The Cost of Running Your PC
by Christoph Katzer on November 14, 2008 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Cases/Cooling/PSUs
The Difference a Few Percent Makes
Hopefully we've made it clear that upgrading an existing power supply to a higher efficiency model purely for the power savings doesn't make sense. However, there are times when you need to buy a new power supply, so we will wrap things up with a closer examination of how efficiency impacts power costs. Should you really care about the difference between 85%, 87%, or 90% efficiency?
This time, we don't need to worry about specific systems, but instead we will focus on efficiency and monetary savings at various power loads. The following table is again a best-case scenario for saving money -- i.e. you are running the system 24/7. Efficiency 1 is the base value and we compare the savings you would gain by selecting a power supply that achieves Efficiency 2. Efficiency ratings at the various loads represent what you might realistically find in various high-end power supplies currently on the market -- so getting 90% efficiency with a load of only 50W isn't going to happen.
| Savings from Incrementally Higher Efficiency - 24/7 Yearly Usage | |||||
| Output - Watts | Efficiency 1 | Efficiency 2 | Savings NC | Savings CA | Savings GER |
| 50 | 78% | 79% | $0.53 | $0.91 | €1.56 ($2.03) |
| 80% | $1.05 | $1.80 | €3.09 ($4.01) |
||
| 81% | $1.56 | $2.66 | €4.58 ($5.95) |
||
| 82% | $2.05 | $3.51 | €6.03 ($7.83) |
||
| 200 | 80% | 81% | $2.03 | $3.46 | €5.95 ($7.73) |
| 83% | $5.94 | $10.13 | €17.41 ($22.64) |
||
| 85% | $9.66 | $16.49 | €28.34 ($36.84) |
||
| 87% | $13.22 | $22.55 | €38.77 ($50.40) |
||
| 400 | 85% | 86% | $3.60 | $6.14 | €33.61 ($43.70) |
| 87% | $7.11 | $12.13 | €10.55 ($13.71) |
||
| 88% | $10.54 | $17.99 | €20.85 ($27.10) |
||
| 89% | $13.90 | $23.72 | €30.92 ($40.19) |
||
| 700 | 85% | 86% | $6.29 | $10.74 | €18.45 ($23.99) |
| 87% | $12.44 | $21.23 | €36.49 ($47.43) |
||
| 88% | $18.45 | $31.48 | €54.11 ($70.34) |
||
| 89% | $24.32 | $41.50 | €71.33 ($92.73) |
||
Obviously, the higher the load the better your savings, since a difference of 1W hardly matters. Your best course of action would be to select a power supply that offers the best efficiency at the load you will use most frequently. So for example, if you only play games on your computer and otherwise have it shut off, you might seriously consider a power supply with optimal efficiency at the 500W-600W range. On the other hand, if you typically just surf the Internet you'll probably be more interested in the efficiency at 100W-200W.
At the maximum load of 700W, and going with German power costs, the difference between an 85% and 89% efficiency power supply could be as much as €71. That's enough to get a significantly better power supply, but of course that sort of savings is unrealistic since it will be extremely difficult to achieve a 700W load all the time. The 400W load represents a more realistic maximum, as something like an overclocked quad-core system running Folding@Home could actually draw that much power around the clock. In that case, your savings could still be a pretty significant €30 per year, so over three years you could save almost €100. If you only run the system eight hours per day, however, the difference in cost drops off quickly.
Obviously, spending $20 more just to increase efficiency by 1% isn't necessary. You'll probably use a power supply for at least three years, so all other things being equal higher efficiency is good. That "all other things" is the problem, however, since rarely are the other areas the same. Pay attention to the other features like noise levels, voltage regulation, and the number and type of connector as well. Also keep in mind that we still have changing ATX standards, and sometimes new connectors, so spending a small fortune on a top quality PSU that might be outdated in a year or two might not be the best course of action either.
The bottom line ends up being a simple case of common sense: don't buy more power supply than you actually need, and don't spend a lot of money for a small increase in efficiency. Figure out how much power your system will normally use, and then choose a power supply appropriate for that sort of workload. If you routinely stress your system (i.e. workstation loads or intense gaming), an extra $100 for a high-end power supply might be a good idea. For most users, however, moderation will be the better course of action.
Finally, we spent quite a bit of time putting together the spreadsheet that we used to generate the tables in this article. We selected a few different markets for our power costs, and then we selected several different systems. Obviously, we couldn't cover everything, but for those who are interested in running their own calculations we thought you might appreciate our spreadsheet. Feel free to insert your own KWh costs, efficiency, and system power requirements to see how things change. (The highlighted fields should be the only areas you need to modify.)
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
59 Comments
View All Comments
walk2k - Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - link
If you're curious to find out what your system actually uses, for about you can buy a P3 "Kill-a-Watt" power meter from Amazon for about $24. This is a doo-hicky that plugs into the power outlet, and then you plug whatever you want to measure into that. I've personally found it very enlightening.My current PC uses about 120 watts idle in XP, up to about 150 watts when actually doing stuff (cpu slightly loaded, HDD churning). Then in games with the GPU loaded it uses about 200 watts. I only managed to get it to 233 watts when running both a cpu stress test (Orthos) and GPU benchmark (3dmark06) at the same time.
I'm in CA and pay about 13 cents/Kilowatt/hour so theoretically if I left my system on 24/7 (I don't) at idle it would cost me about $11 per month. In reality I use my computer about 5 hours a day, with about half games (200 watts) and half just surfing, etc (120 watts) so say average 160 watts x 8 hours x $.13 x 30 days = $5 per month.
glynor - Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - link
The prices listed on the EIA website that you used to generate all these numbers (for the US) are based only on the price residential customers pay for energy generation, and do not include the cents per KWH charge that all customers must pay for transmission. Even though I simply take the standard offer from my utility company (like most people), my actual price is roughly DOUBLE what the EIA lists as the average for my state.Look at your bill. Make sure to add the totals for both Generation (Supply) and Transmission. These are billed separately.
With that in mind, most of the example totals reported in this article, and certainly all the comparisons to "Europeans paying more" are completely bogus!
Maiyr - Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - link
Why bother with all of this just to figure out how much it costs to run your system ? Surely someone must have thought of just plugging in a Kill-A-Watt Electricity Usage Monitor....Maiyr
gochichi - Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - link
I would look for better efficiency rating for the following reasons (in this order):1) I speculate the product is a higher quality product.
2) Inefficiencies turn into waste heat, cooler is more stable, more pleasant, and longer lasting (speculations)
3) I guess maybe saving a couple of bucks on my bill, but it's definitely not as important to me as just knowing that a have a "pimp" power supply.
What this article does make me want to do is try to figure out what sleep modes best suit my desktop computers (particularly my seldom used older desktop). Cold booting is inconvenient and I have been careless about finding a reliable sleep mode. I think the trick is to go S1, I just switched my main computer from S3 to S1 and it really helps stability and responsiveness.
I wonder how running laptops does in terms of power efficiency. There's got to be a ton of inefficiency caused by charging and discharging the batteries all the time. The design circling around a portable battery also makes it pretty power thrifty at the same time. Just curious as to how it actually pans out. Laptops have typically been more robust in sleep mode too though.
Random comment: Is it just me or have software updates gotten beyond the ridiculous point? Seems like they are not only often, but they are in your face... like it's OK to interrupt what you're up to a few times a week to get the update "right now"... I mean forcefully.
bob11d50 - Sunday, November 16, 2008 - link
I just wanted to justify my purchases of energy efficient computer components.The reason for this was about 3 years ago I had 9 people living in my house and the power company was on a teared system. I got up to the fourth tear where power was up to $0.85 KWH. This was in San Jose California with PG&E as the power company.
I got my server down to 77 WATS with a EE Athlon at idle from about 230 with my dual Opteron. All measurements were using the Kill-A-Watt.
sheh - Saturday, November 15, 2008 - link
I was always under the impression your total power readings were at the outlet, and so included the efficiency loss of the PSU. If that wasn't the case, how do you measure total power draw from within the computer?Christoph Katzer - Sunday, November 16, 2008 - link
Motherboard, system, graphics-reviews got readings from the wall. power supplies are loaded with a programmable load, so we can easily calculate the losses. You can know the power draw from mobos, gfx and so on when measuring the power distribution inside of the case which isn't difficult if you know which cable powers which part of which component ;)bigsnyder - Saturday, November 15, 2008 - link
What kind of case is that in the picture?Christoph Katzer - Sunday, November 16, 2008 - link
Silverstone TJ10GimpyOne - Saturday, November 15, 2008 - link
Not sure about Europe, but here in the US, the cost of "electricity" is only about half the bill. Once they tack on things like Fuel Cost charges, Energy improvement riders, resource adjustments, etc. you double the actual bill (literally).So more appropriate cost saving could actually be closer to 2x what is here.