Power Consumption

A new and much needed addition to our GPU review is tracking power consumption. Here, we're using a simple meter to track the power consumption at the power supply level, so what we're left with is total system power consumption. But with the rest of the components in the test system remaining the same and the only variable being the video card, we're able to get a reasonably accurate estimate of peak power usage here.

At idle, all of the graphics cards pretty much perform the same, with the integrated graphics solution eating up the least amount of power at 106W for the entire system:

Peak System Power Consumption in Watts

Then, we fired up Doom 3 and ran it at 800x600 (High Quality) in order to get a peak power reading for the system.

Interestingly enough, other than the integrated graphics solution, the 6200 is the lowest power card here - drawing even less power than the X300, but that is to be expected given that the X300 runs at a 25MHz higher clock speed.

It's also interesting to note that there's no difference in power consumption between the 128-bit and 64-bit X300 cards. The performance comparison is a completely different story, however.

Peak System Power Consumption in Watts

In the end, none of these cards eat up too much power, with the X700 clearly leading the pack at 10% greater system power consumption than the 6600. It will be interesting to find out if there's any correlation here between power consumption and performance.

The Contenders The Test
POST A COMMENT

44 Comments

View All Comments

  • Sunbird - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    Reply
  • bpt8056 - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    Anand, thanks so much for updating us on the PVP feature in the NV40. I think it's high-time somebody held nVidia accountable for a "broken" feature. Do you know if the PVP is working in the PCI-Express version (NV45)? Any information you can get would be great. Thanks Anand! Reply
  • mczak - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    That's an odd conclusion... "In most cases, the GeForce 6200 does significantly outperform the X300 and X600 Pro, its target competitors from ATI."
    But looking at the results, the X600Pro is _faster_ in 5 of 8 benchmarks (sometimes significantly), 2 are a draw, and only slower in 1 (DoomIII, by a significant margin). Not to disregard DoomIII, but if you base your conclusion entirely on that game alone why do you even bother with the other titles?
    I just can't see why that alone justifies "...overall, the 6200 takes the crown".

    There are some other odd comments as well, for instance at the Star Wars Battlefront performance: "The X300SE is basically too slow to play this game. There's nothing more to it. The X300 doesn't make it much better either." Compared to the 6200 which gets "An OK performer;..." but is actually (very slightly) slower than the X300?
    Reply
  • gordon151 - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    "In most cases, the GeForce 6200 does significantly outperform the X300 and X600 Pro, its target competitors from ATI."

    Eh, am I missing something or wasnt it the X600 Pro the card that significantly outperformed the 6200 in almost all areas with the exception of Doom3.
    Reply
  • dragonic - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    #6 Why would they drop it because the multiplayer framerate is locked? They benchmark using the single player, not the multiplayer Reply
  • DAPUNISHER - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    Thanks Anand! I've been on about the PVP problems with nV40 for months now, and have become increasing fustrated with the lack of information and/or progress by nV. Now that a major site is pursuing this with vigor I can at least take comfort in the knowledge that answers will be forthcoming one way or another!

    Again, thanks for making this issue a priority and emphatically stating you will get more information for us. It's nV vs Anand so "Rumble young man! Rumble!" :-)
    Reply
  • AlphaFox - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    if you ask me, all these low end cards are stupid if you have a PCIe motherboard.. who the heck would get one of these crappy cards if they spent all the money for a brand new PCIe computer??? these cards would be perfect for AGP as they are now going to start to be lower end.. Reply
  • ROcHE - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    How would a 9800 Pro do against these card? Reply
  • ViRGE - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    Unless LucasArts changes something Anand, you may want to drop the Battlefront test. With multiplayer, the framerate is locked to the tick rate(usually 20FPS), so its performance is nearly irrelivant.

    PS #1, he's talking about the full load graph, not the idle graph
    Reply
  • teng029 - Monday, October 11, 2004 - link

    "For example, the GeForce 6600 is supposed to have a street price of $149, but currently, it's selling for closer to $170. So, as the pricing changes, so does our recommendation."

    i have yet to see the 6600 anywhere. pricewatch only lists two aopen cards (both well over 200.00) it and newegg doesn't carry it. i'm curious as to where he got the 170.00 street price.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now