Graphics State of the Union

Tom's Hardware has put out a nice recap of where computer graphics have been and where they are headed in the near future. While there are some definite shiny toys being displayed in new product releases and on the test beds, the overall problem of power consumption continues to rear its ugly head demanding attention. From the article: "while all of these things are interesting, exciting and new, the problem remains the same. Getting smaller and faster only makes sense if the design also is less demanding on the wall socket and cooling system. We all want different things when it comes to advancements, but first and foremost we need better power management. The bottom line is simple: graphics makers must take a step back from feature brainstorming until the power issue is resolved."

Comments

Re:Wrong.

[The Living Fractal]

Well, TBH the companies are beginning to focus on this sector (mobile).

A lot of the newer mobile GPU (like GeForce Go) are capable of greatly reducing their overall consumption when their total demand is low. They ramp up when needed.

Of course this doesn't address the fact that, when needed, and when ramped up, they consume a lot of power. To which I say, yes, we need more power efficient cards.

This is unique to the mobile sector for now, but of course will eventually find its way into the entire realm of graphics computing.

Unless of course we find a way to produce power more cheaply and abundantly than with hydrocarbons. In which case the only thing we'll care about then is cooling ;) But I suspect that could be a long ways off.

TLF

Misleading title and summary

[podperson]

"Tom's Hardware has put out a nice recap of where computer graphics have been and where they are headed in the near future."

No. It's an article more-or-less solely devoted to discussing the issue of power consumption in new and upcoming graphics cards. It doesn't describe the state of the union or even have much to say about any shiny new toys beyond their likely impact on power consumption.

It's an interesting article, but not the article that goes with its title nor the Slashdot summary.

Re:Wrong.

[evilviper]

Because right now the only thing I hear from people building or buying new computers about the power requirements is "make sure you get a PFC PSU and get lots of watts", not "make sure you get a low-power GPU".

No, you'll never hear "low-power GPU". You will, however, heard "fanless videocard" ALL THE TIME, and it's effectively a code for the same idea.

Regular people understand the issues far more than geeks give them credit for.

Re:Wrong.

[asuffield]

Do the math, it's not actually costing a person much more per month to go from 600 to a 1000 watt PSU

A 1000 watt PSU does not use 10/6 times as much power as a 600 watt PSU. There are two reasons for this:

• The PSU only draws power proprotional to the load on it. The rating is the maximum draw, not the minimum. Two PSUs of equal efficiency but different ratings, supplying the same load, should draw the same amount of power.
• The ratings are lies anyway. The manufacturers add up the numbers in ways that make NO SENSE AT ALL in order to get the largest numbers they can. They do this because it sells PSUs.
• The single figure rating on a PSU tells you nothing at all about its capacity, efficiency, power drain, or suitability for your purpose. You need the per-rail ratings (usually printed on a sticker on the PSU) to get useful information, it's about a dozen numbers. This would be true even if the single figure rating was not a lie.

Re:Wrong.

[jandrese]

It's actually more complex than that too. If you're running a 600W PSU near its limit, there's a good chance you could save a fair bit of energy by upgrading to the 1000W PSU, just because the efficency of the PSU tends to go down as you get closer to its maximum load. Ultimately, the efficency is what you're concerned about, not how many watts aggregate it can put out across all of the rails.

Re:Power just became more of an issue.

[HolyCause]

There's always the option of changing 'index.html' to 'print.html' on the URL.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/21/the_graphic s_state_of_the_union/print.html

Removes most of the ads, and puts the article on one page.