Does desktop CPU power consumption matter to you?

[Idontcare]

17, living at home. Parents pay, no care in the world

my computer is poop anyway, but it is efficient.

Ignorance is bliss but that won't prevent you from inheriting the world you deserve (and had a hand in creating). Burn up that fossil fuel, sulphur and mercury are good for the food you will want your kids to eat someday, and the damage done in removing it from the ground shouldn't be a concern either. So what if people's water can burn now from the methane in it? No care in the world, right?

 

[Piroko]

Right, but AMD users in particular are:

A) More likely to overclock
B) Less likely to care, given that they are more likely to hold brand to be of higher importance (which compounds with the overclocking tendency).

*Citing personal experience and common sense/knowledge. Not a strong argument, but a logical one.

Don't think it's common sense that cheaper boxes get oced more often than expensive ones (as that is what it boils down to at the moment). There are certain chips in both camps which get promoted heavily as good performers / good ocers (FX6300, FX8350, 3570k, 3770k), but I doubt that many of them actually end up being oced.

At the end of the day, there's a rather large portion of the enthusiast community that does not give a flying flock about power at all, and simply use power consumption as a tool to win arguments on forums. These are your "extremists," while the people that do care about power consumption are your "swing voters."

signed.

 

[Homeles]

Don't think it's common sense that cheaper boxes get oced more often than expensive ones (as that is what it boils down to at the moment).

IMO, the days of overclocking a cheap CPU to get the performance of a faster one are pretty much dead. Parts aren't really differentiated much by clocks anymore -- they cut cores, cache, and features, which can only be regained only partially through clocking faster.

Where I was going with that is that your typical AMD buyer is going to be someone that cares about hardware and does research on their components before making a purchase. Since they're more likely to be enthusiasts, they're more likely to overclock.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Don't particularly care. First priority is noise - if the rig dissipates 500W of heat, but can be well-cooled in a near-silent manner, then I start worrying about power consumption.

IMO, the days of overclocking a cheap CPU to get the performance of a faster one are pretty much dead. Parts aren't really differentiated much by clocks anymore -- they cut cores, cache, and features, which can only be regained only partially through clocking faster.
Where I was going with that is that your typical AMD buyer is going to be someone that cares about hardware and does research on their components before making a purchase. Since they're more likely to be enthusiasts, they're more likely to overclock.

It's dead on the Intel side, but not for AMD CPUs. Before some troll chimes in with "Lol11!!11 AMD perf is t3h sux0rz!!11!", their CPUs do have their place, like powering my guest machine, HTPC/file servers and folks' systems.

 

[Chiropteran]

This is a loaded question if I have ever seen one. All things equal, I'd like my desktop PC to use less power, but all things are never equal.

I recently bought and setup a Dell XPS 8500 with an i7-3770, to replace my main desktop which was previously a self-built FX-8120 based system. Power usage hasn't significantly changed, and in fact idle or near-idle CPU most of the time so that really hasn't changed much. It may even be slightly higher consumption at idle now.

On the other hand, I bitcoin mine, and the power usage of a mining video card is very significant, much more so than the difference between AMD & Intel CPU. For example, mining on any nvidia card is nearly 10 times less efficient than mining on an equivalent AMD card.

However, even with the "massive" power consumption of bitcoin mining, with 5+ video cards mining non-stop all month, the change in cost for power is a drop in the bucket, maybe $20-$30 extra at most. In comparison, when I turn the AC on for the summer, the power bill goes up by $50 or more per month.

So in the scheme of things, with CPU power consumption differences that may account for, in a worst case scenario, a difference of a couple dollars a month, I really couldn't care less. It would make much more sense to upgrade to a more efficient AC system, or to replace my awesome 50" Plasma TV with some washed out crappy (but more efficient) LCD TV.

Also, when I look at my computer power usage electricity cost, and compare it to the monthly bitcoin income I am seeing, it makes me care even less about the electricity. You gotta spend money to make money, and with these sorts of returns I welcome it

people's water can burn[/URL] now from the methane in it? No care in the world, right?

Some kid using an extra 10W of power from his computer because he doesn't have the most efficient CPU possible isn't exactly causing a meltdown of the environment.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Some kid using an extra 10W of power from his computer because he doesn't have the most efficient CPU possible isn't exactly causing a meltdown of the environment.

But its part of it when its not 1 kid, but a billion people instead. Then mother earth just have to take yet another one for the team.

 

[Stoneburner]

I don't get it. There is no power vs. performance argument to be had. Intel performs better and is more power efficient.

 

[Chiropteran]

But its part of it when its not 1 kid, but a billion people instead. Then mother earth just have to take yet another one for the team.

Except if one of those kids leaves the door open for 2 minutes on a hot summer day, he probably wastes 1000W in electricity that has to be used by the AC to cool the house back down. You are fighting and arguing over a minuscule difference when there are other things using 100X as much power.

Not to mention, the cost of changing to a more efficient CPU is money that could have better been spent on a solar panel or other energy-creating device that could save a lot more power in the long run.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Heat matters more, because that leads to running the AC which eats more power than any of my PCs.

I would love to have my Core2Duo servers running on a more efficient platform one day for this reason.

 

[loccothan]

i've got less than 5KW/h a day and bill 33 $ a month in House 50 m'2 and its Cool i have 2 computers and a TV -->one comp is my moms and one its mine ;-)

 

[Dark Shroud]

For my desktops I don't care. I use Gold & Silver PSUs to keep efficiency up and that's about it.

I live in Northern Illinois where I have a cheaper fixed rate that most other states.

 

[USER8000]

Up to a degree yes,but mostly for idle and low load power consumption. A CPU is only one part of the power consumption of your computer,and indeed as others have mentioned,other appliances,can make a much bigger difference,as will your usage patterns.

However,it is easy to get too neurotic about things,and the most power efficient computer,is one which is switched off!!

A world does exist outside of your computer,and there is plenty to do.

If we were so worried about saving the environment we would not travel anywhere on holiday,not eat meat,eat only locally sourced food,have no car and would live in a single room apartment.

If anything if you want to be cynical,it is our western lifestyles which is the main issue,when it comes to the environment,as if the whole human population aspired to our lifestyle,it would mean we would need more than one Earth to sustain us all. So,if you want to save the planet,then live more like some of the poorer people in the world.

However,I doubt many of us would really want to do that,so I suppose it is all crocodile tears anyway to make ourselves feel better.

 

[Phynaz]

Some kid using an extra 10W of power from his computer because he doesn't have the most efficient CPU possible isn't exactly causing a meltdown of the environment.

Now multiply that by a few hundred million. It does matter.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Except if one of those kids leaves the door open for 2 minutes on a hot summer day, he probably wastes 1000W in electricity that has to be used by the AC to cool the house back down. You are fighting and arguing over a minuscule difference when there are other things using 100X as much power.

Not to mention, the cost of changing to a more efficient CPU is money that could have better been spent on a solar panel or other energy-creating device that could save a lot more power in the long run.

They dont waste 1Kw/h. Also you assume they got AC. And AC is a whole other matter on its own with the huge amount of poorly constructed homes.

Nobody is saying saving 10W will save the world. But if you do something like this everywhere, with everything, then the effect matters on a planetary scale.

 

[Chiropteran]

Now multiply that by a few hundred million. It does matter.

Except you have to multiply EVERYTHING ELSE by a few hundred million. That 5W per CPU is still minuscule next to the 2500W A/C system running in every average home. It's never going to be more than 1-2% of the total power usage of the household, no matter what you "multiply" it by.

 

[Chiropteran]

They dont waste 1Kw/h. Also you assume they got AC. And AC is a whole other matter on its own with the huge amount of poorly constructed homes.

Nobody is saying saving 10W will save the world. But if you do something like this everywhere, with everything, then the effect matters on a planetary scale.

I assume they have A/C the same as you assume they have an inefficient computer to begin with. Yes it is a whole other matter, it's a much more relevant and meaningful matter, is my point. If you are going to worry about electricity usage, you should focus on the things that actually matter.

I can run my terribly inefficient AMD computer for about 10 years straight and use less electricity than I use with my A/C in one summer. Even less significant, the difference between my horrible AMD system and an "efficient" Intel system is so small that I'd have to run it for 100 years or more to make the difference greater than ONE SINGLE SUMMER SEASON of A/C usage. I can't stress enough, the difference you are talking about is not relevant in the world we live in.

I'm not sure where you get your figures, a normal sized house has a 2000-3500W A/C unit. Even a single room window AC unit typically uses 1200W.

 

[Hubb1e]

Power consumption doesn't matter that much to me but I would prefer to run less power for less heat. 100W here and there is a lightblub left on, or 4 CFLs left on and while I'm good about turning lights off, the rest of the family doesn't. I also have 3 fridges (main, small beverage, and basement) and AC and heat and a pool. So a computer that draws an extra 100W at load 2-3 hours a day doesn't matter at all to me. My computers sleep when idle and AMD and Intel rigs all idle around the same wattage so none of that really matters in the long run. I also have a 10kw solar system on the house and don't even use all of that power so I sell it back to PG&E.

AMD chips do require a better motherboard than an Intel rig and that matters when buying the parts, but I'm not going to get bothered by a few extra watts here and there unless it makes it hard to cool the beast off.

 

[Phynaz]

Except you have to multiply EVERYTHING ELSE by a few hundred million. That 5W per CPU is still minuscule next to the 2500W A/C system running in every average home. It's never going to be more than 1-2% of the total power usage of the household, no matter what you "multiply" it by.

All those 1 or 2% start adding up.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Take the money and set fire to them every month. Then see how it feels when you actually stand with them and are about to lose it.

But if cost is not a problem, IDC already covered what you should have bought in the first place. Power cost or not.

Please don't think for a moment that you are fooling a child. See, the money we are talking about and again I'll refresh your memory, is about 5 dollars a month and for that I'm getting something in return, I'm using it not burning it or wasting it like you're suggesting.

 

[Gikaseixas]

It just doesn't compute then.

If you care about performance then you'd be better off with a higher-end Intel processor.

If you don't care about power usage then you don't care about power expense, which means computing cost in general is a non-factor - so the expense related to owning a higher-performing processor is not an issue.

Which goes back to the higher performing Intel processor, which will cost you more to purchase but you've already crossed the bridge of saying price for the performance is not a concern for you.

So all roads lead you owning a higher-end Intel CPU and OC'ing it.

Unless its not about power consumption or performance, if it is just about owning an AMD. Then the logic tree above doesn't apply, naturally.

Not necessarily. I'm more than happy with my FX 8350 even if its a 125w CPU. It's plenty fast and since I got it for usd 185 I believe it was money well spent. To me the performance is more than adequate.

 

[Gikaseixas]

If this so important to some then why do most of you guys have high end stuff and overclock the shit out of it? Wanna be green, be all the way and start with your PC...

 

[Piroko]

All those 1 or 2% start adding up.

There are a multitude of easier savings before I would even think about replacing a PC early. A new medium sized fridge will run you, what? 400$? And will save you 1 kWh+ a week? Even better, if you can live with one fridge less in your hosehold, that's ~300 kWh a year in guaranteed savings. Save a single gallon of fuel by not driving to the restaurants and that's an equivalent of 25 kWh. Turn off the a/c and use a fan instead: 2400 W less for every hour.

Shintai has the right approach, saving energy starts at the biggest culprits. The smaller the potential savings are, the more other factors play a role. You're not helping the enviroment if you save 10 kWh per year but create additional hazardous waste on some illegal dump in ivory coast.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Please don't think for a moment that you are fooling a child. See, the money we are talking about and again I'll refresh your memory, is about 5 dollars a month and for that I'm getting something in return, I'm using it not burning it or wasting it like you're suggesting.

You are not getting something in return. You are just paying more monthly for your original purchase. IDC said it perfectly in his post about the rationale behind.

 

[ShintaiDK]

There are a multitude of easier savings before I would even think about replacing a PC early. A new medium sized fridge will run you, what? 400$? And will save you 1 kWh+ a week? Even better, if you can live with one fridge less in your hosehold, that's ~300 kWh a year in guaranteed savings. Save a single gallon of fuel by not driving to the restaurants and that's an equivalent of 25 kWh. Turn off the a/c and use a fan instead: 2400 W less for every hour.

Shintai has the right approach, saving energy starts at the biggest culprits. The smaller the potential savings are, the more other factors play a role. You're not helping the enviroment if you save 10 kWh per year but create additional hazardous waste on some illegal dump in ivory coast.

Yep, its all about avoiding the bad purchase in the first place. And only replace those "early" that got an economic reasons for it. Specially firdge and freezer.

And specially for all americans in here. Get a thermal check of your home in summer and winter. And consider if adding some insulation wouldnt be a very good deal.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not necessarily. I'm more than happy with my FX 8350 even if its a 125w CPU. It's plenty fast and since I got it for usd 185 I believe it was money well spent. To me the performance is more than adequate.

And we are back to those 5$ a month extra...

You thought you made a good buy, but you didnt.