[mythtv-users] Requesting some sample kill a watt meter numbers

[bhaskins]

Joe Hickey wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Michael T. Dean
> <mtdean at thirdcontact.com> wrote:
>   
>>  On 01/18/2011 10:48 AM, Joe Hickey wrote:
>>     
>>> I think the answer to my question is: if I want to substantially
>>> reduce that number I have to look toward the atoms,
>>>       
>> No.  If you want to substantially reduce the power consumption, you need to
>> shut down the system when not in use.
>>     
>
> Not arguing with you on that -- and I clearly see and agree that it's
> the highest bang for the buck.  In fact I'll probably do just that
> with this machine.  The only issue I have is that there are SOME
> services on this machine that I will have to move elsewhere (or give
> up) when it's not running 24/7, things like mythweb and openvpn for
> remote access, and it's also a file server on our network.  So, I'm
> willing to to run _one_ system 24/7, and I'll shut down the rest.  I
> just want that one system to be as low power as possible.
>
>   
>> Note that a MythTV developer (who isn't currently able to send an e-mail to
>> this list--and I'll leave out names to protect the innocent) mentioned in
>> IRC, early this morning, that his Mac Mini idles at lower than the 20W that
>> many are quoting for their Atom-based systems.  (Note, also, that you can
>>     
>
> I don't doubt you.  I really like the mac mini - I even bought one for
> my mother.  But for the price I paid for that mini, it just extends
> the return on investment out so far (like >6 years at NYC rates) that
> it really doesn't make sense anymore...  Atom is at least cheap on
> both sides- building and running.
>
>   
>> off the headroom--you /can't/ draw high power (but even when your at load,
>> you're not accomplishing as much as, say a system with a nice Core 2 Duo
>> that may hit higher power draw, but for significantly smaller times--and may
>> idle at equivalent or lower power draw...).
>>     
>
> That's actually the exact point I was trying to figure out by starting
> this thread in the first place: is it possible to build a system
> around a "real" processor that idles down near atom-level (say...
> 30w?).   It seems like it's possible in theory; a modern CPU with all
> its power-saving features turned on SHOULD be just burning a watt or
> two at idle.  My observation/theory is that when you go with a
> standard processor, the requisite chipset and "features" on the
> motherboard seem to consume more power than the CPU itself.
>
> I was hoping someone would chime in with a build spec'd around a real
> CPU that only drew 30 watts or so at idle, but so far it seems like in
> real world usage a system with a Core2 or Athlon draws 2-3x the power
> at the wall than an Atom-based system.
>
> Again, hoping that someone can show an example where that's not true....
>   
I have three backend/server boxes than will all come in at under
30 watts, not at all hard to do.
One of these, a older Thinkpad, can also shut off power strips through
a SSR which cuts the drain from extra switches, cable modem, HDHR, etc.
It's easy to forget what the extra goodies can add to the power usage.

> Thanks again for the thoughts and advice!
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
>