Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: NVIDIA GeForce Power Efficiency: From The 6600GT To The GTX 750 Ti

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,130

    Default NVIDIA GeForce Power Efficiency: From The 6600GT To The GTX 750 Ti

    Phoronix: NVIDIA GeForce Power Efficiency: From The 6600GT To The GTX 760 Ti

    When NVIDIA was doing their press briefings for their new Maxwell architecture they frequently talked up its power efficiency and how the power efficiency is four times greater than where it was four years ago with Fermi... But how is Maxwell and NVIDIA's power efficiency compared to hardware from ten years ago? In this article we have done fresh benchmarks -- with power consumption, thermal, and performance-per-Watt measurements -- of NVIDIA's mid-range graphics cards from the week-old GeForce GTX 750 Ti to as far back as the GeForce 6600GT (NV43) graphics card from 2004.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19918

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: NVIDIA GeForce Power Efficiency: From The 6600GT To The GTX 760
    I was getting excited that you had a scoop on a GTX 760 and then had my hopes dashed when I realised it was a typo.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    Interesting, so the GT 520 wins in sheer power efficiency under load, with the GT 220 not far behind. Although I'd still be interested in idle power usage.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    32

    Default

    wtf happened to the 9600gso? it should be between 8600gt and 8800gt and more near the 8800gt

    Do you have some kind of crippled DDR2 version? or is it a driver regression?

    Still quite content with my gtx460^^

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Herem View Post
    I was getting excited that you had a scoop on a GTX 760 and then had my hopes dashed when I realised it was a typo.
    The GTX 760 already exists and it's a Kepler part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...rce_700_Series

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arctic circle, Finland
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Interesting, so the GT 520 wins in sheer power efficiency under load, with the GT 220 not far behind. Although I'd still be interested in idle power usage.
    Ehh not really, it takes less power which is true, but it can't do the same as more powerfull card to call it energy efficient(what the hell is power efficiency anyway). Pity not to see kepler based gt630 on these tests, it would be rather efficient too with it 25W tdp.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rudl View Post
    wtf happened to the 9600gso? it should be between 8600gt and 8800gt and more near the 8800gt

    Do you have some kind of crippled DDR2 version? or is it a driver regression?

    Still quite content with my gtx460^^
    There were two different 9600gso boards. One was G92 based and the other was G94 based. The former is the earlier one and performed much better on most loads--96 CUDA 'cores' will do that when compared to the 48 of the G94 chip. The only thing in the favor of the G94 was the later G94b die shrink (for power savings) and the 256 bit memory interface with the 16 ROPs that went with it. For some fill rate limited loads, the G94 was a better card. I have one of both and it's about a 2 to 1 performance difference in real games and F@H.

    So, unless you know which of them is being benchmarked, a 9600GSO is a useless datapoint.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tuke81 View Post
    Ehh not really, it takes less power which is true, but it can't do the same as more powerfull card to call it energy efficient(what the hell is power efficiency anyway). Pity not to see kepler based gt630 on these tests, it would be rather efficient too with it 25W tdp.
    Yes, but for things like HTPCs it's enough power as it is, so the energy use itself is most important in such cases (and also idle energy use as well).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arctic circle, Finland
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Yes, but for things like HTPCs it's enough power as it is, so the energy use itself is most important in such cases (and also idle energy use as well).
    Yeah that's true, more power more heat to dispatch. Though this new maxwell architecture introduced new power state called “GC5” specifically for low usage tasks such as video playback. Which one can really see techpowerup tests(gtx750ti idle 4W,multimonitor 5W, bluray 6W vs gt520 idle 6W, multimonitor 9W, bluray 10W):
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/N...750_Ti/23.html
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Z...GT_640/26.html

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willmore View Post
    There were two different 9600gso boards. One was G92 based and the other was G94 based. The former is the earlier one and performed much better on most loads--96 CUDA 'cores' will do that when compared to the 48 of the G94 chip. The only thing in the favor of the G94 was the later G94b die shrink (for power savings) and the 256 bit memory interface with the 16 ROPs that went with it. For some fill rate limited loads, the G94 was a better card. I have one of both and it's about a 2 to 1 performance difference in real games and F@H.

    So, unless you know which of them is being benchmarked, a 9600GSO is a useless datapoint.
    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag..._nouveau&num=1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •