New study highlights the ridiculous amount of energy consumed by gaming PCs

[Xtreme gamer]

I game on high end gear with 3 screens.
I bought roof solar panels and micro invertors for 3 grand. (A small kit)
My 700$ a quarter bill went down to 250$
They pay for themselves very quickly.
People should look into them.

 

[pmds25]

"New study highlights the ridiculous amount of energy consumed by gaming PCs"... And ignores thousands of millions of other ridiculous energy consumers?

Anyways, I am environmentally minded, but I don't believe for a moment that any reasonable computer consumes 872W constantly. (Calculation: 1400kWh / 365 days = 3.84kWh per day / stated average gaming time per day (4.4 hours) = 872W. You would only ever be able to achieve such usage by having at least a triple-SLI/CF config (or by running the entirety of Google off your computer). Hardly common enough to make it the average. If you consider an *average* build, it may consume 400-500W at *peak*, so an average may be more like 300-400W, so let's say 350W. And what kind of person even has 4.4 hours every day of the year in order to game that much?! I think a more reasonable estimate for that might be 2-3 (let's say 2.5) hours on the days you game, which might be 5 or 6 days a week. Which makes the annual consumption something more like 250kWh a year (350W x 2.5 x (5.5 x 52)). Only 17.9% of the stated amount.

Please, researchers, do your homework next time...

 

[SoWhatDude]

Who really cares how much energy computer use, they use far less energy than electronic did 25, 50 even 75 years ago. Imagine all of those old computers, radios, televisions, vcrs and other electronics that used big,heavy transformers, vacuum tubes and ran so hot you could heat a small room with them.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Who really cares how much energy computer use, they use far less energy than electronic did 25, 50 even 75 years ago.

You mean back when hardly anyone had them?

 

[viperz]

The study further discovered that gaming PCs collectively consumed 75 terawatt-hours of electricity ($10 billion) in 2012. what does this prove besides someone knows how to make it sounds worse than it is throw a big amount of money and a few well placed words to make gaming pc's sound like vampires sucking up energy.

 

[BlueDrake]

It's probably funded by the power companies themselves, or someone allied with them to make it seem like gamers are massive energy vampires. For running an older rig, monitor, router, Wii U and any chargers it's around 180-230w. Doing general tasks such as surfing the web, watching videos and so on really. Just pick up some means of monitoring power, and see what's REALLY being the vampire in your home.

During the heatwaves we have in the summer, I have a small window AC and that draws around 350-500w depending on severity of heat, fan level (low or high) and so on. I literally monitor it's usage whenever it's on, when I have to reset at all I write down the length of time + amount of energy used. Keep in mind this is only cooling one small room, which has no air flow and a PC running constantly.

I'm here often to do all sorts of tasks, so I'd rather the system go idle than reboot, due to any updates or such. We also have a large AC which is drawing who knows what, to cool the rest of the house when it's pretty severe. Along with maintaining a pool which the pump is on it's own power line entirely, of course those are on and off depending on the weather.

So how are PCs a vampire compared to probably many other things in a home, that likely draw a good 500w or more when running? For most general things a Kill-A-Watt would suffice to give you some detailed information, like how much power draw and even monitor long term.

I conclude PCs can draw more overall, if you leave them running 24/7 for some reason or another. Otherwise they usually idle for a lot less, if you have been upgrading various parts to be more efficient.

 

[MHinz]

I specifically bought a kill-a-watt to monitor my PC's energy consumption and was surprised that, at the current per KWH rate here, it was costing around $13 a month to run. Thats including the laundry list of per KWH charges they tack on. The PC wasn't even the only thing on the surge strip I was monitoring, so the total was actually less, but the few other things plugged in were of negligible impact. And that was the month I was playing The Witcher Wild Hunt pretty heavily, so I was pushing the thing pretty hard. Of course, I'm not running a multi GPU setup or multiple monitors. I don't have a 4k panel or any complicated drive setup. And while there are LED's in my tower, I intentionally bought one that has a button to turn them off. Because I'm an adult and have long since outgrown pointless ostentatious posturing. But if that's your thing, more power to you. Quite literally in this instance.

 

[Mark Speir]

Bah! Any gamer knows that higher numbers on a chart are always better! "My system is only pulling 12Kw? O.O Time to upgrade the PSU!"

 

[guardiantitan]

PC gamers = greedy energy hogs. Putting disproportionate demand on the grid for non-productive tasks.

As opposed to smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts that cost tax payers billions per year and can lead to crime as well as death? None of those activities are productive, either. I'd say gaming is pretty tame with only causing an increased power usage and the odd crime.

 

[mateau]

Hmmm.....

An 800 watt gaming computer costs EXACTLY 9.6 CENTS per hour to use. Electricity costs 12 cents per kilowatt hour in general throughout the United States.

That is a ridiculous amount of money to spend to play games!!

Errrr, I'm joking!

A Turkey costs about 10 cents per hour to roast.

It costs about 15 cents to dry a load of laundry.

Your microwave consumes about 1500 watts.

The NSA spends $$BILLIONS to monitor and store your personal data.

Stick with games your life will be too boring for the NSA to even care!! That alone will conserve electricity.

 

[25mjcny]

2012 eh? I think the results might have been skewed by bitcoin mining that was all the rage around that time.

 

[JerryMc]

Dude! Who cares. All the kilowatts were paid for!

 

[captaincranky]

I'm pretty sure they were only talking about AMD gaming rigs!

 

[ET3D]

Who really cares how much energy computer use, they use far less energy than electronic did 25, 50 even 75 years ago..

Not really. Well, there weren't any home computers 75 or 50 years ago, but the first home computers took a lot less power than later ones did. They used slow, passively cooled chips. They got a little more power hungry over the years, but people called the original GeForce 256 power hungry because it used 16W! That was a top of the line GPU released 16 years ago. Nowadays even the entry level GPU's don't use this little power. (The Pentium 66 also had a TDP of 16W and was considered incredibly hot and power hungry.)

So no, in "the old days" PC's, even gaming PC's, used a lot less power.

I'd love to know how these people come across these figures and how accurate they are. Methinks it's all thumb sucking but people are gullible and will believe anything if you're convincing enough after all b.s. baffles brains.

And I'd love to know if you've read the article. I'm just curious if your "I'd love to know" comes from not bothering to try to learn or just from not going over the references at the end. (Not that I followed them, but I at least skimmed the article to understand where the assumptions come from.)

 

[davislane1]

As opposed to smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts that cost tax payers billions per year and can lead to crime as well as death? None of those activities are productive, either. I'd say gaming is pretty tame with only causing an increased power usage and the odd crime.

Smokers generate more taxes. Alcoholics generate more taxes. Drug addicts create jobs, which dealers use income from to buy smokes and alcohol. Therefore, drug addicts generate more taxes.

PC gaming [on AMD rigs in particular] puts strain on the grid with no net benefit other than entertaining the unproductive.

 

[captaincranky]

I still think it's only AMD gaming rigs which are the problem.

 

[Misagt]

Maybe we should go after people who like bubble baths instead of showers next? Or maybe people that like to driver for recreational purposes. Or perhaps ladies that like to buy way more clothes that they need? Everything we do takes energy. The fact that they are demonizing gamers is insane as many many many things burn through a ton more energy then gaming. Also this is total bunk if you ask me, and how on earth would you even get this data? That graph tell it's all when the one on the gaming computer is 3 times the width and shown in red. Designed to make you think it's bad.

 

[captaincranky]

Maybe we should go after people who like bubble baths instead of showers next? Or maybe people that like to driver for recreational purposes. Or perhaps ladies that like to buy way more clothes that they need? Everything we do takes energy. The fact that they are demonizing gamers is insane as many many many things burn through a ton more energy then gaming. Also this is total bunk if you ask me, and how on earth would you even get this data? That graph tell it's all when the one on the gaming computer is 3 times the width and shown in red. Designed to make you think it's bad.

Build a gaming PC with all "made in USA" components, and they'll leave you alone.. In the meantime, maybe Amazon will figure out how to make pigs fly to bring you those parts!

Oh and BTW, quit crying, the world and its authorities are much harder on skateboarders. But now that I think about it, most of them are dilettantes, who don't work, and won't go to school either.

You have to take studies like this with a heaping teaspoon of salt anyway. Studies are done by people that don't want to work either. It's best if you pick a topic that's been done to death as well. Then you can sit on your a**, and just write accreditation on the the bottom of the page(s), to avoid a plagiary lawsuit.

I still can't believe nobody has challenged my remark about AMD powered computers. Just because it's true, doesn't mean it's not worth starting a flame war over.

 

[davislane1]

Maybe we should go after people who like bubble baths instead of showers next?

That would save millions in environmental damages.

Or maybe people that like to driver for recreational purposes.

Those *******s shouldn't even be on the road. Wasting gas, putting wear and tear on the roads, and for what? Go to a damn track.

Or perhaps ladies that like to buy way more clothes that they need?

Sexist.

Everything we do takes energy. The fact that they are demonizing gamers is insane as many many many things burn through a ton more energy then gaming.

Pointing out that a harmful energy consumer is harmful isn't "demonizing." If you don't want to be a bad guy, stop playing PC games.

 

[squishynidas]

I don't have a problem with gaming pc's taking up a lot of watts. The energy is obviously there to use and if it wasn't then we would have more efficient gaming hardware options. Plus not everyone can afford new parts every 6-12 months. It's cheaper to pay the 20$ extra a year in electricity.

 

[captaincranky]

Hmmm.....
An 800 watt gaming computer costs EXACTLY 9.6 CENTS per hour to use. Electricity costs 12 cents per kilowatt hour in general throughout the United States.

You seem bound and determined to fight crap research with crap off the cuff facts of your own. Electricity costs more than .15 cents a kilowatt hour, once you figure in the basic customer charges and other nonsense. My electric bill was over $93.00 for 597 kWh. So over 15 cents a kWh. If you're getting it for 12 cents, consider yourself very fortunate.

Your microwave consumes about 1500 watts.

And what is it you have to cook for longer than about 10 minutes on average? A 1500 watt Micro will bring a 12 oz cup of coffee from the refrigerator up to drinking temperature in about 2 minutes.

The NSA spends $$BILLIONS to monitor and store your personal data.

I got nuthin' on this. they're the NSA, so I guess they're allowed.

Maybe we should go after people who like bubble baths instead of showers next? .

That would save millions in environmental damages.

Actually, bubble baths are a lot less environmentally destructive than they used to be. First, all the phosphates have been taken out of soaps.

Second, the average 300 pound American woman displaces so much water, you can practically fill the tub with a gallon jug, and have a bit left over to top off the car radiator. (y)

 

[cliffordcooley]

I don't have a problem with gaming pc's taking up a lot of watts. The energy is obviously there to use and if it wasn't then we would have more efficient gaming hardware options.

You mean like IGP, which is currently available to use as an option! If we don't currently have an option available, it is like due to the fact we have not progressed that far yet.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Not really. Well, there weren't any home computers 75 or 50 years ago, but the first home computers took a lot less power than later ones did. They used slow, passively cooled chips. They got a little more power hungry over the years, but people called the original GeForce 256 power hungry because it used 16W! That was a top of the line GPU released 16 years ago. Nowadays even the entry level GPU's don't use this little power. (The Pentium 66 also had a TDP of 16W and was considered incredibly hot and power hungry.)

So no, in "the old days" PC's, even gaming PC's, used a lot less power.



And I'd love to know if you've read the article. I'm just curious if your "I'd love to know" comes from not bothering to try to learn or just from not going over the references at the end. (Not that I followed them, but I at least skimmed the article to understand where the assumptions come from.)

I saw them but to me these stats are just lip service. I don't believe for a second that they are even close to being accurate. I would explain why but it would be too long winded. Lets just say if you believe them and are happy with, then so be it.

 

[Quinnbeast]

What?

A gaming PC has a long-term energy draw of TEN consoles? On which planet? Did someone forget that consoles have been build from modified PC components for several generations? They're really not that different.

The PS3 can use up to 180W under load. The PS4 can use up to 140W. An older LCD or Plasma TV can easily use about 150W... which combined, is about the same **or more** as a single gaming PC with a high-end GPU and an LCD monitor.

So, either it's the norm to have a console / TV / sounds systems using 35W combined, or console owners only use their devices for one tenth of the time of a PC gamer. Does either of those things sound correct?

Moreover, residential energy consumption is less than 20% of total worldwide energy use. So, unless industry and commerce are going to lead by example, the "statistics" in this article seem a little wobbly either way.

 

[stillborn]

Nobody finds a sport car's fuel consumption ridiculous. The priority is the joy when driving rather than efficiency. It's the same for me for high-end hardware. Besides honestly if there were two same priced parts, one 5% faster and 50% higher power comsumption, I would choose that one. Its my money and I love to spend it on ridiculously power hungry and fast stuff. At the end, I watch those green things try to load something while I stay snappy 24/7, and its worth the price!