Building a gaming PC

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The EVGA GeForce GTX 660 has a minimum requirement of 24 amps on its own 12V+ rail.

No way the board is consuming almost 300 watts. You would burn skin touching the heat sink. When electronics was consuming that much power, well, that is when Dec VAX would not operate unless the motherboard was fully covered with water.

That's the spec number we give to naive consumers. An actual and useful number is measured. And would be significantly less.

[Undertoad]

I guess you could try touching the heat sink, except that it's protected by a housing cooled by dual 80mm fans. Meanwhile those are manufacturer requirements, it's no longer 1995, and the GPU is much more powerful than the CPU in gaming rigs.

[lumberjim]

I put liquid cooling in mine. Just because I think that's cool. My computer has a radiator.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Meanwhile those are manufacturer requirements, it's no longer 1995, and the GPU is much more powerful than the CPU in gaming rigs.

Which means transistors need many times less power. Any such unit radiating 300 watts typically required a bathtub of water. Why are computer cases cooled in a 100 degree F room by only one 80 mm fan? Because this is no longer 1995. Transistors consume much less energy; radiate less heat.

Your reasoning is subjective. Today, computers generate many times less heat with each transistor. An IC radiating 300 watts would be immersed in a bathtub of water (ie Dec VAX). Today, a GPU only needs a fan. Which means it is not radiating almost 300 watts. Note a difference. Also provided with a request for numbers are hard numbers. Because subjective reasoning is only speculation.

One can easily learn what the numbers are by measuring. So many did that to learn their computers mostly consume around 100 watts. Most computers rarely exceed 200 watts in full load operation. One actually got his gaming computer to consume 400 watts.
What is your desktop power usage while browsing these forums?

Again the question. If Philthy's picture of the beast on Facebook provided useful facts (not speculation), then it provided numbers. What are those numbers?

[lumberjim]

Don't you get bored of yourself? Ever?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Don't you get bored of yourself? Ever?

Why are you wasting bandwidth?

[lumberjim]

Right. Silly question. A=A

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Again the question. If Philthy's picture of the beast on Facebook provided useful facts (not speculation), then it provided numbers. What are those numbers?

You have been given those manufacturer provided numbers three times by my count, and you rejected them each time because you think the manufacturer is lying. Apparently, you expect someone (Philthy?) to hook the thing up and measure it? Why would he do that just to satisfy your curiosity?

But do a Google search, and see what it turns up: GeForce GTX 660 Ti 3GB


From this chart and several other sites, it looks like it typically uses 150 watts, but needs to be able to use twice that when playing a graphics intensive video game.

[lumberjim]

But what are the numbers? You have numbers. Please post them.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

You have been given those manufacturer provided numbers three times by my count, and you rejected them each time because you think the manufacturer is lying.

Where did I say the manufacturer was lying? When marketing to people who make recommendations without numbers, then we routinely double power requirements. Current on each voltage - not watts - are the relevant numbers. But computer assemblers typically cannot do such calculations.

Point was not specifically power requirements of a GPU. The point is that recommendations without numbers are bogus. Your chart with numbers is consistent with previous numbers provided by others. The entire system consumes somewhere between 140 and 370 watts. Meaning a typical system never needed the 600+ watt PSU that so many recommend only using hearsay.

The chart does not say how much power a GPU actually consumes. And does not say what current requirements are for each voltage. It does not provide numbers sufficient for design (ie current for each voltage). But it demonstrates that some latest GPUs can require significantly more power.

Your numbers do demonstrate something interesting and useful. I have never seen a computer consume almost 500 watts instantaneously. I would have to dig further, but connectors have current limits. Implying that a system with the last two GPUs might exceed ATX connector limits. Might.

The chart of numbers is more consistent with what others measured (in "What is your desktop power usage while browsing these forums?") A typical GPU does not consume almost 300 watts. A system does. Most every system does not need the 600 and 900 watt supplies that so many recommend.

We would tell computer assemblers using the Radon 6990 or GE Force 590 that they need 1000 watt supplies. Because they do not know how to select hardware based upon what is relevant - current for each voltage.

You could have posted something 100% accurate. But without the associated numbers, it would be a useless recommendation. We still do not have enough information for design purposes. But your numbers confirm computers are not consuming 600 and 900 watts. Are not so hot as to toast bread.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Don't you get bored of yourself? Ever?

Nope, because he is , like Charlie Sheen , winning !