Can Apple's Snow Leopard save you money?

These days, every little bit counts.

(Credit: Dan Ackerman)

Apple's OSX Snow Leopard update offers several noteworthy enhancements, and plenty of behind-the-scenes tweaks--but has anything in the operating system changed in regard to energy efficiency?

We took a 17-inch MacBook Pro and ran it though our standard energy use tests, first under OSX 10.5.6 (a.k.a. Leopard) and then after we installed Snow Leopard, which brought us up to OSX 10.6. Our test system, already Energy Star-compliant, had a 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPU, and we had the discrete Nvidia GeForce 9600 graphics turned on.

The differences were minor, but we were able to estimate that running your MacBook with Snow Leopard installed would use about one dollar's worth less electricity than if you kept the older version of OSX.

As our tests are based on a hypothetical usage model, your mileage will vary depending on how much time your system spends off, idle, or doing actual work (and it's worth noting that Snow Leopard includes a newer version of QuickTime, which is used in the part of the testing process). But, when added to CNET's already very positive review of Snow Leopard, it's nice to know that energy efficiency not only didn't take a hit, but also squeaked out a tiny improvement.

Laptop Make & Model:	Apple Macbook Pro 17-inch	Apple Macbook Pro 17-inch
OS & build #:	OS X Leopard 10.5.6	OS X Snow Leopard 10.6
Mainstream (Avg watts/hour)
Off (watts)	0.65	0.67
Sleep (watts)	0.9	0.93
Idle (watts)	23.39	18.96
Load (watts)	67.76	70.3
Raw (annual kWh)	85.09	76.74
Annual operating cost (@ $0.1135/kWh)	$9.66	$8.71

So, what are you going to do with that extra 95 cents? You could pick up a single nonpremium MP3 track from your favorite online music retailer, but we're going to track down one more nickel, which will snag us four cans of Coke Zero from the official CNET vending machine.

[tipoo_]

Interesting...I would love to see Windows 7 thrown into those results, but of course it wouldn't be entirely fair as Macbooks aren't made with running Windows in mind. Still, do it anyways Dan!

[cvaldes1831]

Okay, so you've just plunked down twenty-nine bucks for Snow Leopard and you'll save $0.95 per year in electricity. Your purchase will be paid off in power savings in March 2040 (if power costs stayed the same).

Yes, that's why I upgraded to Snow Leopard. Yessiree.

[myles taylor]

I think it has more to do with using less power and being more energy efficient than actual savings. As far as the saving money goes, do this to all your computers and save that much on all your electronic devices and you'll start to see real savings.

[cvaldes1831]

Yes, but the article's headline is "Can Apple's Snow Leopard save you money?" His emphasis is on money.

One computer, four computers, that's a three dollar difference in energy savings.

If you want real energy savings, you're better off replacing your refrigerator, switching from incandescent lights to CFL or LED, swapping out your plasma TV for an LCD with LED backlight, etc.

I'm not dissing Snow Leopard (as mentioned above, I've already upgraded myself). I just did basic math to illustrate when one will break even.

[Warhaven]

Damnit. My Sarcasm Detection device just exploded. You, sir, owe me a new shirt.

[cvaldes1831]

Just upgrade to Snow Leopard.

With the money you save in energy costs, you can buy a new shirt in 2030. :-P

[Seaspray0]

@myles taylor. "...do this to all your computers and save that much on all your electronic devices and you'll start to see real savings." So, if you did this to 1,000 computers, then you could save almost $1,000 a year... but first you'll need to get a $25,000 loan to purchase the upgrades. If I invested that $25,000 into a solar system for the house, who will have the greater savings?

Hey, atleast the good news is that the OS is more efficient even if by a very very small margin.

[z386]

I'm surprised that the "load" figure is higher for Snow Leopard. Were you running 64 or 32 bit?

[freemarket--2008]

I would guess it's due to increased use of the GPU by the OS via the OpenCL libraries. The tradeoff for more processing power.

[gemdexter]

Let's See them Write a Piece on "7 Reason's Why You Shouldn't Upgrade to Snow Leopard!"

[Seaspray0]

Just because you had to open your mouth and say something like that, here's the list done in the spirit of a david letterman top 10 list...

7. The windows fanboy said it was no good.
6. Something will change and you'll have to learn how to do it a new way and you like doing things the old way.
5. What you have now is dern good enuff as it is, cuzz it ain't broke yet.
4. Beer and pizza does sound pretty good for spending that $25 on.
3. Starbucks is having a sale on the jumbo latte's so you won't have the time to install it.
2. That evangelist on TV said you'd go to hell if you didn't give him the $25 dollars.
1. You're addicted to profits and that blue chip stock with the short sell option beat out the 95c per year margin on the $25 investment by 3.4862%.

[Matt151b]

Coke cost me 65 cents at my work vending machine :(

[Dan_Ackerman]

The 25-cent soda machine may be one fo the greatest employee perks of all time...

[bigmc6000]

No kidding - that's insane! Our best perk is we get..... wait for it..... free water!!! No, not the bottled kind - the stuff out of the faucet :)

[Absolution2009]

Our best perk is air refreshnors at the bathroom because there are 3 clogged vents that don't help at all, and our poop really stinks when mixed.

[cvaldes1831]

Don't the Google guys get free food and sodas?

Anyhow, if you live in SF or on the SF Peninsula, the tap water (thank you Hetch Hetchy) is far better than anything bottled.

[Warhaven]

I know the Yahoo guys get soda, food, gym, sleeping rooms, arcade, showers, and lots of other stuff. Google's probably not far off.

[parallelrhymes]

HOLD UP!!! HOLD UPPPP!!!! HOOOOLLLLLLDDDDDDD UP!!!!!


4 cans of Coke Zero for only 1 dollar...total!?!?!??!!?!???!...as in 25 cent a can!?!?!?!?!??!...I'm dumbfounded at the moment

Oh yeah, go White Tiger, or Snow Lion, or whatever its called now.

[buco55]

Let me get this straight ... Snow is using more energy in ALL cases except one - idle. I want to meet that person that uses a computer just for the sake of having it in Idle i.e. not using using it.

This whole article should be writen the other way - how much money will Snow Leopard waste you... Just play a DVD or do some "creative" work on your Mac and you are just wasting a lot more money...
Come on cnet - how did you come up with this "saving" - did you just leave the computer over night and walk away???

[cvaldes1831]

Cnet publishes their test methodology. You can read it right here: http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/laptop-power-test/?tag=contentMain;contentAux

If you only turn on your computer if you're actually working on it, you will get different numbers and in that case, Snow Leopard will probably use more energy. The OS version should not affect sleep or power off consumption.

Anecdotally, I note that my MacBook's fan kicks in more frequently since I upgraded to Snow Leopard.

[parallelrhymes]

I don't know about the rest of the world but when I plan on using my computer I shut off all the rest of my life including going to the bathroom...I don't even think "idle" should be a category to be honest with you. *rolls eyes*

[Seaspray0]

So, where's the test results to show which one uses more power when they're turned off?

:-P

[jlvivian]

jajaj...free cokes and food, in my world nothing is free...anyway, think in 1000 computer o 1000000 computers and do the math in one year will be .95*1000 = 950 USD on .95*1000000=950000 usd

[wusupjohn]

Hate to be the devil's advocate but isn't someone who wants to save less than a dollar a year going to go with a cheaper (non-apple) pc to begin with?

[anilsudh]

I would rather buy a Mac and use it for 10 years, than buy a cheap PC and change it every 3 years. PC's cause more damage to the environment. 3 times more!!!

[streamline35]

anilsudh, that is just a ridiculous generalization that does no one any good. I know of PCs that have lasted a few years, I know PCs that have lasted 8+ years (and are still running fine). I also know of macs that people have kept less than a year, and I know of macs that people have kept for ~7 years. Any computer, windows or mac, can last any amount of time if you treat it well (and it doesn't have any faulty parts - usually moving parts hard drives and cd drives).

Fact is, you are just making dumb generalizations without anything to back it up. Please give me a link to some reliable statistics backing up your claim, or just stop posting this garbage.

[Seaspray0]

@anilsudh. The reason you were asked to produce tangible data is because NOBODY has yet to find any backing up anyone's claim on how long computers last. I have actually searched for it and the only reference I get is that the compnenets are designed to last longer than 20 years with less than a 1% failure rate. The 3 years you mention is not a failure rate, it's an obsolecense rate that consultants have recommended to companies. You are spreading BS. I don't care if everyone you know says it, it's not truth without fact to back it up and right now, there are no facts. So either put up or shut up.

[CrunchDude]

Imma upgrade my OS X to Snow Leopard 10.6. My Thinkpad W700 handles XP and OS X and oh yea, the main OS being Windows 7 64-bit, 8GB DDR 3 RAM, 250/170 SSDs (2), and gfx w/ 1GB GDDR3.Although Leopard is good enough. Just in case, the tiger in the snow looks so...cuddly. I want I want

[cvaldes1831]

Take your meds.

Please.

[moneyrules]

apple forgot to add that in then

[TowerTone]

What about the fact that if you get something done quicker, you can shut down sooner, and use even less energy?

(Yeah, I tell my girlfriend that every night, too....)

[fshea]

You forgot one BIG FACTOR in your equation.

If you have a 3 year old Mac you CAN NOT upgrade to Snow Leapord.

So yes you may have a computer for 10 years, with 100 per year going to AppleCare (to get it your computer covered for more than a year and another 100 for MobileMe to get nothing Google doesn't offer for Free.

You'd have a new PC in 3 years with the latest OS and hardware.

Do the math. It's not rocket science.

[ckh1272]

I have a 1st gen. Macbookpro that is three and a half years old and it will upgrade to SL. Time for someone to rethink their math.

[jimwg]

Very similar happened with my iBook when I upgraded from Panther to Tiger, after which my G3 iBook was chronically hotter and the fan constantly kicked in because Tiger pushed the components way harder and longer, even though Tiger was touted as being more "energy frugal".

[krosafcheg]

you call any apple release an upgrade? No its just "here's a new list of things we wont allow you to do, now we've destroyed every competition to our platform". Great.

[alexcutter]

I saved $29 by downloading this overpriced, buggy service pack off of BitTorrent.

[nicmart]

Thanks for revealing that you are oxpecker on the butts of those of use who pay to play.

If it's no good, why are you using it?

[Seaspray0]

Maybe I should add one more reason not to use snow leopard (see above)...

Because if you do use that download from BitTorrent, you're a cheap software pirate b@5t@rD who deserves no respect and should spend time in jail.