Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 could have a power limit of 800W, but a lower default TDP

mrvco

Posts: 171   +164
I'm never spending x090 money for a video card, but I'm surprised how regressive the PC gaming community has become with regards to power consumption. Might as well start burning those empty Cheetos bags and 2-liter Mt Dew bottles in your back yard instead of paying for trash and recycling pick-up.
 

Loli Pop Carbon

Posts: 42   +40
I'm still on a 2080 super and have no problems with the games I play. I'm 56 and typically play FPS games like Half-Life Alyx, Bioshock (type) of games. Other than that I like an MMO or two. I'm good for a while with what I have and I'm not blowing my circuit breakers.

I'm still on 1080 Ti. And I'm also fine with it since mostly I play old, casual, and not demanding games. Some GTA V, Black Mesa, Bioshock, Borderlands, and Witcher 3. It's still more than capable.

I may want to upgrade when GTA V comes out, but if this pattern keeps up, I'm afraid we will reach 800-1000 watt TDP for GPU only. Hell no.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,493   +1,433
Might as well start burning those empty Cheetos bags and 2-liter Mt Dew bottles in your back yard instead of paying for trash and recycling pick-up.
Yes, it's much better ecologically to pay someone to haul that Mt. Dew bottle in a diesel-powered truck to a central depot, then ship it to Asia in a diesel-powered ship, where it'll be burned there instead.

91% of plastic ends up as litter or in landfills, and that nine percent that actually does make it to some form of “recycling” is often not actually recycled. Transforming plastics into other plastics is expensive, and largely pointless — plastic degrades with each use....
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,693   +6,620
Dec 2021: “New evidence shows that polar bears in regions with profound summer ice loss are doing well....

“The US Geological Survey estimated the global population of polar bears at 24,500 in 2005,” according to the State of the Polar Bear Report by Dr. Crawford. “In 2015, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group estimated the population at 26,000, but additional surveys published since then have brought the total to near 30,000 and may arguably be as high as 39,000.”

“This is only a slight-to-moderate increase, but it is far from the precipitous decline polar bear experts expected given a drop of almost 50% in sea-ice levels ...

there were no reports from anywhere around the Arctic that would suggest polar bears were suffering as a result: no starving bears, no drowning bears, and no marked increases in bear conflicts with humans. Indeed, contrary to expectations, several studies have shown that polar bears in many regions have been doing better with less summer ice...
I guess that depends on which study you read and whether it fits your preferred narrative. Stopping there, IMO, is not being thorough https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aan8677
I'd say the science on the matter is not cut and dry.

I'm waiting for you to tell me how that study is wrong, and how I should not be looking at the Nat Geo site....

But, hey, who am I to challenge you? ;)
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 1,493   +1,433
I'm waiting for you to tell me how that study is wrong..But, hey, who am I to challenge you? ;)
Did you even read that study? The worst it found was this:

...the researchers followed nine female polar bears without cubs through springtime, as the animals went hunting on sea ice over Beaufort Sea. They found five of the nine bears lost body mass in four months that should have been times when they put on fat.

Nothing in the study challenges the fact that polar bear populations have not experienced the precipitous declines predicted, and in fact are stable or increasing.
 

Lounds

Posts: 1,119   +1,015
That's a lot of heat to expell. In the UK 90% of homes don't have Air conditioning, it's just not a thing but to have this amount of power, you'll need to be in an air conditioned room for it to be viable. These halo cards are for the "money is no issue" people who don't care how much their electricity bill costs.
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 1,024   +768
Yes, it's much better ecologically to pay someone to haul that Mt. Dew bottle in a diesel-powered truck to a central depot, then ship it to Asia in a diesel-powered ship, where it'll be burned there instead.

91% of plastic ends up as litter or in landfills, and that nine percent that actually does make it to some form of “recycling” is often not actually recycled. Transforming plastics into other plastics is expensive, and largely pointless — plastic degrades with each use....

This is all mostly true - those feel good fleeces made from x plastic bottles are dropping millions of micro particles - that's why I have gone back to merino wool etc - here in NZ and in my city I can buy possum/merino clothing on sale at factory outlet - 10 out 10 for warmth and comfort .

Anyway , A lot of research is going into overcoming many of these problems .
1) creating plastics that are 100% re-usable - by being able to easily converted to basic chains - that can be assembled again as required- the lego plastic I suppose
2) or 100% degradable

As an aside plastic film for cucumbers is good for climate change - why - because film substantially improves the shelf life of veges and fruit - so much less wastage at supermarket or home .
I think from memory cost of film vs wastage was like 15 to 1 advantage . That's why I always argued with radical environmentalists - on you can't do this or that . Sometimes just need to best solution in short term - before holy grail - of perfect products with no waste, long life, and perfect reuse or safe degradability to grow spuds or whatever etc

In Asia they use rice paper ( starch) to wrap things - done this for a long time
 

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 125   +215
Not just rum and coke good sir, but Bacardi and Coke!
I think review sites should use that as the new test for heat. If it ruins the drink before it's finished, the card is reviewed unfavorably.

Seriously though, I just don't see the need for video cards to eat up the energy like that! Just thinking about 800 WATTS of power being used by one component, makes me hot.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,693   +6,620
Did you even read that study? The worst it found was this:

...the researchers followed nine female polar bears without cubs through springtime, as the animals went hunting on sea ice over Beaufort Sea. They found five of the nine bears lost body mass in four months that should have been times when they put on fat.

Nothing in the study challenges the fact that polar bear populations have not experienced the precipitous declines predicted, and in fact are stable or increasing.
Well, first you cite a 16-year old study and claim polar bear populations are doing fine. And now are you trying to tell us that the only indicator of the health of a population is the number of its members? And just what good does increasing numbers of polar bears do if they cannot find food?

And, again, you are not presenting all the facts. Simply put, world-wide, not all polar bear populations are increasing. Some are in decline, and with other populations, there is not enough data.

And let's never mind the fact that the polar bears are having difficulty finding food, right? Which will lead to a decline in their population if it keeps up, and not to mention the fact that Polar Bears are listed as endangered. But, according to you - even if you are citing a 16-year old study - they are doing fine. There's nothing wrong, and no cause for concern. Everything is fine and humanity is doing just great.

Not all agree with you. And I'd say that a significant number of experts disagree with you and your rosy assessment. https://www.iucn.org/content/new-as...ious-threat-polar-bear-survival-iucn-red-list

Yet, throw snark my way with each of your posts.

Your scientific integrity is astounding, and beyond reproach. Heck, one might even think that you are related to Richard Feynman.

Perhaps you should consider yourself an apologist instead.

Honestly, I almost feel sorry for you.
 

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 125   +215
Well, first you cite a 16-year old study and claim polar bear populations are doing fine. And now are you trying to tell us that the only indicator of the health of a population is the number of its members? And just what good does increasing numbers of polar bears do if they cannot find food?

And, again, you are not presenting all the facts. Simply put, world-wide, not all polar bear populations are increasing. Some are in decline, and with other populations, there is not enough data.

And let's never mind the fact that the polar bears are having difficulty finding food, right? Which will lead to a decline in their population if it keeps up, and not to mention the fact that Polar Bears are listed as endangered. But, according to you - even if you are citing a 16-year old study - they are doing fine. There's nothing wrong, and no cause for concern. Everything is fine and humanity is doing just great.

Not all agree with you. And I'd say that a significant number of experts disagree with you and your rosy assessment. https://www.iucn.org/content/new-as...ious-threat-polar-bear-survival-iucn-red-list

Yet, throw snark my way with each of your posts.

Your scientific integrity is astounding, and beyond reproach. Heck, one might even think that you are related to Richard Feynman.

Perhaps you should consider yourself an apologist instead.

Honestly, I almost feel sorry for you.
The same would be true if it got too cold. The earth cycles. We do not have much influence as mother nature finds a way. Sure, we should do our best to take care of the environment for the generations to follow, and we've done a fantastic job of it. The problem is the toxicity of new products that are supposed to be "green". Sure they may not affect the earths temperature by .01 degree, but these chemicals will catch up to us as they build up. I still think fossil fuels are the safest over all. Modern cars burn VERY clean! The states just need to keep emission inspections going.

I get behind some old junkers that I have to turn my vent on recirculate so I don't smell the oil. I can't stand cigarette smoke either.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,693   +6,620
The same would be true if it got too cold. The earth cycles. We do not have much influence as mother nature finds a way. Sure, we should do our best to take care of the environment for the generations to follow, and we've done a fantastic job of it. The problem is the toxicity of new products that are supposed to be "green". Sure they may not affect the earths temperature by .01 degree, but these chemicals will catch up to us as they build up. I still think fossil fuels are the safest over all. Modern cars burn VERY clean! The states just need to keep emission inspections going.

I get behind some old junkers that I have to turn my vent on recirculate so I don't smell the oil. I can't stand cigarette smoke either.
As I see it, others realize the problems with new products and continually work to improve them.

But we should just keep doing what we are doing and expect different results?

Arguments have been made that fossil fuels are dirtier, and the arguments are at least as strong as those made that state that "new green products are toxic."

Tailpipe emissions are not the only source of pollution for fossil fuels. There are just as many, if not more, in the production and transportation to market phases of fossil fuel use as there are in the current crop of green products.

Pollution is everywhere. Should we pay it no mind and just chalk it up to the price of human progress? As an example - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-are-found-in-fresh-antarctic-snow-180980264/

I don't think so. Should we say, "its too hard to fight and just give up?" I don't think so. With that kind of attitude, no one would have ever landed on the moon. And if we just give up on trying to do something, there's an ever growing risk that humanity will leave the Earth uninhabitible for humanity. Yes, obviously the Earth will survive, but there is no guarantee that humanity will. There are cascading effects of losing species and because it costs more or is hard to tackle, should we just give up trying to control ourselves and the footprints we leave on the Earth?
 

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 125   +215
As I see it, others realize the problems with new products and continually work to improve them.

But we should just keep doing what we are doing and expect different results?

Arguments have been made that fossil fuels are dirtier, and the arguments are at least as strong as those made that state that "new green products are toxic."

Tailpipe emissions are not the only source of pollution for fossil fuels. There are just as many, if not more, in the production and transportation to market phases of fossil fuel use as there are in the current crop of green products.

Pollution is everywhere. Should we pay it no mind and just chalk it up to the price of human progress? As an example - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-are-found-in-fresh-antarctic-snow-180980264/

I don't think so. Should we say, "its too hard to fight and just give up?" I don't think so. With that kind of attitude, no one would have ever landed on the moon. And if we just give up on trying to do something, there's an ever growing risk that humanity will leave the Earth uninhabitible for humanity. Yes, obviously the Earth will survive, but there is no guarantee that humanity will. There are cascading effects of losing species and because it costs more or is hard to tackle, should we just give up trying to control ourselves and the footprints we leave on the Earth?
We will never be rid of using oil. It's in just about everything we use, every day, everywhere. We will progress because there is money to be made, and very intelligent people who have ideas. Progress will never stop. We cannot just stop what we are doing in the process. Poverty is a much bigger problem than pollution. We can't just do away with affordable technologies.

People just don't see the bigger picture on how things affect real life and real people. New technology is excessively expensive. We are either lucky, or hard working (ME!!) to have the luxary of having nice computers, a home, cars, even food. If you ever lost your job, ran into a run of bad luck and lost your savings and income. What would you do, buy a 30k hybrid vehicle, or a 5k junker and start over? Nobody would even sell you the 30k hybrid. There has to be common sense.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,574   +2,799
TechSpot Elite
Well, first you cite a 16-year old study and claim polar bear populations are doing fine
Ok, well I guess that explains why he never provides links.
Seriously though, I just don't see the need for video cards to eat up the energy like that! Just thinking about 800 WATTS of power being used by one component, makes me hot.
(y) (Y) And to add to that, claiming that it's ok because "it's just peak wattage" is kind of sad. How many people are NOT going to overclock and just basically try to milk the GPU for everything they can?
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,493   +1,433
Well, first you cite a 16-year old study
Oops! Do you not read posts before you reply to them? The story was from December 2021, it cited a 16-year old prediction that polar bears were rapidly declining, in order to contrast that with the reality since then.

now are you trying to tell us that the only indicator of the health of a population is the number of its members?
Yes. Real-world data showing population increases trumps alarmist Chicken-Little predictions of sharp declines due to starvation.

And let's never mind the fact that the polar bears are having difficulty finding food, right?
If they were finding true difficulty finding food, populations would be declining. For details, Google the logistics curve function in mathematical biology, and the ecological carrying capacity.

Your scientific integrity is astounding, and beyond reproach. Heck, one might even think that you are related to Richard Feynman.
Why thank you. I'm glad I inspire that level of admiration in you.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,574   +2,799
TechSpot Elite
If they were finding true difficulty finding food, populations would be declining. For details, Google the logistics curve function in mathematical biology, and the ecological carrying capacity.
Or you could realize that the African continent has seen unprecedented famine and starvation while also going through a sharp rise in population.

I guess as hunger begins to rise, many species will get down.