How efficient is your...computer?
#1
02-19-2005, 02:32 PM
How efficient is your...computer?
Ok, it's no surprise. More than a few of us here are probably techno-geeks, and when you combine geekiness with a love of efficiency, you tend to wind up with a lot of overlaps. As such, I'm curious who else out there has ever done anything to improve the efficiency of their electricity usage? Probably the geekiest way would be to tune up your computer for the maximum CPU power to watts/used ratio. In case any of you are wondering how to do this, I would suggest picking up a Kill-A-Watt, which you can buy for no more than $40 or so from a variety of retailers, some even as cheap as $30. You can see a picture of my PC plugged into the Kill-A-Watt attached at the bottom of my post in case you're curious what they look like.
Seen here in this picture, it’s basically sitting idle and only consuming 51 watts at the outlet. Anyone here have a 350 watt power supply? Maybe even a 400 or 500 watt power supply? Seeing your real power draw can be an eye-opener when it comes to just how much or how little power it takes to drive a modern computer using efficient parts. Even running my AMD Athlon at 2.07Ghz and software to fully load the CPU, the power draw is still only about 100 watts. I think this is a pretty good example of efficient computing.
For the truly geeky, I’ll include some charts and graphs too. The first one is a simple plot of what the power draw is at idle and full load (using CPUBurn) for each processor multiple. The bus speed was 166Mhz and thus the increments are 3x to 12x, plus a half step at the end for 12.5x, which is the maximum stable speed of this particular CPU. If the very last step appears flatter on the chart, it’s because it’s only a half-step speed increment rather than a full step.
It’s pretty clear to see that as you increase the clockspeed there’s a pretty linear increase in total system power draw. It would seem that the floor for this computer would probably be around 42 watts or so if the CPU was completely shut off. The power draw seems to be linear for both idle draw and maximum CPU load. The next chart was an attempt to show the total efficiency of the system as represented by the clockspeed divided by total power draw. Since at very low speeds, you don’t get much clockspeed for each watt (thanks to that 42 watts or so that is draw regardless of the CPU) what we see is sort of a power curve where the higher the clockspeed, the greater a percentage of the total power draw goes towards CPU power. If you look at the first graph again, at 500mhz and full load, it draws 57 watts. Now at 2000Mhz we have four times the clockspeed, but draw is only 68% higher at 96 watts showing that at increasing clockspeeds a greater percentage of the power drawn is converted into CPU power.
I charted both at load and at idle, but really only the loaded figures are relevant since you don’t really care about CPU cycles per watt at idle anyway. The ideal computer would be something like an Athlon64 where at idle it drops to a very low clockspeed and when loaded it increases back to a high clockspeed. Pentium4’s are also very good at doing this type of thing on their own.
So that’s all I feel like posting when it comes to computer efficiency. The other thing you can do with the Kill-A-Watt is see how much power everything else you own draws. In my livingroom for example, I have a pair of torch lamps and also an overhead ceiling fan with 4 15-watt lightbulbs. I used to use the torch lamps a lot because I thought they looked cool. Then I found out they use 160 watts on the low setting and 230 on high. That’s per lamp! Now I use the overhead light almost exclusively because even with all 4 bulbs, that’s only 60 watts of draw.
I also found it interesting that my home entertainment system draws 3 watts when in standby, about 38 watts when on but with no sound playing and only around 45 watts with music playing at a low volume. This provides additional motivation to keep the entertainment system turned off when not in use since there’s no point drawing an extra 35 watts to have it not even producing sound. My 21” monitor is actually the biggest pig of all my commonly used stuff drawing an average of 115 watts. A flat panel would certainly cut that draw, but I’m not quite prepared to run out and buy a $1200 flat panel capable of doing 1600x1200 resolution just to save $2-3 in electricity per month.
So there you have it! Have I motivated anyone to go out and find ways to meter the electricity usage of everything in their house and alter their usage patterns to the greatest benefit? Maybe? Possibly? Perhaps not at all?
Seen here in this picture, it’s basically sitting idle and only consuming 51 watts at the outlet. Anyone here have a 350 watt power supply? Maybe even a 400 or 500 watt power supply? Seeing your real power draw can be an eye-opener when it comes to just how much or how little power it takes to drive a modern computer using efficient parts. Even running my AMD Athlon at 2.07Ghz and software to fully load the CPU, the power draw is still only about 100 watts. I think this is a pretty good example of efficient computing.
For the truly geeky, I’ll include some charts and graphs too. The first one is a simple plot of what the power draw is at idle and full load (using CPUBurn) for each processor multiple. The bus speed was 166Mhz and thus the increments are 3x to 12x, plus a half step at the end for 12.5x, which is the maximum stable speed of this particular CPU. If the very last step appears flatter on the chart, it’s because it’s only a half-step speed increment rather than a full step.
It’s pretty clear to see that as you increase the clockspeed there’s a pretty linear increase in total system power draw. It would seem that the floor for this computer would probably be around 42 watts or so if the CPU was completely shut off. The power draw seems to be linear for both idle draw and maximum CPU load. The next chart was an attempt to show the total efficiency of the system as represented by the clockspeed divided by total power draw. Since at very low speeds, you don’t get much clockspeed for each watt (thanks to that 42 watts or so that is draw regardless of the CPU) what we see is sort of a power curve where the higher the clockspeed, the greater a percentage of the total power draw goes towards CPU power. If you look at the first graph again, at 500mhz and full load, it draws 57 watts. Now at 2000Mhz we have four times the clockspeed, but draw is only 68% higher at 96 watts showing that at increasing clockspeeds a greater percentage of the power drawn is converted into CPU power.
I charted both at load and at idle, but really only the loaded figures are relevant since you don’t really care about CPU cycles per watt at idle anyway. The ideal computer would be something like an Athlon64 where at idle it drops to a very low clockspeed and when loaded it increases back to a high clockspeed. Pentium4’s are also very good at doing this type of thing on their own.
So that’s all I feel like posting when it comes to computer efficiency. The other thing you can do with the Kill-A-Watt is see how much power everything else you own draws. In my livingroom for example, I have a pair of torch lamps and also an overhead ceiling fan with 4 15-watt lightbulbs. I used to use the torch lamps a lot because I thought they looked cool. Then I found out they use 160 watts on the low setting and 230 on high. That’s per lamp! Now I use the overhead light almost exclusively because even with all 4 bulbs, that’s only 60 watts of draw.
I also found it interesting that my home entertainment system draws 3 watts when in standby, about 38 watts when on but with no sound playing and only around 45 watts with music playing at a low volume. This provides additional motivation to keep the entertainment system turned off when not in use since there’s no point drawing an extra 35 watts to have it not even producing sound. My 21” monitor is actually the biggest pig of all my commonly used stuff drawing an average of 115 watts. A flat panel would certainly cut that draw, but I’m not quite prepared to run out and buy a $1200 flat panel capable of doing 1600x1200 resolution just to save $2-3 in electricity per month.
So there you have it! Have I motivated anyone to go out and find ways to meter the electricity usage of everything in their house and alter their usage patterns to the greatest benefit? Maybe? Possibly? Perhaps not at all?
Last edited by AZCivic; 02-19-2005 at 03:33 PM.
#2
02-19-2005, 05:54 PM
Hi AZCivic:
___Although I use a 19” CRT based monitor worth ~ 100 W, she goes to sleep after 10 minutes of keyboard inactivity. I run an under-clocked 1.4 MHz Celeron at 935 MHz on an Asus TUSL2. Average power consumption with a Radeon 7500 is ~ 50 W MAX and that includes running a Cancer project via UD Agent 24/7. I used to use a 1.4 MHz T-Bird and have P4’s for the kids so I guess I am losing on that end but at least my own is an energy saver and accomplishes what I need for all the web based use I get out of my own home built.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net
___Although I use a 19” CRT based monitor worth ~ 100 W, she goes to sleep after 10 minutes of keyboard inactivity. I run an under-clocked 1.4 MHz Celeron at 935 MHz on an Asus TUSL2. Average power consumption with a Radeon 7500 is ~ 50 W MAX and that includes running a Cancer project via UD Agent 24/7. I used to use a 1.4 MHz T-Bird and have P4’s for the kids so I guess I am losing on that end but at least my own is an energy saver and accomplishes what I need for all the web based use I get out of my own home built.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net
#3
02-19-2005, 09:37 PM
ouch
My water cooled Reserator + 302 heater core with twin 120mm fans @7v + 6 papst 80mm fans in the case @7v with a ehien 1048 pump is drawing almost as much juice as your computer LMAO
Hell I wonder what a ATI X800XT + AMD 3500+ (2.2gig) OCed to 2.6gig with 1.65vcore is drawing wattage wise????
underclocking a slow *** celeron?? bad move should have got a P4-M and run it at 12 watts. Would have been twice as fast and takes less power and generates nearly no heat. Just an idea
You sould switch that P4 known as a "press-hott" due to its power useage and excessive heat.
enjoy the day and nice charts too.
oh here is some reading material on the P4-M
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2342
2.17gig and only 22 watts SWEET!!! even if its an intel product
My water cooled Reserator + 302 heater core with twin 120mm fans @7v + 6 papst 80mm fans in the case @7v with a ehien 1048 pump is drawing almost as much juice as your computer LMAO
Hell I wonder what a ATI X800XT + AMD 3500+ (2.2gig) OCed to 2.6gig with 1.65vcore is drawing wattage wise????
underclocking a slow *** celeron?? bad move should have got a P4-M and run it at 12 watts. Would have been twice as fast and takes less power and generates nearly no heat. Just an idea
You sould switch that P4 known as a "press-hott" due to its power useage and excessive heat.
enjoy the day and nice charts too.
oh here is some reading material on the P4-M
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2342
2.17gig and only 22 watts SWEET!!! even if its an intel product
Last edited by iboomalot; 02-19-2005 at 09:43 PM.
#4
02-19-2005, 10:48 PM
Hi AZCivic:
___Here is a site I have been visiting for years and it helps gain perspective on our past as well as our current lineup of processors max power consumption. This guy whoever he is has provided this service at no charge for years and if I could thank him personally, I would.
Processor Electrical Specifications
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net
___Here is a site I have been visiting for years and it helps gain perspective on our past as well as our current lineup of processors max power consumption. This guy whoever he is has provided this service at no charge for years and if I could thank him personally, I would.
Processor Electrical Specifications
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net
Last edited by xcel; 02-20-2005 at 12:08 PM.
#5
02-20-2005, 06:46 AM
I do gaming and autocad so I need a fast computer for rendering and I like having 90 FPS at 1600x1200. My system is very quiet and cool.
who cares if you system is 90% eff when its slower than a HP10B2 calculator LMAO I would hate to wait 10 mins for your computer to render a page my time is worth more than saving a penny on electricity.
Speed is what mine is for but in your case you bought for your kids the biggest least eff CPU on the market the P4.
I suggested a better CPU the P4-M so I could careless about your entire dribble in the second paragraph or what happened 6yrs ago in the computer market.
maybe I should break out my old 486 DX50 it comsumes < 1 watt of power but then again I couldn't boot my computer.
who cares if you system is 90% eff when its slower than a HP10B2 calculator LMAO I would hate to wait 10 mins for your computer to render a page my time is worth more than saving a penny on electricity.
Speed is what mine is for but in your case you bought for your kids the biggest least eff CPU on the market the P4.
I suggested a better CPU the P4-M so I could careless about your entire dribble in the second paragraph or what happened 6yrs ago in the computer market.
maybe I should break out my old 486 DX50 it comsumes < 1 watt of power but then again I couldn't boot my computer.
#6
02-20-2005, 09:25 AM
Well, as a data point for super old PC's, I kept around a Pentium 200Mhz running linux as my web development server right up until last year. It's amazing how little computing power you really need for some things. The main reason I got rid of the Pentium wasn't for speed anyway, it was because it was HUGE and incredibly noisy.
Anyway, at idle it consumed 32 watts and was something like 40 watts at full load. The CD-ROM, hard drive, incredibly old an no doubt very inefficient power supply, ancient motherboard, and whatever else were no doubt the cause of the relatively high power consumption. Based on my old P200's power consumption, I would guess that a vintage 486DX-50Mhz with all vintage hardware (power supply, hd, and so on) would still pull at least 25 to 30 watts at idle, and probably up to 35 watts under load. In terms of eletricity consumed per CPU power, those old systems would be down near the bottom of the ranking.
A P3 Celeron based system at least has the advantage of using more modern chipsets and such while also being very inexpensive. I typically run my system at 166x4 (664Mhz) so I can attest to very little CPU power being needed for all your general computing functions such as web surfing, email, MS Word and Excel (having 512mb of ram helps) and even graphic manipulation when working with smaller file sizes. I usually only kick up to 2Ghz when working with full size pics out of my 6.3mp digital camera.
Anyway, at idle it consumed 32 watts and was something like 40 watts at full load. The CD-ROM, hard drive, incredibly old an no doubt very inefficient power supply, ancient motherboard, and whatever else were no doubt the cause of the relatively high power consumption. Based on my old P200's power consumption, I would guess that a vintage 486DX-50Mhz with all vintage hardware (power supply, hd, and so on) would still pull at least 25 to 30 watts at idle, and probably up to 35 watts under load. In terms of eletricity consumed per CPU power, those old systems would be down near the bottom of the ranking.
A P3 Celeron based system at least has the advantage of using more modern chipsets and such while also being very inexpensive. I typically run my system at 166x4 (664Mhz) so I can attest to very little CPU power being needed for all your general computing functions such as web surfing, email, MS Word and Excel (having 512mb of ram helps) and even graphic manipulation when working with smaller file sizes. I usually only kick up to 2Ghz when working with full size pics out of my 6.3mp digital camera.
#7
02-20-2005, 10:05 AM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
My main PC isn't a desktop at all, it's a Toshiba Satellite 1905 notebook:
http://www.pulsemed.org/toshiba-satellite-1905.htm
Its power supply is max rated @ only 15Watts.
Rather aged @ about 2 years it's the fastest PC I have and does all my heavy Lightwave 3D proccessing in quick order.
P4 2.4Ghz
512 RAM
Sharp, clear 15" TFT active screen
40GB HD, built in 3.5", buit in wireless, DVD ROM, CD RW, Firewire, etc
I picked it up @ Bestbuy new, lucky me due to a return quirk was about $800.
(About $1,000 off shelf price at the time)
Someday I'd like to get back to a desktop but am waiting for the LCD based monitors to get higher resolution. I hate working with a ~2sq ft CRT based monitor taking up desk space.
My old PC is a pig. Compaq Celeron 600Mhz 256K Ram, and a 21" monitor that practically makes the lights dim for a moment when you turn it on! The kids us it now.
http://www.pulsemed.org/toshiba-satellite-1905.htm
Its power supply is max rated @ only 15Watts.
Rather aged @ about 2 years it's the fastest PC I have and does all my heavy Lightwave 3D proccessing in quick order.
P4 2.4Ghz
512 RAM
Sharp, clear 15" TFT active screen
40GB HD, built in 3.5", buit in wireless, DVD ROM, CD RW, Firewire, etc
I picked it up @ Bestbuy new, lucky me due to a return quirk was about $800.
(About $1,000 off shelf price at the time)
Someday I'd like to get back to a desktop but am waiting for the LCD based monitors to get higher resolution. I hate working with a ~2sq ft CRT based monitor taking up desk space.
My old PC is a pig. Compaq Celeron 600Mhz 256K Ram, and a 21" monitor that practically makes the lights dim for a moment when you turn it on! The kids us it now.
Last edited by Hot_Georgia_2004; 02-20-2005 at 10:17 AM.
#8
02-23-2005, 04:54 PM
My computer is a Toshiba Satellite ***. I bought it in August of '04. Intel Centrino 1.6GHz, 512MB of RAM (upgraded to 1024MB), a 60 gigabyte hard drive (upgraded to an 80 gigabyte, 7200RPM Toshiba drive), 15" LCD, DVD Super Multi drive, firewire, 802.11 b/g wireless, and XP Pro. This serves as my main machine, as well. All in all, I have about 20 computers, in various states of operation. :-)
"My main PC isn't a desktop at all, it's a Toshiba Satellite 1905 notebook"
That's definitely a good choice in notebooks. I've sold a few of them--truly bulletproof. I wish I could say the same for some of Toshiba's newer models.
"My main PC isn't a desktop at all, it's a Toshiba Satellite 1905 notebook"
That's definitely a good choice in notebooks. I've sold a few of them--truly bulletproof. I wish I could say the same for some of Toshiba's newer models.
#9
03-17-2005, 06:29 AM
Struggler at large
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South East Valley Sprawl of Greater Phoenix
Posts: 66
I'm not doing so well in the pc-power conservation effort. Although, I have discontinued the use of my DEC Alpha which consumed some rediculous amount of power. It literally heated my computer room several degrees above the temperature in the rest of the house. I wanted to make one of the drive bays an E-Z Bake oven and see if I could cook a brownie... I'm sure I could have.
Here is my current egregious power consumption setup:
For the record, the only machines that are on 24x7 are the linux machines. Everything else gets turned off when not in use. That also goes for my monitors.
Headless Gentoo Linux Server:
proc: K62-350
Mem: 256 MB
Storage: 2x250GB (RAID1), 2x120GB (RAID1), 40GB (Boot/Root/Home)
PSU: 350Watts
Gentoo Linux Workstation:
proc: 1.2 Ghz Athlon
Mem: 512 MB
Storage: 40 GB (Boot/Root/Home), other drives from the server are NFS mounted on this machine.
PSU: 300 Watts
2x 21" DEC Monitors (the 7 year old 80lb monsters with both BNC and D-Sub inputs)
WinXP Workstation:
Proc: 2.4 Ghz P4
Mem: 512 Mb
Storage: 2x160 GB, 1x120.
PSU: 300 Watts
Uses the same 2 21" CRTs as the linux box.
Windows Gaming Machine in a Crusin World replica cabinet (I love racing games!):
Proc: 2.0 Ghz P3
Mem: 512MB
Storage: 1x40GB
PSU: 300 Watts
Uses a 27" television as the monitor.
Compaq Laptop:
proc: 800Mhz Celeron
mem: 256MB
Storage: 40GB
PSU: ??
Battery life: 1.5 hours at best. Can't even watch a full movie on the plane.
IBM T40 Thinkpad:
proc: 1.5 Ghz PenttiumM
mem: 512 MB
storage: 40 GB
PSU:??
Battery Life: 5+ hours, 3+ if you are watching a movie. This laptop rules.
Needless to say, I really need to consolidate, or find a way to cut down on the power consumption of each machine. I'm sure that if I hooked up the Kill-A-Watt, i would be horrified by the amount of power I'm using. Thankfully, its not like they are all ever on all at once. I'm thinking of switching both linux machines to the VIA Epia boards. I need the XP machine to be fast to process audio and video (I like to record my own music and make home videos).
Here is my current egregious power consumption setup:
For the record, the only machines that are on 24x7 are the linux machines. Everything else gets turned off when not in use. That also goes for my monitors.
Headless Gentoo Linux Server:
proc: K62-350
Mem: 256 MB
Storage: 2x250GB (RAID1), 2x120GB (RAID1), 40GB (Boot/Root/Home)
PSU: 350Watts
Gentoo Linux Workstation:
proc: 1.2 Ghz Athlon
Mem: 512 MB
Storage: 40 GB (Boot/Root/Home), other drives from the server are NFS mounted on this machine.
PSU: 300 Watts
2x 21" DEC Monitors (the 7 year old 80lb monsters with both BNC and D-Sub inputs)
WinXP Workstation:
Proc: 2.4 Ghz P4
Mem: 512 Mb
Storage: 2x160 GB, 1x120.
PSU: 300 Watts
Uses the same 2 21" CRTs as the linux box.
Windows Gaming Machine in a Crusin World replica cabinet (I love racing games!):
Proc: 2.0 Ghz P3
Mem: 512MB
Storage: 1x40GB
PSU: 300 Watts
Uses a 27" television as the monitor.
Compaq Laptop:
proc: 800Mhz Celeron
mem: 256MB
Storage: 40GB
PSU: ??
Battery life: 1.5 hours at best. Can't even watch a full movie on the plane.
IBM T40 Thinkpad:
proc: 1.5 Ghz PenttiumM
mem: 512 MB
storage: 40 GB
PSU:??
Battery Life: 5+ hours, 3+ if you are watching a movie. This laptop rules.
Needless to say, I really need to consolidate, or find a way to cut down on the power consumption of each machine. I'm sure that if I hooked up the Kill-A-Watt, i would be horrified by the amount of power I'm using. Thankfully, its not like they are all ever on all at once. I'm thinking of switching both linux machines to the VIA Epia boards. I need the XP machine to be fast to process audio and video (I like to record my own music and make home videos).
Last edited by gbl102; 03-17-2005 at 06:36 AM.
#10
03-17-2005, 04:32 PM
Keep in mind the power supply is a measure of the maximum DC power it can deliver to the components inside the PC. A 300 watt power supply that's 65% efficient would actually draw 460 watts A/C from the plug at 100% max load. Having said that, most folks don't realize just how little power most PC's use. Although mine has a 200 watt power supply, it only draws a fraction of that amount at the plug, which means the power supply isn't even breaking a sweat. I'd guess your linux systems probably are no more than 60-100 watts depending on how busy you keep them loaded up, CPU-wise.
