High power consumption of CC

I have file sync disabled in the Create Cloud settings. How ever, it does consume power, as you can track in the Activitiy Monitor.
Here is a screenshot: http://666kb.com/i/cm0giry030kkwl9w2.jpg

Thanks for your suggestions, but i was finally able to figure it out myself. linux-lts was unfortunately no option for me, as i want to use bumblebee. But the direction, this pointed me to was good. It seems one of the kernel updates broke my bumblebee package, so the power management didnt work and the card was constantly powered on. This was nothing new, but my powertop completely messed it up, by adding this additional power consumption to eth0. Funny enough, this power consumption even disappeared, when i unloaded eth0. After deleting powertops saved results and recalibrating it, it now shows up all components power usage correctly.
Thus i mark this thread as SOLVED.

Similar Messages

[solved] Nautilus - high power consumption

Hello,
Can someone reproduce a very high power consumption with nautilus?
It keeps running although I have closed all windows and causes an enormous power consumption. This is what powertop reports:
4.67 W 942.2 ms/s 0.00 Process nautilus --new-window /home/orschiro/Downloads
I am running nautilus 3.8.2-1.
Last edited by orschiro (2013-10-09 12:29:32)

Hung thumbnail process? Can you try disabling thumbnails in Nautilus and see if this happens? Close all Nautilus' processes after making the change.

Can't get rid of my high power consumption (Thinkpad X60 Tablet)

This is really driving me nuts. On Windows 7, I can achieve a power consumption of around 11-12W (with moderate web surfing usage over WLAN and full screen brightness, just Aero turned off).
On Arch, I can't get below 13W *ever* with full screen brightness, even without WLAN and any kind of computer usage besides running X11. And normal moderate web surfing usage (without Flash, mind you) brings it up to at least 17W.
The reason for this, I believe, is a really high number of wakeups from idle. powertop shows me at least 40 wakeups per second even when I don't have anything running besides X11. If I have Firefox, Thunderbird and Pidgin running, this climbss to at least 80 wakeups per second. Powertop shows the main cause for the wakeups in both cases to be "acpi" and "extra timer interrupt", as well as "Reschedulin interrupts". With those three applications running, there is additionally a high usage of "hrtimer_start_range_ns (tick_sched_timer)" and "iwl3945" (well, I guess the latter figures for internet applications).
I'm running laptop-mode-tools for power management, btw.
Anyone got some idea of what causes those idle wakeups, and how I might be able to fix it? I don't see why Windows 7 should be better than Arch here, the bloated monstrum it is...
Last edited by Natanji (2010-02-06 13:40:58)

The issue with hrtimer_start_range_ns is existing for a while. Unfortunately it isn't fixed until today. There is an entry in the kernel bugtracker http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14424
I think this is the main reason for the short battery life of my Samsung NC10 . If you google for it you will find numerous posting in bugtrackers of various distributions but no one seems to really care or know how to fix this?

High power consumption after update

I recently updated all my packages (it had been a few weeks since I had done this last) and I've noticed my power consumption has jumped dramatically. Before I would average around 13.0W and now the baseline seems to be about 18.5W. I use laptop-mode-tools.
I'm happy to post the output of any command but didn't want to spam as I'm not sure what would be valuable.
I have looked at powertop, but without being able to compare to the past I'm not sure how to diagnose this. Any suggestions or pointers would be greatly appreciated.
I have a Thinkpad T410: Linux alpha 3.11.2-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 27 07:35:36 CEST 2013 x86_64 GNU/Linux

It's possible I suppose that it is related to audio codec power management. After I upgraded I had to add myself to the audio group to get sound working again. I also noticed snd_hda_intel is always pretty high up in powertop.
Finally, I use laptop-mode-tools, and it appears audio codec power mgmt isn't working by default. I can manually select it to turn it on. I also saw this output in journalctl:
Sep 29 11:57:17 alpha slim[1048]: [001:307] F->C: ["getdevicestate","15","0",["__default_device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Default Audio Device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Default Audio Device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Front speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 4.0 Surround output to Front and Rear speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 4.1 Surround output to Front, Rear and Subwoofer speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 5.0 Surround output to Front, Center and Rear speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 5.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Rear and Subwoofer speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 7.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Side, Rear and Woofer speakers"],"0",["__default_device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Default Audio Device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Default Audio Device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Front speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 4.0 Surround output to Front and Rear speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 4.1 Surround output to Front, Rear and Subwoofer speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 5.0 Surround output to Front, Center and Rear speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 5.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Rear and Subwoofer speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 7.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Side, Rear and Woofer speakers","HDA Intel MID, HDMI 0 - HDMI Audio Output","HDA Intel MID, HDMI 1 - HDMI Audio Output","HDA Intel MID, HDMI 2 - HDMI Audio Output"],"-1",[]]
Sep 29 11:57:17 alpha slim[1048]: [001:307] F->C: ["getdevicestate","15","0",["__default_device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Default Audio Device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Default Audio Device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Front speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 4.0 Surround output to Front and Rear speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 4.1 Surround output to Front, Rear and Subwoofer speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 5.0 Surround output to Front, Center and Rear speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 5.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Rear and Subwoofer speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 7.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Side, Rear and Woofer speakers"],"0",["__default_device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Default Audio Device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Default Audio Device","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - Front speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 4.0 Surround output to Front and Rear speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 4.1 Surround output to Front, Rear and Subwoofer speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 5.0 Surround output to Front, Center and Rear speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 5.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Rear and Subwoofer speakers","HDA Intel MID, CX20585 Analog - 7.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Side, Rear and Woofer speakers","HDA Intel MID, HDMI 0 - HDMI Audio Output","HDA Intel MID, HDMI 1 - HDMI Audio Output","HDA Intel MID, HDMI 2 - HDMI Audio Output"],"-1",[]]
Sep 29 11:57:17 alpha slim[1048]: [001:248] F->C: ["mf","mf4.6","4.6.3.0",2,{"audioCodecs":[[103,"ISAC",1,0,16000],[104,"ISAC",1,0,32000],[9,"G722",1,64000,16000],[102,"ILBC",1,13300,8000],[0,"PCMU",1,64000,8000],[8,"PCMA",1,64000,8000],[107,"CN",1,0,48000],[106,"CN",1,0,32000],[105,"CN",1,0,16000],[13,"CN",1,0,8000],[127,"red",1,0,8000],[126,"telephone-event",1,0,8000]],"audioRtpHdrExts":[{"id":1,"uri":"urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level"}],"camDeviceName":"Unknown Camera","caps":7,"cpuAdaptVersion":1,"cpuArchitecture":1,"cpuCacheSize":3145728,"cpuFamily":6,"cpuFlags":["sse2","ssse3","sse4_1","sse4_2"],"cpuHasSSE2":true,"cpuModel":37,"cpuSpeed":2667,"cpuStepping":5,"cpuVendor":"GenuineIntel","cpus":4,"cpusPhysical":2,"cryptoRandom":"Wh5rpjH5WwxrggyWxtWgghIM","cryptoSuites":["AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80","AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_32"],"dataChannelVersion":1,"effectsVersion":10,"gpuDescription":"","gpuDeviceId":0,"gpuDeviceName":"","gpuDriver":"","gpuDriverVersion":"","gpuVendorId":0,"machineModel":"Not available","remotingAssistanceAllowed":0,"remotingVersion":1,"renderer":2,"rtcpMux":true,"screencast":2,"screencastLocalPreview":1,"supportsConcurrentSessions":true,"transports":["i","gice"],"videoCodecs":[[99,"H264-SVC",640,360,30],[97,"H264",640,360,30],[98,"H263",640,360,30]],"videoRtpHdrExts":[{"id":2,"uri":"urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:toffset"},{"id":3,"uri":"http://www.webrtc.org/experiments/rtp-hdrext/abs-send-time"}]}]
Sep 29 11:57:17 alpha slim[1048]: [001:206] F->C: ["mf","mf4.6","4.6.3.0",2,{"audioCodecs":[[103,"ISAC",1,0,16000],[104,"ISAC",1,0,32000],[9,"G722",1,64000,16000],[102,"ILBC",1,13300,8000],[0,"PCMU",1,64000,8000],[8,"PCMA",1,64000,8000],[107,"CN",1,0,48000],[106,"CN",1,0,32000],[105,"CN",1,0,16000],[13,"CN",1,0,8000],[127,"red",1,0,8000],[126,"telephone-event",1,0,8000]],"audioRtpHdrExts":[{"id":1,"uri":"urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:ssrc-audio-level"}],"camDeviceName":"Unknown Camera","caps":7,"cpuAdaptVersion":1,"cpuArchitecture":1,"cpuCacheSize":3145728,"cpuFamily":6,"cpuFlags":["sse2","ssse3","sse4_1","sse4_2"],"cpuHasSSE2":true,"cpuModel":37,"cpuSpeed":2667,"cpuStepping":5,"cpuVendor":"GenuineIntel","cpus":4,"cpusPhysical":2,"cryptoRandom":"E8HMoakvNyHpWl2HL5jLZBgC","cryptoSuites":["AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80","AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_32"],"dataChannelVersion":1,"effectsVersion":10,"gpuDescription":"","gpuDeviceId":0,"gpuDeviceName":"","gpuDriver":"","gpuDriverVersion":"","gpuVendorId":0,"machineModel":"Not available","remotingAssistanceAllowed":0,"remotingVersion":1,"renderer":2,"rtcpMux":true,"screencast":2,"screencastLocalPreview":1,"supportsConcurrentSessions":true,"transports":["i","gice"],"videoCodecs":[[99,"H264-SVC",640,360,30],[97,"H264",640,360,30],[98,"H263",640,360,30]],"videoRtpHdrExts":[{"id":2,"uri":"urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:toffset"},{"id":3,"uri":"http://www.webrtc.org/experiments/rtp-hdrext/abs-send-time"}]}]
Sep 29 11:57:17 alpha slim[1048]: [2571:2594:0929/115717:ERROR:audio_manager_base.cc(422)] Not implemented reached in virtual std::string media::AudioManagerBase::GetDefaultOutputDeviceID()

Higher power consumption after suspend

Hello,
It seems that my power consumption is significantly higher after resuming from a suspend than before. I suspend with the systemctl command. Measuring the battery usage (with powertop or looking at /sys/class/power_supply/BAT0/power_now on my laptop), I get the following numbers :
- 6-7 W before suspend
- 10-11 W after
Those number are quite stable in time, in particular the higher consumption stays until shutdown. I have tried looking at the power decomposition of powertop, and it seems that the backlight display consumption is indeed higher, although I keep the same luminosity level. I tend to consider the decomposition usage by powertop as a guess estimate anyway, so I am not sure whether this means anything.
Any ideas on how to solve this issue, or how to investigate further on?
Cheers,
Guillaume

Have a look at powertop before and after suspend. I noticed that some power saving options get turned off when suspending. I don't have a solution though.

[Solved] High power consumption of eth0

Hi everyone,
i successfully installed Arch on my new Acer Travelmate P653-MG a few months ago with the Gnome DE. Everything worked fine until a few weeks ago, when i discovered a really hard power regression due to my network interface. Before i had a solid 12 W of power consumption (without that much of finetuning), but afterwards my power consumption jumped to 23-25 W. I have attached two screenshots of my current powertop output:
http://i.imgur.com/8tpSnXf.png
http://i.imgur.com/CaVg61A.png
Unfortunately i can't quite say when this regression occured, so as to point to a certain update. My first guess was, this had to be kernel specific, but the downgrade from kernel 3.7 to 3.6 brought no results. I must admit after hours of searching google, the arch wiki and the forum here, i'm at a complete loss. I have discovered no one with a similar problem.
If anyone can help me in this matter, your help would be very much appreciated!
My current kernel parameters are: quiet splash nmi_watchdog=0 acpi_osi=linux acpi_backlight=vendor
Please tell me any outputs i can provide which could be of help to you.
Greetings
-- mod edit: read the Forum Etiquette and only post thumbnails http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/For … s_and_Code [jwr] --
Last edited by ToshiroTaicho (2013-02-16 22:08:07)

Thanks for your suggestions, but i was finally able to figure it out myself. linux-lts was unfortunately no option for me, as i want to use bumblebee. But the direction, this pointed me to was good. It seems one of the kernel updates broke my bumblebee package, so the power management didnt work and the card was constantly powered on. This was nothing new, but my powertop completely messed it up, by adding this additional power consumption to eth0. Funny enough, this power consumption even disappeared, when i unloaded eth0. After deleting powertops saved results and recalibrating it, it now shows up all components power usage correctly.
Thus i mark this thread as SOLVED.

Has anyone experienced graphical problems and high power consumption while hibernating after upgrading to Mavericks?

Since I've upgraded to OS 10.9 my Macbook Pro 2.4GHz started doing strange things. It consumes large amounts of Power. The battery draines much faster than before in normal usage and even worse... it consumes quite a bit power while its alseep. A fully charged battery looses over night (hibernating) 30% of its capacity.
Secondly... the Mac takes ages to startup. Opening Apps and Aplications takes longer than under OS 10.8
Worst though is the grphical issue. My MacBook keeps on giving me funny patterns aroud openend windows and Ikons. A restart fixes the problem for a while, but it keeps comig back more and more frequently. Here is a screenshot:
Has anyone else come acorss these problems. Any sugestions what to do?!

Doesn't matter if the symptoms don't match. You've got an affected machine, and your graphics card could easily be in the early stages of failure. You definitely need to get it checked out by Apple.
Regarding the battery, some people are claiming battery problems with Mavericks, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. My machine's battery life is the same as it was before the upgrade. My guess would be that the sufferers, such as yourself, have other issues, such as a coincidentally failing battery, third-party software incompatible with Mavericks or a corrupt system. For all I know, the hardware problems you are likely having with your graphics card may be causing the card to draw too much power and reduce battery life. Since you need to get your machine looked at by Apple anyway, have them check the battery as well.

Home Broadband Fusion Typical High Power Consumption

Question: Has anyone noticed just how much power (watts) the Verizon outside Cantenna and HBR router consume if left on continuously, even while you are not using it?
Fact: I took a measuring device and finding the outside attenna and router plug-ins consumer over 130 watts if continually left on. But what makes matter worse is there is no indication when you sign up this very little known fact.. so.. left on an average consumer burns about the same amount of electricity with the antenna and router as a small kitchen refrigerator or about 6-7 KWH (Kila-Watt Hours) per day.. if your electricity rates are .12 cents per KWH then it costs about 75 cents a day or 23 dollars in a month to power just these devices..
What to do? - TURN OFF when not in use or completely power down. The down side is are there side effects by doing so?
Somebody should launch a complaint to Verizon and to consumer affairs for not being obligated to advertising these facts (it would sort of be like buying a car and not knowing what kind of gas milage you would be getting).
Most folks using these products should see an obivous jump in their regular electric bills.

germantown wrote:
Question: Has anyone noticed just how much power (watts) the Verizon outside Cantenna and HBR router consume if left on continuously, even while you are not using it?
Fact: I took a measuring device and finding the outside attenna and router plug-ins consumer over 130 watts if continually left on. But what makes matter worse is there is no indication when you sign up this very little known fact.. so.. left on an average consumer burns about the same amount of electricity with the antenna and router as a small kitchen refrigerator or about 6-7 KWH (Kila-Watt Hours) per day.. if your electricity rates are .12 cents per KWH then it costs about 75 cents a day or 23 dollars in a month to power just these devices..
You're math is off. 130 watts means it uses 130 watts per hour that's 3120 watts in a day or 3.12 kW. Or 93.6 kW in a month. At 12 cents per kW that's $11.23 a month not $23. Also you assume it uses that much electricity 24/7
Also new refrigerators even large ones use maybe $6 a month in electricity.

MSI K8N Neo 2 Platinum Power Consumption

Hallo,
I try to find out the power consumption of the K8N Neo2 s939 motherboard. The working scenario is:
Audio: Off
Passive Cooling of NB
4 DIMMS RAM.

For example on my rig with current configuration w/2 case fans: idle~75W, light weight card games & Hoyle Bard Games 77W~110W, DVD movie~90W-95W, Intel Burn test~160W-190W, UNIGINE Heaven~265W-280W. Any where between those extremes for other everyday things. Those figures are for my rig and would not apply to another persons rig but are just for example as to variation of power consumption depending on task performed. Also not included in those readings is my monitor as I didn't bother to use a 2 or 3 way adapter when I hooked the meter up.
Also overclocking CPU & GPU would be much higher power consumption.
CPU and/or graphics cards used can make a huge difference. There is no way to come even close to answering your question due to wide variations in different systems. "Kill-a-Watt" meters are as low as $20 USD on up depending on particular model and store purchased from. I use the cheap $20 unit.

High power comsumption and wrong setting when waking up from sleep

See here for some more information: http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Windows-7-RTM-Discussion/High-Power-Consumption-with-Windows-7/td-p/1668...
Settings: T400, integrated GPU,"maximum battery live" power sheme, brightness level 3, wlan on. Newest switchable graphics driver, power manager and power management drivers installed, SU4 didn't find newer drivers.
Power consumption is between 12-16W most of the time, whereas it was close to 10W on XP, from what i heard from a friend, i installed win7 on my machine right after i bought the thinkpad.
When waking up from sleep( i think hibernation as well) power consumption is abnormal, because both GPUs are activated. You have to switch to to the dedicated and back to the integrated via power manager to deactivate the ATI, which is very annoying.
Is lenovo working on these issues or are there any workaroungs already?

I've got similar problems on a T400 with hybrid graphics running Windows 7 x64 Professional, upgraded from Vista x64 Professional. I've upgraded everything to the latest (driver, bios, etc etc) using System Update.
When I boot up from cold, and switch to using batteries, the power consumption is around 8w. Very good.
Then I suspend, and resume from suspend, and the power consumption shoots up to like 20w. Horrible.
Then I manually switch to "High performance" and then back to "Energy saving", the power consumption comes back down, but to >9w, which is like 13% above the original 8w level. Acceptable, but not good.
This seems to indicate there're at least two problems with the power management aspect of T400 + Win7 x64:
First, there is the well-known problem that both internal and external graphics cards get turned on upon resume. Lenovo, please fix this problem. It's completely unacceptable to have to manually perform that switching every time one closes, and then opens the lid, or loss 60% of the battery life. And I do need to use the external GPU from time to time, so disabling it at BIOS level is not acceptable either.
Second, there is the more subtle problem that some other hardware/driver besides the graphics card makes the T400 draw an extra >1w upon resume.
I really wonder if these problems occur with T400 preinstalled with Win7 x64. If they do, shouldn't every major laptop review sites take notice of the defect and warn people. If they don't, then I do not really see why it's so hard for Lenovo to provide earlier users with the right driver/registry patch/etc to enable the correct behavior. As far as I know, these problems have not been fixed since Win7 came out.
Finally let me add that other that this, I'm extremely satisfied with my T400/Win7 system. The thermal dissipation, noise level, and durability are just top-notch. But this just makes the above mentioned problems more of a thorn in the side!

Idle power consumption in arch twice as high as Windows 7?

I have some issues with power consumption in Linux.
Here's the rough setup:
i5 750, stock settings
Asus P7P55D-E premium
HD5770
LSI-3081-E
8 WD20EADS
2 X-25M G2
Enermax Modu 87+
The whole system as listed above idles in Windows 7 at 59.7W with all but one SSD spun down and at 122.8W in archlinux, also with everything but the root SSD sleeping.
I've also disconnected the power of all drives and the result was roughly the same.
I've already installed cpufreq-utils, acpi-cpufreq is loaded on startup and the governor is ondemand (50% threshold). cpufreq-utils indicates that the processor idles at 1.20 Ghz as it should be.
Catalyst 10.4 is also installed and should take care of the HD5770, I've verified that atieventsd (which is supposed to be responsible for the power management) is running even though it isn't in my rc.conf, probably because it gets loaded with the fglrx module.
Any ideas what could possibly cause the idle power consumption to be twice as high in arch?
Last edited by clesch (2010-05-19 11:10:33)

lymphatik wrote:
demian wrote:
Well, there's not much left, is there? It pretty much has to be the 5770.
You could install powertop though, to verify if the p and c states get used correctly.
Yes it is likely but you should verify to be sure.
I would if i could. You probably want to address clesch instead of me .

ALC889 power consumption

Hello,
i'm running a little media server on clarkdale basis (MSI H55M-ED55, Intel i3-530) with sound chip ALC889.
Kernel is 2.6.32.9-1-ARCH and architecture is x86 Archlinux.
The hardware is supported nicely so far however there's one thing i'm not very happy about.
When playing music the power consumption climbs from 20 Watts (idle) to 28 Watts although the workload of the CPU is only 1%.
Enabling power_save for the chip alone saves 2 Watts when idling.
Compared to the consumption of the audio chip in Windows 7 which is 1 W at most the 8 Watts are unusually high for a sound chip. Is that a known issue or do you know if it can be resolved somehow? I've tried kernel 2.6.33 but the high sound consumption remains.
I assume it's just a kernel driver thing which i can't do anything about but I'd be glad to hear different.
Regards,
demian
Last edited by demian (2010-03-08 13:20:53)

You can measure your G5's power usage with this device

Power Consumption Revisited

I was reading an article on tomshardware.com the other day in which they described a process by which they were able to measure the power consumption of various video cards using a simple device that plugs into a standard wall socket and then displays the number of watts the currently plugged in device is using. In light of the ever-increasing PSU recommendations that tend to show up here (I recall seeing one poster recommend "a PSU with 24 or more amps on the +12V rail for anything other than a barebones system"), I decided that it might be beneficial to these forums if I did a little empirical study of my own. So anyways, I shelled out ~$30 for the device shown here:
http://www.supermediastore.com/kilwateldet1.html
...and ran some tests of my own. The results:
Preliminary Testing -
To verify that my power meter would give reasonably accurate readings, I first hooked it up to a 3-way lamp with a 50/100/150 watt bulb installed. The readings returned for the 50/100/150 watt settings (respectively) were 44/94/142, so it would seem like my power meter is at least reasonably accurate. Some other stuff I measured just for the hell of it...my speakers use 3 watts of power in stadby mode, and 30 watts when active (haven't yet tested when active and playing at full volume), and my monitor uses about 70 watts when on, and about 2 watts in standby mode.
Results -
Satisfied that I had not just wasted my money on an inaccurate power meter, I then went and hooked it up to my PC (the one described in my sig) and measured the power consumption under a variety of circumstances. It is important to note that these readings reflect the total amount of power drain being applied to the wall socket, not the amount of power that is actually being demanded by the system. This is because no PSU is 100% efficient (a good one will be maybe 80% efficient, if even that much), so the amount of power that is actually needed by the system is actually about (at least)20% *less* than the recorded values. Anyways:
During startup, the power usage spikes very briefly at 197 watts, then averages 152 watts over the rest of the boot cycle.
The system uses 134 watts of power when idling.
Under full CPU load, the system uses 168 watts.
Running 3d Mark 2001 the power usage is 169 watts.
Playing Far Cry (high detail settings, 1024x768x32), the power usage is again 169 watts.
Conclusions -
So, let's now assume a worst-case scenario, in which the extra 34 watts recorded during full CPU load came entirely from extra CPU power drain (a reasonable assumption), and in which the extra 35 watts recorded during 3d Mark and Far Cry came entirely from extra video card load (a much less reasonable assumption), and in which we have a PSU that is 90% efficient (greater efficiency means that the system would actually have to demand *more* power in order to get the total power drain up that high). In this case we see that if an application were developed that fully taxed the video card and CPU continuously, the total power drain would be 134 + 34 + 35 = 203 watts (which actually correlates rather nicely with the 197 watt spike observed during the boot cycle), meaning that the system is demanding about 183 watts from our unrealistically efficient PSU (note that with the PSU efficiency set to a more realistic 75%, the system would only be demanding a mere 153 watts of juice at full CPU and video card load).
Admittedly, the video card in my system is relatively weak, so let us again take the worst case scenario and assume that if I were to be using a 6800 Ultra, the total power drain would be 100 watts greater (this is above what the actual difference should be given the results posted on tomshardware.com regarding the power use of the 6800 Ultra), so our video card now consumes an astounding 135 watts of power, and our total power drain (in our unrealistic situation where we have some application which is capable of 100% CPU and video card utilization for a sustained length of time) is now 303 watts. With our unrealistic 90% efficient PSU, it would mean that the system is demanding about 273 watts from the PSU (about 228 watts with a 75% efficient PSU).
Note that aside from the weak video card, I have a fairly robust system (which also happens to be slightly overclocked), with 4 HDD's (two of which are WD Raptors), 2 optical drives, several PCI devices, and two large 120mm case fans, and yet the power demands of this system, even in an unrealisticly demanding situation, are *well* within the ability of a quality 380W (or even 300W) PSU to deliver. In this case even if all the power happened to be being sucked off of the +12V rail (which is not the case), any PSU with 18 amps at +12V could still handle it. Furthermore, even if I were to add a needlessly power-hungry video card into the mix, the power demands are *still* safely within what any decent 380W PSU should be capable of (and even what a quality 300W PSU should be capable of, although this may be pushing it a little, though it should always be noted that the numbers indicate a hypothetical worst-case power drain that should be beyond the maximum drain possible in any real-world situation).
So, we can therefore conclude that the power demands of a reasonably robust Athlon64 based system are not astronomical by any means, and that they do not justify a minimum recommendation of a 465W PSU with 24+ amps on the +12V rail for any system which is not "barebones," and that there is no observational evidence to support the idea that a PSU with 18 or fewer amps at +12V is categorically inadequate for use in an Athlon64 based system.
...anyways, I guess that's all, I hope you found this interesting, or at least informative. I'm off to see what else I can do with my power meter thingy...

Really? Do you have measured data which clearly supports your claims, or are you just holding up an opinion as a matter of fact?
My point was, my measured results show that the total power demand of an Athlon64 based system across *all* of the rails is fairly low, even at 100% system load. So, let's recalculate things assuming a 75% efficient PSU, with 75% of all load being at + 12V (which is still probably higher than the actual value), and let's leave the hypothetical 6800U inside of my system. We get .75 * 303 = 227 watts in total that the system is demanding. Of these 227 watts, the system is demanding .75 * 227 = 170 watts over the +12V rail. 170 watts / 12V gives us a total demand of 14.2 amps on the +12V rail. Note that this is with the hypothetically demanding 6800U card installed and is still likely to be at least a couple amps higher than what a *real* system would ever use, and any *quality* PSU capable of 18 amps at +12V should still be perfectly adequate for use in the system.
Furthermore, PSU efficiency dropping to 60% in real world situations supports my results, as it means that the actual system was demanding substantially *less* power than the system in my hypothetical example, making things even *easier* for the PSU. Re-running the above equation with a 60% efficient PSU and 75% of all power demand coming from the +12V rail, we see that the system is only asking for 11.4 amps at +12V at full load with a 6800U installed (and also at full load).
If you want to disagree with my results, that's fine, but don't expect me to take your argument as credible unless you have some actual, measurable data to back up your claims. Saying "this is the way things *really* work because I say so" doesn't cut it, so until you want to break out a multimeter and measure the amps your PSU delivers to the MB on the +12V rail at boot, idle, load, and gaming and then report your results and discuss whether or not they are consistent with your "amps are what counts" hypothesis, I hold my results and conclusions up as being valid, and as soon as I see any measured results which contradict mine, I will gladly stfu about PSU recommendations being needlessly high.

Power consumption increased with kernel 3.2.5

The new kernel 3.2.5 supposedly fixed the old power regression introduced in 2.6.39 (or so). On my T60 laptop (Core 2 Duo) not only that the power consumption stayed high, but the pcie_aspm=force option passed to the kernel is not working anymore. The result: my laptop consumes 20W on idle (I use KDE, kmail and firefox on with 2 tabs open). That's 25% more than what I had with the older 3.2.4 kernel and pcie_aspm=force enabled.
powertop2 does not show anything unusual, the CPU is basically idle on the lowest available frequency 98% of the time (I'm using the ondemand governor).
Did you guys experience something similar or is it just me?

If you don't use Skype then I'd delete it.
PIM services is a bit high. I'd remove each of your accounts under Settings >Accounts. Then reboot the device. Monitor the PIM services battery drain for a while with no accounts added and see how it goes. Then add each account back, one at a time, and monitor for a couple hours to see the PIM services usage. It should be a bit high for the first hour while information syncs to the device then it should settle down. Once you're satisfied the account is working OK you can add the next account. Find the one that keeps the PIM services drainage high.
If the device doesn't show 4G, then what does it show?

Average power consumption comparision: i7 and t500

Hi,
What is the average power consumption (non-peak) of a t500 system,
doing web-surfing and light tasks ?
I have read that the i7 mobiles (non-lenovo) are at 52W avg, and 75W peak,
and this will help me decide whether to buy the t500 or wait for the lenovo
i7 based laptops
thanks!

P8400 / P8600 etc core2duo mobile (2,2-2,4ghz) take 25W. I think in office use my T400 uses about 15W, not sure. It depends on load. I find quad core laptop CPUs quite useless for the average user.I think the i7 mobiles have a 45W specification, which is quite higher than the modern dual cores. I prefer longer battery life to having four cores i will most likely never use in daily work. This changes, of course, if you use your laptop as Desktop replacement or primarily for CPU intensive tasks, such as video en/decoding.
Thinkpad T400 (Windows 7 Ultimate x64)

High power consumption of CC

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for