The 3090 Ti series was already pushing 450W so this isn't new.[1] And it's because they clock these things incredibly high, well beyond the efficiency curve whe

The 3090 Ti series was already pushing 450W so this isn't new.[1] And it's because they clock these things incredibly high, well beyond the efficiency curve where it makes sense. Because that's what gaming customers expect, basically. On the datacenter cards they quadruple or octuple the memory bus width, and they drop the clocks substantially and hit iso-perf with way, way better power. But those high-bandwidth memory interfaces are expensive and gaming workloads often can't saturate them, leaving the compute cores starved. So they instead ramp the hell out of the clocks and power delivery to make up for that and pump data into the cores as fast as possible on a narrow bus. That takes a lot of power and power usage isn't linear. It's just the nature of the market these things target. High compute needs, but low-ish memory/bus needs. This isn't necessarily a bad or losing strategy, BTW, it just is what it is. Data paths are often very hot and don't scale linearly in many dimensions, just like power usage doesn't. Using smaller bus widths and improving bus clock in return is a very legitimate strategy to improve overall performance, it's just one of those tough tradeoffs. Rule of thumb: take any flagship GPU and undervolt it by 30%, saving 30% power/heat dissipation, and you'll retain +90% of the performance in practice. My 3080 is nominally 320/350W but in practice I just cliff it to about 280W and it's perfectly OK in everything. [1] Some people might even be positively surprised, since a lot of the "leaks" (bullshit rumors) were posting astronomically ridiculous numbers like 800W+ for the 4090 Ti, etc.