A case for Dual System Cabinets

[The little lost angel]

Sorry, following up via your post because my feed doesn't see the
original.

I'd have to disagree, my partner has a system meant for gaming, it has
2 highend (or used to be) 8800GTS graphics card running in SLI mode
with an overclocked E6300 processor. If I didn't remember wrongly when
we did this test, the actual system consumption when deliberately
loaded up, was than 250W. For the heck of it, we hooked it up to a
350W PSU and it worked fine. The 19" LCD consumes 50W max if I didn't
read it wrongly. So that's 300W max.

Anyway, your assuming of 225W for an *average* system is likely way
off given that's pretty much what a highend gaming set consumes. I've
people mentioned as low as 120~150W for an average system with
graphics card. So if you remove the graphics card, I'll say the system
would likely use 90W to 120W on a modern set up.

I'll see if I can check on an average config later in the day since
the meter isn't with me now.

 

[Htnakirs]

Consider the PC that is bought by the average person :
Intel or AMD based CPU,
Motherboard,
RAM
Hard disk
CD/DVD drive
15" monitor
Keyboard, mouse, speakers

If the power requirements of these were calculated: (the values that
are not relevant to the discussion are marked X)

CPU : 75 Watts ( conservative average)
Motherboard : 50 Watts (conservative average)
RAM : 15W (7.5 Watts per module X 2.)
Hard Disk : 10 W for read write and 5 Watts for idle. ( this is for
desktop hard disks of 80 GB)
CD DVD Drive :20 W for spin up/5 W for operating
15" monitor : X Watts (75 W is a good approximate)
keyboard mouse speakers : X watts

The relevant total power requirement would be : 75+50+15+10 = 150.
(assuming that the CD drive is rarely used)

Motherboard power as mentioned above is conservative since most
presently available boards bundle powerful graphics chips onboard
which increase the power intake.
A discrete graphics card that can offer better performance than the
onboard variant will consume upwards of 75 Watts. So for such systems
the total intake is 225 W.

At 150 W per hour, assuming 4 hours of operation per day, the total
daily power consumed is 600W. In a month, this is 18KW. At the average
cost per KW of Rs. 5, the monthly spend is Rs. 90. Annually this is Rs.
1080 or 1100 approx. With a graphics card, the annual expenditure is
Rs. 1350.

A vast majority of people who buy PCs rarely use it at its maximum
potential, which in present day means running games or video/graphics
editing software. The most frequent use is as a media player, or for
document creation or internet browsing. All of these do not require
the computing prowess offered by most CPUs.

Which brings me to the need for a second PC. This one requires special
consideration since it is intended to be a power miser, while offering
all the performance needed to accomplish the most common tasks. These
are CPUs that are presently being put to use in "silent" or "home
theatre" systems, like the ones from Via.

VIA's EPIA series of motherboards and embedded CPUs promise a total
load of 20 W, and also support for booting from USB drives. And they
come is a package, the size of the palm, which offers a lot of options
of squeezing it in the same cabinet with the more powerful
components.
The total power in the new configuration can be computed thus
Motherboad + CPU : 20W
RAM : 7.5 (single module will suffice for work at hand)
USB Drive (to be used instead of hard disk): 1W

Total : 28W (rounded off).
Assuming similar working hours: Annual spend : Rs. 201.6 (28 X 4X 30X
12X 5/1000)
Annual saving : Rs. 900 (Rs. 1150 for graphics card systems).

Ofcourse the discussion is not complete.
There could be many possible combinations of the usage pattern :
higher working hours, proportion of low activity period in the total
active period. There are challenges in achieving a user friendly dual
system cabinet (or interoperating two systems with the same set of
peripherals - keyboard, mouse, speakers, monitor etc). And the
consumption figures themselves are open to debate (for example one
could argue that the power management functions of modern CPUs can
reduce power utilised by them).

But, what is quite clear is that there is a real need for trying to
bring together two systems in a single cabinet. And the people who do
spend on the more power hungry stuff, like faster CPUs, hard disks in
RAID, dual graphics cards and 4 RAM modules - besides overclocking
them, are the ones who can afford to spend in the dual system setup
and see greater savings that recover the additional expenditure
quicker.

And even if the regular user will only see a return on additional
investment after five years years (900 X 5 should cover for the
additional hardware), that investment will result in conservation of
power and encouragement of people creating power conservative
technologies. And this would have significant social benefits.

For starters: A monitor splitter can allow both systems to use the
same monitor as output, and there are many sites offering information
on how to use the USB as the only storage device in the PC.

 

[johannes]

[...]

For starters: A monitor splitter can allow both systems to use the
same monitor as output, and there are many sites offering information
on how to use the USB as the only storage device in the PC.

Good point. I'm using a twin-system here, but rather than a VIA, I'm
using an 1.4GHz Celeron M on a Mini-ITX board with integrated graphics.
This was build a couple of years ago, but now you can also use the more
powerful mobile Core 2 Duo in the same setup. It's more than enough for
the internet, and lets face it, that's the most frequent usage of my
system.

 

[kony]

Consider the PC that is bought by the average person :
Intel or AMD based CPU,
Motherboard,
RAM
Hard disk
CD/DVD drive
15" monitor
Keyboard, mouse, speakers

If the power requirements of these were calculated: (the values that
are not relevant to the discussion are marked X)

CPU : 75 Watts ( conservative average)

False, the conservative average is far lower. Perhaps you
mean the real maximum of the typical system (which is built
of lower-end parts, the high end parts sell in quite small
volume in relation).

Motherboard : 50 Watts (conservative average)
RAM : 15W (7.5 Watts per module X 2.)

I suspect for a very vague generalization this figures could
work but there really isn't any asurance of them.

Hard Disk : 10 W for read write and 5 Watts for idle. ( this is for
desktop hard disks of 80 GB)

Did you measure this? It seems a bit higher than true
consumption.

CD DVD Drive :20 W for spin up/5 W for operating

What about idle, since most often a drive is idle?

Forgive this presumption since I have not read the rest of
your post yet, but you seem deliberately trying to make a
system seem to be consuming as much power as you felt you
could get away with suggesting. Honestly I have not read
more of your reply yet but let's see if that is true...

15" monitor : X Watts (75 W is a good approximate)

Not true. Did you look up specs for an average 19" LCD? I
would consider that the new *average* monitor. If we wanted
to try to see past systems several years ago, then we would
also have to concede that such old systems didn't have
processor/etc consuming as much power under load, nor at
idle for that matter.

keyboard mouse speakers : X watts

The relevant total power requirement would be : 75+50+15+10 = 150.
(assuming that the CD drive is rarely used)

Motherboard power as mentioned above is conservative since most
presently available boards bundle powerful graphics chips onboard
which increase the power intake.
A discrete graphics card that can offer better performance than the
onboard variant will consume upwards of 75 Watts. So for such systems
the total intake is 225 W.

This is arbitrarilly derived and therefore inappropriate.
We can't just randomly assign a value of 75W, and certainly
that is far higher than the average. Granted some gamers
have extreme video cards, but actually the typical system is
an OEM one that has no video card at all, and most of the
median priced video cards don't consume 75W.

At 150 W per hour, assuming 4 hours of operation per day, the total
daily power consumed is 600W. In a month, this is 18KW. At the average
cost per KW of Rs. 5, the monthly spend is Rs. 90. Annually this is Rs.
1080 or 1100 approx. With a graphics card, the annual expenditure is
Rs. 1350.

Since your figures were off, this is randomly subject to
gross error as well, but just for the sake of argument,
let's assume it were true even though it usually won't be.

A vast majority of people who buy PCs rarely use it at its maximum
potential, which in present day means running games or video/graphics
editing software. The most frequent use is as a media player, or for
document creation or internet browsing. All of these do not require
the computing prowess offered by most CPUs.

Which brings me to the need for a second PC. This one requires special
consideration since it is intended to be a power miser, while offering
all the performance needed to accomplish the most common tasks. These
are CPUs that are presently being put to use in "silent" or "home
theatre" systems, like the ones from Via.

First, you ignore that people may leave both systems
running. Second, you completely ignore that if a person
didn't have high performance needs, their CPU would be
idling at far lower power consumption, and if they really
wanted lower power enough to consider this 2nd PC they would
most likely have already considered underclocking their
present PC. Remember that modern systems allow changing
voltage and speed on the fly, one can consume a lot less
power by only choosing to using the same system. Plus,
having two means either a 3rd system for shared data,
leaving the 2nd on to access data, or shuffling back and
forth with media of some sort whether it be a CD, DVD,
thumbdrive or USB/1394/eSATA/etc removable drive.

VIA's EPIA series of motherboards and embedded CPUs promise a total
load of 20 W, and also support for booting from USB drives. And they
come is a package, the size of the palm, which offers a lot of options
of squeezing it in the same cabinet with the more powerful
components.

I have a Via based system, the performance is terrible and
the bugs prevented the intended use. IMO, such systems are
a terrible idea except for limited, clearly definted tasks.
The idea of squeezing such a low performance set in a box
with "more powerful components" is crazy. You're talking
about years old performance levels with minimal cost
savings, when a trivial increase in cost can buy an Athlon
X2 which has speed and voltage reduction options if one
cares to use them.

The total power in the new configuration can be computed thus
Motherboad + CPU : 20W
RAM : 7.5 (single module will suffice for work at hand)
USB Drive (to be used instead of hard disk): 1W

Have you ever ran such a system? I have, I own one. I have
ran my Via based system with USB and Compact Flash - IDE
adapter. It can't even surf the web acceptibly anymore
because of all the short-sighted web developers out there
that put several flash animated advertisments on websites,
not to mention occasional need to get real work done instead
of websurfing.

If one didn't need the performance, they'd still be using
some old Pentium 3 era system that doesn't use much more
power than the Via CPU based platform.

The problem is based around the Via CPU and chipset. I am
not opposed to lower power usage, but Via should be
completely avoided. Intel and AMD both have better
tradeoffs for low power, and Via's legacy (reuse) of
chipsets for their processors degrades performance even
lower that it would've otherwise been.

Total : 28W (rounded off).
Assuming similar working hours: Annual spend : Rs. 201.6 (28 X 4X 30X
12X 5/1000)
Annual saving : Rs. 900 (Rs. 1150 for graphics card systems).

Ofcourse the discussion is not complete.
There could be many possible combinations of the usage pattern :
higher working hours, proportion of low activity period in the total
active period. There are challenges in achieving a user friendly dual
system cabinet (or interoperating two systems with the same set of
peripherals - keyboard, mouse, speakers, monitor etc). And the
consumption figures themselves are open to debate (for example one
could argue that the power management functions of modern CPUs can
reduce power utilised by them).

But, what is quite clear is that there is a real need for trying to
bring together two systems in a single cabinet. And the people who do
spend on the more power hungry stuff, like faster CPUs, hard disks in
RAID, dual graphics cards and 4 RAM modules - besides overclocking
them, are the ones who can afford to spend in the dual system setup
and see greater savings that recover the additional expenditure
quicker.

If someone is segregating their time, I somewhat agree with
your idea that a separate (web or office, etc) kiosk for
that use might save some power, but not that a Via processor
is the right choice for that. Modern processors do throttle
back in ACPI-HALT idle state to consume a lot less power,
but ultimately the question is one of the minimal
performance the user needs given any particular task.

Via processors just don't meet that need for a general
purpose PC, even for light use (by a power users's
definition). Some tasks may run ok, but others won't so it
would have to be seens a special purpose system.

And even if the regular user will only see a return on additional
investment after five years years (900 X 5 should cover for the
additional hardware), that investment will result in conservation of
power and encouragement of people creating power conservative
technologies. And this would have significant social benefits.

For starters: A monitor splitter can allow both systems to use the
same monitor as output, and there are many sites offering information
on how to use the USB as the only storage device in the PC.

I applaud the idea of saving power. Using USB as the only
storage is just misinformed, there is no good reason to use
USB at all! If you want power reduction, want to use flash
memory, use compact flash over a CF-IDE adapter, or a SSD.
Otherwise it just makes a slow system all that much slower.

Remember, the only reason someone would have a system
consuming as much power as you suggested is if they found
their old system too slow. You are suggesting a system that
is probably even slower than the one they replaced due to
being too slow. The best use for the parts you mentioned is
as a doorstop, because Via board-CPU combos not only have
poor performance but pretty bad bios flaws, historically.
Read a bit about PCChips boards' flaws or in the Via Arena
forums about getting basic bugs fixed.

Via just doesn't seem concerned at all about providing what
the public demands for a _PC_ use nor the support of PC
parts with bios updates. That may seem harsh, and certainly
some Via based systems can run fine if you have the right
combo of hardware, but today we are not so limited as to
need to pick hardware around a poor performing platform just
to build a second PC that frankly, I dont' think most people
will use for many purposes when they have a faster one
nearby. More likely they'd leave the lower powered one
running if they turn it on at all and use the faster system.

I'm not saying your ideas don't have merit (because they
do), I'm just giving one perspective from someone who has
already tried this. My Via based system is currently
unplugged in my basement. It has too many bugs to even be
suitable for a fileserver which was the original goal.
Money wasted, and Via just wants to tout low power instead
of fixing problems.

 

[The little lost angel]

Sorry again for the hijack, his posts are not showing up on my feed at
all.

On a quick search, a 15" CRT consumes about 60~70W so it's comparable
with the 19" LCD example I gave.

I don't think so your assumption is correct. If you add in
sleep/standby modes for drives, turning off the system when not doing
anything useful, all the advance sleep states for modern CPU, they do
not really consume that much more power at low loads.

Bear in mind, the cost of a second system, especially a niche product
like the VIA ITX/mini-ITX stuff are likely to far outweight the cost
of a better mainstream system, in both monetary and ecological sense.

Dragothic in 3DMark05 or 06, with both core loaded with Prime95.
Basically it was the highest power draw situation we could find with
normal applications. In actual gaming, the draw was lesser.

To back up my figures, you can see these
E6600 full load 199W (at the wall, so actual consumption is around
160W) with a really power hungry 1900XTX
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/page3.html


Overclocked Pentium-D 950 with X1950XTX, 256W actual draw, this
probably represent the upper evenlope for any single chip single gfx
system because the has a TDP higher than any current Intel C2D/C2Q or
AMD X2/X4 chips
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article28-page4.html

And since the folks at SPCR are obsessed with low power and quiet
system, take a look at this AMD X2 system they reviewed at 105W AC
power
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article756-page7.html

Can do the same thing with the Hiper system reviewed by SPCR, it would
have more juice than the mini-ITX for sure. Of course the draw back
is, no discrete graphics card but the K9NGM2 uses an nVidia 6150 which
is good enough even for light gaming.

At 105W AC power, it means the system actual draw is likely around
75~85W, which is only some 60W more than your proposed 28W mini
system.

According to your estimate figures, this means you save maybe Rs520 a
year in power annually. If you expect the computational power of the
miniITX to last 5 years, you are going to be disappointed. Crazy web
designers pump increasing amount of flash content, as well as dynamic
scripted content, it takes quite a bit of time for even my older P3 to
render a page. The miniITX will choke in another 2 years or so.

Giving you 3 years, your proposed second system needs to cost no more
than Rs1600, even with 5 years, Rs2600. Assuming Rs means Indian
Rupees, this means it cannot cost more than US$65 at current rates.
Sorry but I doubt you can get a VIA miniITX system for that kind of
price. You're better off like I expect, with a normal full fledged
system both economically and ecologically.

If environment conservation is the more important objective, then join
the DINK (Dual Income No Kids) or DIOK (Dual Income One Kid) movement.
Having less humans in the long run cuts down on every single
ecological damage than any handwaving international protocols. This
public service message goes out to everybody, not just Srikanth

 

[philo]

Consider the PC that is bought by the average person :
Intel or AMD based CPU,
Motherboard,
RAM
Hard disk
CD/DVD drive
15" monitor
Keyboard, mouse, speakers

If the power requirements of these were calculated: (the values that
are not relevant to the discussion are marked X)

CPU : 75 Watts ( conservative average)
Motherboard : 50 Watts (conservative average)
RAM : 15W (7.5 Watts per module X 2.)
Hard Disk : 10 W for read write and 5 Watts for idle. ( this is for
desktop hard disks of 80 GB)
CD DVD Drive :20 W for spin up/5 W for operating
15" monitor : X Watts (75 W is a good approximate)
keyboard mouse speakers : X watts

The relevant total power requirement would be : 75+50+15+10 = 150.
(assuming that the CD drive is rarely used)

Motherboard power as mentioned above is conservative since most
presently available boards bundle powerful graphics chips onboard
which increase the power intake.
A discrete graphics card that can offer better performance than the
onboard variant will consume upwards of 75 Watts. So for such systems
the total intake is 225 W.

At 150 W per hour, assuming 4 hours of operation per day, the total
daily power consumed is 600W. In a month, this is 18KW. At the average
cost per KW of Rs. 5, the monthly spend is Rs. 90. Annually this is Rs.
1080 or 1100 approx. With a graphics card, the annual expenditure is
Rs. 1350.

<snip>

Last year I did some actual power measurements on a P-III I was bench
testing...
and was surprsed to see that it was only drawing about 50 watts when
idling...
though with full cpu usage would go up to about 100 watts or so.

I'm sure a dual core cpu doing several "heavy" tasks would draw more power
of course.

Anyway I have two main machines that I use on a daily basis...
by todays standards they'd probably be considered low end...but they do the
job for me.
I use KVM switch and normally only have one machine on...
but if it's doing a "heavy" task...just turn on the other machine and use
that.

About 90% of the time ...only one machine is on...
but the other is there any time I need it.
Since they were pretty much built from other people's cast-off parts...
It's kind of a "poor-mans" dual cpu machine.

I have a good job and could really afford to buy just about any machine I'd
care to get...
but the ones I have work just fine...so have not bothered to get anything
better.

The money I save goes to one or two good vacations a year...

 

[Htnakirs]

Lost angel:

The power figures have been collected from various online sources. And
15" monitor was a CRT which is still more popular in my country.

I agree that power utilisation changes with the load. But, the point
is that even when dealing with less intensive work a lot of power is
lost, because the components in modern systems are inherently power
hungry. Which is why there is the need for a power miser system within
the same cabinet to be used when dealing with loads that do not
require the power of the "main" system.

Please inform what the dual SLI system working on when the 250W
consumption was measured.

Kony:
Thanks for the CF to IDE converter idea. I was not aware of that
option, and that converter is not easily available here. Getting the
system to boot in USB is admittedly quite complicated when dealing
with XP. In Linux, it is more easier.
I have not yet tried the VIA system I mentioned. Though I did read
that they are quite weak in comparison with even the older generation
CPUs of Intel and AMD. VIA Mini ITX products are not available easily
here, and I am awaiting a response from the main distributor. But,
reading the spec sheet of the EPIA SN series (http://www.via.com.tw/en/
products/mainboards/motherboards.jsp?motherboard_id=550), I did
believe that it would suffice for the work at hand. And the mini ITX
motherboard makes it possible to include it in the same cabinet,
probably screwing it onto a hinged side panel (not slideable). Other
details need to be worked out.

By the way, which model of Via did you have problems with?

 

[kony]

Lost angel:

The power figures have been collected from various online sources. And
15" monitor was a CRT which is still more popular in my country.

Even a low end 25W video card is easily double the
performance of integrated video. Yes a high powered gaming
video card can consume 75W, but remember that even those
that consume a lot, consume significantly less when not
gaming.

I agree that power utilisation changes with the load. But, the point
is that even when dealing with less intensive work a lot of power is
lost, because the components in modern systems are inherently power
hungry. Which is why there is the need for a power miser system within
the same cabinet to be used when dealing with loads that do not
require the power of the "main" system.

I disagree. remember that the Via motherboard chipset is
not especially optimized for efficiency, while the processor
is but because it has such low performance it will be
operating at a substantially higher % of max load
continuously, while other reasonably efficient processors
would operate at very low load and thus mostly idling with
much lower than average or peak power consumed.

Please inform what the dual SLI system working on when the 250W
consumption was measured.

Kony:
Thanks for the CF to IDE converter idea. I was not aware of that
option, and that converter is not easily available here. Getting the
system to boot in USB is admittedly quite complicated when dealing
with XP. In Linux, it is more easier.

Even then in Linux, it is much slower. A converter is not a
hard thing to acquire, many of the Chinese/et al
distributers will ship globally for low total cost.

I have not yet tried the VIA system I mentioned. Though I did read
that they are quite weak in comparison with even the older generation
CPUs of Intel and AMD. VIA Mini ITX products are not available easily
here, and I am awaiting a response from the main distributor. But,
reading the spec sheet of the EPIA SN series (http://www.via.com.tw/en/
products/mainboards/motherboards.jsp?motherboard_id=550), I did
believe that it would suffice for the work at hand.

Sometimes yes it would suffice, but then you may come upon a
situation where even when what seems a modest task, is
terribly slow because of low performance ceiling.

There is more performance to be had and a more reasonable
modern compromise by underclocking contemporary Athlon64 or
Core2 architectures. Remember we can't look at peak CPU
power if we are talking about lower processing demand
workloads, rather we'd have to assume the higher performing
processors are far more often idling with significantly
lower power usage.

A Pentium 3 based system with optimized component choices,
including a SSD or CF-IDE based drive, can operate off a 50W
PSU. A modern system with similar concessions including
integrated video can operate off a 100W PSU - if only there
is enough current on the 12V rail.

Someone doesn't need to make these compromises though,
consider for example a Geforce 7600GT video card. In
regular 2D use it may consume no more than a dozen watts,
and under 35W in gaming. If one wishes to further reduce
it's power consumption they have both the easy way and
advanced way to make that happen. The easy way is use a
software (or bios editing tool to permanently set) for lower
core and memory speeds, which is a linear decrease in power
consumption. The more advanced way would be to reverse
engineer the power regulation subcircuits to force a lower
voltage, and some testing to determine what the best
voltage:frequency tradeoff is. Taking above example a
Geforce 7600GT should still be able to offer over twice,
possibly over 3 times the performance of integrated video
while consuming under 15W when runnning in an optimized
voltage:frequency configuration.

The problem with Via alternatives is they force a very low
performance level. IF that performance level were ok then
nobody would have bought their higher performing system,
they would have just kept using their old system instead of
replacing it with parts that "might" have almost the power
consumption figures you mentioned.

And the mini ITX
motherboard makes it possible to include it in the same cabinet,
probably screwing it onto a hinged side panel (not slideable). Other
details need to be worked out.

By the way, which model of Via did you have problems with?

CLE266 based PCChips board with Via C3 processor. I forget
the model number. While the performance was so low I would
definitely not use it for regular tasks, I had hoped to use
it for a fileserver but after all kinds of driver hacks,
bios changes, and even direct chipset register changes via
utilities, it still couldn't provide normal PCI throughput
without corrupting data.

I think in a few years Via chipsets plus CPU boards will be
a good choice. After they learn a bit from mistakes and
most things sit on the PCI Express bus or are southbridge
integrated. Even then, modern alternatives from other
sources still have a good tradeoff of only slightly higher
power consumption with much more performance potential if
only one does not run that alternative at the max frequency
and voltage possible.

Many systems of yesteryear can be overclocked and
undervolted to result in surprising decrease in power used,
and even better, it can be done with no addt'l cost to buy
new equipment, no new cost for another OS license (if it
runs windows), and no manufacturing pollution or landfill
waste from throwing away old parts to replace with low
performing newer ones.

There is likely some system within 100 mi. of anyone who
wants one, which was either abandoned or sold cheap because
it has low performance like a newer Via CPU/chipset based
system would.

 

[Bob Fry]

Not a bad idea, I have a home-built PC which I leave on 24x7 because I
run a private proxy server (so I can read my emails from work to avoid
their stupid blocked sites). I would much prefer to have a very low
power linux system running stuff like that and separate it from my
main computer.

 

[Braden Floriano]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:14:42 -0800 (PST), Htnakirs wrote

And the mini ITX motherboard makes it possible to include it in the
same cabinet, probably screwing it onto a hinged side panel (not
slideable). Other details need to be worked out.

Check out the Mozart TX case which allows a secondary mini-ITX
motherboard
<http://www.thermaltake.com/product/chassis/fulltower/mozarttx/ve1000_index.asp>.

-- Braden Floriano

 

[CBFalconer]

Not a bad idea, I have a home-built PC which I leave on 24x7
because I run a private proxy server (so I can read my emails
from work to avoid their stupid blocked sites). I would much
prefer to have a very low power linux system running stuff like
that and separate it from my main computer.

What's not a bad idea? You should realize that Usenet traffic,
while fairly reliable, is NOT guaranteed. There is no reason to
assume that your reader will ever see any other article. That is
why reasonable posters always quote enough of previous posts to
make their message stand entirely by itself. The quote level is
indicated by the count of leading '>' on a line, and is one more
than the similar count on the attribution line (Joe wrote: initial
lines). This is also the basic reason for limiting line length to
72 (67 is better) chars.

See the following URLs for further info:
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/> (taming google)

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

Even a low end 25W video card is easily double the performance
of integrated video. Yes a high powered gaming video card can
consume 75W, but remember that even those that consume a lot,
consume significantly less when not gaming.

Sure, but remember these numbers are for the card alone, and
have to be multiplied by a factor reflecting the PSU inefficiency.

It may be that a low end vidcard has better video performance
than integrated graphics. That might matter for gaming and
3D activities where the GPU functions shine. But it makes no
detectable difference at 2D like desktop or websurfing.

I used to be very concerned about integrated graphics spoiling
desktop performance by stealing bandwidth. Then I tested my
new Xmas present: 2.44 GB/s increases to 2.50 with a separate
vidcard. Round-trip latency goes from 82 to 81ns. I'm very
underwhelmed and doubt I'll buy a vidcard for it.

The point is: times change! 1024x768x32bpp@60Hz is 189 MB/s.
That was a lot on older chipsets like PC100 that could only
burst 400 MB/s. Modern dual channel DDR2 is more like 6.4 GB/s,
and hardly notices the hit that once was crushing.

-- Robert

 

[Bob Fry]

cb> What's not a bad idea?

Here's a bad idea: trying to be Usenet cop. Whatta freakin moron.

 

[The little lost angel]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:43:04 -0800 (PST), Htnakirs

Again, following up to Kony's post because Srikanth's doesn't show up
on my feed.

It works out pretty much the same, if not worse. 1 billion people
responsible for 1x pollution today has the same effect as 100 million
in other country responsible for 10x today. But in the long run, that
1 billion people will eventually, as a natural progression of
"economic development", increase their ecological damage to 2x, 3x and
adding more people to boot.

Furthermore, ecological damage is NOT just about wastage. The Earth
can only support that many people, every single person needs some
space and food at least. That space has to be taken from somewhere,
whether you clear forests to build more houses or cut more trees/blast
more rocks to build taller ones. The food has to be grown/harvested
from somewhere too.

Nobody can deny that reducing/limiting human population on earth is
the only true long term solution to ecological damage. But it's also
one that least raised because of the controversial nature. It's a lot
easier trying to tell people to bring their own bags to shop, to cut
down on car usage, to use energy efficient products, than to tell them
to curb animal selfish gene instincts and not have kids.

For those who want kids, please adopt one. There are tens of thousands
of orphans who could do with and would appreciate good parents and a
home, unlike many "native" brats nowadays. You will change the life of
a human for the better as well as reduce a human's lifetime load to
the environment.


If you're going to be energy efficient, you're going to be turning OFF
that system when it's doing nothing. Or at the very least, put it on
standby. Not let it sit idle for hours

In this instance, you are 100% wrong in your doubt. Flash files only
provide the data on what's to be shown. The local system, aka your
computer, has to do the work of taking the data and processing it to
display what's intended. They don't magically animate themselves or
play music without needing processing

If you want hard facts, I cite my examples from experience on an old
P3 system, a single core A64 and a dual core C2D, all 3 on the same
10Mbps broadband connection at home, all using 100Mbps Ethernet
connections because my switch's only 100mbps =P

 

[kony]

Sure, but remember these numbers are for the card alone, and
have to be multiplied by a factor reflecting the PSU inefficiency.

True, but if we're going to be THAT technically correct,
anyone using a faster system will get their work done sooner
and turn off the system sooner, leave the room sooner
turning off the lights sooner, etc.

It may be that a low end vidcard has better video performance
than integrated graphics. That might matter for gaming and
3D activities where the GPU functions shine. But it makes no
detectable difference at 2D like desktop or websurfing.

It doesn't have to. All it has to do is be such a small
difference in power consumption that it is a bad place to
focus. However modern generation cards do make a difference
in video decoding, offloading as much of the power used by
the CPU as they use themselves, if a lower end card is
chosen.

I used to be very concerned about integrated graphics spoiling
desktop performance by stealing bandwidth. Then I tested my
new Xmas present: 2.44 GB/s increases to 2.50 with a separate
vidcard. Round-trip latency goes from 82 to 81ns. I'm very
underwhelmed and doubt I'll buy a vidcard for it.

I'm not trying to pimp video cards, just saying that taking
the great modern advances in PCs and castrating the whole
thing one piece at a time is kinda wasteful, we might as
well have just kept an older system because if we had, there
wouldn't be the higher numbers for power consumption being
listed.

So it goes for other parts as well, that each one could be
discounted if we only limited our uses to those which didn't
need more performance, but that's a bit counter to the idea
of a PC, it's strength being it's versatility.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

True, but if we're going to be THAT technically correct, anyone
using a faster system will get their work done sooner and turn
off the system sooner, leave the room sooner turning off the
lights sooner, etc.

AFAIR, PSU efficiency is ~50%. 70% for some of the best units.
No way a faster computer gets total work done that much faster.

It doesn't have to. All it has to do is be such a small
difference in power consumption that it is a bad place to focus.
However modern generation cards do make a difference in video
decoding, offloading as much of the power used by the CPU as
they use themselves, if a lower end card is chosen.

This might apply if vid.decoding were the main task of the comp.
Like watching DVDs. But if it is, a dedicated DVD player is
certainly lower power.

I'm not trying to pimp video cards, just saying that taking the
great modern advances in PCs and castrating the whole thing one
piece at a time is kinda wasteful, we might as well have just
kept an older system because if we had, there wouldn't be the
higher numbers for power consumption being listed.

No, older systems have larger feature sizes and needed higher
voltages at lower clocks. Per unit computation, modern CPUs are
_far_ more efficient. You should have seen a 5V Pentium 60!

Undervolting and underclocking is alive and well in the mobile
[laptop] market. Get one of those CPUs. Skipping the GPU
is a similar trade-off. Save 15W of power even at idle,
but lose some capability, especially 3D games. Notice the
low-end video cards are disappearing.

So it goes for other parts as well, that each one could
be discounted if we only limited our uses to those which
didn't need more performance, but that's a bit counter to
the idea of a PC, it's strength being it's versatility.

Sure. Just add the vid.card if/when you need it.

-- Robert

 

[kony]

AFAIR, PSU efficiency is ~50%. 70% for some of the best units.
No way a faster computer gets total work done that much faster.

Actually typical efficiency might be 70%, better units now
approaching 85%.

Yes a faster computer really is at least 3X faster than the
Via processor based ones that were suggested. They give up
all hopes of performance in order to achieve low power.

This might apply if vid.decoding were the main task of the comp.
Like watching DVDs. But if it is, a dedicated DVD player is
certainly lower power.

?? A dedicated video player is not lower power than an
underclocked low-end video card. Certainly it is lower
power than the entire PC would be, but then we get back to
an idea in my last post that part of the beauty of a PC is
it's versatility and we can't just subjectly subtract
features and have it apply to anyone's needs except that
subject.

No, older systems have larger feature sizes and needed higher
voltages at lower clocks. Per unit computation, modern CPUs are
_far_ more efficient. You should have seen a 5V Pentium 60!

You are missing the point, I am not talking about ancient
processors, I am talking about equivalent performance to
what the OP had proposed as a low powered system. That can
be had with a Pentium 3 era system for example.

In other words, if one didn't need the performance or
features of their modern system, they wouldn't have bought
it, would still have the old system which has more similar
power usage as the OP's proposed system, without the waste
of buying two more systems in money, time, pollution in
manufacturing and later landfill.

Undervolting and underclocking is alive and well in the mobile
[laptop] market. Get one of those CPUs. Skipping the GPU
is a similar trade-off. Save 15W of power even at idle,
but lose some capability, especially 3D games. Notice the
low-end video cards are disappearing.

I think in the laptop market it is mostly a function of
cost, that integrated video saves a lot more on a laptop
than on a PC where it can be bought for under $20 if one
keeps an eye out for deals.

 

[Htnakirs]

Thanks for all the feedback/suggestions.

In other words, if one didn't need the performance or
features of their modern system, they wouldn't have bought
it, would still have the old system which has more similar
power usage as the OP's proposed system, without the waste
of buying two more systems in money, time, pollution in
manufacturing and later landfill.

Kony : I am evaluating the possibility that a person who needs the
power of a modern system for some work (gaming), uses the same system
for work that can be achieved by older systems (browsing, document
creation etc). It is not my desire to use the Via system for gaming or
other intensive purposes. I think there is a strong possiblitity that
most of the high end systems being used by gamers, are operated most
of the time for chatting or document creation.

Angel :

If environment conservation is the more important objective, then join
the DINK (Dual Income No Kids) or DIOK (Dual Income One Kid) movement.
Having less humans in the long run cuts down on every single
ecological damage than any handwaving international protocols. This
public service message goes out to everybody, not just Srikanth

Everyone will disagree with the above. Reducing population is not the
same as reducing wastage. The largest polluters are not the most
populous nations.
In the SPCR link about the Hiper PC you provided, the damning figure
is the 82 W that the system consumes when idle.
I doubt if rendering a page will be an issue if one has a broadband
link. Flash loaded files take longer to be transmitted over the line,
and rendering can occur only after that, so probably the CPU is not
the bottleneck in that case.

 

[chrisv]

cb> What's not a bad idea?

Here's a bad idea: trying to be Usenet cop. Whatta freakin moron.

Yes you are, if you don't quote what you're responding to, moron.

 

[chrisv]

I used to be very concerned about integrated graphics spoiling
desktop performance by stealing bandwidth. Then I tested my
new Xmas present: 2.44 GB/s increases to 2.50 with a separate
vidcard. Round-trip latency goes from 82 to 81ns. I'm very
underwhelmed and doubt I'll buy a vidcard for it.

Reminds of of when I was made fun of because I didn't really care that
the new motherboard that I was considering didn't have the new
Ethernet controller that didn't "steal bandwidth" from the PCI bus.

I asked, "What is the PCI bus for? To sit there looking pretty or to
provide bandwidth to devices that need it?" and "How much of my PCI
bandwidth is my Ethernet connection, usually limited by a ~1Mb/s
Internet connection, using-up anyway?"