Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Darmok N Jalad

macrumors 603
Original poster
Sep 26, 2017
5,455
48,959
Tanagra (not really)
Back in August I sold my Mac mini 2010 and went for a classic Mac Pro. I did a lot of research first, and I found that the old cMP's are still quite versatile, so I took the plunge on the 4,1, flashed it to a 5,1 and upgraded the CPU, GPU and added an SSD. Everything has been working great so far, and I've enjoyed this sort of hot-rodding an old Mac and bringing it new life.

In my research, one of the more significant drawbacks (other than lesser performance vs something more modern) would be the cMP's relative energy inefficiency versus the mini or something newer. Now that's it been several months, I did a quick spreadsheet of my energy bills comparing the previous year's cost during the same month with this year's. Bear in mind I only actively use my cMP for about an hour a day, sometimes less, sometimes more, but I do leave it in sleep mode when not in use. Lightroom is my most intensive app I use the most, with some random Handbrake activity. What I found was quite surprising. Since August 2017, my overall energy cost is actually down 2% from the same period last year. I honestly didn't expect to see much of a difference, and that 2% drop is probably due more to annual seasonal variations affecting how often the HVAC runs.

I guess I was curious if anyone else has run such figures. I remember there being a thread here where some users were claiming you'd be wasting a ton of energy, but so far this has not materialized. I'm rarely loading down my system either, which was one reason I was fine with recycling a 4,1 cMP. As an aside, think how much energy I have saved by reusing an old machine versus buying a new one that had to be manufactured!
 
Back in August I sold my Mac mini 2010 and went for a classic Mac Pro. I did a lot of research first, and I found that the old cMP's are still quite versatile, so I took the plunge on the 4,1, flashed it to a 5,1 and upgraded the CPU, GPU and added an SSD. Everything has been working great so far, and I've enjoyed this sort of hot-rodding an old Mac and bringing it new life.

In my research, one of the more significant drawbacks (other than lesser performance vs something more modern) would be the cMP's relative energy inefficiency versus the mini or something newer. Now that's it been several months, I did a quick spreadsheet of my energy bills comparing the previous year's cost during the same month with this year's. Bear in mind I only actively use my cMP for about an hour a day, sometimes less, sometimes more, but I do leave it in sleep mode when not in use. What I found was quite surprising. Since August 2017, my overall energy cost is actually down 2% from the same period last year! I honestly didn't expect to see much of a difference, and that 2% drop is probably due more to annual seasonal variations affecting how often the HVAC runs.

I guess I was curious if anyone else has run such figures. I remember there being a thread here where some users were claiming you'd be wasting a ton of energy, but so far this has not materialized. I'm rarely loading down my system either, which was one reason I was fine with recycling a 4,1 cMP. As an aside, think how much energy I have saved by reusing an old machine versus buying a new one that had to be manufactured!
I've highlighted why you might not be seeing much difference.

A system that sleeps 23 hours a day and is not stressed during the 24th hour is a pretty light load case.

Many of the comments about "power pig" have been in the context of using a cMP as a 24x7 web server or file server. The older systems typically have much higher power usage when "idle" than newer systems.
 
I've highlighted why you might not be seeing much difference.

A system that sleeps 23 hours a day and is not stressed during the 24th hour is a pretty light load case.

Many of the comments about "power pig" have been in the context of using a cMP as a 24x7 web server or file server. The older systems typically have much higher power usage when "idle" than newer systems.
Yeah, I guess it was more a commentary on how an older system is not so bad for a moderate user. The old Mac Pros are very good machines for people with relatively low expectations. I was curious what others might have experienced that use their cMPs more heavily than I do. Where is the threshold for when it might be better to buy something newer and more efficient?
 
If they use a lot of power it must be pretty negligible. My whole house power bill one month was less then $60.

At idle, it's the equivalent power draw of an outdoor spotlight you might have over a driveway. Just firing up an electric oven once to cook a meal is probably going to cost as much as a week's idle time.
 
I sold my cMP 2,1 ( Mavericks ) and got a 2009 4,1 Dual Qad 2.93Ghz cMP - upgraded it to 5,1 and haven't looked back. My greatest pleasure in buying the 2009 cMP was it's energy management .. my monthly home power bill dropped by at least 25%.
 
For those who interested, here are some power consumption reference from Apple.

2726405B-FBAE-4850-B4DD-1B60139914E1.jpeg

FFBCD692-66CD-41B4-8989-6A270C8149CD.jpeg

3B71A49B-B905-4F66-B873-80F31F486934.jpeg

D06508A0-F00A-48D5-994B-E0BEBD75DF74.jpeg

9532917B-311D-4E3C-BC8C-90B6416C9298.jpeg

3C4D6A7B-C334-4C44-ACF1-ED571A2E0A86.jpeg

[doublepost=1515577383][/doublepost]According to the above info. It’s almsot impossible for a cMP to beat Mac Mini in power consumption. The Max consumption of the mini still lower than the idle of cMP 5,1. That 2% may be a save from your habit change, or other newer electronics save a bit, or even from the weather (temperature) difference (if you use any air conditioning, both warm or cold).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MIKX and bjar
For those who interested, here are some power consumption reference from Apple.

View attachment 746166
View attachment 746164
View attachment 746165
View attachment 746163
View attachment 746162
View attachment 746161
[doublepost=1515577383][/doublepost]According to the above info. It’s almsot impossible for a cMP to beat Mac Mini in power consumption. The Max consumption of the mini still lower than the idle of cMP 5,1. That 2% may be a save from your habit change, or other newer electronics save a bit, or even from the weather (temperature) difference (if you use any air conditioning, both warm or cold).
Yeah, I know it won’t beat a mini, but it appears that during this time period and based on my use, the cMP just disappears in the variation of everyday energy use.
 
Yeah, I guess it was more a commentary on how an older system is not so bad for a moderate user. The old Mac Pros are very good machines for people with relatively low expectations. I was curious what others might have experienced that use their cMPs more heavily than I do. Where is the threshold for when it might be better to buy something newer and more efficient?
Not sure if my usage is considered heavy but my 5,1 runs 24 x 7 as a virtualization server (single, quad core @ 2.8GHz, 32GB RAM, 5770, 1TB HD...basically the stock configuration except for the increased RAM). I haven't noticed any appreciable change in my bill. Weather variations play more of a factor.

As for the threshold there is no one answer. It's a combination of the cost of power, what you do with your Mac Pro and how often you do it (i.e power consumption), along with and time considerations (is the Mac Pro fast enough to complete your work in a timeframe that's acceptable to you).

For single core tasks the cMP is probably bested by almost any other Mac that's been produced in the past few years. For multithreaded and higher end tasks then the cMP may be more appropriate over some recent, lower (as in target market) Macs.

IMO, unless power is very expensive where you live then cost of operation shouldn't be an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h9826790
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.