DailyTech - Intel Announces LessWatts Energy Efficiency Program

Submit News

IT Intel Announces LessWatts Energy Efficiency Program
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - September 25, 2007 8:09 AM

22 comment(s) - last by typo101.. on Sep 26 at 1:17 PM

Intel's latest energy initiative will allow data centers and home to users save energy

Intel officially launched a new initiative designed to help reduce power consumption by today's servers and personal mobile devices alike. The Less Watts initiative was announced during the recently completed Intel Developer Forum (IDF), though it was swamped by other bigger announcements during the show.

"We created LessWatts.org to accelerate technology development and simplify information sharing for effective power management across a broad spectrum of devices and industry segments that are utilizing Linux," said Renee James, corporate vice president and general manager of the Intel Software Solutions Group.

Implementing Intel's methods can help cut 10 watts of power from a dual-processor server, said Intel spokespeople during IDF. LessWatts hopes to also allow home users to extend the life of their notebook batteries with several simple fixes.

To help make the LessWatts.org initiative truly worthwhile to Linux users, organizers hope to work with open source developers to ensure future kernel updates will have modifications to help lower power consumption. In May, Intel first launched a PowerTOP program designed to help identify which programs are using too much power when the computer is idle. The LessWatts web site has a full list of the different projects it is working on to make sure energy consumption remains important to both companies and home users.

"A focused initiative that aggregates the disparate efforts into a holistic system and builds on our existing efforts with the industry in the Climate Savers Computing Initiative will serve as a strong catalyst to get energy-efficient solutions into the market segment faster, thereby benefiting the customers who purchase Intel-based products," James added.

The official LessWatts.org web site has several tips and tricks that can be immediately implemented by users.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

I love it.

By gochichi on 9/25/2007 8:29:38 AM , Rating: 1

I don't know why, but somehow there's always an elegance to efficient parts. It's a sign of desperation and lack of engineering ingenuity when you have to blow through 300W and a huge noisy fan in order to get your video card to run.

Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad... even more efficient successors... it's good. It's fantastic and practical, and balances out some of the environmental impact that the tech industry has during the manufacturing process.

RE: I love it.

By Chris Peredun on 9/25/2007 9:25:33 AM , Rating: 2

That elegance takes on a whole new level of appreciation when you have to pay your electric bill. Suddenly having a trio of Pentium D's running Folding@Home 24/7 isn't the best idea for your pocketbook.

(Though it does offset the winter heating bill.)

Parent

RE: I love it.

By Assimilator87 on 9/25/2007 11:12:43 AM , Rating: 5

There's a difference between efficiency and low power. I'm fine with 300W as long as it's efficient.

Parent

RE: I love it.

By Ringold on 9/25/2007 3:34:18 PM , Rating: 2

This efficiency thing.. I wonder how recently it has been entangled with "elegance".

I, for one, find the P-51 Mustang, in its V12 bout of glorious inefficiency, to be a very, very elegant piece of aeronautical elegance.

To continue on the aerospace trend, I also find indulging in a long-distance lunch near the beach by small plane to be much more "elegant" than by car. Again, hugely inefficient in terms of energy and money, 30+ gallons of polar-bear killing baby-dumbing leaded gasoline compared to a few gallons of environmentalist-approved regular unleaded. I'd never drive from Sanford to Vero Beach, though, just for a sandwich.

The idea with me being that many times I can entirely ignore efficiency if the other benefits are strong enough -- such as the sex appeal of one of the most powerful single-prop aircraft ever made or a nice afternoon of infuriating environmentalists by boring holes through footless halls of air.

Same with processors. If it delivered enough performance.. it could eat a kilowatt for all I care.

Parent

RE: I love it.

By TomZ on 9/25/2007 4:48:44 PM , Rating: 2

LOL, not feeling very politically correct are you today, Ringold? I loved your post - best I read here all day.

Parent

RE: I love it.

By Ringold on 9/25/2007 6:19:04 PM , Rating: 2

Heheh, I don't often concern myself with that too much. ;)

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5414774

Really, though. If someone looks at that and even wonders about CO2 emissions or fuel consumption/energy efficiency then they just don't get it. :P

Parent

RE: I love it.

By Bluestealth on 9/26/2007 2:16:29 AM , Rating: 2

Sweet plane.

I always wonder to myself how much fun it would be to fly around in a de-militarized jet. Plus, you can always waste more energy if you have an afterburner :)

Maybe someday I'll have the cash to find out.

Yes, I did post some other day about using energy reasonably, but... you don't have to every day.

Parent

RE: I love it.

By smitty3268 on 9/25/2007 7:23:55 PM , Rating: 2

I'm picturing you in that joke where Steven Colbert turns on the giant space heater for the sole purpose of wasting energy...

Parent

RE: I love it.

By Ringold on 9/25/2007 8:16:51 PM , Rating: 2

Like I said in my second post, you don't get it. You don't fly a fine creation like a Cessna for a lunch across the state with a friend on a beautiful Florida fall weekend afternoon for efficiency. You do it because it's highly enjoyable. It's not, therefore, wasteful; it produces large amounts of utility.

Same with the CPU I noted. If I could buy a chip, "elegant"/efficent or not, that had, say, twice the performance of a quad-core C2D at a similar price point but ate, say, a kw -- guess what? I'd be buying a 2kw PSU if it had value to me beyond some save-the-polar-bears definition of elegance/efficiency for the sake of efficiency.

Parent

RE: I love it.

By typo101 on 9/26/2007 12:53:46 PM , Rating: 2

I have always associated simplicity with elegance. For example, in the world of fashion (which I dont pretend to know anything about really) it's hard to imagine something that is both flashy and elegant at the same time. Your plane seems quite elegant with is smooth aerodymanic lines, and it doesn't have flames and shark teeth painted on it's hull. The plane's fuel consumption/polltuion creation has absolutely nothing to do with its elegance. It is elegant DESPITE its inefficiency.

A 2kW computer would probably have next to no efficiency because there would be a LOT of energy converted into heat, which would requere more energy used to cool, which in turn means more energy converted into noise. A noisey, overheated machine, when compared to a cool and silent one with similar functionality, should never been defined as elegant. No mater what case you put it in.

It may, however, be preferable. That depends on one's priorities.

Interestingly enough, as a programmer I consider a bit of code elegant if it is small, easy to read, and maybe uses a neat trick (mathematical or functional). However, there is often an alternative way to code the same functionality that looks terrible or requires more lines of code, but uses fewer resources/cpu cycles.

Parent

Linux Only

By TomZ on 9/25/2007 1:31:03 PM , Rating: 2

Funny the article fails to mention that it is Linux only. I feel sorry for people who still have to chain together lengthy, criptic command lines to operate their computer. Primitive and so 1980's.

RE: Linux Only

By Ringold on 9/25/2007 3:39:21 PM , Rating: 2

The only thing I wish Windows could do, for free, that Linux can do is some of the eye-candy they can enable these days on the desktop. Mostly useless feature, but a nice one regardless, when it doesn't conflict with drivers.

Beyond that, though, I agree. I'd take a Mac long, long before I would Linux on a pre-built machine/laptop. I hate to repeat a cliche, but linux is only free if your time is worthless. :P

And before someone pipes in with "Ubuntu ftw! Never crashed, 23 years of uptime!", yes, good for you.

Parent

RE: Linux Only

By smitty3268 on 9/25/2007 7:25:46 PM , Rating: 2

Which cryptic command lines are those again? It's been awhile since I've had to do anything without a GUI in linux.

Parent

RE: Linux Only

By TomZ on 9/25/2007 8:04:26 PM , Rating: 2

Didn't you read the Intel web site?

echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/sched_mc_power_savings
# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_availa ble_governors
ondemand userspace performance
# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_govern or
ondemand
# echo ondemand > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_govern or
ethtool -s eth0 autoneg off speed 100
iwpriv eth1 set_power 6
rmmod ipw2200
modprobe ipw2200 associate=0

Oh, I'd much rather do that than use a GUI!

Parent

RE: Linux Only

By Runiteshark on 9/25/2007 8:40:31 PM , Rating: 1

Too bad that you could never ever do anything like that with windows.

And what do you mean cryptic? The commands seem pretty straightfoward to me.

Parent

RE: Linux Only

By TomZ on 9/25/2007 8:50:15 PM , Rating: 2

I'm glad you don't have any of that nonsense in Windows any more. I've been in computing for >20 years, and I've done more than my share of command line in Unix and DOS. It sucks and I'd much rather have a powerful GUI instead of a powerful command line.

Parent

RE: Linux Only

By Bluestealth on 9/26/2007 2:36:18 AM , Rating: 2

A powerful command line compliments a gui quite well.
You can do many things orders of magnitude faster using a command line instead of a gui.
Both of them arn't best suited for every task, but for the general population a gui is better. So you should have a complete well developed gui for everyone, and a powerful command line for power users.
Hence the reason that Microsoft is investing time to create a better command line, while at the same time moving utilities out of the command line and into the gui.

On Ubuntu there wasn't anything that I couldn't do from the gui, but I used the terminal instead sometimes, because it was easier/faster.

Parent

RE: Linux Only

By Ringold on 9/25/2007 8:11:55 PM , Rating: 2

As someone who gave most the major distro's a try a couple months ago I must say that you've either got older, lucky hardware or aren't doing much worthwhile.

I'll admit I most enjoyed Sabayon, a Gentoo knock-off made for those who don't enjoy the "up from your boot straps, ye noob!" approach of Gentoo. That said, getting it up to date and maintaining it while technically might've been possible without opening up a konsole... would've been much more complicated through a GUI. Why let Portato crash ten times and then still screw up when you can run emerge -upDN and the likes and see things first-hand? Of course, none of which is necessary in Windows, as new versions can often be installed right on top of old ones. No config hell needed.

Oh, and what about getting your game on?

http://spring.clan-sy.com/wiki/SetupGuide

Uh ohs! Not a "Click next 3 times and then 'Done'" in sight!

Given that most questions answered on forums still include a string of technobabble, I don't buy in to your assertion and thus must raise the BS flag -- unless, like I said, you do simple tasks with widely supported non-bleeding edge hardware.

Parent

RE: Linux Only

By typo101 on 9/26/2007 1:17:12 PM , Rating: 2

maybe by "a while" he means a couple months, with is possible in something like ubuntu with automatic updates (and synaptic for new installs)

Parent

GPU Needs to do the same

By Nik00117 on 9/25/2007 4:06:09 PM , Rating: 2

I had posted an open letter to Nvida and ATI esstentically requesting smaller GPUs, GPUs that run cooler, and GPUs that require less heat. I was praised for my letter and all agreed.

I'm sorry but 300 watts to run a single computer part is simply crazy, CPU industry doesn't need to concerned about their wattage but the GPUs do.

But go Intel.

RE: GPU Needs to do the same

By Christopher1 on 9/25/2007 8:15:49 PM , Rating: 1

I have to agree with you about the power consumption on graphics cards today. ATI's are getting better, I found out that the hi-end system I was looking at buying only had a 400 watt power supply with a 2900XT card in it, and it was running fine even when playing Doom 3 at high resolutions.

Nvidia however seems to be going with "More power consumption means that the part is better!" No, it doesn't! That's the main reason why my father was having me put off getting a new graphics card for his computer, he saw how much power they sucked and was like "That much power! Shit, the electric bill will be going up big time!"

Parent