K
Kilowatt
Just a rough guess?
Did you ever think to check the name plate?!?
Just a rough guess?
Just a rough guess?
I used to measure the power consumption for calculating air conditioning
capacity, before systems got to a GHz. All the way from 286 systems through
to ~700MHz PIII systems, the system unit always consumed around 60W, and
a CRT-based monitor between 50-100W over the range 14" to 21" (but also
depends on scan rate).
I haven't measured any more recent systems, but it might still be a
reasonable figure although it probably varies more with workload than
it would have in the past. As CPU's have got considerably more power
hungry, power management has also advanced. So the answer may depend
more on your workload and the operating system's ability of utilising
the power management features of your system more than it would have in
the past.
DarkMatter said:Top posting Usenet retard.
The name plate, as in the one on the power supply, ONLY states what
the power supply is capable of putting out. It in no way states what
the computer actually consumes.
Bone up on usenet posting protocols, dude.
I agree completely. Its those ridgid inflexible people that have to have it
exactly the way they want it. I'll take it anyway I can get it
I actually prefer top posting.
BONE THIS MFer!!!!!!!
top posting does it really matter for gods sake?
Am I the only old annorak whos been using usenet for 13+ yrs in one form or
another that isnt offended by the dreaded top posting, it saves my scroll
wheel a lot of work. ;-)
Col.
I agree completely. Its those ridgid inflexible people that have to have it
exactly the way they want it. I'll take it anyway I can get it
I actually prefer top posting.
Keep in mind that some graphics processors consume as much power as the
system CPU (or more). So it depends on whether you have a low end unit
(sufficient for office apps) or a high end one for gaming.
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 22:18:59 -0800, DarkMatter
I've been using Usenet since 1992, and only recently have people
started complaining about top posting.
In fact, at one time, you'd
get flamed for bottom posting.
It makes no fing difference where you
post, and I actually find it better to top post since you don't have
to weed your way through all the background to get at the meat.
I like my new outlook express.DarkMatter said:On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:48:26 -0600, "Brian" <[email protected]> Gave
If you top post, and then state that you never heard of it before,You're completely correct. These newbie weenies think they're net
cops.
Tube monitors use about 150 watts.
Flat panel monitors of about 17 inches use about 40 watts.
If you live in a high electric cost area, as I do, a flat panel will pay
for itself very quickly.
It is hard to say how much power a computer uses.
Two!
It depends on many things.
Three!
How many hard drives are running. I have two huge ones.
Accessories, I have at least a dozen on my computer.
And the CPU.
The newer cpu's use as much as 65 watts alone, some even more.
Remember they have 40 to 60 million transistors in them.
So.
The same goes for some video cards.
So.
They can also generate a lot of heat and often have their own fans.
Aanother source of large losses is the diodes used to rectify the high
current, low voltages that some of these cpu's use.
Bwuahahahahaha...
Todays computers really need 250 to 200 watt power supplies.
The 100 watt supplies on most Emachines just will not do it.