Graphics card power usage anomaly...

  • Thread starter Commander Kinsey
  • Start date
C

Commander Kinsey

Guest
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398
 
Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398

Completely different architecture and the RAM is running at one third the
speed. Simples.
 
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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.
 
On 8/7/2020 11:01 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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!
 
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-4, Jeff Hickling wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:01 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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!

Wow! I realize some here don\'t have much patience with people who think they 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 and when someone replies he seems a bit less than appreciative.

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

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 00:53:35 +0100, Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-4, Jeff Hickling wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:01 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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!

Wow! I realize some here don\'t have much patience with people who think they 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 and when someone replies he seems a bit less than appreciative.

But it\'s not like he insulted anyone or impugned their integrity. What happened 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.
 
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 00:53:35 +0100, Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-4, Jeff Hickling wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:01 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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!

Wow! I realize some here don\'t have much patience with people who think they 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 and when someone replies he seems a bit less than appreciative.

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

Hey asshole!! Don\'t fuck about with the group headers!
 
On Saturday, 8 August 2020 00:53:39 UTC+1, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-4, Jeff Hickling wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:01 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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!

Wow! I realize some here don\'t have much patience with people who think they 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 and when someone replies he seems a bit less than appreciative.

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

he\'s a time wasting troll.
 
On 8/08/2020 8:20 am, Tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 8 August 2020 00:53:39 UTC+1, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-4, Jeff Hickling wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:01 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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!

Wow! I realize some here don\'t have much patience with people who think they 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 and when someone replies he seems a bit less than appreciative.

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

he\'s a time wasting troll.
Not to mention being a complete NIMROD
 
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 8:20:49 PM UTC-4, Tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 8 August 2020 00:53:39 UTC+1, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-4, Jeff Hickling wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:01 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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!

Wow! I realize some here don\'t have much patience with people who think they 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 and when someone replies he seems a bit less than appreciative.

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

he\'s a time wasting troll.

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

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
In article <op.0ozq0koqwdg98l@glass>,
Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:

>Surely the GPU uses way more than the RAM?

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.

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.

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.
 
On Saturday, 8 August 2020 02:52:07 UTC+1, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 8:20:49 PM UTC-4, Tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 8 August 2020 00:53:39 UTC+1, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-4, Jeff Hickling wrote:

Blow it out your ass, pasty face!

Wow! I realize some here don\'t have much patience with people who think they 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 and when someone replies he seems a bit less than appreciative.

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

he\'s a time wasting troll.

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
 
On 08/08/2020 00:53, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-4, Jeff Hickling wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:01 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com
wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X
when it\'s more powerful with more transistors but the same nm
process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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!

Wow! I realize some here don\'t have much patience with people who
think they 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 and when someone replies he seems a bit less than
appreciative.

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

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

He is deliberately wasting peoples time here.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 7:08:07 PM UTC-7, Dave Platt wrote:
In article <op.0ozq0koqwdg98l@glass>,
Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:

Surely the GPU uses way more than the RAM?

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.

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.

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.

Also with the memory width: 4096 bits vs. 384 bits.
 
Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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

Surely the GPU uses way more than the RAM?

Why \"surely\"?

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.

For the same architecture, sure. They aren\'t so all bets are off.
 
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 02:09:11 +0100, Dave Platt <dplatt@coop.radagast.org> wrote:

In article <op.0ozq0koqwdg98l@glass>,
Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:

Surely the GPU uses way more than the RAM?

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.

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

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.

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.

I see, thanks for the detailed answer.
 
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 17:19:41 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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

Surely the GPU uses way more than the RAM?

Why \"surely\"?

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.

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.

For the same architecture, sure. They aren\'t so all bets are off.
 
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 09:04:41 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/08/2020 00:53, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-4, Jeff Hickling wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:01 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com
wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X
when it\'s more powerful with more transistors but the same nm
process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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!

Wow! I realize some here don\'t have much patience with people who
think they 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 and when someone replies he seems a bit less than
appreciative.

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

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

He is deliberately wasting peoples time here.

No, I wanted to know the answer. Why can\'t you comprehend that?
 
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 02:52:03 +0100, Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 8:20:49 PM UTC-4, Tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 8 August 2020 00:53:39 UTC+1, Ricketty C wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 7:02:26 PM UTC-4, Jeff Hickling wrote:
On 8/7/2020 11:01 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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!

Wow! I realize some here don\'t have much patience with people who think they 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 and when someone replies he seems a bit less than appreciative.

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

he\'s a time wasting troll.

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

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.
 
On Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 10:33:18 AM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 17:19:41 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:31:09 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:
How can the R9 Nano use less electricity than the R9 280X when it\'s more
powerful with more transistors but the same nm process?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-nano.c2735
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-r9-280x.c2398


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

Surely the GPU uses way more than the RAM?

Why \"surely\"?

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.

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.

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

For the nano\'s HBM (High Bandwidth Memory), it\'s almost certainly stacked die. In that case, the GPU and memories are in the same package, same heatsink.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top