Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nick Morvay who wrote (12995)	11/27/2001 4:10:23 AM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

Nick, no problem, as long as you understand the cost. From your response, it appeared that you thought that there was no incremental cost to running idle-time processing. (Indicated by your "it is on 24/7 anyway" response.) I just wanted to make it clear to others that there is a VERY significant difference in energy consumption between an idle CPU and one running one of these distributed-processing applications. Indeed, they use significantly more power than normal active usage of your computer. That is, during normal interactive usage, you are using quite a bit LESS than peak power demand. Once the CPU goes idle, you are using only a fraction of peak power demand. But, run one of these "background" crunchers, and you are now running at peak power, 24/7. A P3/1000 should run you about $10/month to keep running 24 hours a day. About the same as a refrigerator. Bump it up to a dual P4, running an intensive background process, and it could become a very significant expense. Same as leaving 4 100-watt lightbulbs running 24 hours a day. Now we are talking in the neighborhood of $30/mo. Now, if you want to contribute $30/mo to scientific research, then bully for you! I haven't seen any studies on it, but I have a strong suspicion that you might be able to deploy $30/mo more efficiently. It is for each person to weigh the personal cost, the cost to the environment, and the scientific benefit. I just don't want people to be misled into thinking that there is no difference between a modern, energy-efficient PC left on 24 hours a day and allowed to enter an idle state with the help of the OS and/or additional software such as CPUIdle Pro, and one running an intensive number-crunching "background" screen-saver. (And, PLEASE, at least turn off those silly "screen savers" that flash pretty lights on the screen! Nothing makes me more sick about the environmental impact than to see an office full of pretty flashing lights left by clueless workers. I always try to turn off as many CRTs as possible on my way out. A CRT display is significantly more power-hungry than a PC. The best screen saver is the one called "blank screen"...)