Mac mini vs. Mac Pro savings on electricity bill is amazing!

cocacolakid · Jan 12, 2013

Just for the heck of it I used an online electricity calculator to see actual amounts comparing a 2012 Mac mini to a Mac Pro PSU.

Not everyone can switch to a mini, but for many users the HD 4000 graphics in the mini are able to run Photoshop, Lightroom, CS6, etc. without problems. This isn't an endorsement saying the mini will be the perfect match for any user, but for those that it does work for, the benefits in the electrical bill are amazing.

If your electricity provider charges .10 per Kwh (about the average in the U.S., some providers are half that and some are 1 1/2 times that), a Mac mini using 50 watts running at full blast 24 hours per day would cost $3.36 per month or $43.68 per year.

Even if you use Apple's numbers of 85 watts for the mini, that's $5.71 per month or $74.26 per year, running 24/7.

A Mac Pro using 980 watts (a Mac Pro PSU runs 980 watts, from what I've found online) at full power 24/7 would cost $65.86 per month or $856.13 per year.

While neither is going to run full blast 24/7, and actual Kwh used is going to vary greatly by each individual user, that's still a startling comparison.

Basically, the electricity alone saved per year would pay for the mini. Even if actual usage on the Mac Pro is half that, the electricity savings would pay for the mini in well under 2 years.

53x12 · Jan 12, 2013

Interesting. Thanks for sharing your research. Would be interesting to compare the mini vs iMac as that seems a common question of which one to buy on here. Mac Pro is in a league of its own, especially for professionals.

slickadam · Jan 12, 2013

cocacolakid said:
Just for the heck of it I used an online electricity calculator to see actual amounts comparing a 2012 Mac mini to a Mac Pro PSU.

Not everyone can switch to a mini, but for many users the HD 4000 graphics in the mini are able to run Photoshop, Lightroom, CS6, etc. without problems. This isn't an endorsement saying the mini will be the perfect match for any user, but for those that it does work for, the benefits in the electrical bill are amazing.

If your electricity provider charges .10 per Kwh (about the average in the U.S., some providers are half that and some are 1 1/2 times that), a Mac mini using 50 watts running at full blast 24 hours per day would cost $3.36 per month or $43.68 per year.

Even if you use Apple's numbers of 85 watts for the mini, that's $5.71 per month or $74.26 per year, running 24/7.

A Mac Pro using 980 watts (a Mac Pro PSU runs 980 watts, from what I've found online) at full power 24/7 would cost $65.86 per month or $856.13 per year.

While neither is going to run full blast 24/7, and actual Kwh used is going to vary greatly by each individual user, that's still a startling comparison.

Basically, the electricity alone saved per year would pay for the mini. Even if actual usage on the Mac Pro is half that, the electricity savings would pay for the mini in well under 2 years.

So you say, that 1 kWh electricity costs 10 dollar-cents in the US? WTF? This should go to 9GAG.

Over here in Germany:
- 1 kWh ---> ca. 25 euro-cents (= 0,334 dollar-cents)

Also:
- 1 liter gasoline (= 0,264 gallon) ---> ca. 1,45 euros (= 1,935 dollars)

PS: shall I mention the european mac prices? LOL

monokakata · Jan 12, 2013

You're confusing the power supply's capacity with its draw.

I run fully-loaded Mac Pros at two different sites and I can assure you that I've never seen the kinds of bills you're suggesting.

Right now I'm in upstate NY, in the winter, running a Mac Pro (hex, 4 internal drives, 2 externals, 27" Dell monitor) regularly using Lightroom, Photoshop, inDesign, FCP X and other apps . . . not to mention a couple of Macbook Pros, two laser printers, a NAS, sometimes an old AlphaServer, and the total electric bill for my 2200 square foot house runs $60-$80 per month. I'd have to look up my per-KWH rate but I'm sure it's more than $0.10.

I have a Kill-A-Watt meter in a drawer somewhere, and if you doubt my numbers, I'd be glad to plug the Mac Pro into it and see what happens over, say, a week.

dukeblue219 · Jan 12, 2013

cocacolakid said:
A Mac Pro using 980 watts (a Mac Pro PSU runs 980 watts, from what I've found online) at full power 24/7 would cost $65.86 per month or $856.13 per year.
...
Even if actual usage on the Mac Pro is half that, the electricity savings would pay for the mini in well under 2 years.

I would like to see real numbers from somebody with a killawatt-type device hooked up. There's obviously no way the Mac Pro is using 980 continuously, as you're probably aware. That's just the absolute max the supply is rated for. Even half of that is an awful lot for a computer unless it's really running all out with lots of processor cores and multiple video cards.

I'd bet that Mac Pro is using something like 300 watts when you're working normal apps, and a little more if you're doing video encoding or something. Given than most computers, even if they're "on" all day, are sitting idle for most of that time, your savings are a lot smaller than you're hoping for

cocacolakid · Jan 12, 2013

monokakata said:
You're confusing the power supply's capacity with its draw.

I run fully-loaded Mac Pros at two different sites and I can assure you that I've never seen the kinds of bills you're suggesting.

Right now I'm in upstate NY, in the winter, running a Mac Pro (hex, 4 internal drives, 2 externals, 27" Dell monitor) regularly using Lightroom, Photoshop, inDesign, FCP X and other apps . . . not to mention a couple of Macbook Pros, two laser printers, a NAS, sometimes an old AlphaServer, and the total electric bill for my 2200 square foot house runs $60-$80 per month. I'd have to look up my per-KWH rate but I'm sure it's more than $0.10.

I have a Kill-A-Watt meter in a drawer somewhere, and if you doubt my numbers, I'd be glad to plug the Mac Pro into it and see what happens over, say, a week.

Good to know, and as I said, obviously those are not running at full draw 24/7, not even the mini. The thread I linked to shows the 2012 mini 24-28 watts under heavy load, and another tester showing it maxing out at 40-41 watts. Either one is far less than the 85 watts the PSU is rated for.

If the Mac Pro is using half of what it's rated for (980), that still puts in in the 490 watt range, about 12 times real world use of the Mac mini.

And I understand we are comparing two drastically different systems, aimed at drastically different users. But for many casual and semi pro users of the Mac Pro, the 2012 mini might be a realistic option as a replacement. The savings in electricity is just a bonus, but a nice one.

slickadam · Jan 12, 2013

cocacolakid said:
Good to know, and as I said, obviously those are not running at full draw 24/7, not even the mini. The thread I linked to shows the 2012 mini 24-28 watts under heavy load, and another tester showing it maxing out at 40-41 watts. Either one is far less than the 85 watts the PSU is rated for.

If the Mac Pro is using half of what it's rated for (980), that still puts in in the 490 watt range, about 12 times real world use of the Mac mini.

And I understand we are comparing two drastically different systems, aimed at drastically different users. But for many casual and semi pro users of the Mac Pro, the 2012 mini might be a realistic option as a replacement. The savings in electricity is just a bonus, but a nice one.

actually... this is not a big surprise. the mini has notebook components. my thinkpad (with sandy bridge i7 cpu) uses also ca. 10-14 watts in idle.

utekineir · Jan 12, 2013

My 2008 octo 2.8 mac pro idles at around 200 watts. Doesn't even double that at full utilization. You should look into real world numbers from owners of the machines which have been posted in many parts of the internet, or the apple pages documenting energy consumption, even numbers based off the consumption of the internal hardware components before pulling numbers out of your ass based on power supply specs and assumed draw.

My machine with fully populated drive bays does not hit anywhere near the rated capacity of its power supply at any point, on the flip side of that nor does it hit the 150 or so apple says it should while at idle. The main idea behind the mac pros is that they are overbuilt to support just about whatever may be thrown at them that includes the capacity of the power supply.

Still has me debating going to a mini for home server use, or atleast getting the sleeping under 10.8 fixed.

My math based on .14 cents/kw has my mp costing over $200 a year run 24/7, vs a mini costing around $20.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2836 apple mac pro consumption documentation

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3468 apple mac mini consumption documentation

apolkowski · Jan 12, 2013

And what about the power for the monitor connected to the mini?

slickadam · Jan 12, 2013

apolkowski said:
And what about the power for the monitor connected to the mini?

And what about the power for the monitor connected to the mac pro?

apolkowski · Jan 12, 2013

slickadam said:
And what about the power for the monitor connected to the mac pro?

Right, I mixed it up with MBP.

monokakata · Jan 12, 2013

I'll put my killawatt thing on for a week -- I'll try to remember to do it tomorrow.

philipma1957 · Jan 12, 2013

the mini averages 20 watts the pro 260.

I had a 6 core 2010. never goes to 600 watts almost no way that can happen. still 20 vs 260 is a big difference even if it is 12/365 or 4380 hours a year at 20 watts that is about 90k-watts for the mini vs 1170 k-watts for a pro.

my juice is 16 cents 14 or 15 bucks for a mini vs 187 or 188 for a mac pro. to be fair double the mini to 30 for stand alone hdds as backups.

so 30 vs 190 at 16 cents a k-watt this could be more or less but 160 more is a fair guess

Bear · Jan 12, 2013

53x12 said:
Interesting. Thanks for sharing your research. Would be interesting to compare the mini vs iMac as that seems a common question of which one to buy on here. Mac Pro is in a league of its own, especially for professionals.

Remember he was quoting the power supply of the Mini without a display attached, so you would need mini plus a reasonable display vs the iMac. The difference won't be that much.

slickadam said:
So you say, that 1 kWh electricity costs 10 dollar-cents in the US? WTF? This should go to 9GAG.
...

The problem is in the US in most place electricity costs is broken into 2 pieces and people forget to add those together. The actual cost of the electricity and the charge for delivering it. Of course that tends to bring it up by an average of 5 or 6 cents.

53x12 · Jan 13, 2013

Bear said:
Remember he was quoting the power supply of the Mini without a display attached, so you would need mini plus a reasonable display vs the iMac. The difference won't be that much.

You can easily find a decent monitor that pulls 30-40W, maybe up to 50W depending on the size and features.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/lcd-backlight-led-cfl,2683.html

Even if you want to compare the 27" ATD you are looking at 106W at max brightness or the Dell UltraSharp U2711 @ 94W.

http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/apple-thunderbolt-display/4505-3174_7-34850107-2.html

The mid-2011 27" iMac i7 pulls something like 140-145W. Even a Mini with ATD will still be slightly more efficient than a 27" iMac i7. But not really large enough of a difference to worry about (~20W).

Bear said:
The problem is in the US in most place electricity costs is broken into 2 pieces and people forget to add those together. The actual cost of the electricity and the charge for delivering it. Of course that tends to bring it up by an average of 5 or 6 cents.

As long as the price being used to calculate is consistent, it doesn't batter how the pricing is used to determine the estimated cost for running the Mini vs. Mac Pro for a year. Just use the same cost/W for both calculations and you are good to go.

macpro2000 · Jan 13, 2013

Ok, then does someone want guess what my Mac Pro with a 30" and 3x 23"s costs to run a year? Who cares? Use em.

53x12 · Jan 13, 2013

macpro2000 said:
Ok, then does someone want guess what my Mac Pro with a 30" and 3x 23"s costs to run a year? Who cares? Use em.

Some people actually care about their impact on the environment and trying to be conscious of their impact with their use of energy.

chrfr · Jan 13, 2013

53x12 said:
Some people actually care about their impact on the environment and trying to be conscious of their impact with their use of energy.

I care more about the effect on my cooling and electric costs, but yes.

Exodist · Jan 13, 2013

@OP, you do realize that your calculation on a MBP power usage is slightly flawed. Indeed it does have the potential to use up to 900ish watts per hour. It is actually using far less. Everything in the system has a power saving ramp. For example the discreet GPU is shut off and isnt used unless playing a game. The CPU cuts back on speed unless its needed to save on power usage as well. It can very well use less then 100w total per hour on average usage. Now if your running SETI at home or doing some Folding at home in the background using every core plus the GPU 24/7, then it could very well be using about 500 to 600 watts. Trust me I have a 1200watt PSU in my gaming rig, it doesnt use that much power on idle. Not even playing 8 hours of WOW will push it that high. If the MBP used 900wph the batter wouldnt last 5 mins from a full charge..

chompop · Jan 13, 2013

Exodist said:
@OP, you do realize that your calculation on a MBP power usage is slightly flawed. Indeed it does have the potential to use up to 900ish watts per hour. It is actually using far less. Everything in the system has a power saving ramp. For example the discreet GPU is shut off and isnt used unless playing a game. The CPU cuts back on speed unless its needed to save on power usage as well. It can very well use less then 100w total per hour on average usage. Now if your running SETI at home or doing some Folding at home in the background using every core plus the GPU 24/7, then it could very well be using about 500 to 600 watts. Trust me I have a 1200watt PSU in my gaming rig, it doesnt use that much power on idle. Not even playing 8 hours of WOW will push it that high. If the MBP used 900wph the batter wouldnt last 5 mins from a full charge..

OP talked about Mac Pro not Mac Book Pro.

I think MP does not draw 900 watts all the time so without a tool like watt meter it is hardly calculate how much your electric bill will be.

ybz90 · Jan 13, 2013

Even at full blast, the Mac Pro draws nowhere near the 1000W that its PSU is capable of putting out. If you've ever built a PC, you know how grossly overpowered most PSUs are relative to the actual load required. A top of the line desktop with the latest overclocked Intel i7 3970K and a GTX 680 wouldn't need more than 500W at highest load, which wouldn't be sustained.

smoge · Jan 14, 2013

So the system with the less power uses the least power! who would have thought it?

A more unbiased comparison is the mac pro and the mac mini doing the same amount of processing. Plus, if you are running a mac pro at 100% cpu usage it would sure cut down your heating bills.

adream · Jul 11, 2013

my mac pro 2007 8-core draws approx 230 watts when idling and tops out at 800 watts when working hard (all measured figures)

the heat of the 16GB FB dimms alone must dissipate a significant amount of that energy

my day to day replacement for the mac pro is a i7 4 core mac mini server 16GB ramm which idles at about 17 watts and tops out at 70 ish so a significant saving here in the UK where electricity is very pricey

I bought the mini second hand and expect it to pay for itself in about 18 months just in saved power costs

once high speed storage is sorted out the Mini is a surprisingly capable performer, running logic, final cut and photoshop just as fast if not faster than the mac pro

GlynJones · Jul 12, 2013

I did exactly this earlier in the year. Our energy bills had rocketed so I decided to do something about it.

1st thing was to put power management on my servers so that they shutdown at 11:30pm and switched on again at 6pm when I got home from work.

2nd. Sold my 2010 Mac Mini and replaced it with an Alienware X51 for the odd game.

3rd Sold my 2009 Mac Pro which dual booted for the odd game and replaced it with a fully kitted out top of the range 2012 Mac Mini. As this machine was and is my main machine this was on 24/7.

Suffice to say that by doing this the electricity bill came down by on average £70 a month so it was very worth doing.

Still keeping an eye on that new 2013 Mac Pro though

hudson1 · Jul 12, 2013

smoge said:
So the system with the less power uses the least power! who would have thought it?

A more unbiased comparison is the mac pro and the mac mini doing the same amount of processing. Plus, if you are running a mac pro at 100% cpu usage it would sure cut down your heating bills.

This is an important point that shouldn't go unnoticed. The savings of a mini over a Mac Pro are quite dependent on the environment they operate in. If you are heating the environment, the energy consumed by the computer contributes to that heating. Granted, this type of heating is not as efficient as your home heat source. On the flip side, if you are cooling the environment, you have a double penalty. You pay to heat the room via the computer and then you pay again to remove the heat with an air conditioner.

The bottom line is these Computer A vs. Computer B direct energy comparisons are only valid if their environments are neither heated or cooled. Each user will have to determine the dominant mode over the course of a year and then know whether to adjust upward or downward the savings.

Mac mini vs. Mac Pro savings on electricity bill is amazing!

macrumors 65816

macrumors 68000

macrumors member

macrumors 68020

macrumors regular

macrumors 65816

macrumors member

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

macrumors member

macrumors regular

macrumors 68020

macrumors 603

macrumors G3

macrumors 68000

macrumors 65816

macrumors 68000

macrumors G5

macrumors member

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502a

macrumors regular

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

Our Staff