Discussion New computer parts as an enviromental disaster?

Kocicak

Senior member
Jan 17, 2019
474
387
106
The current broad trend in all technology is moving toward increased efficiency in order to decrease energy consumption, which has various negative effects.

I just saw a rumour that an upcoming Intel CPU will have special performance mode allowing 350W energy draw. It also seems that upcoming AMD CPUs will have higher TDP than the current generation.

What is the sense of this in the point of view of the broad trend I mentioned in the beginning? State regulation in my opinion is sometimes a good thing and at this point it seems that power draw of consumer computers should be limited.

I think that limits of 50W for CPU, 50W for integrated GPU and 150W for discrete GPU would satisfy needs of most people.

Parts with higher power draw could be heavilly taxed so that they would be financially viable only for proffesionals who would use them productively.

I understand that some people may find my idea not beneficial for whatever reasons but what is happening now in this part of PC market is ridiculous and needs to stop.

(and production of virtual currencies should be banned completely as a huge energy waste, but that is a different topic.)
 
Last edited:

In2Photos

Senior member
Mar 21, 2007
424
165
116
The average electric vehicle requires 30kWh to travel 100 miles. If my PC has a 1000W constant power draw (which most do not) I can run it for 30 hours and use the same amount of energy. Now where is the problem?

To other points you brought up. Most consumer PCs are likely laptops and use less power than what you list. Most business PCs are low end desktop models or laptops that use less power than what you list. The CPU you mention is an enthusiast or professional level processor that the vast majority of people aren't going to buy anyway.

BTW, are you also not the person "got lured from AMD to Intel with a high single thread performance" and are also overclocking your RAM in another thread?
 

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,908
2,257
136
The current broad trend in all technology is moving toward increased efficiency in order to decrease energy consumption, which has various negative effects.

I just saw a rumour that an upcoming Intel CPU will have special performance mode allowing 350W energy draw. It also seems that upcoming AMD CPUs will have higher TDP than the current generation.

What is the sense of this in the point of view of the broad trend I mentioned in the beginning? State regulation in my opinion is sometimes a good thing and at this point it seems that power draw of consumer computers should be limited.

I think that limits of 50W for CPU, 50W for integrated GPU and 150W for discrete GPU would satisfy needs of most people.

Parts with higher power draw could be heavilly taxed so that they would be financially viable only for proffesionals who would use them productively.

I understand that some people may find my idea not beneficial for whatever reasons but what is happening now in this part of PC market is ridiculous and needs to stop.

(and production of virtual currencies should be banned completely as a huge energy waste, but that is a different topic.)
This would be much better served here:

 

Kocicak

Senior member
Jan 17, 2019
474
387
106
The CPU I have now is very power efficient in low load, which is the state it is in most of the time. I occasionally run some simulations in excel but that is a single thread load most of the time. Overclocking the RAM may have caused power draw increase in single digit of watts. I do not have discrete graphic card. Recently I exchanged multiple old fluerescent tubes monitors for one large low power LED monitor.

It feels I should get some green award for low energy usage of my PC.

DYI PC market may be just small part of all the computers sold but I dont understand why it should not follow the movement towards higher energy efficiency and stick out like a red inflamed hard to cool thumb.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Tech Junky

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2022
1,343
419
96
It's all about potential and actual draw in reality though.

If someone uses their PC for routine low power tasks 95% of the time and maxes out the power draw for leisure 5% of the time it's still a fairly low power device most of the time. Just because a configured system is rated for let's say 850W it won't hit those numbers 95% of the time unless the dGPU is engaged and even then it might not hit the top end for power draw.

Now, that new GPU's are coming out with up to 600W power connectors it's a bit concerning to think about cooling and the electric bill for the person they're geared towards which are gamers. Total system peak power requirements jumping to 1000W to prevent a shutdown due to a power spike from the GPU being engaged.

On the flip side businesses aim for the cheapest to purchase and cheapest to operate model of buying / use. Efficiency is the name of the game in this realm. The TCO adds up in multiples because of the volume of machines running daily and chances are they're left on 24/7 instead of being shutdown during non-use hours. While they're idle w/ screensavers active this reduces the impact of power usage but, it's still going to hit ~100W or so in the idle state.

Laptops though are a completely different story though due to the space limitations and heat dissipation options. Most laptops are under 100W even under load. Even gaming laptops typically sit between 100W-200W. There are of course extreme options that go above 200W and some that hit desktop requirements and use desktop CPU/GPU internals.

My 12700H/3060 can be powered with a USB-C and maintained at ~60W as long as it's not being used for gaming. When you ramp up the GPU it jumps to 160-170W. My older 9750H though tops out at 120W but only has a GTX1650 in it. The typical max PSU I see is 230W for most systems that have higher end GPU's in them. There are the exceptions noted above though that can use dual PSU's to hit ~500W or more.
 

Kocicak

Senior member
Jan 17, 2019
474
387
106
It's all about potential and actual draw in reality though.

If someone uses their PC for routine low power tasks 95% of the time and maxes out the power draw for leisure 5% of the time it's still a fairly low power device most of the time. ...
That is true but high maximal draw will force you to buy large power supply, which are not most efficient in small loads, and they are also more expensive to make.

The "acceptable average power draw" will be few percents higher just because the small efficiency of the high wattage power supply in low load.

So using high power parts has double negative effect - power draw itself and the effect of the high wattage powersupply I just described.
 

Tech Junky

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2022
1,343
419
96
You're not forced to do anything. You choose to do it based on your wants not needs.

For my laptop desires being completely portable and not needing to use an inverter to keep them topped off means I need an average power draw that fits under 100W for USB-PD to be an effective measure for keeping it topped off and operating. Now, that the laptop doesn't natively take a USB-C connection for charging makes it a bit more complicated using a "trigger" chip to use a USBC > DC 5.5x2.5 output. While the laptop is using ~60W while powered on and working it is charging at ~15-20W and can surge to ~40W. It's a bit of a game to get it to run / charge at the max rates w/o tripping and trying to get it to stabilize again at an acceptable rate for the charger being used. When the power draw and charging draw come too close to the 100W max of USB-PD it causes the charger to flap when trying to find the best sync rate.

Now that higher USB-PD limits are hitting 150W-240W things will change a bit on the landscape to be more efficient. Using GAN brings down the inefficiencies of traditional charges in the conversion from AC >> DC and even DC>>DC in producing less heat as well. Not to mention being more compact thus reducing the use of plastics. Most people though won't want to pay $130 for a charger that in the traditional form costs only $35.

One thing that also comes into play if hitting the right Amp and Voltage thresholds to trigger proper power use. For example my 5G gateway needs 15V to to power up but only 5W total to run which is ~0.3A. The power brick though is 3A/15V or 1A/2A for 15/30W options. So, is the power brick smart enough to provide the 15W and bump down the A's or is it using 45W from the wall for a 5W draw? I took a power bank and put it inline to provide the 15V / 5W power to take the guess work out of trying to figure out the wall power plug. The power bank will sustain power to the GW for over 12 hours.

The average laptop these days though needs 19-20V / 5A+ though lower end models or highly efficient options are out there it hobbles the performance to an extent depending on the use case. Sometimes the performance / less time loading is more important to get things done in a timely manner vs wasting time waiting for tasks to get completed and shutting down the system sooner.

Things are always evolving though and if going greener is a priority it's always an option and might cost more until it goes to a mass scale release / push to change the status quo.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
54,043
8,254
126
There's a couple of schools of thought here:
1) Regulation, banning CC mining in residential without permit, and legally limiting the max power draw per component for gaming PCs.
2) The market. Factor the environmental costs of the power usage into the cost of the energy provided, and let the market sort it all out.

The other issue is, IMHO, as a small-time residential miner, I wouldn't mind licensure as a process to allow mining, make them stay up to date with technology, safety / electrical training, and fire supresssion. The very LAST thing that I would ever want to see or hear about, would be a house fire or even loss of life from a poorly-configured / connected mining rig.

But I don't agree with an outright ban, as gaming PCs are soon poised with ATX 3.0 / PCI-E 5.0 to enter into a new era of high-power-draw PCs, so much so that they may require (if not soon, then eventually) a dedicated 220V outlet / circuit, much like a stove or AC unit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shmee

lolek86

Junior Member
Nov 13, 2016
12
4
81
On desktop, biggest joke is, despite more efficient CPUs browsing/idling is still 50/60watts joke compared to few watts mobile SOC, and we are know that most enthusiast pcs are also idling/browsing most of the time.

From early testing, 12VO psu helped alot to bring this down to less than half, but no so called enthusiasts community are outrage ,don't see the point and at the same time buying new atx 3.0psu and mobo is okay. Intel missed by not merging atx 3.0 and 12VO specs. Idle would be much better, 12vo would also help with those gpu spikes, not to mention big electricity savings for user.
 

Lil'John

Senior member
Dec 28, 2013
261
17
81
Others hit it. But to be more clear: your premise is based upon edge cases that would probably result in a statistical zero impact if residential crypto, high performance PCs, etc were banned tomorrow.

My comment isn't to say there would be no impact... just that the impact would be so minimal compared to other electric hogs out there; electric cars, manufacturing processes, etc.

Next thing you'll want to ban is the hobbyist welder because they use a lot of electricity; I see a huge increase in my bill when I do a ton of welding(like 20-30% increase in bill for the month):eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadRat and ZGR

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
24,633
8,701
146
No one is forced to buy the power gulping higher end parts. Vote with your wallet.

E.G. I don't buy cards with more than one power connector any more. And an 5800X is my highest wattage CPU, that hits a little over 5GHz and is running in ECO mode.
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
4,697
2,952
106
125W for client CPUs. 250W for workstation/server CPUs. 300W for GPUs. Intel/AMD/Nvidia are the ones taxed for shipping parts that exceed these power draws. This will motivate them to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions to increase performance within these power budgets.
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,977
521
136
OP, if you care about energy efficiency, why didn't you buy a Macbook Air? Why stroke your ego when you could have bought used hardware and made a smaller footprint on the environment?

My electricity is powered by Gas, and I know from power usage my PC is not a big impact. Once my whole state is renewable, I will feel partially satisfied.

This forum is also about overclocking. Overclocking is a fun hobby that I enjoy myself. Some hobbies are more impactful to the environment than others. Have you ever gone on a cruise, OP?
 

Kocicak

Senior member
Jan 17, 2019
474
387
106
... This will motivate them to think outside the box and come up with innovative solutions to increase performance within these power budgets.
This is exactly what I came to add to the discussion now! Increasing performance by pumping more juice in the parts is a lazy solution, instead of true innovation and improvements!

Constraints are sometimes good, because they push people to innovate!

125W for client CPUs. 250W for workstation/server CPUs. 300W for GPUs.
I am not sure if 125W limit for consumer CPU is not too much, maybe with integrated graphic card?

Also for the proffessional/server use the limit may be somehow related to computing output, because of the scalability of these parts with possible massive amount of computing power per one part.

Another options is to mandate that each new generation of parts for proffessional/server use must be XX percent more energy efficient than the previous generation.
 
Last edited:

Shmee

Memory and Storage, Graphics Cards
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
6,119
1,443
136
I disagree with regulating/limiting power on computer parts for the most part, I think most people will buy what they need/want and if the power draw is too high for them, they won't buy it. Need to do the research.

I do agree with requiring all buildings be up to a stricter wiring code, for safety and so that they can handle more appliances/computer power draw.
 

Kocicak

Senior member
Jan 17, 2019
474
387
106
It may be useful to note that one of the greatest achievement of the mankind - Apollo program - was a state ordered and financed project. It surelly brought a lot of innovation and development in a lot of science and industry fields.

Do you think that a consortium of private companies run for profit would ever achieve anything like that?

State orders and regulation can bring a lot of good.

I thought that this sentence "I do agree with requiring all buildings be up to ... " will go on with some thermal insulation requirement, but you just want people to be able to draw more energy safely, my bad... :)
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,936
8,896
136
Make computer parts more efficient, and people will use more of them. If they want to max out their circuits then they will.
 

fkoehler

Member
Feb 29, 2008
177
124
116
And people driving vehicle with a rating of >100HP is ridiculous, and people should not be able to buy TV's larger than 55", and drinking more than 1-2 alcoholic beverages per week needs to stop, as does people having more than 1 child per couple......



I understand that some people may find my idea not beneficial for whatever reasons but what is happening now in this part of PC market is ridiculous and needs to stop.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,936
8,896
136
as does people having more than 1 child per couple......
You're probably referring to the old Chinese policy, but, a 1-child-per-couple rule in general would cause humanity to collapse within a few generations. TDP constraints would just annoy people or force unwanted device parallelism.

Yeah it's also probably a joke too.

But there is a big difference between silly restrictions on TDPs and catastrophic family policies. In any case, none of these things are going to happen.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
23,356
12,266
136
Nobody is going to tell me or anybody I know any of the things mentioned in this thread. Any restrictions like these would take away my freedoms. And my 18 computers with 18 video cards are NOT mining, but trying to help cure cancer.

But I do care about the environment. I drive a hybrid that gets 50 mpg city or highway, but I only drive about 8,000 per year. I also don't have a 12900k, as that alone equals 2 of my 5950x in power consumption.
 

RTX

Member
Nov 5, 2020
80
30
51
Is the OP saying he wants all computers to have a locked bios with no more than PPT = 50W stock with no unlocked bios option for PPT = 230W?
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,936
8,896
136
Is the OP saying he wants all computers to have a locked bios with no more than PPT = 50W stock with no unlocked bios option for PPT = 230W?
Basically, yes. Not gonna reread the OP to confirm the numbers but you get the idea.
 

Kocicak

Senior member
Jan 17, 2019
474
387
106
I am starting to feel that some of the posters here are from USA. Lack of effective state regulation made USA to have extremely poor or nonexistent public transportation systems and railways network, horribly high per capita energy consumption, problematic healthcare system with poor availability for some and overpriced for others, etc, etc, etc.

High per capita energy consumption and also greenhouse gas production is not just an internal problem of the USA, you are screwing things up for everybody on the planet.

USA serves as an example of disastruous impacts of a lack of state regulation and investment in many fields.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
19,936
8,896
136
I am starting to feel that some of the posters here are from USA. Lack of effective state regulation made USA to have extremely poor or nonexistent public transportation systems and railways network, horribly high per capita energy consumption, problematic healthcare system with poor availability for some and overpriced for others, etc, etc, etc.

High per capita energy consumption and also greenhouse gas production is not just an internal problem of the USA, you are screwing things up for everybody on the planet.

USA serves as an example of disastruous impacts of a lack of state regulation and investment in many fields.
Oh no

He's on to us, boys!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY