Nicolas Capens (nicolas.capens@gmail.com) on 2/24/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>Hi David,
>
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 2/22/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>>You're wrong about that. The IGP consumes considerable power: http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i5_2500k_and_core_i7_2600k_sandy_bridge,14.html
>>
>>Hey - I told you before and I'll tell you again. That data does not even remotely
>>support any point you are trying to make. It in no way isolates the power consumption of the IGP.
>
>I couldn't find any post where you told me this before.

Well, I've only mentioned it two times before. But now you know, so you can simply stop pretending.

>But anyway, this data doesn't
>have to isolate the power consumption of the IGP itself to >"even remotely" support
>any point I'm trying to make.

You wrote: "The IGP consumes considerable power."

You offered that link as evidence, despite the fact that it lacks any data which remotely supports your claim.

You simply do not have any facts to back up your claim. i.e. you are full of it.

>The fact of the matter is that playing Crysis consumes
>nearly 100 Watt. So if software rendering can get reasonably close to the same performance
>within the same power envelope, while offering a cost advantage or generic computing
>advantage, it's commercially viable.

That has nothing to do with what you said or the point you made. Moreover, SW rendering cannot get close in performance or in power.

>So even though some of that is required
>to implement fixed-function operations, if necessary the >CPU cores can be downclocked
>to become more power efficient. And as I've explained to Seni (http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=117385&threadid=113145&roomid=2),
>gather/scatter would offer plenty of texture sampling capability. Also, software
>rendering should have higher utilization (it doesn't leave any fixed-function hardware
>idle), which again in theory means a lower clock frequency >could suffice.

You are crazy. Intel's LRB team concluded very quickly that texturing hardware is needed for a competitive level of performance. I trust their studies far more than any specious arguments you can make.

>By the way, that Legion Hardware review also shows that the i5-2500K consumes 10
>Watt less than the i7-2600K for running Crysis. Given that it's not CPU limited
>and there's only 100 MHz difference in CPU frequency, most of this difference appears
>to be due to the double amount of IGP EUs.

There's not really any hard proof there. It's also unclear what frequency the GPU and CPU are really operating at.

>Note though that the graphics performance
>doesn't actually double, so this power difference only >represents the increase.
>This leads me to believe that the total power consumption >of the IGP should not be underestimated.

This leads me to believe you have no idea of how much power the GPU actually consumes!

>>It measures active power for the CPU, GPU and the entire chip. You are trying
>>to claim that the GPU consumes 'considerable' power.
>>
>>You have no #s for the GPUs power consumption, so stop >>pretending like you do.
>
>Easy there. I never claimed I had exact power consumption >numbers. But neither
>does IntelUser2000, who simply pulled his 10 Watt number >out of thin air and tried
>to use it to prove me wrong. So I think I'm entitled to >question that.

You are entitled to many things, but so far all you've done is making specious claims supported by little to no facts and masquerade as if your claims are ironclad and supported by hard data.

That by itself is a red flag and as a result, I basically look at any claims you make as being false until proven otherwise.

>So unless you have accurate numbers yourself, be careful >which side you choose.
>Else you may also want to tell IntelUser2000 to stop >pretending he has power consumption numbers...

The difference is that you are trying to make ridiculous claims that defy sense, you use specious data and are generally extremely disingenuous. Actions speak quite loudly...

David