Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Most Game Console Power Draw Comes From Time Spent Idling

Posted by timothy on from the sittin'-on-the-dock-of-the-bay dept.

hypnosec writes "Springer Science and Business Media has discovered that during 2010, almost 70 per cent of the overall power draw of the world's consoles was thanks to idling. This total came to over 10.8 TWh of energy, equating to well over a billion dollars in wasted power. The biggest culprit for the trio of main consoles of this generation was the PlayStation 3, with its first edition having an active power draw of 180 watts and an idling draw of 167. As the report states, the Xbox 360 wasn't much better however, with active/idle draws of 172/162w respectively. Both of those consoles have got far better with their hardware revisions, more than halving the idle power consumption, but the Wii has been ahead of the curve the whole time. Its active/idle power draws were as low as 16/11w. The only real difference with the Nintendo console was whether its WC24 was enabled or not. With it on, standby power jumped from 2w to 9w."

44 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. What is the point of gaming consoles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What exactly is the purpose of gaming consoles today? These days, they're merely locked-down PCs that are several years out of date, and damn near impossible to upgrade. It's not the games, since many of them target every major console and non-console platform these days. It's not the graphics quality, since PCs offer much better quality imagery. It's not the controllers, because there is a much wider range of options for PCs. It's not their networking abilities, given that consoles were many years behind PCs in this respect.

    While consoles make sense for the businesses who want to lock-in users, they make absolutely no sense for consumers. PCs are a much better option in every way possible.

    1. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except for playing multiplayer games from the comfort of your couch.

    2. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by nautsch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the ease of use. Simple as that.

      --
      If you find a typo, you may keep it.
    3. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Informative

      A locked-down hardware and (for the most part) software specification that developers can optimize too. Consoles are older hardware that is much better utilized.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      many of them target every major console and non-console platform these days.

      Many AAA games come out on consoles first. They may or may not come out later on PC and when they do the PC versions that seem like an afterthought (poorly optimised, poor controller configuration options etc). Of course at the time of the console release there is usually no indication as to whether or not a PC version will come out later.

      What exactly is the purpose of gaming consoles today?

      When a game developer targets a console they will generally design their game to run well on that console. So if I buy a console early in it's generation I can be reasonablly confident that new games (with a few exceptions from shitty developers) will continue to run well on that console through it's lifecycle. Reviewers will be using the same hardware specs as players will so if a game plays well on the reviewers system it will play well for users too.

      With PC gaming it's far more of a crapshoot, yes the graphics etc can be better than consoles but if your hardware specs aren't high enough the experience can be a lot worse. Furthermore neither CPU or GPU vendors label their products in a way that makes it easy for the customer to determine whether his CPU/GPU is better or worse than the one a reviewer used.

      Oh and most PC games now have some form of online activation which often includes anti-resale measures (at the very least you don't know if the previous owner has posted the key somewhere online that could result in it being blacklisted). Console games can for the most part still be resold (some console games are starting to make DLC and/or online multiplayer access free for the original owner and chargable for subsequent owners but i've not yet seen a console game where the main single player game can't be resold).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    5. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by julesh · · Score: 5, Informative

      How much would you have to spend today on a PC that's equivalent to, say, an XBox 360? How much does the XBox cost?
      There's probably more to it than cost, but last time I checked PCs weren't sold as loss-leaders.

      That's an interesting question, bcause the XBox's processor is not directly equivalent to a PC processor. Because it's an in-order execution system, it doesn't really compare well to PC processors jusrt by looking at its specs. It may be a 3-core 2-instruction capable processor, but in reality most code likely only fills one of the instruction slots at a time (similarly to the original Pentium). Whereas modern PC processors tend to be able to handle 2 or even 3 instructions per cycle a lot of the time. So it may be best to think of it as being similar to a modern CPU with about half the clock speed. Although there are still significant differences. A quick review of old documents on it suggests a 21-stage pipeline, which is longer than current-generation PC processors, and means mispredicted branches are going to be slower comparitivlely. It also has a much smaller cache than modern PC processors, and it's 21.6GB/s memory bandwidth is comparable to the very low end of current desktop processors. All-in-all, thererfore, I'd expect any modern dual-core budget processor (e.g. a Celeron G530) to outperrform it in most tasks.

      The onboard graphics on a Celeron G530 processor is considered comparable in capability to ATI cards from 3 generations later than the ones that are most similar architecturally to the XBox 360's graphics chip, so this basic PC should substantially outperform the XBox 360 in graphics performance.

      So, processor: £36.24 (dabs.com). Add to that processor a budget microATX motherboard (£34.99), 2GB RAM (4 times as much as is in the XBox 360, but the smallest amount available these days) (£11.97), case & PSU (£19.99), hard disk (£34.99) and optical drive (£11.99), and the total is *very* similar to the cost of an Xbox 360 (about £1 more expensive than the cheapest deal I see for a new 360 on google shopping). For a machine that outclasses the 360 in most respects (perhaps even all respects... it is very hard to compare the CPU performance).

    6. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      they're merely locked-down PCs

      You answered your own question. Locked down means less piracy, no choice but to use the official online service and buy games through it, no mods or hacks etc. Almost every company wants to lock you into their revenue stream to bleed you dry, and a locked-down platform is the best way to do that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by pipatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question should be rephrased:

      How much more do you have to spend on your computer for it to match the power of an XBox 360?

      Because today, you already need a computer.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    8. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by Kneo24 · · Score: 2

      Because you never need to install updates on a console and reboot it either, or deal with the headaches of games not working properly.

    9. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by raving+griff · · Score: 4, Informative

      The last Resident Evil game on the DS even had no ability to delete a saved game, effectively making the game one play per sale.

      Second to last, actually. This is an important distinction because the game you are talking about, Resident Evil Mercenaries, is an arcade-style action game, where the only actual progress to be deleted is earning high scores and unlocking additional levels and characters. The most recent Resident Evil game for the 3DS, Resident Evil Revelations, is a story-based experience and does offer the option to delete save files.

      The first-sale codes are a little more controversial in the gaming blagosphere. No publisher has denied a single-player experience to players who do not use the included code, but multiplayer and downloadable content is often tied to it. For some games, this is not a big deal, but for others, multiplayer is a major component of the game. However, the codes are not "darn close" to the MSRP; the MSRP of new games is typically $60, with used games going for $40-$55. The codes sell for $10-$20, with the goal of making the price used (with all multiplayer and DLC in tact) the same as the price of a new game, thus encouraging gamers to purchase a new game.

      There is an interesting debate concerning whether what EA is doing is ethical or not. On one hand, we have the First Sale Doctrine, which guarantees the reselling of used products and might(?) be violated by EA's first-sale codes. However, the First Sale Doctrine was created with things like houses and automobiles in mind--things that naturally tend to lose value over time, due to wear and tear, or things that maintain value only if money is spent on repairs and renovations. Thus the decrease in value is tied to its use.

      Software, on the other hand, does not depreciate in value in the same way. While the physical media--box, manual, and disc--are vulnerable to wear and tear, the bulk of a game's value comes from the game itself, which comprises of the software on the disc. In general, the game either works or it doesn't; a game will hold full value as a game until the disc breaks, at which point it will hold virtually no value.

      What this leads to is a used market dependent entirely on the game's popularity. Games that are less popular suffer a multiplied loss: less copies will be sold new, and, because the price difference between used and new is so great, a higher percentage of copies will be sold used, further hurting its sales. The invisible hand certainly has something to say about the justice of unpopular games causing losses, but in an industry as young as gaming, any factors that increase the risk associated with developing a game (typically over 2-5 years, costing hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars) can be seen as negatively impacting the development of games as an art form. (Recently, independent games made on small budgets in far less time, have become prolific; they often represent the riskiest, most innovative, and in some cases, most artistic expressions in gaming.)

      Is it fair for games to be subject to a popularity multiplier? Maybe. However, the gaming industry is a different framework than what the first-sale doctrine was established for. I realize I have been playing the devil's advocate throughout most of this comment, but I believe the issue needs to be explored with hard economics before we can draw strong opinions on whether it is right or not for publishers to discourage the sale of used games. It is possible that the used games industry puts games into the hands of far more people, improving its legitimacy as an art form, but it is also possible that used games are a primary factor pushing publishers towards sticking to established franchises and neglecting innovation in favor of reliable sales.

    10. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by Pubstar · · Score: 2

      With PC gaming it's far more of a crapshoot, yes the graphics etc can be better than consoles but if your hardware specs aren't high enough the experience can be a lot worse. Furthermore neither CPU or GPU vendors label their products in a way that makes it easy for the customer to determine whether his CPU/GPU is better or worse than the one a reviewer used.

      If you seriously have a problem figuring this one out, you need to not be using PCs anymore. Go get yourself a Mac.

      *braces for -1 Flamebait*

    11. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My machine has enough RAM and GPU to run Black Ops, but the CPU is too slow, gotta upgrade the CPU if I want to play it. Wouldn't have to do that with a console.

      Yes you would - the requirements are just more coarse-grained. You'd have to upgrade your PS2 to a PS3, or X-Box to X-Box360. And really, if you buy middle-tier graphics cards/CPUs when you build a computer, you're likely to get almost a console generation worth of time out of them before really being compelled to upgrade (if you're willing to accept lower graphics settings on recent games, which are still likely to be better than a console).

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    12. Re:What is the point of gaming consoles? by pandronic · · Score: 2

      Well, that only says that the Mac platform has reached enough maturity to have all the apps you need. Which is good for them and for you, I guess. But that doesn't say anything about the availability and quality of Windows software. Just sayin' ...

  2. PS3 controller charging by Albanach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What truly shocked me about the PS3 was to find that attached controllers do not appear to charge unless the console is powered on.

    This is an absurd state of affairs and has, apparently, persisted through hardware revisions. The device itself can power on overnight from standby and sync with the PS network/download patches etc, but you need to wake the thing to charge the controller. This encourages the device being left on 24x7 with all the expense and environmental consequences that go along with that.

    1. Re:PS3 controller charging by VinylRecords · · Score: 2

      What truly shocked me about the PS3 was to find that attached controllers do not appear to charge unless the console is powered on.

      That shocked you? Were you shocked when your I-Pod didn't charge when it was plugged into a powered off PC? Are you shocked when your car battery drains when the engine is off?

      There's a reason why they sell charging stations for Wii-motes and PS3 controllers. And why they sell wall charging units for mp3 players and tablet PCs. And why you can purchase a battery maintenance device for your car as well.

    2. Re:PS3 controller charging by Lord+Lode · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure about an i-Pod, but my phone can charge when plugged into a powered off PC's USB, because the USB keeps giving power as long as the power supply is in the net.

    3. Re:PS3 controller charging by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      There's a reason why they sell charging stations for Wii-motes and PS3 controllers.

      Yes, and the reasons is "more profit".
      Why can't a console be made to work like one of those, to you apparently magical, charging stations?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:PS3 controller charging by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think what surprises him (and me too, frankly) is that when the PS3 if powered 'off', it's not really off, merely in more of a sleep state. There are still active parts of the machine doing things like keeping the little red LED lit on the front, the bluetooth circuitry is active waiting for someone to hit the power button on a controller, etc. There really is no reason that they couldn't keep the USB ports powered up as well. I've often left my PS3 on overnight to charge the controllers, and then forgot to turn it off for several more days afterward.

      I think one of the real culprits here is code, OS, and library bloat that causes boot times on consumer devices to be in the seconds or 10's of seconds from a cold start. Even my TV takes about 5-10 seconds after I hit power before I can actually watch anything. The lazy way to mitigate this is to not ever really power down, but just appear to. There really is no excuse to take this long to boot into what should be a minimal OS from flash memory. This laziness costs consumers cold hard cash, albeit over months and years.

    5. Re:PS3 controller charging by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

      I see no problem with a "waste" tax. There's already a gas guzzler tax, so why not an "electricity guzzler tax" on electronic devices as well? As the vast majority of our electricity generation (at least in the U.S.) is fossil-fuel based, in essence, devices that waste electricity are really just as bad in the long run as cars that get ridiculously low gas mileage. Probably more so, because most households only have one car per driver, but dozens of electronic devices sitting there chugging power all day when they're not even being used.

      I know how much some people hate regulation these days, but this would be a tax that only effects those that chose to consume those inefficient devices. I would have just as much sympathy for someone complaining about that as a smoker bitching about cigarette taxes. Stop fucking smoking, and viola! No more cigarette taxes! Don't buy an electronic device that eats electricity like The Nothing from The Never-Ending Story and you'll never have to pay that energy waster tax.

      I think taxes are an excellent way to encourage people to modify their behavior when they otherwise wouldn't. I know many people that quit smoking solely because the cost of a pack of their cigarettes went from $2.50 to $7.00 over the course of a few years. Not a single one has ever said to me "Man, I wish cigarettes were cheaper so I could start smoking again". Adding taxes would make all these otherwise external costs regarding pollution be felt by the end user, which is necessary in this day and age. In a perfect world, people would make these decisions even if it's not their own backyard that's turning into a polluted hell-hole, but as we all know, homo sapien is a selfish creature that easily buries it's head in the sand when the effects of their behavior doesn't directly negatively impact their own lives. Pollution is a perfect example of this.

    6. Re:PS3 controller charging by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      Were you shocked when your I-Pod didn't charge when it was plugged into a powered off PC?

      No because USB ports on PCs were not intended for charging.

      Are you shocked when your car battery drains when the engine is off?

      No because there are good technical reasons for that. Further the car is designed for the battery to be charged while driving and the battery is large enough that having it run out is rare unless there is a fault with the car.

      However I don't think either of these cases are relavent to the PS3. Lets consider the specific situation of the PS3.

      * The PS3 already has provision for a standby mode where most of the hardware is powered off but some remains powered on.
      * The power needed to charge controllers is very small compared to the consoles total normal operating power and well within what it would be reasonable to expect a standby section of a PSU to provide.
      * The cable supplied with the controller is far shorter than the cable supplied with previous playstation controllers and while it is possible to play with the controller attached by the cable the short cable strongly discourages this (yes you can buy a longer cable but at least when the PS3 first came out long A-mini B cables were somewhat tricky to find).
      * The controller and the PS3 were designed and sold as a package, this clearly isn't a case of unfortunate interactions between products designed and sold seperately.

      IMO given these facts not allowing controllers to charge while the system is in standby mode is clearly a design flaw.

      There's a reason why they sell charging stations for ....... PS3 controllers.

      Yes sony fucked up the design of the console so third parties had to step in to fill the gap.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    7. Re:PS3 controller charging by Albanach · · Score: 3, Informative

      That shocked you? Were you shocked when your I-Pod didn't charge when it was plugged into a powered off PC? Are you shocked when your car battery drains when the engine is off?

      As others have said, it's perfectly possible to deliver a current from the USB ports when the PS3 is asleep. Plenty of laptops can and do manage this.

      Secondly, a principle purpose of the USB ports is charging - unlike those on most computers, since most computers do not come with accessories requiring charging via a USB port. Using your example, my iPod will charge if plugged into a car adapter, it will charge if plugged into a USB wall adapter and it will charge if plugged into my laptop, whether or not it's asleep.

      Thirdly, even when connected to a powered USB port - such as a mains USB adapter or a powered USB hub, the accessories will not charge unless the PS3 is on. It's not just the current, these devices were actually designed to make charging unnecessarily difficult without leaving the PS3 on or paying extra for an unnecessary charging device.

      Yes, design like that is shocking.

    8. Re:PS3 controller charging by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      We should ban Linux. It usually has higher power consumption than Windows and Linux users are 61.4% more likely to leave their computers on all time rather than putting them to sleep because Linux doesn't support the ACPI standard properly.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    9. Re:PS3 controller charging by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      Even my TV takes about 5-10 seconds after I hit power before I can actually watch anything.

      As LCD TVs no longer have the warm-up time needed for CRTs, additional delay had to be implemented somehow to make the TV turn on in the same time as a CRT. This allows for a future "instant-on" TV because there are not many improvements left to do to make someone replace their good TV with a new one.

    10. Re:PS3 controller charging by CronoCloud · · Score: 2

      It also amazes me that the PS3 doesn't have a 'download quietly and then turn off when the download is finished' function.

      It does.

      http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/current/users/turnoff.html

    11. Re:PS3 controller charging by Tukz · · Score: 2

      I've often left my PS3 on overnight to charge the controllers, and then forgot to turn it off for several more days afterward.

      Please enable automatic sleep mode.
      Set it to a few hours, something.

      Let your console power off automatically if not used for a extended period of time, instead of doing exactly what you just described.
      Enormous waste of electricity.

      Also, it's just USB.
      Use any phone charger (most phones has USB outlets these days).

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    12. Re:PS3 controller charging by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Check to see if your TV has an instant-on feature. A lot of them already implement exactly what you described. For an extra, perpetual draw on power, you can have your TV turn on essentially instantly. I thought it was great when I was living in a house with a few guys where I didn't pay a share of the utilities, but it's not worth it to me when I'm the one footing the bill.

  3. Re:doesn't sound like idle. by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    oh standby power is more like 2 wats. they mean with idle a homescreen running attract mode...

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  4. Re:incorrect much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    10,800,000 kWh is 10.8 GWh not 10.8 TWh. 10.8 TWh is 10,800,000,000 kWh which would be $1,360,800,000 at your rates. Also, does that rate include distribution charges or only generation charges?

  5. Re:incorrect much? by robot256 · · Score: 2

    Sorry, you're off by a prefix. 10.8 TWh = 10,800 GWh = 10,800,000 MWh = 10,800,000,000 kWh * $0.126/kWh = $1,360,800,000 = $1.3 billion.

  6. Re:Switch by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I did a study at work to see if we should put PCs to sleep overnight for cost purposes and it turns out even our original Pentium 4 computers only drew 3-5 watts in sleep mode so no, totally not worth it. 24/7/365 of sleep time would = $4.41 in electricity.

  7. Too bad... by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    we can't do something like this with our gaming consoles, when they are idle.

    1. Re:Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The PS3 can run Folding@Home if you install the Life with Playstation app:

      http://www.playstation.com/life/

  8. Re:doesn't sound like idle. by houghi · · Score: 5, Funny

    What they calculated is the cost of camping.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  9. Re:incorrect much? by burne · · Score: 2

    Yes, you are very much incorrect:

    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10.8+TWh+times+0.126+dollar%2FkWh

    I'd say about a thousand times.

  10. An example of free market failure by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a classic example of free market failure. Making the consoles more efficient costs the manufacturers money. There's the cost to add power gating transistors to all the multi-core chips, use more expensive versions of the same chip binned for lower power consumption, and write the firmware to maximize power efficiency.

    All this will create a benefit that the consumers cannot perceive, directly. Almost no consumers own a Kill-a-Watt, and they don't have any options because there are not many competing consoles, there are only 3, and they are not remotely equivalent to each other. (a consumer unhappy with xbox/ps3 power consumption will not get the same gaming experience on the Wii)

  11. Hold On... by Kneo24 · · Score: 2

    While this may be true with the Wii (as in I haven't really looked into it, ever), have you forgotten about the issues other consoles have had with games, where it works on some consoles but not others of the same type?

    1. Re:Hold On... by Kneo24 · · Score: 2

      The last time I had crashes on my PC, I had an issue with defective RAM. I sent it back to the manufacturer under warranty. Problem solved. I just don't have games crashing on me.

    2. Re:Hold On... by murdocj · · Score: 2

      Wish I had mod points... the whole "PCs are hard to maintain / games don't work" thing is just nonsense. I've got a mid-range machine that's about 2 and half years old. No upgrades so far, no problems with recent games (e.g. Skyrim) running on it.

  12. Re:doesn't sound like idle. by pepty · · Score: 4, Informative
    FTA:

    Because of the low failure rates and short time periods involved, we assume that all consoles sold are in active use. F

    we assume that 30 % of users leave their console idle when not in use, with the remainder putting their console into standby mode. Given the importance of this assumption, we perform a thorough sensitivity analysis, discussed at length in “Results: estimated console energy consumption”. The PS3 and Xbox 360 have both added an “auto power down” capability through firmware updates, but this feature is not enabled by default and is difficult to find in system menus. We believe that this feature is not frequently utilized by consumers, and we neglect its effects on overall power consumption.

    hmmmm ....

  13. Not all idle power is waste by xtal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I heat my house with electricity. Power from idle devices offsets the load from heating - two orders of magnitude higher than idle draws in the very cold months. My home rack puts out enough heat to keep my office comfortable all winter, and I power down in summer, as I'm out doing things. No AC here. I've looked at doing things like having a small greenhouse indoors, etc - the base heat I'm paying for is good electricity turned directly into heat.

    Of course, if you have AC, then you pay double - once for the heat generation from waste, and again to remove it.

    Nothing in life is that black and white.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Not all idle power is waste by xtal · · Score: 2

      I live in a 110 year old house in the middle of a old city. Electric hot water, all costs considered, and much insulation later, is the cheapest way to go. Unlike most I bought an old house, paid for it, fixed it, and that's that.

      FWIW I live in Canada, and Hydro is very cheap (relative to alternatives). The only alternative is diesel oil.

      --
      ..don't panic
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Re:My desktop computer uses about half as much pow by Tukz · · Score: 2

    Don't compare a gaming console with a desktop computer.
    Compare it with a gaming computer.

    Even mid end graphics cards these days, consume 200w+.

    --
    - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
  16. Re:doesn't sound like idle. by hicksw · · Score: 2

    What is timothy there for?

    A counter example? A warning to others?

    --
    EXPERIENCE IS what you get when you didn't get what you wanted.