Actually I am interested in having my pc accurately tested for power consumption.

I am off Fri/sat and would like to do that up.

I prefer the slim version. The fat chick version looks like it would show every single finger print.

yeah but fat chicks are better in bed cause they dont get it as often

LMFAO (PUKE)

THREAD HIJACK, DISCUS!

I donno lol

Its hard to link, do math and hold my son who is throwing blocks in my face. and doing all this on a blackberry. heh

thanks for the check and fix though. Mustve been a typo because I still had 53w when divided.... hrm.

OVER 9000!

http://www.upm-marketing.com/products/P ... A&item=%22)0%3FA%0A

about $20.00 at Canadian tire

Ha, no worries I was just teasing mostly anyways.

It should also be pointed out that the monthly/yearly power cost you came up with was just powering the CPU and not all the other components needed to run a system. Powering down at night, or when you won't be using your computer again for an hour or two, really adds up.

Powering a PC or anything solid state off and on daily or multiple times/day may have positive effects to a power bill, but have negative ones to electronics.

Anything solid state is meant to stay on constantly. The powering on causes a rush of electrons which ( albeit in a small scale ) causes internal wear on the parts and over time - causes failure. I checked this with some electronic technicians with the Canadian Coast Guard ( those who are updated every three months) and they said the same thing, leave it on. If anything adjust power consumption for the times its not in use either by downcore, voltage adjustment or sleep time.

I thought I remembered hearing that modern computer components are less effected by start-up/shut-down's than when that "common knowledge" came into being. If the Canadian Coast Guard is anything like our Navy/Air Force then they are using dated electronics... not that it's a bad thing, because it would be expensive for the tax-payers to update all the time and they are more concerned with having systems that they can trust on and are reliable.

Also, I remember reading another article on power-down vs leave-on and they actually had opposing "common knowledge" where they thought components would last longer if powered on less, because of the MTBF (I believe it's that... "Mean Time Before Failure"), and tested if that was true... I forget the results off-hand however.

Anyways, at best the debate between shutting-down vs leaving-on could be answered by a function because I'm sure at a certain point leaving it on for a period causes more ware than shutting it down, plus the power consumption, and after that break-even point you'd be better shutting it off... Now if only we could examine electron migration we'd be able to answer that.

Valid points Flama. I was going on what I was told by people that were far more educated than I am in that respect.

I leave my gear on and never had any issues, its only powered down when I leave and plan to be away for mroe than a day - so its either luck or the premise works. You stated that modern computer components are less affected by power up and shut down - so there is a known issue with the power on's. Not sure about pc hardware and tolerance to it- more reading/investigation required.

Back to the topic of the thread, Wonder how the Intel Xeon® 'Nehalem-EX' Processor would perform as a home based cpu - Benchark results and all that jazz.

I can answer that

Performance: awesome to todays standards. I'n 2 years it will be like a E2200 stock clocked.

I always shut my PCs down at night before I went to bed when I started to conserve energy. I think the chance of failure in that method is much less than failure due to overclocking.

So I would just shut them down to be hones.t Those parts will be long gone prior to a slight chance of failure.

when you put it that way..

I would be most likely upgraded before a failure anyways. Guess I will have to start changing the habits and see how it reflects on the power bill.

I meant to mention this in my last post but I always find it funny when computer enthusiasts worry about the life-span of their hardware when they are usually the people replacing it before its even really out of date, let alone starting to die.

As for this chip, it's a Xeon, and it's not very often gamers run server chips in their systems because of the price/performance ratios so it's probably best not to get all hot and bothered by it yet. If it turns into the next Opteron 240 after it's been out for a bit however, that would be nice.

Power on surges, also called 'in rush current' is a function of capacitors and inductors, but also poor engineering. Tracking/shorting when turned on is generally a result of dust and moisture; thus if one leaves the equipment on, all should be fine.

Opposite to powering on is powering off equipment incorrectly and which causes much more damage. The worse scenario is when a breaker opens on a systems which has high levels of inductors down line… normally motors and transformers

The energy stored in the magnetic fields of motors must collapse when the power is suddenly removed, ie a breaker tripping. This energy must go somewhere and it usually finds the weakest down line component to discharge through.

In a shipboard environment, the power distribution system is based upon a three wire delta connected distribution system, thus there is no fourth neutral wire as found in the four wire ‘Y’ connected Edison distribution system the power company uses. One can easily imagine the 100s of electric motors on a ship all wanting to discharge their energy at the same time. Poor engineering is once again the cause which allows for these collapsing magnetic fields to damage equipment. Well designed systems will use some form of a discharge circuit to protect equipment, such as a free wheeling diode.