power supply

[memetootoo]

From what I have been reading the power supply is very important in the longevity and the stability of a system. And having enough is very important. With medium to high end hardware is 750 watts enough? Is it future proof? I'm thinking of going with a 1 kilowatt power supply, but I'm thinking that would just be overkill?

From what I understand current GPUs use as much as 160 watts of power, will future GPUs start to use even more?

Any comments or help would be very helpful.

Thank you

[Genseric]

750watts is more than enough and should be future proof for a while. The only time I would consider more is if your going to use the news ATI cards in crossfire along with other power hungry components.

Also, the PSU manufacturer can be just as important as the rating. I would rather use a good 400W PSU in my system than a 500W pulled from a dell.

[Kalos]

Regarding future graphics card trends, who knows. Six years ago, processors looked like they'd be draining much more power in the future than they actually did. The Pentium 4 was the most powerhungry and inefficient design witnessed. As they tried to push it up even slight performance increments, demands rose through the roof. People thought it would go on forever.

Then the Athlon 64 hit, and got mocked. Much lower power consumption, such lower clock speeds. Many people refused to consider it competitive with a Pentium 4 of the time. In true, the Athlon 64 could put any Pentium 4 to shame, taking far less energy to outperform. Superior design and better deployment of production techniques, not going for the most direct and simple performance boosting techniques.

The graphics card market is just like the Pentium 4's state. Huge power demands, and absolutely pathetic innovation ragarding production processes. Power consumption could be cut by at least 20% by adopting 65nm technology instead of the larger scales of 80, or even 90 they use now. 65nm is over two years old, it's not even cutting edge. Intel, AMD, Samsung, IBM, they all deploy this technology.

They may keep bringing out wasteful and inefficient designs, they might not. The Athlon 64 in the processor maket effectively woke the monopoly there to work on efficiency for once, resulting in the Core 2 Duo rather than the planned 5 Ghz Pentium 4. Hopefully one company will go for the better tech, actually wake up and start doing something. Graphics cards are probably the most expensive components in PCs, if anyone can afford to adopt already proven and better production techniques, let alone develop even better ones on thier own, it's Nvidia and what was formerly ATI. When Intel and thier new efficiency drive hits the performance market as they plan to do so within a year, they'll motivate Nvidia to get off their backsides and actually start inventing, instead of sitting back and barely improving upon anything. We should be at 65nm tech, and on track for 45nm, not hanging around 90nm which is well over five years old.

I can't tell future performance will need even more power. If they keep running the way they are, yes. If they manage to actually wake up and do something new, maybe not.

[memetootoo]

Thanks for the info. Genseric, and the great overview Kalos.

The power supply I am using is indeed from a dell. If the brand is very important in the over all stability and longevity of a system, I would rather switch the dell power supply out at some point . From what I've been reading not having enough power, or having a bad power supply can damage components?

Also Kalos just out of curiosity why do you suppose nvida and amd has been so slow in using the 65 nm tech. Is it much more expensive to produce/failure rate higher?

[Kalos]

It takes huge amounts of money to design a new process for production, it basically means you have to throw the old process out the window, much of your equiptment needs replacing or modifying in ways it was never designed for, and staff need to be retaught. It is much easier to lag behind, let someone like Intel or IBM push forwards, and simply buy the rights to thier ideas and adopt the process when several people have it ironed out and certain facts are realised. However, Nvidia and ATI have always lagged far behind. Consider Samsung and thier memory. They haven't changed thier production process scale not just once, but twice thise year already, first it was kicked down to 80nm and then 60nm. Samsung's memory is being made smaller than CPUs right now, it's practically ahead of the market. Nvidia however is barely getting to grips with the 80nm technology and no plans to even get 65nm tech this year.

Once the initial investment is done and the new process is adopted and running well, you need less materials per batch, because you're working on a smaller scale you need less physical space on a die, therefore less silicon. It's cheaper, more environmentally friendly, lowers production costs per unit, and it increases performance yeilds in the products as well as reducing heat output and energy waste during operation. Complete and total improvement, the only downside is the retooling of the fabrication plants needed.

If consumers put pressure on the market for more efficient architecture and production to be used by selecting graphics cards by efficiency instead of power, the marketing mix would change to suit, the companies would change their ways. Only problem is, there is so little competition, Nvidia has no incentive to undertake expensive redesigns, refitting, and upgrading the fabrication plants because they're getting more than enough sales anyhow. It'd be cheaper for them in the long run, but try convincing them of that.

Hopefully, at some point in 2008 both companies should be on 65nm tech for the current range at that point by then. They're taking thier sweet time since the tech has been around since 2005 and many other parts of the industry are getting ready for 45nm developments in 2008.

[Genseric]

The power supply I am using is indeed from a dell. If the brand is very important in the over all stability and longevity of a system, I would rather switch the dell power supply out at some point . From what I've been reading not having enough power, or having a bad power supply can damage components?


A PSU which is too small or even bad will strain and fluctuate. Rough example: The "bad" PSU company will rate a 500W PSU which will do 500W max, a good PSU company will rate a 500W PSU that will do 600W max. On top of using better components, the better company gives more "head room".

So, you really get what you pay for.



I have a feeling the GPU companies will start looking at power consumption very soon. When things started to leak about ATIs current card the first thing I commented on is how the card used way too much power. Nvidia hasnt been doing much better but I think a lot of people will agree with me.

[memetootoo]

Thanks again for the very helpful info guys :)

[memetootoo]

Hi again, have one more question.

Helping a friend build a computer. Took a look at HP seems for similar parts it is almost 1K cheaper than a Dell. Any reason in particular for that? I've pretty much have always bought from dell and have no experience with HP. He'll mostly be using it for gaming.

Anyways back on track.

I'm customizing a d4890y series for him, and noticed something very strange. The power supply is only 350 as it says in the main page. With the following parts:

Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo processor E6700 (2.66GHz)
2GB DDR2-667MHz dual channel SDRAM (2x1024)
640MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS, 2 DVI, TV-Out
500GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive
Sound Blaster Audigy X-Fi, 24-bit Xtreme Fidelity
HP 20-inch LCD Wide Flat Panel Monitor
Power supply 350 watts

price
$2,569.98

you saved
7.9%

How can a 350 watt PSU handle all of that? I tried call the support number from the website and they said that the psu should be OK with the parts.

[Kalos]

A 350 will not handle an 8800, especially a no-name generic PSU from an OEM. You can try it if you want, but it will be either beyond or at it's maximum, where it is most likely to break down and damage other components.

[memetootoo]

Thanks for the reply, I'm glad I didn't listen to the tech support from HP who said it should be just fine. -_-

[Genseric]

Thanks for the reply, I'm glad I didn't listen to the tech support from HP who said it should be just fine. -_-

That tech is probably some level 1 know-nothing idiot who follows a step by step troubleshooting guide.

If you can build the computer yourself I would highly suggest it. There are a lot of good guides and as long as you take your time and are careful its not really hard at all. You will be able to pick out what high quality parts you want and you will save money. IMO that system isnt worth 2.5k.

[rottentomato]

ok on the topic of power from someone that has worked with a good deal of automotive and computer power sources....

im going to put it in lay mans terms for how you can conceive power...

think of it like a hose...and electricity like water (electricity is in currents is it not?) the larger your hose, the less strain you would have on the water going through it, and essentially the more water you could force through there if need be, the more capable the larger hose will be. if you were to use a smaller hose than what was required, you couldnt get the right amount of water through the hose, and it would strain the hose, and probably burst. also if you used a cheap hose....(lets say saran wrap that has been wrapped around a broom until it was able to support itself and then the broom removed...your water would most likely leak, and the longevity would not be as great as a PVC hose doing the same job...or better yet a 10 foot wide pvc pipe...


now in the same respect as too little power or yuor hose being too small... that 10 foot wide pvc pipe trying to move 1 gallon per minute would do it less efficiently than a 3 inch PVC hose... so too much power not a good thing, and too little power also not a good thing... a happy medium is much better as a solution. a 600-750 watt power supply is more than efficient enough to run a computer...

hope that helps :)