AMD Radeon RX 6000/7000 GPUs Reduce Idle Power Consumption by 81% with VRR Enabled

[Wirko]

I meant they need to be smart enough to sense they don't need to render 60fps from scratch when nothing happens and put the related resources to sleep.

Right, and that describes the solution from the topic title exactly: VRR.

Or the thing I mentioned and apparently hasn't been implemented: variable memory clock, like in the 4080 and 4090. It's not sleeping, just walking instead of running.

 

[bug]

Right, and that describes the solution from the topic title exactly: VRR.

Again, VRR is not a solution, the solution is to decouple the work the card does from the refresh rate. Relying on refresh rate to scale back in order to cut back on power draw is not a solution, it's just a coincidence. And you can see that it is not a solution, it stops "working" the moment you start moving windows around.

Or the thing I mentioned and apparently hasn't been implemented: variable memory clock, like in the 4080 and 4090. It's not sleeping, just walking instead of running.

You don't reach 100W power draw at idle from VRAM alone, clearly some GPU areas are put to work when they should be idling.

 

[Neverdie]

For my 7900XT on a single 1080p monitor with fixed 60fps refresh rate and simple SDR mode, I think my idles are fantastic! 6-7W for the GPU and 3W for the 5800X3D CPU.
Go AMD!

 

[Cheeseball]

I just did a test with another monitor that I have:

An AOpen (Acer) Fire Legend 25XV2Q F set to 1080p at 300 Hz (and below) - The XTX clocks down properly.

But when set to 360 Hz, it exhibits high idle clocks:

No other software running in the background except the Snipping Tool.

 

[AusWolf]

3W for the 5800X3D CPU.

I don't think that's right. I'd check with HWinfo to be sure.

 

[Neverdie]

I don't think that's right. I'd check with HWinfo to be sure

I think you are right, thanks for the tip! Well, to be honest, now I am confused what value is being reported by the AMD software.

 

[Wirko]

You don't reach 100W power draw at idle from VRAM alone, clearly some GPU areas are put to work when they should be idling.

Memory, memory controllers on the small chiplets, infinity fabric, and maybe more. Not that they should be idling, they should work at very much reduced clocks and voltages.

 

[AusWolf]

I think you are right, thanks for the tip! Well, to be honest, now I am confused what value is being reported by the AMD software.

It's probably the "cores only" power, not the whole CPU package.

 

[HOkay]

For my 7900XT on a single 1080p monitor with fixed 60fps refresh rate and simple SDR mode, I think my idles are fantastic! 6-7W for the GPU and 3W for the 5800X3D CPU.
Go AMD!

I have to ask, why do you have a high end gaming PC but only a 1080p 60Hz monitor? This mismatch confuses me & I demand you buy a high refresh rate (120Hz+) monitor!

 

[Neverdie]

I have to ask, why do you have a high end gaming PC but only a 1080p 60Hz monitor? This mismatch confuses me & I demand you buy a high refresh rate (120Hz+) monitor!

Hehe, yeah your question is valid.

To be honest, this is only because of my silly preferences. I like to play games with RT on and all settings maxed out, but resolution and refresh rate doesn't matter that much for me. AMD's weaker RT performance is usually still enough in 1080p. So far the only exception I found is cyberpunk. My setup can't maintain constant 60 fps in that game with all settings maxed and psycho RT. It's very close to it, but I guess I will have to wait for AMD to release FSR3.

By the way, I am actually planning to get a new monitor. Previously I had a 6600XT, so that was fine with my current 1080p display. I am saving up for an upgrade, also trying to figure out what should I buy. 1440 or 4k, IPS or oled, 27" or 32" size.

 

[HOkay]

Hehe, yeah your question is valid.

To be honest, this is only because of my silly preferences. I like to play games with RT on and all settings maxed out, but resolution and refresh rate doesn't matter that much for me. AMD's weaker RT performance is usually still enough in 1080p. So far the only exception I found is cyberpunk. My setup can't maintain constant 60 fps in that game with all settings maxed and psycho RT. It's very close to it, but I guess I will have to wait for AMD to release FSR3.

By the way, I am actually planning to get a new monitor. Previously I had a 6600XT, so that was fine with my current 1080p display. I am saving up for an upgrade, also trying to figure out what should I buy. 1440 or 4k, IPS or oled, 27" or 32" size.

Aah, well with a 6600XT that makes more sense. I'm kinda amazed that you don't care about high refresh though, I think you're the first person I've ever heard of that's tried a first or third person game in high refresh & not cared about it? Or have you not tried a high refresh for more than a few minutes maybe?
My personal recommendation would be 27" 1440p. I think there's that LG 240Hz OLED one. I've gone 42" 4k OLED (LG C2) & tbh, it's obviously very hard to drive 4k at high refresh, but also I get motion sickness from it! Then again, if you don't care about high refresh then maybe a 32" 4k is the way to go for you, since driving games at 4k 60fps isn't so bad these days.

 

[Neverdie]

Aah, well with a 6600XT that makes more sense. I'm kinda amazed that you don't care about high refresh though, I think you're the first person I've ever heard of that's tried a first or third person game in high refresh & not cared about it? Or have you not tried a high refresh for more than a few minutes maybe?
My personal recommendation would be 27" 1440p. I think there's that LG 240Hz OLED one. I've gone 42" 4k OLED (LG C2) & tbh, it's obviously very hard to drive 4k at high refresh, but also I get motion sickness from it! Then again, if you don't care about high refresh then maybe a 32" 4k is the way to go for you, since driving games at 4k 60fps isn't so bad these days.

Actually I haven't tried it yet, otherwise I would have already bought it! This used to be intentional from my part, so this way I didn't overspend on gaming. In recent years I slowly built this setup stronger, piece by piece. Now I have to admit, it deserves a better display. Thanks for the recommendations, I am pretty sure any of those options would be a significant upgrade! I just can't make up my mind yet. Maybe I will wait and try to get a nice deal during black friday or something.

 

[HOkay]

Actually I haven't tried it yet, otherwise I would have already bought it! This used to be intentional from my part, so this way I didn't overspend on gaming. In recent years I slowly built this setup stronger, piece by piece. Now I have to admit, it deserves a better display. Thanks for the recommendations, I am pretty sure any of those options would be a significant upgrade! I just can't make up my mind yet. Maybe I will wait and try to get a nice deal during black friday or something.

Aaah, that makes sense now. No one who tries high refresh for more than half an hour can ever go back! It's a blessing & a curse, because yes, everything gets way more expensive once that becomes a requirement for you to enjoy a game, trust me! Still worth it though, it's so gloriously smooth! You'll be fine on 1440p 144Hz with a 7900XT, I'd definitely recommend that combo. Leave 4k high refresh for another 3-5 years.

 

[Kyan]

Aaah, that makes sense now. No one who tries high refresh for more than half an hour can ever go back! It's a blessing & a curse, because yes, everything gets way more expensive once that becomes a requirement for you to enjoy a game, trust me! Still worth it though, it's so gloriously smooth! You'll be fine on 1440p 144Hz with a 7900XT, I'd definitely recommend that combo. Leave 4k high refresh for another 3-5 years.

I will add the 1440p 75Hz option if you really don't want to spend too much, but with 144Hz screen you have the choice to run a game at 144 or at 80 or 100, ... depending of the game and what you want. I run a lot of game (single player mostly or slow multi player) on the 80-100 fps range, it's still smooth and it run cooler. The only time i go to 165Hz is for rocket league (competitive game)

 

[Neverdie]

I will add the 1440p 75Hz option if you really don't want to spend too much, but with 144Hz screen you have the choice to run a game at 144 or at 80 or 100, ... depending of the game and what you want. I run a lot of game (single player mostly or slow multi player) on the 80-100 fps range, it's still smooth and it run cooler. The only time i go to 165Hz is for rocket league (competitive game)

Sounds reasonable. I think I would be fine with 60-144Hz, I am not really into fast shooters anymore. More like casual, singleplayer and such.

 

[Ruru]

According to HWInfo64, my 6700 XT seems to use ~50W when I'm using a web browser on my main display and playing a youtube video on my second display. 4K60 with Freesync + 1080p144 screens.

 

[Lew Zealand]

I will add the 1440p 75Hz option if you really don't want to spend too much, but with 144Hz screen you have the choice to run a game at 144 or at 80 or 100, ... depending of the game and what you want. I run a lot of game (single player mostly or slow multi player) on the 80-100 fps range, it's still smooth and it run cooler. The only time i go to 165Hz is for rocket league (competitive game)

This is exactly how I run my gaming. 80 or 100 fps capped in most games because for SotTR or Horizon ZD, over 100 fps is not any better than 100. Low poly games (Raft, Slime Rancher) look identical over 80 fps. But for Forza Horizon 4 or Rocket League, 144 fps is noticeably better than 100. It's not a big difference but it's noticeable.

 

[HOkay]

This is exactly how I run my gaming. 80 or 100 fps capped in most games because for SotTR or Horizon ZD, over 100 fps is not any better than 100. Low poly games (Raft, Slime Rancher) look identical over 80 fps. But for Forza Horizon 4 or Rocket League, 144 fps is noticeably better than 100. It's not a big difference but it's noticeable.

What I find fascinating is that the line is so different for everyone. Some people will say 60fps looks no different to a 100fps, others will say 240fps or nothing! Some people can't even notice high refresh rate! I once tested my dad & he absolutely couldn't tell, even after being told which is which & retesting he was still having to guess. Yet to me it's instantly obvious if it's that big a gap. Really interesting, I wish there were more studies on it.

 

[Ruru]

What I find fascinating is that the line is so different for everyone. Some people will say 60fps looks no different to a 100fps, others will say 240fps or nothing! Some people can't even notice high refresh rate! I once tested my dad & he absolutely couldn't tell, even after being told which is which & retesting he was still having to guess. Yet to me it's instantly obvious if it's that big a gap. Really interesting, I wish there were more studies on it.

Depends of the game, I'd say. I'm totally fine playing 4K60 myself, got a 1080p144 screen just for pure interest but I mostly use it as a "normal" secondary screen.

 

[HOkay]

Depends of the game, I'd say. I'm totally fine playing 4K60 myself, got a 1080p144 screen just for pure interest but I mostly use it as a "normal" secondary screen.

This is what I mean, for you that totally works, but for me that 60fps feels like it's slowing down my brain. Whenever I use my work's office screens for a while then come home & fire up my screens it's like a breath of fresh air for my brain. It sounds ridiculous but that's my experience.