Categories:

Green Computing Options : Power Consumption: Performance Versus Reason

02:41 - Tuesday 21 August 2007 by Patrick Schmid
Source: THG – Keywords: energy, efficient, computing
Categories: Hardware

Power Consumption: Performance Versus Reason

Ad

Power consumption of PC components had never been a real issue for most users - until it started to reach levels at which it impacted cooling, noise and reliability. Processors such as the the Intel Pentium 4 family at 3.6 and 3.8 GHz or the first Pentium D dual cores drove the maximum power requirements of desktop processors well beyond the 100 Watt level, and hence attracted negative attention. Cooling down a component that runs hot requires extensive cooling, which in turn means more noise that fans generate. Lastly, energy costs have been an issue for enterprises, and are becoming important for an increasing number of end users, as energy costs, including the price of air conditioning, will only go one way: up.

The issue of high-energy requirements isn’t only related to processors, but to most system components found in modern computers. Once processors were identified as potential troublemakers, the term "Thermal Design Power", or TDP, quickly moved from datasheets into our everyday hardware lingo, and the media as well as end users requested TDP specifications for other components such as chipsets, graphics processors and other silicon products. Graphics cards, motherboards and even hard drives are being watched suspiciously from the power consumption standpoint, as well.

However, looking at the maximum power a component may convert into heat may not provide more than a theoretical piece of information: You have to consider that no processor or graphics chip will run at maximum load all the time, but most likely will spend a lot of time running idle or at low loads. Hence, the idle or minimum power requirement is at least equally interesting, if not more important. Finally, the actual power requirement of the entire system highly depends on how many hours per day the system is powered on or on standby.

You can now visit your favourite computer store and shop for the lowest-power components available. This will give you peace of mind, but it isn’t necessarily the best option. A system based on a VIA C7 processor or special solutions using AMD or Intel mobile and high-efficiency processors will provide minimum system idle power requirements of 40 W or less, and a maximum requirement of no more than 50-60 W (without 3D graphics). But components such as an ultra-low voltage processor or sophisticated motherboards are expensive, and they do not even remotely provide the performance level we’re used to. What sense does a low-power system make if it has to use a maximum amount of resources for a long time to complete a task, while a mainstream PC might provide much higher performance to complete the same task in a fraction of the time, allowing it to go back to idle much sooner. The best low-power computing options, which are energy efficient and offer high performance, can often be found in mainstream component options.


Talkback
mahonj 22/08/2007 04:15
Hide
-0+
mahonj
Companies should be compelled to post the energy usage of their systems as follows:
Idle (xp),
Idle (Vista+Aeroglass),
Working (some specified benchmark)
Including the monitor.

It is too complex for most people to work it out component by component - it has to be at system level, and it has to be mandatory, and it has to specify the OS, or a specified mix of idle / loaded.
[ To generate a single number ]
maclauk 24/08/2007 10:01
Hide
-0+
maclauk
I've been following the articles here on value and low power systems. I have a current media server running on an old Athlon XP box. It works fine for streaming but will not cope with trans-coding when I get a PS3 as a media client.

Based on value and idle power (plus buying from the little guy) I had decided to build a new server round an AMD BE-2350 processor and 690 chipset.

However yesterday I read an interview with the top Linux guy who stated that Intel support for Linux was better than everyone else. A quick check on Intel's website showed drivers for the G965 chipset, but AMD's showed little support for Linux at all.

My current media server is MCE2005 but I am coming to the conclusion that Linux may offer a more flexible server platform. With that in mind the balance tips towards the Intel setup.

Note You are going to post a comment as anonymous.



Google Ads