Slashdot Mirror
Will EU Regulations Effectively Ban High-End Video Cards?
New submitter arun84h writes "An update to an energy law, which will apply in the European Union, has the power to limit sale of discrete components deemed 'energy inefficient.' GPU maker AMD is worried this will affect future technology as it becomes available, as well as some current offerings. From TFA: 'According to data NordicHardware has seen from a high level employee at AMD, current graphics cards are unable to meet with these requirements. This includes "GPUs like Cape Verde and Tahiti", that is used in the HD 7700 and HD 7900 series, and can't meet with the new guidelines, the same goes for the older "Caicos" that is used in the HD 6500/6600 and HD 7500/7600 series. Also "Oland" is mentioned, which is a future performance circuit from AMD, that according to rumors will be used in the future HD 8800 series. What worries AMD the most is how this will affect future graphics cards since the changes in Lot 3 will go into effect soon. The changes will of course affect Nvidia as much as it will AMD.' Is this the beginning of the end for high-end GPU sales in the EU?"
The report in question. Each performance category of hardware has a power draw ceiling; in this case, regulators are increasing the minimum bus bandwidth for the highest performance category, bumping all hardware on the market into the next lowest. Unfortunately, no current hardware or planned hardware on the high end will come under the power draw ceiling for that category.
Have the driver that ships with the card be designed to stay under the draw cap so the card is still in regulation, and the manufacturer can just offer the normal drivers on the site for people to download.
Naturally anyone who cares will install the real driver, so the law-breaking is on the part of the consumer, not AMD or Nvidia. Seems like a simple workaround as long as you can say 'it's the consumer breaking the law, not us'
EU won the Nobel peace prize so they can slow down your FPS game framerates
I only read a few bits of the document, but I think there's a loophole. ... ... ... ...
This Regulation shall not apply to any of the following product groups:
(v) game consoles;
Game console means a mains powered standalone device which is designed to provide video game playing as its primary function.
Yes.
The thing is, the actual, public regulations have very little similarity to the fear-mongering (and certainly click-generating) article on nordichardware. You can check it out yourself: here (pdf).
Also, note, that these regulations are about idle power - and that's an area where some real advancements were made - if AMD's claims are to be believed (3 W in idle with ZeroCore Power), their top-end 7970 GPU's idle power draw is about 10% of the maximum allowed.
The claim that GPUs over a certain bandwith will be banned seems to be absolutely fabricated - it's not something that the regulation's wording or intent or whatever would even hint about.
Real life is overrated.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines states the following: Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'.
Nine times out of ten there has been scaremongering about EU regulations, the disastrous consequences haven't occurred. Maybe it's because the regulations weren't as bad in the first place, maybe it's because of the public outbreak, I really don't know... but these sort of issues tend to get fixed. Maybe certain sections are reworded, maybe technology companies are given a special permission to sell their latest models even if they break the limit, acknowledging that it's needed for the technologies to kick off so they can later be optimized (Latest Intel processors require a lot less energy than they used to). Then again... maybe it isn't such an issue even if this does come to effect. I'm not saying "Graphics will never get better than they're now!" but I'm saying that they've been stagnating and the sacrifice that I, as a gamer, might be forced to do wouldn't be that bad.
As for the parent post, the customer who installs a driver wouldn't be breaking the law. This - even if it came to effect - would limit the sales, not criminalize the components.
'Will EU Regulations Effectively Ban High-End Video Cards?'
"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_Law_of_Headlines
Read the actual document people.
This is not policy.
This is not even draft policy.
THIS IS NOT EVEN RESEARCH INTO POLICY.
This is a PRELIMINARY REPORT that looks at potential solutions to rising energy costs and e-waste within the EU by helping people use less power. It merely outlines a variety of means through which this can be achieved in the EU. What is outlined in the shambolic article above is merely one part of this large, well sourced report.
Yet more BS made up by Europhobes.
Firstly it's not something that is even planned for implementation, let alone dated and incoming. If the EU really were to put a limit on the power draw of graphics card to come in 5 years from now which required cards to use 1/2 the power it would hardly matter. There would be a small decrease in the rate graphics improve while they focus on improving efficiency.
Probably my bigger gripe is that it would be simpler, and likely more effective, to tax power use rather than try and legislate what is/isn't allowed in various electronic devices. A generic tax would increase uptake and development of efficient devices and encourage people to be less wasteful while still allowing them to buy some inefficient items (gfx cards if required) and pay accordingly. They're going to tax us anyway so it might as well be focused on discouraging unsustainable behaviour instead of, for example, having an income.
1.1.3. Category D desktop computers and integrated desktop
computers meeting all of the following technical parameters are
exempt from the requirements specified in points 1.1.1 and
1.1.2:
(a) a minimum of six physical cores in the central processing
unit (CPU); and
(b) discrete GPU(s) providing total frame buffer bandwidths
above 320 GB/s; and
(c) a minimum 16GB of system memory; and
(d) a PSU with a rated output power of at least 1000 W.
So the high end cards in high end systems are not banned but exempt. Anyone who is a lawyer care to comment on my interpretation?
If electric consumption is to be reduced, why tax/ban/restrict devices instead of taxing electricity more? Now people building game rigs are going for 300W SLI solutions instead of 200W high-end card solutions. But of course, people need electricity for "real" work, so it should not be taxed as is.
The same kind of lawmaker idiocy has infected car markets, at least here in Finland. New cars are taxed based on their manufacturer-claimed, usually quite unrealistic CO2 pollution values. But it's the fuel that produces CO2, so why not tax fuel (more) instead of cars. Now people with old gas guzzlers don't have the money or the will to upgrade to a newer, cleaner equivalent.
All this regulatory nonsense is just making the system more complex for no real reason while providing unnecessary loopholes.
I think this is deliberate counter propaganda that shows up more often when there is some big scandal about business doing something stupid that screws a lot of people. In this case I guess it is the compounding pharmacy that caused the meningitis epidemic. The corrupt criminal organization calling itself the "International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists" successfully lobbied Congress to defeat attempts to regulate their industry. Now there are over 200 meningitis cases and 15 deaths, and the number of exposed patients may be higher because more drugs were tainted.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444657804578052972230404046.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
If you want to be paranoid about something, worry about corrupt politically connected businesses risking your life for profit. It actually happens. Not that it often ends up on Slashdot, as opposed to right wing scare tactics.
Why is Snark Required?
Regulating idle power draw would actually be good, and a lot more clever than regulating the power ceiling. Saying that desktop computers can't use more than 10W in idle, and no component sold discretely can use more than 5W idle would make a huge difference. In reality, those of us running these 300W graphics cards only run them for a fraction of the day, and if they were 150W instead would make much difference, whereas a difference between 20W and 10W for the idle power would make a bigger difference over a week or a year.
If AMD can't make them fit in the limits, where does that put NVidia? Hate to say it, but for at least the last 3 generations I've studied, NVidia offers the highest performance cards, but ALL of their cards have a performance disadvantage when you look at performance per watt.
I don't read AC A human right
Yes, that seems to be misreported.
The only reference to bandwidth I could find is in the following:
1.1.3. Category D desktop computers and integrated desktop
computers meeting all of the following technical parameters are
exempt from the requirements specified in points 1.1.1 and
1.1.2:
(a) a minimum of six physical cores in the central processing
unit (CPU); and
(b) discrete GPU(s) providing total frame buffer bandwidths
above 320 GB/s; and
(c) a minimum 16GB of system memory; and
(d) a PSU with a rated output power of at least 1000 W.
In short, it is an exemption for very high end computers from certain power requirements, not a ban. Nordic Hardware's Jacob Hugosson has delivered a very bad article there.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Nothing. A lot of things are exempt. And this isn't law at all, and certainly not law in all EU countries yet (that takes years to happen).
And, at the end of the day, RoHS regulations, CE testing / FCC certification (only one of which is necessary for any one country but BOTH of which are passed for almost every device, even if that means limiting the device in a way not required by local law!), etc. put a MILLION times more constraints and restrictions on things that you have in your PC and you haven't once moaned about that. Because, by and large, you won't notice and won't care. I bet your PC has a "spread spectrum" option in the BIOS and, if it doesn't, it's because it's on by default.
In the same way that nobody cares about energy ratings on their fridge or freezer (I don't even know what mine is), nobody would care about a voluntary system. So, over time, the ratings move to mean that any fridge has to have a basic minimum criteria in order to work and be sold as a fridge. As a result, almost all the fridges in shops nowadays are A-rated because people DIDN'T care (like you don't care about the reason behind the proposed legislation, you just want to run your unnecessarily-powerful-when-idle graphics card), so they made the manufacturer's care instead.
You didn't complain about your car needing to have electronic engine management to pass EU emissions tests. That's basically the whole point of catalytic convertors and ECU's in cars - to allow you to pass the emissions tests. They actually severely limit the car's capabilities for the sake of an environmental concern that only affects things when scaled up by millions of units. Yet every year the tests get more stringent.
What's different? Because it touches your PC? PC's are somehow magically exempt from regulation because you're a geek? I'm sorry to tell you that they aren't. They are already the subject of lots of changes that were enforced upon them by both EU and US laws (and where most manufacturers target the lowest common denominator, losing you even more) and so cost more than they theoretically need to, perform less than they theoretically could and aren't allowed to be sold if they don't.
P.S. your graphics card doesn't need to consume 200W on idle. It really doesn't. And, nowadays, that's the equivalent of a houseful of light bulbs. You were just the next highest-energy user on the list of home products that doesn't involve heating (a necessary expense if you don't want millions to die from the cold / undercooked food).
This regulation only applies to computers not graphics cards. Folks who assemble their gaming rig themselves can continue to do so.
Looking at it, it says that the computer has to meet ALL of the requirements.
My computer is 'high performance'(or at least was), but it's only a quad core and doesn't have a kilowatt PSU.
Which would be bad while tossing in a hexacore CPU and a kilowatt PSU isn't that hard, it's generally not necessary even with the hottest graphics card on the market today. A lightly loaded kw psu will waste more than a smaller, moderately loaded but well designed supply. A 750W power supply that isn't lying about it's ratings and a quadcore works well for games.
Also, the article was complaining that no cards planned today have more than 320 GB/s of frame buffer bandwidth, so therefore outside of two cards/SLI you might not be able to meet that exemption.
Still, I imagine that for the component market it won't be as big of a deal - you could always be putting the card into such a system.
Reading more on the regulations, it looks like such a video card would be considered an 'adder', thus allowing more power to be consumed. But how that would work is beyond me.
I don't read AC A human right
This came up on Overclock.net on the 12th, which spread into a large debate and was looked into by a member rather well. This is what he found:
"It's the journalist who is trolling. It's baseless nonsense with a sensationlist title. And he caught most of you hook line and sinker.
Just a few things you could notice if you take a moment to think it through. ..." with no explicit quote. Who said that? Why would they be worried about a report that hasn't resulted in any actual proposal.
All directives, proposals, studies and reports of EU law are publically available. All data must be openly published. So he would be able to link to any proposals.
Therefore "NordicHardware has seen exclusive information about a new energy law that will apply within the EU" is bullcrap.
Only link is to a report from 2007 which looks at possible means of reducing CO2 emissions.
That "buffer bandwidth" table in the middle of the NordicHardware article is based on data collected in 2006.
Report was part of an ongoing study but it hasn't been active since 2008.
The EU directive that the report relates to was recast in 2009, so it's not even valid reference material.
New directive took until December 2011 before publishing any report. You can read it here http://www.meerp.eu/documents.htm
"AMD is worried
Contrary to "Graphics card energy consumption has been rising steadily over the last couple of years" GPUs are actually getting more efficient.
"We definitely feel that restrictions that lead to more efficient hardware is a good thing, but it needs to be done properly with the affected companies being involved in the discussion." Journalist obviously doesn't realise that 110 stakeholders (affected companies) were present at the Meerp stakeholder meeting of 9 September 2011. Journalist also doesn't realise that AMD is listed as a stakeholder since at least 11 July 2011.
"According to a report published in August this year the current roadmaps [from AMD and Nvidia] does not support the new requirements..." If it was published, then why not link to it?"
This was provided by member WiSK on Overclock.net... citing my source since I didn't do the research. Don't worry about this sensationalism...
I lack central heating, you insensitive clods!
I factor my computer usage into my heating and power bill.
I get a lot more out of my buck by having a few computers on 24/7 instead of using electrical heating which is my only other option.
The winter is coming, and Norway gets cold, really cold. So I could choose between a heating oven, which doubles as a space eater in a small apartment. Or I could use my computers, and look for aliens via SETI@home while keeping my feet warm by the airstream from my CUDA-heated GPUs
Measure by joules/floating-point operation, and I bet video cards win hands-down every time over any other kind of computing unit. If you want to perform certain types of calculations (like, I dunno, graphics), a GPU is the most efficient way to do it. Now that's not to say that some GPUs aren't much more efficient that other per op. Especially when you consider the power they use while not cranking out a top-end game, I'm sure the field opens up even more. But measuring a card by total draw is dumb.
Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!