Tyche
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,059
Joined: May 23, 2006
|
#16 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 3:37 pm
|
Fizban said:
Scandum said:If you got a low cpu load on your server that should save quite a bit of energy as well. Wouldn't it be neater to run a mud on a notebook though?
I do it all the time, but my laptop's not exactly slow, much faster than an atom anyway,
I was always afraid of using laptops for any extended period of time.
Do laptops still have heat problems or am I still living in the 90's? :-/
|
.........................   
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
|
|
David Haley
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 5,727
Joined: Jun 30, 2007
|
#17 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 3:43 pm
|
Tyche said:I was always afraid of using laptops for any extended period of time.
Do laptops still have heat problems or am I still living in the 90's? :-/
Heat problems are much better than they were even a few years ago, but they're still an issue AFAIK. (My laptop gets hot enough that it's sometimes uncomfortable to put it on my lap.) Heat problems are also more of an issue on "desktop replacement" laptops; things that are meant to be portable email machines tend to be a lot better with that.
I also am somewhat superstitious about their ability to withstand as much use as desktops; every laptop I've ever had has eventually started degrading (esp. w.r.t. battery life).
Scandum said:Wouldn't it be neater to run a mud on a notebook though?
Why? For reduced power consumption or just for the novelty?
|
|
|
Runter
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,074
Joined: Jun 1, 2006
|
#18 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 4:24 pm
|
I have a high end gaming laptop and I have no heat issues. That is to say, my parts run hotter than desktops---but within intended spec.
|
|
.........................
-Heath
For once you have tasted flight Ruby you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards,
for there you have been and there you will long to return. --
Leonardo Da Vinci Yukihiro Matsumoto
|
|
quixadhal
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,256
Joined: Oct 17, 2007
|
#19 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 4:29 pm
|
Brinson said:
Dean said:I don't know what the electrical companies are like over there but surely the difference would be barely noticeable?
A 500 watt PCs power cost per month is measured:
((500 x 24 x 30)/1000) x Cost Per Kilowatt Hour.
First part is 360, so 360 times whatever you pay.
Residential average from this website says US citizens in Aug 2008 paid an average of 12.05 cents per kilowatt hour.
Thats $43.38 per month.
As opposed to an atom nettop which uses less than 30watts...total cost is $2.60 per month...
Now, most p4s won't use 500 watts, so adjust occasionally. Was just making an example. Servers run 24/7, so they consume alot of power.
True enough. My gaming PC (AMD Athalon X3 720BE, 750W power supply + 19" flat panel display) uses about 195 watts when typing stuff into a web browser on the desktop, with two VM's running, according to my UPS's display anyways. My file server is considerably older (P3 900MHz) and probably uses 100W, and my firewall is even older still (P2 266MHz).
We pay tiered costs here, one price up to a certain usage, then the rate jumps up for the next tier... so I'm not sure how much it actually works out to, and am too lazy to dig around for a bill.
This reminds me of the incandescent vs. compact florescent light bulb issue. There's no doubt that CFL bulbs save energy. However, I can buy a 6 pack of 60W light bulbs for $1, whereas finding CFL's for less than $2 each is almost impossible. So, does the power savings from using 15W vs. 60W offset the cost of replacing the bulbs? Especialy since they do NOT last 12 times longer, at least not in my experience. In my case, I chose to replace the lights that we tend to leave on most of the day (kitchen), but swap the rest of them with whatever is on sale when they need a new bulb.
By the same logic, I'd be happy to replace my firewall with an atom-powered server if I had a spare chunk of change AND OpenBSD works on that architecture. One presumes you'd also want to use a solid state drive (or flash drive), since hard drive motors tend to suck a bit of juice too.
|
......................... 
|
|
Mudder
Conjurer
Group: Members
Posts: 196
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
|
#20 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 4:30 pm
|
Agreed. I only have a laptop and while it sometimes gets hot enough for me to remove it from my lap (I also suspect it has something to do with my lap preventing proper air flow) I use it heavily and rarely restart it. Probably once every 4 or 5 days. I also run my mud project from it, though it's not open, so no one is connecting.
|
......................... A wise man once said:Never underestimate a newbie coder and the sheer amount of spare time they may accumulate.
|
|
David Haley
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 5,727
Joined: Jun 30, 2007
|
#21 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 5:11 pm
|
Runter said:That is to say, my parts run hotter than desktops---but within intended spec.
Hmm, yes, I misspoke. I meant what Runter said just now: the laptops run hotter, but not "too hot" -- at least, not according to the manufacturer, it's still too hot sometimes to put on my lap.
quixadhal said:However, I can buy a 6 pack of 60W light bulbs for $1, whereas finding CFL's for less than $2 each is almost impossible.
Here's an 8-pack for $12.50, coming out to $1.56 per bulb.
quixadhal said:So, does the power savings from using 15W vs. 60W offset the cost of replacing the bulbs? Especialy since they do NOT last 12 times longer, at least not in my experience.
Where does this 12 figure come from? Using your figures of $1 vs. $2, you only need it to last at least twice as long... The link I gave above claims it lasts up to 8 times longer, so even if you're very conservative and change that to 2 times longer the two bulb types are equivalent when it comes to dollars spent on the bulb per hour of usage.
But since you're spending 4 times less on electricity with the CFL bulb, it seems pretty clear that you're winning.
More generally speaking, if you assume that the CFL lasts two times longer and consumes four times less electricity, the incandescent bulb would have to cost 8 times less before they're equivalent in total cost.
Now, there is also an argument to be made that, were many more people to use CFLs, total energy demand would go down, while supply is staying more or less constant; this would (in principle at least) reduce the price of electricity, or allow more growth. You could also argue that if demand goes down, they can reduce the supply generated from polluting power plants, thereby not bringing price down but helping the environment.
The problem I have with CFLs is that I strongly dislike the kind of light they generate.
|
|
|
Mudder
Conjurer
Group: Members
Posts: 196
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
|
#22 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 5:27 pm
|
David Haley said:The problem I have with CFLs is that I strongly dislike the kind of light they generate.
When was the last time you checked them out? There have been many advancements in this market and I have bought CFLs that are 100% indistinguishable from "normal" light bulbs.
EDIT: Also, not all CFLs are created equal. There are some that are meant to mimic the soft light from light bulbs. You should look for the specifically.
However living in New Zealand they are still a year or so behind the CFL advancements. So if you're outside the USA it may be different.
EDIT: There is also no doubt that CFLs are cheaper in the long run, and a significant price difference over time. It's more of an investment, a guaranteed investment. I think David presented it quite well.
|
......................... A wise man once said:Never underestimate a newbie coder and the sheer amount of spare time they may accumulate.
Last edited Nov 18, 2009, 5:28 pm by Mudder
|
|
David Haley
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 5,727
Joined: Jun 30, 2007
|
#23 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 5:35 pm
|
Mudder said:When was the last time you checked them out? There have been many advancements in this market and I have bought CFLs that are 100% indistinguishable from "normal" light bulbs.
In fairness, it's been a while, and since I usually don't buy them myself I only see the cheapo ones that they put up in my apartment building. I tend to use bulbs like this one -- not CFL, still incandescent, but more efficient.
I read an interesting article in the paper a month or two ago that claimed that incandescent technology is getting some serious upgrades, and they're finding way to lose less energy to dissipated heat. (You always need the heat, but you don't need to lose so much outside the bulb.)
Maybe I should try out CFL bulbs again, since indeed it's been a while since I took a look. It's good to hear that things are changing. 
|
|
|
|
|
quixadhal
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,256
Joined: Oct 17, 2007
|
#25 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 5:57 pm
|
David Haley said:
quixadhal said:However, I can buy a 6 pack of 60W light bulbs for $1, whereas finding CFL's for less than $2 each is almost impossible.
Here's an 8-pack for $12.50, coming out to $1.56 per bulb.
quixadhal said:So, does the power savings from using 15W vs. 60W offset the cost of replacing the bulbs? Especialy since they do NOT last 12 times longer, at least not in my experience.
Where does this 12 figure come from? Using your figures of $1 vs. $2, you only need it to last at least twice as long... The link I gave above claims it lasts up to 8 times longer, so even if you're very conservative and change that to 2 times longer the two bulb types are equivalent when it comes to dollars spent on the bulb per hour of usage.
That's $1 for a 6-pack of normal bulbs (at the dollar store) vs. $2 PER CFL bulb.
You found them for $1.60, which is better... but until I can get them for about $0.50 each, I probably won't feel compelled to switch everything. I do like the "daylight" CFL bulbs, but those are even more expensive, clocking in at around $3 each unless they're on sale. I would guess my CFL's have lasted about twice as long as incandescents.
|
.........................
|
|
David Haley
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 5,727
Joined: Jun 30, 2007
|
#26 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 6:03 pm
|
Oh, I didn't see the six-pack bit.
Still, the math works out in favor of CFLs.
$1 for 6 means $0.17 per incandescent bulb.
We saw earlier that, assuming a CFL lasts just two times longer, the incandescent bulb would have to be 8 times cheaper. $1.6/8 = $0.20.
So CFLs are $0.03 more expensive -- except that our assumption of a doubled lifetime was a very conservative discounting of the eight times longer claim given by the manufacturer. (EDIT: You observed two times longer yourself, but you probably measured it no more accurately than with gut feeling. You'd have to do a more serious study with use cases etc. to get a more reliable number.) If you assume that it lasts just 2.5 times longer -- still a big discount on the manufacturer's claim -- you're talking $1.6/10 = $0.16. At this point the CFL is 1 cent cheaper.
|
Last edited Nov 18, 2009, 6:05 pm by David Haley
|
|
quixadhal
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,256
Joined: Oct 17, 2007
|
#27 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 6:29 pm
|
I just wish the daylight bulbs would come down in price. I like the clean white light (as opposed to the pink "soft white" or the yellowish "normal" ones). Now, if they could get LED bulbs to output a decent light level, that would be ideal. So far, they're pretty expensive and only useful for things like flashlights or night lights.
Another thing CFL's have going for them is reduced air conditioning costs in warmer areas (or summertime). I don't have any scientific way to study it, but consider how much heat a 60W bulb puts out compared to the 15W CFL equivalent. Now, count how many lights you have in your house. Nice in the winter around here, but not so good in the summer! :)
|
.........................
|
|
Runter
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,074
Joined: Jun 1, 2006
|
#28 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 6:45 pm
|
Tyche said:Okay then laptops are still too hot for laps.
I love inhaling mercury vapor from CFLs, as it's more filling than the tasteless argon and nitrogen blend from incandescent bulbs. ;-)
That's why the term "laptop" has been phased out. For one thing, notebooks can cause fertility problems in men even if they are technically not too hot.
|
|
.........................
-Heath
For once you have tasted flight Ruby you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards,
for there you have been and there you will long to return. --
Leonardo Da Vinci Yukihiro Matsumoto
|
|
Runter
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,074
Joined: Jun 1, 2006
|
#29 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 6:49 pm
|
Runter said:I have a high end gaming laptop and I have no heat issues. That is to say, my parts run hotter than desktops---but within intended spec.
To elaborate a little bit for anyone interested my CPU tests full load at 50C and my 2 GPUs burn at 85C.
|
|
.........................
-Heath
For once you have tasted flight Ruby you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards,
for there you have been and there you will long to return. --
Leonardo Da Vinci Yukihiro Matsumoto
Last edited Nov 18, 2009, 6:49 pm by Runter
|
|
Fizban
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 606
Joined: Jan 8, 2007
|
#30 Posted Nov 18, 2009, 7:49 pm
|
Tyche said:Fizban said:
Scandum said:If you got a low cpu load on your server that should save quite a bit of energy as well. Wouldn't it be neater to run a mud on a notebook though?
I do it all the time, but my laptop's not exactly slow, much faster than an atom anyway,
I was always afraid of using laptops for any extended period of time.
Do laptops still have heat problems or am I still living in the 90's? :-/
My laptop's been running for 18 days at the moment, and is a 2.53 GHz Core 2 Quad, so it should run run much hotter than most laptops but I don't really ever have heat related issues.
|
|
|
