Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2017, 08:25:05 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: EU cripples future graphics cards (by regulating max. energy consumption)  (Read 2645 times)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
October 17, 2012, 04:58:29 AM
 #41

Everyone is missing the most ridiculous part of the article:  The EU wants to cap MEMORY BANDWIDTH, not just power consumption.

Quote
The commission wants to stop dedicated graphics cards of group G7 from going above 320 GB/s - that is in theory a memory bus at 384-bit connected to memory operating at 6667 MHz or 512-bit with 5001 MHz. This is definitely within reach for the next generation graphics cards. Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition currently has a bandwidth of 288 GB/s with a 384-bit memory bus and 6000 MHz memory. For notebooks the limit will be only 225 GB/s.

No, they don't.  In fact they EXEMPT cards with high memory bandwidths from this recommendation if they are in a high end system.  

"1.1.3. Category D desktop computers and integrated desktop
computers meeting all of the following technical parameters are
exempt from the requirements specified in points 1.1.1 and
1.1.2:
(a) a minimum of six physical cores in the central processing
unit (CPU); and
(b) discrete GPU(s) providing total frame buffer bandwidths
above 320 GB/s; and
(c) a minimum 16GB of system memory; and
(d) a PSU with a rated output power of at least 1000 W. "

The whole idea of allowing politicians to determine computer specs is just ridiculous on a monumental level.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
1508747105
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508747105

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508747105
Reply with quote  #2

1508747105
Report to moderator
Goat says: "Bitcoin is NOT Illegal in Thailand. There is no law against Bitcoin in Thailand!"
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508747105
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508747105

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508747105
Reply with quote  #2

1508747105
Report to moderator
1508747105
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508747105

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508747105
Reply with quote  #2

1508747105
Report to moderator
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 17, 2012, 05:27:29 AM
 #42

Everyone is missing the most ridiculous part of the article:  The EU wants to cap MEMORY BANDWIDTH, not just power consumption.

Quote
The commission wants to stop dedicated graphics cards of group G7 from going above 320 GB/s - that is in theory a memory bus at 384-bit connected to memory operating at 6667 MHz or 512-bit with 5001 MHz. This is definitely within reach for the next generation graphics cards. Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition currently has a bandwidth of 288 GB/s with a 384-bit memory bus and 6000 MHz memory. For notebooks the limit will be only 225 GB/s.

No, they don't.  In fact they EXEMPT cards with high memory bandwidths from this recommendation if they are in a high end system.  

"1.1.3. Category D desktop computers and integrated desktop
computers meeting all of the following technical parameters are
exempt from the requirements specified in points 1.1.1 and
1.1.2:
(a) a minimum of six physical cores in the central processing
unit (CPU); and
(b) discrete GPU(s) providing total frame buffer bandwidths
above 320 GB/s; and
(c) a minimum 16GB of system memory; and
(d) a PSU with a rated output power of at least 1000 W. "

Curse my decision to go quad core.

Wait, I don't live in the EU. Hopefully we'll dump O-bum-a and be free of such nonsense for another four years at least.


Edit: They do realise that this means that anyone who wants a decent GPU will now go with a power hungry, resource eating monster of a machine, right?

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW
October 18, 2012, 12:32:55 AM
 #43

Everyone is missing the most ridiculous part of the article:  The EU wants to cap MEMORY BANDWIDTH, not just power consumption.

Quote
The commission wants to stop dedicated graphics cards of group G7 from going above 320 GB/s - that is in theory a memory bus at 384-bit connected to memory operating at 6667 MHz or 512-bit with 5001 MHz. This is definitely within reach for the next generation graphics cards. Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition currently has a bandwidth of 288 GB/s with a 384-bit memory bus and 6000 MHz memory. For notebooks the limit will be only 225 GB/s.

No, they don't.  In fact they EXEMPT cards with high memory bandwidths from this recommendation if they are in a high end system.  

"1.1.3. Category D desktop computers and integrated desktop
computers meeting all of the following technical parameters are
exempt from the requirements specified in points 1.1.1 and
1.1.2:
(a) a minimum of six physical cores in the central processing
unit (CPU); and
(b) discrete GPU(s) providing total frame buffer bandwidths
above 320 GB/s; and
(c) a minimum 16GB of system memory; and
(d) a PSU with a rated output power of at least 1000 W. "

The whole idea of allowing politicians to determine computer specs is just ridiculous on a monumental level.

Correct.  Computers change too fast and politicians change too slowly.  Also politicians are not computer experts.  (well actually they are not experts in anything as far as I can tell)

But again, the title of the orginal article is FUD. 

Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
October 18, 2012, 06:43:42 PM
 #44

Everyone is missing the most ridiculous part of the article:  The EU wants to cap MEMORY BANDWIDTH, not just power consumption.

Quote
The commission wants to stop dedicated graphics cards of group G7 from going above 320 GB/s - that is in theory a memory bus at 384-bit connected to memory operating at 6667 MHz or 512-bit with 5001 MHz. This is definitely within reach for the next generation graphics cards. Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition currently has a bandwidth of 288 GB/s with a 384-bit memory bus and 6000 MHz memory. For notebooks the limit will be only 225 GB/s.

No, they don't.  In fact they EXEMPT cards with high memory bandwidths from this recommendation if they are in a high end system.  

"1.1.3. Category D desktop computers and integrated desktop
computers meeting all of the following technical parameters are
exempt from the requirements specified in points 1.1.1 and
1.1.2:
(a) a minimum of six physical cores in the central processing
unit (CPU); and
(b) discrete GPU(s) providing total frame buffer bandwidths
above 320 GB/s; and
(c) a minimum 16GB of system memory; and
(d) a PSU with a rated output power of at least 1000 W. "

The whole idea of allowing politicians to determine computer specs is just ridiculous on a monumental level.
/thread
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 485


View Profile
October 18, 2012, 09:37:20 PM
 #45

Everyone is missing the most ridiculous part of the article:  The EU wants to cap MEMORY BANDWIDTH, not just power consumption.

Quote
The commission wants to stop dedicated graphics cards of group G7 from going above 320 GB/s - that is in theory a memory bus at 384-bit connected to memory operating at 6667 MHz or 512-bit with 5001 MHz. This is definitely within reach for the next generation graphics cards. Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition currently has a bandwidth of 288 GB/s with a 384-bit memory bus and 6000 MHz memory. For notebooks the limit will be only 225 GB/s.

Wrong.

Go read the proposed regulations.  It's about sleep/idle power draw, power supply efficiency and power factor.

It says nothing about how much the system can draw when it's in active use.
asdf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527


View Profile
October 18, 2012, 10:02:56 PM
 #46

Here's what I have been observing also:

1) CFLs are more expensive to manufacture than incandescents

2) CFLs are therefore considerable more expensive to buy than incandescents.

3) There is therefore a strong downward pressure on price for incandescents

4) Chinese knock out cheap, low quality incandescents

5) Cheap, low quality incandescents fail early, meaning that their claimed cost savings are not reached and their energy and resource TCO suck donkey parts compared to incandescents.

6) Statism does the fail thing once more.

7) Statism apologists scramble to make rationalizations. Cue:
This post makes no sense.

perverse incentives created by the state result in sub optimal behavior of the market.
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 18, 2012, 10:11:24 PM
 #47

perverse incentives created by the state result in sub optimal behavior of the market.
To be fair, I had a brain fart and typed incandescent when I meant CFLs and ended up making my argument about incandescents vs incandescents.  Undecided

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile WWW
October 18, 2012, 11:04:01 PM
 #48

Here's what I have been observing also:

1) CFLs are more expensive to manufacture than incandescents

2) CFLs are therefore considerable more expensive to buy than incandescents.

3) There is therefore a strong downward pressure on price for incandescents

4) Chinese knock out cheap, low quality incandescents

5) Cheap, low quality incandescents fail early, meaning that their claimed cost savings are not reached and their energy and resource TCO suck donkey parts compared to incandescents.

6) Statism does the fail thing once more.

7) Statism apologists scramble to make rationalizations. Cue:
This post makes no sense.

perverse incentives created by the state result in sub optimal behavior of the market.

Actually the reason for the low quality incandescent bulbs is lower demand, less research into them and everyone knowing there is not much future there.  They are a niche market.  There will be junk ones and good high end ones as well. 

So far incandescents have not been taxed and here the POWER COMPANY is subsidizing CFL's so they can avoid building an expensive power plant.  I got 4 CFL's for $1.99 last week.   

Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!