backtop

Print 27 comment(s) - last by Dfere.. on Nov 1 at 1:19 PM

Click to enlarge
Saving the world one computer at a time

With an eye to saving U.S. households and businesses more than $1.8 billion in energy costs over the next 5 years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new Energy Star specifications for computers and related equipment. These new modifications are also expected to prevent greenhouse gas emissions equal to the annual emissions of 2.7 million cars.

Intel immediately announced its support for the EPA’s newly announced Energy Star computer specifications. Intel plans to deliver microprocessors and other system components that will help enable PC and laptop suppliers to deliver Energy Star qualified systems when these new specifications go into effect in mid-2007.

"As the driver of America's technology revolution, the innovative spirit of the computer industry is now powering our energy revolution," said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. "Through Energy Star, President Bush and EPA are brightening our nation's future, and I applaud these leaders for developing energy efficient computers that are good for our environment and good our wallets."

"Intel continues to work closely with the EPA and other worldwide organizations to develop and deliver energy-efficient technologies," said Rob Crooke, Intel vice president and business computing group general manager. “The new Intel Core 2 Duo processors will provide the high-performance and energy efficiency people want. The new Energy Star specification provides a meaningful step forward in identifying more energy-efficient PCs."

Under the new specifications, only the most energy-efficient computer related equipment will earn the Energy Star label. The new requirements include improved efficiency across all modes of a computer's operation, and require use of highly efficient internal and external power supplies.

Encouraging adoption of this new Energy Star program, Intel will work jointly with the EPA to provide energy efficiency design expertise to smaller system vendors, collectively referred to as the "channel," to help enable their targeted offerings to meet the specifications. This effort will culminate with publishing a white paper detailing a "recipe" system vendors can follow to best ensure their computers qualify.

If every computer purchased by businesses meets the new Energy Star requirements in effect next year, businesses will save $1.2 billion over the lifetime of their new computers, equal to lighting 730 million square feet of U.S. commercial building space each year.

Government agencies buying Energy Star will also garner big savings. If the government sector buys only computers that meet the new Energy Star requirements, this sector will save nearly 1.4 billion kWh and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2 billion pounds each year.

On average, Energy Star qualifying computer equipment will be 65 percent more efficient than conventional models.

Computers were the first product to qualify for EPA's Energy Star in 1992. EPA and computer makers have worked together on improving computer energy efficiency ever since. The United States now has more 180 million computers in use; they consume nearly 58 billion kWh per year, or about 2 percent of annual U.S. electricity consumption. 

The newly published Version 4.0. Tier 1 specification for computers will go into effect on July 20, 2007 and will replace the Version 3.0, Tier 2 specification that has been in effect since July 2000. 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
savings
By caater on 10/27/2006 10:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
core2quadro - 130w.. amd's fx line 125w.. new vga cards - 300w?
heck, even core2duo's TDP of 65w could be better..
only intel's and amd's mobile lines do deserve this logo.




RE: savings
By nomagic on 10/27/2006 11:31:24 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong logic...

Modern desktop processors finish tasks faster in performance mode and step back to power-saving mode early. On the other hand, Modern mobile processors stays in performance mode longer to finish tasks before stepping back to power-saving mode. Therefore, mobile precessors are not always more efficient.

Of course, mobile processors are by design power saving, but that doesn't mean desktop processors can't be environmentally friendly with the right energy-saving features.

By the way, TDP represents the maximum amount of power the thermal solution is required to dissipate. Few (if any) processors run at TDP for more than 90% of its lifetime.


RE: savings
By icarus4586 on 10/27/2006 2:34:18 PM , Rating: 4
If this was the case, there would be no market for mobile CPUs. It's quite obvious that mobile CPUs use less power than desktop CPUs, even if they're slightly slower. If desktop CPUs were on average more power efficient, they would be used in laptops, because more power efficiency means longer battery life. Most DTR notebooks that have desktop processors in them get a paltry 1 - 2 hours of battery life, compared to 3 - 5 hours for smaller laptops with mobile CPUs.


RE: savings
By clayclws on 10/27/2006 3:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think the earlier poster's logic was that desktop finishes tasks faster due to more processing power (superior CPU, GPU, etc.) and therfore, can be shut down early.

An example would be trying to render scenes within 3dsmax. Normally, it would take a day for a highend desktop to render 30 realistic scenes with resolutions of 2970x2100 using vray plugin. It would take 2 or more days for a highend laptop to do the same.

There is no need to compare the equipments within the desktop and laptop. Highend desktops will always be better than highend laptops.

Hence, it may be logical to say that since the desktop finished it's tasks early, it can be shut down. The laptop is yet to be shut off for another day or so. Hence, there COULD be some energy-saving for the desktop when compared to the laptop.

Of course all these are arbitary...desktop do use a lot more power than the laptop in the first place. Maybe within the one day, the desktop used 350kW/h for 24 hoursl; a total of 8400kW. The laptop could be using 150kW/h for 48 hours; for a total of 7200kW. Hence, the laptop would have save more energy compared to the desktop...it's all arbitary.

Not much people are bothered to actually count the total energy saved though.


RE: savings
By PrinceGaz on 10/27/2006 3:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe within the one day, the desktop used 350kW/h for 24 hoursl; a total of 8400kW. The laptop could be using 150kW/h for 48 hours; for a total of 7200kW.

You're getting KW/h and KW mixed up; what you should have said was something like "the desktop used 350KW for 24 hours; a total of 8400KW/h".

Then again I think you might be getting watts and kilowatts mixed up because most desktop computers don't require anything approaching 350KW of power. Yet ;)


RE: savings
By clayclws on 10/27/2006 4:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're getting KW/h and KW mixed up; what you should have said was something like "the desktop used 350KW for 24 hours; a total of 8400KW/h".


kW/h means kiloWatts per hour. That's how much power (Watts) you use per hour. 350kW/h means you use 350kW of power per hour. 350kW/h x 24 hours = 8400kW. So in a day, you used up 8400kW. Did I get that wrong?

I am just assuming that a desktop may use up to 350kW/h. I am not saying an actual computer use up that amount in actual life. It is just for comparison.


RE: savings
By VeauX on 10/27/2006 5:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
kW/h is not correct. Energy amount is calculated in kWh.

example: a devise that consume 300W during one hour, used 300Wh of energy.

This is all because 1 W = 1 J. per second. Joule is the Energy and W is how fast you consume it. And Wh is how many energy was consumed in one hour.

1kWh = 3 600 000 J


RE: savings
By clayclws on 10/27/2006 8:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, energy is calculated as kWh. I was referring to the power that was used, not energy consumed. Granted I should not be using kW/h or W/h, since it confuses people, but that is the way we calculate the relative efficiency from where I live, because after all, kW/h is how we calculate our electricity bills here.

Logically, more power = higher biills = more energy consumed. Anyways, I guess I should use universally known method rather than my native method.


RE: savings
By mino on 10/28/2006 2:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the only thing measurable by the hypothetical [kW/h] unit is the energy comsumption increase pre hour.

Unit for energy(ammount of) is J(Joule), other non-standard units as Cal(Calory) and kWh(kilo-Watt-hour) may be used too
Unit for power output(per time unit) is W(Watt), other non-standard units as horsepower od J/s may be used.

W = J/s (W=>Watt, J=>Joule, s=>second)
kW = 1000W (k=>kilo=>1000times)
h = 3600s (h=>hour=>60minutes=>60*60seconds=>3600 s)
kWh = 1000W*h = 1000J/s*h = 1000J/s*3600s = 3600000J = 3.6MJ (M=>Mega=>1000000times; (1/s)*s==1 )

Therefore:
[J] and [kWh] are units of energy.
[W] or [kW] are units of power.
[W/s] or [kW/h] are units of power icrease

This should clarify the issue a bit. :)

As a result to talk about "power used per hour" is a pretty screwed up thought.


RE: savings
By Bytre on 10/28/2006 12:18:40 AM , Rating: 2
A desktop may use up to about .35kWh, or about 350 watts sustained over an hour period.


RE: savings
By emboss on 10/28/2006 9:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
kW/h means kiloWatts per hour. That's how much power (Watts) you use per hour. 350kW/h means you use 350kW of power per hour.


A Watt is 1 Joule per second. Saying you use 350 kW per hour is like saying you drive 10 miles an hour per hour (which would be talking about the acceleration of your car, effectively). A kWh is a UNIT of energy, a kW is a RATE of energy. A kW/h is a rate of change of energy usage, though I doubt it's ever used.


RE: savings
By Christopher1 on 10/31/2006 3:20:44 PM , Rating: 1
They really need to work on the 'waste energy' problem with current processors. Someone I talked to online said that almost 50% of the energy being put into modern processors is given off as waste heat.

That's an awful lot of energy to just be wasted.


My 2-cents
By marvdmartian on 10/27/2006 2:44:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Government agencies buying Energy Star will also garner big savings.

At the rate the most government entities replace computer equipment, it will likely only be a dozen years or so before this fabulous savings is realized. Believe it or not, where I work, we finally upgraded everyone to newer systems just last year......which meant they finally replaced all those ancient 500MHz P-II machines with some 2GHz P-IV machines. Yes, you read right. Two GIGAhertz!!! Wooohoooo......man, they might just have everyone on today's technology by, say, 2010 or 2015??

quote:
Intel Pledges Support

Whew! I'm sure everyone over at the EPA's gonna sleep better tonight, knowing that!! ;)




RE: My 2-cents
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/27/2006 3:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
Intel has always been with EPA hand in hand for a long time.


RE: My 2-cents
By marvdmartian on 10/31/2006 1:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
Someone's sarcasm meter is broken, I think. Maybe he's running it on an Intel chip?? ;)


RE: My 2-cents
By Dfere on 11/1/2006 1:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
You think intel doesn't see this as a competitive advantage to AMD- that is , they could try to get a one-sided measure passed that , in that one respect, makes them look superior, now and in the future, to AMD in terms of energy savings?


THE EPA doesn't know what the fuck they are doing
By Sharky974 on 10/28/2006 8:09:03 AM , Rating: 2
And I hate them.

The end.

It makes sense they will come after fast computers one day guys, only a matter of time with these GPU's now using huge amounts of electricity. Or do you think they only go after cars and leave everything else alone? Yeah right.

The environmental dipshits just dont want anybody to live, because living uses energy, and that's the bottom line.




By floffe on 10/28/2006 2:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
It's not like this is a regulation, it's simply new requirements to get a certification. No manufacturer is required to apply for Energy Star certification for their products. It'll mean the certification will actually mean something, unlike nowadays where 99% of systems sold will pass.

Oh, and it's not like the EPA came up with this themselves, some of those leaving comments on the draft have been ATi, Intel, and HP.

As for GPUs, all it means is that any computers using the current high-power GPUs won't comply with the Energy Star spec, and so won't get to show the logo.


By nunya on 10/30/2006 12:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
You are f*cking retarded.

The end.


A message
By crystal clear on 10/28/2006 5:07:28 AM , Rating: 2
"Through Energy Star, President Bush and EPA are brightening our nation's future, and I applaud these leaders for developing energy efficient computers that are good for our environment and good our wallets."

Mr Bush all your computers & components are MADE IN CHINA,
the worst polluter ever seen.
The Energy Star programme is better done & achieved if left in the hands of Computer technologies companies as a joint initiative.
All you got to do is to give them TAX incentives.
Govt intervention will not achieve those aims-the solutions
are in the hands of the computer industry,let them do it.
Let the awareness of Energy SAVINGS & ENVOIREMENT CONSCIENESS come from the computer industry itself.




RE: A message
By floffe on 10/28/2006 2:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
EPA has heavily consulted the industry in making these specs. Several of the large OEMs have expressed an interest in renewing the levels, since the current ones are met by pretty much everyone, and so don't say much about energy efficiency.


By smilingcrow on 10/27/2006 7:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
<< Modern desktop processors finish tasks faster in performance mode and step back to power-saving mode early. On the other hand, Modern mobile processors stay in performance mode longer to finish tasks before stepping back to power-saving mode. Therefore, mobile processors are not always more efficient.>>

If you look at the benchmarks for Conroe versus Merom, you will see that the two are usually evenly matched except for a few non-typical applications. Conroe has the advantage of clocking higher than Merom, but not that much more. When you look just at the performance per watt of the CPUs, Merom still beats Conroe quite easily. Even though the Conroe platform has the advantage of running faster than Merom, it also consumes more power than the Merom platform, so this advantage is negated. Add these two things together and a Merom desktop will easily beat a Conroe system in power efficiency. This advantage is especially noticeable at idle, which is the state at which most computers are running most of the time.

I have built quite a few desktops using Intel’s Mobile on Desktop platform recently and they are very power efficient. One used a Celeron M 420 1.6GHz and the system consumed 44W at load running Prime95. That is less than the 20” TFT that it was connected to consumes. This was using a desktop hard drive and standard ATX power supply; if you use a laptop hard drive and laptop style power brick you can reduce this to roughly 30-32W.
Conroe is certainly power efficient when running at 100% load compared to other desktop chips. But the platform overall just can’t compete with Yonah/Merom desktop systems.




The right directions
By crystal clear on 10/28/2006 4:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
VIA TECHNOLOGIES has made substantial progress in the areas of Envoirement & energy savings.
This article gives an indication which direction they are moving in.Certainly a good long term stratergy which will pay off very well.

"Twinhead uses Via CPU in new notebook PC
Via notches a design win in rivalry with Intel and AMD"

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/28/HNtwinhe...

Lets have solar laptop batteries with solar chargers-thats
real energy savings & cheap/clean /safe.

Energy savings is certainly important but the root cause
of the energy problem ,namely ENERGY PRODUCTION is to be
tackled very seriously.
Solar Energy is clean/safe/cheap -what better source one can look for,just waiting to be tapped.
The US GOVT should invest in this technology,rather than depend on OIL/NUCLEAR energy as a source for energy production.




newsflash
By Suomynona on 10/27/06, Rating: -1
RE: newsflash
By therealnickdanger on 10/27/06, Rating: 0
RE: newsflash
By imaheadcase on 10/27/2006 2:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
You hardly "double" your monthly bill. Upgrading to a cheap dell to a top of the line Quad GPU quad CPU won't tack on hardly but a few bucks more a month.

The biggest deal with the new requirements is monitors. They are the biggest energy wasters regardless of the user. Going from a CRT to a LCD would itself be the best way to "save" the enviroment.


RE: newsflash
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/27/2006 3:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Electric bill is only on average 40 dollars different for the YEAR, between a 90 Watt laptop, and a 600 Watt desktop monster. Stop spreading FUD. Wanna save on the electric bill? Turn off the A/C.


“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki