Support NeoGAF

[Aeana]

Unlike my consoles, which I only turn on to play games, I use my PC for other things, including work. I don't think doing a direct comparison with consoles makes a lot of sense.

That said, people should really put their PCs to sleep over night. I know way too many people who just let it run.

 

[tim.mbp]

None of the article mentions whether this conclusion--or rather, the magnitude of it--is a function of the fact that PCs are left on most/all the time even when not gaming, while consoles are generally turned off

It's actually included in the study.

4.4 hours gaming
2 hours web browsing
1.6 hours video streaming
1 hour short idle
3 hours long idle
6 hours sleep
6 hours off

Adding it all up gives them their 1394 kWH/year figure

 

[Beerman462]

Now you're playing with POWER

 

[kraspkibble]

My electricity bill has gone up 44% since owning a PC.

While the extra performance/quality (over my PS4/XB1) is worth it I'm glad I didn't buy a second 290 to crossfire.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

You can largely solve this problem by actually turning your computer off when you're not using it.

 

[DJ_Lae]

331 watts for a low power computer system?

My 3570K/7970 pulls anywhere between 150 and 250 watts depending on what I'm doing, with heavy gaming drawing the most. I'd estimate my computer is on about 10 hours a day, and I'll assume it draws 200w the entire time just to be on the safe side.

That's 730kWh a year. I'm surprised they have their average computer drawing over 500w at load. And my 7970 isn't exactly power efficient, as far as I know. But I do put my computer to sleep whenever I'm not using it, because, well, it'd be silly not to.

Looks like that costs me about $80 a year in electricty, if I include the silly admin/transmission fees my electricty company has.

 

[texhnolyze]

Gaming is indeed the most power consuming activities from PCs.
If you're just idling the PC, browsing, or doing other non GPU-related stuff, mostly it's only using the 1/3 or 1/4 power compared to gaming.
Anyway, my PC is using 250-ish watts for gaming.

 

[HowlingMad]

This seems right, although console gamers make up for it in the energy they waste to constantly bitch in system wars on forums

Actually hot air can be used to generate energy.

 

[Omega]

There you go. If you choose PC gaming over console, you're destroying the world.

sometimes sacrifices have to be made.

 

[Falk]

None of the article mentions whether this conclusion--or rather, the magnitude of it--is a function of the fact that PCs are left on most/all the time even when not gaming, while consoles are generally turned off

That said, people should really put their PCs to sleep over night. I know way too many people who just let it run.

Oops.

 

[plagiarize]

Yes. My pc does use loads of electricity. But I switched all our bulbs to LED ones and drive an electric car, so I'm offsetting it in other ways I hope. Plus as others have said, now that I have a good tablet (which I try to charge using some small solar panels I picked up) I have my gaming pc off most of the day now.

 

[Prototype]

Some men just want to watch the world burn.




In 4k.

Lol, ok this one got me. Hahaha.

 

[Vilam]

And to top it off I never turn my PC off. Feels good.

 

[Necromanti]

That said, people should really put their PCs to sleep over night. I know way too many people who just let it run.

Hibernation is a godsend.

 

[Ogawa-san]

That said, people should really put their PCs to sleep over night. I know way too many people who just let it run.

For the longest time I assumed that a PC not doing anything couldn't possibly consume enough energy for me to be worried about. Finding out that an average desktop idles at 80W at minimum almost made me buy a kill-a-watt myself to double check it.

Now I know that leaving it on 24/7 means it will, alone, be responsible for 20% of my electric bill.

 

[timmyp53]

But we need moar power

 

[Swarna]

If a really high end pc uses 500 watts while gaming and is used to game 3 hours a day every day, that's ~550 kWh per year... Where the fuck are they getting the 1400 figure from?

The breakdown of the usage is on page 14 of the study. The math checks out since they're also including the usage for the display and actually on the conservative side. They base this on 512 watt usage in gaming mode for the PC + display which I think is reasonable.

What's really concerning is that the average gaming PC is apparently used for 8-9 hours/day (for gaming/browsing/streaming). That seems extremely unhealthy as a good chunk of these are probably not shared.

 

[benny_a]

The breakdown of the usage is on page 14 of the study. The math checks out since they're also including the usage for the display and actually on the conservative side. They base this on 512 watt usage in gaming mode for the PC + display which I think is reasonable.

I don't think it's reasonable. As I said on the previous page the average game will not use as much as a gaming benchmark.

The time I find much more realistic based on the behavior of my co-worker that play a lot on PC.

 

[Momentary]

PC gamers are always talking about how cheap it is to game on the platforms. I wonder what their power bills look like every month.

 

[Rizific]

PC gamers are always talking about how cheap it is to game on the platforms. I wonder what their power bills look like every month.

its like your equating running a gaming pc to something like running the AC during the summer. its not that serious.

 

[texhnolyze]

For the longest time I assumed that a PC not doing anything couldn't possibly consume enough energy for me to be worried about. Finding out that an average desktop idles at 80W at minimum almost made me buy a kill-a-watt myself to double check it.

Now I know that leaving it on 24/7 means it will, alone, be responsible for 20% of my electric bill.

Yep, I've just realized it in 2013 as well.
I always thought that idle PC is not consuming energy at all, or very minimum. But after knowing that it uses that much of energy even on idle or just downloading files, I never put my PC on 24/7 anymore.

PC gamers are always talking about how cheap it is to game on the platforms. I wonder what their power bills look like every month.

My electricity bill is like $10 per month. Not in America, of course. But it's pretty average, if not low, here in my country.

 

[unapersson]

This is why it always baffles me when someone says consoles can be on par with PC graphics. Like... console wattage can only get you so far, y'know? At some point, three graphics card sucking up like 750 watts or something is just going to outperform.

Yup, and why it baffles me that some people were showing/feigning disappointment that the new consoles didn't outperform powerful PCs. The high end just can't keep power consumption down any more, so if you want higher fidelity you have to throw more energy at it than a console can be allowed to consume. We're already approaching the limitations imposed by physics in terms of die shrinks etc which means a work around like using multiple cards. So at some point things will plateau and the power requirements will stop consoles ever reaching that plateau.

 

[Renekton]

PC gamers are always talking about how cheap it is to game on the platforms. I wonder what their power bills look like every month.

Seems doable... non-K Skylake i5, GTX950, no optical drive.

 

[Swarna]

I don't think it's reasonable. As I said on the previous page the average game will not use as much as a gaming benchmark.

The time I find much more realistic based on the behavior of my co-worker that play a lot on PC.

I didn't read the entire study but I assumed they actually measured the 512 average and aren't basing it on some benchmark program. You're right about it being too high if it's an assumption, though. Gonna have to check my rig's usage tomorrow during gaming.

 

[benny_a]

I didn't read the entire study but I assumed they actually measured the 512 average and aren't basing it on some benchmark program. You're right about it being too high if it's an assumption, though. Gonna have to check my rig's usage tomorrow during gaming.

Well it is measured in a way. But the graph they use is the power consumption while running a gaming benchmark.

I don't have my PC set up at the moment so I can't test it but you should see some variance in the power consumption between games already. And if you have a benchmark installed you can even see how high it goes there. The difference in power consumption between the various games in my previous testing just means I'm skeptical about the numbers used for an average.

 

[dickgumshoe]

Console gamers saving the world

 

[Gren]

Surprised that some will leave their rigs on unattended for extended periods of time.

Never mind the savings in energy, I'm paranoid about brownouts/outages, & just shut down if I'm not doing anything.

 

[injurai]

PC is the new hotness. Same as old hotness.

Talk to me Dennis!

 

[FoxSpirit]

10 consoles.
Given equal time and use, the PC would be like a 1.5kW system.
Sure.

Written on a world saving smartphone, king of low power computing.

 

[zer0das]

Honestly, power usage is largely why I'm holding off on upgrading from my 6850. The only GPU that is anywhere near as efficient as that is only like 30% better, and I can already play all but the most graphically intense games fine.

 

[Ombala]

None of my PC gaming friends turn there PCs of and the same thing applies too my oldest son, its on 24/7.
They say its because the download updates games and movies while they sleep.
But cant PCs also have a low power mode like consoles where it download things?

 

[Woo-Fu]

So what they're saying is that power users are power users?

 

[Pagusas]

Yup, and why it baffles me that some people were showing/feigning disappointment that the new consoles didn't outperform powerful PCs. The high end just can't keep power consumption down any more, so if you want higher fidelity you have to throw more energy at it than a console can be allowed to consume. We're already approaching the limitations imposed by physics in terms of die shrinks etc which means a work around like using multiple cards. So at some point things will plateau and the power requirements will stop consoles ever reaching that plateau.

I always wondered why consoles have to be low power consumers? Where was it ever written that a console can only consume X watts? No one buys a console because it uses less energy, it's never been a marketable feature, nor do I think anyone would care if the ps5 pulled 700watts. It's just not something anyone talks about with these systems, so why is their this universal "consoles must be low power usage" thing in the industry?

 

[Ziffles]

200 watts while browsing the web? On average?

My 6-core 5930k with a 120hz monitor a 970 (and a DSP audio card) is using around 110w browsing GAF.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

There you go. If you choose PC gaming over console, you're destroying the world.

But what kind of world are we leaving for our children if they're forced to play games at shitty resolutions and framerates, without anisotropic filtering?

 

[Piggus]

My CPU alone draws more watts than my PS4.

 

[Stimpack]

#NotAllGamers

 

[DiabolicalBagel]

Glad I have a fixed power bill, I wouldn't like to see the amount of juice the PCs in this house go through.
At least we turn them off when they are not in use.

 

[Renekton]

I always wondered why consoles have to be low power consumers? Where was it ever written that a console can only consume X watts? No one buys a console because it uses less energy, it's never been a marketable feature, nor do I think anyone would care if the ps5 pulled 700watts. It's just not something anyone talks about with these systems, so why is their this universal "consoles must be low power usage" thing in the industry?

Consumer devices don't have high TDP iirc, since less tech-savvy consumers use them and may leave them running for long periods, like some dad simply pausing MGS5 and going to sleep, then forgot about it. Or some households stacking devices on top of each other in living room ick.

 

[ChemicalWorld]

 

[PnCIa]

Its those AMD GPU users! Its them! I will call greenpeace or something.

 

[MNC]

What's a good way to check my own numbers for gaming/browsing/working? Just hook up a watt meter in between?

 

[Madness]

This seems right, although console gamers make up for it in the energy they waste to constantly bitch in system wars on forums

Yeah, PC gamers never complain or bitch on forums right?

But it just shows the power of PC and how high end PC's are cutting edge. They draw so much power because they need that much power.

 

[Ziffles]

Why the hell did they use the Apple Cinema display for this test? Those things are absolute hogs (75w for the 23 inch) and most 1080p monitors are just a fraction of that. Hell my TV uses less than that.

 

[unapersson]

I always wondered why consoles have to be low power consumers? Where was it ever written that a console can only consume X watts? No one buys a console because it uses less energy, it's never been a marketable feature, nor do I think anyone would care if the ps5 pulled 700watts. It's just not something anyone talks about with these systems, so why is their this universal "consoles must be low power usage" thing in the industry?

There are definite threats of external regulation, especially in the EU (they're talking about some kind of restriction in gaming power consumption from 2017) but I think it's currently more to do with mass market pricing, form factor and the heat envelope. They could probably release a 700W PS5 (if regulations allow it at the time), but at what price and would it sell to the mass market? It's not as though high end graphic cards are cheap, the cost of many electronic components are going down, but they seem to be getting more expensive if anything.

 

[Sjefen]

Holy crap that's alot of juice, is there any focus on going greener from the hardware developers?

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

Wait, I have a 1200W PSU, but run a single 670. I always thought the system only pulled the power it needed (around 300W). Is that right?

 

[benny_a]

Wait, I have a 1200W PSU, but run a single 670. I always thought the system only pulled the power it needed (around 300W). Is that right?

Yes.

Power isn't pushed out from the power supply, it's always pulled from a load. In your case the 670 at its max load will be several times under your max of 1200W. (Even if we assume it's very inefficient at converting AC to DC.)

 

[Corpekata]

Wait, I have a 1200W PSU, but run a single 670. I always thought the system only pulled the power it needed (around 300W). Is that right?

It's not drawing 1200w constantly if that's what you're asking.

Though you typically don't want a PSU that's too overboard. Most of them are more efficient if their power use is around half - a bit more (varies depending on PSU). So there will be more wasted energy likely in your case.

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

Yes.

Power isn't pushed out from the power supply, it's always pulled from a load. In your case the 670 as a max load it can pull and you're several times above that for your safety margins.

Whew, thanks. Glad to hear I wasn't inadvertently pulling insane numbers for the past two years. Will definitely shut down my PC more when I'm not using it, though.