4 ms·
I don't deny such things happen but it's illogical. If you have 20 people on desktops a small fraction of them will use more energy for microwaving lunch, makin
by contingencies 5y ago
I don't deny such things happen but it's illogical. If you have 20 people on desktops a small fraction of them will use more energy for microwaving lunch, making coffee or on air conditioning than they will save in aggregate on this nominal reduction in power draw.
- AdrianB1 5y agoMicrowaving lunch: 2 minutes at 800W; desktop with monitor: 8 hours at 150W, that is 45 times higher. Similar for coffee, no simple math for AC. If you can reduce 150W to 80W, it is both significant and achievable - this is what my desktop usually draws.
- contingencies 5y agoYou forget these things sit ~idle (or at browser load) 99% of the time. The magnitude of difference only expresses at peak consumption. Furthermore, what about the lost time/hassle for changeover plus embodied energy in throwing out the last system? It's insanity.
- Spooky23 5y agoThe average corporate PC device gets replaced every 39 months. Acceleration of that cycle with a Mac replacement, which usually has a 50-60 month lifecycle, is a pretty significant savings.
- contingencies 5y agoIf those are real figures that's a good point :) I think we're well in to pedantry now. Call a somnambulance :)
- Spooky23 5y ago20, yes, it’s a waste of time. At 2000, reducing power consumption by 30%, may yield $100k annually.
- dddddddan 5y agoHow is it nominal? The current MacPro (which most of the target market would already be using) has a power supply that is >1kW. It's insane that this this is faster than the existing MacPro with a tiny power draw in comparison.