World’s most energy-efficient desktop computer
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
World’s most energy-efficient desktop computer
The world’s most energy-efficient desktop computer is the brand new Mac mini*
When it’s idle, Mac mini uses less than 13 watts — that’s 45 percent less energy than ever before.
http://www.apple.com/macmini
http://www.apple.com/macmini/environment.html
*Claim based on energy efficiency categories and products listed within the EPA ENERGY STAR 4.0 database as of February 2009.
When it’s idle, Mac mini uses less than 13 watts — that’s 45 percent less energy than ever before.
http://www.apple.com/macmini
http://www.apple.com/macmini/environment.html
*Claim based on energy efficiency categories and products listed within the EPA ENERGY STAR 4.0 database as of February 2009.
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:06 am
- Location: USA - PA
I do not have that model (released today), but the two previoous ones are absolutely quiet (bedroom quiet; you do not hear them at all). And they keep cool all the time.teststrips wrote:sounds impressive to me... although I won't be buying one as it is too much $$$ for me
I wonder if this will be quiet, or if it'll sound like a whiney laptop fan
Hmm. but it less than half the CPU performance too.jaganath wrote:an Eee Box uses only a couple of watts more, is just as quiet and is half the price.
My Eee PC 1000HA has been annoying me by pausing and having other glitches on websites--I probably need to overclock it to 2GHz again. The current Atom just doesn't cut it, and Intel has no plans to improve its performance.
Re: World’s most energy-efficient desktop computer
What that means is the Mac mini is NOT the World’s most energy-efficient desktop computer, and they should be admonished for the deceptive advertising.SileX wrote:*Claim based on energy efficiency categories and products listed within the EPA ENERGY STAR 4.0 database as of February 2009.
Efficiency is not a measure of resource consumption, it is a measure of output compared to consumption. In terms of computing the output is debatable. Is it the number of FLOPS, MIPS, BOGOMIPS, Drystone, Whetstone, FPS? Or the amount of work that a user can accomplish given a set amount of electricity?
Whatever, this isn't a concrete claim.
Whatever, this isn't a concrete claim.