5 ms·

A typical x86 desktop machine will draw between 300-500 watts. With a beefy GPU, perhaps. The new i3 3220T CPU is only 30W MAX TDP, flat out - a typical (ie. n

by jrabone 14y ago

A typical x86 desktop machine will draw between 300-500 watts. With a beefy GPU, perhaps. The new i3 3220T CPU is only 30W MAX TDP, flat out - a typical (ie. non-gamer) rig is looking more like 150W max, and a lot less idle (20W should be possible). Not 5W, but nowhere near 500W.

zanny 14y ago
Yea, that metric seems bizarre. It is worth mentioning though that the lowest TDP chips Intel is selling are 17w mobile ones, comparing a desktop to a mobile chip seems apples and oranges. You also need to consider that Intel is at least a fab tech ahead of ARM chips. I have a Tegra 3 Transformer tablet and that chip was yielded at 40nm, 2 generations behind Intels 22nm, and it has a TDP of 15 watts. Of course under load it would run higher than that, but so would an Intel chip.
cmccabe 14y ago
20W, 200W, what's the difference? Either way, you can't get that out of the battery on a mobile device. And consumers don't generally buy PCs based on power dissipation. Sad, but true. And if you think your typical beige-box PC can handle a power supply that is specc'ed for 150W-- go ahead and put one of those in there. I DARE you.
- jrabone 14y ago
  The lower figure of 20W is pretty standard: go take a look at the battery in your laptop. Most Dells are 65Whr batteries - ie. 20W for 3 hours of battery life (to a first approximation, LiIon is a bit more complicated than that). The ubiquitous small form factor PCs like the Optiplex 780 (http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/environ/comply/optix_780_dccy.pdf http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/environ/compl...) use a 235W (max) power supply, which will be overspecced to trade off failure rates for manufacturing cost. Those machines actually draw less than 150W flat out. And they're everywhere. A certain large e-tailer with an emphasis on frugality used to use them as developer desktops(!). Who knows what's in a typical consumer beige box, but it isn't pulling 500W continuously, unless they're playing, say, Skyrim 24/7 with a big graphics card - in which case of course one would specify the correct (safe) component for the design. I'd argue that they're not typical by that point; most people won't spend £300 on a graphics card (I do).
  - cmccabe 14y ago
    So to recap: * You point a to 235W power supply as an example of the bare minimum PC power supply-- not too far from my 300W round number. * You point out that a power supply rated for X isn't drawing X continuously-- a true statement, but it's responding to an argument nobody made. You have to pick a power supply which is rated for your max load-- everyone knows that, or should. It still doesn't change the fact that both max load and average load for X86 are orders of magnitude greater than for most ARM devices.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by jrabone 14y ago

zanny 14y ago

Yea, that metric seems bizarre. It is worth mentioning though that the lowest TDP chips Intel is selling are 17w mobile ones, comparing a desktop to a mobile chip seems apples and oranges. You also need to consider that Intel is at least a fab tech ahead of ARM chips. I have a Tegra 3 Transformer tablet and that chip was yielded at 40nm, 2 generations behind Intels 22nm, and it has a TDP of 15 watts. Of course under load it would run higher than that, but so would an Intel chip.

cmccabe 14y ago

20W, 200W, what's the difference? Either way, you can't get that out of the battery on a mobile device. And consumers don't generally buy PCs based on power dissipation. Sad, but true. And if you think your typical beige-box PC can handle a power supply that is specc'ed for 150W-- go ahead and put one of those in there. I DARE you.

jrabone 14y ago
The lower figure of 20W is pretty standard: go take a look at the battery in your laptop. Most Dells are 65Whr batteries - ie. 20W for 3 hours of battery life (to a first approximation, LiIon is a bit more complicated than that). The ubiquitous small form factor PCs like the Optiplex 780 (http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/environ/comply/optix_780_dccy.pdf http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/environ/compl...) use a 235W (max) power supply, which will be overspecced to trade off failure rates for manufacturing cost. Those machines actually draw less than 150W flat out. And they're everywhere. A certain large e-tailer with an emphasis on frugality used to use them as developer desktops(!). Who knows what's in a typical consumer beige box, but it isn't pulling 500W continuously, unless they're playing, say, Skyrim 24/7 with a big graphics card - in which case of course one would specify the correct (safe) component for the design. I'd argue that they're not typical by that point; most people won't spend £300 on a graphics card (I do).
- cmccabe 14y ago
  So to recap: * You point a to 235W power supply as an example of the bare minimum PC power supply-- not too far from my 300W round number. * You point out that a power supply rated for X isn't drawing X continuously-- a true statement, but it's responding to an argument nobody made. You have to pick a power supply which is rated for your max load-- everyone knows that, or should. It still doesn't change the fact that both max load and average load for X86 are orders of magnitude greater than for most ARM devices.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]