• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Calculating Efficiency

NoEcho

NoEcho

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
3,250
It would interest me to hear what the most efficient PC - combination of components would be - to yield the maximum number of computations (cpu and gpu) for the least expenditure of power.
 
That depends on the application, since certain CPUs and GPUs are better at certain things, and some use less power than others. And you could get into situations where one thing is your limiting aspect, like in CPU-limited games for example, so adding a faster CPU wouldn't give you any increase in performance.
 
Use a notebook CPU, integrated video, and a solid state drive. :)
 
So a solid state drive is definitely a power saver? From notes made on SSD purchases at NewEgg this appears to be incorrect.

I figure computing efficiency is always enhanced by lower temps so a netbook/laptop are unlikely to have the HSF/cooling necessary.

My inquiry is first global - what machine would hit the highest crunch for the lowest energy invested? Could be a Cray sucking down 3 megawatts but delivering 20 Tetraflops. Might be an Atom sipping .01 Kw.
 
Last edited:
Considering an SSD doesn't need power to spin a platter...yes it is. That is one reasons why they are being used in laptops.

Ignore comments from the peanut gallery at Newegg.com. Many of them are idiots and or shills.
 
NoEcho said:
I figure computing efficiency is always enhanced by lower temps so a netbook/laptop are unlikely to have the HSF/cooling necessary.
Click to expand...
Not really. Temperatures in general have very little effect on the power consumption of modern CPUs. And also, laptop CPUs consume less power and produce less heat compared to desktop equivalents, so they require comparatively less cooling. Standard notebook CPUs have TDPs of between 30W and 35W, compared to desktop CPUs which range from 65W dual-cores to 130W quad-cores (plus a few 45W low-power chips, but those have pretty poor performance).
NoEcho said:
My inquiry is first global - what machine would hit the highest crunch for the lowest energy invested? Could be a Cray sucking down 3 megawatts but delivering 20 Tetraflops. Might be an Atom sipping .01 Kw.
Click to expand...
Again, it depends what you're crunching. Different CPUs and different configurations are better-suited toward specific tasks, and which approach is the best depends largely on the task you're trying to perform.
 
Zero82z said:
Not really. Temperatures in general have very little effect on the power consumption of modern CPUs. And also, laptop CPUs consume less power and produce less heat compared to desktop equivalents, so they require comparatively less cooling. Standard notebook CPUs have TDPs of between 30W and 35W, compared to desktop CPUs which range from 65W dual-cores to 130W quad-cores (plus a few 45W low-power chips, but those have pretty poor performance).

Again, it depends what you're crunching. Different CPUs and different configurations are better-suited toward specific tasks, and which approach is the best depends largely on the task you're trying to perform.
Click to expand...

Energy expended per electric computation - today, yesterday, tomorrow - always increases as heat rises. This is a truism. The calculation does not matter. Desktop, netbook, your phone - all require more energy to perform the same calculation the more their temperature rises.
 
NoEcho said:
Energy expended per electric computation - today, yesterday, tomorrow - always increases as heat rises. This is a truism. The calculation does not matter. Desktop, netbook, your phone - all require more energy to perform the same calculation the more their temperature rises.
Click to expand...
The important thing isn't whether or not they consume more power when hotter, it''s how much more power they consume. My point was that when dealing with modern CPUs, there isn't much difference and it's usually small enough that it has no significant impact on overall power consumption.
 
Zero82z said:
The important thing isn't whether or not they consume more power when hotter, it''s how much more power they consume. My point was that when dealing with modern CPUs, there isn't much difference and it's usually small enough that it has no significant impact on overall power consumption.
Click to expand...

If a 25 W laptop cpu can perform nearly as well as a 65 W Desktop cpu then it sounds like the best design would be a laptop cpu in a desktop environment where better cooling can be brought to bear. I think some cpu's are cross compatible.

I'm still not sure about SSDs. I'm guessing in standby - if the hard drive hasn't been configured to spin down - then an SSD would definitely be more energy efficient. But under frequent utilization I don't know that SSDs actually would burn less power. I found only one SSD that posted power utilization (on newegg) and no disk hard drives that did it. Additionally, setting hard drives to spin down after a few minutes might bring their power consumption considerably under an SSDs.

Now GPUs... hungry bitches that they are.
 
NoEcho said:
I think some cpu's are cross compatible.
Click to expand...
No. All current laptop CPUs use different sockets compared to the desktop versions. There are some desktop boards with laptop sockets, but they're uncommon and expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top