Stefan Hundhammer wrote: > On Friday 04 January 2008 12:50, Rasmus Plewe wrote: >>> I find it incredible what amount of energy gets wasted that way. >> The energy waste is in the CPU/GPU still working on the graphics even >> after the screen has powered off. My guess would be very uneducated, but >> I don't think that's very substantial. > > I fear it indeed is: > > http://www.behardware.com/articles/670-2/pc-s-actual-power-consumption.html > > 164 W idle vs. 207 W with load ( 43 W difference) > 297 W idle vs. 472 W with load (175 W difference - yikes!) > > versus the ~30 W your average 19" TFT consumes. > > Agreed, with a screen saver you probably won't get your CPU or GPU to max > energy consumption, but you can see that there is a significant difference > between idle and load. And it's at least in the same league as your TFT's > engergy consumption.
Some screensavers do indeed cause clockspeeds to increase - these are the most visually impressive ones of course :) 297 W is about 3 times the average power consumption of all systems in an efficient house! 2600 kWh per annum or £184 a year. I'm really surprised that GNU/Linux sits there actively hitting the disk every 30 seconds, let alone calculating screensavers. I'd have thought there'd be enough environmentalists among the OSS hordes to make it normal for the entire machine to shut down and just wake up periodically. Last time I tried with my 10.2 desktop, it wouldn't even resume from a suspend to disk when I told it to. Cheers, Dave -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
