TV, PC, Monitor etc - Amazing Power Consumption Development

almillar

berbastrike - your urge to reduce power consumption is commendable, but when you talk about carbon footprint, remember that the stuff currently in your bedroom has already been manufactured and delivered there. Energy is required to manufacture and deliver these new products you're talking about, and these contribute to your carbon footprint too. Do think about your poor eyes as well as your time though, a slow (IMO, compared to other current computers) computer and a poor monitor isn't much use. Try before you buy. Can I ask what your current computer is to compare to the Acer?

System

Yeah you're right almillar with the footprint.

Current PC spec : Pentium 4 3Ghz single core, 1.5 Ram, 128MB Graphics.
I spent some time reading this which was encouraging as its a similar situation:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1564159


The new equipment combined would cost just around £15 a year to run. The old costs around £80 per year.

The new equipment is not poor quality, the TV is 1080p while my current one is only 720 also.

suicidebob

custardy wrote: »

oh dearie me,you really have spat the dummy out
insults already?
you argument is replace everything with newer low power units
however your new 'PC' isnt cutting edge now
what will you do as the demands rise? the Atom isnt really user upgradeable

Spat the dummy? Don't go in a huff? Deary me? Is that the level you're at?

My argument wasn't anything of the sort.

Thanks for trying though.

bjohnson

One problem with PCs at the moment is that they are left switched on for long periods even when not being used so that you don't have to wait for them to boot up. I prophecy that eventually we will have a PC that will boot up instantly and users will switch on, use it, then switch off again.

John_Gray

Nobody seems to remember the Public Information films about the time that nuclear power stations first came on line in the UK, that electricity would soon be FREE!

Thinks... there would then have been no need for this b'itching!

kwikbreaks

gz33zg wrote: »

Interesting thread (to begin with) - really promising to see the advances being made in power consumption - will be interesting to see how it goes on from here. I take the point about it being underpowered, but a couple of years back you would get nothing in that power range.

Actually you would.

I bought an EEE Box 202 longer ago than that as a simple home server - http://www.digitalham.co.uk/equipment/EEE_Box_B202.php It is only slightly down on the machine linked to (apart from the graphics) but I wouldn't consider it for anything but the lightest tasks - it is pretty much the same as this netbook as is the machine linked to apart from the ION graphics which would allow HD viewing.

On the downside any extra poke the D525 Atom has over the N270 (iirc) in my EEE Box and this netbook would be eaten by it running Windows 7 rather than XP as the earlier Atom kit invariably did.

My view is that it would be more economical to stick with the current kit unless something better is wanted because it really is better rather than just lower power. For the tree huggers it would almost certainly be better for the planet too as most consumer kit takes more resources to make than it ever consumes in its lifetime.

System

bjohnson wrote: »

One problem with PCs at the moment is that they are left switched on for long periods even when not being used so that you don't have to wait for them to boot up. I prophecy that eventually we will have a PC that will boot up instantly and users will switch on, use it, then switch off again.

SSD's increase boot up speed I think

cit_k

John_Gray wrote: »

Nobody seems to remember the Public Information films about the time that nuclear power stations first came on line in the UK, that electricity would soon be FREE!

Thinks... there would then have been no need for this b'itching!

That was just government propaganda to cover up the fact that they were actually built to obtain weapons grade nuclear materials.
Theres a documentary about it, somewhere online, quite revealing, the cover ups and propaganda that came to light years afterwards.

cit_k

berbastrike wrote: »

Here is the TV:
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/sharp-lc22le22e-22-full-hd-led-tv-black-08115756-pdt.html

Power consumption Standby: <1W
On power: 19.7W
Annual consumption: 28.76kWh

Figures dont match?

19.7w x 24 (hours) x (365 days) = 172572

172 thousand, not 28 thousand?
Am i missing something here, or is the stated on power consumption much higher than what they claim?

System

Annual consumption* based on 4 hours per day it works out at(28.76kwh). It probably should say based on watching the TV 4 hours per day...