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

Tweaked Apple TV Offers 'Significant' but Nearly Invisible Power Savings With More Efficient Chip Designs

imagine

Imagine an AppleTv that you don't need to plug into a separate power supply. HDMI is rated to pass 5 V at 50 mA, that converts into 0.25 watts. I realize there is still some ways to go, but don't be surprised if an AppleTV powered by the HDMI port is on Apple's radar.

see roku streamingstick
 
I want to get an Apple TV but feel they're on the verge of something more substantial.

The current Apple TV opened up to apps would be great.

I'd love to have a giant, 42" (or larger) iPad on my wall. That would work with a remote too.
 
WestonHarvey1 said:
It's pennies a year. Not even worth considering.

You'd save more money by spending a couple extra seconds thinking about what you want to eat before opening the refrigerator door.
Click to expand...

Yes, but an overall 50% energy save on all new ATV's worldwide. A small step for men but maybe a huge step for mankind :D

I think this is still a good thing cutting back any power consumption possible.

----------
MagnumOP said:
Imagine an AppleTv that you don't need to plug into a separate power supply. HDMI is rated to pass 5 V at 50 mA, that converts into 0.25 watts. I realize there is still some ways to go, but don't be surprised if an AppleTV powered by the HDMI port is on Apple's radar.

see roku streamingstick
Click to expand...

That would be great, just loosing another cable. The less cable the better!
 
The difference may not be noticeable in a plugged-in device. But in a battery-powered device? (iWatch? iPhone? iPad?) This could be BIG.
 
Amazing power consumption numbers. I'm impressed.

If they could only find a way to jailbreak this thing and really unlock its potential. XBMC running on the ATV3 would be amazing.
 
After doing some quick math...

.26 cents a year times 2 million people is a saving of over $500,000 in power consumption.

So like you all are saying, I'm just putting some numbers behind the large scale.
 
This is clearly a sign that Apple plans to release a 7.9 inch portable Apple TV. It will have 10 hours of battery life and will have apps.

jk... I hate when people do that. I am really hoping this is an iWatch sign though.
 
WestonHarvey1 said:
It's pennies a year. Not even worth considering.
Click to expand...

It is pennies per year for one person but Apple builds quite a few of these and the net result might be literally tons of coal soot removed from the air. Millions of tiny things add up, like Apple's battery charger. It save a few milliwatts but over the life of all the charges sold it might be a megawatt

And I bet at the same time these cost less to make.
 
WestonHarvey1 said:
It's pennies a year. Not even worth considering.

You'd save more money by spending a couple extra seconds thinking about what you want to eat before opening the refrigerator door.
Click to expand...

One light bulb (even the most efficient) for one person wouldn't be that significant too, but times a 1 000 000 000 of those is something, isn't it?
 
the8thark said:
AnandTech and MacRumors if they are quoting this just don't get it. These power savings are significant. Every little bit helps and it all ads up in the end. The smart people out there will notice this and be thankful for it.
Click to expand...

Power saving is pointless in a device like the apple tv which will be plugged in 24/7 anyways. But for a mobile device like an ipad which will be running on battery power for the majority of the day, this is significant - we are looking at significantly longer battery life (or all other things equal, a thinner form factor).

This should be what the article focuses on. Not those few cents here and there.
 
John Gore said:
One light bulb (even the most efficient) for one person wouldn't be that significant too, but times a 1 000 000 000 of those is something, isn't it?
Click to expand...

One light bulb used to be around 60 Watts, so that is an awful lot more.

But what is often forgotten that this heats your room, so in the winter it's not lost.

----------
ollyb said:
Clearly just a testbed for something else. Exciting!
Click to expand...

That's one thing; much easier to try out that kind of change on the Apple TV than on the iPad / iPhone, where any problems and delays would really hurt. So they can try this tech on the Apple TV for a while and then just use it in iPad + iPhone.

The other thing is that they might try to get down to the level where the total power can be taken from the HDMI cable, and suddenly you can get rid of the power supply as well. And that's a major bit of hardware that would save real money if you leave it. And if you have no power supply, the power supply can't break so they will last longer on average. And less power = less heat, which makes it last longer again.

Another thing: The old Apple TV used dual core processors with one core disabled; in practice these are dual core processors where one core didn't pass testing. Maybe the quality of the ARM chips is improving to the point where they don't get enough of these processors (because the cores all pass the tests), so using smaller single core chips is cheaper.
 
Thanks to Anandtech for delving into what this update really means. 28nm still appears to be out of reach but 32nm is an improvement.
 
newdeal said:
Why would they strip out features to save money, it required the chip be redesigned which costs money and likely the chips in the old one were binned outcasts from the ipad where one core didnt function anyway so instead of canning them they disabled a core and put it in the apple tv
Click to expand...

the chip is smaller than the older one. smaller chip means more per wafer which means more profits

the apple TV is growing. maybe they were running out of rejected chips and wanted dedicated production runs?
 
XIIIDzY said:
After doing some quick math...

.26 cents a year times 2 million people is a saving of over $500,000 in power consumption.

So like you all are saying, I'm just putting some numbers behind the large scale.
Click to expand...

You know power must be used or it goes to waste anyway, right?
It's not like there are huge power storage tanks all over the world holding/storing power people don't use.

Most TV's consume 200watts and PC's about twice that.
Then if you have a good AV system, it will consume +500 watts or more depending on the subwoofer and loudness.

In the grand scheme of things, this is nothing but a talking point.

----------
John Gore said:
Even if it's 1W when you know there are milions it all adds up. The most "innocent" devices are actually the most responsible for energy consumption.
Click to expand...

Like the majority of computer owners who leave them on 24/7. :eek:
At +200 watts, that's a lot of wasted power.
If people shutdown their computers would be a more significant impact than this 1 watt. :rolleyes:
 
najkee said:
Maybe they are trying to lower the consimption enough for getting power over WiFi :D... Seriously though, I'd like to know if this could be powered over ethernet... Would be nice to skipe one extra cable from the wall socket.
Click to expand...
If your Apple TV is already on Wi-Fi, aren't you already using only one cable?
 
That is a reduction of roughly 50% in energy consumption. Imagine if every device on earth could be improved to that level. This is significant stuff.
 
bawbac said:
You know power must be used or it goes to waste anyway, right?
It's not like there are huge power storage tanks all over the world holding/storing power people don't use.
Click to expand...

Actually there are. They're called reservoirs. Or oil/LNG tanks, coal bins etc. for fossil fuel power. Or whatever bin they put the uranium in for nuclear.

The only power that's "wasted" if not used, i.e. requires storage after generation, is from some renewables (wind, solar, tidal, hydro if reservoir is at 100% full, etc.). All other types you can just generate less and save fuel for later.
 
CIA said:
If you go by this logic there's no reason to make anything more efficient.
Click to expand...

Since energy isn't destroyed, the most efficient use of that energy would have been finding ways to produce energy more efficiently. Not how to consume it more efficiently. The energy efficiency in the atv is just a by product. Their goal is to sell more of these and other energy consuming devices year after year.
 
Why is it listed as having a built-in 6-watt universal power supply when it didn't even need 6 watts in the first place, let alone now?

I've heard that good power supply designs usually over-spec to 200% of the required output, both to be safe and to have longer-lasting components. In this case, that would be well over 300%... :confused:
 
a0me said:
If your Apple TV is already on Wi-Fi, aren't you already using only one cable?
Click to expand...

Sure, however, I actually use the ethernet cable to the ATV at home, mainly because its close to my router so with cable it saves one extra hop over the wifi network... But anyway, I also plan on installing an ATV in my boat, and then it would be nice with PoE, since I only have 220 when connected to land power grid.. I do have 12V TV and internet and local WiFi installed though, so a way to power the ATV without using 220 would be nice...
 
Savings with Apple TV

When they did the calculations of savings and came up with 385 years of use, they forgot to factor in the cost of 384 years of AppleCare.
 
the8thark said:
AnandTech and MacRumors if they are quoting this just don't get it. These power savings are significant. Every little bit helps and it all ads up in the end. The smart people out there will notice this and be thankful for it.
Click to expand...

I don't care how smart you are, or think you are. You aren't going to get your next bill and say "look babe, that new Apple TV saved us 2.5 cents this month. what a noticeable difference!"

----------
Yvan256 said:
Why is it listed as having a built-in 6-watt universal power supply when it didn't even need 6 watts in the first place, let alone now?

I've heard that good power supply designs usually over-spec to 200% of the required output, both to be safe and to have longer-lasting components. In this case, that would be well over 300%... :confused:
Click to expand...

My best guess would be the component costs to make a 2 watt power supply are probably higher than a 6 watt power supply since not very many things you plug in only use 2 watts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back