Comments on: Report: Game consoles, plasma TVs major power sucks

Australian research firm finds that the game machines lead the pack of consumer electronics devices that gobble up power even when on standby.

[demner]

Sounds like the consoles need to start a WiiFit routine

[amandachuck]

what do they mean by 'standby'? Means you are just leaving them on but not playing? That's ON. Standby would be powered completely off but plugged in, and I highly doubt they use more than a refrigerator.

[andrewa7x]

you know when you turn off a ps3 or ps2 and that little red light is still on? thats standyby and its what most people do to turn it off completely people have to flick the button on the back to turn it off. thats what they mean

[amandachuck]

okay, reading the report, Mr. Gestalt is WRONG. He didn't read the report? The machines do NOT gobble up power in stand-by mode. They do so in "idle" mode, which for a game system is basically ON. So, well, turn them off like any sane person and they won't use much if any power. Alarmism is even stupider when it comes from misreading data.

[amandachuck]

It's also silly that they randomly chose ONE item from most categories other than game systems. That is about as scientific as asking one man's opinion and claiming he speaks for the world. It's my understanding that plasma power use varies widely by brand and model, as does cell phone and cordless phone power use, as certainly does refrigerator and microwave use. If I had ever heard of that plasma brand, I might be more compelled by the results. And one wonders where the LCD TV is in this study? It's outselling all other types of TV 4:1 right now.

[NinKenDo]

The title of this article is extremely misleading because the only game consoles that are "power suckers" are the 360 and PS3, the Nintendo Wii uses about 1/10th of the energy the other two do. So if you want to save on your energy bill and be more "green" then stick with the Wii

[RRosal]

"So if you want to save on your energy bill and be more "green" then stick with the Wii"-man that's gotta be the most subtle form of pushing a product if I've seen one. Has it occurred to you that some of the 360 and PS3 owners can simply hit the power switch on their respective units off?

[RRosal]

If PS3 or 360 owners want to save on their energy bill, then they can flip the power switch on their game systems to the Off position.

[stlrfrk2]

or if you want to be more green, apparently stay away from nintendo and instead support sony.

http://www.dsfanboy.com/2007/11/27/greenpeace-nintendo-bad-for-the-environment/

[markkp]

I love my PS3, but not enough to leave it on 24/7. Who ever does that shouldnt complain about its power usage! Simple as that, its a powerful beast of a thing, its like leaving a PC on 24/7. Sames goes for the XBox360.

[tomtomtom]

If you are using folding@home, you are practically running your console 24x7.

[jonathan_a]

All new generation consoles are always "Turned on". I never understood why. Since the Playstation 2, when you shut off your console, there's still a light that's turned on, which proves it's still taking power. Why!? What is the purpose of that other than wasting energy? It's not like it allows my console to turn on faster when I press the power button... it boots up just as fast whether I cut off the electricity, or it stays "on standby".

[oakguy2000]

Uh, this article is completely wrong. If you go to the choice website and actually look at power consumption tables, it says that a PS3 uses $2.33 of electricity in a year when in standby (w/ power switch on the back turn on). Similarly the X-Box uses $3.16 per year when in standby, and a plasma TV uses $1.12 per year when in standby. That's less than a cordless phone or crappy PC speakers! Obviously leaving things on 24/7 is going to use a lot of energy. I do feel sorry for people suckered into spending hundereds of dollars of their own money to run folding @home on the PS3!

[brandonh33]

I do not see the big deal. 98% of average users play their games, then turn the system off. Comparing the amount of energy to a fridge does not make any sence. A fridge is made to be on 24/7/365, and believe it or not, do not use that much energy. A ps3 is made to run whenever you play the games, and hopefully that isnt even close to the time your fridge is on. A ps3 is basically a computer but they neglect to treat it like one in power tests. Your computer most likely uses a similar amount of power to a ps3, only it is usually running 12/7 for most people. And I must put in that power is not that big of a deal. It does not cost much, and if people want to save more money they should not drive their car for one day out of the month instead of worrying about that 60W lightbulb you left on or your fridge running all the time.

[make_or_break]

It's not just gaming consoles. Higher end audio and video components also often have a "standby" or idle mode that still uses power, even if it's normally just a trickle of what it typically would use in full operation. With dedicated audio and video gear, the thinking is that the abrupt change in current when turning power completely on or off does actual, if incremental, damage to internal components, particularly to capacitors and ICs, but even internal powers supplies and switches (if you've ever had to replace a faulty or burned out switch, you'd probably agree). This philosophy applies to both analog and solid state designs, but particularly with solid state, where there's often a LOT of miniaturized circuit boards used in such a component design.

Surge protectors and line conditioners may help a bit, but there's nothing that abates the fact that your piece of equipment and its innards will get the literal 'shock' from going from zero power to full power (and vice versa) each time you hit a true on/off switch. If you've ever owned a piece of gear for more than 12 to 15 years, you WOULD hear the difference from new as the circuitry has been beat upon from switching the gear on and off over those years if the change wasn't so gradual and subtle. About a decade ago, I got the chance to use a NOS NAD S.S. power amp that was identical to the unit I had been using for over a dozen years, and the difference in sound and performance was amazing...and disappointing because I was still STUCK with my old amp.

Another school of thought also maintains that a component constantly fed with power actually PERFORMS better, simply because the feeding of power better stabilizes the component's system design. At least one company, Naim (who makes some killer-sounding CD players if you can afford them), insists that their gear should be left FULL ON 24/7 to achieve the greatest performance! The power fluctuations inherent with turning the AC on and off creates in essence a chaotic scenario within the system, so the converse of keeping a piece of equipment powered on 24/7 represents the most consistent performing and stable situation. An analogy would be like what sometimes happens during a car race, where a racer has a car that runs great during a stint, then comes into the pits for tires and fuel, only to leave and have problems almost immediately thereafter. The wrong stagger on the tires upsets the balance of the suspension, or the once smooth running drivetrain has to go all the way down to idle and then quickly back up and now suddenly is having problems with a misfiring cylinder or shifting issues with the transmission. The CHANGE of state creates an instability in the system, and performance suffers. The builders of electronics gear are now saying the same thing.

...its like leaving a PC on 24/7...

It wasn't all that long ago that we WERE leaving PCs on 24/7, simply because of fears of damaging the computer with constant cold booting. Since I've been shutting down my home machine most nights, I've certainly experienced some bad bootups where the BIOS has on occasion goes off to ga-ga land, or can't find the boot HD.

[stlrfrk2]

you mean "current generation", right? all of these consoles have been out at least a year and a half.

[sonymaster101]

its not a question of how much energy you use, but how well you use that energy. they OF COURSE never bring up how efficient these devices are. my pc im using now probably drinks around 400 watts under load, more than anything in that supposedly valid study. a lot higher end pcs will guzzle 1 kw loaded. yet, many pcs that are custom builds are very efficient.

[brandonh33]

Very few custom builds are efficient. The lower end builds usually have no less than a 600w power supply, while the higher end ones usually have 900w or 1000w power supplies. Believe it or not there are still larger supplies for the people who really want more juice for their system.

[sonymaster101]

i hate how they mention that once again, the imac is better. the imac in fact had a much more energy efficient, and slower, processor than a crappy pentium dual core, only proving that they made a rigged test. they of course never bring up the fact that imacs of similar cost to the "typical pc" are extremely underbuilt for their exorbinant cost. plus the fact that you cant configure an imac with a huge power supply, sli, nforce boards, and the likes. and who the h*ll would leave all that stuff on 24/7/365? steve jobs maybe?

[lraearl]

for me, when i use my ps2 slim (goes on standby mode if turned off but plugged in), i unplug the cord from the system or from the outlet. i think thats what should be recommended. and i thought electronics nowadays shouldn't have anymore standby functions, as people overuse it, and turns into much wasted energy.

[brandonh33]

Listen, for the final time, in the study they are not talking about real "standby" mode, but simply when you leave it on and not do anything on it for a while it goes into a "standby" mode similar to a computer where the hard drive shuts down, screen dims, ect. When you actually press the power button so there is a red light on the front the only thing running is a small LED for the red light and the bluetooth reciever which does not take that much energy at all.

[hotslug76]

thx for thew heads up thats crazy more then a freezer cmon ill be turning off my ps3 from the back!!!!!!!!

[ironbyron_hd]

thx for being a sucker and knowing pretty much nothing about relative power consumption, or even how to read all the comments before yours for that matter. It would be crazy if it was more than a freezer, but it's not. Not turning your ps3 off in the back and leaving that little red light on during standby 'gobbles' 1.5 Watts of power. There's an article about it on cnet, so go read it. An average household refrigerator uses 300-500 Watts, and even those crappy dorm room freezers use at least a 100 Watts. Not only was article incorrect, but as far from correct about standby as one could be. Not 5 times as much, but instead a negligible fraction of the amount of even the smallest freezers.

Congratulations on a sensational article based on sensationalism, and posted without any regard for the incorrect information contained within. Word choice makes all the difference when talking about standby modes, and should not be compared to other "always on" appliances, like refrigerators, which draw significant amounts of power all the time.