Graphics card power usage anomaly

Completely different architecture and the RAM is running at one third the speed. Simples.

Surely the GPU uses way more than the RAM?

And since it's the same nm process, the individual transistors must use the same amount of power each. And there are twice as many of them.

Blow it out your ass, pasty face!

ore

the

m.

Wow! I realize some here don't have much patience with people who think th ey know things they don't, but that seems a bit over the top!

I agree that Commander Kinky seems to be a bit rude. He asks a question an d when someone replies he seems a bit less than appreciative.

But it's not like he insulted anyone or impugned their integrity. What hap pened to a response in kind?

I was not less than appreciative, I asked for further details. If you think the above is rude, you need to stop being such a snowflake.

Hey asshole!! Don't f*ck about with the group headers!

more

d the

se

hem.

they know things they don't, but that seems a bit over the top!

and when someone replies he seems a bit less than appreciative.

appened to a response in kind?

he's a time wasting troll.

Not to mention being a complete NIMROD

That will depend on the actual usage at the time. In a lot of modern designs, whole blocks are designed to clock-stop themselves (partially or completely) if they aren't active. This cuts their power usage down a great deal.

That's a non sequitur, I believe... your mental model of how transistors use power is a bit too simple.

Modern CMOS gates draw a small amount of "static" power when they're not changing state (basically, a leakage current), and a great deal more power when they're changing from 0 to 1 or 1 to 0. The power usage thus depends both on the process (smaller-nm processes tend to have higher leakage currents _unless_ you drop the voltage) and on the amount of activity.

So, if you throw more transistors into a device, but run them slower (or don't clock more of them on average than you did in a smaller device) you can end up with less dynamic power usage.

Slowing the RAM speed down by 3:1 is going to result in a big decrease in power usage.

If you use the same-nanometer process size, but run it at a lower voltage, you reduce the static (leakage) power usage.

If you have a different DRAM which can hold charge in its cells longer, you can run it at a slower refresh rate, and save power that way.

te:

's more

ird the

use

them.

k they know things they don't, but that seems a bit over the top!

n and when someone replies he seems a bit less than appreciative.

happened to a response in kind?

Yeah I guess you are right about that. What is he talking about my munging the "group headers"??? Is he being delusional?

He's being a troll.

NT

He is a well known nymshifting troll on UK groups. Check out eg uk.d-i-y

He is deliberately wasting peoples time here.

Why "surely"?

For the same architecture, sure. They aren't so all bets are off.

Also with the memory width: 4096 bits vs. 384 bits.

However I was comparing maximum power usage and maximum computational speed.

I see, thanks for the detailed answer.

I was thinking of the colossal heatsink attached to it. But then I suppose the RAM does actually contact that same heatsink. Although on a card I just dismantled, the RAM chips are tiny compared to the GPU, I very much doubt half the power could come from those tiny things.

No, I wanted to know the answer. Why can't you comprehend that?

Because you deleted the crosspost. The discussion is taking place between people in more than one group, and you deliberately cut half of those people out.

more

the

se the RAM does actually contact that same heatsink. Although on a card I just dismantled, the RAM chips are tiny compared to the GPU, I very much do ubt half the power could come from those tiny things.

For the nano's HBM (High Bandwidth Memory), it's almost certainly stacked d ie. In that case, the GPU and memories are in the same package, same heats ink.