From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261602AbULNSFG (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:05:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261604AbULNSEM (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:04:12 -0500 Received: from linux01.gwdg.de ([134.76.13.21]:11672 "EHLO linux01.gwdg.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261603AbULNSCt (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:02:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:02:47 +0100 (MET) From: Jan Engelhardt To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernel thoughts of a Linux user Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>So they could make themselves a favor and run something like seti@home. >>> >>>That does consume more energy than just sitting at idle. I've seen some >>>estimates of how much it costs to run seti 24/7 rather than just sit idle, >>>and the price was something like $80/year. >> >> For CPUs which don't have some sort of speedstep, it does not matter. >> (Please correct me if I am wrong. It might be that HLT cycles are still >> more power-conservative even without speedstep than 24/7 on the FPU.) > >You're wrong :) >Nowadays the power consumption of a CPU is more than the rest of the >machine altogether (including hard disks, etc.). > >On my P4 2.8GHz HT CPU, I've measured the power consumed by *the entire >computer* more than doubling as the processor went from idle into 100% >load. > >Of course, this doesn't include a monster 3D card, is it could very well >consume something close to the processor when doing a lot of 3D operations. I have got a power measure device from university and experimented myself. I keep it short: running SETI (in constrast to nothing, i.e. HLT insns), only costs me 17 more Watts. With a price of 6 cent per kWh, this makes roughly 5.54 EUR per year when the machine is on 16h/340days. (The theoretical case of 24/365 would make up 8.91 EUR.) Wait, did not Intel pull back some processors because of their enormous heat of some P4 (which melted some)? Well, I guess *there* is all your $$ going. Jan Engelhardt -- ENOSPC