Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!

Sections

Who's Online
105 user(s) are online (97 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 1
Guests: 104

Paul, more...

Support us!

Headlines

 
  Register To Post  

Sam440 vs PC power usage
Home away from home
Home away from home


See User information
Got myself a little power-measuring thingy, and thought some numbers measured from the actual wall-socket might be interesting:

19" LCD monitor = 19 Watts

Sam440 idle = 21 Watts
Sam440 running Quake 3 = 23 Watts (!)

Shuttle PC *switched off* = 12 Watts!! (yes, 1/2 of the Sam's *on* value!)
Shuttle PC idle = 86 Watts (yes, 4 times the Sam's value)
Shuttle PC running Quake 3 = 150 Watts (6.5 times the Sam's value)


Note that:
* My Sam440 is the 0.67GHz Mini-ITX model (with built-in Radeon gfx chip & 0.5GB of RAM), with a 2.5" laptop harddisk, laptop DVD-RW drive, and a Pico PSU.
* My Shuttle PC is a 2Ghz dual-core AMD, 3.5" harddisk, normal DVD-RW drive, PCI-Express NVidia 9600 GSO gfx-card, and Shuttle-specific PSU.


Edited by ChrisH on 2010/8/19 9:19:05
Author of the PortablE programming language.
Go to top
Re: Sam440 vs PC power usage
Just popping in
Just popping in


See User information
@ChrisH

I wonder how much power the Shuttle's video card is using...

Sam460 : X1000 : X5000
Go to top
Re: Sam440 vs PC power usage
Home away from home
Home away from home


See User information
@logicalheart
The NVidia 9600 gfx card should be running in a power-save mode when not used for 3D games (although I am using Aero...), and the 9600 should also be more power-saving than a (similarly powered) 8800.

OTOH, I noticed that my KVM switch get's power from the gfx card of my "switched-off" PC, so it may be responsible for some of the power usage when "switched off".

Author of the PortablE programming language.
Go to top
Re: Sam440 vs PC power usage
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


See User information
@ChrisH

It would be nice to do the same test with a MiniITX x86 board, like a VIA one.

Philippe 'Elwood' FERRUCCI
Sam460ex 1.10 Ghz
http://elwoodb.free.fr
Go to top
Re: Sam440 vs PC power usage
Just popping in
Just popping in


See User information
@ChrisH

Well, given the perfomance vs power usage, your pc is far ahead.

Go to top
Re: Sam440 vs PC power usage
Home away from home
Home away from home


See User information
@Cool_amigaN
Not sure how the PC can be "far ahead" when it is drawing 86 Watts *doing nothing useful*. I can be reading a static web page for several minutes, and it uses 4 times the amount of power my Sam would. (And actually it'd use more than that, since power shoots up when loading a new page.)

Author of the PortablE programming language.
Go to top
Re: Sam440 vs PC power usage
Just popping in
Just popping in


See User information
@ChrisH

Quote:

ChrisH wrote:
Got myself a little power-measuring thingy, and thought some numbers measured from the actual wall-socket might be interesting:

19" LCD monitor = 19 Watts

Sam440 idle = 21 Watts
Sam440 running Quake 3 = 23 Watts (!)


Just as a comparison, my Amiga 4000 pulls 70 watts maximum, if CPU(s) at 100%. Idle pulls 55-59 watts.

A4000/CS PPC/Mediator/Voodoo 3/ZorRAM/Deneb/Indivision.

I'm not including the monitor here, just the computer itself.

Go to top
Anonymous
Re: Sam440 vs PC power usage
@Cool_amigaN

Amiga is not all that bad in hardware.
Its even got the same kind of components, but not the same class. However newer technology also bring power reductions, so I bet some old AMD with older hard drive and gfx would draw more as a dekstop. After all 300W is standard PC power.

However, you are losing the point and that is there is some energy saving if you keep using Amiga next 999 years

Go to top
Re: Sam440 vs PC power usage
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


See User information
@Cool_amigaN

>perfomance vs power usage,

"Sam440 idle = 21 Watts"
"Shuttle PC idle = 86 Watts (yes, 4 times the Sam's value)"

PersonalComputers usually are "idle" 99% of their running time, waiting for something to be done, like reaction to key press / mouse movement.

The Shuttle PC uses 86W to wait for you to move the mouse.

Every computer wait at the same speed.
But with AOS handling the UI, it is possible that the user waits less.

>your pc is far ahead

Still the x86 is slower (unless AROS is used).

"Shuttle PC *switched off* = 12 Watts!! (yes, 1/2 of the Sam's *on* value!)"

I've got similar results. It's amazing!

- Kimmo
--------------------------PowerPC-Advantage------------------------
"PowerPC Operating Systems can use a microkernel architecture with all it�s advantages yet without the cost of slow context switches." - N. Blachford
Go to top

  Register To Post

 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 ( 0 members and 1 Anonymous Users )




Powered by XOOPS 2.0 © 2001-2024 The XOOPS Project