Categories:

Graphics

02:41 - Tuesday 21 August 2007 by Patrick Schmid
Source: THG – Keywords: energy, efficient, computing
Categories: Hardware

Graphics

Ad

Integrated Vs. Discrete Graphics

As already mentioned, virtually all graphics cards are power hogs. The difference between integrated graphics and even a low-end graphics card is so significant that it exceeds the difference between an average processor and a very-efficient model. Or in other words, the power savings in idle mode by running an efficient processor are completely negated as you plug in a discrete graphics card!

Let’s look at the chart above as an example. ECS’s G33T-M2 MicroATX motherboard required 53-W idle power in our last Intel MicroATX motherboard roundup with a Pentium Dual Core E2160 processor, which is basically a Core 2 Duo with only 1 MB L2 cache. However, utilizing a GeForce 8600 GTS graphics card would increase the idle power requirement by 31 W to 84 W. A GeForce 8800 GTS, which has more shaders and higher clock speeds, even raises the power requirement to 122 W, which resembles a doubling of the initial power draw. And that’s not all: As you switch to 3D mode to play a game, the power requirement will further increase by another 60 W, as you can see in the following chart.

Single Graphics Cards

These are the power requirement measurements we took from various graphics cards. While we don’t really have a problem with maximum power requirements of up to 200 W for Radeon HD 2900XT and GeForce 8800 Ultra cards (you want fast and beautiful graphics), we can only shake our heads looking at the idle power requirement numbers. We measured these under Windows when the graphics cards weren’t actually displaying anything except drawing the Windows desktop. A GeForce 7300 GT or ATI’s Radeon X1300 will start at approximately 20 W idle power, which still is quite a bit, and mainstream graphics cards typically require 30-40 W idle power. Knowing this, using a discrete graphics card does not make for a power-efficient computer, because 20-90 W idle power is as much as an entire PC with integrated graphics requires.

I don’t mind the graphics card requiring 150 W if I’m in the middle of a 3D game or a demanding 3D application. But idle power requirements of a powerful 3D graphics card exceeding the power draw of an entire office system for a business PC is totally unacceptable.


Ad
Talkback
mahonj 22/08/2007 04:15
Hide
-0+
mahonj

Companies should be compelled to post the energy usage of their systems as follows:
Idle (xp),
Idle (Vista+Aeroglass),
Working (some specified benchmark)
Including the monitor.

It is too complex for most people to work it out component by component - it has to be at system level, and it has to be mandatory, and it has to specify the OS, or a specified mix of idle / loaded.
[ To generate a single number ]

maclauk 24/08/2007 10:01
Hide
-0+
maclauk

I've been following the articles here on value and low power systems. I have a current media server running on an old Athlon XP box. It works fine for streaming but will not cope with trans-coding when I get a PS3 as a media client.

Based on value and idle power (plus buying from the little guy) I had decided to build a new server round an AMD BE-2350 processor and 690 chipset.

However yesterday I read an interview with the top Linux guy who stated that Intel support for Linux was better than everyone else. A quick check on Intel's website showed drivers for the G965 chipset, but AMD's showed little support for Linux at all.

My current media server is MCE2005 but I am coming to the conclusion that Linux may offer a more flexible server platform. With that in mind the balance tips towards the Intel setup.

Google Ads
Ad