Gaming consoles' hidden costs
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Jun 19th 2006 at 4:25PM }
DXGaming.com set out to determine the energy costs of popular gaming consoles of today and yesteryear. Not surprisingly, DX Gaming found that Xbox 360 is making the largest contribution to your energy bill, costing as much as $20.10 per year to power -- compare that to the 92 cents (today's rate) needed to fuel the original PlayStation. Interestingly enough, Xbox 360 is also the most energy efficient console, squeezing higher performance out of each watt: 61.21Mhz / 1 Watt. The GameCube ranked second at: 30.81Mhz / 1 Watt. Also worth noting, for you penny pinchers, if you unplug your consoles in-between uses, you'll likely save a couple bucks worth of 'leaked' energy annually -- that goes for cell phone chargers and other electricity-dependant devices too. But please, don't unplug the 'fridge before going to bed.
See also:
Joystiq readers are environmentally friendly
Joystiq poll: Do you leave your game console on standby?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jody Anthony @ Jun 19th 2006 4:34PM
whats an extra $2-$3 when it comes to me being lazy? I'm too lazy to go unplug everything when i'm done with it.
i also leave my pc on 24 hours a day. i'm a bastard.
Greg @ Jun 19th 2006 4:41PM
This is a waste of space. Who cares about 1.50 to 2 dollars a month. If that makes a difference to you, you shouldn't be playing video games, you should be working overtime at your job. (or shaking a cup for nickels)
Jay @ Jun 19th 2006 4:47PM
I think the point they're trying to make is about energy conservation ... the amount of energy we can generate is finite currently. So, your system only uses a minute amount -- but add 10,000,000 other people and we're talking some serious numbers :P
DG @ Jun 19th 2006 4:51PM
Right. This isn't about you, this is about everyone. 20 dollars in wasted energy expense isn't a big deal. 100,000 people wasting $2M/year is a big deal.
There is a bigger picture. Americans use much more energy than we ought to. It is an issue right now. We are finally beginning to pay the actual costs for our energy consumption. A little conservation goes a very long way.
Greg @ Jun 19th 2006 4:56PM
Fine. Then boycott the gaming consoles till they make a change. If everyone does it, then the companies will be forced to change. Then we will have enough power to break free of the need for foreign oil.
Jay @ Jun 19th 2006 5:01PM
Umm ... they don't have to change anything, we have to change our habits. We have 5% of the population and use 25% of the energy on the planet ... the previous poster was correct.
crono141 @ Jun 19th 2006 5:05PM
I bet if everyone had a solar panel on their roof, the amount of energy produced across the country would be astounding...
Not a whole roof of solar panels. Just one of a decent size (4x3 foot or so).
kvn @ Jun 19th 2006 5:06PM
I'm so glad i live in a co-op.
Chris @ Jun 19th 2006 5:09PM
A few extra bucks here and there may seem like nothing right now, but when electricity prices spike due to much needed co2 emission regulations, and OPEC puts the squeeze on the US because their own production is declining, you will be thinking twice about how you use energy. There are a lot of ways to save energy, I think its a good idea to get in the habit now. If you want to stop leak losses, buy a powerstrip that can fully break the circuit and plug all your entertainment stuff into it (TV, Xbox, whatever), and just flip the whole thing off at night, its easy. Oh yea, and buy some compact flourescent bulbs instead of those crappy incandesent one, they will cut your energy bill almost in half.
David @ Jun 19th 2006 5:11PM
I find it terribly ironic how joystiq blogged these numbers in that one story about how much the UK wastes from electronics in standby mode and then Nintendo announces that 24 connect thing, where essentially the console would be on 24/7 and draw energy and doing whatever, and now this thing.
Jason B @ Jun 19th 2006 5:14PM
[hugs tree then poops in pants, removes them, burns them, and rakes it all into the ground so pretty flowers will grow]
I think I'm gonna be sick.
Alkaiser @ Jun 19th 2006 5:16PM
Chris: I'm totally with you on the fluorescent bulbs. They're not only brighter, they're more energy efficient and cooler.
I don't think many people are looking at this and saying, "Hey, I save cash if I get a more energy efficient console." it's just more a "Did You Know?" segment.
Plus, if you're a college student and living in an apartment, that information might be pretty beneficial to you.
James @ Jun 19th 2006 5:24PM
Where are the people attacking the 360 for the enormous brick of a power supply now?
The 360 was shown to be more efficient than the dimunitive GameCube? Who would have thunk that?
PaleGringo @ Jun 19th 2006 5:25PM
Couple of things, I'll address each of them.
First off, didn't mention PC gaming at all - that's fitting, since the power consumption is so drastically different between models. To run the math and get a baseline for comparison, let's say that a 250W (nyuk nyuk) and a 450W power supply on the PCs. Here's the math:
250W x 2 Hrs/Day x 365 Days/Year x $0.15/kWH = $27.375 / year usage, before power leakage.
450W x 2 Hrs/Day x 365 Days/Year x $0.15/kWH = $49.275 / year usage, before power leakage.
---
Granted, this is like comparing gaming apples to gaming oranges, but to establish the baseline for higher power consumption devices, we can see that PCs still outclass the current wave of next-gen systems hands down.
Further, most all devices "bleed" wattage in some way or another as part of some kind of standby feature. You have a device that can be turned on by a remote control? Think that it turns on by "magic" when you press that power button on it? Every remote-controlled device at your home "leaks" wattage in the sense that you can't benefit from it being off and in standby mode. Even power strips and surge suppressors "leak" energy.
Out here in CA, we're getting completely reamed in power costs... historically, we're charged more for power and fuel than almost all the other states. People get used to it, and plan accordingly.
I think that the bigger nemesis than console gaming is inclimate weather, since heating and cooling carry the steepest electrical cost association, especially when you factor in poor home insulation.
Jeff @ Jun 19th 2006 5:35PM
It's not *only* about energy conservation - there is a personal element to this as well. $20 a year might not seem like much, until you realize you're paying $20 a year extra for your game console, $60 extra per year for your inefficient air conditioners, $250 extra per year because of your old CRT television set, $30 extra per year because of the "standby" features of all your devices, etc. etc. I mean eventually, you're talking real money here. Lots of people waste literally a couple *thousand* dollars per year from all these appliances and electronics that individually cost "a couple dollars" per month to run.
So the conservation angle is all right and true, but once you start adding stuff like this up around your house, you realize it's not just a couple bucks, it's quite a lot of money. It is helpful to know just how much money you're really spending on various things.
Which is not to say everybody should go out and boycott energy-sucking game consoles. But it's still good to know how much juice is being used and what it's costing.
Jeff @ Jun 19th 2006 5:38PM
"450W x 2 Hrs/Day x 365 Days/Year x $0.15/kWH = $49.275 / year usage, before power leakage."
Except that PC's almost *never* use their maximum rated power.
You can't just use the power rating from a PSU. That's the maximum it can *handle*, not what it puts out all the time. Typically, PC's use less than 100 watts, and probably somewhere closer to 50 watts when idle.
David @ Jun 19th 2006 5:40PM
@ PaleGringo
You can't really say those numbers for PC are accurate, firstly PSU's are hardly ever at 100% usage, they only use all the possible energy with things like high end graphics cards which suck juice like no tomorrow. However when browsing the internet or writing a document or whatever, the numbers are MUCH lower, as such unless you are playing BF2 every day 24/7 with all the highest settings and your highest resolutions, you are unlikely to be using that much energy from an average computer.
Bloo @ Jun 19th 2006 5:42PM
"We have 5% of the population and use 25% of the energy on the planet ... the previous poster was correct."
We use 25% of the energy on the planet because we OWN 25% of the things that USE energy on the planet.
David @ Jun 19th 2006 5:46PM
Oh Jeff beat me to it.
PaleGringo @ Jun 19th 2006 5:47PM
Point well taken, Jeff. I think it's worth noting that the power consumption of the 360 was $20.10, not the "wasted" power, which is equivalent to what the PS2 has been "wasting" since it came out in 1999... $2.63.
I think it would be a brilliant innovation in home elctronics if you could keep track of what wattage was used annually on what device, be it a fridge, an AC unit, a television, or a console.
I think what people would find is that the TV/Console is still dramatically less than large appliances many take for granted. Not saying you'd get more use out of a 360 than a fridge, mind. Just that it's painful to see all the small dollars adding up, especially if you're paying your own energy bill, and not living off one's parent's good welfare.
PaleGringo @ Jun 19th 2006 5:56PM
Re: #16, David.
I'm not saying those quotes are absolute, or even correct. I'm throwing numbers out calculated on the same math equated for the consoles by the original site (stating two hours of consistant "capacity" usage) to establish a relative benchmark.
I apologize if that wasn't implicitly clear, but I'm not trying to quarrel over statistics of "who has the bigger price tag." If that's what you've gotten from my post, you've missed the point altogether.
I would suspect that the Wii should come in under the 360 somewhere with those metrics, and the PS3 should be higher, what with all the functions and added hardware specifications. I think before the DXGaming site is updated to reflect data for all three next generation systems, it becomes assinine to make an assumption either way about the pros or cons of the 360 for the simple reason that it is the next-gen outlier at the moment.
Cheers. :-D
DarrenJ @ Jun 19th 2006 6:00PM
As an electrical engineer, your use of clock frequency vs. power as some sort of efficiency measure makes me want to throw large heavy things.
While clock frequency may involved in how much performance you get (see any AMD v. Intel arguement), you don't even begin to touch electrical effieciency. First off, there's MORE THAN ONE chip in that machine, most of which are not running at the CPU clock speed.
I have one machine running at 1 GHz and using a certain amount of power. If I plug plug a bunch of stuff in, it still runs at the same clock speed, but uses a lot more power. Is it now less effiecient? The answer is "we have no way of knowing with such little info."
chris w @ Jun 19th 2006 6:09PM
I love when there's an article about energy consumption or conservation. almost immediately there's someone furiously typing away to be the first responder to remind the readers that the US is a huge energy waster. You remind of when I was in elementary school and the hall monitor's sole job was to remind everyone he was a hall monitor.
*word of advice, your line of reasoning ("the people need to be educated...yada yada) is wrong. your preaching to two types of people: the choir, and everyone else who doesn't give a damn.
BTW, I'm for energy consumption. I just get sick and tired of preaching about the US's energy consumption. Without other countries doing their part for using alternative means of energy consumption and working together for the benefit of ALL countries saving energy, were wasting our time.
You're the equivalent of an @sshat on the freeway in the fast lane going 65 mph. You think your really righteous slowing us down from 80 mph, when in reality, the only people who give a damn are the people 5 lanes to the right.
Sabre @ Jun 19th 2006 6:23PM
Uh oh...looks like the Tree Huggers have hi-jacked Joystiq.com. lol
ill trooper @ Jun 19th 2006 6:35PM
Please go watch 'An Inconvenient Truth'
MarkTAW @ Jun 19th 2006 6:39PM
Just think of the energy saved once we dump all those CRTs.
epobirs @ Jun 19th 2006 7:45PM
The idea of measuring collective clock cycles per CPU and GPU core to determine power efficiency is more than a little silly. For instance, the three-core design of the Xbox 360 CPU isn't necessarily more powerful than a top of the line single core x86 processor. It was the best way available to Microsoft to get a certain amount of capability at a low price point by having a customised design that does away with much of the unneeded functionality found in chips aimed at the desktop market, like the PPC970. IBM's PPC offering was better for their needs because IBM provides a great deal of customization while neither Intel or AMD would get enough net revenue form a console processor to make it worth their time if a lot of customization was needed. The cost cutting change Microsoft got from Intel on the Xbox CPU was a reduced cache in line with the needs of a single tasking game console environment. Otherwise, the only reason to go with Intel then was their rush to market meant leveraging their existing x86 code base.
Adding up the clock rate of the cores within a machine isn't any meaningful measure of what the machine does in relation to its power needs. Using the latest 65 nm production technology, you could build a machine with identical cumulative MHz from its chipset as the Xbox but still have a far more powerful machine because many feature are distinct from speed. Just redoing the Xbox chipset at the current smallest process node would cut its power draw by well over half without adding any technical improvements.
If you traded out the XGPU for a newer part that was DX9 compliant with 2.0 or better shaders but ran at the same clock speed, the resulting system would be capable of far better visual presentation thank to the far greater shader capability. The greater transistor count of the DX9 GPU would raise the overall power draw but not nearly as much as the more typical GPU upgrade with a higher clock rate and more onboard RAM. Yet the MHz per watt equation would work out almost identically.
So unless you're really having a hard time paying your utility bills and perhaps should be concerned with video games, the added cost of a state of the art console is much ado about nothing. If the backward compatibility were near 100% it would be madness to keep both an Xbox and an Xbox 360 on hand just to save few dollars a year. There are more reasonable ways to reduce household energy consumption.
Next year there will be a 65 nm revision of the Xbox 360 CPU that should cut its power draw a fair bit. If the operating cost of the 360 really bothers you and you weren't going to one for a while anyway, you may want to wait until then. The same applies to the PS3.
epobirs @ Jun 19th 2006 7:48PM
#24
ill trooper, the only thing inconvenient about that propaganda peice is that anyone is suckered into believing it contains much in the way of truth. Al Gore wouldn't know scientific veracity if it bit him on te ass while wearing a LL Bean shirt taken out of its wrapper just minutes before for the photo op.
It'll take someone far more respectable than Al Gore to get me wortying about ManBearPig.
DG @ Jun 19th 2006 7:50PM
"24. Please go watch 'An Inconvenient Truth'"
Seconded. I actually just got back from it, so these comments are especially disheartening.
Sigh.
epobirs @ Jun 19th 2006 7:58PM
#17 Bloo
Not only that but most of the exploitation of energy sources occurred because advances in the Western world created a market for it. Does anyone really believe the Arabs, who would remain a bunch itinerent tribes if it weren't for Western powers seeking a stable ruling entity, would have created their own petroleum industry? It was the West that provided them with a source of immense wealth. That they've utterly failed to benefit more than a tiny sliver of their population with this wealth is a failure of their culture.
Ernest Alba @ Jun 19th 2006 8:30PM
Al Gore might not know scientific veracity (though the argument sounds more like an ad hominem attack than anything else), but the people who study climate change and weather patterns are all about veracity. At MIT, we no longer question whether it is happening. It's real. The questions that are harder to answer (and thus, where the issue becomes divisive) are: To what extent is human activity causing global warming? How will it affect us? When will it affect us? Of course, there are answers to these questions, but they are contended. As we continue to study the environment, we will uncover more and more answers. In the meantime, it's important to, first, acknowledge that the situation exists, and then to ACT.
Sabre @ Jun 19th 2006 8:40PM
In the case of Al Gore though and his propaganda movie, he (and all the extreme environmentalists) want people to think that global warming has never happened. They put all the blame on people and make an extra effort to blame those who don't always disagree with them...namely republicans.
epobirs @ Jun 19th 2006 9:08PM
#29
That is pretty remarkable. You took a vote at MIT and came to a unanimous consensus? Ot did a few department heads make a blanket declaration that everyone who knew what was good for them followed?
In fact, a lot of people have sacrificed their veracity in their need to get people believing in their pet disaster. Things like selectively ignoring disagreeing data, using formulas that are not explicit in their workings, simply ignoring question they cannot answer to their liking. Scientists are people and subject to human failings.
It isn't an impressive demonstration to notice the planet has weather and sometimes its hotter and sometimes its colder. There are plenty of reputable people in the meteorology field who feel it is much too early to make any definitive predictive statements. The computer models are uselss. Not one of them to date can accurately predict past climatic behavior, so why should they be taken as instructive towards future events?
It is a far cry from merely stating it's been warmer lately to predict disaster. I'm old enough to remember when a new Ice Age was supposedly imminent. Now that same data is being taken to foretell frying instead of freezing. Some serious researchers think we would be having that Ice Age if solar activity didn't avert it. If the warming trend is short lived and of lesser effect than an Ice Age (of the non-CGI non-cinematic sort) then it's a good trade.
And no, it is not important do as your last sentence instructs. So far all we can honestly acknowledge is a warming trend of unknown duration and cause. We cannot ACT in any genuine sense, because it would be little better than praying for rain or randomly setting off hydrogen bombs around the world, just to see if anything interesting happens. The Kyoto Treaty is an immense joke that is slowly being abandoned by its Western signatories. It had far more to do with punishing the welthy of the world than making any credible effect on global climate. It is more a scheme for economic sabotage than anything driven by science.
Thus far, predictors of big global disasters have a wretched track record for predictive accuracy, including some very reputable scientists who lost perspective and went out on a limb, saw in hand. So far, we haven't a real clue as to what is happening and why. Certainly not on the scale of decades and centuries people like Al Gore would have us whimsically commit to giving up our way of life.
Hardwareguy @ Jun 19th 2006 9:14PM
Someone hurry up and reserve ecogamer.com before Weblogs Inc. does.
molecule @ Jun 19th 2006 11:32PM
So we go from $1 per year for the ps2 in electric costs to $20 a year for the 360, yet the 360 is the most efficient console to date? Sheesh. How much will the "xbox 720" cost in electric consumption annually? $40? That's almost the cost of a game! I must sound like a fanboy (and a tightwad) for saying so, but Nintendo's talk of the Wii being "the most efficient console" sounds a little more appealing.
Tomas @ Jun 20th 2006 8:58AM
omg, did someone actually do a MHz/watt ranking?
what dumbarse would do that, Its like ranking cars (as slow to fast) to the weight of them ignoring their engine power and whatmore!
The "MHz" is just a friggin clock of the cpu. It doesn't say anything about the speed of it, and even less about the power of the whole system!
Rootbeer @ Jun 20th 2006 1:43PM
Something tells me that "epobir" has not actuall seen Al Gore's movie, nor engaged in any historical study of the cultures of the Middle East...
teph @ Jun 20th 2006 2:43PM
epobirs wrote "If the backward compatibility were near 100% it would be madness to keep both an Xbox and an Xbox 360 on hand just to save few dollars a year"
yeah, but you'd still have a compelling reason to hang onto that xbox to have a damn fine media center (albeit, with little modding.)
:-D
Yeah, sorry. I still can't get over how long my xbox has served me as a media center, and has become a centric part of life when entertaining in the home. I love it.
Cheers
Ben Hollis @ Jun 20th 2006 9:25PM
After seeing "An Inconvenient Truth" I thought about all the power my game consoles, TV, stereo, etc were wasting by being in standby all the time. So I went to Target, bought a $20 remote switch, and stuck it between my entertainment center's power strip and the wall. Now when I'm not using any of the stuff (at work, asleep), I just click it off and save the power. Maybe I'm not saving much money, but there's no need to waste that power, or wear out your electronic components by keeping capacitors charged.
Poster @ Jun 21st 2006 3:30PM
Al Gore, that friend of the environment! Oh, you mean the guy who takes his private jet everywhere to promote his movie on environmentalist doomsaying? Wait, no, some of those crazy bloggers found out about it and now Al flies commercial airliners instead. This tells you everything you need to know about Al: the rules don't apply to him. He was that way in the White House (remember "no controlling legal authority" and the Bhuddist temple money-raising scandals)? He's the same way now, and he still wants to dictate what others can and can't do. Mark my words: the environmentalist movement is nothing more than a Gaia cult with the cult-leaders the ones who have the power and don't have to follow their own diktats. Or did you really believe that Al Gore, Ted Turner, and the rest would really live like the rest of us? *ROFL!!*