Hi all, go green, save the environment, save big bucks. I bought an energy monitoring device to see what all the stuff here actually uses. After entering the local rate, the device shows what it would cost to operate something for a week, month or year 24/7. My computer costs 200 Euros a year. A normal lightbulb 100 Euros, an energy savings lamp 15 Euros. The coffee maker 500 Euros. My computer has no graphics card, just onboard. A computer with a two year old card costs 350 Euros a year. All you gamers, be aware. And don't tell your parents.
Yes, agreed. Computers *can* be a waste of energy at times. However, I actually used my gaming machine as a space heater for a couple winters in an apartment I had in the frigid hell... otherwise known as Missoula, Montana.
A high-end GPU isn't going to significantly affect total system draw relative to an integrated GPU unless its actually doing something, and nobody runs Crysis 24/7.
I think you are wrong. The latest models do save some energy, but usually the power consumption in idle mode is still 2/3 of the maximum.
Something I've oft wondered about is how Vista/Win7, or even OSX mucks with power saving on GPUs... Aero uses the GPU for pixel shader calculations and I'm pretty sure Aqua's currently implementation uses OpenGL. I'm not sure how to check (other then putting my ear next to the case to guess fan speed) but I suspect that my card is actually never doing into its idle mode...
Which is why I find it hard to believe that a computer can operate 24/7 for $4 a month. Many recent processors need at least 100 Watts. At 21 cents per KWH that's 179 Euros a year or 15 Euros a month. This is how much some components use. Mainboard: ca. 25 Watt DDR memory: ca. 10 Watt PCI-card: 5 Watt Sound Blaster: 7 Watt DVD-drive: 25 Watt HD: ca. 25 Watt
Did a little research myself, 2/3rds is a little pessimistic but the delta between idle and load for modern high-ends isn't nearly as large as I'd thought it would be, no. Still, the numbers you referenced earlier make for a 75% increase in annual power consumption simply through adding a high-end GPU to the system, and that doesn't sound right at all. It sounds like a worst-case scenario rather than representative of real-world usage. HDDs draw a bunch of power during spin-up (hence the staggered spin-up feature on SCSI systems that run a whole mess of HDDs) then settle down. 25W sounds like the spin-up draw, most HDDs are under 10W for normal usage.
The only explanation is that energy is cheaper where you live, and would you live in Germany you'd pay 400 Euros a year for both computers. It's a fact: a Core 2 Duo alone, in idle, costs 8 Euros a month.
World Household Electricity Prices. From that link, Denmark appears to be the most expensive at USD 0.32/kWh.
I have to deal with various processors and their names daily. Is it only me or does anyone else hate the name Core 2 Duo?
"Core i7" is worse. I miss the Pentium nomenclature and clock/core/cache numbers instead of arbitrary model numbers that merely add another layer of obfuscation to the mix. Of course the only reason Intel switched from that system to the current one was so the original Pentium III/M-derived Core processors didn't look like shit next to the P4s they were replacing.
I hate it very much. Particularly due to the fact that there is Intel Dual Core, Core Duo and Core 2 Duo. It's like Intel wanted to throw as much smoke into the room as possible when they named them. J.
I think one issue, at least with some versions of Windows, is that Windows occassionally checks the hard drive and floppy drive when there is no good reason to do so, which not only adds to energy use but also to wear and tear. It might be less of an issue with XP and Vista, but it was really noticeable with 98 and Me. An old 98 desktop with a metal case made a loud banging noise if there was no floopy in the drive whenever Windows checked that drive during Sleep mode. Me simply ran down the batteries of a ThinkPad by restarting the hard disk quite often when in Sleep mode. Even Vista, I have noticed, sometimes checks the floppy drive when there is no real reason to do so other than to make venders of peripherals happy. I've also noticed that with Vista the hard disk often races for no apparent reason.
Since this is the topic, here is the basic idea behind my next system upgrade: Nvidia 8200 motherboard Nvidia 9800 series VC AMD 2.5ghz dual-core 45 watter The 8200 motherboards will operate the onboard video, calling on the main VC in what they're calling Hybrid SLI. The 2.5ghz chip is a major overclocker, so in one system you've got a solid, efficient browser/general computer, and a reasonable gamer if you dial in an overclock w/ the 9800 graphics running. With an easy upgrade path for AMD quad-cores.