Skynet wants YOU!

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Sight Unseen

Mad? How so?

Without knowing anything else, I'd be afraid to be in the same room with your computers power supply, since I just might get zapped.

They seem like perfectly acceptable wattages to me, remember any hpc type application will load your system to it's max. I've even found that folding makes my CPU 2C hotter than 6 instances of K10 CPUBurn.

How can you exceed 100% load on all cores?

Under normal usage, the server pulls about 150W, and most of that is the power used to keep the disk drives spinning, and the desktop pulls about 375W, which is still high, but it's overclocked on a board with High RDS(on) mosfets, which are horribly inefficient. (Srsly, never buy any 4-phase mobo from MSI. ever. their 8-phase mobos are quite good though.)

Some disk drives you have there it seems, or then you have like 5 or more of them in your server. (I know, server needs storage capacity, but how many 2-3 TB drives do you need?)

150W isn't all that much, but the 375W that is consumed by desktop under normal usage sounds scary. Still, overclocking, if insane enough voltages are used, can push your consumption through the roof, but it's hardly energy efficient. Not to mention the shorter lifespan of the chip itself due to overvolting.

Well I don't know what your normal usage means, but you said that those numbers were CPU usage only. What kind of GPU(s) do you have? Does normal usage mean gaming, which would at least somewhat explain the high numbers.

And yes, HNM is right, electricity is expensive. However, I got my shiny new Phenom II X6 around the same time the AC stopped working, so the new AC provides a great excuse for any differences in the power bill...

I have found the idea of highly power efficient computers fascinating, when you consider the things you can do, but still retain rather low power consumption relative to the task being done. For most usage scenarios, computers are already "fast enough" (for video encoding, nothing is fast enough), so focusing more on performance/Watt seems more reasonable in this day and age.

[Human No More]

375W idle isn't so bad when you consider how 1.5kW PSUs exist.

You can't load >100%, but not every application is even capable of 100% load in the first place. In addition, some types of calculation are more instruction intensive than others.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Human No More

375W idle isn't so bad when you consider how 1.5kW PSUs exist.

375W at load can be acceptable depending on the use, but at idle? That's utter madness I tell you, madness. My system draws about 85W idle and the monitor adds another 20-30W. Under heavy gaming however the power draw can go somewhere around 250W. Also, 1 - 1.5kW PSUs are overkill by any definition. That is unless one is running a system with 4 GPUs or something similarly retarded.

You can't load >100%, but not every application is even capable of 100% load in the first place. In addition, some types of calculation are more instruction intensive than others.

The processor can't handle more instructions than it's capable of doing on a hardware level. I don't think any application or calculation is so well optimized that it can fully utilize all cores 100% with 100% efficiency. That is although the load is 100% on all cores on most CPU heavy applications, it still doesn't mean you get the theoretical maximum calculation output of having all the cores on full load.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

The processor can't handle more instructions than it's capable of doing on a hardware level. I don't think any application or calculation is so well optimized that it can fully utilize all cores 100% with 100% efficiency. That is although the load is 100% on all cores on most CPU heavy applications, it still doesn't mean you get the theoretical maximum calculation output of having all the cores on full load.

Of course not; that's not pre-emptive timesharing works.

[Human No More]

Some applications are still more capable of creating load than others. Games are a good example of ones that are not, because the available calculations are limited, and while performance improves with more resources available, after a point, it becomes diminishing returns. Also, while there is a limit of instruction rate determined by the architecture and clock cycle, which instructions are in use will affect load based on the architecture, for the same reasons above - if the number of instructions are the same, ones that take more clocks to perform will result in a greater load.

[auroraglacialis]

I agree that efficiency is the highest goal in these. Screw calculation power if it is at cost of less efficient use of power (e.g. by overclocking or using old Desktop hardware). If I'd attach my computer to that network, it would suck, because it is about 5 years old and probably takes about 25% of the power a new one does but providing only 1% of the calculation power. I rarely use it anyways though. And during nights, the big red switch in my room turns off all electricity anyways (unless I really want to encode some video or do a data backup or system upgrade which takes all night)

Oh and there is a concept of "system load" that can go over 1 (which is 100%) in Unix. A system can have a "load" of 2 or even 5. But that is the amount of requests for operations and therelike (its more complex than that). Basically it is a number saying how much computing power the system would need to fulfil all the requests the software makes. Sometimes if I look at ToS and people have all these animations in the sigs and I try to watch a youtube video at the same time, I get a load of 3 on my 10 year old Laptop

[Moco Loco]

If I got a new computer, I'd be all for using this one entirely for Skynet purposes

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Some applications are still more capable of creating load than others. Games are a good example of ones that are not, because the available calculations are limited, and while performance improves with more resources available, after a point, it becomes diminishing returns. Also, while there is a limit of instruction rate determined by the architecture and clock cycle, which instructions are in use will affect load based on the architecture, for the same reasons above - if the number of instructions are the same, ones that take more clocks to perform will result in a greater load.

Indeed, but the thing I was after here was that no matter how instruction intensive the application might be, the power load will not exceed the rated TDP of the chip, unless it's overvolted.

[Sight Unseen]

I don't know where you get that 375W isn't normal, in fact, that's pretty d**n good for a gaming box.

Full specs at time of measurement:

• Corsair TX850W PSU
• Antec 300 Mid-Tower Case
• Crucial Ballistix DDR3 1600MHz 8-8-8-24 1T 1.65V 2GBx2
• MSI NF980-G65 Motherboard
• AMD Phenom II X6 1090T "Thuban" @ 4.25GHz 1.55V
• Intel Gigabit CT NIC (PCI-E x1)
• Spire Thermax Eclipse II CPU Heatsink
• 4 Scythe 120mm 3000RPM case fans (variable duty cycle, 19-60%)
• LG IDE DVD+-RW Drive
• MSI GeForce N275GTX Twin Frozr II GPU @ 700/1560/1300
• Seagate 7200.11 Series 1.5TB SATA II Hard Drive

[Aquaplant]

Why do you overclock the CPU on a gaming box that has as old GPU as the 275 GTX? Anyhow, the older generation GPU, combined with overvolted CPU, would explain the 375W power draw, but only when gaming tough.

On a side note, I hope you never use those fans at their 100% duty cycle, because I'd think the case would more or less take off, not to mention the noise. Even ~1500 RPM sounds like a hurricane, at least when I was still using that same case. Still, it's good airflow at the cost of silence, but that's a tradeoff I'm no longer willing to take.

[Sight Unseen]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Why do you overclock the CPU on a gaming box that has as old GPU as the 275 GTX? Anyhow, the older generation GPU, combined with overvolted CPU, would explain the 375W power draw, but only when gaming tough.

On a side note, I hope you never use those fans at their 100% duty cycle, because I'd think the case would more or less take off, not to mention the noise. Even ~1500 RPM sounds like a hurricane, at least when I was still using that same case. Still, it's good airflow at the cost of silence, but that's a tradeoff I'm no longer willing to take.

Hmm, I bought the fast fans with the intention of using pwm, and they are quite near silent, keeping my pc cool even when running at full load. I can stand about 1m away and barely hear it. In my experience, super fast fans at like 40% duty cycle are just as quiet as those "silent" fans but move much more air at a given speed because they're made not to be crazy loud even when at full speed.

the GTX275 isn't old, it still holds out against the upper midrange of the current generation, even at 1920x1080. I would upgrade for DX11 but I'm not made of money. It took me like 3 years of saving to get my current hardware. And yes, I have no doubt that my GPU is a bottleneck for gaming. However, this isn't just a gaming box. I also do a lot of stuff thats really CPU intensive on it, like running distributed HPC apps, transcoding video, audio recording and post-production stuff, photo editing, etc.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Sight Unseen

Hmm, I bought the fast fans with the intention of using pwm, and they are quite near silent, keeping my pc cool even when running at full load. I can stand about 1m away and barely hear it. In my experience, super fast fans at like 40% duty cycle are just as quiet as those "silent" fans but move much more air at a given speed because they're made not to be crazy loud even when at full speed.

Silence is an interesting concept, since it's almost impossible to achieve with a decent gaming rig, seeing how any good GPU generates loads of heat, and usually needs to be actively cooled. Water cooling is the closest one can get to absolute quiet, but it's expensive and somewhat hazardous, considering how water really isn't the best thing to have inside a complex electric contraption such as the computer.

Most noise made by fans is usually the air in itself moving, which creates the sort of steady hum that isn't really all that irritating to ears, compared to resonating parts, HDD read sounds and whining fan rotors. Still, I have this obsession about having my computer as quiet as possible, while still having decent hardware to run games and other stuff.

the GTX275 isn't old, it still holds out against the upper midrange of the current generation, even at 1920x1080. I would upgrade for DX11 but I'm not made of money. It took me like 3 years of saving to get my current hardware. And yes, I have no doubt that my GPU is a bottleneck for gaming. However, this isn't just a gaming box. I also do a lot of stuff thats really CPU intensive on it, like running distributed HPC apps, transcoding video, audio recording and post-production stuff, photo editing, etc.

Old is a really subjective term when it comes to hardware. I agree that it's still a good GPU for gaming, but when I read stuff about hardware and how often people buy stuff, I get the kind of picture how some people upgrade their computers on like 6 months interval, like a guy with Thuban CPU wanted to buy Sandy Bridge because he had an upgrade itch. Even my HD 6870 is already too slow to fully power some truly mad games out there, but it was a major improvement over my old HD 4830. I just hope that my current config will be sufficient for the next 4 years or so.

[Sight Unseen]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Most noise made by fans is usually the air in itself moving, which creates the sort of steady hum that isn't really all that irritating to ears, compared to resonating parts, HDD read sounds and whining fan rotors. Still, I have this obsession about having my computer as quiet as possible, while still having decent hardware to run games and other stuff.



Old is a really subjective term when it comes to hardware. I agree that it's still a good GPU for gaming, but when I read stuff about hardware and how often people buy stuff, I get the kind of picture how some people upgrade their computers on like 6 months interval, like a guy with Thuban CPU wanted to buy Sandy Bridge because he had an upgrade itch. Even my HD 6870 is already too slow to fully power some truly mad games out there, but it was a major improvement over my old HD 4830. I just hope that my current config will be sufficient for the next 4 years or so.

Hmm, now I'm curious. I need to find my dB meter and se how loud it really is. Sitting on my desk it doesn't bother me at all, even when watching a movie on a crappy set of tiny speakers.

As far as upgrades, I like new hardware as much as the next guy. However, even as much as I like a shiny new [insert component here], I still wouldn't upgrade as much as some people I've seen, even if I had all the money I wanted. The computer is a tool, and as long as a tool functions correctly for your needs, it is sufficient. There's a point where you stop buying capability and all it does is make your epeen bigger among other geeks. I'm more or less satisfied with my setup save for some faster/more RAM and a DX11 GPU. As soon as I'm unable to play a game I like at settings equal to or higher than medium, or if 4K video suddenly becomes popular, then it's upgrade time. I never really throw everything out at once, just make little upgrades here and there unless there's a new generation that requires a new slot/socket/plug for something. (*ahem* Intel)

Anyways, sorry for being super off topic.