How my HD100's have Practically Paid for themselves

[paulbeers]

I bought 2 HD100's back in February/March of 2008. I didn't get in on the first batch, but I did get in on the second. Last night I was wondering how much money I have saved in energy costs using them rather than a full PC.

I have a computer that used to be my main desktop rig that I built originally to be an HTPC, but then decided to instead make it my desktop. Specs as follows:

AMD Athlon X2 4850e
Gigabyte 780G MicroATX Motherboard
6GB of DDR2800 RAM (originally 2GB)
320GB SATA Hard Drive
DVDRW Optical Drive
AMD/ATI Radeon 4670 Vid Card*

* Originally tried to use the onboard video, but it couldn't handle 1080i well enough

The system above draws about 130 Watt/hr when idle and around 170 Watt/hr at full load (roughly).

The HD100 uses around 7-8 watt/hr at all times

Even if we use the 130 Watt/hr idle draw, that means that the full HTPC is using 122 watt/hr more than the HD100. Using 8 cents a kw/hr that I pay here that works out to:

122 w/hr x 24 hours = 2928 (roughly 3 KW/hr per day then)

3 Kw/hr x .08 = $ 0.24 per day or 0.24 x 365 = $87.60 per year of savings.

Since the HD100's are now 2 years old, this means that I have seen an energy savings of about $175 each in the 2 years I have had them!! That makes their current net cost to me about $37 each ($200 for the unit + 12 for shipping - $175 in energy savings)!

Now if only the HD300 would come out, so I can buy a couple more!!!


Edit: Forgot to add, that I had measured everything previously with my Kill-a-Watt.

[valnar]

That's a reason I use the HD200's, and also the same reason why I build low powered PC's whenever I can. I never go for the fastest quad core with a $600 graphics card and 1000W power supplies. Sometimes I think people who do that are still kids living off their parents' money.

[paulbeers]

I agree. I used my AMD X2 4850e for about 2.5 years until I finally upgraded. Even then I only upgraded because I moved to an iMac (yeah yeah, Steve Jobs got me with those beautiful 27" iMac's). I even chose the Radeon 4670 video card because it was the fastest card that didn't need its own powersource (so it was "energy efficient" if there is such a thing when it comes to discrete video cards!). This system is still "good enough" for the casual gamer like me. Frankly, I think it would do the youth of today some good to not spend all their time and money in front of their PC's.

Side note: Man did that last sentance make me sound old!!!!

[Brent]

Your post inspired the latest article on GeekTonic.

While I certainly see the advantages full-blown computers as HTPCs provide, it's pretty hard to argue against the value of an extender - especially in a multi-Television home setup.

[SWKerr]

I have a problem with your assumptions.

You still have to have a server in order to use the extender. To be a fair comparison you would have to assume the HTPC can sleep most of the time when it is not in use watching TV.

My HTPC is setup to hibernate when not in use and wake up via the remote. It only uses 2watts while sleeping.

Assuming the PC is full active only 8 hours a day, (A lot of TV watching on average) you are only using 1Kw/hr.
1Kw/hr x .08 = $ 0.24 per day or 0.24 x 365 = $29.20

You are still saving money, just less than implied. Now there is also the opportunity cost of the $200 more you spent on the PC vs the Extender but that is another argument.

FYI: I have a similar setup but with a ATI 4550 and it only draw 100w when watching TV and about 90W at idle. I also conservatively estimate the PC is on 6 hours per day making my cost about $18 a year.

Does someone see a fault in my logic?

[Djc208]

Originally Posted by SWKerr

You still have to have a server in order to use the extender. To be a fair comparison you would have to assume the HTPC can sleep most of the time when it is not in use watching TV.

True, if you're only using your recordings at one location it could be cheaper to just run the server for both recording and playback. So his statement is only a valid comparison of clients/placeshifters vs extenders on energy useage.

If you're talking about an all-in-one machine vs a server/extender than the wake time would also include recording time, placeshifting, and any time it wakes for scheduled tasks like backups, virus scans etc. 8-12 hours is probably a valid scenario, but would apply in both situations.

I think the big savings are that there are no software costs to deal with, no real maintenance costs, minimal setup and tweaking to get good playback, and almost no troubleshooting.

[valnar]

WAF = priceless.

[paulbeers]

I would agree that many would not leave their clients on at all times. In my house, since I work at home about half the time, we have an extender playing something an average of about 12-13 hours per day (most days 15ish, but on days I go into the office it would be closer to probably 8). The real key, though, is for those that live in states where the energy costs are much higher. We in Iowa are constantly reminded that we pay some of the lowest utility rates in the country (justification for when our utility companies want to raise our rates). East and West coasters would easily see a complete payback in energy savings in 2 years (maybe 3, I don't have their utility rates in front of me) even using the 1KWhr estimate of difference per day.