Power Consumption in kilowatts of over one month

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul Samiljan
  • Start date Start date
P

Paul Samiljan

Very, very general question for whatever it's worth. Would a desktop
machine (IBM 300 PL, two 5400 RPM internal drives, 520MB RAM) running Win2k
Server and Exchange Server 2000 for a small domain of under ten workstations
alone consume anywhere near 100 kilowatts of power within 30 days?
 
Paul Samiljan said:
errr, I mean energy, not power. 100 kilowatts of energy.
Click to expand...
Watts is power, so your first question was correct. To use that much power,
it would be 3300 watts per day. You need to figure out the power consumption
of the computer x 24 hours per day. (I assume it runs 24\7) If it consumed
300 watts per hour it would use 7200 watts per day, or 216,000 watts per
month!
 
Very, very general question for whatever it's worth. Would a desktop
machine (IBM 300 PL, two 5400 RPM internal drives, 520MB RAM) running Win2k
Server and Exchange Server 2000 for a small domain of under ten workstations
alone consume anywhere near 100 kilowatts of power within 30 days?
Click to expand...


I assume are you asking about Kilowatt hours;

That's about 140 watts for 24x7 operation. Sounds right.

100 Kilowatts is what a hundred taosters would use. If left on
all month


100KW; Think of 100 toasters running all the time. That's about 100KW.
The power consumption if on all month would be about 72 thousand KWH
and, in NYC, your electric bill would be about $10k for the onth.
 
Very, very general question for whatever it's worth. Would a desktop
machine (IBM 300 PL, two 5400 RPM internal drives, 520MB RAM) running Win2k
Server and Exchange Server 2000 for a small domain of under ten workstations
alone consume anywhere near 100 kilowatts of power within 30 days?
Click to expand...
w/o monitor? IMHO no !

-- Regards, SPAJKY
& visit site - http://www.spajky.vze.com
Celly-III OC-ed,"Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##
 
errr, I mean energy, not power. 100 kilowatts of energy.
Click to expand...
I think what you are looking for is kwh or kilowatt-hours, the units you
buy electricity in. Lets assume your computer including monitor, pulls 200
watts, or .2kw. If left on for a day, that is 4.8kwh (24*.2). In 30 days,
it would be 144kwh (4.8*30) so in an average month, your 24*7 system could
consume 100kwh of power. Power and energy saving features would reduce
this. The monitor probably consumes as much as the computer so having it go
to standby will also have an effect.

HTH

JT.
 
(300 Watt Power Supply) x (24 hours/day) x (30 days) / 1000 Watts/ Kilowatt)
= 216 Kilowatt-hours (Maximum)
 
DaveW said:
(300 Watt Power Supply) x (24 hours/day) x (30 days) / 1000 Watts/ Kilowatt)
= 216 Kilowatt-hours (Maximum)
Click to expand...

But a PC power supply putting out 300 watts DC is drawing 300/0.7 watts,
or 428.6 watts AC.
 
(300 Watt Power Supply) x (24 hours/day) x (30 days) / 1000 Watts/ Kilowatt)
= 216 Kilowatt-hours (Maximum)
Click to expand...



Maximum is key as it very rare if ever that a 300 watt power supply is
putting out 300 watts. If it is there is a strange smell in the air.
 
But a PC power supply putting out 300 watts DC is drawing 300/0.7 watts,
or 428.6 watts AC.
Click to expand...


This is peak power, which should be exceptional. Average power consumption
is no where near peak. Probably more like 200 watts in, 140 watts out
except under the rare full load conditions. A power supply only pulls what
is needed to supply what the system demands.

JT
 
Very, very general question for whatever it's worth. Would a desktop
machine (IBM 300 PL, two 5400 RPM internal drives, 520MB RAM) running Win2k
Server and Exchange Server 2000 for a small domain of under ten workstations
alone consume anywhere near 100 kilowatts of power within 30 days?
Click to expand...
Running UD or at 100% CPU use:
1. AMD 2100+(1.7G) 148 watts
2. AMD 2500+(1.8G) 183 watts
3. AMD 2500+ @ 3100+(2.2G) 209 watts*
4. AMD 2600+(2.1G) 176 watts
5. AMD 1500(1.5) 249 watts*
6. AMD 2500+ Barton @ 3100+(2.2G) 175 watts
7. P3 750 notebook n/bat 25 watts
8. 600 Celeron notebook n/bat 20 watts
All desktops have 3-5 fans + high powered Heat sink fans.
Ref- 32" color TV(picture tube) 150 watts
*Gamer
 
.Aba said:
Maximum is key as it very rare if ever that a 300 watt power supply is
putting out 300 watts. If it is there is a strange smell in the air.
Click to expand...

Probably from the smoke leaking out of the computer wires. (Computers run
on smoke, ya know.)
 
JT said:
This is peak power, which should be exceptional. Average power consumption
is no where near peak. Probably more like 200 watts in, 140 watts out
except under the rare full load conditions. A power supply only pulls what
is needed to supply what the system demands.
Click to expand...

Regardless, I was referring to *his* use of the DC rating of 300 watts in
his calculations, instead of the resulting AC input.
 
Regardless, I was referring to *his* use of the DC rating of 300 watts in
his calculations, instead of the resulting AC input.
Click to expand...

There is no way of knowing the actual ac input because you don't really
know the effeciency of the power supply. It could be 70%, which is your 0.7
implies, or it could be 90% (unlikely or possible) or it could be 50%
(which I have seen in some really cheap PSUs). The .7 conversion for peak
to RMS conversion doesn't apply here either ( if it did it would be .7^2
because it is watts not volts or amps). His 300 watt estimate is probably a
lot closer than yours in the end.

JT
 
JT said:
There is no way of knowing the actual ac input because you don't really
know the effeciency of the power supply. It could be 70%, which is your 0.7
implies, or it could be 90% (unlikely or possible) or it could be 50%
(which I have seen in some really cheap PSUs).
Click to expand...

I would say that over 90% of the ATX PC PSUs on the market today are
65%-70% efficient. I have seen NONE at your 90% or 50% level.
The .7 conversion for peak
to RMS conversion doesn't apply here either ( if it did it would be .7^2
because it is watts not volts or amps).
Click to expand...

Who mentioned peak to RMS conversion? For a PSU to be UL rated at 300 DC
watts, it must *maintain* a full 300 watts @ 25 Degree C over the full
rated AC range. 300 watts is *not* a "peak" figure if it is UL listed
at 300 watts.
His 300 watt estimate is probably a
lot closer than yours in the end.
Click to expand...

Estimate of what? I was merely pointing out that the DC power rating of
the PSU had no place in his equation. He stated "Maximum" in his post,
and for a 300 watt DC PSU, 300 DC watts would be the maximum. That equates
to about 428 AC watts.
 
I would say that over 90% of the ATX PC PSUs on the market today are
65%-70% efficient. I have seen NONE at your 90% or 50% level.
Click to expand...

In the situation as presented, there is still no way of knowing, as it is
power supply dependant, which is my point. Your 65% to 70% was simply
stated as a .7 with no reasoning to back it up.
Who mentioned peak to RMS conversion? For a PSU to be UL rated at 300 DC
watts, it must *maintain* a full 300 watts @ 25 Degree C over the full
rated AC range. 300 watts is *not* a "peak" figure if it is UL listed
at 300 watts.
Click to expand...
Even there, the 300 watts output is not a 100% duty cycle rating on many
PSUs. Some of the cheaper ones are only 10% or 10 minute at full load rated
(although not necessarilary stated on the label). The UL rating just means
it won't catch fire at 300 watts, not that it will be stable. Was looking
for where you would have come up with a hard and fast .7 factor was why I
mentioned RMS, which we both agree is out of place.
Estimate of what? I was merely pointing out that the DC power rating of
the PSU had no place in his equation. He stated "Maximum" in his post,
and for a 300 watt DC PSU, 300 DC watts would be the maximum. That equates
to about 428 AC watts.
Click to expand...

Again, depends on the power supply, which you never stated. Your 0.7 factor
is not a hard and fast rule.. On a cheap power supply, 300 watts out could
mean 600 watts in, not 428. A very good power supply could do it with 340
watts in. That was the point I was trying to make.

JT
 
JT said:
In the situation as presented, there is still no way of knowing, as it is
power supply dependant, which is my point. Your 65% to 70% was simply
stated as a .7 with no reasoning to back it up.
Click to expand...

So 0.65-0.7 would have satisfied you? Give me a break! The .7 figure
made my point that the AC input watts is considerably higher than the
DC output watts.
Even there, the 300 watts output is not a 100% duty cycle rating on many
PSUs. Some of the cheaper ones are only 10% or 10 minute at full load rated
(although not necessarilary stated on the label). The UL rating just means
it won't catch fire at 300 watts, not that it will be stable. Was looking
for where you would have come up with a hard and fast .7 factor was why I
mentioned RMS, which we both agree is out of place.
Click to expand...

You are obviously unfamiliar with UL testing of power supplies, and no -
I *don't* agree that my using 70% as the efficiency factor was "out of
place." ATX PC power supplies average around 70% efficiency.
Again, depends on the power supply, which you never stated. Your 0.7 factor
is not a hard and fast rule.. On a cheap power supply, 300 watts out could
mean 600 watts in, not 428. A very good power supply could do it with 340
watts in. That was the point I was trying to make.
Click to expand...

You have yet to give us any sources for your 50% or 88% efficiency (your
above 340 input watts example) PSUs. A 88% efficient PC PSU? I don't think
so. Source?
 
ric said:
So 0.65-0.7 would have satisfied you? Give me a break! The .7 figure
made my point that the AC input watts is considerably higher than the
DC output watts.
Click to expand...

ric, you should have given your readers a break originally by giving
some clue as to where your formula came from. I, like JT, thought you
were some dope erroneously using a rounded-off RMS factor. Yes,
0.65-0.7 would have satisfied us that you had something else in mind,
like maybe efficiency, since you didn't bother to say what it was.

(I've noticed that this newsgroup suffers greatly from "experts" (who
maybe are tired of discussing something yet again) who state facts or
opinions with little or no support for their statements so readers may
have any confidence in what is said. Often it's not even clear what
is being said because of poor use of terms, etc. Such "help" is mosly
usless except to the extent that the same opinion from several other
people might be given some credence. Given a fixed amount of effort,
it would be better to address a few topics carefully than many topics
haphazardly.)
You are obviously unfamiliar with UL testing of power supplies, and no -
I *don't* agree that my using 70% as the efficiency factor was "out of
place." ATX PC power supplies average around 70% efficiency.
Click to expand...

You are obviously unfamiliar with English; JT didn't say that that
using 70% was out of place -- he said that using an RMS factor (0.7)
was out of place.
You have yet to give us any sources for your 50% or 88% efficiency (your
above 340 input watts example) PSUs. A 88% efficient PC PSU? I don't think
so. Source?
Click to expand...

FWIW (not much), until a few months ago I long thought that modern
switching power supplies were about 90% efficient, and was suprised to
read somewhere (as you have confirmed) that PC PSUs are considerably
less efficient than that.
 
Get one of these and see directly.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2352343028&category=3240


Very, very general question for whatever it's worth. Would a desktop
machine (IBM 300 PL, two 5400 RPM internal drives, 520MB RAM) running Win2k
Server and Exchange Server 2000 for a small domain of under ten workstations
alone consume anywhere near 100 kilowatts of power within 30 days?
Click to expand...
~~~~~~
Bait for spammers:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
(e-mail address removed)
~~~~~~
Remove "spamless" to email me.
 
Back
Top