PC power consumption figures

Some time ago, a poster wrote about using a 500 Watt power supply in a PC, wrongly assuming that is how much power was consumed all the time. I argued that a typical PC left powered up in an office, would consume between 70 -

100 Watts. I finally got around to testing my workshop PC in actual use. I made no modifications to the machine. I left all the cards and drives plugged in.

The computer comprises:

Gigabyte GAP35DS3P motherboard Intel Core 2 Duo 6420 2.13GHz

2GB RAM Main video card - NVIDIA GeForce 8500GT Secondary video card - NVIDIA GeForce 8500GT 1 X 1TB SATA hard disk 3 X 500GB SATA hard disk 1 X Floppy drive 2 X DVD/CD burners 1 X Sound Blaster 1 X TV tuner card 1 X 350 Watt power supply 1 X Case fan (120mm)

Here are the figures I measured:

  • Computer off (soft switch off) - 6 Watts
  • Monitor off (soft switch off) - 4 Watts (Very ancient Sony 17" LCD - analogue input only)
  • Computer operating (web browsing, spreadsheet, et al - hard disks are NOT asleep) - 139 Watts. When the hard drives power down, that figure will fall to below 100 Watts.
  • Monitor operating - 33 Watts

I am confident that more modern computers and those using on-board video, on board sound, no TV card and one hard disk will consume considerably less energy. Standby power figures for monitors would be lower, I expect. Typical hard disks use more than 10 Watts each, so just using one hard disk will reduce consumption by more than 30 Watts. In fact, that is precisely what I intend doing. I will use USB connected drives, as an when I need extra space.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson
Loading thread data ...

,

ed

-
I

OT

ll

on

cal

I

If you are using one of the low wattage processors, its feasible, however many are 90-130w and these would suck up a lot more.

We recently bought some new WD Caviar black 500 G hard drives, based on the ratings on the label, these would draw about 8 watts. Ones we bought in 2005 (WD caviar 250g) (which were being replaced) were about 13w (based on label data).

The operating temperature difference is quite noticable.

There are also "green" WD drives available (we didnt buy these, as the caviar black which are more rugged), that are supposed to use even less, though I don't know how much by.

1 TB and 1.5 TB units arent that expensive now. might be able to replace the 500g ones with one of these and save 20w or so.
Reply to
kreed

argued

NOT

fall

Glad to see you finally proved to yourself that 172 watts when computer and monitor are operating IS actually more than 70 - 100W then.

MrT.

Reply to
Mr.T

**Oh come on! Let's examine the reality:

  • We were discussing typical OFFICE computers that were left powered overnight and not actually doing anything.

  • My computer uses two, relatively high consumption, video cards. Office computers typically use on-board video.
  • My computer uses FOUR hard drives and two DVD drives. Office computers typically use ONE hard drive and one DVD drive.
  • My computer uses a TV tuner card AND an audio card. Office computers typically do not use a TV tuner nor an audio card.
  • An office computer usually has the monitor and hard drives set to sleep mode when not in use.
  • The total consumption will be less than 100 Watts, if the office computer is set up as one would normally expect. My Core 2 Due is several years old. I expect modern chips would deliver far superior efficiency.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

Hi All,

I've just checked what my computer is using (including the cable modem).

Consumption = 60Watts

2.8Ghz Celeron, 4 hard drives, 2 DVD drives, 1 G of RAM, 4:3 LCD display.

Ross

Reply to
RMD

I agree with everything you said except the bit about modern computers using less power. The more modern the more power in my experience.

Reply to
Mickel

**Not so. The Core 2 Duo was spun out of work done by the Israeli section of Intel, who were responsible for laptop chips. As you would be aware, laptop power consumption figures have been steadily declining. Although they've stuffed more transistors into the chips, sections of the CPU not being used can be shut down, or reduced clock speeds used as required. It's pretty clever stuff. Intel decided that the same power saving features could be incorporated into desktop processors. Which is exactly what they have done with the Core 2 Duo. Of course, the very highest performance CPUs will tend to use more power, but the lower grade chips use considerably less. My Core 2 Duo uses far less power and runs much cooler than the Pentium IV (3GHz) it replaced and it delivers considerably higher performance. I don't have first hand experience of the very latest generation of chips, but I'll betcha they use less power, not more. And of course, we are discussing CPUs not actually doing very much here.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

of

op

ed

e

nd

re

it

rst

hey

lly

That is true, I bought a New ASUS Laptop in early 2007, which I still have. The unit will run for typically 2-3 hours on a full charge, just browsing or doing similar simple tasks. I would expect that newer ones would improve on this still.

Previous one I had (circa 2004) was much warmer to have on your lap, and would be lucky to run for an hour.

Reply to
kreed

Nope that was never part of your original claim.

And many don't, in fact many use more than one monitor! Many of course also use higher power processors.

And how much power does your DVD drive actually use "at night when not doing anything" Trevor? You really are clutching at straws!!!!!!!!!!!

And those would be some of the lowest users of power in any computer! Try pulling them out and let us know if you get below that 100W "when the computer is in use"? :-) :-)

Your original claim was "when IN USE" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course now it's "at night, when not in use". Shit mine draws exactly ZERO under those conditions because it's *always* turned off at the mains at night!

computer

Zero in fact at night when turned off. BIG DEAL!

Some do of course, but not by much over your relatively recent C2D, in fact most of them draw FAR more than most computers did ten years ago. Hence the far bigger heat sinks and far bigger power supplies that are now the norm.

Give it up Trevor, you cannot make your *original* claim accurate no matter how you spin it!

MrT.

Reply to
Mr.T

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.