I d care about consumption for the simple fact that I have to pay my own bills.
And I'm not talking about high draw in general, but about bad efficiency.
If a graphics card or CPU with double the performance takes double the power, thats fine, they are still at the same efficiency. Plus the faster, more power hungry part would finish a task faster or deliver a better experience, making the investment worth the cost.
And newer parts, on a more refined manufacturing process should increase efficiency, not decrease it. How can a 3090 Ti draw 70% more power than a 2080 Ti while only delivering 30-55% more performance?
I'm running a GTX 1060, mostly because it simply delivers enough performance for my needs, but out of curiosity I went and tweaked and noticed that when limited to around 1600 MHz, a 20% reduction in clock, power draw decreases by more than 40%.
On a RX 580, a card of similar performance, going to 1150 MHz instead of 1300 MHz, a 12% decrease in clock (and thus performance) reduces power draw by 30%, showing that both cards are run way past peak efficiency by default.
The same with CPUs, a 12900K doesn't need to pull 250W, when a rather small sacrifice in performance can drastically reduce power draw.
And then comes the thought of buying a highend product and running it slower, closer to peak efficiency. How would a 3080 Ti perform when power limited to the same amount as a 3060? What about a 12700K at 12400 power limits? Or a 5800X at 65W?
If it would be easier for the user to set those lower limits, or if the product would come default at those limits, everybody would benefit. The enthusiast would have the satisfaction of successfully reaching an impressive overclock, the environmentally conscious would be less wasteful, The silent friend would have an easier time to keep their machine cool and quiet.
And I'm not talking about high draw in general, but about bad efficiency.
If a graphics card or CPU with double the performance takes double the power, thats fine, they are still at the same efficiency. Plus the faster, more power hungry part would finish a task faster or deliver a better experience, making the investment worth the cost.
And newer parts, on a more refined manufacturing process should increase efficiency, not decrease it. How can a 3090 Ti draw 70% more power than a 2080 Ti while only delivering 30-55% more performance?
I'm running a GTX 1060, mostly because it simply delivers enough performance for my needs, but out of curiosity I went and tweaked and noticed that when limited to around 1600 MHz, a 20% reduction in clock, power draw decreases by more than 40%.
On a RX 580, a card of similar performance, going to 1150 MHz instead of 1300 MHz, a 12% decrease in clock (and thus performance) reduces power draw by 30%, showing that both cards are run way past peak efficiency by default.
The same with CPUs, a 12900K doesn't need to pull 250W, when a rather small sacrifice in performance can drastically reduce power draw.
And then comes the thought of buying a highend product and running it slower, closer to peak efficiency. How would a 3080 Ti perform when power limited to the same amount as a 3060? What about a 12700K at 12400 power limits? Or a 5800X at 65W?
If it would be easier for the user to set those lower limits, or if the product would come default at those limits, everybody would benefit. The enthusiast would have the satisfaction of successfully reaching an impressive overclock, the environmentally conscious would be less wasteful, The silent friend would have an easier time to keep their machine cool and quiet.