Did you check the video card used in the test you linked to?Originally Posted by Hornet331
Did you check the video card used in the test you linked to?
its a 2900XT... hows that relevant anyways... in every system they used the same graphics card, so they put the same load on every systrem, regardless if it is a phenom system or a C2Q system.
The only difference is mobo/ram.
Last edited by Hornet331; 09-12-2008 at 04:25 PM.
Because as you guys have thought me, that video card will bottleneck the cpu fast. It isn't possible to produce sky high frames with that card.
If you buy a very fast video card and also buys a very fast processor that will not bottleneck the video card. You will get insane frame rates and that will draw much more power but all those frames can't be noticed by the user.
sry if i pull mod anger at me with that post, but seriously....
with that post you have made yourself look like a complet moron, more fps doesn't mean the graphic cards consume more power... try running furmark (without driver gimping on ati cards) and then HL1, then report back and tell me what test consumed more power and the fps.
To betake it, furmark will produce a higher load on your gpu then HL1 and will give you lower fps then HL1.
The power consumption on a card doesn't depend on waht fps it shows, it depends on waht function units on the graphics card are utilized and how hard they are stressed.
Furmark, just like Prime95 is desigend to put maximum load on a gpu, it will produce lower fps then you will find in games but the power usage of the card will be higher then in any game you will play, maybe crysis and the futuremark test can come close to this.
Last edited by Hornet331; 09-12-2008 at 04:47 PM.
Do you mean that a video card that calculates 200 frames for one second will use same power as one that calculates 400 frames?
It depends on the overall load on the card, at 640x480 400 FPS could only stress the card to 50% if it is CPU limited, while 1920x1200 at 50 FPS would generate 95% stress on the card... the 50 FPS will consume more energy.
Which reminds me ... I have power traces recorded for low res Phenom vs QX9650 ... in everything but games, the QX9650 is about 30-40% lower power, but when running games they are about even to slightly lower power for the Phenom -- reason -- the Phenom is throttling the GPU to be less taxed, and GPUs are the major power chewers in today's gaming rigs.
One hundred years from now It won't matter
What kind of car I drove What kind of house I lived in
How much money I had in the bank Nor what my cloths looked like.... But The world may be a little better Because, I was important In the life of a child.
-- from "Within My Power" by Forest Witcraft
This is your second good point of the thread, the 'pleasure' index of a good game is driven mostly by the GPU as that is the component responsible for the visual acuity, a choice of CPU is only needed to be good enough in order support a min FPS that is visual acceptable.
However, if your CPU is the min determinant, why spend excess money on an uber graphics card?
My general philosophy is a good GPU that will provide the quality I need, and the fastest CPU I can get, I want the FPS limiter to be my GPU ... why? Well, for the present time, I use the CPU for many other things other than gaming, and faster is nicer for those apps.... it is interesting that the industry is slowly changing and the paradigm of desktop personal computing is beginning to shift.
One hundred years from now It won't matter
What kind of car I drove What kind of house I lived in
How much money I had in the bank Nor what my cloths looked like.... But The world may be a little better Because, I was important In the life of a child.
-- from "Within My Power" by Forest Witcraft
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks