![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,001
California Energy Commission’s Proposed Regulations on Personal Computers Poses Threat to Prebuilt Gaming Desktops and Gaming Monitors | Delidded Tech
The California Energy Commission has drafted regulations to govern the power usage of whole systems and the components they use that could shake the hardware market. There will be a "high expendability" exception for hardware that require more power to perform, such as those used in gaming or CAD machines. A couple interesting sections:
Video Cards
To be classified as “high-expandability” without meeting the minimum score of 690, a system must attain a minimum level of frame-buffer bandwidth(memory bandwidth on the graphics adapter). The proposed level is 400 GB/s by 2018, and 600 GB/s by 2020. In addition, the system must use a power supply of 600 watts or greater.
The level of frame-buffer bandwidth required is significantly higher than what is offered in high end graphics adapters today. For example the NVIDIA GTX 1080, which has a MSRP of $600, has a memory bandwidth of just 320 GB/S. This falls 20% short of the requirement slated to go into effect by 2018.
This is an extremely ineffective metric, because memory bandwidth is generally not the main factor that contributes to GPU idle power consumption. In many cases, the necessary memory bandwidth in modern GPUs has gone down due to improvements in memory compression technology.
By the above definition, the only "consumer" video cards meeting this bandwidth requirement currently are the Fury X, Fury (both with HBM), and Titan X (Pascal). The article makes a good point about compression techniques being used to reduce needed bandwidth, making the bandwidth requirement and its "forward-looking" metric ineffective.
On HBM:
HBM(High Bandwidth Memory) is an upcoming standard that will provide substantially increased memory bandwidth while consuming significantly less power, with the drawback of currently being very expensive. Obviously, the way in which the system’s drivers interact with the hardware to determine clock speed, power saving states, as well as the architecture of the GPU itself are the most important aspects of idle power consumption, but these are the types of factors that the CEC is seeking to improve through regulation.
Using HBM is the obvious workaround, but it will significantly increase production costs, and that cost will be passed on to the consumer. Yields with HBM2 are also still an issue.
Power Supplies
For a power supply to qualify for the exemption, its combined output must be at least 600W and be 80-Plus Gold Certified.
Most desktops will have limitations imposed on power consumption that gaming computers cannot realistically meet- however, “high expandability” systems won’t be subject to these power limitations. Instead, they’ll be subject to a different set of limitations designed for workstations, such as requiring a power supply that meets the 80 PLUS GOLD standard.
...
A likely effect would be for system manufacturers to include unnecessary pieces of hardware in order to boost the expandability score of their system into higher ranges. This will increase costs while providing little benefit and less choices to the consumer. If the systems do meet the high-expandability metric, there’s still the costs associated with requiring a 80 PLUS GOLD power supply as well as the cost of testing and meeting regulations.
Computer Monitors
A dynamic equation based on the physical size and pixel resolution will be used to determine what the power limits are. An exemption is being considered for displays with a pixel resolution of 8.2 MP or higher, which would mean 4K and above. OLED, high-refresh, and curved monitors are also being considered for exemption.
Here are the formulas:
I think most monitors meet the sleep and off requirements. But according to this equation, a 27" 2560x1440 monitor like mine would be allowed a maximum of around 40W in operation. According to TFT Central, the PG278Q uses a little more than 51W at 100% brightness, and is manufacturer specified for up to 90W.
I haven't delved into the regulations themselves, yet, but I am quite interested to know how they came up with this curve. I think it would be quite difficult to reach for those displays larger than 30". The Dell P4317Q shows operational power consumption of 160W. Using the above formulae, the same monitor would be limited to around 85W, which is less power allowed than if it were a 1440p monitor.
Direct Sources
Energy Commission Proposes Energy Savings for Computers and Monitors - Proposed standards could save consumers millions
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/P...ency_Rulemaking_Docket_Number_16AAER02Sta.pdf
Don't you love how the governor's press release says "could save consumers millions?"
Reminder that this is only in the proposal stages currently. And also keep in mind that PC hardware are not like cars; i.e. I don't think manufacturers are going to make versions of their hardware just for California.
The California Energy Commission has drafted regulations to govern the power usage of whole systems and the components they use that could shake the hardware market. There will be a "high expendability" exception for hardware that require more power to perform, such as those used in gaming or CAD machines. A couple interesting sections:
Video Cards
To be classified as “high-expandability” without meeting the minimum score of 690, a system must attain a minimum level of frame-buffer bandwidth(memory bandwidth on the graphics adapter). The proposed level is 400 GB/s by 2018, and 600 GB/s by 2020. In addition, the system must use a power supply of 600 watts or greater.
The level of frame-buffer bandwidth required is significantly higher than what is offered in high end graphics adapters today. For example the NVIDIA GTX 1080, which has a MSRP of $600, has a memory bandwidth of just 320 GB/S. This falls 20% short of the requirement slated to go into effect by 2018.
This is an extremely ineffective metric, because memory bandwidth is generally not the main factor that contributes to GPU idle power consumption. In many cases, the necessary memory bandwidth in modern GPUs has gone down due to improvements in memory compression technology.
By the above definition, the only "consumer" video cards meeting this bandwidth requirement currently are the Fury X, Fury (both with HBM), and Titan X (Pascal). The article makes a good point about compression techniques being used to reduce needed bandwidth, making the bandwidth requirement and its "forward-looking" metric ineffective.
On HBM:
HBM(High Bandwidth Memory) is an upcoming standard that will provide substantially increased memory bandwidth while consuming significantly less power, with the drawback of currently being very expensive. Obviously, the way in which the system’s drivers interact with the hardware to determine clock speed, power saving states, as well as the architecture of the GPU itself are the most important aspects of idle power consumption, but these are the types of factors that the CEC is seeking to improve through regulation.
Using HBM is the obvious workaround, but it will significantly increase production costs, and that cost will be passed on to the consumer. Yields with HBM2 are also still an issue.
Power Supplies
For a power supply to qualify for the exemption, its combined output must be at least 600W and be 80-Plus Gold Certified.
Most desktops will have limitations imposed on power consumption that gaming computers cannot realistically meet- however, “high expandability” systems won’t be subject to these power limitations. Instead, they’ll be subject to a different set of limitations designed for workstations, such as requiring a power supply that meets the 80 PLUS GOLD standard.
...
A likely effect would be for system manufacturers to include unnecessary pieces of hardware in order to boost the expandability score of their system into higher ranges. This will increase costs while providing little benefit and less choices to the consumer. If the systems do meet the high-expandability metric, there’s still the costs associated with requiring a 80 PLUS GOLD power supply as well as the cost of testing and meeting regulations.
Computer Monitors
A dynamic equation based on the physical size and pixel resolution will be used to determine what the power limits are. An exemption is being considered for displays with a pixel resolution of 8.2 MP or higher, which would mean 4K and above. OLED, high-refresh, and curved monitors are also being considered for exemption.
Here are the formulas:
I think most monitors meet the sleep and off requirements. But according to this equation, a 27" 2560x1440 monitor like mine would be allowed a maximum of around 40W in operation. According to TFT Central, the PG278Q uses a little more than 51W at 100% brightness, and is manufacturer specified for up to 90W.
I haven't delved into the regulations themselves, yet, but I am quite interested to know how they came up with this curve. I think it would be quite difficult to reach for those displays larger than 30". The Dell P4317Q shows operational power consumption of 160W. Using the above formulae, the same monitor would be limited to around 85W, which is less power allowed than if it were a 1440p monitor.
Direct Sources
Energy Commission Proposes Energy Savings for Computers and Monitors - Proposed standards could save consumers millions
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/P...ency_Rulemaking_Docket_Number_16AAER02Sta.pdf
Don't you love how the governor's press release says "could save consumers millions?"
Reminder that this is only in the proposal stages currently. And also keep in mind that PC hardware are not like cars; i.e. I don't think manufacturers are going to make versions of their hardware just for California.
