backtop


Print 16 comment(s) - last by Visual.. on Jan 25 at 5:06 AM


HP Compaq dc7800
HP dc7800 is about as cheap as SSD equipped computers get

Solid State Drives (SSDs) have been on the market a while now and are still too expensive for the majority of users to add to their computers. SSDs are commonly offered as options on notebook computers like the recently leaked Lenovo X300 notebook. What you don’t commonly see are SSD drives offered on desktop systems.

HP recently announced a system offering just that, an SSD hard drive in a slim desktop PC system. The benefits of a SSD in a notebook are very apparent with reduced energy consumption and better shock tolerance thanks to no moving parts. The benefits in a desktop system may not be as apparent to some.

The slight difference in boot speed might be a factor for impatient PC users, but the real benefit for SSD in a desktop is in the power savings. According to HP, the Go Green PC Power Play Study found that the U.S. government could save over $82.4 million USD in energy costs in one year by updating to Energy Star 4.0 compliant devices.

Large corporations that are rolling out hundreds of computers at one time could see some very significant energy savings by using desktop computers with SSD drives. The individual buying one PC for his small business won’t really see that big of a benefit form a SSD equipped desktop.

The HP Compaq dc7800 Ultra-slim desktop comes stock with an 80GB HDD. The optional SSD drive has a capacity of only 16GB, so power users will have another reason to not upgrade to the SSD which reportedly adds around $300 to the price of the computer.

The starting price for the system equipped with the SSD is $1258 and is shipping now. Base models with standard hard drives start at $729. Processors range from a Pentium Dual-core 2 GHz to a Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz.

With SSD drives available with up to 832GB right now, HP obviously chose the paltry 16GB SSD for this system as a cost saving measure.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

*sigh*
By Souka on 1/24/2008 3:44:40 PM , Rating: 5
"Study found that the U.S. government could save over $82.4 million USD in energy costs in one year by updating to Energy Star 4.0 compliant devices."

Yeah, sure... but it will cost $150 million to buy the equipment and another $250-350 million in man hours and lost productivity during the upgrade...

Yes save energy = good. But I'd sure like to see how spending $529 more on a $729 system will save money...not to mention going from a 80GB to 16GB drive. Also, how does the transfer rate (read/write) compare between the two drives?... What are the true performance benifits/consequences?

$729 = base system cost for 80GB system setup
$1258 = base system cost for 16GB SDD system setup
But do note, the article does clearly state that the 16GB option costs $300 more.... so obviously they upgraded some other specs to account for the $529 difference.




RE: *sigh*
By pomaikai on 1/24/2008 3:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention how long it is gonna take to recoup the $300 in energy savings. Anyone want to calculate the cost per year for an 80GB hard drive at the rate of 12-15 cents per kwh vs the SSD.


RE: *sigh*
By FITCamaro on 1/24/2008 3:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
Shhhhhh......saving energy is far more important than thinking about those sorts of things. If we need to spend $500 dollars to save $100, we should do it.

Fact is computers are already replaced in corporate environments every 3-4 years as it is. There's no point with any corporation or government rushing out to buy this vastly overpriced equipment when in a few years, it'll be cheaper and then possibly more worth the possible power savings.

The company I work for is already saving 50% on their power bill vs. previous usage just by everyone turning off their PC when not at work and smart management of the AC system. Lowering overhead is always good business practice but there are limits of what you should spend to saving a tiny amount of money. Spending $500 on an SSD to save $100 on power over the lifetime of the PC is retarded.


RE: *sigh*
By pomaikai on 1/24/2008 4:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
80GB hard drive is about 8W at load. For one year that is 70kwh at 15 cents per kwh would be about $10.00 to operate it for one year at load. Not much of an energy savings for $300.

Now how many billion would the government have to spend to save $82.4 million per year?


RE: *sigh*
By Souka on 1/24/2008 4:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
Did you come up with 70kwh based on 24/7 useage?

Also, I looked at the 80GB option used in those dells... power draw is 8watt idle, 12.6watt average

Power draw on 16GB SDD I could find typicaly are 10mA idle, 70mA read, 120mA write.

Finally...80GB 2.5" notebook drive power spec
Average seek power: 2.6 watts
Standby power: 0.28 watts
Sleep power: 0.287 watts

Sooo...with those numbers and $/kwh, how much would it cost to operate each type of drive 3.5", 2.5", SDD for 2000 hours a year whereby 1000 hours are idle, and 1000 are active seeks?


RE: *sigh*
By pomaikai on 1/24/2008 4:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
I just grabbed the power spec from a 80GB WD drive. That was at load 24/7 for one year. Was going for worst case scenario.

(watts x (hours per day) x (days per year) / 1000) x price per kwh


RE: *sigh*
By Samus on 1/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: *sigh*
By bhieb on 1/24/2008 5:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
Why bother with all that. Even worse case 8760 hours 24/7 365 @ 12.6 watts = $16.56 ($.15 per kwh). So even if the SSD used no electricity it still does not make sense with an 18.11 year payback.


$330
By therealnickdanger on 1/24/2008 3:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
I just played around with the configurations. $330 seems to be the going rate for upgrading to the 16GB SSD from the 80GB HDD. Ouch. Still, it's not exhorbent, but then no details are given on the SSD, but I don't imagine it's a "industry leading" drive, performance-wise.




RE: $330
By FITCamaro on 1/24/2008 4:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
If you figure that the 80GB drive is adding $40 to the cost of the PC, that SSD is actually costing $370.

So $40 for 80GB or $370 for 16GB.

A 900+% INCREASE in price for 400+% LESS capacity. Yes power consumption is around 1400% lower but you're talking about .5W vs. about 7W. You're talking about not even $50 in savings a year on your power bill.

SSDs make some sense on laptops if you absolutely need every minute of possible time out of it. For desktops, they're pointless.


RE: $330
By murphyslabrat on 1/24/2008 6:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, but it's progress, look at what it cost Galileo, we're getting off cheap.


I'll take two...
By CrazyBernie on 1/25/2008 1:07:25 AM , Rating: 2
... if that woman in the pic comes with them ^_^




RE: I'll take two...
By Visual on 1/25/2008 5:06:26 AM , Rating: 3
seriously, who is the babe and do you have higher resolution?


using SSD or ....
By hemo200 on 1/24/08, Rating: 0
HP
By daftrok on 1/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: HP
By Locutus465 on 1/24/2008 3:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, I've got me an HP dv6609wm laptop which is doing great for the money to be perfectly honest... The only big weakness it suffers is under performing graphics which means no games, but it does to a reasnoble job wiht vista.


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














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