[mythtv-users] Low powered nvidia GPU

[Fred Watt]

On 03/01/13 08:27, GZ wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Fred Watt <fredwattmythtv at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank you both for your thoughts, all progressive.  What I am looking for is
>> a low powered kepler card.  When the slave is recording without anyone
>> viewing the frontend it would lovely if the gpu idled as low as was
>> possible.  Likewise when myth frontend is in use, a low draw would help with
>> the efficiency of the slave.
> Just to add a bit of background on the Nvidia GT 600-series cards -
> note that even though they are designated  6xx, they are not all
> Keplers..
>
> The 610 is a rebadged GT 520 (Fermi architecture).  It will actually
> be the card with the lowest power draw, but has some drawbacks.  Using
> VDPAU, it cannot deinterlace 1080i using the advanced 2x profile,
> which gives the quality.  It is generally agreed that you must step
> down to a lesser deinterlacer.
>
> The 620 is a rebadged GT 430 (Fermi). This card has higher power
> consumption but can generally deinterlace 1080i using advanced 2x.
> Some people in the USA (60 fps) have reported problems, but this
> shouldn't be an issue for the UK (50 fps).
>
> The 630 is a rebadged GT 440 (Fermi).  This card is a 430 with a
> higher clock rate and faster memory.  Its power draw is similar to the
> 620, and should work fine in a frontend.
>
> The GT 640 is the lowest end card that's actually a Kepler.  You're
> going to pay a bit more money for this card.  A review at tomshardware
> (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gt-640-review,3214-10.html)
> shows this card uses 20W less power than the 440 under load, but only
> a 1W difference at idle.  You'll get better gaming performance, but
> you won't really notice it if you're just using the system for video
> playback. If having the latest card is important to you, feel free to
> get it, but it will likely not result in significant power savings on
> your frontend.
>
> The GTX 650 is an interesting choice.  It's the same as the GT 640,
> but the GPU is clocked slightly faster and uses faster GDDR5 memory.
> It has better gaming performance (but you won't notice this unless
> your frontend performs double duty).  However, according to the tests
> at tomshardware
> (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-geforce-gtx-650-benchmark,3297.html)
> it idles 8W lower than the GT 640, but is the same under load.  In the
> US, these are running about $20-$30 more than the 640.
> How much is the reduced power consumption with Kepler worth to you?
> Or do you prefer Kepler to future-proof your rig?
> I hope this is helpful.
> -Greg
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

Greg that's amazing helpful I can't say enough thank yous - I knew some of this about the rebadged GPUs, and was looking at the 640s.
Your nugget as follows is golden:

"However, according to the tests at tomshardware (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-geforce-gtx-650-benchmark,3297.html)
it idles 8W lower than the GT 640, but is the same under load. "

Your detail and style of writing is very clear.  Thank you for taking the time to write down this information.  I will look at the 650s I don't game, but I do like to have an option given the up rise of gaming on Linux (Steam engine etc).

All appreciated Greg.