小弟整理了一些GTS450的耗能測試,
可以發現測試方法很多,
光軟體就有3DMARK,FURMARK,CRYSIS,Kombustor等,
大家或許可以參考一下,
但5系列節能設計較優是肯定的,
NV 4系列的2D耗能也很優,但比5系列晚將近一年,
3D每瓦效能仍不及之,難怪眾人要撻伐了~~

I visited several websites and accomplished the following chart.


Every hardware website has its own way of measuring the power consumption of 3D cards,
some websites give the details on how they get the “numbers”.
Normally, 2D power consumption is measured while idling at desktop,no running programs at all.
Under 3D, however, this gets a little complicated
when every website uses different testing methods.
For instance, some use 3dmark, some use furmark, and some use crysis,
even MSI Kombustor is favored.
This results in a big difference –
websites using Kombustor show gts450 consumes less power than 5750,
But websites using crysis or furmark show gts450 is more power hungry than 5750,
I think under 3D 5750 is more power saving than gts450, still I have my doubts -
First,
Of what website do you think the most accurate while comparing to real 3D gaming conditions?
Crysis? Heavily 3D stress reflects the real gaming conditions?
Give your point to support your favored website.
Second,
TPU uses a unique way to get their numbers. They don’t test the whole system,
but via PCI-Express power connector(s) and PCI-Express bus slot to gain the number,
I think their “average 3D” is good although 3dmark03 is an antique,
but for me “average number” is more convincing than peak readings.
I give my vote to TPU, what is your point?