Modern computers /too/ power efficient?

[Justin_]

I know that to a certain point power efficiency and performance go hand in hand but it seems like the newer gear is sacrificing possible gains in performance by looking to optimise more towards power efficiency. I mean you can run a 6 core 12 thread i7 system (6850K) with a NVIDIA 1070 off only 300 watts, some TVs take more power than that.

 

I guess what I am asking is that if it would be possible to get more performance at the sacrifice of power efficiency shouldn't we be going that way at this point?

[Froody129]

No, because if you look at the GTX 480/R9 290X etc. they were high performance at the cost of massive power consumption. A power efficient PC is a cool and quiet one who's components will last long, while reducing ecological footprint and your power bill.

 

Secondly, increased power efficiency usually comes with die shrinks, which are also the best way to increase performance because you can fit more transistors in.

[PeachyUwUSenpai]

8 minutes ago, Justin_ said:

I know that to a certain point power efficiency and performance go hand in hand but it seems like the newer gear is sacrificing possible gains in performance by looking to optimise more towards power efficiency. I mean you can run a 6 core 12 thread i7 system (6850K) with a NVIDIA 1070 off only 300 watts, some TVs take more power than that.

 

I guess what I am asking is that if it would be possible to get more performance at the sacrifice of power efficiency shouldn't we be going that way at this point?

so the issue is with more power comes more heat which is hard enough to dissipate which is why efficient is very important 

[it_dont_work]

There's more to performance than simply using more power to go faster. I'm by no means at all an expert on the subject, though in the last 2 decades I've watched performance in the pc space skyrocket and become much more power efficient. Look at overclocking for example and the difference in performance gains based on architecture designs, shrinking dies, while requiring less power also usually end up with a higher signal fidelity. It's not as simple as more power relating to more performance.

 

Then there's also to consumer/commercial markets, while we might be happy with a system that sucks 500-900 watts from the wall. The average home user usually doesn't, let alone the business with 300+ workstations on 12 hours a day

[Electronics Wizardy]

13 minutes ago, Justin_ said:

I guess what I am asking is that if it would be possible to get more performance at the sacrifice of power efficiency shouldn't we be going that way at this point?

what is the titan xp.

 

the gtx 1080 is the small die.

 

also just get anouther one.

[Megah3rtz]

20 minutes ago, Justin_ said:

some TVs take more power than that.

lol which

 

unless you have a 60" screen chances are you won't get higher than 150-200w, even with a plasma TV. LED backlit TV's are even more efficient. 

[Automobili3XF]

6 hours ago, Megah3rtz said:

lol which

 

unless you have a 60" screen chances are you won't get higher than 150-200w, even with a plasma TV. LED backlit TV's are even more efficient. 

My CRT ( 29' Panasonic "something something" that i keep for my older consoles) indicates a 350w usage.

But indeed, newer TVs use way less wattage, my main TV is very power efficient

[Unimportant]

10 hours ago, Justin_ said:

I know that to a certain point power efficiency and performance go hand in hand but it seems like the newer gear is sacrificing possible gains in performance by looking to optimise more towards power efficiency. I mean you can run a 6 core 12 thread i7 system (6850K) with a NVIDIA 1070 off only 300 watts, some TVs take more power than that.

 

I guess what I am asking is that if it would be possible to get more performance at the sacrifice of power efficiency shouldn't we be going that way at this point?

Higher power usage for a chip only allows for more performance because it allows higher clockspeeds . If a chip can't go beyond a certain frequency, give it more voltage (thus, more power) and it'll be able to run faster, as long as the heat is dissipated so the chip doesn't burn and die.

 

Intel's Netburst (Pentium 4) went with that idea, they designed the chip specifically to allow high operating frequencies and all it did was vividly demonstrate to the world the concept of diminishing returns. At a certain point, every tiny increase in operating frequency requires monstrous extra amounts of power that quickly turn ridiculous compared to the actual speed gained.

 

I think it is safe to assume chip makers have learned that lesson and are now smart enough to pick that point beyond which power use shoots up while speed returns dwindle and they apply this knowledge to their chips.

 

Efficiently using extra power for more performance would then be done by using multiple chips, each of which running at an efficient clock speed and indeed that's what is beeing done. You can run multiple GPU's in SLI and buy motherboards that allow you to fit multiple CPU's. That way you can still build a 1000+ watt beast that somewhat makes sense versus burning 1000 watts trying to run that single chip a few hundred Mhz faster.

[Daniel644]

7 hours ago, Chevy_Monsenhor said:

My CRT ( 29' Panasonic "something something" that i keep for my older consoles) indicates a 350w usage.

But indeed, newer TVs use way less wattage, my main TV is very power efficient

INDICATES, but have you actually tested the draw?

[ministrsinister]

Power efficiency is becoming more important as computers get smaller, I think it's a matter of solving problems: how do we keep a small and powerful processor in a phone cooled? Vice/versa. I think in a few decades we'll see i5/i7 desktop power in our phones, just an assumption though.

[Daniel644]

13 hours ago, Justin_ said:

I know that to a certain point power efficiency and performance go hand in hand but it seems like the newer gear is sacrificing possible gains in performance by looking to optimise more towards power efficiency. I mean you can run a 6 core 12 thread i7 system (6850K) with a NVIDIA 1070 off only 300 watts, some TVs take more power than that.

 

I guess what I am asking is that if it would be possible to get more performance at the sacrifice of power efficiency shouldn't we be going that way at this point?

it's pretty straight forward, to increase performance you need to fit MORE transistors, to do that, they have to get smaller (die shrink) as they get smaller the PHYSICAL amount of "power" they can handle gets LOWER, you can't just pump crazy voltages into components and expect to get more performance from them because then you get HEAT buildup and glitching (this is why things crash when they get to much power).

 

an example of being "to efficient" would be doing a die shrink but not increasing the number of transitors so you don't get better performance, just the lower power capacity.

[Automobili3XF]

On 07/02/2017 at 4:21 PM, Daniel644 said:

INDICATES, but have you actually tested the draw?

I don't have the test device, are you saying it can use even more?

[Daniel644]

2 minutes ago, Chevy_Monsenhor said:

I don't have the test device, are you saying it can use even more?

i've found my TV to use far less then the rated number on the sticker, like the 40" 1080 LED TV we use as a computer monitor at work is rated at 1.6 amps (which on 110 volts would be 176 watts, but actual draw is well under 100 watts, hell my big 55" 4k only draws a little over a 100 watts with how I have it tuned (backlight levels alter power consumption slightly). and my previous 50" 4k Samsung (sold it to get the 55") only used like 5 or so watts less then this one.

[DildorTheDecent]

On 07/02/2017 at 4:35 AM, Electronics Wizardy said:

what is the titan xp.

 

the gtx 1080 is the small die.

 

also just get anouther one.

You want to have another go?

[Automobili3XF]

2 hours ago, Daniel644 said:

i've found my TV to use far less then the rated number on the sticker, like the 40" 1080 LED TV we use as a computer monitor at work is rated at 1.6 amps (which on 110 volts would be 176 watts, but actual draw is well under 100 watts, hell my big 55" 4k only draws a little over a 100 watts with how I have it tuned (backlight levels alter power consumption slightly). and my previous 50" 4k Samsung (sold it to get the 55") only used like 5 or so watts less then this one.

But i would highly doubt a cathode ray tube television would be as power efficient as today's LED panels...

[Daniel644]

1 minute ago, Chevy_Monsenhor said:

But i would highly doubt a cathode ray tube television would be as power efficient as today's LED panels...

no doubt it's not, heck even the first gen LCD's used way more power then the LED models, just saying it's probably not as bad as the sticker (or stamped plastic) says it is.

[Automobili3XF]

1 minute ago, Daniel644 said:

no doubt it's not, heck even the first gen LCD's used way more power then the LED models, just saying it's probably not as bad as the sticker (or stamped plastic) says it is.

I hope it doesn't! lol

It's actually a quite sofisticated CRT TV, the picture quality can be compared with the latter Trinitrons by Sony, i need to change some caps on it before it brings full quality to the table.

The sound quality is also a big thing on it, it sounds better than any soundbar i've ever heard.

[Princess Luna]

I honestly do not care how much energy my PC uses, just get me the best performance possible, and yes it is I who pays the electricity bill.

 

People say to save energy, to be ecologic... but energy made in power plants is sent to the cities to be consumed... it is in no way stored, whatever power produced that goes throw the entire line without being used is simply wasted so this whole argument to me is bulls.

 

 

[Daniel644]

2 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I honestly do not care how much energy my PC uses, just get me the best performance possible, and yes it is I who pays the electricity bill.

 

People say to save energy, to be ecologic... but energy made in power plants is sent to the cities to be consumed... it is in no way stored, whatever power produced that goes throw the entire line without being used is simply wasted so this whole argument to me is bulls.

 

 

and the demand on the grid by the people determines at what level the plant is operated for the highest efficiency, it's not like plants are running 100% non-stop, they throttle like you do a car engine to only produce the power needed to reduce how much is wasted.

 

but thats beside the point, if you want the most performance and say fuck the power bill, get a custom loop water cooling setup and over clock the shit out of the best hardware money can buy. power efficiency isn't what is stopping you from getting more performance out of the hardware, it's the physical limitation of how many electrons can pass though the circuit, which is directly related to the die size. If you want more voltage capacity you have to increase die size due to using older processing nodes, like returning to 16nm over 14nm then have the chip be physically much larger to dissipate the heat and probably some other stuff I don't even know about that you would need to be a chemical or electrical engineer to even comprehend.

 

[Bleedingyamato]

5 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I honestly do not care how much energy my PC uses, just get me the best performance possible, and yes it is I who pays the electricity bill.

 

People say to save energy, to be ecologic... but energy made in power plants is sent to the cities to be consumed... it is in no way stored, whatever power produced that goes throw the entire line without being used is simply wasted so this whole argument to me is bulls.

 

 

Having more energy efficient components is a good thing but I agree that if someone wants or needs high performance they should just get it.  

 

Caring for the environment is a good idea but rather than suggesting sacrificing performance I think the focus should be on cleaner and renewable forms of power generation and perhaps storing energy to help allow for adjusting power generation amounts to avoid generating for more power than is needed so less is wasted. 

[Daniel644]

6 minutes ago, Bleedingyamato said:

Having more energy efficient components is a good thing but I agree that if someone wants or needs high performance they should just get it.  

 

Caring for the environment is a good idea but rather than suggesting sacrificing performance I think the focus should be on cleaner and renewable forms of power generation and perhaps storing energy to help allow for adjusting power generation amounts to avoid generating for more power than is needed so less is wasted. 

this is the whole misconception, just because it uses less power then the previous generation of hardware doesn't mean you are sacrificing potential performance, the newer hardware is physically incapable of taking the levels of power the old chips could AND PERFORM BETTER from the start then the old chips, so the new stuff gets you the MOST PERFORMANCE POSSIBLE (if you OVERCLOCK IT), you can't just say put 12 volts through a 1.5V rated chip, it won't perform better, it will MELT. The reduction in the amount of power a chip can take is NOT some arbitrary efficiency standard they are trying to reach, it's a side effect of how much power you can physically push through transistors that size without burning them up and you get MORE PERFORMANCE by increasing the number of transistors via a die shrink then you do by pushing the maximum voltage you can through the larger transistors, energy efficiency is a SIDE EFFECT of gaining the performance of a Die Shrink.

[Princess Luna]

28 minutes ago, Daniel644 said:

-snip-

 

I know it, they tend to have people decrease the consume so the power plants can produce less power and be more ecologic, however this rule applies mostly to coal plants common on the USA, here in Brazil 90 percent of electricity is generated through hydro plants, and as long as there still is water on the river, it will  be falling on the water fall producing the same amount of clean power therefore it does not matter much save or not.

 

27 minutes ago, Bleedingyamato said:

Having more energy efficient components is a good thing but I agree that if someone wants or needs high performance they should just get it.  

 

Caring for the environment is a good idea but rather than suggesting sacrificing performance I think the focus should be on cleaner and renewable forms of power generation and perhaps storing energy to help allow for adjusting power generation amounts to avoid generating for more power than is needed so less is wasted. 

Oh yes at least Brazil has this on its side it is one of the biggest clean energy producers in the world thanks to the hydro plants across our endless rivers [:

 

Also darn it: feels good tell windows to prioritize high performance on the energy management  
serious though, I have no issue with making energy efficient as long as your performance is not being sacrificed, nobody gives people a hard time for driving gasoline cars, why should they give us a hard time for a PC consuming a some more power than the other electronics at home.

 

[Unrealcpu]

i am dreaming of the day when i have a processor with integrated graphics as powerful as a GTX 1080

 

 

[Bleedingyamato]

2 minutes ago, Daniel644 said:

this is the whole misconception, just because it uses less power then the previous generation of hardware doesn't mean you are sacrificing potential performance, the newer hardware is physically incapable of taking the levels of power the old chips could AND PERFORM BETTER from the start then the old chips, so the new stuff gets you the MOST PERFORMANCE POSSIBLE (if you OVERCLOCK IT), you can't just say put 12 volts through a 1.5V rated chip, it won't perform better, it will MELT. The reduction in the amount of power a chip can take is NOT some arbitrary efficiency standard they are trying to reach, it's a side effect of how much power you can physically push through transistors that size without burning them up and you get MORE PERFORMANCE by increasing the number of transistors via a die shrink then you do by pushing the maximum voltage you can through the larger transistors, energy efficiency is a SIDE EFFECT of gaining the performance of a Die Shrink.

Sorry.  I didn't mean to imply I meant that better power efficiency has to mean lower performance.  

 

I was trying to say like how things work as you said: that better efficiency should (or can be) be a side effect of improved performance rather than a goal that takes priority over performance gains.

 

Basically, improve power efficiency but only so long as it wouldn't affect performance gains.  

[Bleedingyamato]

29 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I know it, they tend to have people decrease the consume so the power plants can produce less power and be more ecologic, however this rule applies mostly to coal plants common on the USA, here in Brazil 90 percent of electricity is generated through hydro plants, and as long as there still is water on the river, it will  be falling on the water fall producing the same amount of clean power therefore it does not matter much save or not.

 

Oh yes at least Brazil has this on its side it is one of the biggest clean energy producers in the world thanks to the hydro plants across our endless rivers [:

 

Also darn it: feels good tell windows to prioritize high performance on the energy management  
serious though, I have no issue with making energy efficient as long as your performance is not being sacrificed, nobody gives people a hard time for driving gasoline cars, why should they give us a hard time for a PC consuming a some more power than the other electronics at home.

 

That's very nice that Brazil is getting most of it's power that way.  

 

Does W10 on a desktop have energy management settings?

 

I never thought to check for that.  ?

 

 

I agree about your last comments.  People shouldn't feel bad for a computer using power relative to its performance.  

 

If I want a 6700K and a GTX 1070 then I'll use them.  ? 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Bleedingyamato