Console power consumption charted by Aussie site
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Jun 4th 2008 at 6:30PM }
The Wii is clearly the most energy efficient console currently on the market, which a similar study established last year. But despite the energy efficiency of all the consoles, we're sure Greenpeace still isn't happy with all the chemicals it takes to make our game-playing boxes of joy.
[Via Wii Fanboy]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ninjakamster (PS360 FTW!) @ Jun 4th 2008 6:33PM
OMG, THE POWER OF TEH CELLZ DIVES UP MAI ENERGY BILLZ!
Limezor @ Jun 4th 2008 6:36PM
Wow..thats a lot of power for PS3 and Xbox
required @ Jun 4th 2008 8:23PM
At least they don't binge and purge disposable batteries like the Wii does.
Sami @ Jun 5th 2008 7:23AM
Rechargeables are your friend. You could even say they're "required".
LaughingTarget @ Jun 4th 2008 6:36PM
Gonna have to raise an eyebrow. The PS3 uses less power playing games than idle? I don't buy it.
LaughingTarget @ Jun 4th 2008 6:37PM
My eyes apparently suck today. Time to apply to the MLB as an umpire.
Jacksons @ Jun 4th 2008 6:39PM
Hm? It uses more.
Jacksons @ Jun 4th 2008 6:37PM
Let's see, at an hour a day or so that's anywhere from 1-$10 a year depending on what I play. I think I'll manage.
Deric Lee @ Jun 4th 2008 6:44PM
So since the PS3 cost about $57 more a year to run, that means Live at $50 a year is no longer a waste of money right?
:p
Ninjakamster (PS360 FTW!) @ Jun 4th 2008 6:48PM
BURN!!!! : )
Wait, I'm a Sony fanboy also. : (
chez @ Jun 4th 2008 7:03PM
A fantastic find! I'll bookmark this :)
neoalec @ Jun 4th 2008 8:29PM
No, because you're not going to run the system year-round non-stop.
Wii60Warrior @ Jun 4th 2008 8:46PM
THANK YOU!
Arrogant sony fanboys though will continue to deny it...
Gun Barrier (=Gamer Tag) SSBB: 3952-6696-7009 @ Jun 4th 2008 8:48PM
Good point!!!
Plus the number is compared to the 360, so if both is used the same amount of time, then you'll save the same amount with respect to time. So it doesnt matter if u play it all year, 24 hours a day.
Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 4th 2008 8:52PM
"So it doesnt matter if u play it all year, 24 hours a day."
Except you don't actual save the full $57 unless you did play it 24 hrs a day for a year.
Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 4th 2008 8:58PM
It also worth noting that any attempt to run a 360 24/day for a year would likely result in a dead 360 long before you got there.
droopy @ Jun 4th 2008 9:35PM
Well, the difference is probably less then that under normal usage i.e. not on a 24/7. And clearly electricity is the biggest waste of money.
15c/kWh?
ouch.
FOXHOUND @ Jun 5th 2008 7:48AM
I deny nothing -- I *know* the PS3 has to use more energy than the Wii. Though on "glance" of the X360, I'd wonder how similar they were due to that "ghost containment trap" of a AC power brick. But given that mine was originally a 60GB PS3(so it has all the 'toys'), yeah, that's definitely more consumption there than the ol'Elite X360.
Jeffrey @ Jun 4th 2008 6:47PM
Good thing I live in an apartment where I don't have to pay utilities on top of my rent :p
But next semester when I DO have to play utilities, I may just turn my PS3 off once I'm done. Idle is almost as much power usage as playing a game! Crazy.
umm....hello??? @ Jun 4th 2008 6:46PM
...considering I leave most things unplugged when not using them, my energy consumption *should be* even less. of course, I'd imagine that my 7.1 surround system and 60" HDTV uses up more power than all 3 of those systems combined (yes, I own all 3 plus a good number of older systems)....
Laggy @ Jun 5th 2008 3:55AM
Now don't get me wrong, good job on owning such monstrous peripherals, but when you go out of your way to mention them it seems like a very doucebag thing to do.
"This doesn't effect me because I live in a 100% green house that provides its own energy for my 69 inch TV and my 8.1 multi surround sound with babes who bring me cocktails and a stretch limo to take me to the toilet."
umm....hello??? @ Jun 5th 2008 1:42PM
I wasn't trying to flaunt anything--I was making a comment relevant to the topic. and thanks for being THAT guy.
Dave @ Jun 4th 2008 6:49PM
If I run my portable space heater and play my PS3 with my 32 LCD, it blows the circuit breaker in my house. So I knew the PS3 used a lot of power, but DAMN that's insane!
It makes me rethink using my PS3 as my primary DVD / Blu-ray player...
GaryM @ Jun 4th 2008 6:52PM
Doesn't the PS3 actually have to be turned on for it to consume power?
voodoo_craig @ Jun 4th 2008 6:53PM
How can they be 'Off' and still use power? I just don't geddit....
kobebryunt @ Jun 4th 2008 6:57PM
I'm guessing stand by mode
Magetto @ Jun 4th 2008 7:00PM
Most electronics no a days use power even when their off to say for instance keep time on the clock the correct time.
ChooChooCharlie (MK 0430-8740-2222) @ Jun 4th 2008 7:03PM
As long as they are still plugged in, AC adapters still draw some power even if the console is powered off. Plus something is providing power to the little red/yellow light on the front of the Wii and the orange light on the 360 power supply. (I'm sure the PS3 has something similar, but I don't have one, so I don't know.)
voodoo_craig @ Jun 4th 2008 7:06PM
Those bastards! That's theft, I want my power back!
neoalec @ Jun 4th 2008 8:32PM
Stand-by mode also makes it possible for the system to sense it when a remote is used to power it on. Without power, it has no way of knowing you pressed the button on the remote. So essentially, in stand-by mode you're using power constantly to keep the system "standing by" for a cue to turn on, among other things.
horngreen @ Jun 4th 2008 7:00PM
Well when the 360 is off the brick still glows a little yellow light. Being an old fart I don't understand why all electronics nowadays (that word tells you I'm old) have to have an LED glowing to tell you they are off. What the hell is that about. Why in the olden days when you turned your TV off it was off by gum! I'm also confused as to why the Xbox controller activates MORE LEDs when the battery is low. I know LEDs consume little power but it still isn't logical dagnabit!
Slayer @ Jun 4th 2008 7:06PM
Dude, I laughed so hard reading that comment. Everything you said makes perfect sense.
kobebryunt @ Jun 4th 2008 7:06PM
The ps3 also has a red light on stand by. Sucks that the 360 doesn't have a power button like the ps3- we should at least have the option to turn it off completely
ChooChooCharlie (MK 0430-8740-2222) @ Jun 4th 2008 7:11PM
I'm guessing it's because some newer electronics aren't always easy to tell if they are on or not. There have been several times when I thought certain TVs were off when they weren't because the A/V setting (if unused) shows a black screen, just like if the TV was off - and I can't tell the difference unless I listen closely to the hum of the TV.
Older TVs would display static on the A/V setting, so you would know for sure whether it was on or off.
LaughingTarget @ Jun 4th 2008 7:41PM
You know, it could work as this: light on, electronic on. Light off, electronic off. Simple, but then again, I'm not an engineer, so my ideas make sense.
mike @ Jun 4th 2008 8:12PM
um, you guys know the small led lights on the ps3 and 360 that run 24/7 use up less energy in 1 year then turning on a lightbulb for 30 seconds right? Trust me thats not where your power is being used on.
stoik @ Jun 4th 2008 10:45PM
Standby lights also tell you, "Even though you turned me off, I can still start a fire."
chez @ Jun 4th 2008 7:03PM
Glad to see the Wii isn't bumping up my energy bill! I'll sleep better now.
chez @ Jun 4th 2008 7:08PM
Hold on. For a years play the Wii uses the same power as a PS3 uses for 1 month. All that friggin energy going to render games that play in resolutions as low as PAL SDTV?
Either the Wii is mega efficient with its hardware or both the PS3 and 360 are inefficient. Which is it to be?
kobebryunt @ Jun 4th 2008 7:09PM
My Wii always stays off thankfully. :)
Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 4th 2008 8:21PM
They don't render as low as SDTV. You do understand that their are both horizontal and vertical aspects to resolutions, right? You also do not clearly understand hardware... at all.
neoalec @ Jun 4th 2008 8:37PM
The technology in the PS3 and 360 are more cutting edge. Generally when you're on the bleeding edge of technology, components are larger and less energy efficient. As technology moves forward smaller technology with comparable specs to the old larger technology gets smaller and more energy efficient. The Wii uses more established technology instead of the very latest, hence its smaller size and smaller power consumption.
chez @ Jun 5th 2008 3:30AM
Bleeding edge? My 2.5 year old, (at the time) cheapest iMac can run HL2, Bioshock et al better than these consoles!
Haze barely outputs at a higher resolution than Pal SDTV, just so you know (we have 576i here). Infact it isn't much better than PALplus. The poor thing.
So we still haven't established that either the Wii is very efficient and a marvel of modern engineering, or if that the other 2 systems aren't efficient much.
Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 5th 2008 2:00PM
OK... see, you are completely clueless on how these works. First off, if you're talking about Haze, it's rendering resolution is 1024x576. Sure, that isn't great, but it's higher than PAL. You have to look at both the vertical and horizontal resolutions if you're going to make an accurate comparison. Second, why are you making the assumption that these number have anything to do with Haze? There are plenty of true HD games on the PS3. Why would you make the assumption that these numbers were measured while playing Haze.
Next, you're completely off base on your Wii assumptions. Not only does the Wii run at lower resolutions, you also have to take into consideration what's actually on the screen. Even if you connected a PS3 or 360 to an SDTV and ran them at the same resolution as the Wii they are still going to be rendering millions of more polygons, more textures, more lighting effects, etc... than the Wii. Wii games look like shit compared to the other two consoles and there's a lot more to it than simple resolution. The Wii also less RAM and no mechanical hard drive. There's a lot more to this than just comparing the amount of energy consumed or resolutions. As Mr Awesomer stated below, a much better measurment of efficiency would be to take the amount calculations being accomplish per watt used.
Bluebrake @ Jun 4th 2008 7:44PM
Important caveat: the calculations for the PS3, at least, are based on the 190-200 watt figure of the launch model. The versions on shelves now use significantly less power.
Their X360 numbers are around 150 watts, which is a bit lower than in this old study: http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-2.htm
Could be they used a more recent revision of that console.
ScottyGEE @ Jun 4th 2008 8:05PM
I live there!
Now I can give dad $3 and tell him to stop unplugging the 360
neoalec @ Jun 4th 2008 8:40PM
I'm sure the power consumption is less for the newer Falcon model 360's than it is for the original models. The Falcon's have a 175w power supply and the old one is 203w. The study doesn't say which was used.
sinai @ Jun 4th 2008 8:52PM
it costs you a wii to play ps3 for a year?
&rew @ Jun 4th 2008 9:34PM
Wow, I thought I was cheap for buying a Wii before, but now I know how cheap I really am, its almost frightening.
Mr Awesomer @ Jun 4th 2008 10:05PM
"The Wii is clearly the most energy efficient console currently on the market."
A better measure of energy efficiency would be to take processing cycles and divide it by the watts the console is sucking down. Once you do that you'd probably see that all three consoles are similarly efficient.
Regardless, similar comparison "tests" have been done ages ago so I'm not sure why this is suddenly blogable.