In article <5393dd6a$0$29988$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 20:09:37 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> > We've also got machines that are so fast, it's not longer critical that
> > we squeeze out every last iota of performance. Oh, but wait, now we're
> > trying to do absurd things like play full-motion video games on phones,
> > where efficiency equates to battery life. Sigh.
> That's where there needs to be a concerted push to develop more efficient
> CPUs and memory, in the engineering sense of efficiency (i.e. better
> power consumption, not speed). In desktop and server class machines,
> increasing speed has generated more and more waste heat, to the point
> where Google likes to build its server farms next to rivers to reduce
> their air conditioning costs. You can't afford to do that on a battery.
> Even for desktops and servers, I'd prefer to give up, say, 80% of future
> speed gains for a 50% reduction in my electricity bill.
For desktops, I'm more concerned about physical size. On my desk at
work, I have a Mac Mini. It's about 8 inches square, by an inch and a
half high. It sits in a corner of my desk and doesn't take up much
room. The guy that sits next to me has a Dell running Linux. It's
about 8 inches wide, 15 inches deep, and 24 inches high. In terms of
CPU, memory, disk, video, networking, etc, they have virtually identical
I've never compared the power consumption, but I assume his eats many
time the electricity mine does (not to mention makes more noise).