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 .

Similar Messages

Max power consumption 2011 iMac 27"?

What's the total maximum power draw of a 2011 iMac 27" with 3.4GHz Core i7, 16GB RAM, 250GB SSD + 2TB HD?
This is so I can properly size a replacement UPS.
The Apple environmental report doesn't address this: the closest it comes is the idle power consumption with display on.

Thanks for that rule-of-thumb!
Actually I have a maxed-out iMac (not a Mac Pro) -- as you'll see in my profile, a BTO with max speed Core i7, max RAM, also a 2GB VRAM. Both from greater eneregy efficiency of latest processors, I assume that without question a current iMac would in fact draw less than an existing Mac Pro.
I have an APC Back-UPS RS 1500, aka model BR1500LCD. Its battery is nearly at the normal age for replacement, so I'm considering the APC "trade-ups" program. Ideally, I'd get as replacement:
Back-UPS Pro 1500 (865 W, 1500 VA)
Unfortunately, that's several inches too high to fit under my computer table, so that's out. That would seem to leave:
Back-UPS Pro 1000 (600 W, 1000 VA)
With Apple's Environmental Report showing idle-display on consumption, at 115 V, as 143 W, the latter 600 W model would seem to fall within your rule-of-thumb recommendation, and even if I'm also running an external HD for backup that I want to let stop gracefully in the event of an outage.

PowerMac G5 Quad Power Consumption

Hello
I purchased a brand new Apple PowerMac from the online store.
Quad PowerMac G5
250GB HDD
1GB RAM
Standard VGA Card - GeForce 6600
Can anyone tell the exact power consumption when idle and maximum use.
Many thanks.
Haresh Kainth

Unfortunately, that document only addresses idle
power consumption, which is of limited use. You might
be able to estimate monthly energy cost from this, if
the computer is mostly idle, but you can't tell how
big a UPS to buy.
I think this is the link tele_player is referring to.
http://www.apple.com/environment/resources/calculator.html
-Bmer
Mac Owners Support Group
Join Us @ MacOSG.com
 An Apple User Group 
MacOSG Podcast >>

Power consumption when running window XP

Hi guys!
Hmm, recently i've asked a question on the other forums regarding the power consumption of my macbook pro while running window XP.
I realised that when i run window Xp, the battery life can only last around 2 hours, while when I run mac OS X, the battery life is around 4 hours.
However, I've got a reply at the forum and the reply cause me to be worried...
Here's the reply...
Power management is built into Mac OS X. So OS X constantly monitors the power consumption and energy profiles of the system while in use.
Windows XP and Vista, on the other hand, is built off the NT kernel which was NEVER meant for mobile computing. Unlike OS X, Windows XP and Vista does not have built in powe rmanagement: it actually relies on the low level BIOS (which is almost 3 decades old as of today) to manage its power consumption and settings.
Since the Macs do not boot using BIOS but rather, with EFI, to boot Windows, the EFI creates a BIOS emulation layer to support Windows. because this layer is emulated and the user has no control over it, Windows loses ALL forms of power management: the fans on the Mac will run at max, EIST will be disabled, wireless receptivity and hard disks will be set to consume all the energy they can grab, among many other things. Especially for hardware with moving parts like the fan and the hard disk: prepapre for premature hardware failure if left running at max performance all the time.
So can I ask, is this true?
Will running window XP on macbook pro causes the hardware to be spoilt more easily?
I have another friend who runs window XP on macbook and he told me that the hardware will not be affected by it, so can I reassure myself on that?
Thanks a lot. ^^

Yes, Win XP is a battery hog. I have an issue with Win XP not dimming the display the way OS X does before going to sleep. Running Win XP should not harm your hardware, it just drains the battery faster. I am looking into ways of improving batter life with Win XP. For now just make sure that you have the power settings in Win XP set to laptop/portable. If you need instructions on adjusting those settings I can provide them.

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()

[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.

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] 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.

Power consumption of idle iPhone charger?

I've been reading horror stories about how these little chargers, just plugged in and not charging, are "power vampires" and think it is nothing but hyperbole.
Who knows the correct power consumption of this little charger (Model A1265) that came with the iPhone 4? Not charging, not even plugged into a charged iPhone, but just plugged into the mains and idling? It does get a bit warm, so there must be some power consumption. But how much is it really?
Thank you.

Further on that, I just found an older thread with the same question, where Tamara claimed her Watt meter (KillAWattz?) indicated zero. That is odd, as the little charger does get warm when left in without it charging, and if it gets warm, there is energy being consumed. Might be very, very little, but who knows how little?

42HL196 idle power very high

The Regza 42HL196 I repaired about 2 yrs ago is still working fine and recently I purchased a transient protection power bar, a Philips model that has a Master socket that can control the power for a bunch of slave outlets. This is really good if you have player decks and/or a TV sound system since it saves the idle power of those devices ("AC vampires" as they are commonly called).
When I tried the power bar with the TV plugged into the Master socket, the slave outlets were always ON, regardless of whether the TV was ON or OFF. I was surprized by this and, looking up in the user manual of the TV, was shocked to learn that the OFF power can be as much as 35Watts. The power bar doesn't trip with a 25Watt light bulb, but does with a 40Watt bulb, so the TV must idle at around 30Watts. Thanks to my electronics background, I was able to open up the power bar and figure out where and how to adjust the OFF-ON trip point; soon, I had it working perfectly with the TV.
So my question to Toshiba: Is there a hidden setup or maintenance menu where I can select the TV to shut down its main DC when turned OFF? I know the main DC power stays ON in order for the TV Guide function to operate while the TV is OFF, but that service has been cancelled with the changeover to Digital broadcast, so the TV now needlessly burns about 30Watts of hydro when OFF. If there is no menu selectable option to do this, would there perhaps be a firmware update that gives this TV the option? Having serviced this TV and seen the schematic, I know it has the internal wiring to be able to shut down the main DC, so it would just be a matter of a firmware change to make it so. This would also be a good "Green" option as the idle power would fall to maybe around 3-5 Watts.

The Regza 42HL196 I repaired about 2 yrs ago is still working fine and recently I purchased a transient protection power bar, a Philips model that has a Master socket that can control the power for a bunch of slave outlets. This is really good if you have player decks and/or a TV sound system since it saves the idle power of those devices ("AC vampires" as they are commonly called).
When I tried the power bar with the TV plugged into the Master socket, the slave outlets were always ON, regardless of whether the TV was ON or OFF. I was surprized by this and, looking up in the user manual of the TV, was shocked to learn that the OFF power can be as much as 35Watts. The power bar doesn't trip with a 25Watt light bulb, but does with a 40Watt bulb, so the TV must idle at around 30Watts. Thanks to my electronics background, I was able to open up the power bar and figure out where and how to adjust the OFF-ON trip point; soon, I had it working perfectly with the TV.
So my question to Toshiba: Is there a hidden setup or maintenance menu where I can select the TV to shut down its main DC when turned OFF? I know the main DC power stays ON in order for the TV Guide function to operate while the TV is OFF, but that service has been cancelled with the changeover to Digital broadcast, so the TV now needlessly burns about 30Watts of hydro when OFF. If there is no menu selectable option to do this, would there perhaps be a firmware update that gives this TV the option? Having serviced this TV and seen the schematic, I know it has the internal wiring to be able to shut down the main DC, so it would just be a matter of a firmware change to make it so. This would also be a good "Green" option as the idle power would fall to maybe around 3-5 Watts.

HT3559 iMac 20" 2008 power consumption off, sleep, idle?

Where can I find specifications for power consumption for older Macs?

Oops! I found some answers here. Though the archive is missing many machines, and specifically the 2008 iMac that I'm looking for http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/

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.

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.

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

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for