Benchmarking AMD Radeon Chill: Pumping The Brakes On Wasted Power

Radeon Chill: Performance And Power Consumption

FPS: All or Nothing?

Looking at performance alone misses the point of Radeon Chill, but we still want to see how AMD's feature affects frame rates in absolute terms. Just try not to think of this chart as "higher is better," because that's not what we're trying to show.

Right out of the gate, we see the most demanding scene diminishes the impact of Radeon Chill the most, just as we were expecting. Meanwhile, the frame rate drops quite a bit in the sequence with the least amount of motion. That's pretty much what AMD is advertising.

But as we know, frames per second is too broad of a metric to represent performance on its own. Frame time is often much more important, particularly when it comes to measurements that involve smoothness. And Radeon Chill definitely needs to be checked for its effect on frame delivery.

We begin with the first scene, where Geralt is standing still. It's important to note that we dialed in the highest-quality settings, just as a real gamer would do playing The Witcher 3 at 1920x1080 on a Radeon RX 480. No doubt, AMD would have rather have us use a less demanding detail preset to show Chill pumping the brakes on 100 FPS+ performance. Frame times would have looked better in absolute terms. However, we want to represent real-world game play and not some hypothetical case. Our conclusion would have been the same anyway.

Now let's rotate the camera or get Geralt to jump around and throw some attacks. Color starts coming into play, and we can see the rapid performance increase once movement demands higher frame rates (identifiable through lower frame time values).

Dynamic movement is smooth, as it should be, and the already-calculated scenery uses less power.

It's time to run around and deliberately try to force prevent Radeon Chill from having an effect. The two lines track each other closely as performance needs outweigh Chill's proclivity for power-saving.

Let us now compare the frame times as a bar chart, broken up into intervals:

Frame time variance increases as Radeon Chill becomes more active, though this is what we'd expect from a feature designed to relax performance in the name of lower power consumption.

Subjectively, the RX 480's frame delivery is smoother than the bars suggest. It's certainly not ideal, though. We think you'll want a FreeSync-capable monitor to truly maximize what Radeon Chill brings to the table...so long as your realized frame rates fall within the display's variable refresh rate range.

Power Consumption

Of course, the reason for Chill's existence is lower power consumption. And as the chart below shows, our savings is up to 22%. It's no wonder AMD would like to throttle down from 90 to 40 FPS.

In the real world, though, when were you ever seeing 90 or 100 FPS? Unless you're playing StarCraft or Counter-Strike at their highest detail settings, those figures aren't realistic on an RX 480 at 1920x1080. AMD's whitelist has a lot of lush-looking games on it that won't get quite so much benefit from Radeon Chill, since they won't be modulating performance as much as the less-demanding titles.

To go with the stand-still test's frame time benchmarks, we also have power consumption measurements in the same scene, with and without Radeon Chill:

When Radeon Chill is activated, the measured minimum values drop significantly, along with the peaks. As a nice side-effect, noise output drops as well.

Summary And Conclusion

What do you do as a manufacturer when you are constantly being criticized for higher power consumption and lower efficiency than the competition? That's right, you come up with ways to reduce unnecessary work, and when your hardware has the chance to idle (even on a millisecond basis), you seize the opportunity to save some power.

Radeon Chill is not a silver bullet, and it cannot make up for AMD's architectural disadvantages. However, if a game is well-suited to the feature's strengths, then there are clear savings to be had by enabling Chill. This feature does help supported cards run cooler, and thus quieter. There's not much more we could ask for except a longer whitelist or, better still, an option to enable Chill at our own risk for every game, even the ones not yet officially supported. For the time being, AMD's software team is to be commended for the innovation it continues piling onto the hardware.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: Gaming At 3840x2160: Is Your PC Ready For A 4K Display

MORE: How Well Do Workstation Graphics Cards Play Games?

MORE: All Graphics Content

Follow us on Facebook, Google+, RSS, Twitter and YouTube.

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
40 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • torka
    This is a wonderful advancement. One that makes me feel a lot better about having a GPU that would be considered overkill and a waste of power.
  • Other Comments
  • torka
    This is a wonderful advancement. One that makes me feel a lot better about having a GPU that would be considered overkill and a waste of power.
  • JackNaylorPE
    Lotta of articles of late have missing legends but I assumed the perhaps obvious assumption that on Power Consumption graph, black is no chill, and red is chill on.

    Isn't this behavior normal ? I notice when playing on my son's box and walking away from game for a minute (twin 970s, 1440p) ,when I come back, the Temp and Power graphs on the LCD panel taken a dive.

    I live the idea as this could help solve many of the heat problems such as in the post I just answered, so while I love the concept, I'd love to know what is the impact ?

    I think the true test here would be to set up a few gamers and pick a quest:

    a) Have 3 run thru the quest with no chill.

    b) have 3 gamers run thru the test with chill.

    During the test, have the PC plugged into a kil-o-watt meter and record the start and finish kw-hrs

    If I sit down for a 3-4 hour W3 session, I'm only stopping for bathroom and snack breaks, and I'm not that old yet where if taking a bio before I start, I'm going to need another one :)

    a) Say I do need a bio, or say FedEx arrives with a package, that's a 60 - 90 second afk.

    b) No one really spends any time (I think) jumping and spinning.

    I would expect that at the end of the tests, the results won't be much different.

    Average of 189 watts over 175 minutes of playing time, 5 minutes of afk at 183 or staring at Vistas (no chill) = 189 x 175 + 5 x 183 = 188.83 average draw

    Average of 188 watts over 175 minutes of playing time, 5 minutes of afk at 143 or staring at Vistas (chill) = 188 x 175 + 5 x 143 = 187.88

    Assuming the usual 100 hour game playing time ....

    1.05 watts x 100 hours x 60 minutes x $0.10 avg cost / (1000 watts per kw x 0.87 eff) = $0.72 in power cost savings,

    Looking at the performance impact of the 3 conditions:

    a) Performance wise, there's a 33 % hit on performance for a 22% energy consumption when standing still and for that I say "who cares", ya want fps for smooth movement and if ya ain't movin' ....

    b) There's s a 28% drop in performance for jumping and spinning for a 19% drop in energy consumption which again is of not concern to me but may be bothersome for folks who like to pan around and admire vistas.

    c) I actual normal play while traveling or fighting, it has no impact.

    Not trying to minimize what AMD has done here, certainly commendable. But during normal active play over all 3 conditions, we see a 0.5% decrease in power over a 3 hour session for a 0.6 % decrease in avg fps (*while running) when you really need it. OTOH, the ROI on the technology is negative ... the impact on performance is far greater, percentage wise, than what ya get back in power saved.
  • rwinches
    So those of us that use the builtin sliders for their intended purpose to match or hardware to the game being played are not "real gamers" especially since we purchased AMD GPUs that have "architectural disadvantages" and should have gone with nVidia

    Got it.
  • ohim
    RWINCHES are you for real?
  • neblogai
    It is funny how biased the Toms reviewer is again. Instead of finding positives in this new tech, it's possible uses (for example- to save battery life on laptops + WoW) and best case tests, almost every paragraph in the review has rants on how AMD is bad and not as good as nVidia :)
  • red77star
    I saved power and got better performance by buying Nvidia 1080 GTX. A simple solution...
  • KaiserPhantasma
    a step in the right direction I guess better something than nothing.
  • JackNaylorPE
    I have to say that's the 1st time I ever saw anyone accuse Tom's of an AMD Bias .... just look at the "Best GFX card articles" over the last few years. You don't think it odd that a site that focuses on gaming would mention the fact that there's a huge difference in OC headroom ? When two cards are in a certain performance / price niche and one OCs 25% and the other 6% , that shouldn't affect a potential buying decision ?

    This article read to me like he was trying real hard to say something good about AMD without making it subject to crushing and truthful responses.

    Battery life ? during gaming ? Unless gaming is defined as starting the game and staring at the scenery w/o moving, what's the gain here ? If you actually play, with the 0.5% power savings in a typical session, your 90 minute **gaming battery life** just became 89.6 minutes. What exactly do you expect the author to rave about ?

    If we are going to talk about bias ... and ignoring the fact that tests weren't done on a Mobile GPU or if the Mobile GPU wasn't already doing this, you will consume 143 watts with your 480 .... but the guy across the aisle on the train w/ his 1060 laptop is consuming 120 watts... and he gets to actually **play** the game. He can really play the game 20% longer than you could "stand still and stare at the scenery" with the 480.

    While what AMD has done with this so far is commendable, the greater significance is perhaps they could expand the functionality on this as time goes on beyond AB's power sliders. As of now, it has to be said, it's power saving impact is limited to staring at the screen and ***not playing the game***.

    Now if you are playing the game on a lappie and walk away from the screen to hit the bathroom or whatever ... are you going to leave the lappie unattended ?... aren't you going to close the lid which will result in real power savings when lappie sleeps while you gone ?

    I love the fact that AMD has starting looking for ways to reduce power consumption, I love that the 4xx series has cut power usage compared with 3xx ... but while complimenting them on "their improvements" the gap between the two is still very wide....and it has widened with the last generation.

    In a story between rival football teams where the losing team lost 42 - 21 instead of the 42 - 10 last year, the author will likely compliment the losing team for their improved performance, but for the author not to note "who won the game" would be the author "not doing his job".

    I read every article with the mind set "will this change anything" with regard to what I select or what I put in when I build for others. This doesn't change anything. Like most of today's news, especially in the political arena", the headline is misleading. The headline could have just as easily read:

    AMD's new Chill Utility saves power as long as you don't Play the Game

    It's accurate, more descriptive of what it does ... putting the brakes on doesn't really tell me how well it did. Reading it, they applied the brakes, the braking distance was better ... but let's be realistic, they still hit the deer".

    My take on the article was a positive in that it clearly shows that AMD is concerned about this issue. They are working on it. OK, so it won't have much of an impact yet, but they did what they could with the resources they have. It's a start; as it matures, I expect we'll see user selectable settings whereby you can tell it not to exceed a certain power draw....or "I don't need 95 fps.... cut power as needed to keep me at 55-60 fps.

    Now I'm curious (question for you Igor) if this didn't arise out of the 480 Fix where the reference 480s were exceeding their power limits. Of course, like with the fix, when you cut power, you cut performance. Right now it's a poor trade off with performance hits far exceeding the power savings reduction on a percentage basis. Hopefully over time it will get better.

    Right now, when I do a 480 build, the PSU needs to be 100 watts bigger than a 1060 build. A user with marginal PC would then be in a position to buy a 480 now and set a safe power limit, until such time as he could afford a PSU upgrade. (Recommend the 1060 / 1070 / 1080 in higher end builds / below the $280 niche, its all AMD) So yes, the technology has several possible upsides.

    Technology isn't yet in a place where most of everything else is ... hope it never gets there in my lifetime. Today:

    -Everybody gets a trophy
    -No Dodgeball cause 1st player out might suffer a hit on his self esteem
    -Moms are inserting themselves into negotiations for the offsprings 1st job after college, even attending job interviews
    -Editoral content is dictated by a "stick to the positives" mandate from the advertising department.

    If I could talk to nVidia / AMD on this topic, this is what I'd say

    nVidia: You have a distinct advantage in power efficiency, it's real, don't get lazy and keep at it.

    AMD: OK, this new technology won't have a real impact for most of us but will for those that like to "stop and smell the roses". We appreciate your attention to this issue and this technology appears to have the potential to have greater effects over time, so i will be watching for further developments. You are not going to "get a trophy", but we must commend you for the attention and effort. Keep going in this direction as well as in GPU / PCB design to further narrow the gap.
  • RedJaron
    What the . . . ? Are you people complaining Igor is bashing AMD actually serious? Did you bother to read the whole thing?

    Anonymous said:
    It is funny how biased the Toms reviewer is again. Instead of finding positives in this new tech, it's possible uses (for example- to save battery life on laptops + WoW) and best case tests, almost every paragraph in the review has rants on how AMD is bad and not as good as nVidia :)

    Anonymous said:
    This tech can't be any good. It doesn't have an Nvidia logo on it. Let's also test just one game, because reasons.

    Could this article be any more lazy? Is Tom's THAT desperate to be first?

    I don't understand how Tom's can have great articles like that UPS teardown and fix, then publish this garbage.
    Okay, back up your claims. Show me actual examples from the article that say, much less imply, any of this. It explains what Chill is meant to do, a little about how it's supposed to do it ( though it can't explain much since AMD hasn't revealed all the details ), explains the testing methodology, and gives the results. The commentary on the results say the technology pretty much works as advertised, shows a few niggles where it will be limited, and overall says AMD did a good job on it. The only time NVidia is even mentioned is when talking about Ansel and saying NVidia's tech has the same limitation as Chill and that it only works on a limited number of games. That's not a negative, it's a fact about both methods.

    This crap about blasting others with completely false and unfounded accusations may work on so-called network news, but doesn't fly with people doing actual critical thinking. Either put up or shut up.
  • neblogai
    Anonymous said:
    What the . . . ? Are you people complaining Igor is bashing AMD actually serious? Did you bother to read the whole thing?
    ...
    This crap about blasting others with completely false and unfounded accusations may work on so-called network news, but doesn't fly with people doing actual critical thinking. Either put up or shut up.


    Ok, I can answer to that:
    1) Maybe you do not know- AMD released a huge feature and driver package today. Toms has not even reported it- only made a small test on one of the features for this article. Here is how much was really released:
    http://videocardz.com/64496/amd-preparing-crimson-relive-driver-update
    2) Article is full of negativity, like : "Ah, but there are restrictions", "Sounds cool, right? Unfortunately"
    3) Game chosen for testing is Witcher 3- one of the most demanding in the list of supported games. Most of them can run 100-200fps on RX480 and will run even faster on upcoming more powerful GPUs. So certainly energy savings on witcher3 will not be as great as on a game which drops 150fps to 40fps.
    4) "What do you do as a manufacturer when you are constantly being criticized for higher power consumption" - is there really anyone criticizing AMD at this point for having a GPU that runs 30-40W more than competition? On desktop- no one cares, as $10 higher electricity bill can be more than compensated by $100 dollar cheaper adaptive sync. And on laptops- Polaris GPUs are very energy efficient if run at lower clocks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5dJD-fLfk8
    This "chill" feature can help laptops a lot on top of that.

    Also, with latest driver updates, reviewers are already finding that even RX480 reference has caught up with GTX1060 in DX11, and leads more in DX12: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-23.html
    With all the new AMD features that are available today, same or better performance, and much cheaper adaptive sync- AMD is simply a better buy, and nVidia is behind. The thing is- here at Toms nVidia is somewhat more energy efficient- so light-years better :)
  • Bartendalot
    The commenters in this thread as well as other threads like it on other sites are why I won't be buying AMD again.

    The fans of that brand sound like petulant children who have chosen this battle - with everything going on in the world - to champion. Putting down an author, website and users of the other multi-billion dollar company. This vocal minority is not one I would like to be a part of.

    I will continue to spend my money on products I like and get good use out of and visit sites I enjoy.
  • jasonelmore
    VSYNC does the same thing LOL.... no special software needed.
  • RedJaron
    Anonymous said:
    That is quite the long winded response.
    What's wrong with thoroughly wording a response? Do you have a problem reading more than a few paragraphs? Judging from your response to the article, I can only conclude you do. If you want to attack someone else rather then their argument itself, prepare to have the same done to you.

    Anonymous said:
    I must of missed where you addressed the lazily written article
    I must have missed the part where you actually explain why you think it's lazily written, rather than lay baseless accusations.

    Anonymous said:
    and the fact that only one game was tested
    Again, why is this a problem? This is a preview and announcement, not an in-depth experiment. If you would bother looking around, you'd notice that all the other previews about Chill and the new Crimson suite were posted today as well. This signifies some kind of NDA expiration. A single, demanding game is fairly representative of the majority of the supported list. Tech Power Up also only used one game formally ( Far Cry Primal ). And they only gave you power readings, not frame time as Igor did.

    Anonymous said:
    before proclaiming FAILURE.
    Just stop. The final paragraph says "if a game is well-suited to the feature's strengths, then there are clear savings to be had by enabling Chill. This feature does help supported cards run cooler, and thus quieter. There's not much more we could ask for except a longer whitelist or, better still, an option to enable Chill at our own risk for every game, even the ones not yet officially supported. For the time being, AMD's software team is to be commended for the innovation it continues piling onto the hardware."

    Please explain to me how you can possibly interpret that as FAILURE.

    Anonymous said:
    Exaggerate much?
    No more than you do when saying Igor is calling Chill a failure.

    Anonymous said:
    A quick look at the awards on your profile tells us the whole story. You have more best answers for Nvidia than you do for Intel and AMD combined.
    And this proves what? Nothing. First, how do you expect Jack to control who does and does not pick his post as a "Best Answer"?

    Second, the BA category is based on the tags assigned to a thread by the forum software at creation, Very few users bother adding or editing the tags automatically assigned. So using that alone to "prove" a bias is incredibly bad research.

    Third, going by the current market saturation, NVidia GPUs far outsell AMD right now. Meaning there are far more question threads about NVidia GPUs than AMD's. Thus, a lot more NVidia BAs will be awarded than AMD, even if you include AMD CPUs since they are far outsold by Intel as well.

    Fourth, if you're going to use BAs to asses participation and tech knowledge, Jack's GPU BAs are more than twice as many as all of yours combined across all categories.

    In short, using BAs to prove anything other than simple forum participation is pointless.

    Anonymous said:
    You aren't impartial. This is normal. Most people aren't impartial (especially those who are active on tech forums).
    Then you need to apply this to yourself, in particular your rampant AMD bias you're displaying.

    Anonymous said:
    This article was rushed and it shows. Don't pretend like it is anything more than that.
    Don't pretend like you did much more than spew out some unsubstantiated claims just because Igor didn't lavish praise on AMD. If you've never worked as a reviewer within an NDA envelope and don't know how those deadlines work, along with all the other articles you're working on, you don't know what you're talking about. Rushed? Perhaps since I don't know the schedule Igor was given. But again, show your evidence that proves this was poorly or lazily written, or that his methodology or conclusions are flawed.

    Anonymous said:
    Here are links that provide proper review and info about the full largest SW release for Radeon.
    If you're complaining that Tom's only looked at Chill and nothing else, perhaps you ought to look better on the site. Perhaps you should bother reading the other write-up that came out today.

    As for a "proper" review, apparently you missed the fact that nearly all of those lacked any sort of in-depth look at how Chill actually performs. Nearly all of them focused on repeating AMD's claims of Chill's 31% savings when playing WoW, but little else. Only Guru3D bothered to put up any chart on WoW itself, but it doesn't explain its methodology. For all we know, they simply repasted numbers given them by AMD.

    TechPowerUp posted some graphs about power draw while playing Far Cry Primal, but again the methodology isn't fully explained, meaning we don't know the detail settings, which scenes or maps were used, or how the game was being played. They do however mention that with Chill on in WoW, you will see stuttering when standing around because the GPU thinks you're inactive even though other players are running around the screen. Guess that means TPU is completely anti-AMD too.

    Igor is the only one who bothered to test and record actual game performance and user experience, not just power draw, meaning he went far beyond what those others did. Yet he's the lazy one?


    Anonymous said:
    Ok, I can answer to that:
    1) Maybe you do not know- AMD released a huge feature and driver package today. Toms has not even reported it- only made a small test on one of the features for this article. Here is how much was really released:
    Completely false, as I already listed. The rest of the announcement is in a different article. This was a more in-depth look at one feature. So in actuality, Tom's actually ran TWO articles about AMD when many others only ran one. According to your logic, that means they must have a pro-AMD bias.


    Anonymous said:
    2) Article is full of negativity, like : "Ah, but there are restrictions", "Sounds cool, right? Unfortunately"
    THAT'S what you consider negativity? Wow, get some critical analysis skills, please. Yes, there are restrictions. It's only for DX9 and DX11. That's a fact, not AMD bashing. And that "unfortunately" was also applied to NVidia's Ansel. Wanna try again?

    To be a non-partial reviewer you report on the good and bad. To not do so is the definition of bias.

    Anonymous said:
    3) Game chosen for testing is Witcher 3- one of the most demanding in the list of supported games.
    Um, yeah. There's this idea called "stress testing". Basically, if you want to see how well something works, you push it as far as it can go, not stay just in its comfort zone. You don't market a heavy duty truck by saying that it has no problem hauling a couch on a trailer. Why is this a problem?

    Anonymous said:
    Most of them can run 100-200fps on RX480
    Complete BS, or at least completely unquantified BS. What resolution? What detail settings? Most of the Chill enabled games are tested at that link to Hardware Canucks you left. Wanna guess how many broke 100fps?

    Anonymous said:
    and will run even faster on upcoming more powerful GPUs.
    Um, file that in the "Well, DUH!" folder. What's this have to do with anything?

    Anonymous said:
    So certainly energy savings on witcher3 will not be as great as on a game which drops 150fps to 40fps.
    Please tell me which game is going to drop like that. The only games that are going to reach the 150fps range are things like CS:GO, StarCraft, and Overwatch, maybe WoW. In order for the framerate to drop, you've got to be standing still. Wanna take a guess how often you're standing still in those games?

    The bigger savings will be in games like Witcher, like Tomb Raider, and other slower paced adventure games when you can afford to just look around a bit without getting sniped from the other side of the map. Hence, why Witcher 3 was actually a good selection to test this.

    Anonymous said:
    4) "What do you do as a manufacturer when you are constantly being criticized for higher power consumption" - is there really anyone criticizing AMD at this point for having a GPU that runs 30-40W more than competition?
    It's called reputation. It's not something that goes away easily. How long has it been since AMD held a power consumption advantage over NVidia? People have complained about AMD's power draw since the RX 200 vs GTX 700. Polaris improved a lot, but it's still far behind Maxwell.

    Anonymous said:
    On desktop- no one cares, as $10 higher electricity bill can be more than compensated by $100 dollar cheaper adaptive sync.
    First, yes, people do care on desktop. Power draw equals heat, and anyone building mATX or ITX systems will understandably favor NVidia over AMD at this point. Second, don't make the mistake of applying USA's electricity costs to the rest of the world.

    Anonymous said:
    And on laptops- Polaris GPUs are very energy efficient if run at lower clocks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5dJD-fLfk8
    This "chill" feature can help laptops a lot on top of that.
    Again, the games that can see the best power drop with this tech are the ones that are least likely to utilize it. Also, how many people game on laptops while on battery compared to plugged into the wall?

    Anonymous said:
    Also, with latest driver updates, reviewers are already finding that even RX480 reference has caught up with GTX1060 in DX11, and leads more in DX12:
    Yeah, this is what many of us have theorized for a while. What does this have to do with Chill?

    Anonymous said:
    With all the new AMD features that are available today, same or better performance, and much cheaper adaptive sync- AMD is simply a better buy, and nVidia is behind. The thing is- here at Toms nVidia is somewhat more energy efficient- so light-years better :)
    You must have selectively read that Canuck's article as much as this one. Did you miss that portion at the end that said while the 480 may have an advantage over the 1060 in the future, it's still hobbled by inflated price and the better buy is whichever card is currently on sale?
  • RedJaron
    Anonymous said:
    VSYNC does the same thing LOL.... no special software needed.
    Wrong, VSync just makes the frames render in time with the monitor's refresh rate. It doesn't limit how fast the GPU will send frames to the monitor. With VSync on, if the GPU throws out frames faster than they can be displayed, it simply drops the excess frames, thus the GPU's work is wasted.
  • ammaross
    Anonymous said:
    b) No one really spends any time (I think) jumping and spinning.

    Average of 189 watts over 175 minutes of playing time, 5 minutes of afk at 183 or staring at Vistas (no chill) = 189 x 175 + 5 x 183 = 188.83 average draw

    Average of 188 watts over 175 minutes of playing time, 5 minutes of afk at 143 or staring at Vistas (chill) = 188 x 175 + 5 x 143 = 187.88


    (I clipped down to the above excerpt to include the relevant parts and as a TL/DR)

    The basic premise of your argument is wrong. You're assuming there's no benefit from Chill in those "175 minutes." The "spinning and jumping" test is designed to test what players are usually doing in a game! They're in a small section of ground killing creatures, reading text, maps, inventory, etc. The traveling bit does happen for the 10 seconds it takes to get to the next 10-20sec fight or other point of interest. Realistically, Chill will be in effect for more than 50% of gameplay (yes, a guesstimate, but way more accurate than the "none" you suppose as you isolate Chill only to "afk" time). So, correction to your math:

    Average of 189 watts over 175 minutes of playing time, 5 minutes of afk at 183W or staring at Vistas (no chill) = (189 x 175 + 5 x 183) / 180 = 188.83 average draw

    Average of 188 watts over 88 minutes of "running," 87 minutes "chill is working" hack'n'slash time at 148W, 5 minutes of afk at 143W or staring at Vistas (full chill) = (188 x 88 + 148 x 87 + 5 x 143) / 180 = 167.42

    Assuming the usual 100 hour game playing time ....
    21.41 watts x 100 hours x 60 minutes x $0.10 avg cost / (1000 watts per kw x 0.87 eff) = $14.76 in power cost savings

    Let me repeat that: $14.76 in power cost savings over 100 hours. Easily that PER MONTH for gamers.
  • mitch074
    @Jasonelmore: actually VSYNC doesn't do that - most cards fill up their buffer as fast as they can and implement a double or triple buffer, and only the latest filled buffer is used for display. This technology actually throttles the card to match a given frame rate; some games actually did try to hit a given frame rate which incidentally reduced GPU load, but this is the first time a driver actually balances a target frame rate for a given level of activity with a card's power state.
  • USAFRet
    Anonymous said:


    Assuming the usual 100 hour game playing time ....
    21.41 watts x 100 hours x 60 minutes x $0.10 avg cost / (1000 watts per kw x 0.87 eff) = $14.76 in power cost savings

    Let me repeat that: $14.76 in power cost savings over 100 hours. Easily that PER MONTH for gamers.


    hmmmm......
    http://www.rapidtables.com/calc/electric/energy-cost-calculator.htm


    I could be wrong, of course...
  • neblogai
    Anonymous said:

    Assuming the usual 100 hour game playing time ....
    21.41 watts x 100 hours x 60 minutes x $0.10 avg cost / (1000 watts per kw x 0.87 eff) = $14.76 in power cost savings

    Let me repeat that: $14.76 in power cost savings over 100 hours. Easily that PER MONTH for gamers.


    That is wrong calculation. 100h x 21W x $0.10 avg cost = 2.1Kw x $0.1=$0.21 per month. Difference in Watts has to much greater to really matter in electricity costs- but greatly reduced energy use will help a lot for laptops- to run longer on battery, or to fit into lower power limit/thermal design while still providing good performance.
  • g-unit1111
    Anonymous said:
    The fans of that brand sound like petulant children who have chosen this battle - with everything going on in the world - to champion. Putting down an author, website and users of the other multi-billion dollar company. This vocal minority is not one I would like to be a part of.


    Oh you have no idea. :lol: