Typical mains power for mid-range PC?

Johannes wrote:


Actually, Rod hasn't made any corrections, unless "that's wrong" is a correction.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Trevor Best wrote:

You're reading too much into this. I didn't mean that Rod had made any 'positive' corrections, only in his own mind.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
I showed where you can get a decent list of power consumption for hard drives, fuckwit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:

Continue digging your hole
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa gmail.com> wrote:

...

And you are Crocodile Dundee on the Internet?

Everyone shrieks "troll" at you.
If you weren't so repetitive, you might be entertaining. But then you would be intelligent enough to at least realize you are a troll.

newsfe1-gui.ntli.net> <e9r9sm$jjk$1 cache.uni-koblenz.de> <4icu0tF39bmfU1 individual.net> <STbwg.38082$1g.25247 newsfe1-win.ntli.net> <4id5rfF37s96U1 individual.net> <Qoewg.51400$ST2.40253 newsfe5-win.ntli.net> <4idh8hF370ceU1 individual.net> <bUpwg.14114$u%3.3230 newsfe1-gui.ntli.net> <Xns98088EF1DD79A0123456789 207.115.17.102> <4ifda1F3k65eU1 individual.net> <44C28156.D526DB77 stop-spam-sizefitter.com>

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No need to ask if you are a terminal fuckwit, that stands out like dogs balls.

Lying, as always. Plenty dont.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It'll be close enough to what you already have, maybe 10W more on average.

Depends on what you buy. Averaging Intel's entire line of CPUs including Core 2 Duo, it'll be close enough to the AMD alternative.
Intel's newest CPUs use less power but then their chipsets use more, and then they want to focus on performance per watt instead of watt per system. Nobody buys 1.3 systems so it has to be performance per system if the important factor is how much power a small number of systems uses.
In short, ignore power usage on normal (equivalently equipped) desktops, if power usage is that important then neither choice is suitable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon D wrote:
" How much mains power does a modern systen unit need? "
http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculator.jsp
" My existing PC (socket-A 462-pin cpu with 768 MB SD-RAM) uses about 180 Watts at 240 volts of which about 65 or 70 Watts is to power my CRT. Printers and scanners would be extra. "
The CRT, printer and scanner should have their own power units independent of the PC's PSU.
Make a list of everything that isn't powered by the PC's PSU. Find the specs on the manufacturer's websites and add them to the total wattage you need for the PC PSU (see aforementioned link to calculator). Work out the total wattage, divide by 1000, then times by 0.0633 (averagely high cost of electricity) . That will tell you the approximate maximum costs to run your PC each hour (in s).
By that logic, a total of 470W would cost less than 3 pence per hour ( (470 / 1000) * 0.0633 = 0.029751)
Cost of electricity: http://www.ukenergy.co.uk/pages/calculation.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/physics/electricity_and_magnetism/mains_electricityrev7.shtml
Bear in mind that, in reality, the cost will be considerably less than that, as much of the setup would not be running constantly and under duress.
" Modern cpu's seem to be quite power hungry. "
Yes and no. It depends how you look at the argument. They have more capabilities than previous generations of CPUs, but big steps have been made in nanometre architecture. From the dawn of the Athlon XP the process has gone from 180nm to 130nm to 90nm and now towards 65nm.
If you were to re-encode the same 2 hour video on both an Athlon XP and an Athlon 64 X2 you would find that the Athlon 64 X2 would be using more power, but it would also do the task considerably faster. If a system uses twice the power, but does the task in half the time, what's the difference? You would only end up using more power by using your PC more (which often becomes the case)
Modern systems can use considerably more power for games because the graphics cards and CPUs can output more frames per second (FPS). If everyone set their systems to limit the FPS they would find their power usage to be lower. However, most people don't do this, allowing their systems to use as much power and capability as their components will give them.
DDR2 actually uses less power than DDR(1), but yet operates at higher bandwidths. http://www.corsairmemory.com/corsair/products/specs/ddr2_faq.pdf
Another area of power consumption has been the rise in spindle speed for hard drives. The rise from 5400rpm to 7200rpm has been a large factor in power increases, and many people even have 10,000rpm hard drives in their desktop systems now. However, as with other components, steps have been made to limit the power used by read/write operations.
One other big factor is the move towards Active PFC (Power Factor Correction) in PSUs. http://www.endpcnoise.com/cgi-bin/e/pfc.html
" Approx how much mains power is likely to be needed for a modern mid-range AMD-based PC? I don't know the existing AMD processors but something average to middling is what I mean. "
Mid-range means different things to different people. CPU speeds often dictate how "modern" a PC is, but everyone has different requirements in their RAM requirements, graphics card usage/capabilities and the size/number of hard drives they wish to use. Everyone also has different amounts of add-on equipment and other stuff.
" Would a sysem based on an Intel cpu need less power? "
Not necessarily. Intel came under some criticism because their 90nm desktop Prescott CPUs used more power than the equivalent AMD CPUs which were still at 130nm. However, Intel have had more success recently with 65nm, and it's not like all Intel CPUs use more power than all AMD CPUs.
If you're that worried about power consumption you could opt for a 35W Athlon 64 X2 3800+. http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid%7
You'll find that article quite interesting where it states the total power output under load as being 82W, but don't think for a minute that you only need use a 100W PSU. In the review above they use a 500W CoolerMaster iGreen. http://www.coolermaster-europe.com/index.php?LT=english&Language_s=2&url_place=product_list&p_class 14
With the following components you could have a gaming PC that will certainly last for a couple of years (or even longer), and which uses a little less power than the comparable systems:
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 35W AM2 ADD3800IAA5CU (see previous review) - Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard (just because it's currently the best AM2 motherboard) - Corsair XMS2 2x1GB DDR2-800 TWIN2X2048-6400 (1.9v operating voltage is low for DDR2-800) - Nvidia GeForce 7900GT 256MB (hits a sweet spot with power/performance http://www.vr-zone.com/?i335&s=8 ) - Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB ST3320620AS (lots of storage, sweet spot in price, reliable, 5 year warranty) - CoolerMaster iGreen 430W RS-430-ASAA (see aforementioned link to CoolerMaster website)
...and just as important, add an LCD TFT monitor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jon D wrote:

My setup at 50% CPU load and HD read/write pulls ~245 Watts (as reported by my UPS). System specs below.
-Abit AV8 -AMD64 X2 3800+ (overclocked but stock voltage) -512 MB of PC3200 -3 IDE HDs + 1 USB External -Idle DVD-R -17" CRT -80mm System fan -GeForce3 Ti200 AGP (active cooling) -Antec 420W PSU
*Other Items pilling power from same UPS -Cable Modem & Wireless Router -HP All-in-One (idle) -2.1 Speaker system (idle)
Based on these numbers, I would assume that my actual PC pulls ~200 watts or slightly less. Its not a gaming rig, but the most likely upgrades (more RAM and newer AGP card) would likely add less than 50 Watts.
While a quality power supply of the proper wattage is very important, I would venture that most users need less than 300 Watts and very few require more than 400. Keep in mind that I've no experience with more modern/power hungry video cards.
-Dylan C
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You have these measuring devices, like the Voltcraft Energy check 3000, you put between the wall outlet and the mains plug. That way you can measure the real used power. Take out a HD, and see the difference...take out some memory and see the difference. http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/computer-power-consumption.html has a lot of data. This voltcraft is a neat thing...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Jul 2006, Osiris<> wrote:

Nice web page.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22 Jul 2006, Dorothy Bradbury wrote:

The above reminds me of hard drive hot spots because the Motor-IC gets referred to a few times.
My question is simpler:
If I have a hard drive which has a protective sheet of metal on one side and the circuit board on the other side then which of these two side should get the most cooling?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Varys with the drive design. The only real way to answer that question is to try it both ways and monitor the drive SMART temp.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:56:58 +1000, "Rod Speed"

NO, it does not vary per drive design, or rather, all drive designs are putting the board on the bottom, and a thin cover on the top, thus need more cooling on the bottom circuit board than (if any on) the top cover.
In the majority of drives, the top cover is barely (if at all) even joined to the rest with a reasonably conductive junction, instead they typically have a silicone or some other type of flexible gasket. They may feel warm but this is more a function of heat rising because it wasn't removed more immediately from the hot areas instead of left to heat up surrounding areas.
I'm sure you'll argue Rod, but you're quite wrong in general and offhand I don't recall any hard drive EVER MADE that needed as much, let alone more cooling on the top metal.
In other words, a drive can be completely cooled with airflow over the bottom only. It cannot with airflow only over the top.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kony:
So, do you think drives would be better off upside-down, so the heat could rise off the bottom?
If so, I just might flip mine.
--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:12:06 -0700, "Ed Light"

If you were trying to entirely, passively cool them, yes that should help, or even better is a sideways orientation so there is flow-by of the heated air instead of a shorter circular path.
However, this is considered in isolation, once the drive is mounted in a chassis, that chassis should always have air intake, path on the far side of the drive (from the chassis exhaust point(s), meanting right in front of the drive rack) if not an intake fan before the drive rack. By having this airflow the difference between top or bottom drive side up is minimized, there is no hot air stagnating so they might as well be mounted bottom down. This is in general, certain positions and numbers of drives in particular drive racks might be slightly cooler one way or the other, with the goal being to put more of the airflow across the circuit board side of the drive, AND if possible to keep the intake air flowing within the drive rack.
This last point is where a lot of cheaper chassis fail, they have drive racks sitting back from the front intake holes stamped in metal and nothing to force (or guide, however you want to consider it) the majority of the air to flow along the length of the drives. Quite a wasteful case design to save the manufacturer a few dozen cents? At least hard drives use solid capacitors, for all the brand bashing that goes on, they're built better than most other PC parts towards long term service... except those mechnical parts, pity we still need them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kony,
Thanks for the composition.
Luckily my HD stays between 16C and 29C. It's up in a 5 1/4" bay, though, without great air flow.
--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gave us:

That is quite cool. No problem at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:31:51 GMT, Phat Bytestard

It's even suspiciously cool, most rooms aren't <= 16C, and it's a bit hard to have the hard drive cooler than it's environment without a peltier or other active device strapped on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.