Power consumption, why has it got so out of control?
Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:40 pm
As someone with a degree in microbiology Ive a vested interest in power consumption and why we all should take steps to reduce it (your mileage may vary, but mines scientifically accurate). With that in mind Ive been trying to build a more efficient, quieter PC that still performs when completing day to day tasks (including some mindless gaming). Unfortunatly Im encountering a total lack of transparency when attempting to purchase PC components based on their energy efficiency. For instance:
Official specs of Barnton CPU's:
AXMA2500FKT4C 1867 MHz 266 MHz 1.65V 10 0.13 micron 41.40A 68.30W 90°C organic Barton 6A0
AXMA2600FKT4C 2000 MHz 266 MHz 1.65V 10 0.13 micron 41.40A 68.30W 90°C organic Barton 6A0
AXMA2800FKT4C 2133 MHz 266 MHz 1.65V 10 0.13 micron 41.40A 68.30W 90°C organic Barton 6A0
All at 68 watts, ignoring the fact that power consumption/heat output scales in a linear fashion with MHz. Very helpful AMD.
The new mobile XP's appear to be a good choice but they're just Barntons undervolted to 1.45v. A Thoroughbred B (256k cache) at 1466 and 1.5v is rated at 49 watts. A mobile Barnton running at 1.45v (as little as makes no difference) and 1867Mhz is rated at 45 watts! Clearly the laws of phsyics are being bent here, even accepting the barnton may be slightly more efficient (although highly unlikely as it has 25% more transistors).
Disabling power management in desktop CPU's (A64's excepted), wheres the logic in that? Even when you can buy a decent CPU (mobile A64, P-M), you cant buy a motherboard that supports it properly.
Dont get me started on GFX cards. Im guessing you will be quickly dispatched by Nvidia's ninja hit squad if you accurately publish how much juice a Geforce 6800 Ultra sucks down. Oh and guess what, ATI despite having far more realistic wattage levels in their wisdom chose to disable power management in desktop cards...
A current PC could easily run at 99% of its current performance yet use half the amount of power, unfortunatly major hardware manufacturers have decided not to implement power saving features despite the fact that its in everyones interest for them to do so.
Even if being green isnt your bag, with a current PC gobbling up over 200 watts at full load, add the monitor (about 200 watts again for a 19" CRT), include a set of speakers, hub, ADSL modem etc and your looking at something thats costing a serious wad of cash to run over the course of its life (especially if you live in europe where your power bill can easily be over $200 a month).
I wouldnt buy a car if I didnt know what it did to the gallon, is it too much to ask how much the bits inside my PC are going to cost me on my power bill/conscience over the next couple of years? I know there have been serveral excellent posts on this forum giving some of the answers to this, but is it too much to ask for hardware manufatcurers to put accurate power consumption in their spec sheets?
/catches bus into town to buy an LCD monitor, wind generator and some sun screen...
Official specs of Barnton CPU's:
AXMA2500FKT4C 1867 MHz 266 MHz 1.65V 10 0.13 micron 41.40A 68.30W 90°C organic Barton 6A0
AXMA2600FKT4C 2000 MHz 266 MHz 1.65V 10 0.13 micron 41.40A 68.30W 90°C organic Barton 6A0
AXMA2800FKT4C 2133 MHz 266 MHz 1.65V 10 0.13 micron 41.40A 68.30W 90°C organic Barton 6A0
All at 68 watts, ignoring the fact that power consumption/heat output scales in a linear fashion with MHz. Very helpful AMD.
The new mobile XP's appear to be a good choice but they're just Barntons undervolted to 1.45v. A Thoroughbred B (256k cache) at 1466 and 1.5v is rated at 49 watts. A mobile Barnton running at 1.45v (as little as makes no difference) and 1867Mhz is rated at 45 watts! Clearly the laws of phsyics are being bent here, even accepting the barnton may be slightly more efficient (although highly unlikely as it has 25% more transistors).
Disabling power management in desktop CPU's (A64's excepted), wheres the logic in that? Even when you can buy a decent CPU (mobile A64, P-M), you cant buy a motherboard that supports it properly.
Dont get me started on GFX cards. Im guessing you will be quickly dispatched by Nvidia's ninja hit squad if you accurately publish how much juice a Geforce 6800 Ultra sucks down. Oh and guess what, ATI despite having far more realistic wattage levels in their wisdom chose to disable power management in desktop cards...
A current PC could easily run at 99% of its current performance yet use half the amount of power, unfortunatly major hardware manufacturers have decided not to implement power saving features despite the fact that its in everyones interest for them to do so.
Even if being green isnt your bag, with a current PC gobbling up over 200 watts at full load, add the monitor (about 200 watts again for a 19" CRT), include a set of speakers, hub, ADSL modem etc and your looking at something thats costing a serious wad of cash to run over the course of its life (especially if you live in europe where your power bill can easily be over $200 a month).
I wouldnt buy a car if I didnt know what it did to the gallon, is it too much to ask how much the bits inside my PC are going to cost me on my power bill/conscience over the next couple of years? I know there have been serveral excellent posts on this forum giving some of the answers to this, but is it too much to ask for hardware manufatcurers to put accurate power consumption in their spec sheets?
/catches bus into town to buy an LCD monitor, wind generator and some sun screen...