actually noise, high output cards require big noisy fans and so you want to keep a GPU within a reasonable thermal envelope to keep the noise down. Quiet 300W coolers are expensive to make and really its in the water works a lot better territory.

[don_svetlio]

3 minutes ago, BrightCandle said:

In the UK (you mentioned pounds) typically electricity and top ups especially cost around £0.20 per Kilo watt hour. I assume the above 30W difference is accurate so it would take 33.3 hours (1000/30) to consume a single KWH and hence £0.20. So At 4.5 hours of usage a day and 365 days a year is 1642.5 hours a year, divide that by the hours to cost you 20p gives us 49.275 * 0.20 =  £9.86 in a year at 4.5 hours every day. Its not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

 

The main issue with additional power consumption are actually noise, high output cards require big noisy fans and so you want to keep a GPU within a reasonable thermal envelope to keep the noise down. Quiet 300W coolers are expensive to make and really its in the water works a lot better territory.

Well, there ARE some good air coolers which are quiet and effective - the Nitro and Vapor-X from Sapphire and FTW from EVGA but yeah, those cost more

EDIT: Should mention - this is if talking max load - if you factor in power savings during idle thanks to ZeroCore then it's even less.