Quote:
Originally Posted by ruskie
The same is with always faster, bigger, better crap... Why can't chip makers and similar instead of trying to squeeze more oomph from the chips instead make them more energy efficient.
I every so often look at some laptops though I don't like them. And I see options for cpus...
Basic cpu 35W
one step higher 25W
one more 35W
and then it's just 35W or higher...
|
Huh? Iirc, for laptops, Intel has an ultra-low-voltage line with 10W TDP. Also, while advertised TDP for desktop processors might be 35W or higher, actual power consumption, particularly while idle, is much lower. I measured power consumption for a PC when I upgraded the CPU to an E5200 TDP 65W from Celeron 430 TDP 35W. Surprisingly, it used less power with the dual-core E5200 than with the single-core Celeron 430.
275W Flex-ATX PSU
ECS 945GCT-M/1333
Core 2 Duo E5200
2x1GB DDR2 667
ATI Radeon HD4550
Western Digital 320GB (7200RPM)
Idle: 55W, Load: 65W (system power consumption measured at the wall via a Kill-A-Watt, yep that's the whole computer, not just the CPU)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruskie
I've got an eeepc701 it uses cpu and all 20W of power. Why can't a full blown laptop do it. Why do I need a 1TB drive in my laptop when a 20GB ssd would suffice for OS and a LOT of basic storage and use other flash storage to supplement it.
|
True, but for some people an Atom and 20GB of storage doesn't cut it, albeit, I have yet to see more mainstream notebooks with 1TB drives. I remember reading an article saying there were places where netbooks had a 30% return rate, most likely because people expected more power from them. True, a lot of this is mostly because society's been trained with "I want" instead of "I need", but it's hard to change a lifetime's worth of training overnight.