Why?
The Pascal cards generally use less power than Turing and 16nm vs 12nm TSMC is essentially nothing power wise. “12nm” is just slightly denser. If anything, comparing it against Turing would be more favorable for AMD.
GCN is a power hog and always has been especially when AMD massively OCs and overvolts all their GPUs.
Based of the pricing Navi is already a non starter for me.
The pricing “leaks” bother me the most tbh.
But What do you mean by Pascal cards using less power than Turing? The GTX 1660 Ti has GTX 1070 performance with roughly GTX 1060 TDP, not to mention the GTX 1650 being 10-15% behind the RX 570 instead of 40-45% behind with the same TDP as the GTX 1050 Ti. I know the difference between the 1060 and 1070 isn’t all big in power consumption but still. The only Turing cards that seem to be “power hungry” are the insanely fast ones like the RTX 2080 and RTX 2080 Ti, but even the GTX 1080 Ti used around 250W. I mean the Radeon VII takes the cake for power consumption though the RTX 2080 Ti is very close, but it’s much faster so…
No kidding, AMD needs that, but unfortunately we can’t expect that with Navi cause that ain’t happening. At the very least Navi may be better than Vega but probably not by a big enough margin.
Pretty sure AMD already did t?
As far as power consumption on Vega (and probably AMD in general) goes, they may be rated at 300 watts but in reality i’ve never seen that much from either of mine when run on balanced mode.
Which is essentially pretty much the same performance as turbo, just without as much fan noise and power draw.
Dropping to power save doesn’t hurt performance much either.