Dual/Quad Graphics Setup

So, what about dual- and quad-graphics setups? If a single graphics card already wastes between 20 and up to 90 W, what’s the power requirement of a double or quad graphics solution like? As expected, the power requirements sometimes effectively are doubled by installing two graphics cards. The least power requirement you should expect are roughly 45 W idle power for two Radeon X1600 Pro PCI Express cards (95 W max). However, using a more-powerful single graphics card easily provides the better performance-per-Watt ratio in such a case. If you decide to go with two high-end graphics cards such as two GeForce 8800 GTS models or two Radeon HD 2900XT cards, expect them to consume at least 150 W when displaying the Windows desktop interface! Maximum power requirements of 260 W and up for the GeForce 8 cards and as much as 390 W for the Radeon HD 2900 XT Crossfire setup require a solid power supply. Remember, we’re talking about power requirements for the 3D graphics cards - not for the entire system!
Although we cannot possibly cover all graphics cards that are available, the chart above offers a pretty extensive list of graphics options that you can compare to single graphics cards. In most cases, a single high-end graphics solution will have rather modest power requirements when compared to two upper-mainstream cards in Crossfire or SLI dual graphics mode. However, performance might differ quite a bit depending on what games or applications you want to run. Yet it’s very important to repeat the fact that high graphics performance cannot go hand in hand with high overall system power efficiency. Clearly, the graphics chipmakers still have a lot of work to do to upgrade their products to reduce the power requirements when there is absolutely no reason to waste energy.
- Previous page Graphics
- Next page Power Supply
- Overclocking Marathon Day 2 - A Home Brew
- System Builder Marathon (Overclocking) Day 1
- HP TouchSmart IQ770 Media PC Reviewed
- Computex 2007 Summary
- Computex 2007: Storage, 4+ GHz Quad Cores and Systems
- Dell's XPS 710 H2C Hot and Cool
- Vista: Benchmarking or Benchmarketing?
- Overindulge Yourself with QX6800
- The Server Primer, Part 2
- Taming the Wild Supercomputer
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 ]
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.