By: Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto.delete@this.gmail.com), August 13, 2012 9:16 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
jp (asdasdf.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 13, 2012 1:54 am wrote:
> When
> measuring the actual power consumption of the GT240 we found that purely compute
> bound applications didn't manage to max out the power consumption (50-60 % of
> max power while reaching near peak GFLOP/s numbers). It was rather the bandwidth
> bound applications that seemed to put more strain on the memory controllers that
> were consuming the most power.
That's not surprising considering that both ROPs and texture units can burn a significant amount of power in graphics workloads (they are both quite logic-intensive). I would assume that a pure computational load is unable to reach peak power-consumption, if you look at stress applications like OCCT those load the ROPs and TUs as well as the ALUs with a balanced workload in order to reach peak consumption.
> When
> measuring the actual power consumption of the GT240 we found that purely compute
> bound applications didn't manage to max out the power consumption (50-60 % of
> max power while reaching near peak GFLOP/s numbers). It was rather the bandwidth
> bound applications that seemed to put more strain on the memory controllers that
> were consuming the most power.
That's not surprising considering that both ROPs and texture units can burn a significant amount of power in graphics workloads (they are both quite logic-intensive). I would assume that a pure computational load is unable to reach peak power-consumption, if you look at stress applications like OCCT those load the ROPs and TUs as well as the ALUs with a balanced workload in order to reach peak consumption.
