energy efficient computers


Recommended Posts

  On 02/10/2010 at 15:41, ironsight2000 said:

Right now the average gaming rig need 1kw the number every few years keeps going up soon we will hit 3kw that way to power hungry they really need to work on power efficentcy

No, right now the average gaming rig needs maybe 650w max (and thats playing it safe so you can upgrade it without replacing the PSU), if you want more than 1 video card (pointless waste of money IMHO), then you need 750+.

Seriously, what do you consider the average gaming computer that requires 1kw? The only way I can think to use 1kw is an i7 overclocked and increased voltage, with 2-3 (maybe even 4) high-end GPUs (okay, maybe only 2 of your talking nVidia).

Computers are getting both more efficient and faster as time goes on. A computer that requires 650w right now is more powerful than a computer that required 650w 5 years ago. Lower your standards a bit if you think the average gaming rig needs 1kw, I have an i7 overclocked to 4Ghz running 6GB of DDR3 memory with a 4890 Toxic (overclocked version of the 4890) and putting it under full load (not just gaming load, I'm talking load the processor and GPU up as high as I can get it) it goes up to about 380w of usage, I could add another card in and I bet it would stay under 500w usage, no way I could make it go up to 1kw without rebuilding the entire thing...

  On 02/10/2010 at 15:41, ironsight2000 said:

Right now the average gaming rig need 1kw the number every few years keeps going up soon we will hit 3kw that way to power hungry they really need to work on power efficentcy

lol what? i have a fairly high end gaming PC(well it's at the lower end of the thigh end classification tbqh) and my peak power use is like ~420w and that's about as high as it gets for a single gpu system at stock clocks.

  On 02/10/2010 at 15:52, Nagisan said:

No, right now the average gaming rig needs maybe 650w max (and thats playing it safe so you can upgrade it without replacing the PSU), if you want more than 1 video card (pointless waste of money IMHO), then you need 750+.

Seriously, what do you consider the average gaming computer that requires 1kw? The only way I can think to use 1kw is an i7 overclocked and increased voltage, with 2-3 (maybe even 4) high-end GPUs (okay, maybe only 2 of your talking nVidia).

Computers are getting both more efficient and faster as time goes on. A computer that requires 650w right now is more powerful than a computer that required 650w 5 years ago. Lower your standards a bit if you think the average gaming rig needs 1kw, I have an i7 overclocked to 4Ghz running 6GB of DDR3 memory with a 4890 Toxic (overclocked version of the 4890) and putting it under full load (not just gaming load, I'm talking load the processor and GPU up as high as I can get it) it goes up to about 380w of usage, I could add another card in and I bet it would stay under 500w usage, no way I could make it go up to 1kw without rebuilding the entire thing...

+1

computers are already really power efficient compared to how they were 5-10 years ago and what kind of processing power they have. as well as compared to some other household appliances you might have running all the time. i'm sure a fridge probably takes more power each day to run if you don't even open it at all, and the more you open the door, the more power it will take. pretty air conditioning a single room or heating your home/apartment is even costlier. i've seen people who leave their tv running 24/7 bitch about computers being on for even half that time each day. you probably save more from turning off lights in rooms you aren't in then you do from turning off your PC at night.

yeah there is a movement towards ultra efficent on energy computers. you know what this application is? businesses that have offices where dozens or even hundreds of computers are in use for 8+ hours every single day during peak energy hours. these business stand to see decent savings from using computers that are focused on using less power, often at a cost to performance, as they often don't use the full potential of less energy friendly hardware anyway. there are exceptions to this, but often these business have limited hardware sets for their high performance application needs. another application for more energy friendly hardware is data centers and server clustters and that sort of thing, where again there are literally at least dozens if not hundreds of systems running 24/7, so cutting down just a few watts per box really brings in teh savings for these kinds of businesses.

but for home use the difference is literally going to be maybe a few dollars a year difference, and depending on how your power company collects data on your usage for billing, you may not see any savings at all, ever. hell your actuall bill may be higher based on the voodoo i've seen on my own power bill with these so called smart meters we have in my province.

  On 04/10/2010 at 09:27, JohnRocks said:

I am so cunfused about this post.

I have a Intel Core i3 2.93ghz using its Intel HD Graphics, a gigabyte motherboard using Intel H57 Chipset, 4Gb (2x2gb) Corsair DDR3 Ram 1333Mhz (thinks its 1.6/1.65v) 2x Western Digital 1Tb Carvier Green Drives in RAID + 1x Intel X25-V 40Gb SSD running on an old 350Watt PSU, and has 1x 120mm LED Fan for cooling.... SYTEM runs Windows Server 2008 R2 for learning and use as a server ..... (you can get DDR3 as low as 1.4v NOW TOO !!) btw system is in a Cube style case and its MicroATX ... so space saving too ;) no DVD drive as using a HDD Caddy, but use a USB DVDRW drive when needed

now according to a Pass Through Watt Meter i have, when system is loaded and at the login screen (idle) .... system is running various Services Web/MySQL/AntiVirus/Firewall/Media Streaming etc its idle is only 90Watts of power ..... now i also have 2 x Old Maxtor 300gb SATA1 drives i can turn on and uase as a spanned 600gd drive for which i did before i got the watt meter system, had run for 24 hours like that copying data to new RAID

now if ur wanting to talk Power Efficent Gaming you just need to add a ATi/AMD Radeon HD 5000 and maybe soon 6000 range card to that and ur system would be ace Power Efficent Gaming as eg according to ATI/AMD a 5670 only uses 15watts at Idle!

and for top power saving OS would say Win 7 be a must linux maybe as well as i think ubuntu 10 is similar on power saving

hope this is helps answer a few things

Now for comparison an old Thecus N2100 NAS ... has a rated PSU of 60 Watts MAX ... and that is a Intel XSCale 600Mhz CPU, 128mb Ram ram can be swaoped to 512mb DDR1 400Mhz, and up to 2x1tb HDDs but need to look at power so u dont overload the 60watt PSU, and you can add a Wireless G USB/MiniPCI (Only like 6 working sticks/cards) and for example my old 2x300gb hds where used in this

AMD have a Power Saving Range but only a select few and there more for underclocked/underclocking like mad there found with an "e" on the end of the poduct name ....eg AMD Athlon II X4 610e

In summary we have power effective semi super computers.... SSD's and DDR3 have aided in this ....AMD and Intel both have ways to make the CPUS use less power when not in use, and ATI have the right idea on GPU power ... nVidia have lost the plot there stuff just uses more power each time

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Google Chrome is ending support for two ancient versions of Android by Usama Jawad Google Chrome is the most used browser right now, with the competition trailing far behind. What browser you use typically ends up being a matter of preference and familiarity, but all vendors are trying to one-up each other as they vy for more market share. Recently, Google claimed that Chrome is now faster than ever while Microsoft boasted that Edge is better at ad-blocking than Google's offering. Regardless of all these factors, Chrome commands a significant market share, even on legacy systems. Now, Google has announced that it is ending support for Chrome on two legacy versions of Android. In a brief blog post, Google has announced that it is dropping support for Chrome on Android 8 Oreo and Android 9 Pie with the upcoming version 139 of the browser expected to release on August 5. Right now, the current stable version of Chrome is 137, which means that Chrome 138 will be the last version of the browser to support these legacy operating systems. In practice, this means that Chrome will require Android 10.0 or above on mobile platforms in order to receive further updates. While the browser will continue working on older versions of Android, they will not receive updates, which means that they'll be left insecure and vulnerable to cybersecurity threats. As expected, Google has recommended that users on older systems should migrate to at least Android 10 in order to continue receiving updates on Chrome. While the company hasn't explicitly stated a reason behind its decision, it likely has to do with the dwindling user base of these old versions of Android and Google's ambitions to get more people to upgrade to newer versions of its mobile operating system. It's important to note that Android 8 was released in August 2017 and received its final security patch in October 2021. Meanwhile, Android 9 was rolled out to the public in August 2019 and netted its final update in January 2022. So in retrospect, Google has already been offering Chrome support for these legacy versions long after they hit end-of-support themselves.
    • I use two of these in RAID0 for video games and other things, together they are capable of 2.8 million IOPS and 15 GB/s on Gen4. At this price, 4 TB of Gen4 is faster and less expensive than a single 2 TB Gen5 NVMe, not to mention easier to cool off. Highly recommend.
    • that is a normal sign in, they just put in a dumb location to try to hide it... and yes I think the whole MS account by default is BS too, the first question should be do you want an online profile or a local one
    • From our past comments, it looks like some ppl are defo enjoying these stories.
    • You are missing the point, we should not have to do that. Should have a do you want an MS account option on the normal sign in.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      adnan.hebibovic earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      adnan.hebibovic earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      tesla maxwell earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      Camlann earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      fredss earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      630
    2. 2
      Michael Scrip
      224
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      219
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      143
    5. 5
      Xenon
      134
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!