• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Most powerful computer under 100w.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Laptop was considered, but there will be cooling considerations that will need to be taken care of. To one who suggested lowest voltage RAM, you are correct and I was looking into those for a while. One stick will be preferable since this system will not be bandwidth starved.

The power supply will be outside the box, it still needs to be slim as the room is tight.
 
lakedude said:
Yes but that is only 0.2GHz less than the chip the OP said was perfect.

I've got an "S" chip and it never runs as slow under load as the numbers would seem to indicate. They say it runs 3.1 GHz but I've never seen that in practice. It either runs much slower than 3.1 to save power when there is no load or slightly faster than 3.1 when there is a load. I'm baffled as to why they say it runs 3.1 GHz???
Click to expand...

3.1Ghz is the nominal clock speed when all cores are loaded for an extended period of time. A typical desktop workload do this, so you're unlikely to ever see that number.
 
ThatsABigOne said:
This computer will not be used for gaming. CUDA is for image recognition and vectorization. I talked to software engineers and they said that they would rather have as much threads as possible that are slow, not fast and few threads, therefore that Xeon that lakedude mentioned could work for our application.

Mfenn, you brought a good point. The key is to balance how much to allocate for CPU vs GPU power. In our case, CPU is more important. I think that GT640 would suffice.

I think I found that Xeon 1230L or Core i7 4765T to be perfect. I consider this case solved. Thank you all for input!
Click to expand...

Great, glad to help! Unless your CUDA performance really takes a hit from using DDR3 memory versus GDDR5, I would try to get a DDR3 GT 640 running at 720 MHz core because they have a 25W lower TDP (50W vs 75W).
 
mfenn said:
Great, glad to help! Unless your CUDA performance really takes a hit from using DDR3 memory versus GDDR5, I would try to get a DDR3 GT 640 running at 720 MHz core because they have a 25W lower TDP (50W vs 75W).
Click to expand...

Yes, I was looking for those GT640's a while ago. Thanks for bringing it up, almost forgot!
I tried searching for GT 740's, and there is nothing on them. :/
 
Last edited:
The "Xtreme power supply calculator" doesn't calculate much wiggle room after even that awesome Xeon E3-1230L v3, a single RAM stick, and a single SSD. There's minimum wattage and "recommended". It's already over 100W in the recommended category so running it with a GT640, the most you can possibly squeeze in that envelope, might overload it if running at peak for very long.
 
Thanks mfenn

I run Folding@Home 24/7 so the CPU load is always @ 100% but my 3.1 pretty much always runs @ 3.5 GHz (please see picture).

Maybe the 212 cooler is the reason? It does this automatically, I'm not overclocking...

jx2h4.jpg
 
I had an i5 2500S rated for 2.8 minimum, but would run at 2.9 when folding@home.

1.8 to 2.8 is a really big range! I imagine it'll be smart enough to scale very effectively and would imagine it being closer to the middle than the bottom.
 
richaron said:
Once again: gtx750 is what you should be searching, but you wont find much info for a week or so.
Click to expand...

Preliminary info shows the 750TI at under 75W, thus not requiring an extra power plug unless overclocking. The vanilla 750 has about 15% fewer CUDA cores so it'll definitely be under 75W, but how much is anyone's guess at this point.
 
Blue_Max said:
The "Xtreme power supply calculator" doesn't calculate much wiggle room after even that awesome Xeon E3-1230L v3, a single RAM stick, and a single SSD. There's minimum wattage and "recommended". It's already over 100W in the recommended category so running it with a GT640, the most you can possibly squeeze in that envelope, might overload it if running at peak for very long.
Click to expand...

Peaks are not as a big of an issue since it will be bursts of peak power. Images will be taken, processed/encoded, and sent over over wireless network.
 
Blue_Max said:
Preliminary info shows the 750TI at under 75W, thus not requiring an extra power plug unless overclocking. The vanilla 750 has about 15% fewer CUDA cores so it'll definitely be under 75W, but how much is anyone's guess at this point.
Click to expand...

The term "vanilla" refers to an unadulterated pruduct. And preliminary info (= wikis & dodgy googling) is pointing at ~double SP Gflops for potentially similar power.
 
richaron said:
The term "vanilla" refers to an unadulterated pruduct. And preliminary info (= wikis & dodgy googling) is pointing at ~double SP Gflops for potentially similar power.
Click to expand...

Fine. 🙄 The vanilla 750 has 768 CUDA cores while the TI "brings it up" to 960. Sheesh... semantics.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-gtx-750-ti-gm107,25974.html

My point still stands, I don't think the non-TI 750 is going to fit into that power envelope very comfortably.
Close. Amazing performance for the wattage and I want a couple for myself to Fold@Home.

Any chance you can push the envelope just 10W or so?
 
Blue_Max said:
Fine. The vanilla 750 has 768 CUDA cores while the TI "brings it up" to 960. Sheesh... semantics
Click to expand...

Wut? Not semantics, we're coming from opposite sides. I said the vanilla product was unadulterated, i.e. a full gm107 core.

True we don't know power but I'm just assuming a product under 75W will be ~50W, and OP is planning to UC/UV anyway so I can not see any reason to avoid Maxwell's predicted efficiency gains.
 
Blue_Max said:
Fine. 🙄 The vanilla 750 has 768 CUDA cores while the TI "brings it up" to 960. Sheesh... semantics.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-gtx-750-ti-gm107,25974.html

My point still stands, I don't think the non-TI 750 is going to fit into that power envelope very comfortably.
Close. Amazing performance for the wattage and I want a couple for myself to Fold@Home.

Any chance you can push the envelope just 10W or so?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately no, There will be 5 I/O devices attached, thus we are already touching the limits.
 
5 devices attached to the system and you still want to keep it under 100W? This is getting harder still... unless you mean those 5 devices are powered by something else and the system still has 100W to itself.
 
Blue_Max said:
5 devices attached to the system and you still want to keep it under 100W? This is getting harder still... unless you mean those 5 devices are powered by something else and the system still has 100W to itself.
Click to expand...

The IO devices will be powered by a separate power source.

Laptops are not really an option because they are too big for the power you get. 🙂
 
Blue_Max said:
Preliminary info shows the 750TI at under 75W, thus not requiring an extra power plug unless overclocking. The vanilla 750 has about 15% fewer CUDA cores so it'll definitely be under 75W, but how much is anyone's guess at this point.
Click to expand...

A 75W GPU is definitely out of the question for a PC with a max power budget of 100W. 50W is already pushing it.
 
lakedude said:
Thanks mfenn

I run Folding@Home 24/7 so the CPU load is always @ 100% but my 3.1 pretty much always runs @ 3.5 GHz (please see picture).

Maybe the 212 cooler is the reason? It does this automatically, I'm not overclocking...

jx2h4.jpg
Click to expand...

What board do you have? Some boards cheat the Turbo spec by always running at the max single-core turbo speed even if all 4 cores are active.
 
mfenn said:
What board do you have? Some boards cheat the Turbo spec by always running at the max single-core turbo speed even if all 4 cores are active.
Click to expand...
BIOSTAR TZ77XE3

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813138355

I think the max single core turbo is 3.9 and that number proves itself out. The specs say 3.9 and it actually does run 3.9 when running lightly threaded apps. It is the 3.1 number that seems abitrary because the chip runs everywhere but there.

Sorry, I didn't intend to hijack the thread.

It is possible that there is an overclock but I don't think so. It seems like it always ran 3.4 or 3.5. I had some RAM trouble and took out the OC during trouble shooting but maybe I didn't get the OC all the way out?
 
Last edited:
Ah OK. I looked up your CPU (which is what I should have done in the first place) and the maximum 4-core turbo is 3.5 GHz. Since you apparently have good enough cooling, your CPU can maintain that all the time, even though it technically can choose to downclock if it gets too hot.
 
Again, thanks for this discussion! The parts are ordered and will be put together in a short while in a custom enclosure. I might be able to post pics only if I get a permission.
 
I don't think running a video card can be done at less than 100 watt. The fewer options on the motherboard more likely it will use less power. Thin Mini-ITX and no video card with the right processor might be nice. Some versions of NUC or similar products with the U low powered mobile processors might help. To use less power is to use a lower powered CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top