http://www.behardware.com/articles/670-5/p...onsumption.html

How "green" my computers are isn't even on the horizon as far as things I'm concerned about. Of all the things I have to worry about with computers, or life for that matter, this isn't one of them.Doug

Totally: . . besides - your pc will only use the power it needs from the power supply - not necessarily what the darned power supply is capable of putting out. Stupid issue. I'm going flying. ;-)

I believe that having power supplies that suck up that much power is extremely wasteful, and is quite bad for the environment seeing as most power plants nowadays burn coal. If you've read my posts regarding my FSX installation dilemma, you can see that I'm running a very power-efficient laptop. While it isn't extremely fast, I'm very content with it, especially now that I'm operating with a 64-bit OS.Chris

>I believe that having power supplies that suck up that much power is extremely wasteful . . .Hi Chris,I think that you misunderstand the meaning of a power supply's rating. As PJ says (in his post above), the output of the power supply is determined by its load.My PC consumes less than 200 watts of power. My power supply is rated at 250 watts sp everything works just fine. Total power consumption is slightly over 200 watts, 200 W for the PC's operational components and a few (very few) imposed by the power supply's circuitry. If I bought a 1000 watt supply, the total load would still be slightly over 200 watts, the compents still only require (can only use) 200 W and the power supply will still only use a few. In fact, if the 1000 watt supply is well designed it will likely use less power than my garden-variety $59 special.R-

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification. I do know a lot about computers, just not hardware (I have written a few programs, but I've never had any hardware issues). I must have misinterpreted the article, especially since I just skimmed it. I just know that my computer is very power efficient. Sorry if I sounded like a total idiot.Thanks,Chris

It's ok, Chris. We're here to fly - not to study "green" or electronics.:-lolI might add that the current measurement device in the pic is commonly called an "Amp-probe" and only measures and interprets the magnetic flux surrounding the conducting wire.Current needs to be measured with an in-line device in order to be properly accurate, but most guys in the trade will use the amprobe, though, as it's accurate enough for 90% of electrical work.

Let's see, if I can remember correctly a F-4 Phantom burns around 1000 pph per engine at cruise. That is 2000 pounds of fuel or about 333 gals A 6#s per gallon. JetA is what $4.00 a gallon? So it costs $1300 of fuel to fly one hour.My computer uses say 500 watts or 500/120 = 4 ams that is about .048 Kilo watts. So, if I use $0.05 per KW, I use about $0.01 per hour in electricity to fly my Virtual F-4.Yes, My computer is GREEN.Disclaimer: I have been sipping on some fine Jack Danials. So, I don't swear my calculations are correct. Besides, at the moment, I don't really care. :-lol

>Let's see, if I can remember correctly a F-4 Phantom burns>around 1000 pph per engine at cruise. That is 2000 pounds of>fuel or about 333 gals A 6#s per gallon. JetA is what $4.00>a gallon? So it costs $1300 of fuel to fly one hour.>>My computer uses say 500 watts or 500/120 = 4 ams that is>about .048 Kilo watts. So, if I use $0.05 per KW, I use about>$0.01 per hour in electricity to fly my Virtual F-4.>>Yes, My computer is GREEN.Good point. Computers are way more green than the planes they mimic.>Disclaimer: I have been sipping on some fine Jack Danials. >So, I don't swear my calculations are correct. Besides, at>the moment, I don't really care. :-lol :DChris

I think the original poster brings up an excellent point, and to be honest I'm at least disappointed and maybe aghast at the indifference that most of the replies have displayed. "F*** the environment, I'm going FLYING!"Perhaps I'm an exception - actually I'm sure I'm an exception - but we have five computers in our home - normally not all running at one time - but each one consumes at least as much power as a 100w light bulb, and my flight sim rig draws the most since it's fairly maxed out in terms of memory, video card, etc.Sure, if only one person in the world turns off a 100w light bulb it will make virtually no difference at all - but if every flight simmer turned off his or her computer when not physically sitting at it, I suspect the overall reduction of consumed power would be measurable.I don't really regard myself as a "tree hugger" but I am certain that the power consumed by PCs and laptops that are left on all the time has a very perceptible power consumption delta, across the planet.Disclaimer: despite not being an avowed Tree Hugger, I have to admit that, where practical/sensible, I have replaced many bulbs in our home with a fluorescent equivalent. It really all boils down to not wanting to pay Pacific Gas and Electric a single penny more than necessary 8^) .Dave Blevins

Surely the green credentials would have been enhanced by not positing such a question, irrelevant to the forum, to expressly invite comment on an off-topic issue, using the computer in the first place, and thus consuming power for no good reason whatsoever.Please don't waste our time in an FS forum spouting on about environmental issue. Take it where somebody gives a shot. It's irrelevant, and will only force the revelation that `carbon footprint` is becoming the greatest con ever perpetrated upon mankind, by those with nothng more than a political, financial, or self-promotion agenda.How green is my computer? Mine's beige.Allcott

Don't forget about your choice of components that attach to the PS. Toms Hardware recently did a comparison of power use of video cards. The 7600 GT came out in front. The last six months I turned off five Pentium IIIs (all with RAID 5) at work and consolidated (or got rid of) applications onto one AMD Operton.

Now let's see- If I turn off my 'puter and replace incandescent bulbs with curly flourescents, I'll save some electricity- but then lose this heat, which actually helps warm my house. So to compensate, I'll burn more natural gas.My electicity is produced from water power- no pollution: but natural gas does emit CO2 amongst other things. I wonder if the environmentalists need to rework their calcs?Alex Reid

Whilst there does seem to be reasonable evidence that the earth is warming, the theory that manmade Carbon Dioxide emissions are responsible for such global warming is no more than that, ie "a theory". Whilst it would not be unreasonable to seek to limit Carbon Dioxide emissions where this would also have confirmed posative benefits e.g. better public transport in the USA to reduce dependence on imported oil, which would also act as an insurance policy should the theory of man made Carbon Dioxide causing global warming be an accurate assumption. In a world of many realistic threats, the attention given to the CO2 global warming theory is way out of proportion, e.g. it is only a matter of time before a terrorist organization engages in a biological attack, smallpox anyone.Best and Warm RegardsAdrian Wainer

I say let's all buy new CPUs. The latest offerings are rated at a TDP of 45-65 watts. So now you have an excuse to go out and replace that P4 120 watt space heater!scott s..