ColonelBlimp:

Like I said, the Vega56 in your chart is the original reference model and power draw is way higher than it is with a good AIB and therefore is misleading. My pulse has lower vcore and higher sustained clocks. Just had an hour on The Division 2 and maximum power draw was 180, gpu temp of 72, in a room around 22 degrees. I understand your point about lower heat and lower noise but you should know that the chart is inaccurate.

Really?? Whould you mind posting some proof or are you going to expect me to take your word for it over Hilbert? https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=37189 Unless you are using a power clamp to check power I don't believe a software based power draw reading. I get defending your purchase but do it with honesty.

I believe I was honest, given the info I had. But, you know, I'm always open to changing my mind given irrefutable facts to the contrary. So, yes, it seems I'm wrong about the power draw, unless you undervolt. That changes things a lot. It is possible to shave 50w from your figures with an insignificant drop in performance. Then it becomes a question of whether you think Vega56 at £249 is great value and you can live with its shortcomings. On that, i say yes. Others will and do have a different opinion on it.

ColonelBlimp:

I believe I was honest, given the info I had. But, you know, I'm always open to changing my mind given irrefutable facts to the contrary. So, yes, it seems I'm wrong about the power draw, unless you undervolt. That changes things a lot. It is possible to shave 50w from your figures with an insignificant drop in performance. Then it becomes a question of whether you think Vega56 at £249 is great value and you can live with its shortcomings. On that, i say yes. Others will and do have a different opinion on it.

The best way to do things is out-of-the-box comparison. You can not guarantee all Vega 56's will under-volt and be able to keep factory boost levels. There is a reason AMD set the voltage where they did. Most of the time the Turing and Pascal cards can under-volt too so this card could use even less power at the same performance. See how quickly we are playing a game of what-if's.

Slower product is a better product becouse it uses less power. Thats that makes sense at all?

Where did I claim the 1660 was better than the V56? I simply said the 56 used twice the amount of power. Upwards of 3 times the power when overclocked. Although I would like to point out perf/watt of the 1660 is great next to the 56 and just as good next to the VII considering that card in on 7nm. Imagine Turning on 7nm. And remember the 1660 is within 10-15% of the performance of the 56 in DX11. In DX12 its a much larger difference like 20-25%. But again this is at x2+ the power draw. I personally like seeing the power consumption go down. I've had that blow-dryer singeing my leg hairs in summer before and don't want it any more.

I've seen 400+ on custom BIOS's. For parity I've seen 780ti's and 980ti's consume close to the same when modded as well. Radeon Chill while a nice feature is no different than setting the temp target and power target lower than default. That will lower performance to some extent. Most accurate way to show true power draw is a current clamp. GN uses that on all their testing. Hilbert and Steve are really the only tech content creators I will even listen to. EDIT: after watching your video RAGE2 looks poorly optimized or your i5 is holding it back. A lot of times the wattage drops below 170W its because fps drops and usage is sub-80%. Looking forward to that Zen2?

I must have missed that. I was watching on my work PC that doesn't have speakers.