Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Claims Core Microprocessors Saved World Economy $2 Billion In Energy Costs

By - Source: Tom's Hardware | B 16 comments

Intel’s engineers compared the power consumption of current generation Core processors with that of previous generations of processors. They came up with some impressive savings, so has Greenpeace found a friend in the semiconductor industry?

Calculating the amount of energy that has been saved over the last two years by taking into consideration power consumption, number of processors sold and the length of time they were expected to be running, engineers estimated a saving of 20 Terawatt hours compared to what earlier generations would have used over the same amount of time.

General Manager of Intel’s Eco-Technology Program Lorie Wigle published an article on an Intel blog explaining how the energy efficiency of the Core microarchitecture has saved the world economy $2 Billion in energy costs since its launch in 2006, assuming a $0.10 per kWh price tag.

The electricity bill for businesses that run computers 24 hours a day can be quite expensive. Using components with lower power consumption can cut costs significantly over the long term. While maximum performance is generally desired by end users more than reducing their carbon footprint, reductions in energy costs is always a welcome bonus.

Ironically, Intel recently began shipping their new dual-core Atom 330 processor, which has a power consumption double that of the Atom 230. While the Atom 330 itself does not significantly contribute to the world’s power consumption compared to Intel’s far more powerful desktop parts, this move goes completely against the semiconductor giant’s claim to be able to "have [their] cake and eat it too" - increase performance while reducing power consumption.

Display 16 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 2 Hide
    megamanx00 , September 25, 2008 7:48 PM
    Yeah, compared to their Pentium 4s :lol: 
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , September 25, 2008 7:49 PM
    Youmight almost say,because intel has been slow-step increasing processor's powerdraw over the past 20 years,it may have gone unnoticed how much electricity because of then is being used today.
    Instead of creating processors on a smaller die,and try to keep powerdraw as low as possible, they often increased powerdraw in favor for cpu speed.

    Atom dualcore is a processor that will probably replace many of the Core2Duo and older singlecore machines out there!
    The TDP might be double of the Atom single core, but it can do nearly everything a normal user needs(appart from gaming or CPU intensive tasks),including running Vista,which was just too slow for the single core Atom.

    Remember that the average Core2Duo has a TDP of arround 40W, someless, some more. and some have a TDP of over 100Watts.
    That'd be the same as running 12 atom cores on one system!
  • 2 Hide
    aldo_gg , September 25, 2008 7:53 PM
    I would say, AMD saved the world 3 billion in Energy Cost by creating the Athlon 64 as it was the initial seed that started all.
  • -1 Hide
    chaohsiangchen , September 25, 2008 8:11 PM
    aldo_ggI would say, AMD saved the world 3 billion in Energy Cost by creating the Athlon 64 as it was the initial seed that started all.


    Then negated all their previous efforts with Phenom.
  • 1 Hide
    chaohsiangchen , September 25, 2008 8:13 PM
    Megamanx00Yeah, compared to their Pentium 4s


    P4 is OK, not really as bad as two P4 stick side to side. Oh, wait.....
  • 0 Hide
    frozenlead , September 25, 2008 8:34 PM
    Most business's I've seen with IT run pentium 4/ pentium d machines...because they're cheap.


    and not green.
  • 1 Hide
    ravenware , September 25, 2008 9:48 PM
    P4's are obsolete and should their way into the nearest trash bin. :) 

    I would like to see an energy test round up with P4's, C2D's, Athlon XP's, early gen AMD64 and Current gen AMD64(AM2 & AM2+).
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , September 25, 2008 10:09 PM
    So this statistic pretty much means that if nobody had upgraded their servers since 2003, this is how much more electricity would've been wasted? Intel quads and northbridges tend to waste quite a bit of electricity TBH.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , September 25, 2008 10:41 PM
    yeah right!!!...they save from their own once power hungry processor....its not a save but a somewhat recover ....lol
  • 2 Hide
    ravenware , September 25, 2008 11:26 PM
    Awww, there is P4 fanboy in here. Him sad cuz his CPU has been out classed for 5 years...:( 
  • 0 Hide
    randomizer , September 25, 2008 11:32 PM
    ProDigit80
    Remember that the average Core2Duo has a TDP of arround 40W, someless, some more. and some have a TDP of over 100Watts.That'd be the same as running 12 atom cores on one system!

    While probably being more powerful than 12 Atoms too. :lol: 
  • 1 Hide
    smalltime0 , September 26, 2008 12:28 AM
    chaohsiangchen

    Remember that the TDP of a Phenom is less than alot of Intel Quads... of course the Intels chips take less time to do the same thing, but the Phenoms still have a leser max TDP and the Chipset draws less power.
  • 0 Hide
    majmac , September 26, 2008 5:12 AM
    Sounds like normal Intel marketing spin. They need to keep their name in people's minds and saying something like this is cheap advertising as it is picked up everywhere. Now, perhaps the next press release will be how their CPUs add to the individual happiness index and promotes world peace! Turning off the computer at the wall when not being actively used and not using it to play games will save a lot more power.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , September 26, 2008 5:46 PM
    I'm perfectly fine with the idea of a Atom2core. Not for mininotebooks though, but for desktop, since I like many others out there don't really play games anymore.
    Besides the CPU gamingmarket hasn't got much to offer anymore. The only games produced are Doom and Quake clones (which I was never a fan of)with higher graphics.

    Plus many gaming companies go bankrupt or refuse to produce games for the pc feeling that they are more copied illegal than on gamingsystems.
    And thus shifting their attention to the gamingsystems like nintendo, Sega, XBox and Playstation.

    Games of these caliber can easely be played on a Atom dualcore with dual DDR and a Radeon3850 installed.
    I understand the most powerfull pc's are necessary to play crisis, but I think the majority of people just don't play that kind of games.

    The only con is, that intel prides itself on a lower TDP on the processor, but in return the Northbridge consumes lots more power than average for such devices.
    Intel would do good with the release of the dualcore Atom, to release a Northbridge on 45nm, supporting the fastest memory, and have a system that's able to display HD movies (although the majority of people are not using their PC to view HD movies).

    The Atom is quite the bang for the bucks too, if you consider regular office tasks, and occasional multimedia.
  • 1 Hide
    Milleman , September 27, 2008 2:19 AM
    Saving energy will not save money in the long run. Energy companies are profit making companies. If the population begins to use less energy, the companies will simply raise the energy prices in order to show maintained or increased profits. You may save the enviroment in a near future, which is good. But you will not save your bucks.
  • 0 Hide
    Alien_959 , September 29, 2008 11:03 PM
    Still Core or Athlon/Phenom may be using more power than Atom but thay do tasks several times faster exept in idle conditions there is not much difference. But for everyday tasks music, internet granted Atom is an intresting part- ( When they are going to make descent chipset for Atom?)