Intel drops HyperThreading

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

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

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

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 .

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

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

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 .

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

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

Tony Hill wrote:

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.

.... only Gigawatts


-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .