Greenpeace praises Apple's hiring of former EPA chief

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 57
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    muppetry wrote: »
    Since it represents the absolute minimum power usage it does seem a bit unrealistic. It would be interesting to measure the average usage over a day or so for comparison. 

    I agree with you that it's unrealistic but they do state the display is at full brightness. Mentioning that makes me assume they aren't talking about a display that is asleep. Aren't power levels for smartphones and tablets done at about half-way for battery length tests?

    How do you measure the CPU if your apps are already loaded into RAM and the CPU load varies? As I'm writing this I'm lucky to see 10% from iStat Menus for my CPU load. What would that be in an hour or a day.
  • Reply 42 of 57
    dunksdunks Posts: 1,254member
    Wow... Detecting a lot of exploding liquid dinosaur shareholders in here.
  • Reply 43 of 57
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,343member


    Good result all round.  Except for a few morons.

  • Reply 44 of 57
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post



    Since it represents the absolute minimum power usage it does seem a bit unrealistic. It would be interesting to measure the average usage over a day or so for comparison. 




    I agree with you that it's unrealistic but they do state the display is at full brightness. Mentioning that makes me assume they aren't talking about a display that is asleep. Aren't power levels for smartphones and tablets done at about half-way for battery length tests?



    How do you measure the CPU if your apps are already loaded into RAM and the CPU load varies? As I'm writing this I'm lucky to see 10% from iStat Menus for my CPU load. What would that be in an hour or a day.


     


    Definitely not sleep mode power.


     


    I'm not sure there is any really meaningful way to measure power usage, since there is no defined typical CPU load. I'm just curious about the range of average powers that someone actually using the machine would see. Easy enough to measure on a mains powered computer like the Mini. I remember being shocked when I ran that test on my Mac Pro and saw how much it was using.

  • Reply 45 of 57
    timbittimbit Posts: 331member
    jragosta wrote: »
    I don't buy it. A Mini or MBA use considerably less power than a 13 W CFL bulb? Heck, the CPU alone in either of those draws more than 13 W.

    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3468?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
    According to Apple, it draws 11 W at idle. So 13 W is close to being at idle - which is not 'using' the computer. You might as well consider how much power the CFL draws when it's turned off.

    I think different products have different electrical resistance and are more energy efficient, even if they use the same number of watts. You would have to checks amps and ohms and all that other fun stuff
  • Reply 46 of 57
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I agree with you that it's unrealistic but they do state the display is at full brightness. Mentioning that makes me assume they aren't talking about a display that is asleep. Aren't power levels for smartphones and tablets done at about half-way for battery length tests?

    Look at the Mini.

    Apple's specs (Provided earlier) says that it draws 11 W at idle - and that's without a display. The graph says that they draw 10 W (13*6.9/8.7). So, even without a display, the graph has the system drawing less than the idle power.

    It's just plain wrong.
  • Reply 47 of 57
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    timbit wrote: »
    I think different products have different electrical resistance and are more energy efficient, even if they use the same number of watts. You would have to checks amps and ohms and all that other fun stuff

    Nope. 'Watt' is the measure of power usage. "Amps and ohms and all that other fun stuff" is not useful. A 13 W device draws 13 W. Two different devices that are drawing 13 W at a given time are drawing the same amount of power, regardless of "amps and ohms and all that other fun stuff".

    Now, there is the matter of power factor - VA vs Watt, but the discrepancy is relatively small for these devices - and not really relevant for homeowners, anyway.
  • Reply 48 of 57
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    muppetry wrote: »
    Definitely not sleep mode power.

    I'm not sure there is any really meaningful way to measure power usage, since there is no defined typical CPU load. I'm just curious about the range of average powers that someone actually using the machine would see. Easy enough to measure on a mains powered computer like the Mini. I remember being shocked when I ran that test on my Mac Pro and saw how much it was using.

    here's what Anandtech measured for the 2010 mac mini:

    25805

    25806

    25807
  • Reply 49 of 57
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Look at the Mini.

    Apple's specs (Provided earlier) says that it draws 11 W at idle - and that's without a display. The graph says that they draw 10 W (13*6.9/8.7). So, even without a display, the graph has the system drawing less than the idle power.

    It's just plain wrong.

    So AnandTech is plain wrong when they show that for about half the boot process the entire Mac mini system is below 10W despite you saying that it can't be below 10W at idle? Now look at how the graph fluctuates when opening a web page and how little time the spikes stay up. Averaging below a light bulb is quite possible for general usage and being at 11W at idle is clearly doable unless you want to claim AnandTech and Apple are lying. I doubt you'd make such a claim.
  • Reply 50 of 57
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    So AnandTech is plain wrong when they show that for about half the boot process the entire Mac mini system is below 10W despite you saying that it can't be below 10W at idle? Now look at how the graph fluctuates when opening a web page and how little time the spikes stay up. Averaging below a light bulb is quite possible for general usage and being at 11W at idle is clearly doable unless you want to claim AnandTech and Apple are lying. I doubt you'd make such a claim.

    note that Anandtech tested the 2010 mac mini, which apple lists at 10W idle, not 11W.

    nevertheless, while it can idle below 10W, even light usage (web browsing) spikes it above the 13W number, so while Apple's claim that "using" the mini for an hour consumes less power than a light bulb is technically true; I wouldn't call it realistic.
  • Reply 51 of 57
    timbittimbit Posts: 331member
    I thought I remember seeing a graph similar to this comparing the amount of CO2 emissions to manufacture each product. Maybe they confused the two and mislabelled it? Idk maybe the numbers are right. I can definitely see an iPhone using less energy than a 40watt bulb. Those things are terrible on electricity.
  • Reply 52 of 57
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    majjo wrote: »
    note that Anandtech tested the 2010 mac mini, which apple lists at 10W idle, not 11W.

    nevertheless, while it can idle below 10W, even light usage (web browsing) spikes it above the 13W number, so while Apple's claim that "using" the mini for an hour consumes less power than a light bulb is technically true; I wouldn't call it realistic.

    Why would you use the 2010 Mini as your benchmark? The current Mini is 11 W AT IDLE. And without a monitor.
    solipsismx wrote: »
    So AnandTech is plain wrong when they show that for about half the boot process the entire Mac mini system is below 10W despite you saying that it can't be below 10W at idle? Now look at how the graph fluctuates when opening a web page and how little time the spikes stay up. Averaging below a light bulb is quite possible for general usage and being at 11W at idle is clearly doable unless you want to claim AnandTech and Apple are lying. I doubt you'd make such a claim.

    I never claimed that Anand was lying. I just don't see how power usage during half of the boot process is relevant.

    Apple's own data says that the Mini is 11 W at idle. The graph in this table says that it's 10 W in use. Those two statements are not consistent - unless you think that it uses less power 'in use' than 'at idle'. Your own charts show that it uses a lot more than 10 W when you're actually using it.
  • Reply 53 of 57
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    timbit wrote: »
    I thought I remember seeing a graph similar to this comparing the amount of CO2 emissions to manufacture each product. Maybe they confused the two and mislabelled it? Idk maybe the numbers are right. I can definitely see an iPhone using less energy than a 40watt bulb. Those things are terrible on electricity.

    Not even close. I don't have the figures, but I'm sure that building a Mac Mini uses a lot more power than one hour of lighting a 13 W CFL. Orders of magnitude more.
  • Reply 54 of 57
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    jragosta wrote: »
    majjo wrote: »
    note that Anandtech tested the 2010 mac mini, which apple lists at 10W idle, not 11W.

    nevertheless, while it can idle below 10W, even light usage (web browsing) spikes it above the 13W number, so while Apple's claim that "using" the mini for an hour consumes less power than a light bulb is technically true; I wouldn't call it realistic.

    Why would you use the 2010 Mini as your benchmark? The current Mini is 11 W AT IDLE. And without a monitor.
    solipsismx wrote: »
    So AnandTech is plain wrong when they show that for about half the boot process the entire Mac mini system is below 10W despite you saying that it can't be below 10W at idle? Now look at how the graph fluctuates when opening a web page and how little time the spikes stay up. Averaging below a light bulb is quite possible for general usage and being at 11W at idle is clearly doable unless you want to claim AnandTech and Apple are lying. I doubt you'd make such a claim.

    I never claimed that Anand was lying. I just don't see how power usage during half of the boot process is relevant.

    Apple's own data says that the Mini is 11 W at idle. The graph in this table says that it's 10 W in use. Those two statements are not consistent - unless you think that it uses less power 'in use' than 'at idle'. Your own charts show that it uses a lot more than 10 W when you're actually using it.

    I don't think arguing about the difference between 10 W and 11 W in this context is very important. Close enough, what with accumulated rounding errors etc. when the numbers in the graphic are only quoted to 2 SF. And I suspect that they are referring to the Mini running headless, since the screen is unspecified.
  • Reply 55 of 57
    Are all Apple backers right-wing douchebags? Seems that from the comments. And calling others criminals. Now that is a real label.

    I remember all those criminal negroes and white trash making trouble and getting our negroes wound up by marching and sitting in at lunch counters where they weren't allowed, and drinking from white water fountains and all. Really screwed up us law-abiding folks something awful.
  • Reply 56 of 57
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by majjo View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post



    Definitely not sleep mode power.



    I'm not sure there is any really meaningful way to measure power usage, since there is no defined typical CPU load. I'm just curious about the range of average powers that someone actually using the machine would see. Easy enough to measure on a mains powered computer like the Mini. I remember being shocked when I ran that test on my Mac Pro and saw how much it was using.




    here's what Anandtech measured for the 2010 mac mini


     


    Thanks for finding those - so it looks like the Mini runs at around 35 W flat out. Not bad either.

  • Reply 57 of 57
    esaruohoesaruoho Posts: 61member


    Well, this is an interesting turn of events. It makes me wonder how far away those Mac Pros and iDevices that have Hydrogen Fuel Cells inside of them are.


     


    Perhaps this lady would be good at driving the point home. I mean, it's already totally awesome that Apple are embracing the BloomBox/BloomEnergy tech for their server farms, and solar panels are neat & all, but to have laptops, Mac Pros and iPhones and iPads that charge themselves (especially that nifty iDevice Pico projector with multilayered touch-screens complete with solar paneling incorporated) would be shocking. 


     


    I mean, it's the ultimate dream really. And what a boon for Apple re: their competitors.


     


    You could just have a Keynote where they have a cable going from a future iDevice to an Android device of the past, charging it. "Can your Android OS do this?"


     


    No, it can't, because Apple's competitors were never really interested in something that would ultimately change the world.


     


    I just wish I could see what they've got coming right now, to see how much of this stuff pans out and how fast. I can wait, but sometimes I just wish I could already take my MBP to a forest and compose music there without ever needing to be afraid I'll run out of battery..


     


    In effect, Apple could make diesel aggregators at forest festivals a thing of the past. And that would be ultra-lush.

Sign In or Register to comment.