High-power consumption computers banned in six states.

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,577
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Well looks like we know what the next cottage industry is going to be, running "illegal" computers across state lines. Where is Burt Reynolds when you need him?
 

Will Focus

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,933
Location
Traverse City, Michigan USA
You didn't hear this from me, but if they can tap into my first ex wife's jaw somehow they'll have all the power they'll ever need. Her mouth was like a perpetual motion machine.
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
1,998
Location
Tanagra (not really)
Curious--does that mean Apple can't use its own Mac Pro on its campus? I imagine a fully spec'd model would certainly be in this realm. And all the while, there are probably thousands of folks running mining rigs in their basements that have dozens of GPUs going.

I wonder if PC makers could just sell you the desktop without the GPU in one sale, and send the GPU in a second sale. The GPU is typically the power monster, though Intel's Rocket Lake chips also throw caution to the wind.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,577
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Curious--does that mean Apple can't use its own Mac Pro on its campus?
These types of laws mainly effect manufacturers, importers, and sellers. Consumers are not bound to them and can use whatever they want. Kind of like no manufacturing of normal 100W incandescent light bulbs, shower heads limited to 2.5 gallons per minute, etc. But at home you can take a shower with a straight pipe or your own shower head design or twelve 2.5 gpm heads while under your dozen 100 watt incandescent lamps. Or a town banning plastic water bottles being sold in town. They certainly can not make you not bring one in and drink from it.
 

ac12

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
3,588
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
This is literally why I left California. And by literally I mean figuratively, but whatever.

Sigh, the Calif politicians have these half-baked ideas that create practical problems for people.
So, what, then no computer with GPUs, max 8GB RAM, only one SSD, no active cooling (fan), etc. etc.

I will have to have my computer delivered to a Nevada address, then drive it into Calif.
 

doady

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
595
Location
Canada
It's kinda the same mistake a lot of gamers make too, obsessing about the total performance without giving any consideration to the power consumption. These politicians likewise focus on the total power consumption, without considering the performance. It's the performance-per-watt that is most important when considering a new computer.

If I build a new desktop that is 4 times faster than my current one but also consumes 4 times the electricity, that's not an upgrade. Likewise, if I build a new desktop that can consume 2 times the electricity but it can give 8 times more performance, that's actually reducing the burden on the grid and on the environment.
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
195
Friend was looking to buy a gaming computer to do video editing off his drone. Got notice Dell will not ship it to California due to some new law.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/d...ornia-due-to-energy-regulations/1100-6494481/

Interesting. State wants to go to all electric cars, but can't supply power to run a laptop. :wtf:
This is massively exaggerated. The regulations "limit the amount of energy computers and small servers can use when they are idling, asleep or turned off."

You can still design a gaming computer and run any computer you want full-tilt, 24 X 365, whatever the consumption. Use your graphics card as a toaster if you want.

But where these 'gaming computers' seem to be falling afoul of the regs is not doing the design work to ensure they don't continue to run hot when idle and asleep.

For the most part this is a big nothingburger, and Dell should be ashamed. (IMO)

(Which rather makes me think the issue is the companies aren't very good at this, or aren't even trying)

I admit I don't know how it affects the small shops.

But even Apple's monster Mac Pros are surely built to use little power when in idle /sleep etc.
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
195
It's kinda the same mistake a lot of gamers make too, obsessing about the total performance without giving any consideration to the power consumption. These politicians likewise focus on the total power consumption, without considering the performance. It's the performance-per-watt that is most important when considering a new computer.
The politicians here did NOT focus on 'total power consumption.' They focussed on power consumption at idle/sleep/off.

One can argue with the decision, but the logic was quite clear: that the vast majority of 'desktop' computers spent most of their time in idle, that collectively that represents a large energy loss, that (because it is not very much money to each individual) the issue cannot be 'fixed' by normal consumer preferences, and that therefore, government regulations would be the most efficient way to deal with it at a net benefit to all.

There is much more analysis about net savings to consumers etc - which again one can disagree with either the logic or the facts, but characterising it as politicians having focussed - mistakenly - on total power consumption and not performance-per-watt is just wrong. They focussed on idle/sleep power consumption - where 'performance' is basically irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,512
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Interesting thread. Best summed up by:

- Misleading headline lacking in facts that causes knee-jerk reaction
- Short amplification by enraged citizens
- Considered reply by someone who knows the details
- Realisation that the new regs are reasonable

Meanwhile the world is frying.
 

threeOh

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2019
Messages
217
I gotta say I’m somewhat surprise, and disappointed by some of the comments in this thread. Those comments reflect why we’re dealing with environmental issues today. Or, one might say, trying to deal.
 

doady

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
595
Location
Canada
The politicians here did NOT focus on 'total power consumption.' They focussed on power consumption at idle/sleep/off.

One can argue with the decision, but the logic was quite clear: that the vast majority of 'desktop' computers spent most of their time in idle, that collectively that represents a large energy loss, that (because it is not very much money to each individual) the issue cannot be 'fixed' by normal consumer preferences, and that therefore, government regulations would be the most efficient way to deal with it at a net benefit to all.

There is much more analysis about net savings to consumers etc - which again one can disagree with either the logic or the facts, but characterising it as politicians having focussed - mistakenly - on total power consumption and not performance-per-watt is just wrong. They focussed on idle/sleep power consumption - where 'performance' is basically irrelevant.

And exactly how big a problem is power consumption at idle in modern machine? Even with CPUs and GPUs from 10-15 years ago, power consumption scaled to the actual usage, electricity consumption and heat generation from them is almost nothing at idle. The real problem seems to be idling, maybe it's due to weak time-of-use pricing of electricity, and that's what they really should be considering. The people who build these machines are morons, and if they want throw even more money in the garbage, let them. Addressing the root of the problem is more effective than just scratching the surface.

California, like many other US states, is a place with terribly-designed cities and transportation networks, many neighbourhoods lacking even half-hearted TOD measures, where people mostly drive to work and get stuck in traffic along the way. In terms of fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions, the way their urban environments and transportation networks are built is not only the much bigger problem, it is also something that lawmakers have much more control over. The use of millions of gas-guzzling SUVs, spending so much time idling in rush hour traffic, that is what these lawmakers should focusing their attention on if they are truly concerned about climate change, not the idling of a very small minority of PCs.

p3152317048.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


p3152317050.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


p3152317051.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


p3152317052.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Machi

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
798
@doady
I agree and although it's interesting (and very important) topic, I think that we are practically in the politics here, well outside scope of this forum and in the "soon it will be banned" area.
 

Armoured

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
195
And exactly how big a problem is power consumption at idle in modern machine? Even with CPUs and GPUs from 10-15 years ago, power consumption scaled to the actual usage, electricity consumption and heat generation from them is almost nothing at idle. The real problem seems to be idling, maybe it's due to weak time-of-use pricing of electricity, and that's what they really should be considering. The people who build these machines are morons, and if they want throw even more money in the garbage, let them.
Do not understand your point. The problem with the machines that are covered by this restriction is that their electricity and heat generation at idle is NOT almost nothing. The specific machine referenced is >60w at idle.

For comparison, the machine I'm typing this on - self-built, with too many drives internal and external, including the monitor, running some stuff in background, speakers, and etc. Not heavy use but active use. And it's taking a bit over 100W. The monitor is ancient, too, and is about 35W of that.

So how big a problem is power consumption at idle? Well, much less now that government regulations have pushed them down over time.
 

RichardC

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,807
Location
The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, UK.
Real Name
Richard
I'm not viewing this as politics. Global warming is an apolitical issue.

It would make more sense if the state decided they were tackling illegal cryptocurrency mining. I read somewhere last week of an operation which used 4x in stolen electricity than was actually made mining.

How banning the sale of legal hardware (on most of the planet) could defeat a local criminal process is a little bewildering though. Maybe they just want these folks (miners/reckless global warming deniers) to become someone else's problem?
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom