Vega 56 Electricity Cost of Ownership vs. GTX 1070

[Nagorak]

no one runs their card in fashion that it can't hit it's max stable stock clock 100% of the time do they? If you couldn't, you have a cooling problem you need to resolve asap.

It's an interesting thought though. Whats the exhaust temp coming out of these cards? And is really going to be a noticeable difference from it's competitors?

Well, all Pascal cards basically throttle slightly as they heat up. For example, my 1080 does 2050 to start, but once it gets up to the 70s C it is only running at 2025. Not a huge difference, and not worth cranking up the fan speed over, but it does technically throttle a little bit.

 

[Nagorak]

Under those conditions, any high end card will output a lot of heat.....Even a GTX1080TI is a card rated at 250 watts TDP if it isn't overclocked, the vast majority of the power being fed into the card's GPU and ram switching their transistors on and off only comes out one way.......Yup, Heat.


I'd look at a GTX 1070 ( 145 watts TDP ) or at most a GTX1080 (180 watts TDP ), as the limit under a hot climate while still resorting to standard air cooling, and hoping to keep the system quiet even in those hot days.

1080 is actually the most power efficient Pascal card, in terms of performance per watt (well at low res the 1050 Ti edges it out). A 1070 uses less power, but also produces less frames. 1080 Ti is a little less efficient. So, anyway, if you want the absolute best performance for a given heat output the 1080 is the way to go.

Of course, once you increase the power limit the efficiency also drops, so ideally you shouldn't do that if you're really concerned about heat/power use. Personally, I try to hit a given performance level, so if a game is struggling I'll pump it up, while if it's a five year old game I'll set power limit to -50% and make sure vsync is on so there's no wasted frames being produced.

 

[shadow001]

1080 is actually the most power efficient Pascal card, in terms of performance per watt (well at low res the 1050 Ti edges it out). A 1070 uses less power, but also produces less frames. 1080 Ti is a little less efficient. So, anyway, if you want the absolute best performance for a given heat output the 1080 is the way to go.

Of course, once you increase the power limit the efficiency also drops, so ideally you shouldn't do that if you're really concerned about heat/power use. Personally, I try to hit a given performance level, so if a game is struggling I'll pump it up, while if it's a five year old game I'll set power limit to -50% and make sure vsync is on so there's no wasted frames being produced.

No doubt, GTX 1080 gets it's well deserved credit as being extremely power efficient for the performance delivered in current games......


That said, we still have yet to see Vega's full potential since it's still on it's release drivers, with features still disabled like DSRV ( AKA tiling), still disabled and that alone can add some extra kick even in current games......Seeing it operate to it's full potential may require 6+ months of driver releases, at which point no one cares anymore since we'll all be drooling on the next shiny GPU hardware.

 

[noko]

it was ballpark

I've only worked in HVAC since 1978
a typical 3.5 ton A/C draws 21 amps at 240 volts here on a 110f day or 5040 watts the more load from your computer you put on it the longer it runs in a cycle


and I live in Phoenix I have had to run my cooler on Christmas day

........

as for Vega
two fury x's warms my office so it is the hottest room in the house I sure don't want two hotter Vega's

, well I live in Florida and I rather have Phoenix dry heat instead of the swamp smelting sticky heat here. It can be 80F and you will be sweating bullets. Add bugs on top of it and I wonder why in the hell I moved here. Anyways my EVGA 1080 Ti 250w plus an additional 10% in precision makes this card 275w, if I jack it up to 120% setting -> 300w. More then a 56 equal to an air cooled 64 but less than a WC 64. I just use a room A/C unit which works great.

 

[demo]

Honestly, at the rate some upgrade their hardware for the next shiny thing that has maybe 10% improvement, be it a motherboard upgrade and CPU generation for socket 1151 ( Looking at you Demo but others as well... ) , where even if they sell their "old" gear, they're still out of pocket by quite a bit, making a big deal of Vega's extra power consumption from a financial burden perspective is both strange and funny at the same time...

Don't know what you're on about. I've had my CPU for 4 years and it's still much faster than your 3GHz Ivy chips for gaming, for 1/4 of the cost. I think I did well for a gaming rig. For a work station, sure I think you did ok, and said that 4 years ago too.

 

[shadow001]

Don't know what you're on about. I've had my CPU for 4 years and it's still much faster than your 3GHz Ivy chips for gaming, for 1/4 of the cost. I think I did well for a gaming rig. For a work station, sure I think you did ok, and said that 4 years ago too.

My bad then, and perhaps read your post wrong, but you seemed pretty excited about the upcoming 8700X series and it having a ~10% increase in IPC in single threaded loads over the 7700x, but the main increase is in multi threading, and potentially higher operating overclocks than 7700X allows.


I'm just finally happy that it's at least a 6 core / 12 thread CPU, so with these being Intel's highest sellers for desktops in sheer quantity terms, game developers can finally go beyond 4 cores we've been stuck with for far too long.

 

[demo]

I don't have a 7700k, but rather a have a 4770k, so 8700k should be a nice bump in IPC, clocks, and 2 extra cores.

I've owned 6 core chips in the past but weren't any better for gaming at the time.

 

[Higgy10]

guys, dont care about your choices of cpu in the VEGA 56 COST OF ELECTRICITY thread. Theres already threads in the general section for threadripper, ryzen, and new intel cpu's.

 

[demo]

I don't know why he called me out in this thread either. Sorry I fell for the bait..