Do you consider power consumption when choosing a CPU?

[MU_Engineer]

Most quad chips are around 125w....no idea how that translates into cash. Would be interesting to know though...say on an average usage of 6 hours per day?

Well, if it is being run flat-out and consumes 125 watts, you can just do the calculations. a 125-watt chip being run for 6 hours consumes 0.75 kWh every day (the kWh is such a horrible unit- it's just 1 kilojoule/second * 3600 seconds, which simplifies to 3.6 MJ. It's the engineering equivalent of saying "I ain't not got" to say "I have.") I pay 10 cents/kWh, so running that chip for a day costs 7.5 cents and $2.25 every month.

 

[roofus]

when you build a muscle car, do you care about gas mileage? same thought process applies to building an enthusiast computer. if it runs hot, you invest in a nice cooling solution to compliment your investment. if your electric bill concerns you, chances are you don't have the budget to go bat s*** on your build to begin with.

 

[MMclachlan]

Depends on the useage scenario: Gaming rig - NO! Workstation/HTPC/24-7 machine - Possibly.
I have 2 systems, a OCed Q9550 with 8800GTs in Sli for games and a E6320 with a 8800GS for the HTPC/front room machine. The HTPC is built on a GA-EP35 (the 'E' standing for energy!) and it is set to full tree-hugging mode, C1E and EIST underclock and undervolt it 99% of the time and the cpu and case fan are on thermal control. I'm sure that over time this saves a few watts, some trees and probably a few sick bunnies and kittens too. As for the other machine it is set to full-burn, global radiator mode, and that's where it stays, but it only gets used a few hours a day and at full whack is only using between 290-320w, idles around 180w.
I think for it to actually be a deciding factor in a purchase based on the cost of the energy saved you would have to be at a corporate level buying 00s or 000s of machines. Otherwise the potential energy cost saving is so small for the life of the CPU that other factors are vastly more important. So for the desktop user I think it's nice to get one that uses less juice, but they are not going to pick a 65w chip from company A if company B sells a 95w one for the same price that is 25% faster, or is the same performance-wise but 25% cheaper say.

 

[cadder]

I am thinking about it, don't know whether it should be a big consideration or not. Depending on where a person lives, the additional electricity use might be almost free. For instance my home computer is in our den, and in the winter any heat it exhausts into the room just lessens the amount of heat that our HVAC system has to add to the house, meaning the use of the computer is basically free. In the summer it is of course a different story, so in a climate where the heater is used more than the AC, processor watts are not so important. In a climate where AC is used more it would probaby be worthwhile to reduce the power used by the computer where that is reasonable.

I'm considering a new desktop for home. My CPU needs are modest, and an E7200 at stock speeds would probably be fine. Then later on if I need more power I can crank it up a little. Occasionally I do a lot of multitasking and my frustration with my current computer is that it is unusable with one task dominating. I have considered a Q6600, and OC that, but the electricity use would go up quite a bit for that CPU, and I don't know if I really need quad core vs. dual core.

 

[cjl]

How much power does a midrange gaming desktop consume?

I would guess maybe 80-100W completely idle, and 300-400W full load for a midrange.

 

[WR]

That's too high of a difference between idle and load. A system that can draw >300W is using either high end graphics, or SLI/Xfire, or a Pentium 4/Phenom/OC'ed CPU. Those conditions will cause idle to go over 150. More realistically for a midrange gamer with at most a mild overclock: 100-130W idle, 160-240W load.