There is no "work best"...
My solution :
Make cards with max. boost limited to lower frequency (1.5 - 2GHz) and voltage of 0.8-0.85V, with additional V/F options being available through "OC" mode that can be enabled via driver_option/AIB_program/3rd-party_OCtool. Maybe display appropriate warning about massive implications (for longevity/thermal/noise/long-term-performance/etc.), BEFORE using those higher rated modes (or just do a "Uber" vBIOS switch on PCB ?).
BTW : ALL NV Boost 3.0 cards are capable of this (ie. since Pascal), but NV simply likes to "push things to 11", because... reasons.
Proof?
ALL GPUs mentioned contain stable, and manufacturer tested lower frequencies/voltage combinations a particular card can use. It's in the table, and you can "lock" GPU to any of them via Afterburner (for example).
edit/aside: After a bit, it came to my mind that you might have thought I was suggesting more power. I don't, you'll understand after you read my post below. Personally, a lot of the time I run my 3080 at 0.900V and 1800MHz with no boost. During the most demanding scenes I get crashes if the clock is set much past 1850MHz at this power saving but probably not completely optimal 0.900V (this state made possible with Asus's GPU Tweak II and its "Always 3D clocks" button). If Gigabyte shipped my card as I run it currently, it might last a year or a bit more of heavy use, but then you'd
Since Intel's introduction of turbo boost, even chips of the same types have had different VIDs. I believe GPUs are the same. If not, they need to be (and so they will) catch up ---they take so much more power than CPUs it's a must. First a bit of background - for those who don't already know, you may need to look up "CPU VID" for more in depth knowledge than what I describe next (which is just the minimum required knowledge to understand what I'm describing in the last part of this post). VIDs are voltages in a table that a CPU gives to motherboards so they send the the right voltages at all the operating frequencies it's capable of running (frequencies it's designed to run, so all base clock frequencies and turbo frequencies get the right voltages. Capable of reaching with overclocking is not covered).
I'm talking about a small modification to this standard, nothing else, which is the already present mode of operation. All that needs to be done is to, starting at the beginning of operation (day 0) with a voltage set just above the absolutely lowest required voltage for stability stable voltage (which is already determined by manufacturers so they can set the VIDs the way they do currently (too high). From that day forward, on a monthly basis using a formula with well known and defined variables, very small voltage increases would be applied to all the voltages in the table to ensure reliable operation is maintained over the product's service life. How much lower could voltages be set at the beginning? Well, like you said, all chips are different. An extreme example for you: my old 2500K had a VID of 1.416V turbo boost of 3700MHz. With that voltage it's Prime95 small FFT stable indefinitely at 4800MHz! With just 1.25V it's prime stable at 4300MHz! I think it needs 1.10V for 3700MHz. That's 0.3V! I don't think most 2nd gen Intel chips have a 0.3V discrepancy, but I bet new it's 0.2V, and after a decade or continual heavy use at high temps, definitely less than 0.1V. Conversely, my 9600K's a VID of 1.16V is only 0.07V above what's needed. Maybe degradation is slower with the lower voltages with new manufacturing process, I don't know (nobody but Intel does because
proprietary (and I hate that)
. But all is not lost! We know it's lower now and chips are lasting just as long, so it has to be something.
We
don't know all of the variables or the exact values of variables we've inferred the existence of through observations, but we don't need to! All that's needed for success is for the method I described getting back to the people who
do know them! It'll help them with temperatures, power density, a bunch of stuff I don't have to get into. So they should do it.
Environmentally, worldwide, a LOT. And I mean A LOT LOT, of power would be saved.
How much is a lot?
Well, as I've posited, a lot of information isn't easy to come by, but even in the near term, it's a ridiculously high number: tens of millions of devices, all laptops/desktops/servers could be improved. Even if average power consumption was reduced by just 10% during the first 3 years of service? That's a LOT. Someone who came up with similarly awesome strategies to help the environment might have received things like prizes throwing peace signs. Someone (I'm looking at you random nvidia/intel/amd mid level forum spies) should pass this up the chain. I'm not a climate activist or anything, but I don't like waste - especially waste that's completely unnecessary.
