If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
keith wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:18:23 +0000, CJT wrote: Tony Hill wrote: snip TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago. If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend $50/month on electricity for them. Not "easily". Most don't have, nor a need for, aa dozen machines running 24x7. _Very_ few are spending $10/mo on electricity for their computer. I think you're wrong. 200 watts, 24x7, at 10 cents/KWH, is about $14 a month, and a single machine can use that much. Then add a monitor and some network hardware. The 24x7 factor is subject to discussion, but I think lots of people leave their machines running. And I think lots of people have more than one. The range, clothes dryer, and AC are the biggies ($250 bill here last month). Much of the country doesn't pay the electric rates we do here either. A friend in Florida tells me he pays about $.04/kWh, vs $.13 here. Power consumption today, much like for MANY years now, is dominated by heating and cooling. Whether it's your air conditioner in the summer, heater in the winter, or simply appliances like your stove and your refrigerator. If you want to track where you power is being used, look for things that either heat or cool. If you want to look at power-hungry toys today, they are out there on our roads, not in our homes. A recent increase in the average fuel consumption per vehicle as well as a constantly increasing number of verticals on the road are the real energy consumers in North America. Agreed, but that's another problem, rather than absolution for wasting power on inefficient computers. Define "inefficient" as it relates to computers. Twenty years ago a computer with roughly the same power as an Opteron would take thousands of times more power. I'd call the Opteron rather "efficient", in comparison. Twenty years ago people did word processing with a 4 MHz 8080 (or even less). I would argue that most computer power is wasted. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:18:23 GMT, CJT wrote:
Tony Hill wrote: snip TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago. If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend $50/month on electricity for them. At $0.10 per KWH (I pay about $0.07 or $0.08 US per KWH, but others may pay more), in order to spend $50/month you would need computers that consume roughly 700W constantly all day long, every day of the month. Considering that under peak load a really high power consuming computer (ie a system with a 3.73GHz P4EE and an nVidia GeForce 7800 Ultra) will top out at around 250-300W. Add in another 100-150W for a CRT monitor (though only 30-40W for an LCD) and you're still only half-way there. You would need two such PCs operating 24 x 7 at peak load to reach you're $50/month figure. FWIW typical computers operate at peak load for less than 1% of the day, especially while the owners of said computer are asleep. Idle power consumption is roughly a half to two thirds of peak consumption for a PC and it's virtually zero for a monitor (assuming you either turn the monitor off or have it go into a sleep mode). Power consumption is VERY important when you're looking at HPC clusters where you might have hundreds or even thousands of processors that really are going to operating at near 100% load for a significant portion of the day, every day. For home computers though, they mostly add up to a drop in the bucket. Most families with two or three computers are unlikely to spend even $10/month on electricity for their PCs. Ohh, and the observant among you will probably notice that BY FAR the biggest power savings you can get in a PC is by replacing a CRT monitor with an LCD, especially if you're using a large 19" or 21" CRT. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:47:54 +0000, CJT wrote:
keith wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:18:23 +0000, CJT wrote: Tony Hill wrote: snip TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago. If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend $50/month on electricity for them. Not "easily". Most don't have, nor a need for, aa dozen machines running 24x7. _Very_ few are spending $10/mo on electricity for their computer. I think you're wrong. 200 watts, 24x7, at 10 cents/KWH, is about $14 a month, and a single machine can use that much. Then add a monitor and some network hardware. No with a functioning brain uses a gaming machine 24x7. Modern processors only use full power then working. Monitors power off. $50/14 is three and a half machines all maxed out 24x7. In short, I think your numbers are full of it. The 24x7 factor is subject to discussion, but I think lots of people leave their machines running. And I think lots of people have more than one. A running machine doesn't consume full power. My CRT monitors shut down after fiveish minutes. In suspend mode they draw 3W. The two draw about as much as a night-light. The range, clothes dryer, and AC are the biggies ($250 bill here last month). Much of the country doesn't pay the electric rates we do here either. A friend in Florida tells me he pays about $.04/kWh, vs $.13 here. Power consumption today, much like for MANY years now, is dominated by heating and cooling. Whether it's your air conditioner in the summer, heater in the winter, or simply appliances like your stove and your refrigerator. If you want to track where you power is being used, look for things that either heat or cool. If you want to look at power-hungry toys today, they are out there on our roads, not in our homes. A recent increase in the average fuel consumption per vehicle as well as a constantly increasing number of verticals on the road are the real energy consumers in North America. Agreed, but that's another problem, rather than absolution for wasting power on inefficient computers. Define "inefficient" as it relates to computers. Twenty years ago a computer with roughly the same power as an Opteron would take thousands of times more power. I'd call the Opteron rather "efficient", in comparison. Twenty years ago people did word processing with a 4 MHz 8080 (or even less). I would argue that most computer power is wasted. So? Is it your position in life to make sure every CPU cycle is used for the "good of mankind"? Perhaps computer games should be outlawed completely. They draw too much power, making the greenies snivel. -- Keith |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:11:47 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:18:23 GMT, CJT wrote: Tony Hill wrote: snip TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago. If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend $50/month on electricity for them. At $0.10 per KWH (I pay about $0.07 or $0.08 US per KWH, but others may pay more), in order to spend $50/month you would need computers that consume roughly 700W constantly all day long, every day of the month. Considering that under peak load a really high power consuming computer (ie a system with a 3.73GHz P4EE and an nVidia GeForce 7800 Ultra) will top out at around 250-300W. Add in another 100-150W for a CRT monitor (though only 30-40W for an LCD) and you're still only half-way there. You would need two such PCs operating 24 x 7 at peak load to reach you're $50/month figure. Power consumption is VERY important when you're looking at HPC clusters where you might have hundreds or even thousands of processors that really are going to operating at near 100% load for a significant portion of the day, every day. For home computers though, they mostly add up to a drop in the bucket. Most families with two or three computers are unlikely to spend even $10/month on electricity for their PCs. Power consumption is only vially important to a point, even here. Power density is the real issue and there is a pretty hard line where more simply doesn't work, less no one cares. Ohh, and the observant among you will probably notice that BY FAR the biggest power savings you can get in a PC is by replacing a CRT monitor with an LCD, especially if you're using a large 19" or 21" CRT. Tell you what. You send me two 19" (1280x1024, at least) LCD monitors and I'll retire my 19" CRTs. I'm not going to even bother calculating the payback of $700 worth of LCD displays, based on perhaps two hours per day. ;-) -- Keith |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Del Cecchi wrote:
"CJT" wrote in message ... Tony Hill wrote: snip TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago. If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend $50/month on electricity for them. So, set them to hibernate after an hour or so of non use. Or power them down at night. What are you doing that you need multiple PCs 24x7? snip I'm not saying I do. But I read claims by others that they haven't rebooted in days; that implies the machines remain powered up. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:50:32 +0000, CJT wrote:
Del Cecchi wrote: "CJT" wrote in message ... Tony Hill wrote: snip TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago. If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend $50/month on electricity for them. So, set them to hibernate after an hour or so of non use. Or power them down at night. What are you doing that you need multiple PCs 24x7? snip I'm not saying I do. But I read claims by others that they haven't rebooted in days; that implies the machines remain powered up. That does *NOT* mean they've been burning $50/mo. in electricity. You also haven't shown 100M such people that have *five* such systems running. Moderm processors don't burn max power, when doing nothing. Some are better than others, but... Your argument is silly, to the extreme. ...or at least your "facts" are. -- Keith |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:01:51 +0000, CJT wrote:
keith wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:50:32 +0000, CJT wrote: Del Cecchi wrote: "CJT" wrote in message ... Tony Hill wrote: snip TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago. If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend $50/month on electricity for them. So, set them to hibernate after an hour or so of non use. Or power them down at night. What are you doing that you need multiple PCs 24x7? snip I'm not saying I do. But I read claims by others that they haven't rebooted in days; that implies the machines remain powered up. That does *NOT* mean they've been burning $50/mo. in electricity. You also haven't shown 100M such people that have *five* such systems running. Moderm processors don't burn max power, when doing nothing. Some are better than others, but... Your argument is silly, to the extreme. ...or at least your "facts" are. Computers use a lot of electric power. Much of it is wasted. You can quibble about the numbers all you like, but you can't escape those basic facts. Quibble about facts? Liars pull "facts" out of their ass. -- Keith |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
keith wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:50:32 +0000, CJT wrote: Del Cecchi wrote: "CJT" wrote in message ... Tony Hill wrote: snip TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago. If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend $50/month on electricity for them. So, set them to hibernate after an hour or so of non use. Or power them down at night. What are you doing that you need multiple PCs 24x7? snip I'm not saying I do. But I read claims by others that they haven't rebooted in days; that implies the machines remain powered up. That does *NOT* mean they've been burning $50/mo. in electricity. You also haven't shown 100M such people that have *five* such systems running. Moderm processors don't burn max power, when doing nothing. Some are better than others, but... Your argument is silly, to the extreme. ...or at least your "facts" are. Computers use a lot of electric power. Much of it is wasted. You can quibble about the numbers all you like, but you can't escape those basic facts. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
CJT wrote:
A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole. Isn't "Foxton" supposed to address part of this issue? http://support.intel.com/technology/...ology-0905.htm |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:01:51 GMT, CJT wrote:
keith wrote: Your argument is silly, to the extreme. ...or at least your "facts" are. Computers use a lot of electric power. Much of it is wasted. You can quibble about the numbers all you like, but you can't escape those basic facts. A STOVE uses a lot of electric power. An air conditioner uses a lot of electric power. Electrical heaters use a lot of electric power. Computers do not. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel found to be abusing market power in Japan | chrisv | General | 152 | March 26th 05 06:57 AM |
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with Mobile CPU? | Cuzman | General | 0 | December 8th 04 02:39 PM |
HELP: P4C800-E Deluxe, Intel RAID and Windows detection problems | Michail Pappas | Asus Motherboards | 2 | November 20th 04 03:18 AM |
Intel Is Aiming at Living Rooms in Marketing Its Latest Chip | Vince McGowan | Dell Computers | 0 | June 18th 04 03:10 PM |
New PC with W2K? | Rob | UK Computer Vendors | 5 | August 29th 03 12:32 PM |