typical power consumption of various components per Tom's Hardware

I was reading an article from Tom's Hardware (9/12 newsletter) and
thought this might be worth posting for future reference. I know this
question has come up from time to time; what various components watt
useage is (assume these values are dependent on brands but I don't
think it will vary significantly) . I hope the columns don't get
misaligned but here goes anyway.....

Component Idle Max load
PSU 5.00 W 14.20 W
CPU 8.49 W 38.66 W
Cooler 1.00 W 1.00 W
Motherboard 7.78 W 19.71 W
RAM 6.06 W 6.23 W
HD 5.93 W 7.59 W
DVD 3.68 W 4.92 W
Monitor 23.29 W 23.29 W

Total: 61.23 W 115.60 W

My Inspiron 1200 runs 20w, and Vostro 1500 30w, busy or not.
I put down the difference to celeron M vs dual core.

Turned off they draw less than a half watt with the
battery not charging.

--


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 05:06:07 -0400, Ron Hardin
<> wrote:

>My Inspiron 1200 runs 20w, and Vostro 1500 30w, busy or not.
>I put down the difference to celeron M vs dual core.
>
>Turned off they draw less than a half watt with the
>battery not charging.


Gotcha. The article was referring to a pc and I don't recall how
much ram tho I doubt it will make that much difference.

I have to question how accurate the information is as stated. CPU wattages
given by Intel are well beyond the stated numbers. How much RAM uses 6.23w?
What about those hot-running graphics cards, some of which now have 512MB of
their own memory?

Sorry, but without some backup information indicating how these figures were
derived, I cannot give them any value... Ben Myers


On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:56:49 -0500, RnR <> wrote:

>I was reading an article from Tom's Hardware (9/12 newsletter) and
>thought this might be worth posting for future reference. I know this
>question has come up from time to time; what various components watt
>useage is (assume these values are dependent on brands but I don't
>think it will vary significantly) . I hope the columns don't get
>misaligned but here goes anyway.....
>
>Component Idle Max load
>PSU 5.00 W 14.20 W
>CPU 8.49 W 38.66 W
>Cooler 1.00 W 1.00 W
>Motherboard 7.78 W 19.71 W
>RAM 6.06 W 6.23 W
>HD 5.93 W 7.59 W
>DVD 3.68 W 4.92 W
>Monitor 23.29 W 23.29 W
>
>Total: 61.23 W 115.60 W

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:51:36 -0400, Ben Myers
<> wrote:

>I have to question how accurate the information is as stated. CPU wattages
>given by Intel are well beyond the stated numbers. How much RAM uses 6.23w?
>What about those hot-running graphics cards, some of which now have 512MB of
>their own memory?
>
>Sorry, but without some backup information indicating how these figures were
>derived, I cannot give them any value... Ben Myers
>
>

Ben, I'll dig up the URL if I can but you know as well as I that
"Tom's Hardware" is a respected site. I won't go as far as saying
they can't be wrong but he's a respected source. I believe I stated
earlier that different brands will warrant different values but how
much can they vary and stated in my last post I didn't know how much
ram was being used ? I understand tho, as you pointed out, my earlier
post could use more details. I did try to at least make reference to
the newsletter date in case someone wanted to check it out. You are
welcome to do that and pick it apart.

Hi!

That's an interesting read. My Dimension 8300 is on the north end
(actually, off the scale) of those figures. By itself, it pulls around
200 watts worth of power at idle. When the processor is 100%
utilitized, power consumption jumps to about 250 watts. The power
supply is the later 300 or so watt rated output variant.

Of course, all the expansion slots have something in them, there are
two optical drives, a floppy and two SATA hard drives in it. Most
computers probably aren't that "loaded" with stuff.

With the 19" Viewsonic CRT that I'm using, total power consumption is
about ~275-300 watts or so. A flat panel display might help, although
the CRT isn't drawing as much power as I thought it might.

As for my Latitude D800 notebook (which has and continues to be an
*excellent* system) the power brick seems to pull about 85 watts on
the input side with the system powered up and charging the battery.

William

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:10:54 -0700, wrote:

>Hi!
>
>That's an interesting read. My Dimension 8300 is on the north end
>(actually, off the scale) of those figures. By itself, it pulls around
>200 watts worth of power at idle. When the processor is 100%
>utilitized, power consumption jumps to about 250 watts. The power
>supply is the later 300 or so watt rated output variant.
>
>Of course, all the expansion slots have something in them, there are
>two optical drives, a floppy and two SATA hard drives in it. Most
>computers probably aren't that "loaded" with stuff.
>
>With the 19" Viewsonic CRT that I'm using, total power consumption is
>about ~275-300 watts or so. A flat panel display might help, although
>the CRT isn't drawing as much power as I thought it might.
>
>As for my Latitude D800 notebook (which has and continues to be an
>*excellent* system) the power brick seems to pull about 85 watts on
>the input side with the system powered up and charging the battery.
>
>William


William, you're not kidding about power consumption. Well, Ben is
right about seeing the source to be able to verify it's findings.
Well this is the article's URL ....
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/...re_components/

but I guess these numbers still need to be used lightly since it's not
an exact science (due to different pc configurations). My whole
point for posting the findings was just to give an approximate value
but maybe it's too approximate???? I thought I was helping but maybe
not???

It's not just different brands. There is absolutely no meaning to the average
wattage requirement between a Quad Core and a Celeron D CPU... Ben Myers

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:32:10 -0500, RnR <> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:51:36 -0400, Ben Myers
><> wrote:
>
>>I have to question how accurate the information is as stated. CPU wattages
>>given by Intel are well beyond the stated numbers. How much RAM uses 6.23w?
>>What about those hot-running graphics cards, some of which now have 512MB of
>>their own memory?
>>
>>Sorry, but without some backup information indicating how these figures were
>>derived, I cannot give them any value... Ben Myers
>>
>>
>
>Ben, I'll dig up the URL if I can but you know as well as I that
>"Tom's Hardware" is a respected site. I won't go as far as saying
>they can't be wrong but he's a respected source. I believe I stated
>earlier that different brands will warrant different values but how
>much can they vary and stated in my last post I didn't know how much
>ram was being used ? I understand tho, as you pointed out, my earlier
>post could use more details. I did try to at least make reference to
>the newsletter date in case someone wanted to check it out. You are
>welcome to do that and pick it apart.

Yeah, the context of the article helps. A great deal. The article is about a
low-power "solar-powered" computer. No way that the numbers fit the reality of
normal garden variety computers... Ben Myers

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:31:18 -0500, RnR <> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:10:54 -0700, wrote:
>
>>Hi!
>>
>>That's an interesting read. My Dimension 8300 is on the north end
>>(actually, off the scale) of those figures. By itself, it pulls around
>>200 watts worth of power at idle. When the processor is 100%
>>utilitized, power consumption jumps to about 250 watts. The power
>>supply is the later 300 or so watt rated output variant.
>>
>>Of course, all the expansion slots have something in them, there are
>>two optical drives, a floppy and two SATA hard drives in it. Most
>>computers probably aren't that "loaded" with stuff.
>>
>>With the 19" Viewsonic CRT that I'm using, total power consumption is
>>about ~275-300 watts or so. A flat panel display might help, although
>>the CRT isn't drawing as much power as I thought it might.
>>
>>As for my Latitude D800 notebook (which has and continues to be an
>>*excellent* system) the power brick seems to pull about 85 watts on
>>the input side with the system powered up and charging the battery.
>>
>>William
>
>
>William, you're not kidding about power consumption. Well, Ben is
>right about seeing the source to be able to verify it's findings.
>Well this is the article's URL ....
>http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/...re_components/
>
>but I guess these numbers still need to be used lightly since it's not
>an exact science (due to different pc configurations). My whole
>point for posting the findings was just to give an approximate value
>but maybe it's too approximate???? I thought I was helping but maybe
>not???

Hi!

> The article is about a low-power "solar-powered" computer.

I've heard of solar panels being sold for laptops, but I've never
tried one.

If low-energy use, low heat output computers are your thing, VIA has
an interesting offering in their PC3500 motherboard. It's a completely
integrated system built around the C7D 1.5GHz "Esther" CPU from VIA.

VIA ran an article about how to build a low power PC, but they forgot
to mention just where you can buy the PC3500 board if you want one.
For me that wasn't a problem, as I found the board installed in the
Everex GC3500 system offered for sale at Wal-Mart long before VIA even
announced it. I have two of them, and while I definitely would not
recommend using Vista on them (it runs, but there are lots of bugs!)
XP Pro runs very well.

They aren't screaming fast systems, but show me another x86 compatible
CPU that can run without a fan on its heatsink at 100% load. It will
play DVDs and runs Google Earth with good quality/very smooth
movement.

The Zonbu PC is also built around a VIA CPU. From the specs, however,
I like the PC3500 board much better--it has SATA, a PCI slot, PCI
Express graphics expansion and will take 2GB of installed RAM. It also
has excellent fan speed control if you use a utility like SpeedFan.
Amazingly, it also has an onboard "squeaker can" PC speaker. Gigabyte
appears to be the builder.

VIA's article discussed building the system to use less than 60 watts
worth of AC power, and they succeeded.

http://www.viaarena.com/default.aspx...&ArticleID=530

(Sorry, guess I got a little off the topic there...still, if green
computing interests you...)

William