[geeks] New Intel Atom-based barebones system

[wa2egp at att.net]

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com>
>
> On Aug 16, 2008, at 18:10 , wa2egp at att.net wrote:
> 
> >> This would seem to support my numbers being accurate, not refute it.
> >>
> >
> > I was just thinking that some of the quoted numbers were too high.
> 
> You mean mine?
> 
> I'm fairly certain they are accurate, and it agrees with what Apple  
> says.  They say 250 watts with all CPUs engaged in a processor and  
> memory intensive operation.
> 
> The new Xeon CPUs are a lot less power than what I have.  Almost makes  
> you wonder if you could save money by trading in your current Mac Pro  
> for a newer one.
> 
> Probably not, but they are less power hungry.
> 
> > Funny with this discussion of power since I'm typing on a old  
> > Powerbook which draws less than 45 watts. About the same as an old  
> > IPX. :)
> 
> ...and old IPX with no monitor, sure.  But with one of those big Sun  
> monitors hooked up to it... :)

No I was talking about the other poster's numbers. Heck, my 80 still doesn't draw what the monitor draws. :)  The only problem is I don't remember if I measured it in watts or VA
which might make a difference between the two if one is more reactive that the other.  Of course my 3B2/1000 has a supply rated at 1200 watts.  I probably used watts.  Maybe the other poster measured VA which could be almost twice as high if the power factor was high.

Bob