Energy Efficient Graphics Processors?

An anonymous reader asks: "The trends for graphics hardware these days seems to be to draw more power and create more heat to get faster processors and push more polygons. Yet in the CPU arena chips like the Via C3 and Epia, Transmeta Crusoe and Astro, Intel Pentium M, and IBM/Motorola PowerPC (G3-5) seem to favor more power per megahertz and cooler runnings without significant performance loss. Is this just because of the nature of the CPU versus GPU? I understand a GPU die is almost entirely reserved for calculation while the CPU is only 20% of so for calculation. Or are the graphics chip makers merely refusing to innovate and take routes that would reign in out of control energy consumption because of the race for more polygons? What kind of architectural changes could be implemented to alleviate graphics card power gluttony?"

Comments

Re:G5?

[bhima]

The IBM PPC 970fx draws 24.5 Watts at 2 GHz.

The Opteron "HE" is classed at 55 watts (I suppose that is at 2.0 GHz or so)

The P4 extremely expensive edition dissipates 103 watts at 3.4 GHz.

So in comparison to other desktop processors it does fairly well. Now there are efficient G4 class processors coming from Motorola the MPC7447 is said to dissipate 10 watts at 1 GHz.

I am not comparing any of these processors GHz to GHz because we all know that is not an accurate method of comparison. But I think it wrong to classify the MPC7447 as a desktop processor or even a processor for a desktop replacement type laptop. But then again maybe it's because after using OS X on a G5 I'll never take Motorola seriously (for the desktop) again. That's not saying Motorola is a bad company or their chips are bad! I develop almost exclusively on them at work, but then again I am an embedded developer.