[HARDWARE] Cost of crunching (was: Mac Questions)

Dan Oetting dan_oetting at uswest.net
Wed Mar 13 14:01:11 EST 2002


on 3/13/02 12:23 PM, John L. Bass wrote:

>	> It doesn't matter if the cycles/energy are done today, or tomarrow, if 
>they
>	> are used there is no savings.
>
>	Not true, If they are done 'tomorrow' then there will be a saving on
>	electricity because the more powerful computer of tomorrow will crunch much
>	faster than todays.  And possibly with miniaturisation at a lower power
>	consumption to boot.
>
>That is an interesting point. Have you noticed that the new 1.x GHz 
>processors and
>their companion chipsets/memory are nearly 100W, nearly linear the power 
>use of
>slower processors which used to be 20w or so?

In my original post I used ballpark guesses for some of the source 
numbers. If we're going to compare processors it should be done with real 
numbers. I'm using only the CPU power in the calculation since this 
number is available, it's the only component really utilized by the RC5 
cruncher (spinning up the disk after every block is another issue) and 
represents the difference between letting the processor idle or crunching 
blocks.

LC III+
     cira 93-94 68030 33Mhz.        [From www.lowendmac.com]
     RC5: 9725 k/s (0.13 blocks/hr) [From d.net speed chart]
     CPU power 2.6w max (@40 Mhz?)  [From motorola product summary]

     $1US = (aprox) 10,000 watt hrs = 3846 CPU hrs = 500 blocks.

Can we get enough of these data points to plot crunching costs over time?

-- Dan Oetting

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe hardware' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net



More information about the Hardware mailing list