No thanks I'm on a diet.

A forum just for SPCR's folding team... by request.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

No thanks I'm on a diet.

Post by aristide1 » Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:49 am

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/disp ... by_90.html

Can you imagine if everything in your PC used 90% less electricity? The reduced heat, smaller heatsinks, the smaller and cheaper power supplies, fewer screaming VRMs. As a slew of GTX295 cards that are silent. 8)

One can only dream today.

Tobias
Posts: 530
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 9:52 am

Post by Tobias » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:02 am

Going from a system consuming 30W to a system consuming 3W... Somehow I'd wager that the manufactorers will use the added headroom to create parts that would consume 10 times more power instead... (that is, end up on todays power ratings, but try to get more performance/watt instead...)

AZBrandon
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by AZBrandon » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:17 am

Well there's two ways to measure power usage. There's absolute power draw, which is most relevant for systems that spend the overwhelming majority of their time idle. Then there's power per computation. This is where things like teh Core i7 show up, with many reviews showing the power draw of similar Mhz systems drawing 5% more electrical power than a Core2 computer, but delivering 15% more computational work, so the end result is that it delivered more work per watt. In the context of Folding at Home, computation per watt is the most important figure. I'm ok with power consumption being the same if they deliver 2x or 5x or 10x more work in that power figure.

Post Reply