| 1 |
> > Even my rig - hotter, doesn't reach 300W when I artificially torture the |
| 2 |
> > system. Normal 'max' load is in 200W range. An normal desktop? Under 100. |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> OK -- just to find out the truth I've attached a kill-a-watt to my current |
| 6 |
> workstation which is ~4yrs old w/ slow cpu and ancient video card but |
| 7 |
> has been upgraded w/ 7 SATA Drives: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
So the figures below are AC in, not DC out. Pretty sure the figure everyone |
| 11 |
uses for comparison is DC out. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Idle - ~285W |
| 15 |
> Light Use (emerge --sync) - ~310W |
| 16 |
> Kernel Compile w/ video app running and minor torture- ~340W |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This is definitely much higher than 100-200W stated above. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Anyhow, given that the discussion was about a system lasting ~8yrs, which |
| 21 |
> is |
| 22 |
> twice the current age of my system, I don't think it's unfeasible that |
| 23 |
> future |
| 24 |
> upgrades (especially if video card related or if moving cpu from 2 core to |
| 25 |
> 8 |
| 26 |
> core) could get normal power util 20% higher to ~372W eventually. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> If you conservatively state that PSU wattage should be 1.66 * normal util |
| 29 |
> (so |
| 30 |
> that PSU is normally running at 60% of peak) then: |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> 1.66 * 372 = 617 |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I think you've double dipped there....see above comment. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
My 2c WRT power supplies - buy a quality brand as they are one of the least |
| 38 |
reliable components in a PC. |
Archives