Most powerful computer under 100w.

[vailr]

Again, thanks for this discussion! The parts are ordered and will be put together in a short while in a custom enclosure.

Parts list?

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Nvidia GT630 with higher number of shaders
Some cheap Intel Celeron for testing
8gb of Ram
120GB Samsung SSD
Gigabyte H87N motherboard

 

[piasabird]

I don't think you can use a decent video card and get any system to really run under 100 watts. Every USB port and every unused port is still probably still using some power also. Something like a Gigabyte BRIX might approach under 100w. They offer a wide variety of Processors designed to use lower power levels. Don't know about a video card.

http://www.gigabyte.us/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4604#sp

 

[mfenn]

I don't think you can use a decent video card and get any system to really run under 100 watts. Every USB port and every unused port is still probably still using some power also. Something like a Gigabyte BRIX might approach under 100w. They offer a wide variety of Processors designed to use lower power levels. Don't know about a video card.

http://www.gigabyte.us/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4604#sp

Well, the OP has built it and says that it meets their needs. So I guess it is under 100w for his use case (or close enough).

 

[Lisathedinosaur]

This thread has run its course /end

 

[lehtv]

This thread has run its course /end

Nope :biggrin:

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Well, the OP has built it and says that it meets their needs. So I guess it is under 100w for his use case (or close enough).

Yeap, we checked the power consumption and with a desktop celeron dual core, it doesn't go above 100w.

 

[sm625]

I dont think anyone is surprised by that. The question is, can you get a quad core + gpu to stay under 100 watts. But I guess if you dont need 4 cores then it doesnt matter. What I'm wondering is what you need that gpu for; ie what is it doing that the integrated gpu cant do? Have you used hwmonitor, GPU-Z, or some other program to monitor gpu load to see if you are even really needing a discrete gpu?

 

[Insomniator]

Why does it have to be under 100 watts?

 

[ThatsABigOne]

Why does it have to be under 100 watts?

Did you watch the video that I posted about 3 days ago in this thread? There is only limited amount of reserved power in our 24v battery. The battery and all systems have to last for 1 hour.

 

[ThatsABigOne]

I dont think anyone is surprised by that. The question is, can you get a quad core + gpu to stay under 100 watts. But I guess if you dont need 4 cores then it doesnt matter. What I'm wondering is what you need that gpu for; ie what is it doing that the integrated gpu cant do? Have you used hwmonitor, GPU-Z, or some other program to monitor gpu load to see if you are even really needing a discrete gpu?

Because we are using stereoscopic vision, and algorithms that we use take advantage of cuda.

 

[Insomniator]

Did you watch the video that I posted about 3 days ago in this thread? There is only limited amount of reserved power in our 24v battery. The battery and all systems have to last for 1 hour.

I did not, and that makes a lot of sense now.

 

[mfenn]

I dont think anyone is surprised by that.

Obviously piasabird is!

 

[ThatsABigOne]

I did not, and that makes a lot of sense now.

No worries.

Good news! We were able to acquire 4c/8t 25w Xeon chip that was mentioned on first page of the thread! It was extremely hard to find it as it is for OEM builders "only".

 

[TreVader]

This is an absurdly easy question to answer. A retina macbook pro 15" uses 85W, has a i7 - 4960HQ (Haswell 4C8T 2.6 3.8Turbo, a GT750M (384 CUDA cores), and will easily outperform anything you can build yourself.

 

[vailr]

i7-4765T : $329.95
www.atacom.com/program/print_html_new.cgi?Pagecode=SEARCH_ALL&Item_code=CP41_INTE_I7_45

 

[TreVader]

i7-4765T : $329.95
www.atacom.com/program/print_html_new.cgi?Pagecode=SEARCH_ALL&Item_code=CP41_INTE_I7_45

Compared to the 4960HQ that's incredibly slow. My rMBP is actually a bit quicker than a 4770K stock because it turbos to 3.8 and for some reason i guess it may run a bit quicker than the turbo in the K

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Compared to the 4960HQ that's incredibly slow. My rMBP is actually a bit quicker than a 4770K stock because it turbos to 3.8 and for some reason i guess it may run a bit quicker than the turbo in the K

4770K turbos up to 3.9GHz across 2 cores, 3.8GHz for 3 cores, and up to 3.7GHz across all 4 cores, and as a desktop part it can spend far more time in turbo than the 4960HQ... which turbos up to 3.8GHz only on 1 core.

the only thing that can save the 4960HQ vs a 4770K is the Iris Pro GPU and Crystalwell (albeit, only in niche scenarios, although it is a good argument for having massive L4 cache on CPUs), but then the 4770K also has its own safety net: overclocking

 

[mfenn]

This is an absurdly easy question to answer. A retina macbook pro 15" uses 85W, has a i7 - 4960HQ (Haswell 4C8T 2.6 3.8Turbo, a GT750M (384 CUDA cores), and will easily outperform anything you can build yourself.

Too bad it has a very expensive screen that's totally useless for this application and is too big to fit in the allocated space.

 

[Ken g6]

Nvidia at GTC just revealed an interesting option:

Actually, it may not be as powerful as most of what's suggested here, but it should also use less power.