how much power are you saving by not overclocking?

PUN

Golden Member
Dec 5, 1999
1,589
13
81
I have my i7 920 @ 4ghz
By lowering the voltage from 1.3v to 1.25, how much power am i saving?
Running my rig at 3.6 or 4ghz doesn't really matter under my current usage.

thanks
 

dflynchimp

Senior member
Apr 11, 2007
468
0
71
cpu power increases and decreases at a rate proportional to this equation:

base consumption (at reference clock) X %increase of clockspeed X (%increase voltage)^2

so voltage is squared and applied. dropping from 1.3V to 1.25V would equal a 7.5% reduction in power, while going from 4GHz to 3.6GHz would be a 10% reduction in power. multiply the two (.9 X .92456)=.8321 or roughly 83% . So 3.6GHz at 1.25V uses about 17% less energy than 4.0GHz at 1.3V

assuming TDP of 130W you're looking at about 21W difference. That's only a ballpark figure though, since 130W itself is a very vague estimate.
 

mpilchfamily

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2007
3,559
1
0
Lets look at a couple of examples. At stock that CPU has the vCore set at 1.10V. Lets say for example this is a 75W CPU. Couldn't find information on actual wattage rating so we'll go with that for now. Exact numbers aren't important at the moment. That puts the CPU at pulling about 68A. So if you bump the Vcore to 1.25V then the CPU is pulling about 85W. With 1.3v that would be about 88.4W. Now if the stock wattage of the CPU is lower or higher the difference between 1.25V and 1.3V will be different but this gives you a basic idea of how much the power ussage jumps with small changes in the vCore.
 

dflynchimp

Senior member
Apr 11, 2007
468
0
71
Lets look at a couple of examples. At stock that CPU has the vCore set at 1.10V. Lets say for example this is a 75W CPU. Couldn't find information on actual wattage rating so we'll go with that for now. Exact numbers aren't important at the moment. That puts the CPU at pulling about 68A. So if you bump the Vcore to 1.25V then the CPU is pulling about 85W. With 1.3v that would be about 88.4W. Now if the stock wattage of the CPU is lower or higher the difference between 1.25V and 1.3V will be different but this gives you a basic idea of how much the power ussage jumps with small changes in the vCore.

we have to take into consideration that when you OC a cpu by changing its FSB you're also OCing the chipset (via the faster FSB) which makes that use more power too. then you have the RAM which also gets OCed unless you run mem dividers, which is usually not ideal. The only real way to isolate the cpu is if you only OC or UC by changing the multiplier. If you have a wattage measure then you can use that to collect enough data to get a reasonably accurate estimate.
 

PUN

Golden Member
Dec 5, 1999
1,589
13
81
we have to take into consideration that when you OC a cpu by changing its FSB you're also OCing the chipset (via the faster FSB) which makes that use more power too. then you have the RAM which also gets OCed unless you run mem dividers, which is usually not ideal. The only real way to isolate the cpu is if you only OC or UC by changing the multiplier. If you have a wattage measure then you can use that to collect enough data to get a reasonably accurate estimate.

Thanks tons!
I think 20-30w difference is enough for me to downclock to 3.6. If I need more power in the future, I'll bump it back up to 4ghz.
 

dflynchimp

Senior member
Apr 11, 2007
468
0
71
looks like around a 25-30W difference at idle between 3.66 and 4.0, and 150W diff at load.

It looks like the 920 OC's quite well without increasing the voltage by much up until 3.6GHz, before really starting to crank the V's.
 

Yellowbeard

Golden Member
Sep 9, 2003
1,542
2
0
If you want a dollar value, I'd imagine it's pennies per month depending on how often the machine is under a load.
 

dflynchimp

Senior member
Apr 11, 2007
468
0
71
If you want a dollar value, I'd imagine it's pennies per month depending on how often the machine is under a load.

assuming a kilowatt hour, the unit they bill you on, is 10-15 cents, then a machine running 24/7/365 would use up this much energy

machine power consumption rate (in watts)/1000 X 24hrs X 365 X .10 to.15 dollars

that nets .876 to 1.314 dollars a year per Watt. So you multiply that by your average computer consumption and you'll figure out how much you're spending on your computer.

It's for this reason that I do any major downloading on my netbook now. It really isn't worth keeping my desktop on all year as it uses 200W even at idle, which is anywhere from 175 to 260 dollars a year on the electric bill. The netbook in comparison uses much less, around a tenth of that at max load ( http://www.legitreviews.com/article/975/8/ )

just putting things into perspective mathematically. I know electricity costs vary depending on where you are, but a ball par figur to go by if your computer is a high powered system is that every 1W, if run 24/7 will cost you around 1 dollar a year, or within 50% of that figure. If you think about all the 40-100W lightbulbs and other highpowered appliances, like those 800-1500W electric space heaters used for winters like here in Wisconsin where I live, you'll see that electricity costs do add up over time.

It's a small part the price we pay as PC hardware enthusiasts.
 

Gillbot

Lifer
Jan 11, 2001
28,830
17
81
Thanks tons!
I think 20-30w difference is enough for me to downclock to 3.6. If I need more power in the future, I'll bump it back up to 4ghz.

Honestly, if you are that worried about 20-30W, you need to look into a netbook or other low power device and get rid of the i7.
 

dflynchimp

Senior member
Apr 11, 2007
468
0
71
Honestly, if you are that worried about 20-30W, you need to look into a netbook or other low power device and get rid of the i7.

the toms hardware article linked earlier shows that the difference between 3.6 and 4.0 is far greater than 20-30 watts when the computer is under load.

And how much power you are saving does not necessarily need to be motivated by cost. It could also be to put the psu and other components under less stress, make the system run cooler and quieter.

Like I said though, if you torrent alot a netbook is a good idea to have. Torrenting is a background non-intensive task anyways and you'd be spending 15 or so watts on average, as opposed to the 100-200W of an idling desktop.
 

Gillbot

Lifer
Jan 11, 2001
28,830
17
81
the toms hardware article linked earlier shows that the difference between 3.6 and 4.0 is far greater than 20-30 watts when the computer is under load.

And how much power you are saving does not necessarily need to be motivated by cost. It could also be to put the psu and other components under less stress, make the system run cooler and quieter.

Like I said though, if you torrent alot a netbook is a good idea to have. Torrenting is a background non-intensive task anyways and you'd be spending 15 or so watts on average, as opposed to the 100-200W of an idling desktop.

then why are you overclocking and stressing components in the first place?
 

PUN

Golden Member
Dec 5, 1999
1,589
13
81
Honestly, if you are that worried about 20-30W, you need to look into a netbook or other low power device and get rid of the i7.

1 year = 8760hrs
8760x30W = 262,800W a year saved
262kwh = $70 (elec, deliv, taxes, etc) a year...$5/month

Since I do not see any performance difference from 4 to 3.6, I'd rather be conscious about my power consumption.
 

Gillbot

Lifer
Jan 11, 2001
28,830
17
81
because you're like me and like to see how fast the damn thing will go. We're like a cheaper version of car enthusiasts :p

See sig, I do both, I'm screwed. Though at times the PC hobby costs more than the car does.

1 year = 8760hrs
8760x30W = 262,800W a year saved
262kwh = $70 (elec, deliv, taxes, etc) a year...$5/month

Since I do not see any performance difference from 4 to 3.6, I'd rather be conscious about my power consumption.

Personally, I see this as a complete waste. I'm not gonna worry about a mere $5 when you could have saved more than that on a better suited hardware purchase.
 

PUN

Golden Member
Dec 5, 1999
1,589
13
81
See sig, I do both, I'm screwed. Though at times the PC hobby costs more than the car does.



Personally, I see this as a complete waste. I'm not gonna worry about a mere $5 when you could have saved more than that on a better suited hardware purchase.

what do you mean by better suited hardware? Netbook or shuttles dont have the performances that I want.

All I need is 3.6 i7 performance, not 4.0ghz i7. Why waste energy when I don't need the power at all? It's like turning on the shower water while going #2.
 

Gillbot

Lifer
Jan 11, 2001
28,830
17
81
Depending on what applications you are running, you don't NEED an i7 either.
 

DonInKansas

Senior member
Feb 25, 2008
607
0
76
Why waste energy when I don't need the power at all? It's like turning on the shower water while going #2.

I turn on the shower while going #2 to let the shower warm up. Better to get something done than stand there staring at the water. :D:D
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
what do you mean by better suited hardware? Netbook or shuttles dont have the performances that I want.

All I need is 3.6 i7 performance, not 4.0ghz i7. Why waste energy when I don't need the power at all? It's like turning on the shower water while going #2.

What program are you running that runs well on a 3.6GHz i7 but doesn't run well on a 2.66GHz i7?
If you're all about saving energy dollars, why not go back to stock speeds and manually reduce your vcore to 1.0 volts?
Why waste energy?

Most people can't tell the difference between a 3.6GHz i7 and a 2.66GHz one unless they benchmark.
 

PUN

Golden Member
Dec 5, 1999
1,589
13
81
What program are you running that runs well on a 3.6GHz i7 but doesn't run well on a 2.66GHz i7?
If you're all about saving energy dollars, why not go back to stock speeds and manually reduce your vcore to 1.0 volts?
Why waste energy?

Most people can't tell the difference between a 3.6GHz i7 and a 2.66GHz one unless they benchmark.

I started doing some encoding/decoding and it trims some time at 3.6 (not so much more at 4.0). For some reason, my p6t won't let me go under 1.25
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
Haters of overclocking generally are folks that failed and threw in the towel and are jealous of those greeted with success. :)
 

dflynchimp

Senior member
Apr 11, 2007
468
0
71
Haters of overclocking generally are folks that failed and threw in the towel and are jealous of those greeted with success. :)

Untrue, at least in my case. I used to be an OC fanatic but after a while I realized how much faster OCing eats through the hardware, the higher you go. That and the heat in the summer has made me more pragmatic. It also doesn't make sense for me since my computer is on pretty much 24/7.

I hate the power consumption increase and component strain of overclocking, and that's why I threw in the towel to extreme OCing, settling for smaller clock boosts and longevity. The only time I push the envelope is when testing out a new cpu, after which I dial it down a notch for regular use.
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
LOL that's not what I meant...

The haters run stock and poke fun at enthusiasts that spend considerably more on a cooling solution than a processor, for example.

If you OC reasonably hardware life is not affected at all. Even if it were QUARTERED there is no big deal as no true enthusiast keeps a CPU more than a few months anyways. ;)