Thought I would share this, I found it interesting 
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/daily-green-tips/energy-bills/
http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/daily-green-tips/energy-bills/
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How switching to a Mac saved me $550 a year, for life!
- Thread starter Raptor235
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok. Lets first get the most important point out of the way:
I love my Macs, but purchasing an Apple product is not the reason why you saved money (assuming you're the author of that article).
Consolidating your computers and switching to a laptop was the reason why your power bills went down, not because you switched to a mac.
For example, if you purchased similar systems, (ie dell hybrid instead of a mac mini and an XPS m1530 instead of a macbook pro), you would notice the same results. In fact, because the listed dells are less expensive in general than your said macs, depending on how long you plan on keeping your systems, you'd actually probably save more money overall by purchasing a significantly lower cost system that consumes marginally more power.
I think all the apple propaganda has made you believe that they're producing machines far more efficient than what PC vendors are producing. This is just not the case.
Idle draw power for a macbook pro penryn (newer revision actually draws more power) from an independent test showed a draw of 16W - the merom draws 19w. In comparison, the dell XPS m1530 (merom) draws 23w and the HP dv6500t draws the same as the older MBP @ 19w. MARGINAL differences in overall monthly power consumption. Apple is not a chip designer - there are only a few things Apple can make more efficient than PCs, as apple now uses intel chipsets.
I like apple products - but I felt the need to debunk your overzealous fanboy thread.
I love my Macs, but purchasing an Apple product is not the reason why you saved money (assuming you're the author of that article).
Consolidating your computers and switching to a laptop was the reason why your power bills went down, not because you switched to a mac.
For example, if you purchased similar systems, (ie dell hybrid instead of a mac mini and an XPS m1530 instead of a macbook pro), you would notice the same results. In fact, because the listed dells are less expensive in general than your said macs, depending on how long you plan on keeping your systems, you'd actually probably save more money overall by purchasing a significantly lower cost system that consumes marginally more power.
I think all the apple propaganda has made you believe that they're producing machines far more efficient than what PC vendors are producing. This is just not the case.
Idle draw power for a macbook pro penryn (newer revision actually draws more power) from an independent test showed a draw of 16W - the merom draws 19w. In comparison, the dell XPS m1530 (merom) draws 23w and the HP dv6500t draws the same as the older MBP @ 19w. MARGINAL differences in overall monthly power consumption. Apple is not a chip designer - there are only a few things Apple can make more efficient than PCs, as apple now uses intel chipsets.
I like apple products - but I felt the need to debunk your overzealous fanboy thread.
I'm going to have to agree with the above post. I mean, 5 monitors are clearly going to pull more watts than just one or two screens. Upgrading to new computers that are less power hungry has something to do with it, but frankly, it makes sense that a mini and an MBP use less energy than a couple of towers.
Depends on how loaded those towers are. Consider a tower, with the same peripherals. The case size doesn't determine the power drawn, and neither does the size of the power supply. Pulling 1A through a 250W or a 1000W power supply is still just 1A.
Power is Watts, not Amps. If you have a 1000W computer, trust me you'll see your electric bill go up. Now you do have a point in that a 250W or 1000W power supply doesn't mean that it'll always draw that amount. These number denote what safe capabilities are for these power supplies.
That being said, a tower will draw more power than any Mini, of iMac or Macbook. The reason is all of the macs I just mentioned used mobile components which use a lot less power. On top of that, they don't have 5 monster fans that are trying to cool them since they run cooler as they draw less power. So yes any tower, even one that doesnt' have much in it will use siginificantly more power than any of the macs I just mentioned.
Now the mac pro is a different story
Kan-O-Z
I agree with you except for the part where you would actually save even more money with a PC. I don't believe that you can get an iMac equivalent from Dell that is cheaper. Dell makes an all-in-one but it's actually MORE than a mac. The same thing can be said of laptops. If you actually look at a Dell laptop that has every single feature and uses the same components of a Macbook (LED display, Wireless N, nVidia video, aluminum, built in camera/mic, illuminated keyboard, etc), you'll find it's not cheaper. Add to that the software the macs come (iLife, Time machine backup). Add to that the fact that macs will last longer. The reason is that the OS is efficient and lightweight compared to Windows. Also, Apple seems to keep it that way or make it even more lighweight on future releases(Snow Leopard). What does this mean. It means that a 3-4 year old machine will still run reasonably well with the latest OS. You can't say the same for Windows.
Long term, you will win out with Macs all the way around. This isn't a fanboy remark, just a logical one
Kan-O-Z
Power is Watts, not Amps. If you have a 1000W computer, trust me you'll see your electric bill go up. Now you do have a point in that a 250W or 1000W power supply doesn't mean that it'll always draw that amount. These number denote what safe capabilities are for these power supplies.
That being said, a tower will draw more power than any Mini, of iMac or Macbook. The reason is all of the macs I just mentioned used mobile components which use a lot less power. On top of that, they don't have 5 monster fans that are trying to cool them since they run cooler as they draw less power. So yes any tower, even one that doesnt' have much in it will use siginificantly more power than any of the macs I just mentioned.
Now the mac pro is a different story
Kan-O-Z
yup.
I have a custom built quad core @ 3.4ghz, 6 HD's, an 8800gt to name a few at load (all four cores stressed using SmallFFT's on prime95), my total draw with my 24" LCD is ~280w (on a 650w PSU).
Having an efficient PSU (80%+) with an active PFC will also help to significantly lower your total draw.
First, I have no idea where you're getting that the XPS one cost more than an iMac.
iMac (retail level):
24", 2gb, 320gb HD, superdrive, HD2600pro
2.8ghz core 2 duo
Cost: $1799
XPS one (retail level):
24", 4gb, 320gb HD, (superdrive equivelant), X4500
2.33ghz core 2 quad - in case you missed that distinction
Cost: $1699
And that's just at the RETAIL level. Getting into the discounted (non-existent for Apple aside from student and ADC - which you have to pay for) and refurbished territory, you can find an XPS one for SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than an iMac.
Next,
Macbook pro (retail):
2.4ghz, 2gb, 250gb HD, 9600/9400
cost: $1999
XPS m1530 (retail):
2.4ghz, 4gb, 500gb HD, 8600 256, wireless N/bluetooth, 2mp camera, LED + fingerprint reader.
cost: $1399
Again, this is even at the retail level. I purchased a refurb for a family member last week - 2.4ghz, 320gb, 4gb, 8600gt 256, LED + camera, no fingerprint for $820.
Kan-O-z said:
Macs do not last longer. Any proof you find otherwise is likely anecdotal evidence. Mac's use very similar if not the same components as PCs. The OS does not preserve hardware.
Mac OS is indeed lighter than vista, but nothing is stopping you from installing leopard or ubuntu on your box.
Kan-O said:Long term, you will win out with Macs all the way around. This isn't a fanboy remark, just a logical one
Your logic is flawed because it uses subjective and incorrect objective arguments.
I really dislike sweeping generalities like the one above. It simply is not true. Both PC's and Macs each have their advantages and disadvantages.
Fanboys need to calm down.
He means that Macs have a longer effective lifespan because of the way the OS and apps are designed in terms of hardware requirements. Many people are still running very old Mac hardware and are able to install Leopard and run relatively modern apps just fine, just a little bit slower. I have a 12" PowerBook G4 that ran Leopard and was just as usable, just a bit slower, than my current MacBook Pro.
Windows Vista won't install on a PC that old. XP will, but depending on what you install the user experience might not be very pleasant.
Macs also have a much higher resale value, which extends the (artificial) point where people decide the hardware is junk. I just bought an Athlon 1.4 GHz tower from a computer lab for $50. I imagine an equivalent PowerMac G4 tower would still go for much more than that today.
"Fanboys need to calm down."
Sorry, it's useless. Fanboys only listen to what they want to hear.
The whole price/performance thing has been done to death. People only seem to attempt comparisons with Dells. Sometimes the Dells are cheaper, sometimes they are more expensive. What about HP? The laptop arena, ASUS has the equivalent of a MBP for $1000 less, 9600GT card and all.
In the case that the Dell is a worse deal, the fanboys say, "See, I told you, it's an inherent fact that Macs are better."
If the Dell is a better deal, the fanboys reply, "Ewww. Dells are so ugly. Who would want one anyway?"
Sorry, it's useless. Fanboys only listen to what they want to hear.
The whole price/performance thing has been done to death. People only seem to attempt comparisons with Dells. Sometimes the Dells are cheaper, sometimes they are more expensive. What about HP? The laptop arena, ASUS has the equivalent of a MBP for $1000 less, 9600GT card and all.
In the case that the Dell is a worse deal, the fanboys say, "See, I told you, it's an inherent fact that Macs are better."
If the Dell is a better deal, the fanboys reply, "Ewww. Dells are so ugly. Who would want one anyway?"
Power is Watts, not Amps. If you have a 1000W computer, trust me you'll see your electric bill go up. Now you do have a point in that a 250W or 1000W power supply doesn't mean that it'll always draw that amount. These number denote what safe capabilities are for these power supplies.
That being said, a tower will draw more power than any Mini, of iMac or Macbook. The reason is all of the macs I just mentioned used mobile components which use a lot less power. On top of that, they don't have 5 monster fans that are trying to cool them since they run cooler as they draw less power. So yes any tower, even one that doesnt' have much in it will use siginificantly more power than any of the macs I just mentioned.
Now the mac pro is a different story
Kan-O-Z
That's why I stated with the same peripherals, meaning components. In reality, no tower is built that way, but I was attempting to make a point that you can't say "all towers use more energy than laptops", because it may be an older tower you are comparing to a new laptop. They could very well be equal in terms of how much current they draw.
By "If you have a 1000W computer, trust me you'll see your electric bill go up.", I guess you mean someone is pulling 1000 watts through your power supply versus less. Yeah, I'll agree with that; who wouldn't? But, still, the truth remains that it was the consolidation and platform-type that saved the money, not a switch to a different manufacturer. You can achieve the same thing with PC laptops too.
Well here's another one for you:
XPS One
20", 2GB 667MHz SDRAM, 250gb HD, (superdrive equivalent), Integrated graphics
2.2ghz core 2 duo
800MHz FSB, 4MB L2 Cache
Software: Office Student Edition
Cost: $1199
iMac
20", 1GB 800MHz DDR SDRAM, 250gb HD, Superdrive, ATI Radeon HD 2400
1066MHz FSB, 6MB shared cache
2.4gHz core 2 duo
Software: iLife
Cost: $1199
How's that one? You can clearly see the iMac is a better deal. The Dell lacks more things when compared to the iMac. The iMac on the other hand only lacks 1GB of memory which can be purchased for $30. For this reason you can't make the claim:
By the way the comparison you did earlier with the 24", the Dell uses a X4500 integrated graphics v. dedicated ATI 2600 Pro 256MB on the iMac. This in my opinion is a bigger handicap than a slower core 2 quad v faster core 2 duo. Is there any proof that a quad core 2.33GHz is faster than a 2.8GHz dual core? Windows can't efficiently utilize a quad core. On top of that the quad core will do nothing in playing intensive games. I still think the iMac is a better deal even on the 24" version.
Even if we disagree, we must agree that these two machines are fairly close in price. So when people go around spouting off that Apple is so expensive and PCs are so cheap, they aren't comparing apples to apples
.Now let me go dig up a recent article that compared the new macbook to Dell and HP and the Apple was the best deal.
Kan-O-Z
No let me state this again. Most macs use mobile processors, mobile video, mobile HDs, mobile power, etc. These draw a LOT less power than their desktop equivalents. No matter how you slice it, all desktops will use more power than a laptop. Now as for those power supplies, this is what I mean. If you have a 500W power supply, even though it doesn't draw 500W of power, it will have all the support structure like huge fans and components so that it is capable of doing so. Even running something like this on a light load will still draw a more power!
Kan-O-Z
Exactly! I'm not saying the hardware will last longer. I'm just saying it will be usable longer. For example, the first Intel Macs (which are now several years old) run Leopard quite well and will most likely run Snow Leopard even better since it's rumored to be more lightweight and faster than Leopard
Many times on Windows, people have to upgrade their computer not because it stopped working. Because the requirements of newer OSes was just too much for the old computers to handle.
In the end this means that you will have to upgrade or buy a new computer less often with macs. Hence saving you money in the long run.
Kan-O-Z
So switching from a massive multiple monitor computer to a single monitor Mac mini is going to save you power? Oh, really?
380W runs my quad core and 3850. Still more then enough power for a 4850.
380W runs my quad core and 3850. Still more then enough power for a 4850.
Never mind. I said the same thing above, but you are obviously missing it.
Ok, so a 286 desktop is going to draw more power than your 17" MacBook? I also found this:
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html
According to that guy, an iMac G5 doing nothing consumes 95W and a Dimension E310 consumes 71W. Guess the iMac isn't all that mobile now.
PC Power & Cooling's Myth #1 shows a larger power supply (using the same components) consumes less power.
http://www.pcpower.com/technology/myths/#m1
By the way the comparison you did earlier with the 24", the Dell uses a X4500 integrated graphics v. dedicated ATI 2600 Pro 256MB on the iMac. This in my opinion is a bigger handicap than a slower core 2 quad v faster core 2 duo. Is there any proof that a quad core 2.33GHz is faster than a 2.8GHz dual core? Windows can't efficiently utilize a quad core. On top of that the quad core will do nothing in playing intensive games. I still think the iMac is a better deal even on the 24" version.
Even if we disagree, we must agree that these two machines are fairly close in price. So when people go around spouting off that Apple is so expensive and PCs are so cheap, they aren't comparing apples to apples
Now let me go dig up a recent article that compared the new macbook to Dell and HP and the Apple was the best deal.
Kan-O-Z
I'll agree in the 20" iMac/xps one comparison for the retail pricing, the iMac presents a better value. However, on the refurbished/corporate discounted level, there really is no comparison.
At the retail level, everything is overpriced and therefore why you think Dell's and Apple's are similarly priced. But for the frugal consumer who never pays retail, one can purchase a much cheaper, similarly equipped windows based PC after discounts.
I'll also agree that many windows applications don't utilize quad cores just yet, but it doesn't negate the fact that the quad core has more raw power than your dual core. In the windows applications where 4 cores are utilize, they will perform significantly better.
We can bicker about this forever - and seeing as this is a mac forum, I'd be on the losing side of the argument. So I guess we can agree to disagree to the pricing/value.
Regardless, I didn't come here to start a PC vs Mac war, the real point of my posting was to debunk the OP's ridiculously article - of which I think we can both agree is inaccurate.
Ok so now you're going to compare a 1 MHz computer from decades ago to a 2,000MHz dual core computer of today? That's not quite fair but ok even then I would think the macbook would use less power but it might be close.
Right, now why don't you add a 20" monitor to that Dell and see where the power stands then...it'll be way higher than that iMac
Yes the iMac is mobile and is less than traditional desktops. Any by the way the Intel iMacs do use less power than the G5.Ok you've proven your point here comparing different desktop power supplies. But the point is, mobile stuff like iMac and mini and macbook is still less power than desktops.
Kan-O-Z
Right, now why don't you add a 20" monitor to that Dell and see where the power stands then...it'll be way higher than that iMac
Yeah, couldn't find any comparison on the new Intel stuff. Guess nobody cares anymore. As for the monitor, it's weird. I see on Dell's site they say x number of watts typical and y number of watts maximum, then specify z watts for sleeping. What would cause a monitor's usage to go from typical to max? Colors?
By the way, I was picking on you about that 286 comparison. When you said "all desktops use more power", I couldn't resist.
Well here's another one for you:
XPS One
20", 2GB 667MHz SDRAM, 250gb HD, (superdrive equivalent), Integrated graphics
2.2ghz core 2 duo
800MHz FSB, 4MB L2 Cache
Software: Office Student Edition
Cost: $1199
iMac
20", 1GB 800MHz DDR SDRAM, 250gb HD, Superdrive, ATI Radeon HD 2400
1066MHz FSB, 6MB shared cache
2.4gHz core 2 duo
Software: iLife
Cost: $1199
How's that one? You can clearly see the iMac is a better deal. The Dell lacks more things when compared to the iMac. The iMac on the other hand only lacks 1GB of memory which can be purchased for $30. For this reason you can't make the claim:
By the way the comparison you did earlier with the 24", the Dell uses a X4500 integrated graphics v. dedicated ATI 2600 Pro 256MB on the iMac. This in my opinion is a bigger handicap than a slower core 2 quad v faster core 2 duo. Is there any proof that a quad core 2.33GHz is faster than a 2.8GHz dual core? Windows can't efficiently utilize a quad core. On top of that the quad core will do nothing in playing intensive games. I still think the iMac is a better deal even on the 24" version.
Even if we disagree, we must agree that these two machines are fairly close in price. So when people go around spouting off that Apple is so expensive and PCs are so cheap, they aren't comparing apples to apples
Now let me go dig up a recent article that compared the new macbook to Dell and HP and the Apple was the best deal.
Kan-O-Z
I don't discriminate. Both companies computers are overpriced compared to what I can build. That being said, if you don't want to, or aren't capable of, building your own machine, Apple's a pretty good way to go compared to other manufacturers but that's not always true and depending on the amount of service you want there are plenty of manufacturers out there that build comparable systems for quite a bit less. In other words, it all depends.
However, and more to the point of this thread, it's patently absurd to think that it's Apple that's the sufficient cause of the savings. I think there's been enough said already to show why that correlation isn't the cause.
That's not quite true. You can't build a true iMac comparable. For some people the form factor of an iMac all in one is more important than some big tower with 5 fans that sounds like a jet engine, a separate monitor, separate speakers, separate camera and mic, with wires going all over the place all of which consumes a lot of desk space. Some people want the sleek design that has a monitor, computer, camera, speakers, mic, bluetooth, wifi....all in one package all the while looking very expensive and cool. With an iMac or the Dell XPS One, you are paying for this engineering. Also don't forget that a 20" monitor that would rival the iMac alone would cost $400. The iMac has a very nice display which is better than most monitors. No part on the iMac is cheap.
People that seem to think they can really outdo an iMac fail to see all the goodies that come with it built in and the engineering costs that come into play to make it so sleek and compact and stylish. Something nice enough that you would want to display it in the main room of your house. With a wireless keyboard and mouse, it only requires 1 wire, the power
So no I don't think you can accomplish all that for much cheaper. Now if you really could care less about all this stuff, go for it and make your own tower. When people say it's overpriced, that statement is incorrect. It's better just to say it's a high end computer and you get what you pay for.
Kan-O-Z
I've never seen one of the new iMac systems, but the display seems like a fairly high-resolution display. I found several on Google around $200 with the same res and 5ms timing. Is there something else that distinguishes it's screen from the rest.
Well, I don't consider any iMac high-end. There's nothing about it that seems high-end to me, and I doubt many others would look at it and declare it a high-end system. That said, overpriced is a relative term to one's budget for a system. It's a give and take.