Question Linux vs Windows power consumption

[elsmandino]

Hi there.

Out of interest, is there any actual difference between Windows and Linux when using the same hardware, as far as power consumption goes?

I am considering giving Linux a go on my laptop and, if all goes well, my desktop as well.

I was just doing some research and have read a number of articles that suggest that Linux actually uses more power than Windows.

How can this be? I was under the impression that Linux used less resources than Linux.

 

[Ralston18]

This:

"I was just doing some research and have read a number of articles that suggest that Linux actually uses more power than Windows. "

Cite the references. Provide links.

 

[USAFRet]

Also, applications.

No one sits there with "just Windows" or "just Linux".

They do things with the PC.

 

[Eximo]

Different flavors of Linux too.

You can run a very light distro or a distro that has all the same features that you would expect in Windows or Mac OS with all the accompanying background tasks.

 

[elsmandino]

Thanks for this - good to know that this is not necessarily the case.

I thought you were going to say that Linux does use more power but that is just you price you pay for a superior OS.

There are surprisingly few videos on the subject but these are the ones I found.

Windows VS Ubuntu : Power consumption comparison - YouTube

LINUX BATTERY LIFE TESTED! | Windows 10 vs. Linux Power Consumption - YouTube

Also, I typed "Windows vs Linux power consumption" into DuckDuckGo and got the following first few hits:

A Look At The Windows 10 vs. Linux Power Consumption On A Dell XPS 13 Laptop - Phoronix

(28) Does a Linux operating system consume less battery power than Windows OS? - Quora

Laptop battery life in Linux vs Windows : linuxquestions (reddit.com)

A very small representative sample but it does seem to suggest Windows as being better for power use.

So is the ultimate message to takeaway is that Linux can be more power efficient than Windows but it is going to depend on the actual distro and also a bit of tinkering with?

I was going to make the switch to Linux, regardless of this, but if I can use less power at the same time, even better.

 

[USAFRet]

"Overall, the power use between Windows 10 and the four tested Linux distributions was basically on-par with each other. "

 

[elsmandino]

"Overall, the power use between Windows 10 and the four tested Linux distributions was basically on-par with each other. "

Even that surprises me - I thought Linux would trounce Windows in energy use, given that it has such a lower footprint.

As a Linux novice, I was just wondering how this could be.

 

[USAFRet]

Even that surprises me - I thought Linux would trounce Windows in energy use, given that it has such a lower footprint.

As a Linux novice, I was just wondering how this could be.

Not necessarily.

An idling system is not doing a lot of things, either Windows or Linux.

My previous system, i7-4790k, RX580, 32GB RAM, liquid cooling, Win 10 Pro, etc, etc....
....would idle at around 80 watts.

How much of that 80w is the hardware?

If Linux were twice as efficient (it isn't), that same hardware would not run at "40w".

A more efficient operating system may take that 80w in Win 10 to 75w. The hardware has a base usage, no matter what OS.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Even that surprises me - I thought Linux would trounce Windows in energy use, given that it has such a lower footprint.

As a Linux novice, I was just wondering how this could be.

If an operating system is working properly, then most of the time it's doing nothing. An operating system, in theory anyway, is there to service applications, providing what they need to get the job done. If there are no applications really running, then the OS basically has nothing to do. This is why if you do things like follow guides for Windows that disable "unnecessary" services and whatnot, you don't actually see much of a tangible benefit in terms of performance.

Also as mentioned, hardware has a minimum power usage that you can't really get away from.

 

[elsmandino]

Thanks for this - really good ways of explaining it.

I think I went down the rabbit hole a bit with all this and overwhelmed myself with information.

I shall have a go with Linux, over the weekend, and only then start worrying about energy saving methods if I feel I actually need them.

 

[dmroeder]

Thanks for this - really good ways of explaining it.

I think I went down the rabbit hole a bit with all this and overwhelmed myself with information.

I shall have a go with Linux, over the weekend, and only then start worrying about energy saving methods if I feel I actually need them.

Have you considered testing distributions in virtual machines like VirtualBox? While it isn't a great representation of performance, you can easily play around with different distributions without wiping your laptop. You can quickly get a feel for one, if you don't like it, you delete it. Find something you like, then install it.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Thanks for this - really good ways of explaining it.

I think I went down the rabbit hole a bit with all this and overwhelmed myself with information.

I shall have a go with Linux, over the weekend, and only then start worrying about energy saving methods if I feel I actually need them.

I will mention something, but I'm not sure how much is correlated to using Windows vs Linux and it could just be the general software configuration.

I bought a Dell XPS 13 a little over a year ago and it came with Windows 11. The "sitting there" battery life reported by the OS was around 6 hours or so. I didn't do a test of the battery life since I really wanted to turn it into a Linux machine. Once I threw Linux on it, Linux reported 10+ hours. And having used it on the battery, it feels like it can make that and thensome if all I do is web browsing and some light web app development work.

 

[raindroppilot]

In my own experience Windows does tend to be a bit better on power consumption, but its mostly insignificant. The real difference I have seen is any usage that requires hardware acceleration (watching Youtube for example) which is where Windows tends to be significantly better due to better drivers. Though, results may vary based on your own hardware.

 

[TerryLaze]

How can this be? I was under the impression that Linux used less resources than Linux.

Every company breaks their back to optimize software,drivers, and hardware as much as they can for windows for linux it's just a few enthusiasts doing all they can they do a great job but you can't compete against hughe companies.

If you go for a very simple linux distro with low spec graphics and not much going on it will probably still use less resources but if you go for something that looks like windows and has similar capabilities windows will probably win out or it will be a tie.

 

[gamerk316]

If we assume we're talking "at idle", then all you are really testing if if each OS is commanding the HW to the relevant power saving modes that are available. Likewise, at full load should be idential if the HW is truly being pushed to full load.

 

[mitch074]

Out of the box, Windows is a little bit better than Linux - I mean right out of the box, with the hardware maker's optimizations.
A clean install of Windows vs. Linux with all the proper drivers loaded are mostly a wash.
Linux + powertop settings + proper power manager for the CPU + right desktop environment vs Windows, Linux is better.
It's all a matter of fine tuning.

 

[Grobe]

If environment is an issue, then fine counting the decimals of wattage vs. throwing away some millions of computers world wide because the business of making a computer unusable by cut of support in next version of Windows - I do have a slight idea what causes most harm on the environment out of these two.

 

[failboat]

Really depends on what you're trying to do. Both have software to hibernate disks and manage cpu power. You need to plan your setup around barely using them and using ssd for everything else. I only store backups and media on mine really. I don't believe there is a big difference in os.

Outside of that being able to turn off unused things in your bios can help a lot like pcie,usb,sata,etc. laptops and energy star premades are usually tuned for very low idle power. retail stuff, premade desktops, or servers are not. Many nuc like things idle as low as 3-5W. the quality of the power delivery in the motherboard and the psu efficiency are other big factors. any chip since zen is capable of very low idle watt use. it's always the other stuff pulling power. more pcie lanes usually means more garbage on the mobo and it all pulls power waiting for devices that bios feature is critical.

it's very difficult to find something that can idle low and also run 4+ drives for NAS.