PDA

View Full Version : New Intel iMac uses less electricity than a reading lamp?


MacBytes
Feb 21, 2006, 12:21 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Processors
Link: New Intel iMac uses less electricity than a reading lamp? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060221132140)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Fiveos22
Feb 21, 2006, 02:39 PM
Ehhh...Directly from Apple's website, "Maximum continuous power: 180W" (http://www.apple.com/imac/whatsinside.html).

If I had just a processor in a box, then yes, I would be running at less than an average light, HOWEVER, the iMac does not run at less wattage than an average light.

jsw
Feb 21, 2006, 02:41 PM
The site says the real-world power consumption needs of an Intel iMac are far below Apple’s stated specs. In fact, they claim that even with both cores running at 100%, they measured a steady drain of only 95 Watts, almost half what Apple is claiming. That’s less than a standard 100 Watt light bulb folks!
The article disputes Apple's specs.

stoid
Feb 21, 2006, 02:42 PM
Ehhh...Directly from Apple's website, "Maximum continuous power: 180W" (http://www.apple.com/imac/whatsinside.html).

If I had just a processor in a box, then yes, I would be running at less than an average light, HOWEVER, the iMac does not run at less wattage than an average light.

If you read the full article, they mention the 180W Apple spec and point out that actual power consumption was at 95W with both cores full tilt. I would imagine that this means that they had the screen on too. Perhpaps the 180 is a peak? like running the optical drive, maxing the processors, screen brightness at 100% and maxing the video card?

BOOMBA
Feb 21, 2006, 02:42 PM
I bet it depends on what you are doing.
Maybe rendering Maya or After Effects would get the thing draining 180W, but I'd say avergae use, web and such, won't go that high.
Alhough, they claim they had both processors going at 100%....
Who knows?
How the heck to you even test how many Watts something is drawing in?
:confused:

jsw
Feb 21, 2006, 02:44 PM
If you read the full article, they mention the 180W Apple spec and point out that actual power consumption was at 95W with both cores full tilt. I would imagine that this means that they had the screen on too. Perhpaps the 180 is a peak? like running the optical drive, maxing the processors, screen brightness at 100% and maxing the video card?
And don't forget supplying power on all the ports, radiating AirPort at max power, and thrashing the disk.

stoid
Feb 21, 2006, 02:46 PM
How the heck to you even test how many Watts something is drawing in?
:confused:

I'm pretty sure that you can get a special box that plugs between the outlet and the power cord that will measure power consumption.

jsw
Feb 21, 2006, 02:48 PM
I'm pretty sure that you can get a special box that plugs between the outlet and the power cord that will measure power consumption.
Yup. Power companies have been using bigger versions for, oh, forever now to calculate your bill.

mkrishnan
Feb 21, 2006, 03:10 PM
If you read the full article, they mention the 180W Apple spec and point out that actual power consumption was at 95W with both cores full tilt. I would imagine that this means that they had the screen on too. Perhpaps the 180 is a peak? like running the optical drive, maxing the processors, screen brightness at 100% and maxing the video card?

I think this is a good way to look at it. The 180W is an *average peak* ... which is a self-evident absurdity. What the 180W means is that the computer can run continuously, as long as it does not need more power than that. The power supplies are built to peak average power (or whatever you want to call it... 180W in this case) as well as peak power, or the max amount it can sustain just for a short period of time, which will be even higher.

Think about your iMac this way. Suppose a base iMac consumes 90W. If you add a stick of memory, it still has to accommodate that in the power supply spec. If you add USB and FW devices that feed off the bus, it has to accommodate those too. And the speakers playing continuously at peak volume. And the most power-hungry hard drive option available, being written to fairly heavily. And compute intensive activities. And the DVD-player running. Etc. Because it's quite conceivable that a computer might be asked to do all of this at the same time, for an extended period of time.

So the 180W is engineered so that even if this is the case, the computer can still function. But when you actually use it, it will consume less than the 180W. Because if it did not, for instance, and you plugged in a USB device that runs off of the bus, for instance, then you would be in the danger zone.

This is always true of computer power supplies.

I hope that helps?

Mord
Feb 21, 2006, 04:47 PM
the imac psu will be a 180w psu thus that is the max it can supply, if you plug in lots of bus powered devices and ram and raptor HD's you'll have 85w to play with.

jobberwacky
Feb 21, 2006, 04:55 PM
The site says the real-world power consumption needs of an Intel iMac are far below Apple’s stated specs. In fact, they claim that even with both cores running at 100%, they measured a steady drain of only 95 Watts, almost half what Apple is claiming. That’s less than a standard 100 Watt light bulb folks!

The article disputes Apple's specs.
Are 100 watt light bulbs still standard in the US? Here in Europe low energy light bulbs are used in all sorts of places.

bluebomberman
Feb 21, 2006, 05:01 PM
Are 100 watt light bulbs still standard in the US? Here in Europe low energy light bulbs are used in all sorts of places.

Unfortunately, yes. They sell incandescent light bulbs dirt cheap, so lots of people still use them.

Platform
Feb 21, 2006, 05:07 PM
Less than a 100W bulb, wow :rolleyes:

TheMonarch
Feb 21, 2006, 05:09 PM
100 watt reading lamp?! WTF?

Who in the world would need a 100 watt bulb, reading lamp?! :eek:

adese
Feb 21, 2006, 05:11 PM
I'll let you know what my electric bill looks like at the end of the month in comparison to last month. I got the imac on feb1

(i know there are 2less days this month)

Jamvan
Feb 21, 2006, 05:52 PM
My college radio station's slogan was "Less wattage than a lightbulb and damn proud of it!"

We had crystal clear reception as long as you were within 100 feet!

Sorry. Back to your regularly scheduled program.

AlmostThere
Feb 21, 2006, 05:58 PM
Will comparisons to the G4 iMac ever end?

Stridder44
Feb 21, 2006, 06:09 PM
100 watt reading lamp?! WTF?

Who in the world would need a 100 watt bulb, reading lamp?! :eek:

I got a nice desk lamp from Target and it had a 100 watt bulb in it...I loved that thing!

jhu
Feb 21, 2006, 06:35 PM
computers in general are pretty stingy on power, especially if it's only doing word processing or web browsing.

balamw
Feb 21, 2006, 07:11 PM
100 watt reading lamp?! WTF?

Who in the world would need a 100 watt bulb, reading lamp?! :eek:
A "standard" incandescent "reading" lamp starts at 100 W and quickly heads to 250 W. http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/products/general_purpose/reader_lights.htm

You can certainly produce the same light levels more efficiently using compact fluorescents.

B

nrd
Feb 21, 2006, 08:04 PM
I heard the new iMacs use less electricity because the gas powered core only kicks in when it's accelerating quickly.

:rolleyes:

Seriously though, this is probably what they used (http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/7657/). Too bad thinkgeek is sold out, or you could verify this at home.

mkrishnan
Feb 21, 2006, 08:22 PM
computers in general are pretty stingy on power, especially if it's only doing word processing or web browsing.

Tell that to the Pentium IV! :o

BOOMBA
Feb 21, 2006, 08:37 PM
computers in general are pretty stingy on power, especially if it's only doing word processing or web browsing.
yeah, the PowerMac (dual, not even quad) was like 700 Watts I think.
:D

jhu
Feb 21, 2006, 09:00 PM
Tell that to the Pentium IV! :o

that thing's more of a space heater than a microprocessor. ok, my amd-based computer is pretty stingy on power.

freiheit
Feb 21, 2006, 09:34 PM
Has anyone here, who's in the USA, experimented with their electric bill by running their brand new high speed computer 24x7 for a month and then running maybe just 8 hours a day for a month and seen how much of a difference it really made?