Q: Why don't desktops us mobile cpus?

"Your forgetting...THIS IS ALL YOUR OPINION of why things aren't done one
way
or another. STFU quit making your simple opinion, sound like fact."

Nothing in my past statment was given as fact. I stated the obvious. Once
again you have proven yourself an idiot. Now do us all a favor and quit
causing so much bull****. Don't you have better things to do? Go get a
life.


"JAD" wrote in message
...

"ISOHaven" wrote in message
...
"I believe that's because you don't understand that using electricity
costs more than money."
I understand that just fine but you have not proven that using a mobile
cpu will actualy save anything versus a cheap AMD. Yes, now I'm saying
AMD which should have been said from the beging but someone mentioned P4
so we kept going with that.

"The CPU uses the most power."
"A mobile CPU will likely use 30W less."
"Multiply that by 1million machines and you're saving 30 megawatts."

Your conclusion is based on finctional purhcases. Your end result is
meaningless. You assume 1 million people would chose a mobile cpu over a
regular cpu in a desktop environment.

Your forgetting...THIS IS ALL YOUR OPINION of why things aren't done one
way or another. STFU quit making your simple opinion, sound like fact.




"Michael C" wrote in message
...
"ISOHaven" wrote in message
...
Not sure what your exact point was.

I believe that's because you don't understand that using electricity
costs more than money.

All you did was just put a laptop on someones desk. In that case then
this entire thread is BS. If you want a crappy HDD and you want a
crappy cd type drive and no expansion what-so-ever then YES your 60/30W
example will hold true. But then again just buy a friggen laptop and
use that instead of a desktop unit.

I'm not suggesting buying all low power parts, just the most power
hungry part of the computer.

BUT, that's not the case. The question at hand is building a DESKTOP
unit with a mobile processor that needs to run 12v cd type drives and
12v HDDs. So your 60/30W example goes right out the window. Sorry, try
again.

Not really. The CPU uses the most power (besides the monitor which can't
be reduced). A mobile CPU will likely use 30W less (I don't have the
exact figures). Multiply that by 1million machines and you're saving 30
megawatts.

Gargravarr,

A typical desktop computer draws about 60 Watts of power;

Is that accurate? I thought a p4 cpu on it's own used 60watts?

Want it to cost nothing?? Turn off a couple of incandescent lamps.
Same idea goes for every room that a PC is used in.
Throw away a few toasters, electric kettles and other useless
appliances and you'll actually *save* money.

Who the frig has incandescent lights these days? Energy saving lights
are $10 for a pack of 4, the most powerful light in my house is 13
watts. I'd have to turn off every light in my house off (typically I'd
have 4 to 6 lights on). And that assumes I'm using my PC at night!
Toasters and kettles use a ****load of power but only for short periods.

Granted the saving aren't that great but if motherboards came down in
price then it would be a worthwhile idea. For all I know the
motherboards are cheap anyway and someone here said the cpus cost a
small percentage more.

Michael

You can sell them for $10 and it wont matter if there is no market for it.

Do you argue the fact that what we have now will still need to be produced?
You can't remove all the muscle cars from the streets, people still want
them. You still have to prove there is enough of a GAIN for vendors to
produce EVEN MORE units then they already do.


"Michael C" wrote in message
...
"ISOHaven" wrote in message
...
"The CPU uses the most power."
"A mobile CPU will likely use 30W less."
"Multiply that by 1million machines and you're saving 30 megawatts."

Your conclusion is based on finctional purhcases. Your end result is
meaningless. You assume 1 million people would chose a mobile cpu over a
regular cpu in a desktop environment.

OK, so the only figure you disputed was the number of users, right? 1
million is a drop in the ocean if the motherboards become cheap enough.

Michael

Except those numbers are coming from LAPTOP components. I think you are
trying compare apples and oranges. I seriously doubt you could run a
Pentium M mainboard/CPU along with DESKTOP COMPONENTS on a 60W power supply.

Is your source trying to specify that a specific 60W is needed for only the
processor? Or for the "mobile" system (assuming laptop parts)?


"Michael C" wrote in message
...
"kony" wrote in message
...
That's mainly true if comparing otherwise dissimilar
systems, or only considering a P4- a CPU that might be
considered an exception even if it is contemporary, simply
because there are other (practicallly every) other
alternative has significantly lower power whether a mobile
CPU or not.

One can certainly shave a few watts off if they choose an
OEM all-integrated-features system, but then for years
people have been advised to avoid that if possible.

A few watts? I don't have figures myself but the site that someone posted
suggested the pentium M mobo system would run off a 60W power supply,
which would suggest it's using much less on average. Where someone else
posted figures from 150watt to 236watt for P4 and AMD systems. That a lot
more than a few watts.

Michael

Most of what you have seen I'm sure has come from low power requirements
such as people building a PC for their automobile and other areas such as
trying to build the smallest form factor.

.....and for that dip**** that's running around YES that's my OPINION and my
knowledge from personal research on doing such activities.


"Michael C" wrote in message
...
"jaster" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:29:45 -0800, ISOHaven thoughtfully wrote:

I think a direct answer to your question is: The reason they don't make
very many mobile CPUs for desktops is because there is NO MARKET for it.
Take a look around, is anyone else asking this question? No.

Well someone has to be first.

Actually you're far from the first. I've heard of mobile cpus being used
in desktops a few times before and from my experience by the time I've
heard of it the idea is newish but not that new.

Michael

"Yes why aren't they making hybrid engines. And not many people raise a
stink when Ford or GM stop producing a specific model. "
I think cars was a bad idea here. You show me a hybrid engine that can tow
my boat and I'll BUILD you all the Pentium M baord you want! There are cars
for every person and every task. You can't have just one car. Ok, keep
reading below...

"You keep ranting about powerful cpus and missing the point about
manufacturing 2 cpu types for the same consumers home/office non-mobile vs.
mobile."
1. NO! I'm talking about manufactures making 2 cpus types. High power
(business) and low power (home). IT'S YOU that wants them to make a third
low low low power model.
2. You have mentioned before you want to see Intel make just ONE processor
and dump the rest. Or did you finaly drop that senerio?

"The NGs are unique because NG groupies are more PC savvy than Joe or Jane
Average."
You keep talking about Joe and Jane. Dude, Joe and JAne buy thier PCs from
Best Buy. Your Pentium M Solution will only be pennies cheaper if that.


"jaster" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:21:08 -0800, ISOHaven thoughtfully wrote:

Then buy a laptop! Your point still eludes me.

If you put a mobile processor in a DESKTOP case with DESKTOP components
you will NOT save anything. You wont save power and you wont save
money. Not enough to force manufactures to create MORE PRODUCT then they
already are producing.

You keep responding with the same thing. I DON'T NEED THAT MUCH
COMPUTING POWER. Yet you keep failing to answer the same question that
people keep asking you. Even though sometimes it was a "round about"
point.

What are you trying to GAIN by doing this?

"Maybe I should have asked why are there desktop cpus now that there are
mobile cpus"
Sorry, but that's a silly question. So I guess now that we have hybrid
cars why are we still making and buying gas cars?

Yes why aren't they making hybrid engines. And not many people raise
a stink when Ford or GM stop producing a specific model.

Or maybe EVERY car
company should make only Kia Rio's? I think the real problem here is
you are unaware of the statistics of the average PC user. You seem to
think the average user doesn't need any power. I think you are wrong.
More businesses use computers then home users so Intel STILL needs to
make powerful cpu's so like you where told before, why should they make
twice as many cpu's just because you want them to? I think Intel has a
pretty good handle on the market and I think they know a little more
about what they should or shouldn't do then you.

I was in a Forbes 50 corporation and they never bought bleeding edge
computers just slightly above average computers when they had to replace
aging equipment every 2-3 yrs. A friend of mine just bought one
out-of-date powerful company computer for his daughter, PII 450, 384ram,
20g hd, cdrom. Yep real powerful.


"So if Intel/AMD stopped making "desktop" cpus and only manufactured
"mobile" cpus what would be the loss?" Actually the real question would
be, what would be the gain? Also maybe YOU don't give a damn about
power (horsepower) but many of us do so I would kindly appreciate it if
you NEVER become the world dominator on cpu's and take away my consumer
right to have a very powerful system just because you are on some green
peace trip.

Buy an IBM, Sparc or Amdahl for all I care. You keep ranting about
powerful cpus and missing the point about manufacturing 2 cpu types for
the same consumers home/office non-mobile vs. mobile.

If IBM and AMD dropped the "desktop" cpus and only manufactured "mobile"
cpus no one would care as long as the cpus perform. The NGs are unique
because NG groupies are more PC savvy than Joe or Jane Average.
The hardware NG groupies know more about hardware than some tech
support people and pay more attention to components. Even so not to
many are dropping $1000 every 6 mo. just to get the newest cpu or graphics
card.

Oh and what the **** are you talking about primary school? Are you the one
that posted:

"Duh, what's a "convo" ?? I shore knows how to critizize others spelang
neeerk."

Hum...it would seem you follow JAD around and stick up for him. Well, maybe
if you can take his dick out of your mouth long enough you can join the
CONVO below.


"Gargravarr" wrote in message
.. .
ISOHaven wrote:

snip

Your idiocity is very interesting!

Hahahaha, "idiocity". Now, there's a fine word? Did you *manage* to at
least drag your ass through primary school? Or, failing that, maybe you
went to school in "Y'all" land? You know, where you add a word a day to
your dictionary because you can't find the correct one that already
exists?

--


Gargravarr
_________________________________________________

"One of the major problems of time travel is... one of grammer."

**The Restaurant at the End of the Universe**

Michael C wrote:
"Gargravarr" wrote in message
.. .

Worse case power consumption scenerio:

Athlon 64 3500+ 90 nm 151 Watts
Athlon 64 3500+ 130nm 179 Watts
Pentium P4 3.4 GHz 90nm 236 Watts

Don't seem to nearly the power pigs you think they are huh?


What are you talking about? That's huge compared to 60watts max! I could
literally turn every light on in my entire house with that power!

Michael


I can only guess, but if you're lighting your whole house with
a coupla hundred watts then either your house is *very* small or
you're walking around it in the f**kin' dark like you are in
this NG.
"That's huge" ? You idiot.

--


Gargravarr
_________________________________________________

"One of the major problems of time travel is... one of grammer."

**The Restaurant at the End of the Universe**

kony wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:54:22 +1100, "Michael C"
wrote:


"Gargravarr" wrote in message
...

Worse case power consumption scenerio:

Athlon 64 3500+ 90 nm 151 Watts
Athlon 64 3500+ 130nm 179 Watts
Pentium P4 3.4 GHz 90nm 236 Watts

Don't seem to nearly the power pigs you think they are huh?

What are you talking about? That's huge compared to 60watts max! I could
literally turn every light on in my entire house with that power!



Single core Athlon 64, around 3800 can be about 100W idle.
Above is either a better endowed system (I didn't read the
parts list) or taken at full load. We can ignore full load
entirely, because at full load, these systems are performing
at a level a 60W system simply cannot, therfore it would be
more appropriate to consider the % of CPU utilization
paralleling the performance level seen with the lower
powered system OR consider underclocking the system.

Too few stop and consider underclocking... if one took an
Athlon 64 and lowered the bus speeds, lowered vDimm and CPU
vCore, then used an otherwise low-spec system it could end
up at 60W fairly easily.

I don't know that it's of any consequence what would power
your lights though- do you walk everywhere? If not, the
energy consumed to power a vehicle could also, easily power
your lights.


That's what happens when assholes only include that part of a
post that suits their argument. I was the OP if the information
and these were all fully loaded systems minus the crt.

In case you don't have access to the complete post, here it is
again for your info.

The test setup briefly.
***Power consumption was compared by measuring power usage for
the entire testbed system, sans monitor, at the wall outlet.***

The testbed system included:

Asus A8V Deluxe motherboard
1GB of Corsair XMS 3200XL DDR400 memory
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT graphics card
Asus DVD-ROM drive
Maxtor MaxLine III 250GB SATA hard drive
OCZ PowerStream 470W power supply.

(The 130nm chip used was actually an Athlon 64 3800+
underclocked to 2.2GHz, for what it's worth.)

Power consumption on a similarly-configured Pentium 4was also
tested the system was based on:
Abit AA8 DuraMax motherboard
1GB of OCZ DDR2 533MHz memory
PCI-E version of the GeForce 6800 GT (all other components were
the same as the Athlon 64 rig).
The Pentium 4 was a Prescott 90nm core running at 3.4GHz.

Update: Cool'n'Quiet was not enabled on the Socket 939 motherboard.

In order to strain the processors several different ways,
several regular CPU benchmarks were run and measurements taken
with each of them running. These tests have been used many times
in reviews like this one. Also included is the Sphinx speech
recognition benchmark, Sciencemark's "moldyn" molecular dynamics
computation, and Xmpeg video encoding with the DivX codec.

As you can see, this is a 3 config fully loaded system.

Worse case power consumption scenerio:

Athlon 64 3500+ 90 nm 151 Watts
Athlon 64 3500+ 130nm 179 Watts
Pentium P4 3.4 GHz 90nm 236 Watts


--


Gargravarr
_________________________________________________

"One of the major problems of time travel is... one of grammer."

**The Restaurant at the End of the Universe**

Mobile CPUs are designed to be mobile. Not stationary. I just read
through
this entire post and I still don't even know why you care? Why are you
doing this? What is your point? I heard some talk about computer companies
needing to be more green. What the heck is that crap all about?

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I told you what the CRAP was all
about..............Since you couldn't figure out what they were referring to
I let you in on a secret HEAT POWER CONSUMPTION
andddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd landfill pollution. You are one rock
headed jerk.


Noise? I
seriously doubt computer noise is affecting the environment. Heat? I think
the other equipment in your house generate more heat, not sure what the
point is here. Power, well, see below.






"ISOHaven" wrote in message
...
"Your such a ****ing asshole YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP 'GREEN".
YOU MADE it A topic within a topic. "
Wow...you still dont get it. You absolutly amaze me....

"But you won't quote yourself cause you know damn well."
What the **** are you talking about? All the text is here dude, what is
there to quote? I already explained myself about a dozens times and you
still don't get it. You are a very sad and pathetic idiot at that.

"all this crap about why something isnt one way or another, is just your
opinion"
Very Good!!!!! Now you are catching on. A little at least. Why I said
what I said is EXACTLY my opinion. Good boy!

"get over yourself."
You are the one having issues with this...not me.

Do you have a mirror where you monitor should be? You are really full of
yourself. Everything you typed was in factual format, The WHOLE thread
(which YOU butchered) not you LAST line of bull****, the whole thread is if
you have the inside track, yes it is amazing the dickheads that reside in
alt.comp.hardware.


"ISOHaven" wrote in message
...
"Your forgetting...THIS IS ALL YOUR OPINION of why things aren't done one
way
or another. STFU quit making your simple opinion, sound like fact."

Nothing in my past statment was given as fact. I stated the obvious.
Once again you have proven yourself an idiot. Now do us all a favor and
quit causing so much bull****. Don't you have better things to do? Go
get a life.


"JAD" wrote in message
...

"ISOHaven" wrote in message
...
"I believe that's because you don't understand that using electricity
costs more than money."
I understand that just fine but you have not proven that using a mobile
cpu will actualy save anything versus a cheap AMD. Yes, now I'm saying
AMD which should have been said from the beging but someone mentioned P4
so we kept going with that.

"The CPU uses the most power."
"A mobile CPU will likely use 30W less."
"Multiply that by 1million machines and you're saving 30 megawatts."

Your conclusion is based on finctional purhcases. Your end result is
meaningless. You assume 1 million people would chose a mobile cpu over
a regular cpu in a desktop environment.

Your forgetting...THIS IS ALL YOUR OPINION of why things aren't done one
way or another. STFU quit making your simple opinion, sound like fact.




"Michael C" wrote in message
...
"ISOHaven" wrote in message
...
Not sure what your exact point was.

I believe that's because you don't understand that using electricity
costs more than money.

All you did was just put a laptop on someones desk. In that case then
this entire thread is BS. If you want a crappy HDD and you want a
crappy cd type drive and no expansion what-so-ever then YES your
60/30W example will hold true. But then again just buy a friggen
laptop and use that instead of a desktop unit.

I'm not suggesting buying all low power parts, just the most power
hungry part of the computer.

BUT, that's not the case. The question at hand is building a DESKTOP
unit with a mobile processor that needs to run 12v cd type drives and
12v HDDs. So your 60/30W example goes right out the window. Sorry,
try again.

Not really. The CPU uses the most power (besides the monitor which
can't be reduced). A mobile CPU will likely use 30W less (I don't have
the exact figures). Multiply that by 1million machines and you're
saving 30 megawatts.

Gargravarr,

A typical desktop computer draws about 60 Watts of power;

Is that accurate? I thought a p4 cpu on it's own used 60watts?

Want it to cost nothing?? Turn off a couple of incandescent lamps.
Same idea goes for every room that a PC is used in.
Throw away a few toasters, electric kettles and other useless
appliances and you'll actually *save* money.

Who the frig has incandescent lights these days? Energy saving lights
are $10 for a pack of 4, the most powerful light in my house is 13
watts. I'd have to turn off every light in my house off (typically I'd
have 4 to 6 lights on). And that assumes I'm using my PC at night!
Toasters and kettles use a ****load of power but only for short
periods.

Granted the saving aren't that great but if motherboards came down in
price then it would be a worthwhile idea. For all I know the
motherboards are cheap anyway and someone here said the cpus cost a
small percentage more.

Michael