Purchasing new computer

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:13:35 GMT, "Albert Grennock"
wrote:

I have done a power consumption evaluationin a later post and
I worked out that intel costs about £25 more per annnum to run.
Probably closer to £34.


When considering details as minor as which CPU is installed,
one must also itemize the other factors, choices that can be
made. For example the number of drives, speed of the
alternative CPUs, length of time until power management
would be invoked, and types of tasks the system will
perform.

If someone "only" does light tasks, something like a Via CPU
might suffice if ultimate power savings are really
warranted. If someone does demanding tasks and has an
aggresssive power management inteval to soon power down the
box, the most savings could come from having the CPU (and
other system parameters) which have the highest performance
per that/those jobs such that the job gets done and system
sleeps.

CPU alone is but one variable, easily one can get more
processing done per watt used by choosing the most optimal
CPU per task, and in those cases, overclocking the CPU to
higher speed and voltage can actually SAVE power, again, if
the system is set to power down when the jobs are finished.

All those factors weretaken into account.
Overclocking, of course, WASTES power as we all (should) know.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:14:57 GMT, "Albert Grennock"
wrote:


All those factors weretaken into account.
Overclocking, of course, WASTES power as we all (should) know.



No. You might do better rereading what I wrote.

It's quite simple- many tasks are CPU constrained but the
CPU is but one, only one consumer of power in a system.
When the CPU is overclocked, there is a disproprortionately
higher performance to power usage (of whole system) ratio.
That can (and does) allow many types of jobs to get done
faster, thereby allowing system to go into sleep mode sooner
or be turned off entirely.