I use Core 2 Duo. energy efficient ftw.
Yeah, but no PC is energy efficient if it's not doing anything all night...cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
I use Core 2 Duo. energy efficient ftw.
I have to leave mine on for large torrents like Linux ISOs (honest ) because my ISP blocks 'em between 4pm and midnight. But that's only a few nights a week. I'd like to get a shuttle pc for downloading... just anything a bit more efficient than my 8 fan, twin raid monster... it's not even that fast anymore... still, about a month or so and i'll finally be doing a major upgrade....
Oh, and sometimes if I've got 40 or 50 windows/files to go through manually deciding which to save as and which to discard I'll just think 'fuck it' and do it in the morning. I always regret it if I force a window group to close or click discard all.
I usually shut my work desktop pc down completely. But I also drop shitloads of automatic test suites and benchmarks on power hungry servers nearly every night.... but I'm helping to develop paper saving PDF based software for local/central government at the moment, so the eco-damage from the 24 hour a day max CPU (not to mention the banks of 15,000 rpm drives) will probably balance that out a little.
im sorry for being a dumbass, i dont know much about computers. But, why should a person be inclined to keep it on when not in use in the first place? whats wrong with shutting down and booting back up?
I leave it on if it's doing something. If not, I turn it off. Contrary to popular belief, no one person can really "save" energy. This misconception is brought on by the fact that by using less energy, your bill is smaller. Once produced, energy is either consumed, or it merely dissipates.
I leave my on because it is just better for your PC. Constantly shutting down and starting up your PC will shorten it's life. However, if you don't want to leave your PC on, simply put it in hibernation.
Last edited by killer21 (2006-12-04 13:53:11)
But energy is produced by spinning generator stock (some fixed and some which vary speed to regulate the supply). If the demand were lower, the generators would be spun at a lower rate, and therefore energy would be saved. Have you ever seen a graph of mains frequency at a given moment in time? When there is more load than production, then gennys start to slow down, and without the regulators kicking in would grind to a halt. Conversely, without the demand of consumers, there wouldn't be enough resistance to stop them spinning faster and faster, until they shook themselves to pieces.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I leave it on if it's doing something. If not, I turn it off. Contrary to popular belief, no one person can really "save" energy. This misconception is brought on by the fact that by using less energy, your bill is smaller. Once produced, energy is either consumed, or it merely dissipates.
I have 2 machines on 24/7 at my home. One of them is my network server which hosts all of my files to be streamed over a network, to my front-end boxes etc. Music/movies it is also my network router and firewall, it never goes down. My gaming rig stays up pretty much all of the time, it's used to seed/dl torrents day in and out.
I'm in agreement with the fact that less energy will be produced to serve a locale that demands less (see the underlined). But you still can't save energy, once it's produced.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
But energy is produced by spinning generator stock (some fixed and some which vary speed to regulate the supply). If the demand were lower, the generators would be spun at a lower rate, and therefore energy would be saved. Have you ever seen a graph of mains frequency at a given moment in time? When there is more load than production, then gennys start to slow down, and without the regulators kicking in would grind to a halt. Conversely, without the demand of consumers, there wouldn't be enough resistance to stop them spinning faster and faster, until they shook themselves to pieces.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I leave it on if it's doing something. If not, I turn it off. Contrary to popular belief, no one person can really "save" energy. This misconception is brought on by the fact that by using less energy, your bill is smaller. Once produced, energy is either consumed, or it merely dissipates.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-12-04 14:13:50)
But one person forms part of the equation which determines the setpoint which will be chosen for the generators. I suppose the relationship is not a direct as some people believe, but the idea that using less power will save energy isn't exactly a misconception. It's just not an instant action-reaction situation.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm in agreement with the fact that less energy will be produced to serve a locale that demands less. See the underlined.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
But energy is produced by spinning generator stock (some fixed and some which vary speed to regulate the supply). If the demand were lower, the generators would be spun at a lower rate, and therefore energy would be saved. Have you ever seen a graph of mains frequency at a given moment in time? When there is more load than production, then gennys start to slow down, and without the regulators kicking in would grind to a halt. Conversely, without the demand of consumers, there wouldn't be enough resistance to stop them spinning faster and faster, until they shook themselves to pieces.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I leave it on if it's doing something. If not, I turn it off. Contrary to popular belief, no one person can really "save" energy. This misconception is brought on by the fact that by using less energy, your bill is smaller. Once produced, energy is either consumed, or it merely dissipates.
And companies have a big role to play.
I have mine on all day. Turn ot off at night. unless as stated, downloading a big file.
Shiiiiiiiiiiiit. Guilty as charged.
Ive not shut down my comp for weeks...
but now that I know the facts about the pollution, I think I'll do my part.
but now that I know the facts about the pollution, I think I'll do my part.
I shut mine down when I'm done because I may not use it again for several days.
i turn it off but on sat nights i leave it on because of scans and stuff and always turn the moniter off when i leave
Last edited by *TS*tphai (2006-12-04 16:30:07)
I leave it on, but I turn the monitor off. The idle cpu doesnt waste as much power as the monitor. Actually, I turn the monitor off whenever I leave my chair pretty much.
Apparently, if you leave your PC on overnight, on average it will be attacked up to 50 times each night.
Just like any circuitry .. its not deigned to be off ... im sure the transitions to hot and cold fatigue certain things.[RaWr]-Impsux wrote:
I didn't bother reading all the posts so forgive me if it was brought up already. I was told from a reliable source that turning off your PC every night and turning it on every morning can reek havok on your power supply. Is there any truth to this?
i never leave my comp on. its basically useless, not even using it and it hurts the enviorment. good thread
Hmmm, my 19" flat panel is quoted at a max on consumption of 45 W (http://www.belinea.com/Products/TFT_19/ … tnr=111925)...jonsimon wrote:
I leave it on, but I turn the monitor off. The idle cpu doesnt waste as much power as the monitor. Actually, I turn the monitor off whenever I leave my chair pretty much.
I'd guess that my PC on the other hand probably uses about 160-200W idle, and about 300-400W when playing games (depending on if I really push the overclocking).
Found this interesting graph here http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/co … ex.x?pg=15 :
I wonder those of you worried about saving power for the environment.... Do you go the speed limit? Accelerate to quickly? Have Christmas lights on your house?
I turn mine off because if it is on, I am going to get charged by the electric company for it.
I turn mine off because if it is on, I am going to get charged by the electric company for it.
If your PC doesn't have any protection, i.e. firewall, router, etc., then you deserve to be attacked. My PC rarely gets attacked and if it does, I know who, how, and when this person is doing it.adam1503 wrote:
Apparently, if you leave your PC on overnight, on average it will be attacked up to 50 times each night.
That's interesting.UON wrote:
Hmmm, my 19" flat panel is quoted at a max on consumption of 45 W (http://www.belinea.com/Products/TFT_19/ … tnr=111925)...jonsimon wrote:
I leave it on, but I turn the monitor off. The idle cpu doesnt waste as much power as the monitor. Actually, I turn the monitor off whenever I leave my chair pretty much.
I'd guess that my PC on the other hand probably uses about 160-200W idle, and about 300-400W when playing games (depending on if I really push the overclocking).
Found this interesting graph here http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/co … ex.x?pg=15 :
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/co … r-idle.gif
jsnipy wrote:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5396 … imesm3.gif
...no. It doesn't.avman633 wrote:
...it hurts the enviorment...
They do, but not significantly. If a person actively campaigned publicly for lower energy usage (while guzzling electricity himself), it would be more effective than if he merely (and privately) turned his computer and lights off every night. And yes, "the idea that using less power will save energy" is a misconception. 'Energy-saving' is a horrid technical misnomer brought upon by resultant less-costly power bills. But you can't really save energy once it's produced. Technically, you can't even save it by producing less (falling under "can't save what doesn't exist"). It's either there or it isn't.UON wrote:
But one person forms part of the equation which determines the setpoint which will be chosen for the generators. I suppose the relationship is not a direct as some people believe, but the idea that using less power will save energy isn't exactly a misconception. It's just not an instant action-reaction situation.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm in agreement with the fact that less energy will be produced to serve a locale that demands less. See the underlined.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
But energy is produced by spinning generator stock (some fixed and some which vary speed to regulate the supply). If the demand were lower, the generators would be spun at a lower rate, and therefore energy would be saved. Have you ever seen a graph of mains frequency at a given moment in time? When there is more load than production, then gennys start to slow down, and without the regulators kicking in would grind to a halt. Conversely, without the demand of consumers, there wouldn't be enough resistance to stop them spinning faster and faster, until they shook themselves to pieces.
And companies have a big role to play.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-12-04 17:40:36)
x2Ender2309 wrote:
only on occasion, like when i need to download something enormous.
Like every electronic, it has a certain life. Amount of hours before it shits the bed. Leaving it on 80% of the time your not using it is fucking dumb.
Mine is off at night it take 2 minits to start up and an extra one to log in