Overclock.net banner

Out of curiosity - power use in idle with power saver plan

4.1K views 6 replies 4 participants last post by  madno  
#1 · (Edited)
I was curious how much watt my system consumes when it is more or less idle:

CPU Package Power: 60.0W (incl. 22.5 SoC)
GPU 2080Ti idle : 2.7W
GPU RTX 4000 : 20.0W
------------------------
Sum : 82.7W

System total :168.0W (about 175W input from wall)

System minus
GPUs, CPU : 85.3W


This is with Windows Power Saver Plan active.

Just for fun, has anybody such values for comparison?

(I think 168W for simple webbrowsing might not be the best idea - I am using a Core i5 tablet for that most of the time :)

EDIT:
What it costs:
E.g. watt incl. monitor would be 210W
3 hours per day at a price of 0.33 €-cent per kWh
= 0.21 € per day

EDIT 2:
10,81 € per year <-THIS IS wrong
76.65 € per year <- This is right


System:
Threadripper 3960X (SMT off = 24 Threads)
Asus Zenith 2 (non alpha) with Wifi and Audio disabled in Bios
64 GB RAM @3200 14
GPU1 2080 Ti (cumpute only - idle)
GPU2 RTX 4000 (driving one display)
3 x Samung M.2, 1x Samsung SSD
Custom Loop, 10 Fans, and the usual RGB
 
#2 · (Edited)
AMD systems idle high compared to Intel systems (about a 10:1 ratio). Conversely, AMD systems are more efficient under full load than Intel systems (about a 2:1 ratio). For most computing uses, the Intel platform will be significantly more efficient—even if it surges to higher consumption briefly while doing certain tasks. For constant high-load systems (e.g. CPU mining, large public servers), AMD platforms will be more efficient.
I have overclocked i7-10700k systems where the CPU idles down below 1 watt, which pull as little as 9w from the wall at idle. My overclocked i9-12900k CPU idles down to 2w and the entire system pulls 22w from the wall at idle. In comparison, I have a 5950x which idles down to about 40w at idle while pulling 100w from the wall.
 
#3 ·
I feel the AMD power consumption is really high for a system not doing much. But I should not complain. It was my choice to put a Threadripper and watercooling in the case (once GPUs with enough Vram for rendering lager scenes become affordable, I might rethink this).
 
#4 ·
Few of my systems tested from the wall at idle (power saver plan) using one 175hz 1440p display.

12900k + 6900xt = 100w idle (5fans)
3600 + Radeon Vii = 64w idle (7fans)
3970x + Radeon Vii = 165w idle (custom loop with 11 fans and 1 pump)
7980xe + Radeon Vii = 320w idle (custom loop 16 fans and HBA + 6 7200rpm HDD)

Fans pumps HDD are the largest offenders for idle power consumption afaik. 10 fans at around 5w each is 50w some fans will use more some use less. Not sure how someone with a 12900k has a system idle at 22w but maybe thats with no gpu or no display running but that is very low power idle state for sure.

Get a P3 meter off amazon and check what the system uses.
 
#5 ·
Your 3970x is the intel core not the AMD 3970x Threadripper, right?
Anyway, interesting comparison. The values are more like what I would have expected.

Do your values include the monitor or is that on top?

I have an 8bay NAS with core i3 (integrated gpu) running that is rated at 25w idle total.
 
#6 ·
Consider Process Lasso. Bitsum. Real-time CPU Optimization and Automation
It allows complete control of cores (affinity), power schemes and there is built in feature called Probalance that restrains any one program that tries to hog resources. The way I use it is, I leave core 0 free on every non Windows program or application. That insures Windows will always have core zero to work with at any time. You can select a separate power scheme for each program, like High Performance, then use Idle Saver to switch to Power Saver Scheme after 20 or 30 seconds of less CPU demand. You will of course see the CPU voltage drop and the watts used will go down after the 20 to 30 seconds. Here in Texas, it is a boon in the summertime because the CPU puts less heat in the room. Also, the fans are quieter, because less voltage means cooler CPU, NB, Mosfets and GPU. There is a free trial available. If you like it, you buy a single or a multi pack if you have more than one PC. The only downside is that it can become a bit fiddly if you try to explore ALL the customizations. I just mainly use the features I describe above for honest energy savings. The Windows system programs can only partly be controlled. But I rarely ask Process Lasso to control Windows stuff unless something like trusted installer is constantly using full core. Then I will reduce it's infinity from 7 of 8 cores to like 4 of 8 cores. It has auto updating and it's core program bits use a very tiny amount of CPU resources. One last thing, it has a window for processes as they open and terminate, down to a fraction of a second, if you are troubleshooting. And you can capture that data to a text or a csv. You can often find things that event viewer or task scheduler will not display. There is a feature called Watchdog that will close a program automatically as a work around, in case you are have trouble figuring out how to disable it. I have been using Process Lasso for about 8 years, it is a honey.