Slashdot Mirror
Game Console Energy Usage Comparison
Broadband writes "Modern gaming consoles consume more and more power, dissipate more and more heat and cause a lot more noise with their cooling systems compared to their brethren a decade ago.
While it's obvious that an Xbox 360 would have higher energy demands then a Playstation 1, the curious question is by how much? Even more importantly is the question of whether your console might be costing you money while you sleep. Preposterous you say? Actually quite the opposite!
We put every console in our lab through rigorous testing to find the answers to these questions and see who the energy hogs really are. "
I predict Jack Thompson becoming a huge proponent of energy conversation in the near future.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Actually, it's a pretty interesting article. I'm impressed.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
While it's obvious that an Xbox 360 would have higher energy demands then a Playstation 1
Probably true, but not obvious.
Energy comes from oil. Oil comes from dirty Arabs. Dirty Arabs are terrorists. If you play the Xbox360 you are supporting terrorism /Fox News told me so
-Dipster
Console Dashboard Energy Use
Playstation 1 4W
Playstation 2 23W
Xbox 61W
Xbox 360 145W
Gamecube 20W
Dreamcast 17W
"Last Updated: 6/18/2006" and no PSone and PStwo figures ? hmmm...
I'll change my sig when I have the time...
A more interesting article would have covered how much energy it takes to actually produce each console (embodied energy).
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
I don't see the merit of comparing consoles from different generations for their power comsumption. Of course they need more juice... but they're doing a lot more with it. This article would have been interesting if the PS3 and Wii had been out, but with only the 360 available to examine, we don't really know too much about the true power usage of the next-gen systems. The 360 might be the most energy efficient... I'd certainly bet that the PS3's Cell processor and BD-ROM drive will use more electricity.
Also, they labour the point about the idle power consumption a bit much. If I had paid $500 for a 360 and games, I really wouldn't mind paying $2.63 a year for the convenience of using a wireless device (remote or controller) to turn the console on, and $20 per year is probably much less than my PC uses to run, never mind my kettle.
But above all, I especially love this bit:
Ummm, yes. They forgot that the $20 per year saves the moaning caused by the two consoles and associated controllers cluttering up the TV unit!
Why didn't they test the N64? They have the Playstation and Dreamcast, both of which are from that era. Especially given that the Gamecube's energy consumption is so much lower than that of the PS2 or XBox, one would expect that they would test the N64. I wonder: are all Nintendo consoles more energy efficient than their contemporaries?
Am I missing something or when 0.2W ends up being 3.50kWh/year, shouldn't 2W end up being 35.0kWh/year and not 17.52kWh/year?
From the writeup: Even more importantly is the question of whether your console might be costing you money while you sleep. Preposterous you say? Actually quite the opposite!
From TFA:
Let's take a look at how much power video game consoles require while in standby/off mode.
Console Energy Leakage kWh Wasted Each Year Annual Cost
Playstation 1 0.1W 1.752 kWh $0.26
Playstation 2 2W 17.52 kWh $2.63
Xbox 0.2W 3.50 kWh $0.53
Xbox 360 2W 17.52 kWh $2.63
Gamecube 0.2W 3.50 kWh $0.53
Dreamcast 0.2W 3.50 kWh $0.53
USD 2.63 per year for something that cost over USD 300! Oh the humanity!
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
From TFA:
Of course, everyone knows that the Wii will be powered by fun!
The third most important thing I have learned in life: Squeeze anything hard enough and it eventually makes a noise.
I was pleasently surprised to see they included the Dreamcast, it seems many people forget it was part of the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox generation. I'm happy to see how well the Dreamcast performed as well.
Demented But Determined.
"Modern gaming consoles consume more and more power, dissipate more and more heat and cause a lot more noise"
When Atari invented the console market in the late 1970s, power costs were an issue only because of the recent energy crisis, heat mattered only if you left your cold beverage on the console, and there was no noise. Now that those problems are all cranked up in a more crowded, less plentiful, overbuilt world, we really have to worry about the power and heat. And now we can see the next crisis: overwhelming noise from all these home machines will first drive us completely mad, then churn up the atmosphere into tiny cyclones, combining with the larger ones to scour our homes into livingroom Grand Canyons.
--
make install -not war
Oh my GAWD! You mean I could lose almost $3.00 a year if I don't unplug my PS2?
But wait! Let's assume that it takes me 30 seconds to get off my lazy ass and move to the entertainment center, move the entertainment center, unplug the PS2 from the power strip, and move the entertainment center back into place so my roommate can still watch TV. I play videogames almost every day, sometimes in two or three seperate sessions. Just for argument's sake, we'll figure I do this 360 times a year. That works out to 10 800 seconds, or 180 minutes, or three hours.
Given that the federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, that means that if I spend the time unplugging the PS2, then I'll be losing money! (3*5.15 = 15.45, if my redneck math is right, which I think is more than $2.63)
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
While the numbers apply to one console at a time, it is always worth seeing what these energy look like when you consider 500 000 people playing a time. The way I like to look at it is if a wind turbine provides 100KW of power, how many wind turbines do we need to satisfy the power demand. Taking the figures from the dashboard usage page. My math is:
turbines = unit usage * 500 000 / 100 000
so at the highest end with xbox 360 (145W) we have 725 turbines and the lowest end the Playstation 1 (4W) we have 20 turbines. That is a huge difference in infrastructure needed to satisfy out gaming needs. I'll let you do the math for others.
I am not sure the amount of energy produced by an average nuclear power station or hydro dam, so if anyone can advise me on them I would appreciate it.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I have my entertainment system on two power strips that it turn off every night and it hasn't affected any of them. The two things i do leave plugged directly into the wall is my old (pre-remote) tv and the cable box since both of them take a long time to restart once the power has been off. Other than that all the rest of the stuff remembers my settings. My dvd recorder doesn't keep the time, but i never use it as a timer, so it doesn't matter to me.
It may not save much electricity, but it is a habit I got into back in college when I lived in the dorms and I could hear everything humming in standby mode when I tried to go to sleep.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
RTFA, or use your common sense; to turn it off fully you have to unplug it. A better question would be "Who the cares about a $2.68 per year saving on electricity?"
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
So guys, why do such a half-arsed job of it? Why not be the best?
The catch is this--the "off button" doesn't really turn the cable box off, because it wants to keep processing the program information data ("Friends is on channel 7 at 7:30) that's being trickled down the cable, that requires the tuners and microprocessor and such to be on, leaving little difference in power use for the cable box between "on" and "off". This means that, when I turn the TV on, it can be 10-20 minutes before I have a fully populated program grid.
I'm a nature photographer.
So you should be concerned over milage in a vehicle that cost you $30,000? What if it had a "sitting in the garage" usage (as many electric cars do), would you be concerned about that?
What logical connection do you see between the cost of acquisition and the cost of operation of an console? Would it make a difference to you if the console only cost $10? Why? A cost is a cost. It's all money out of your pocket and that $20 is a couple of pizzas you didn't get to eat.
Now add up the costs of all the other devices in your house that operate similarly. Your VCR. Your Cable box. Other computuing devices. At minimun wage you might end up working a week to have your stuff doing nothing. A week is a lot of time to invest in nothing.
Which brings us to the real point of interest in the figure, which isn't actually direct financial expense. Add up all the households in the country. You should be interested in the total fuel use of the nation to power devices doing nothing?
I think you should. At any right I am, but YMMV.
KFG
Playstation 1: 0.1Watt * 24h/day * 365days/year = 876Wh = 0.876kWh != 1.752kWh
=> that gives $0.1314
Xbox, Gamecube, Dreamcast use 1.752kWh and cost you $0.2628 per console ;-)
I'm less worried about the console than a new desktop PCs. Rumour has it that 1000W and 1200W powersupplies are soon to be standard fair (my spaceheater is only 800W) to support these pigs (and that doesn't include the monitor or peripherials. At the same time we can make pretty capable laptops that draw 30W, so it isn't like energy efficient technology doesn't exist. I can live with a computer that browns out the neighbourhood when I'm in the middle of the latest 3D gaming extravaganza, but I see no justification for a machine that consumes several times more power than maxed out laptop when it is sitting idle. This is a sign of twisted priorities due to weak legislation. PCs are now significantly contributing to stress on our environment, and an aweful lot of it is completely needless -- all PCs should have all low power modes that kick in for un-demanding tasks.
The best advice for now: 1) If you must run your peer-to-peer, do it on a laptop with the screen turned off -- not your ultra-gamer with the 300W video card 2) turn off your desktop when you aren't gaming.
I wonder how computers, gaming will be when we hit peakoil.
1. computers will grow more expensive to build... Al the energie to produce chips, moving them around etc...!
2. powering computers will grow more expensive!
So the logical thing to do would be to make the computer less powerfull and so cheaper to produce and cheaper to run. Would market competetion lead us that way after peakoil?
Hmmm, it would be asta la VISTA for windows... And welkom Xubuntu?
The point is that when people do turn the damn thing off, it still draws power and the only way to avoid that is physical disconnection from the electrical supply.
Worryingly, this not only applies to consoles, but PCs and monitors too.
I measured the power some PCs were drawing in their "off" state - not hibernation, or suspend-to-RAM, or what-have-you, but "off". A recent Athlon 64 drew 19W; a 2001 dual Athlon drew a whopping 30W! The two monitors I tested in their "off" state (certainly not standby or sleep) drew around 7W.
In fact, the power supplies themselves are partly to blame. I reached round the back of the machines, flicked the PSU power switches to off so that (presumably) nothing was being used by the motherboards, and they still drew 9-12W!
This isn't about leaving things on standby or low-energy states. It's about "off" not meaning "off" anymore.
I would say that this article is but a small piece in the larger issue of our energy efficiency. We are wasting a LOT of energy yearly on issues that are easily solved by a few engineers spending a little more time to find more efficient methods. Look at AMD and Intel lately. They spent the time to greatly reduce their energy consumption. While per-processor it's a decent decrease, when looked at large datacenters or the whole country, the power savings will be epic.
We as a people need to look beyond just our noses or our personal bank accounts. If we can understand how small issues per person can quickly add up to a huge issue for all of us, issues like power leakage would seem much more important.
Space for rent, inquire within
You're right, we should consider things in terms of percentages. For example, what percentage of your household's total power consumption per year comes from a plugged in Xbox360? I'll give you a hint: pretty damned close to zero. Similarly, what percentage of the global yearly energy usage do plugged in consoles comprise? I'll give you the same hint again. Just one 100W bulb left on per night is equivalent to 50 Xbox 360s or PS2s left plugged in. It's easy to look at the number of kilowatt hours used per year by these consoles and freak out about it, but it doesn't mean much until you compare it to the total amount of energy used each year, and when you do that you should quickly realize how insignificant it is and that effort to reduce energy consumption is much much better directed elsewhere (for example, replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent bulbs whereever possible).
The PS2 have a real ON/OFF switch on its back. On the front, it's the standby mode. If you don't want it to consume any energy, flip the switch.
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
In recent news a startling Sony press release has indicated that the PS3 will not in fact utilise mains power but will instead ship with a dedicated 180kw 6 cylinder diesel generator which will give mileage of a whopping 12mpg (Minutes-Play-Time per Gallon). Analysts predict that the production of the PSG (PlayStationGenerator) will take a toll on Sony's profitability in the first half of fiscal 06-07 and will have downward pressure on share prices.
In other news Microsoft have responded to allegations that the Xbox360 in fact runs on the imprisoned souls of ritually sacrificed children in a press conferance today saying that 'Microsoft at no time has employed the dark-arts to create it's products and that any negotiations with the Dark Prince of the Underworld have been of a purely strategic nature and that Microsoft does not endorce the ritual sacrifice of children or other persons, animals or otherwise'. Industry insiders have their doubts sighting the recent lack of sightings of Bill Gates first born, whome he and his wife named Damien, born on 6 June 1999, as possible evidence of dealings with demonic forces, this reporter will wait for more solid facts before making a judgement... More news at 11.
"The stupider people think you are, the more surprised they will be when you kill them..."
That is one ridiculous and unfounded rumor. Most PC's these days come with 300-350W power supplies. While it is obvious that power requirements have been risen over the years, the growth isn't anywhere near what you are implying it to be. It took us many years to go from 250W PSUs being standard to 350W PSUs and I don't expect 500W PSUs in off-the-shelf PC's for at least another 2 years. Let alone 1000W or 1200W.
I run 3 pcs, 2 19" CRTs, and a stack of add on stuff, and when all powered up, it pulls around 430watts. power supply ratings have nothing to do with power consumption.
note: with the monitors off, everything pulls about 280 watts
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
A top-end PC uses about 155W idle and 320W max.
7 &p=4
source: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=271
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
The peak rate for Southern California Edison (anything a residence uses over about an average of 300kWh per month) is now about 33cents USD per kWh. (I just got first 2006 summer bill)
WOW!
That's just under $3 per watt per year.
A 200watt fileserver for instance is $600 a year to keep running.
A 120watt torrent machine is $360 a year to keep online (plus cost of cable/dsl modem).
Most network routers and switches cost more in a couple years of electric use than their purchase price.
I posted energy consumption data for PCs and Macs: http://lancej.blogspot.com/
The difference: many leave our PCs on 24 hours a day... leading to significant costs.
What kind of Playstation 1 were they using? The original PSX, or the newer, smaller PSOne? I assume different designs take different ammounts of power. The PS2 also has a slim version, but I'm assuming they're using an older model because they mention the switch on the back.
Rumour has it that 1000W and 1200W powersupplies are soon to be standard
Those numbers are meaningless marketing. Power supply manufacturers keep increasing them to make their supplies sound more powerful, but the reality is that they're just finding new (unhelpful) ways to add up the numbers and get a larger figure.
Fundamentally, you cannot describe the power consumption of a PC PSU using a single number. There are too many variables. You *can* describe the drain of an assembled, running PC at a given point in time using a single number, but the only connection it has to the PSU 'rating' is that it will definitely be smaller. You'll find some more informative numbers printed on a sticker on the power supply, telling you the peak drain for each of the rails, but what really matters is the power consumption of all the devices in the computer.
In practice, these '800W' power supplies that you see today are just half a dozen rails (at varying voltages), each of which can supply a peak current of between 100W and 300W. Most of them cannot supply peak current to every rail simultaneously. People upgrade their power supplies to handle high-end video cards and think this means they need to consume 800W instead of 300W. It doesn't. It means that one of the rails supplying their video card needed to handle 200W instead of 150W, or something on that order. Overclockers rarely need a larger amount of power, they need a more expensive power supply that puts out smoother voltage when a noisy load (overclocked CPU) is applied. Etcetera.
So sure, we may soon be needing power supplies that say '1200W' on the box. But that doesn't mean they will consume 50% more power than one that says '800W'.
This meme is propagated a lot, but it's not really insightful.
Instead of worrying about 2W, manufacturers could be encouraged to reduce the average power usage of a system in a working (ie not standby state). A saving of 10% on all appliances would be far more significant.
Of course if you argue we, not companies should be responsible, then I point out that using energy saving lightbulbs would have a far, far greater effect on your household energy consumption than switching off devices on standby.
Don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of saving oil* and reducing global carbon emissions. But I feel persuading people en-mass to change their behaviour should be directed at something that has a significant effect. This meme is aimed at the wrong factor of ten.
* What will we make drugs and plastic out of once we have burnt away all the oil?