I know what it means and what it's for, none the less printing the TDP but not the max. Watt is a marketing strategy (especially when the same TDP number is used as reference on motherbords to tell if your CPU is compatible - power wise, not thermal wise as that's the job of the cooler, not the MB), don't you think?
I guess to a novice it may seem confusing. But if you see a term like (Watts TDP), then one would think it is not normal watts and would inquire what it means. We all should be wise enough by all the marketing misleads in todays society. it's not like everyone tries to get over on you on every single product being sold.
Of course it has. At full load it needs at least the TDP (ofc. it needs more or it produces heat only but you get what I'm heading to).
No it doesn't. It means the heatsink will dissipate 75 watts of energy at room temperature. It has nothing to do with CPU power consumption. There is a slight correlation as higher TDP will mean higher CPU power consumption.
Since you like links, but don't post any, here a quick one I found by Linus, as he always has good stuff.
Writing down some numbers also won't work. Source?
My numbers mostly come from my own experience. I have multimeters to do my own measurements. not 100% accurate, but within a few percent.
So 110 Watt max - 110 W TDP = 0 Watt. Great GPU that doesn't use any power except for heat. Again: Source?
Again, I test my own systems. I actually have a GTX 650 Ti and it reports appox. 110 watts. This is with furmark stress testing the GPU, so it will use even less power.
But I'd like to see your 110 watt TDP for this card. It definitely isn't 110 watt TDP. Not even close. You needto question your sources of information.
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-650ti/specifications
We agree that his PSU is good enough.
I just wanted to point out that the GPU will most likely use more power than the CPU.
Actually the CPU uses way more power than the GTX 650 Ti. This GPU is very weak. You need to get to the x60 series or higher. They have high memory bandwidth that use a lot more power.
It's not that the CPU has to handle load of the GPU but the other way around: The GPU needs data to compute anything, these data gets feeded in by the CPU (after all that's what DirectX / OpenGL is for - feeding the GPU without speaking its assembler code). Now if the CPU is already busy doing other stuff it can't feed the GPU fast enough, hence is the bottleneck. This is a problem with DirectX as well as OpenGL. Maybe Vulkan and/or DirectX 12 will fix it.
I mean the CPU is so busy that the GPU has to wait. It has way less to do with any DX or OpenGL. These make things way faster. It has to do with the type of app. This game is CPU intensive it has GPU all of the time. Video should have idle time. But I believe this game takes advantage of DX11 and GPU multithreading to do CPU types tasks since the new GPUs are general purpose GPUs (GPGPU) and can now do other tasks than video.
DX12 should eliminate sli/crossfire completely. It will use all video cards simultaneously now. Can't find the link on a quick search. But one thing it does is free up the CPU threads from the GPU threads to stop video lag.
And now I call you a liar. Everything above 60 (in fact 25 but let's keep 60 for the sake of it) FPS isn't notable. Is this how you benchmark CPU and GPU use?
Of course this is how I benchmark since this is Cities: Skyline forums. What game should I be using to benchmark for people who want advice on running this game? :shakeshead:
And yes, above 60FPS makes a huge difference. You obviously haven't ever had a good +60Hz or higher monitor.
Even though your eyes can perceive 32fps as smooth motion, monitors have huge amounts of lag and need very high FPS for fluid motion. Mostly no blur, no tearing, no ghosting.
Check out blurbusters for more info on your monitor and how crappy it really is. lol
http://www.blurbusters.com/
That's indeed a good indicator if it's true. Anyway for good data we would need to know what exactly stops the game from speeding up; the simulation, the graphics pipeline, the audio pipeline (unlikely), ... ? As we don't have that info we can't really go anywhere from here.
Assuming no major bugs, then graphics requirements are slow low that if you downgrade to old DX9 mode it looks exactly the same(very light GPU). All of the load is from agents(Heavy CPU). A little more on GPU when zooming in close and needing to draw all of the 3D buildings. Lastly poor coding in certain areas, probably game engine design flaws, etc. and other inefficiencies need clearing up.
