From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AC9139897 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:39:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 61A9B142B1; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:39:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yk0-f175.google.com (mail-yk0-f175.google.com [209.85.160.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50F7B14228 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 22:39:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ykll84 with SMTP id l84so168873515ykl.0 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:39:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fGv7arLHC4v71nZGeShJDPRwXPmeBwG2jRS2XexJ9+E=; b=YsS8eL3rMHkQ9D7/Tx9iXTLKAMqlcFGzgAq1uFQPRIZbDzhJkxhqqLv1lg6cC5B+cJ 1WByZ8Sj6wFZ7K3YlhQ0k9vdnsd4Y3oHcwBKAJLLH/A17T4bZk1faO4479gfGZFuqt8j LJSxlaW8BJupGjIaAEPoIiuhW8jxQ60JRD3ZHjhw5Is0PLeO2sF5DbAA2ePHbWyMRwx7 1ZyKq7lo5bf+w/ug8afxBOt+NM9hTklsD5bl4rmoAozhV9pVgm1DOAUpmALg8tlIhLSF jnQP49Opv5o5Gt/YITZX0ziFyw36iBhmJGAuLaXzIxrvUiwvDfc9uBvGicxue8m6ulY5 0dQg== X-Received: by 10.170.123.131 with SMTP id p125mr40067911ykb.14.1440542374460; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-115-33.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.115.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k66sm747817ywe.0.2015.08.25.15.39.33 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:39:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55DCEEA4.8060701@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:39:32 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/36.0 SeaMonkey/2.33.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Epic list of total FAIL. References: <55D637E0.3080409@verizon.net> <2935590.ZJjmRnyj51@andromeda> <55D80E00.4050508@verizon.net> <55D8303D.5000806@gmail.com> <55D8A5EF.2070701@verizon.net> <55D905AD.4000406@gmail.com> <20150825204313.GE2737@asp> In-Reply-To: <20150825204313.GE2737@asp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 12a305a9-a395-4b5c-a268-ddc28c24db18 X-Archives-Hash: 9290d9a1f8a449fc4bfd54cec2231c76 Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 06:28:45PM -0500, Dale wrote: > >> Alan Grimes wrote: >>> The PSU is an Antec EarthWatts 750. >>> >>> Biggest hoggs outside the motherboard are the, um, er, well [nvidia 9= 80 >>> gpu] and an aging Western Digital Velociraptor boot drive. There is a= lso >>> a 3TB drive for all my p***, er kerbals ( Kerbal Space Program ) . >> It just means your P/S is running at half power most of the time. > Which may be a good idea, since then it=E2=80=99d be running at optimum= efficiency. Yep. I would not buy a P/S that didn't have at least 30 or 40% of headroom. If nothing else, as the P/S ages, it wouldn't be so stressed on those older components. Also, I would only do that if I know I won't ever add to that rig. I usually aim for half load or even a little less. I almost always end up adding something or upgrading something before I retire a system.=20 > >> On my current P/S, it is a 650 watt unit. According to my UPS, my ent= ire >> computer system pulls about 150 watts idle and about 160 to 170 when >> compiling the crap out of something like GCC, Libreoffice etc. Now th= at >> includes my monitor, router, modem and speakers. If I were to guess, = the >> puter itself only pulls around 100 to 120 watts. > Getting OT here: > Didn=E2=80=99t you say (waay back) that you run AMD? Because in that ca= se those > numbers don=E2=80=99t add up (they also don=E2=80=99t for a medium-rang= e intel). 120 W @ > idle (which in itself is a lot) and then only 30-ish more for full CPU = load? > I got those numbers from the UPS. Just for giggles, I disconnected my A/C, plugged the UPS into that plug and measured them with a clamp on meter at the breaker box. Doing the math, I got about the same numbers as the UPS gives me. The difference might run a night light, maybe.=20 The most I have ever seen this system pull is about 200 watts. I think I was printing and doing some updates at the same time. I remember thinking about that being the biggest load I ever seen. Oh, my A/C is on a dedicated circuit. Nothing else is on that line. The plug the UPS usually plugs into only has my TV and some lights on it.=20 =46rom the UPS and confirmed by a clamp on meter just in the past few minutes.=20 Idle: 146 watts Load, well into a gcc compile with all four cores running at close to 100% and drive activity: 186 watts Keep in mind, my A/C is off and it's warming up here. If I listen close, I can tell the fans are spinning a bit faster. Of course, it's hard to hear those huge fans. That HAF-932 is quiet but still moves a lot of air. >> My power supply has some overkill issues >> for sure. I could likely easily use a 300 watt unit but would likely >> replace with a 400 watt since they are more available. Technically, I= >> could use a 200 watt if the power supply was a well built model. > If only such models were actually available. The lowest value you can g= et in > a reasonable-quality build is 300 W, which is far too much for silent, = small > home PCs for simple usess like office or media centre. Such mini system= s > barely reach 20 W. Even at full load they won=E2=80=99t get past 60 or = 70 W. This is > just at the start of the 80+ efficiency range wich begins at 20%. > That was my point. Most P/Ss that are that size or smaller than that are either old or junky made. Basically, something I would not buy or recommend. Finding a quality P/S that is 350 or less would be difficult. I don't recall seeing any in a long while, not that I have actually tried to find one tho.=20 Keep in mind, I didn't build this system to be green. When I first built this thing, I figured it would pull at least double what it actually does if not much more. My old rig pulled about 400 watts I think and it is nothing compared to the speed this rig has. While having more processing power, it sure doesn't use more energy.=20 Dale :-) :-)=20