3 ms·

> modern desktop class hardware can do quite a bit better than [70W idle] If a €1200 built-from-parts desktop from March 2020 counts as modern desktop class ha

by lucb1e 5y ago

> modern desktop class hardware can do quite a bit better than [70W idle] If a €1200 built-from-parts desktop from March 2020 counts as modern desktop class hardware... this system uses 85W idle. It has an AMD CPU+GPU, is Intel and/or Nvidia any better in this regard or are you talking about more low-end hardware?

detaro 5y ago
A lot of it is usually setup issues, i.e. either not enabling power saving features or hardware incompatibilities causing them to not be used. E.g. some mainboards ship with efficient power states disabled in BIOS. EDIT: e.g. for an optimized system with Ryzen 9 5950X and RTX 2070 Super apparently 40 W is doable for "sitting idly on Windows Desktop" according to reputable tests. Lower-class hardware can do less.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  "40W is doable" is honestly not what I expected from your comment (I got the impression of both less and it being the default), but then again you didn't say it was "good", just "better". Fair enough, but this achievable idle consumption is still double of the peak consumption of a mid-range laptop. Either way, thanks for putting a number to it!
  - detaro 5y ago
    Ryzen 9 with 16 cores and fancy-ish GPU is not really a mid-range setup, as I said, you can go lower with weaker components. (the other numbers I had at hand quickly were from way below the 1200€ mentioned in the comment I replied to, and I thought it was a useful upper mark). And in reverse, 20W peak is low for a laptop - my Thinkpad 480s (which I guess you can argue is not a mid-range laptop, but not exactly a workstation beast either) peaks more at 40. The desktop comparison to many laptops is more a mini-ITX based, embedded-graphics box with e.g. a quad-core CPU. There idle <=15W is realistic. (And the laptop idles at ~5, so still more efficient of course). And the range between for components inbetween that and high-end. Desktop is going to be worse than laptops, but people tend to overestimate how much power a desktop system actually has to use if it's built well. Modern CPUs are efficient at power-saving, PSUs have gotten better, ...

by lucb1e 5y ago

detaro 5y ago

A lot of it is usually setup issues, i.e. either not enabling power saving features or hardware incompatibilities causing them to not be used. E.g. some mainboards ship with efficient power states disabled in BIOS. EDIT: e.g. for an optimized system with Ryzen 9 5950X and RTX 2070 Super apparently 40 W is doable for "sitting idly on Windows Desktop" according to reputable tests. Lower-class hardware can do less.

lucb1e 5y ago
"40W is doable" is honestly not what I expected from your comment (I got the impression of both less and it being the default), but then again you didn't say it was "good", just "better". Fair enough, but this achievable idle consumption is still double of the peak consumption of a mid-range laptop. Either way, thanks for putting a number to it!
- detaro 5y ago
  Ryzen 9 with 16 cores and fancy-ish GPU is not really a mid-range setup, as I said, you can go lower with weaker components. (the other numbers I had at hand quickly were from way below the 1200€ mentioned in the comment I replied to, and I thought it was a useful upper mark). And in reverse, 20W peak is low for a laptop - my Thinkpad 480s (which I guess you can argue is not a mid-range laptop, but not exactly a workstation beast either) peaks more at 40. The desktop comparison to many laptops is more a mini-ITX based, embedded-graphics box with e.g. a quad-core CPU. There idle <=15W is realistic. (And the laptop idles at ~5, so still more efficient of course). And the range between for components inbetween that and high-end. Desktop is going to be worse than laptops, but people tend to overestimate how much power a desktop system actually has to use if it's built well. Modern CPUs are efficient at power-saving, PSUs have gotten better, ...