On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:32:38 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in part:
>>>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.
>
>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.



>
>> 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.

?? 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.



>
>> 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!

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.