Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel drops HyperThreading

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 24, 2005 1:14:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On 24 Aug 2005 05:47:58 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

><http://www.pcplus.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&a...;

It's good to see Intel making changes. I hope they open a big can of
whoop ass on AMD..... 4800+ X2 for under $200 anyone? ;p

Ed
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2005 2:54:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:

>
> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>

No.

RM
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2005 3:36:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

CJT wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > Gnu_Raiz wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> >>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
> >>
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> >
> Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>
That you would think so was apparent from the form of your question
posed, apparently, as a rhetorical. In terms of *performance* per
watt, Intel Celeron ULV has had Via beat over and over and over again,
and I'm tired of googling it. It's been discussed over and over, and
over again.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2005 4:09:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:14:37 -0500, Ed wrote:

> On 24 Aug 2005 05:47:58 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>><http://www.pcplus.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&a...;
>
> It's good to see Intel making changes. I hope they open a big can of
> whoop ass on AMD..... 4800+ X2 for under $200 anyone? ;p
>
> Ed

What! you can't pay out $380 bones for a 3800 X2? I think the big question
would be when? Sure I can pick up a Pentium D 820 for $233 bones, but I
have to have that new board, and memory.

If I have to wait for a year for a dual core on board memory controller
from Intel like AMD has whats the fun in that, when I can get one right
now.

What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?

http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/c7-m/lowpo...

According to that url at idle they are claiming .1w, or 100mW and 20W at
peak power. It looks like Intel is getting the open end of the whoop ass
can right now. Or more like it they are playing catch up, I just wish that
the marketing team at Intel would know just what they are marketing. They
tried to sell us on hyper threading, now they will start selling Watts.

Lets just wait and see how long it takes Intel to come to market with
these new products, that is supposed to have all these new features.


Gnu_Raiz
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2005 4:42:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:
> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?

Also, I'm pretty sure I know what a Watt is, but not sure what a
Performance is. Was that recently defined by the metric system? Will we
be seeing kiloPerformances, MegaPerformances, GigaPerformances, or even
centiPerformances anytime soon? :-)

Yousuf Khan
August 24, 2005 9:24:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:

<snip>
> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>
> http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/c7-m/lowpo...
>
> According to that url at idle they are claiming .1w, or 100mW and 20W at
> peak power. It looks like Intel is getting the open end of the whoop ass
> can right now. Or more like it they are playing catch up, I just wish that
> the marketing team at Intel would know just what they are marketing. They
> tried to sell us on hyper threading, now they will start selling Watts.
>
> Lets just wait and see how long it takes Intel to come to market with
> these new products, that is supposed to have all these new features.
>
>
> Gnu_Raiz
>

A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
August 24, 2005 10:18:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>
>
>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>
>
>
> No.
>
> RM
>
Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2005 10:25:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Gnu_Raiz" <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> wrote in message
news:1124903368.2908700f5f7273a4127f6aa6904e9a06@teranews...

> They tried to sell us on hyper threading, now they will start
selling Watts.

Actually, they sell lots and lots of watts right now. What they plan
to sell is lots less watts. "Less is more" - didn't a CA governor
once push that? ;-)


> Lets just wait and see how long it takes Intel to come to market
with
> these new products, that is supposed to have all these new features.

Everybody knows that these products will not appear in the marketplace
in quantity until 2007, which is a long, long way off in CPU years.
August 25, 2005 1:14:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 +0000, CJT wrote:

<snip>

>
> A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.

Not possible. ;-)

--
Keith
August 25, 2005 1:19:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:42:53 -0700, YKhan wrote:

> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>
> Also, I'm pretty sure I know what a Watt is,

Let's be sure what we're talking about. The measure of power is a "watt",
with the SI symbol 'W'. Units named after people are not capitalized when
written out, in defference to the person. ;-)

> but not sure what a Performance is. Was that recently defined by the metric system? Will we
> be seeing kiloPerformances, MegaPerformances, GigaPerformances, or even
> centiPerformances anytime soon? :-)

Like Potter Stewart's porn, neither do I but I know it when I see it. ;) 

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2005 4:00:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> RM
>>
>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."

While VIA's chips offer ok performance, low power consumption and VERY
low prices, they definitely can't match Intel in terms of
performance/watt. The VIA chips are CONSIDERABLY slower than any
current Intel chips. Even the lowly 900MHz Celeron-M, with a TDP of
only 5.0W should be able to match the 2.0GHz VIA C7-M chips when they
ship. Certainly the 900MHz Celeron-M is a LOT faster than the current
1.3GHz C3 chips.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2005 8:31:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> RM
>>
>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."

Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2005 2:35:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:31:48 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> RM
>>>
>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>
> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...

Seems to be a dead link, I was unable to download the pdf under Firefox
under Linux. I was more under the impression that now Intel was going to
push low power watts as a means of marketing their chips. I took this to
mean that the chip with the lowest power usage wins the day. But now this
brings up a good question, how exactly do you measure watt performance? A
watt is a watt is a watt, maybe someone can educate me on this fine point.

Gnu_Raiz
August 25, 2005 9:36:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>RM
>>>
>>
>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>
>
> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...
>
Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
of power used by each processor.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2005 11:03:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:35:07 -0500, Gnu_Raiz <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:31:48 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> RM
>>>>
>>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>>
>> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...
>
>Seems to be a dead link, I was unable to download the pdf under Firefox
>under Linux.

It works fine for me with Mozilla/WinXP.

> I was more under the impression that now Intel was going to
>push low power watts as a means of marketing their chips. I took this to
>mean that the chip with the lowest power usage wins the day. But now this
>brings up a good question, how exactly do you measure watt performance? A
>watt is a watt is a watt, maybe someone can educate me on this fine point.

Measuring and expressing results is not easy. There is an obvious space
for a system with the right amount of performance for low heat and, more
importantly, ultra-low noise. The Celeron buried both VIA chips for
similar (enough) power consumption.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2005 11:03:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>RM
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>>
>>
>> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...
>>
>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
>of power used by each processor.

C'mon this was not even a competition - the Celeron was in a different
class and did not fail any tests.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2005 3:54:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...
>>
>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
>of power used by each processor.

Ok.. how's this?

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/

I'm no big fan of Tom's, but the fact of the matter is that the VIA C3
at 1.0GHz really struggles to match the performance of an ancient
Celeron 667MHz processor. Now figure that the Celeron-M at 900MHz
offers a greatly improved core, 4 times as much cache, 6 times the bus
bandwidth and 3 times the memory bandwidth. It all adds up to the C3
just not being at all competitive.

Even at 2.0GHz I suspect that the yet-to-ship C7 processor will have
difficulty competing with a 900MHz Celeron-M, and it will do so with 4
times the power consumption (20W for the VIA chip vs. 5W for Intel).

Ohh, here's another set of slightly dated numbers comparing the C3 at
800MHz to a PIII at 500MHz:

http://www.dansdata.com/c3.htm


-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
August 26, 2005 4:11:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>RM
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>>>
>>>
>>>Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>>>http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...
>>>
>>
>>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
>>of power used by each processor.
>
>
> C'mon this was not even a competition - the Celeron was in a different
> class and did not fail any tests.
>
Who's to say whether, if VIA were the sponsor, a test could be found
that the Celeron failed.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
August 26, 2005 6:33:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

....snip...
>
>A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.

Focus on watts in laptops and SFF boxes? Paramount. In blade servers
- ditto. Even at the expence of raw speed. But in desktops there is
always a place for a fan or two, and there is always need for speed,
be you a gamer, software developer, or heavy graphics user. Much more
so in 4U+ servers. The top $ are paid for top notch performance of
"mission-critical" databases and like. The heat produced by a
high-performing chip is a problem that can be and usually is
reasonably solved. That is, unless you deal with Prescott core that
doubles as a space heater.
August 26, 2005 6:54:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

nobody@nowhere.net wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
>>A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.
>
>
> Focus on watts in laptops and SFF boxes? Paramount. In blade servers
> - ditto. Even at the expence of raw speed. But in desktops there is
> always a place for a fan or two, and there is always need for speed,
> be you a gamer, software developer, or heavy graphics user. Much more
> so in 4U+ servers. The top $ are paid for top notch performance of
> "mission-critical" databases and like. The heat produced by a
> high-performing chip is a problem that can be and usually is
> reasonably solved. That is, unless you deal with Prescott core that
> doubles as a space heater.
>
If people calculated how much per month it's costing to power their
"gaming" machines, it might quickly become an issue. "Power user"
is closer to true than one might imagine.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
August 26, 2005 8:49:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>>Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>>>http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...
>>>
>>
>>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
>>of power used by each processor.
>
>
> Ok.. how's this?
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/


Quoting from the "Conclusions" page of that article:

"Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio, the C3
blows away its competitors."

>
> I'm no big fan of Tom's, but the fact of the matter is that the VIA C3
> at 1.0GHz really struggles to match the performance of an ancient
> Celeron 667MHz processor. Now figure that the Celeron-M at 900MHz
> offers a greatly improved core, 4 times as much cache, 6 times the bus
> bandwidth and 3 times the memory bandwidth. It all adds up to the C3
> just not being at all competitive.
>
> Even at 2.0GHz I suspect that the yet-to-ship C7 processor will have
> difficulty competing with a 900MHz Celeron-M, and it will do so with 4
> times the power consumption (20W for the VIA chip vs. 5W for Intel).
>
> Ohh, here's another set of slightly dated numbers comparing the C3 at
> 800MHz to a PIII at 500MHz:
>
> http://www.dansdata.com/c3.htm
>
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2005 9:25:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

CJT wrote:
> Tony Hill wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>George Macdonald wrote:
> >>
> >>>Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
> >>>http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...
> >>>
> >>
> >>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
> >>of power used by each processor.
> >
> >
> > Ok.. how's this?
> >
> > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/
>
>
> Quoting from the "Conclusions" page of that article:
>
> "Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio, the C3
> blows away its competitors."
>

<quote>

As expected, the C3 processor is not able to compete with other
processors at similar clock speeds. Depending on the particular
benchmark, an old Celeron 667 is either considerably faster or
considerably slower, making it difficult to specify a recommendation
for VIA's C3.

The C3 has definitely won the power and temperature race: no other
desktop processor consumes as little energy and wastes as little power
as the C3. Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio,
the C3 blows away its competitors.

</quote>

The "Old Celeron 667" that is used to support this comparison being one
that was never designed for low power operation. At 17W, it's not
particularly power-hungry and isn't exactly "blown away" by the 12W
Via. Celeron power consumption from

http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm

As long as Tom's was going to dig into old proecessors to compare for
conclusions about power, he should have been using the PIII-667, but
that's a nit. Any of the ULV processors that Intel has brought out,
whethere branded Celeron or Pentium, would blow away Via. A 1GHz
Pentium-M ULV draws 5 Watts.

As to comparison of "ratio" with desktop chips, the only exercise that
makes any sense is to compare power consumption at equal performance or
performance at equal power consumption.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2005 10:42:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

CJT wrote:

> >
> Here's something current and on point:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/st...
>

What's this got to do with Via? Green Destiny is very old news: LANL
scientists playing in the sandbox. With any luck, we won't be seeing
more of that kind of nonsense. LANL p'd away a ton of taxpayer money
wiring together everything they could lay their hands on, even paid
Cray to custom-build them their sandbox dreams, and the bottom line is
that we're going to be using piles of generic server boxes for the
forseeable future. The real breakthrough in performance/watt came from
IBM's Blue Gene.

As to Transmeta, I haven't seen head-to-heads, but I'll be really
surprised if *they* do better on a performance per watt than Pentium-M
ULV.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2005 11:37:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:

>
> Well, if the processor is an extra 100 watts (large number) and
> electricity is 15 cents/kwH (on the high side) and the processor draws
> the extra 100 watts even when nobody is using it, it comes to 36
> cents/day, or about 10 dollars/month. So the extra electricity to
> assure optimim game play over 6 months equals the cost of a game. On
> the other hand the high speed internet connection costs 40 dollars per
> month. QED Power consumption in gaming PC is not a significant economic
> factor.
>
Nobody would argue about the importance of power consumption for
servers, for HPC, or for mobile applications. The question is: why
worry for stationary machines, such as those used for gaming? As far
as I can tell, because there is no other way to get more performance
into an acceptable power and cooling envelope, and I'm assuming that
machines used for gaming will continue to have an insatiable demand for
greater performance. The only way to get it, as I currently understand
the situation, is more cores operating at a point that is less than
optimal from the POV of single-thread performance. It will be
interesting to see how long power-no-consideration single-thread
workhorses will survive. I expect them to become an endangered species
for all but the the most specialized applications (very high-end HPC,
for example).

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2005 12:35:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

CJT wrote:
> nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...snip...
>>
>>> A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.
>>
>>
>>
>> Focus on watts in laptops and SFF boxes? Paramount. In blade servers
>> - ditto. Even at the expence of raw speed. But in desktops there is
>> always a place for a fan or two, and there is always need for speed,
>> be you a gamer, software developer, or heavy graphics user. Much more
>> so in 4U+ servers. The top $ are paid for top notch performance of
>> "mission-critical" databases and like. The heat produced by a
>> high-performing chip is a problem that can be and usually is
>> reasonably solved. That is, unless you deal with Prescott core that
>> doubles as a space heater.
>>
> If people calculated how much per month it's costing to power their
> "gaming" machines, it might quickly become an issue. "Power user"
> is closer to true than one might imagine.
>

Well, if the processor is an extra 100 watts (large number) and
electricity is 15 cents/kwH (on the high side) and the processor draws
the extra 100 watts even when nobody is using it, it comes to 36
cents/day, or about 10 dollars/month. So the extra electricity to
assure optimim game play over 6 months equals the cost of a game. On
the other hand the high speed internet connection costs 40 dollars per
month. QED Power consumption in gaming PC is not a significant economic
factor.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”
August 26, 2005 5:04:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

> CJT wrote:
>
>>Tony Hill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>>>>>http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
>>>>of power used by each processor.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ok.. how's this?
>>>
>>>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/
>>
>>
>>Quoting from the "Conclusions" page of that article:
>>
>>"Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio, the C3
>>blows away its competitors."
>>
>
>
> <quote>
>
> As expected, the C3 processor is not able to compete with other
> processors at similar clock speeds. Depending on the particular
> benchmark, an old Celeron 667 is either considerably faster or
> considerably slower, making it difficult to specify a recommendation
> for VIA's C3.
>
> The C3 has definitely won the power and temperature race: no other
> desktop processor consumes as little energy and wastes as little power
> as the C3. Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio,
> the C3 blows away its competitors.
>
> </quote>
>
> The "Old Celeron 667" that is used to support this comparison being one
> that was never designed for low power operation. At 17W, it's not
> particularly power-hungry and isn't exactly "blown away" by the 12W
> Via. Celeron power consumption from
>
> http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm
>
> As long as Tom's was going to dig into old proecessors to compare for
> conclusions about power, he should have been using the PIII-667, but
> that's a nit. Any of the ULV processors that Intel has brought out,
> whethere branded Celeron or Pentium, would blow away Via. A 1GHz
> Pentium-M ULV draws 5 Watts.
>
> As to comparison of "ratio" with desktop chips, the only exercise that
> makes any sense is to compare power consumption at equal performance or
> performance at equal power consumption.
>
> RM
>
Here's something current and on point:

http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/st...


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2005 7:56:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:11:23 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>George Macdonald wrote:

>>>>Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>>>>http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
>>>of power used by each processor.
>>
>>
>> C'mon this was not even a competition - the Celeron was in a different
>> class and did not fail any tests.
>>
>Who's to say whether, if VIA were the sponsor, a test could be found
>that the Celeron failed.

I'm no Intel fan but I know which way I'd bet. There are plenty of
"consultant" companies ready to offer to do the job for VIA.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2005 8:10:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> Del Cecchi wrote:
>
>
>>Well, if the processor is an extra 100 watts (large number) and
>>electricity is 15 cents/kwH (on the high side) and the processor draws
>>the extra 100 watts even when nobody is using it, it comes to 36
>>cents/day, or about 10 dollars/month. So the extra electricity to
>>assure optimim game play over 6 months equals the cost of a game. On
>>the other hand the high speed internet connection costs 40 dollars per
>>month. QED Power consumption in gaming PC is not a significant economic
>>factor.
>>
>
> Nobody would argue about the importance of power consumption for
> servers, for HPC, or for mobile applications. The question is: why
> worry for stationary machines, such as those used for gaming?

Because while the additional power consumption might be
insignificant or irrelevant on a personal basis, it is *very*
significant on a national or global basis.

If 100 million home computers in North America are replaced with
machines that need an additional 100 Watts each, then an
additional 10 GW of generating capacity is needed. More likely
double that when you consider the fact that in most parts of
North America still more power is going to be wasted by air
conditioners working just a little harder to remove that
additional 100 Watts from the house/apartment/office.

I often wonder if power rationing is the only way to keep in
check the rising power demands caused by obsessions with
increasingly power-hungry toys.

Increasingly power-hungry TVs and home computers are not fully to
blame for North America's growing energy crisis, but they are a
significant and highly symbolic factor.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2005 8:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Rob Stow wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> Del Cecchi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well, if the processor is an extra 100 watts (large number) and
>>> electricity is 15 cents/kwH (on the high side) and the processor draws
>>> the extra 100 watts even when nobody is using it, it comes to 36
>>> cents/day, or about 10 dollars/month. So the extra electricity to
>>> assure optimim game play over 6 months equals the cost of a game. On
>>> the other hand the high speed internet connection costs 40 dollars per
>>> month. QED Power consumption in gaming PC is not a significant economic
>>> factor.
>>>
>>
>> Nobody would argue about the importance of power consumption for
>> servers, for HPC, or for mobile applications. The question is: why
>> worry for stationary machines, such as those used for gaming?
>
>
> Because while the additional power consumption might be insignificant or
> irrelevant on a personal basis, it is *very* significant on a national
> or global basis.
>
> If 100 million home computers in North America are replaced with
> machines that need an additional 100 Watts each, then an additional 10
> GW of generating capacity is needed. More likely double that when you
> consider the fact that in most parts of North America still more power
> is going to be wasted by air conditioners working just a little harder
> to remove that additional 100 Watts from the house/apartment/office.
>
> I often wonder if power rationing is the only way to keep in check the
> rising power demands caused by obsessions with increasingly power-hungry
> toys.
>
> Increasingly power-hungry TVs and home computers are not fully to blame
> for North America's growing energy crisis, but they are a significant
> and highly symbolic factor.

TV's use less power than they used to. You do remember vacuum tubes,
right? And I was responding to the assertion that gamers should take
the cost of electricity into account when selecting a system. There
aren't 100 million gamers, either.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2005 4:03:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:04:45 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Robert Myers wrote:
>> As to comparison of "ratio" with desktop chips, the only exercise that
>> makes any sense is to compare power consumption at equal performance or
>> performance at equal power consumption.
>>
>> RM
>>
>Here's something current and on point:
>
>http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/st...

And this relates to VIA how? I (and many others) have long been
talking about how performance/watt would be a critical metric for
processors for some time now, however Green Destiny isn't exactly a
champion here, even in the HPC sector. Compare Green Destiny's
performance to BlueGene/L and you'll see that the Transmeta chips are
rather ho-hum. Heck, even if you were to compare the rather
low-performance Transmeta chips to Intel ULV Pentium-M (or Celeron-M)
chips of similar power consumption you would find that the Transmeta
solution leaves much to be desired.

Trying to tie this back in to VIA chips, Transmeta and VIA have
similar performance/watt numbers, but VIA does so a much lower cost.
That is the real reason why I'm somewhat fond of VIA chips, they are
DIRT-CHEAP. Intel's ULV chips offer much better performance for
similar power consumption, but even the Celeron-M chips are MUCH more
expensive than VIA's alternative.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2005 4:03:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:10:15 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow@shaw.ca> wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:
>> Del Cecchi wrote:
>> Nobody would argue about the importance of power consumption for
>> servers, for HPC, or for mobile applications. The question is: why
>> worry for stationary machines, such as those used for gaming?
>
>Because while the additional power consumption might be
>insignificant or irrelevant on a personal basis, it is *very*
>significant on a national or global basis.
>
>If 100 million home computers in North America are replaced with
>machines that need an additional 100 Watts each, then an
>additional 10 GW of generating capacity is needed.

Just to keep such numbers in perspective, in 2000 the US had a total
generating capacitor of 819GW. As such you are really talking about a
1.2% increase in total power consumption for the country. that is, of
course, assuming that these hypothetical computers are ALL operating
at 100% full-power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

In the real world, the difference between a 60W processor and a 100W
processor gets lost among the noise when looking at national power
consumption figures.

> More likely
>double that when you consider the fact that in most parts of
>North America still more power is going to be wasted by air
>conditioners working just a little harder to remove that
>additional 100 Watts from the house/apartment/office.

And in a few parts of North America (such as both the area where live
and where I live) that 100W of extra power takes away from what we
would otherwise be spending on heating our homes for 6 months of the
year. I use AC about 10 days a year, I have the heat on for about 150
days of the year. This wouldn't be true for some of the population
centers in, for example, California, but it's still tough to add the
heating/cooling costs into things.

>Increasingly power-hungry TVs and home computers are not fully to
>blame for North America's growing energy crisis, but they are a
>significant and highly symbolic factor.

TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of
what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers
and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in
the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs
probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much
more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago.

Power consumption today, much like for MANY years now, is dominated by
heating and cooling. Whether it's your air conditioner in the summer,
heater in the winter, or simply appliances like your stove and your
refrigerator. If you want to track where you power is being used,
look for things that either heat or cool.

If you want to look at power-hungry toys today, they are out there on
our roads, not in our homes. A recent increase in the average fuel
consumption per vehicle as well as a constantly increasing number of
verticals on the road are the real energy consumers in North America.
Faster computers fall WELL down on the list.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2005 4:03:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 04:49:56 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>>
>>>>Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>>>>http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=2051...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
>>>of power used by each processor.
>>
>>
>> Ok.. how's this?
>>
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/
>
>
>Quoting from the "Conclusions" page of that article:
>
>"Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio, the C3
>blows away its competitors."

It's "competitors" were discontinued about 3 years ago. The C3, on
the other hand, is still VIA's current processor (albeit with a
slightly tweaked core). The ULV Celeron-M has 1/3rd the power
consumption of the Celeron 667 used in this comparison, quite a bit
lower than the VIA C3, while it's performance is significantly higher.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
August 27, 2005 4:36:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:54:59 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...snip...
>>
>>>A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.
>>
>>
>> Focus on watts in laptops and SFF boxes? Paramount. In blade servers
>> - ditto. Even at the expence of raw speed. But in desktops there is
>> always a place for a fan or two, and there is always need for speed,
>> be you a gamer, software developer, or heavy graphics user. Much more
>> so in 4U+ servers. The top $ are paid for top notch performance of
>> "mission-critical" databases and like. The heat produced by a
>> high-performing chip is a problem that can be and usually is
>> reasonably solved. That is, unless you deal with Prescott core that
>> doubles as a space heater.
>>
>If people calculated how much per month it's costing to power their
>"gaming" machines, it might quickly become an issue. "Power user"
>is closer to true than one might imagine.

When you pay someone hourly, or, alternatively, when you are paid
for end result, the energy cost is negligible comparing to the cost of
time it takes to (compile the code, render the frame, etc. - pick what
suits you best). When your life in virtual universe is more important
for you than real life (that's the case for many gamers) who cares
about the energy bill?
But wait, with the rates of energy cost increases everyone will
start taking it into account quite soon ;-(
August 27, 2005 4:43:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

nobody@nowhere.net wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:54:59 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>...snip...
>>>
>>>
>>>>A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.
>>>
>>>
>>>Focus on watts in laptops and SFF boxes? Paramount. In blade servers
>>>- ditto. Even at the expence of raw speed. But in desktops there is
>>>always a place for a fan or two, and there is always need for speed,
>>>be you a gamer, software developer, or heavy graphics user. Much more
>>>so in 4U+ servers. The top $ are paid for top notch performance of
>>>"mission-critical" databases and like. The heat produced by a
>>>high-performing chip is a problem that can be and usually is
>>>reasonably solved. That is, unless you deal with Prescott core that
>>>doubles as a space heater.
>>>
>>
>>If people calculated how much per month it's costing to power their
>>"gaming" machines, it might quickly become an issue. "Power user"
>>is closer to true than one might imagine.
>
>
> When you pay someone hourly, or, alternatively, when you are paid
> for end result, the energy cost is negligible comparing to the cost of
> time it takes to (compile the code, render the frame, etc. - pick what
> suits you best). When your life in virtual universe is more important
> for you than real life (that's the case for many gamers) who cares
> about the energy bill?
> But wait, with the rates of energy cost increases everyone will
> start taking it into account quite soon ;-(
>
>
>
What's needed is a game that has penalties for excessive energy use.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
August 27, 2005 9:18:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

<snip>
> TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of
> what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers
> and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in
> the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs
> probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much
> more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago.
>

If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend
$50/month on electricity for them.

> Power consumption today, much like for MANY years now, is dominated by
> heating and cooling. Whether it's your air conditioner in the summer,
> heater in the winter, or simply appliances like your stove and your
> refrigerator. If you want to track where you power is being used,
> look for things that either heat or cool.
>
> If you want to look at power-hungry toys today, they are out there on
> our roads, not in our homes. A recent increase in the average fuel
> consumption per vehicle as well as a constantly increasing number of
> verticals on the road are the real energy consumers in North America.

Agreed, but that's another problem, rather than absolution for wasting
power on inefficient computers.

> Faster computers fall WELL down on the list.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2005 10:36:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2005 07:37:06 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >Nobody would argue about the importance of power consumption for
> >servers, for HPC, or for mobile applications. The question is: why
> >worry for stationary machines, such as those used for gaming? As far
> >as I can tell, because there is no other way to get more performance
> >into an acceptable power and cooling envelope, and I'm assuming that
> >machines used for gaming will continue to have an insatiable demand for
> >greater performance.
>
> I see this view as somewhat out of date wrt current CPUs - I don't know how
> well Intel's latest P4 power management is working but, from what I observe
> with Athlon64s, a current CPU should spend very little time at 100% power
> rating even when used for gaming. I don't game myself, but my current
> Athlon64 3500+ spends most of its time just idling along at 1GHz/1V with a
> reported temp which is just 1 or 2 degrees C above system temp... which
> makes it 34/35C with an ambient of ~22-25C. You really have to pund on it
> to get it to stay at its rated 2.2GHz/1.4V. If your average gamer spends
> say 4 hours/day on solid gaming, which will not in itself need 100% CPU
> steady load, I doubt that their overall CPU load is much above 80%, if
> that.
>
No matter what power management trickery does for you most of the time,
you've got to be able to cool the thing when it's operating at peak
performance.

> > The only way to get it, as I currently understand
> >the situation, is more cores operating at a point that is less than
> >optimal from the POV of single-thread performance. It will be
> >interesting to see how long power-no-consideration single-thread
> >workhorses will survive. I expect them to become an endangered species
> >for all but the the most specialized applications (very high-end HPC,
> >for example).
>
> It's been my impression that game makers are not optimistic about getting
> that much performance out of multiple threads/processors - they haven't so
> far , with only HT, and even just dual core is going to be hard to get
> benefits worth talking about. IOW single core performance is going to
> matter for quite a while yet.
>
I hope we are arriving at a moment of truth. Programming styles are
going to have to change. Either that, or we're going to have alot of
idle cores. I think programming styles are going to change. Don't ask
me how. The possibilities are endless. Threaded programming has to
move out of the sandbox and off the linux kernel list and into the
realy world.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2005 12:42:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On 26 Aug 2005 07:37:06 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Del Cecchi wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, if the processor is an extra 100 watts (large number) and
>> electricity is 15 cents/kwH (on the high side) and the processor draws
>> the extra 100 watts even when nobody is using it, it comes to 36
>> cents/day, or about 10 dollars/month. So the extra electricity to
>> assure optimim game play over 6 months equals the cost of a game. On
>> the other hand the high speed internet connection costs 40 dollars per
>> month. QED Power consumption in gaming PC is not a significant economic
>> factor.
>>
>Nobody would argue about the importance of power consumption for
>servers, for HPC, or for mobile applications. The question is: why
>worry for stationary machines, such as those used for gaming? As far
>as I can tell, because there is no other way to get more performance
>into an acceptable power and cooling envelope, and I'm assuming that
>machines used for gaming will continue to have an insatiable demand for
>greater performance.

I see this view as somewhat out of date wrt current CPUs - I don't know how
well Intel's latest P4 power management is working but, from what I observe
with Athlon64s, a current CPU should spend very little time at 100% power
rating even when used for gaming. I don't game myself, but my current
Athlon64 3500+ spends most of its time just idling along at 1GHz/1V with a
reported temp which is just 1 or 2 degrees C above system temp... which
makes it 34/35C with an ambient of ~22-25C. You really have to pund on it
to get it to stay at its rated 2.2GHz/1.4V. If your average gamer spends
say 4 hours/day on solid gaming, which will not in itself need 100% CPU
steady load, I doubt that their overall CPU load is much above 80%, if
that.

> The only way to get it, as I currently understand
>the situation, is more cores operating at a point that is less than
>optimal from the POV of single-thread performance. It will be
>interesting to see how long power-no-consideration single-thread
>workhorses will survive. I expect them to become an endangered species
>for all but the the most specialized applications (very high-end HPC,
>for example).

It's been my impression that game makers are not optimistic about getting
that much performance out of multiple threads/processors - they haven't so
far , with only HT, and even just dual core is going to be hard to get
benefits worth talking about. IOW single core performance is going to
matter for quite a while yet.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2005 12:42:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:04:45 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:

>> As to comparison of "ratio" with desktop chips, the only exercise that
>> makes any sense is to compare power consumption at equal performance or
>> performance at equal power consumption.
>>
>> RM
>>
>Here's something current and on point:
>
>http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/st...

Geeeez - these guys are wasting $$ on "research" for what you can get
straight out of the box with any current desktop CPU, or even an Opteron
based cluster.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2005 1:47:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:430FF79F.3030200@prodigy.net...
> Tony Hill wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of
>> what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers
>> and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in
>> the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs
>> probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much
>> more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago.
>>
>
> If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend
> $50/month on electricity for them.

So, set them to hibernate after an hour or so of non use. Or power them
down at night. What are you doing that you need multiple PCs 24x7?
>
snip
August 27, 2005 2:31:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:18:23 +0000, CJT wrote:

> Tony Hill wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of
>> what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers
>> and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in
>> the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs
>> probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much
>> more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago.
>>
>
> If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend
> $50/month on electricity for them.

Not "easily". Most don't have, nor a need for, aa dozen machines running
24x7. _Very_ few are spending $10/mo on electricity for their computer.
The range, clothes dryer, and AC are the biggies ($250 bill here last
month). Much of the country doesn't pay the electric rates we do here
either. A friend in Florida tells me he pays about $.04/kWh, vs $.13 here.

>> Power consumption today, much like for MANY years now, is dominated by
>> heating and cooling. Whether it's your air conditioner in the summer,
>> heater in the winter, or simply appliances like your stove and your
>> refrigerator. If you want to track where you power is being used, look
>> for things that either heat or cool.
>>
>> If you want to look at power-hungry toys today, they are out there on
>> our roads, not in our homes. A recent increase in the average fuel
>> consumption per vehicle as well as a constantly increasing number of
>> verticals on the road are the real energy consumers in North America.
>
> Agreed, but that's another problem, rather than absolution for wasting
> power on inefficient computers.

Define "inefficient" as it relates to computers. Twenty years ago a
computer with roughly the same power as an Opteron would take thousands of
times more power. I'd call the Opteron rather "efficient", in comparison.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2005 7:11:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:18:23 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>
><snip>
>> TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of
>> what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers
>> and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in
>> the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs
>> probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much
>> more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago.
>>
>
>If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend
>$50/month on electricity for them.

At $0.10 per KWH (I pay about $0.07 or $0.08 US per KWH, but others
may pay more), in order to spend $50/month you would need computers
that consume roughly 700W constantly all day long, every day of the
month. Considering that under peak load a really high power consuming
computer (ie a system with a 3.73GHz P4EE and an nVidia GeForce 7800
Ultra) will top out at around 250-300W. Add in another 100-150W for a
CRT monitor (though only 30-40W for an LCD) and you're still only
half-way there. You would need two such PCs operating 24 x 7 at peak
load to reach you're $50/month figure.

FWIW typical computers operate at peak load for less than 1% of the
day, especially while the owners of said computer are asleep. Idle
power consumption is roughly a half to two thirds of peak consumption
for a PC and it's virtually zero for a monitor (assuming you either
turn the monitor off or have it go into a sleep mode).


Power consumption is VERY important when you're looking at HPC
clusters where you might have hundreds or even thousands of processors
that really are going to operating at near 100% load for a significant
portion of the day, every day. For home computers though, they mostly
add up to a drop in the bucket. Most families with two or three
computers are unlikely to spend even $10/month on electricity for
their PCs.

Ohh, and the observant among you will probably notice that BY FAR the
biggest power savings you can get in a PC is by replacing a CRT
monitor with an LCD, especially if you're using a large 19" or 21"
CRT.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
August 27, 2005 7:54:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:11:47 -0400, Tony Hill wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:18:23 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>Tony Hill wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of
>>> what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers
>>> and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in
>>> the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs
>>> probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much
>>> more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago.
>>>
>>
>>If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend
>>$50/month on electricity for them.
>
> At $0.10 per KWH (I pay about $0.07 or $0.08 US per KWH, but others
> may pay more), in order to spend $50/month you would need computers
> that consume roughly 700W constantly all day long, every day of the
> month. Considering that under peak load a really high power consuming
> computer (ie a system with a 3.73GHz P4EE and an nVidia GeForce 7800
> Ultra) will top out at around 250-300W. Add in another 100-150W for a
> CRT monitor (though only 30-40W for an LCD) and you're still only
> half-way there. You would need two such PCs operating 24 x 7 at peak
> load to reach you're $50/month figure.

> Power consumption is VERY important when you're looking at HPC
> clusters where you might have hundreds or even thousands of processors
> that really are going to operating at near 100% load for a significant
> portion of the day, every day. For home computers though, they mostly
> add up to a drop in the bucket. Most families with two or three
> computers are unlikely to spend even $10/month on electricity for
> their PCs.

Power consumption is only vially important to a point, even here. Power
density is the real issue and there is a pretty hard line where more
simply doesn't work, less no one cares.

> Ohh, and the observant among you will probably notice that BY FAR the
> biggest power savings you can get in a PC is by replacing a CRT monitor
> with an LCD, especially if you're using a large 19" or 21" CRT.

Tell you what. You send me two 19" (1280x1024, at least) LCD monitors and
I'll retire my 19" CRTs. I'm not going to even bother calculating the
payback of $700 worth of LCD displays, based on perhaps two hours per day. ;-)

--
Keith
August 27, 2005 9:47:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

keith wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:18:23 +0000, CJT wrote:
>
>
>>Tony Hill wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of
>>>what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers
>>>and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in
>>>the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs
>>>probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much
>>>more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago.
>>>
>>
>>If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend
>>$50/month on electricity for them.
>
>
> Not "easily". Most don't have, nor a need for, aa dozen machines running
> 24x7. _Very_ few are spending $10/mo on electricity for their computer.

I think you're wrong. 200 watts, 24x7, at 10 cents/KWH, is about $14 a
month, and a single machine can use that much. Then add a monitor and
some network hardware.

The 24x7 factor is subject to discussion, but I think lots of people
leave their machines running. And I think lots of people have more than
one.


> The range, clothes dryer, and AC are the biggies ($250 bill here last
> month). Much of the country doesn't pay the electric rates we do here
> either. A friend in Florida tells me he pays about $.04/kWh, vs $.13 here.
>
>
>>>Power consumption today, much like for MANY years now, is dominated by
>>>heating and cooling. Whether it's your air conditioner in the summer,
>>>heater in the winter, or simply appliances like your stove and your
>>>refrigerator. If you want to track where you power is being used, look
>>>for things that either heat or cool.
>>>
>>>If you want to look at power-hungry toys today, they are out there on
>>>our roads, not in our homes. A recent increase in the average fuel
>>>consumption per vehicle as well as a constantly increasing number of
>>>verticals on the road are the real energy consumers in North America.
>>
>>Agreed, but that's another problem, rather than absolution for wasting
>>power on inefficient computers.
>
>
> Define "inefficient" as it relates to computers. Twenty years ago a
> computer with roughly the same power as an Opteron would take thousands of
> times more power. I'd call the Opteron rather "efficient", in comparison.
>
Twenty years ago people did word processing with a 4 MHz 8080 (or even
less). I would argue that most computer power is wasted.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
August 28, 2005 1:50:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:

> "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:430FF79F.3030200@prodigy.net...
>
>>Tony Hill wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of
>>>what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers
>>>and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in
>>>the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs
>>>probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much
>>>more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago.
>>>
>>
>>If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend
>>$50/month on electricity for them.
>
>
> So, set them to hibernate after an hour or so of non use. Or power them
> down at night. What are you doing that you need multiple PCs 24x7?
>
> snip
>
>
I'm not saying I do. But I read claims by others that they haven't
rebooted in days; that implies the machines remain powered up.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
August 28, 2005 1:50:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:50:32 +0000, CJT wrote:

> Del Cecchi wrote:
>
>> "CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:430FF79F.3030200@prodigy.net...
>>
>>>Tony Hill wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of
>>>>what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers
>>>>and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in
>>>>the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs
>>>>probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much
>>>>more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend
>>>$50/month on electricity for them.
>>
>>
>> So, set them to hibernate after an hour or so of non use. Or power them
>> down at night. What are you doing that you need multiple PCs 24x7?
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
> I'm not saying I do. But I read claims by others that they haven't
> rebooted in days; that implies the machines remain powered up.

That does *NOT* mean they've been burning $50/mo. in electricity. You also
haven't shown 100M such people that have *five* such systems running.
Moderm processors don't burn max power, when doing nothing. Some are
better than others, but...


Your argument is silly, to the extreme. ...or at least your "facts" are.

--
Keith
August 28, 2005 7:01:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

keith wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:50:32 +0000, CJT wrote:
>
>
>>Del Cecchi wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:430FF79F.3030200@prodigy.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tony Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of
>>>>>what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers
>>>>>and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in
>>>>>the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs
>>>>>probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much
>>>>>more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend
>>>>$50/month on electricity for them.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, set them to hibernate after an hour or so of non use. Or power them
>>>down at night. What are you doing that you need multiple PCs 24x7?
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm not saying I do. But I read claims by others that they haven't
>>rebooted in days; that implies the machines remain powered up.
>
>
> That does *NOT* mean they've been burning $50/mo. in electricity. You also
> haven't shown 100M such people that have *five* such systems running.
> Moderm processors don't burn max power, when doing nothing. Some are
> better than others, but...
>
>
> Your argument is silly, to the extreme. ...or at least your "facts" are.
>
Computers use a lot of electric power. Much of it is wasted. You can
quibble about the numbers all you like, but you can't escape those basic
facts.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
August 28, 2005 7:01:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:01:51 +0000, CJT wrote:

> keith wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:50:32 +0000, CJT wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Del Cecchi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:430FF79F.3030200@prodigy.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tony Hill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>TVs and home computers aren't really very power hungry, regardless of
>>>>>>what type you're talking about. The shift towards laptop computers
>>>>>>and LCD monitors is probably enough to counterbalance any increase in
>>>>>>the power consumption of processors. Similarly improvements in TVs
>>>>>>probably mean that a brand-new 50" TV probably doesn't consume much
>>>>>>more power (if any at all) than an old 20" TV from 15 or 20 years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If you have multiple PCs, and run them 24*7, you can easily spend
>>>>>$50/month on electricity for them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So, set them to hibernate after an hour or so of non use. Or power them
>>>>down at night. What are you doing that you need multiple PCs 24x7?
>>>>
>>>>snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not saying I do. But I read claims by others that they haven't
>>>rebooted in days; that implies the machines remain powered up.
>>
>>
>> That does *NOT* mean they've been burning $50/mo. in electricity. You also
>> haven't shown 100M such people that have *five* such systems running.
>> Moderm processors don't burn max power, when doing nothing. Some are
>> better than others, but...
>>
>>
>> Your argument is silly, to the extreme. ...or at least your "facts" are.
>>
> Computers use a lot of electric power. Much of it is wasted. You can
> quibble about the numbers all you like, but you can't escape those basic
> facts.

Quibble about facts? Liars pull "facts" out of their ass.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2005 8:02:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:01:51 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>keith wrote:
>> Your argument is silly, to the extreme. ...or at least your "facts" are.
>>
>Computers use a lot of electric power. Much of it is wasted. You can
>quibble about the numbers all you like, but you can't escape those basic
>facts.

A STOVE uses a lot of electric power. An air conditioner uses a lot
of electric power. Electrical heaters use a lot of electric power.

Computers do not.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
!