Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Hardware

Building a Green PC 190

Posted by kdawson
from the in-time-for-st.-patrick's dept.
Kermit writes "Ars Technica has put together a green DIY system building guide. The idea is to build a PC offering decent energy efficiency as well as solid performance. The 'Green Gaming Box' draws about 125W at full load (not including a monitor); the minimalist 'Extreme Green Box' uses a mini-ITX case and a VIA CPU-motherboard combo for about 30W at typical load. If you want to mix and match components, or modify your current system so that it uses less energy, there are plenty of options for swapping out individual components."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Building a Green PC

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Or black.
  • by Bin Naden (910327) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @07:01AM (#22556690)
    Nothing is easier than building a green PC, just take out the can of green spray paint.
    • by ncc74656 (45571) *

      Nothing is easier than building a green PC, just take out the can of green spray paint.

      It's an easy retrofit for older tech, too, as this green Apple IIe [applefritter.com] demonstrates.

  • "Green Computing" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cccc828 (740705) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @07:08AM (#22556706)
    As long as rain forests are stubbed for easier access to copper mines
    As long as local people are poisoned by the toxic byproducts of metal refinement
    As long as people in Africa or Eastern Europe dissable old computers without any protective clothing
    As long as children assemble computers for $1/hour in Asia

    I refuse to equal "green computing" and enviromental friendly.

    In truth it is just another catchy phrase to sell you yet a new computer. Buying a new computer does nature more harm than just keeping your old computer.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bhima (46039) *
      I think you have confused the concepts of ethical and green. That and disable and disassemble.

      Not that I wholly disagree with your sentiments.
      • by emj (15659) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @07:29AM (#22556776) Homepage Journal
        The most important part of getting a Green computer is the cost to the environment to produce the computer. Buying new computers just to get a green computer is hence very stupid. Better than try to build a green computer would be to use an old computer and go over to green electricty. If you are going to buy a slow VIA computer yo umight as well have an old computer.

        The problem with costs today is that no long term costs are included in prices, copper mines that poison areas bigger than Los Angeles have no obligation to pay for what they destroy. The mining inudstry is very very dirty, they some are situated near natural reserves, which mean we are going to have to fix everything after they have shut down.

        There are mines in Sweden that are still being cleaned up, 30 years after shutting down.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by bhima (46039) *
          My family runs a foundation which I work for part time. As part of that work I have helped construct and outfit some clinics in a few mining towns. Two that stick out in my mind are in Peru and in Namibia. Without being there, seeing it, and treating the people who live in the surrounding areas I don't think most westerners can even imagine the extent of damage mining really does.
          • by Zerth (26112)
            Some of us westerners live in mining towns. North Americans may have toned down the strip mining, but we're not above knocking off the top of a mountain if it suits us.

            There are people around where my inlaws live that are still dying of mining-related diseases, despite living in "the west".
            • Well environmentalists who oppose lopping of the tops of mountains deserve to be dropped in the same bin as the ones who oppose terraforming mars (putting aside the practical issues) as if the desolation itself is a habitat worthy of preservation.*

              Certainly, there are aesthetic issues, and it would be nice to have a few pristine views, but those views only benefit people who can access them. Above the tree-lines, there is nothing but rock. If that rock contains minerals whose extraction will benefit peopl
          • by zsau (266209)
            Woah! As if western countries don't do mining? Australia's only significant exports are sheep and stuff that's come out of the ground! Not that I really know the damage mining causes, but that's because I live in the city. I reckon people from Beijing would have just as hard a time imagining it. Point is: There's no reason to be racist about it. It's distance and experience, not cultural background.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by funny money (1115417)
      C'mon!! Any "attempt" to make the earth greener should be lauded. Personally, I have a little plant atop my monitor.
    • by upside (574799) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @07:32AM (#22556794) Journal
      There are obviously various dimensions to "going green":
      1) Not buying. Reuse instead.
      2) Buying as little as possible.
      3) When buying, buy environmentally friendly.

      You can take a queue from data centers where power and heat are major issues. Instead of having a spinny whirly storage (or even solid state) on every PC, use NAS or SAN. If you've got to have 2nd - Nth PCs, use PXE, NFS and iSCSI for storage. Virtualization can help save power, too.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by SammyB (903607)
        It's called Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. They are not in that order to just sound nice.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gosand (234100)
        There are obviously various dimensions to "going green":
        1) Not buying. Reuse instead.
        2) Buying as little as possible.
        3) When buying, buy environmentally friendly.

        I am sure some people here would be shocked, but I run a Duron 1.3 processor, with a Zalman fanless heatsink, and 768 MB of PC-133 memory. I run dual displays (CRTs) but they shut off after 5 minutes of inactivity. The machine is up all the time (current uptime is 70 days), so I am sure I am pulling some power. I live in AZ, and in the summer i

        • I agree completely. 5 year old computers are still way better than the super computers of 20 years ago. The real polution in computer usage isn't the electricity bill, it's buying a new PC every couple of years.

          The problem is, we have to buy a new PC every couple of years, because we want to use the latest software, play the latest games, join in the latest fad, and for that, we need a fast PC.

          While in many areas, technological progress often means more efficiency and more environmental friendliness, in PC
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Exactly. The energy footprint is fairly easy to offset with a renewable power source. The cost of manufacturing and disposing of the thing is where the problem lies.
    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      Assuming you are talking US$ here (there are so many $ in the world), you obviously don't know what you are talking about. US$1 per hour is a very good salary there. No kidding. More common salaries for assembly workers in China are about USD3-4 per day, 10-12 hour working days. In India maybe a little higher but not much, certainly not on the countryside.
      And still many of those workers consider it good money.
      The rest of your sentiments are very reasonable though.
    • by gnuman99 (746007)
      The problems listed have nothing to do with computers. They have everything to do with inadequate local laws, regulations and enforcement. Then there is corruption of all of this as well.

      So, computing has nothing to do with environmental laws. Greed (of the *developing* country politicians/police/etc.) is the problem.

      Most copper comes from Chilean mines. So, not sure what the rain forest has to do with that. If you want to raise deforestations here are *some* the culprits,

      1. "bio-fuels"
  • by parlyboy (603457) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @07:18AM (#22556734)
    Get a used Thinkpad.

    Lower energy usage. Recycled. Probably faster than the VIA. And you can beat a burglar to death with it.

    What's not to like?
    • by GameboyRMH (1153867) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {hmryobemag}> on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @10:06AM (#22557658) Journal

      And you can beat a burglar to death with it.
      12-c: Using your Thinkpad as a Weapon

      Your Thinkpad can be used in self defense, should the situation arise. If your model is not equipped with a solid-state disk, or a conventional hard disk with a safety accelerometer, the computer should be put into standy or hibernation mode, or ideally powered off before use as a weapon.

      Technique

      Grasp the Thinkpad firmly with both hands at the front corners, and swing down on your target, striking with the underside and rear corners. Do not swing the Thinkpad by any cords or dongles. Advanced users may hold the unit by the front with one hand for fast melee attacks.

      After Battle

      Open the unit and ensure that all internal components are seated properly, as some may have come loose during battle. Clean any spills with a slightly damp cloth and dry immediately. If bodily fluids should find their way inside the laptop, hold it upside-down and let the fluids drain out, remove the battery and send it to the nearest Certified Repair Center.

      Refer to section 5-a on installation and removal of internal components.

      *Note that battle damage is only covered under the Extended Service Warranty.
    • In order to truly make your thinkpad green you will need some of this [laist.com].
  • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @07:28AM (#22556774)
    Tagan 800w PSU, Core2Quad Q6600, NF4650SLI motherboard, 8800gtx, backlit keyboard, wireless mouse (with transformer).

    However, I DO ride a motorcycle, pumping out far less CO2 than almost any other motorised road vehicle.

    I also don't have a TV, as my PC does everything I need it to. MORE savings. It's not about a green PC, it's about reducing load on the grid. I do it by having less equipment, not greener equipment.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by heapcat (1237224)

      However, I DO ride a motorcycle, pumping out far less CO2 than almost any other motorised road vehicle.

      Not quite true. http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~siah/MiniProjects/MotorcyclePollution.html [berkeley.edu] In urban setting yes, but in rural or highway driving they pump out more CO2 pollution. About 50% more.

      Remember less gas != less CO2. Just check your lawn mower.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @11:54AM (#22558836)
        >Remember less gas != less CO2.

        Of course it does. That's why you need to read the spreadsheet instead of just the link. They're not calculating CO2 but CO2 equivalents. Basically the motorcycles that they measured don't have catalytic converters so they put out more CO HC and NOx. These are then converted to something called "global warming potential" by multiplying them by 3, 12 and 296 respectively. Oh, and I can't get at the original article. But I can get at the second link in the spreadsheet and guess what... the number 296 is for N2O not for NOx. NOx is thought to be greenhouse neutral so the number should be zero. Plug that into the sheet et voilà. Bikes are 10% cleaner than cars. Never ever believe global warming believers at their word.
    • by hal2814 (725639)
      "I also don't have a TV, as my PC does everything I need it to."

      So you watch TV using your nuclear reactor of a computer? Yeah, that's going to help the load on the grid.
  • Then keep the machine you have and turn on system standby/sleep functions. It is free and will save far more power than anything Ars is hocking.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bcrowell (177657)

      Then keep the machine you have and turn on system standby/sleep functions.
      One practical issue I've run into here is that power management support on linux is simply horrible. I've never, ever had power management work properly on any pc hardware with linux. And to be fair, I don't think it's the fault of the kernel developers or the distros. Apparently the hardware manufacturers refuse to publicly document the registers that need to be saved when their chipsets go to sleep. One thing that really does wor

      • You can find out how I got my Debian desktop running with suspend / hibernate here (Part 1) and [linuxplanet.com] here (Part 2) [linuxplanet.com].

        And thanks for posting, I thought I had "cool and quiet" running on my x2/4200, turns out all I've done was turn the capability on in BIOS, for more information on turning it on (Debian/Ubuntu), try this [technowizah.com] article.
        • article on getting processor power reductin ... they appear to work. My computer is doing nothing much right now (a VMware server running a W98 session, Opera with a couple of dozen windows, a couple of Firefox sessions)

          # cpufreq-info
          cpufrequtils 002: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2006
          Report errors and bugs to linux@brodo.de, please.
          analyzing CPU 0:
          driver: powernow-k8
          CPUs which need to switch frequency at the same time: 0 1
          hardware limits: 1000 MHz - 2.20 GHz
          available frequency steps: 2.20 GH

        • Looked great with the CPU running in low power mode and running up to full power when needed.

          Right up until it crashed, turning the video into a blank with short lines across it and locking up the keyboard so hard that even SysRq S - U - B wouldn't reboot the system, I had to unplug it and power it back up.

          There may be a conflict with the nvidia video driver, but I don't have any more time to deal with this.

          The problem is not with suspend, it wasn't enabled for the second crash.
  • hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by apodyopsis (1048476) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @07:52AM (#22556846)
    build modular components that can be combined, recycled and handed down. the trick to being green is to mandate power efficiency and buy/recycle intelligently. for computers it maddens me that people get a top of the range high power monster to browse the net and do word processing, when their old PC would of done the job fine. MS and their ilk persuade people to upgrade by relying on things like redundant feature creep and security FUD to stop them using older versions, but in reality older versions could be relied on to do the work if security patches were updated. you do not need a quad core 2GB machine to read email, but you do need a whizzy machine to run vista and thats were MS makes their money. use that older PC as a work horse for 5 years instead of 1 and you have been five times more green. on another note with LCD screen, I was thinking the other month if anybody has every consider a LCD monitor where the backplate can be tilted down flat with a mirror surface to shine sunlight up into the back of the screen - aka a natural backlight? i ask as thats one of the major power drains on a laptop and you would not need that much sunlight to make it readable. roll on an epaper laptop with flash storage for extreme low power/long battery usage. how an "Asus EEE-Paper"?
    • by toddestan (632714)
      I was thinking the other month if anybody has every consider a LCD monitor where the backplate can be tilted down flat with a mirror surface to shine sunlight up into the back of the screen - aka a natural backlight?

      It's an interesting idea, but the mirror is going to reflect polarized light, which means it's not going to work well with a LCD screen. You would need a diffuse reflector, something more like a sheet of paper than a shiny mirror.
  • I'm interested in buying energy efficient products and ecologically sound products and I am just getting to the point where I am wanting to update the server in my studio.

    After doing a bit a research I have concluded that I will hold off until the summer. I am not a big fan of VIA and I'm sure that their processors aren't capable enough for my particular needs. The new CPUs from Intel have better performance per watt (or what ever metric you chose to use) than the older ones but they haven't released the L
    • by demon driver (1046738) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @09:56AM (#22557574) Journal

      I am not a big fan of VIA
      As far as I understood TFA, the low-consumption VIA CPUs actually don't need big fans.
    • I am completely under-whelmed by 80+ ATX power supplies and I'd like to find a power supply which reached better than 90%.

      On the other hand, even an 80+ supply is far better than older ones. Last year, an old Antec 300W supply died in my file server after a capacitor went *pop* (the classic bad capacitor syndrome [badcaps.net]), and I replaced it with an OCZ 700W unit (overkill, I know, but it had lots of SATA power connectors, and eliminated a rat's nest of adapters and Y-cables). I was flabbergasted to see that the loa
      • by bhima (46039) *
        Good point. Also makes wonder if there isn't some Website for a company that will build a custom wiring harness for a PC to order.
        • by Optic7 (688717)
          I'm not sure I understand what you guys are going on about regarding a power supply wiring harness, but they make power supply units nowadays that have removable individual device cables, so that you only have to have the power cables that you really need inside the PC case.
          • by bhima (46039) *
            The highest efficiency mains to the various DC voltages needed for a PC power supply I could find is from a company called N2Power. These power supplies do not come with a wiring harness of any sort. However they do have a something like a 94% efficiency rating. I find this more compelling than 80 Plus standard you see in ATX power supplies on the market today. As I said, I'm not so enthused to make my own wiring harness. However, after reading the poor reviews of many companies' power supplies, I'm pr
            • by Optic7 (688717)
              Ah, I think I see. You're talking about a power supply that's not really designed specifically for PCs, to fit in a PC case? Then I don't know. 94% sounds cool though, as long as it can handle the currents that you need for each voltage, running for long times. Good luck!
  • OLPC XO laptop (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lobiusmoop (305328) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @08:05AM (#22556904) Homepage
    125W? For a _really_ green PC, check out the XO-1 [wikipedia.org]. It is not just physically green, it runs at 2-3W. Another upshot of this is that the battery life is 9 to 10 hours.
    • by rolfwind (528248)
      Isn't that the draw only in idle mode? That, when active, it's slightly higher?

      Still, when running I read the screen uses 2W instead of the typical notebook LCD 25-35W. And it's also readable in daylight (alas in B/W). The rest of the savings come from it being a relatively low performance CPU and the SSD harddrive.

      Why can't the 2 grand Macbook Pros have this screen? Or any notebook for that matter? I read that the OLPC leader refuses to commercialize the patents, but that seems myopic on his part -- h
      • by Carnildo (712617)

        Why can't the 2 grand Macbook Pros have this screen? Or any notebook for that matter?

        Aesthetics. I've got one, and as screens go, the color mode is really quite lousy. Black text on white is fuzzy, the colors are somewhat washed out with an odd blue tint, and things only look right when you're directly in front of the screen -- no off-axis viewing. The refresh rate isn't too impressive either: 50Hz. Would you pay $2000 for a screen that wouldn't look out of place in the early '90s?

        In greyscale mode, on

    • I have two computers and a couple of Kill-A-Watt meters, so here are the power consumption figures for my two home computers just for comparison:

      My most power efficient computer at home is 1 year old and has a 1.83 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 2 GB of RAM, Windows XP and is hooked to a 20-inch LCD flat screen monitor. Not counting the monitor it uses 24 Watts. The 20-inch flat screen. monitor uses 40 Watts (or only 1 Watt when in the sleep mode). This is not a laptop computer, it is a very small des

    • by zsau (266209)
      That'd be great ... if we could buy one. Green PCs are not much use if the only people who can buy them are people who couldn't otherwise get a computer; to make the computer green, it must substitute for existing computers. Otherwise it doesn't matter how low its power consumption is, it's still increasing it.
  • Somehow I don't think it's going to run Crysis very well. Never mind.
  • If you really want to be green, get a Palm Pilot (or some feature rich cell phone equivalent) with a rollup keyboard. Plug it into a monitor & that's about as green as you can get.

    http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=6455 [palminfocenter.com]
    I guess it depends on what you consider a PC
  • by MT628496 (959515) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @08:28AM (#22556992)
    Am I the only one that chuckled at this?
  • by smchris (464899) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @09:13AM (#22557258)
    Not my original quote. It's true. I replaced the PS on 24/7 MythTV and DSL web server machines and my 17 hour/day desktop with 300 w 80Plus PSes. Work fine. Dropped my power bill by $10-12/month.

    I have to believe some huge corporation will catch on to this and _demand_ 80Plus for their next thousands of machines and in 10 years we'll be amazed that computers were sold without efficient power supplies.
     
  • by Ngarrang (1023425) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @09:21AM (#22557314) Journal
    We would not need to worry about the topic of 'green' PCs if we did not have such bloated software that continues to require ever more CPU cycles per second to accomplish their task. There was a time when software was written in to be tight and memory efficient. WordPerfect for DOS comes to mind.

    Low-power PCs are a good idea, sure, but we need our software to also be efficient. The two, together, could get us a long way toward truly 'green' computing.

    And while I am ranting about bad software design...

    AC-to-DC conversion is messy and lossy. Fortunately, we do have servers that can take DC directly from a shared AC-DC power supply. This concept needs to move into the home. Why should my PC, monitor, printer and God knows what else all each have their own AC-DC power converter box? Homes could have a single large converter and then have DC-only outlets for all those appliances that need it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Stachybotris (936861)

      AC-to-DC conversion is messy and lossy. Fortunately, we do have servers that can take DC directly from a shared AC-DC power supply. This concept needs to move into the home. Why should my PC, monitor, printer and God knows what else all each have their own AC-DC power converter box? Homes could have a single large converter and then have DC-only outlets for all those appliances that need it.

      That's such an insipidly great idea (especially when you stop and consider that all of your consoles, your TV, your stereo, and pretty much every other electronic device in your house is running a rectifier of its own) that you just know it won't even be considered. From the hardware standpoint, however, it wouldn't actually be that difficult to implement - you'd just have to get a standardized power cable and outlet. Oh, wait, we have those already - we use them in racks.

      And from an economical/'green

      • by TigerNut (718742)
        You can design a switching power supply to be 90% or more efficient but only over a relatively narrow current range. So the problem becomes one of management: when everything goes to 'idle' state, the efficiency of your one-box-does-all converter might drop to 1% and you still consume as much power (or more) than having the single dedicated supply for each device.

        A second issue is that while PC's have fairly standardized load requirements and voltage bus definitions, that does not hold for AV gear. Most d

    • There is already software that is easier on resources. How many people use Word when Abiword, or even a text editor, would do what they needed? I use OS X, and to tell the truth, Textedit and TexShop pretty much meet my actual requirements. Actually, vi and iTerm would meet them, but you get the point. But people don't use what they need--they use what they like. What they like depends on more than just need. Familiarity, convenience, vanity ("I'm a power user, so Abiword isn't enough for me!)", and
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ps236 (965675)
      Switched-mode power supplies (as found in most 'big' computing equipment like PCs, monitors, printers etc) are pretty energy efficient, and can use almost no power in 'standby' mode.

      Having one big DC supply with lots of outlets in your home is likely to be less energy efficient (because of the large voltage loss over long cable runs at high currents) than having local ones.

      That's not to say that having one SMPS per PC, with DC outlets on the back of the PC for monitor, printer etc wouldn't be a good idea -
      • "Having one big DC supply with lots of outlets in your home is likely to be less energy efficient (because of the large voltage loss over long cable runs at high currents) than having local ones."

        Think about what you are saying and try again.

        The ArsTechnica article says that the difference between a good power supply and an inefficient one is 10-20% of the total power thrown out. This might be 10-50 W depending on the computer. That is a crap load of power.

        Now look at the power lost by sending 10 amps

        • by ps236 (965675)
          I'm not entirely sure how you get the power loss there to be under 2 watts.

          16 gauge wire has a resistance of about 0.013 ohms/metre, or 0.13 ohms for 10 metres. So, power = I^2 * R, so 10 amps is a 13 watt power loss. For a 12V power supply that's about 11% power loss.

          Even with 12 gauge wire, you'd lose over 5 watts.

          This ignores all the extra losses you'd get because you'd have to have the DC supply producing a higher voltage to handle the voltage drops. If you want to run a high-end PC off it, you may need
    • AC-to-DC conversion is messy and lossy.
      DC-DC voltage conversion isn't exactly great either, particularlly if you want it isolated.

      Distributing at the final utilisation voltage has two problems. Firstly many systems need a wide range of voltages. Secondly long cables at 12V or 5V or worse 3.3V are also very lossy.

      Distributing at 48V DC or so means an extra conversion step. There are also issues with safely switching DC.

      For datacenters and other UPS supplied systems DC distribution usually at 48V or so can ma
  • This thing will go great with my 52" plasma TV! Never let it be said that I'm not environmentally conscious.
  • by Aceticon (140883) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @11:13AM (#22558314)
    Here's a couple of quick and cheap tricks for turning your existing computer greener:
    • Get one of these Intelli Panel [oneclickpower.com] or similar (there are other brands). Basically it's an "intelligent" panel where you plug your computer to a master socket and all the peripherals to the other sockets. When the computer is on, all the other sockets get power, when the computer is off, all the other sockets have no power. If you add up the trickle power consumed in standby mode by the power sources of all the peripherals (usually at least 3 - monitor, printer and loudspeakers) you will see that this thing pays itself after a while (for the typical techie setup this thing pays itself in no time)
    • Under-clock your CPU. Really! Just do the exact opposite of all those over-clocking articles: reduce the frequency (say, 10%), reduce the Voltage if possible, remove the enormous fan from the top of your CPU cooler. The power vs frequency behaviour of a CPU is non-linear - especially at the top of it's frequency range - so a small reduction in speed = a large reduction in power consumed. See http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWDT05003_WinHEC05.ppt [microsoft.com] (page 13) for an example. Ditching the fan and getting a quieter machine in the process is just a pleasant side effect of this.
    • Under-clock the GPU and memory of your graphics card. (i bet that at this point most hard-core gamers out there are doubting my geek credentials). Ditch the fan if you can. Same rationale as for the CPUs.
    • If you still have a CRT monitor, get an LCD one instead. No explanation needed here IMHO


    This should be enough to save you quite some $$$ in your energy bill and polish up your green credentials.

    For a more radical approach, consider getting a notebook instead of a desktop for your next upgrade: notebooks will, by design, consume less power than desktops.
    • by Optic7 (688717)
      I noticed that those intelli panels have UK plugs or something and wondered if there was a US version. There is. It looks like the same people that make the Kill-a-Watt power meter have the same type of power strip here [smarthomeusa.com].
      • by nuzak (959558)
        The problem with the Smart Strip is that they don't make UPS versions of it. The CPU has to go into a UPS, the rest don't -- even if the one plug in the UPS is rated for the load of a strip, you don't want your peripherals sucking down battery.

        Better to shop for equipment (and demand it in standards) that includes the ability to turn standby mode off, with that being the factory setting. My TV does this, and while it's a bit of a bother to wait the extra 5 seconds for it to power up, the energy savings ar
        • by Optic7 (688717)
          Good points, thanks. Cool link on your signature by the way. I'm checking it out...
    • Perhaps the best solution of all is to find a way to ditch the fans. A typical system's 5-7 fans eat up a total of 100W, and this is something that the article blithely ignored.

      GPU fan
      Intake fan
      Exhaust fan
      Fan on the power supply
      CPU fan

      And that's not counting 2 fan power supplies, northbridge fans, and so on.

      Check out this setup I found online:

      Silverstone TJ-04, Corsair VX450, E8400 Wolfdale @ 3.6Ghz, Gigabyte P35 DS3R, Scythe Ninja!/bolt through, 2 x 1GB Corsair PC6400 DDR2, HD3870 (859/1300) + Accelero S
  • $267 seems like a lot for a VIA mainboard, when one with the same CPU goes for as little as $60 shipped [clubit.com]. The one they're featuring has better video outputs, but is that feature alone worth $207? And the board they're featuring only accepts a gig of RAM, while $60 and $70 [clubit.com] VIA boards take 2 gigs.

    Seems to me like affordability is a big part of going green. First, it means that you can get enough people to do it for all those percentage savings to add up. Second, and more importantly, almost everything you can
  • A green gaming PC... so you can feel good as you sit inside by yourself, the blinds drawn to keep out the sunlight, avoiding the world and doing nothing for it, wasting time playing games.

    Where do I order?
  • Fourty-Five nanometer GPUs will be a benefit gamer, until then, Nvidia, ATI, and Intel should work more on 2D power consumption, and adaptive underclocking.
  • ...Nvidia is unavailable for comment.
  • The article claims DDR3 uses 10W per DIMM more than DDR2. Is this true? If so, that's pretty outrageous.

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...