Comments on: High-end desktop power test reveals hidden costs of PC gaming

Our first high-end gaming desktop power results reveal the hidden costs of PC gaming performance.

[monkeyfun14]

Someone paying $3,600 for a game to play games with probably is not to worried about their power bill. just being honest.

[hgradyv]

I agree!!!

[rhbrown]

I agree (I even said so above), to a certain extent. The financially well-off wouldn't stay that way if they were unconcerned about money.

[Fil0403]

Agreed.

[tipoo_]

Its no secret that beefier computers draw much more power, however this may be offset at least a bit by the growing trend for high-efficiency enthusiast power supplies.

[Tinman52]

This is old news. However, it might've been interesting if it were tied to other stories like this: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10280237-54.html

[ywkhgqo]

I'm sorry, but $3600 is NOT the middle ground for a gaming pc. That's near high end. You can have a "middle ground gaming pc" for $1500.

[rhbrown]

I admit my perspective might be skewed. Vendors would send $10k systems if I let them, so I generally consider $2,000 to $4,000 the middle-ground, at least for gaming.

Regardless of how we categorize them, or the price of this particular system, I'd argue that its the core specs that are most relevant (although I probably should have specified them in the blog post). Overclocked Core i7 920, Geforce GTX 295, 1000 watt PSU. You can find the full breakdown in the review (http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/digital-storm-950si-intel/4505-3118_7-33626866.html).

I'd expect a resourceful DIYer could build a system with similar parts to that Digital Storm for $2,000 or less. That person might also feel the pinch of the extra $10 a month in power a bit more.

Streamline asked for a $500 to $600 comparison below. I'm not sure how relevant those would be to someone shopping in the $2000 to $4000 range, but it's also easy enough to do. A $500 Asus system (http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/asus-essentio-cm5570-ap002/4505-3118_7-33699649.html) with an integrated 3D chip came in around around $25 on the year, much closer to an all-in-one (although with much slower performance and fewer features, not even counting the lack of an LCD).

As we get more systems in to review, and thus expand our power data pool (we started less than a month ago), I'll be making more comparisons like this. I'll be working my way down the desktops on this list (http://news.cnet.com/back-to-school/pc-reviews/?tag=mncol;title) if you'd like to see what's on deck. The higher-end systems, I believe all of which have discrete 3D cards, should provide some insight in what kind of power consumption to expect from more mainstream gaming rigs.

[ywkhgqo]

thanks for the reply. it makes sense you're a little spoiled with those $10k systems haha,

[Renegade Knight]

@ywkhgqo

Your spoiled comment isn't far from the mark. I'll use cars as an example. I had a 96 Corolla. Great car. Slow but great MPG, not so quiet, pretty good road feel compared to what I had been driving before. I replaced it with a 2005 Corolla. The newer car is better in every way than the older one and to be frank every car I've ever owned. However folks who rate cars call it a car for people who don't like driving. After a little thought I relaized that folks who rate cars get to see and drive everthing out there today. I don't. I get to buy my one car to replace my old car and I'll drive less cars in my entire life than they do in a year. So you have to take it all with a grain of salt. While looking I did drive a car the raters liked. A Mazda M3. Nice car. Not better than the corolla for my purpose but there was a bit more fun factor to it. Not leaps and and bounds above the Corolla but enough to notice. Just not enough to edge out the Corolla for my purpose. Apparently sometimes that tad of magic can send a prodcut from the "A car for people who don't like driving" to "If you have to have a crappy econobox this is the one".

[rhbrown]

Your car analogy is a good one.

That said, we do try to find some reason to review super-expensive gaming systems beyond the thrill of sticker shock. It could be to show the performance impact of a new technology, such as solid state hard drives, or highly overclockable CPUs. It could also be to demonstrate what it takes to hit a certain level of performance (like 60 fps in Crysis at 1,600 x 1,200, which, incidentally, this Digital Storm system just missed with 59 fps).

[Chebwa]

Yeah, this is very true. $3,600 is not middle ground. It is the tops. Just because $10,000 systems EXIST does not set THIS as middle. It sets the $10,000 machines as boutique, extremely high end machines. This $3,600 is no less than the very top of the line. It's like saying that a 4 million dollar home is middle ground because 10 million dollar homes are out there somewhere.

[streamline35]

First off, I agree with above comments - someone paying that much for a gaming computer isn't going to be worrying about an extra $100 a year in electricity. I wonder how many computers that expensive are actually sold anyway.

2ndly, they compared them to all-in-ones, which I think tend to be the most efficient desktops, but not the most popular. Instead, they should compare it to a low to mid range tower desktop ($500-$600)

3rdly, while I do have (what I would consider) a gaming PC, I highly doubt I incur costs nearly that high, and I suspect the majority of PC gamers probably run something closer to what I run, rather than something closer to that storm.
Mine is a 2.4ghz core 2 quad, 4 gb ram, 260gtx, and 2 hard drives, running off of a 650watt xigmatek psu, that runs at 87% efficiency. At slightly more than half the watts, and probably alot more efficient (not to mention no overclocking or insanely power-drawing components), I probably pay half that at most.

[streamline35]

Oh, and I forgot, mine is probably in the $1100-$1300 range (built it myself though, so it probably cost me a little less)

[rhbrown]

I don't have the data, but I suspect performance PCs follow a similar trend to graphics cards. A few people buy the $500 dual-chip cards, but most of the discrete card business happens in the $100 to $200 price range.

And as I mentioned in a comment above, we power-tested a $500 Asus desktop (2.6GHz Intel Dual Core Pentium E5300, integrated 3D chip) and calculated a $25 annual power bill. I wouldn't call that gaming system, though.

We'll have results for more modest gaming systems in a week or two, and I also expect they'll be much lower than those from the Digital Storm.

[streamline35]

Great, thanks! I'll keep an eye out for any more articles on it - I'm interested to hear what you come up with, especially for the gaming pcs in my range (especially those with 500-700 PSUs)

[bluemist9999]

I would think the most efficient PCs in terms of power usage would be laptops. There are some pretty high end gaming laptops. Granted I'm sure they won't perform nearly as well as a high end gaming desktop they suit the needs of non-hardcore gamers better.

My Dell Precision M65 (2.4 GHz, 3 GB RAM, integrated nVidia video) performs more slowly than my desktop for games, but in terms of power drain, I think 40 Watts is a bit lower than 200 Watts.

I wonder how high end gaming laptops (i.e. Alienware) would compare to the high end desktops in terms of performance and power drain.

[cyclonica1980]

My gaming pc cost me 900.00 has top of the line specs, . I know very well its not energy efficient with a 1000watt supply but I cannot really do an SLI config without it. I bet 90% of pc gaming desktops cost at most maybe an extra what a few bucks at most a month extra? wooptie doo. Its like saying to a 360 or PS3 owner that their electric bill is gonna go up with continuous use. They know that and clearly do not care.

[rhbrown]

They might not care now, but they might if someone offered them a PC/console for the same price and performance, but that used half the power. I don't know if we'll ever get to the point of a perfect trade-off, but some PC vendors are at least working on it.

[jamesgunaca]

PC gaming is expensive.

[roccosperanza]

Only when you don't build it yourself.

[streamline35]

Any gaming can be expensive. I'd argue that owning nicer PC for gaming is cheaper than owning a console + lower end PC. And as roccosperanza pointed out, it can be cheaper to build it (and the more expensive it is, the more you can save building it yourself)

[dwend]

Not any more than console.
Most people already have a computer, an average Dell is around $750, but is necessary. You can build a nice DIY system for that price, and take the extra $300 you saved by not buying a PS3 and make your computer budget to a very nice DIY $1050 rig.
Even upgrading your standard house desktop with a new mid to high end GPU, only cost >$200, that is less than a xbox360 or a PS3.
PC gaming is cheaper than console.

[ninjahonor]

My rig is as follows:

Intel Core 2 Duo 3.0 GHz
1TB HDD
Nvidia GeForce 9600 GT
X-Fi Gaming sound card
650 Watt PSU

Cost: About 1100 after everything

I notice roughly a 5 dollar increase between times when I am on my computer (college) and times I'm not. This holds true for games as well. So, the power increase may not be noticeable on the power bill. I know in my region they are changing rates for power all the time. I just know the general range of what my bill should be. I chalk it up to energy rates...

[headinmysights]

You got ripped off. I'm building a rig with a GTX270 and a quad-core for less than that.

[Scopip]

current value of that rig is probably around $500.

[streamline35]

He probably meant when he got it (plus sound cards can really knock up the price).

[roccosperanza]

$3600, please even back in February you could build that for less then $2500.

[rhbrown]

But could you have someone with experience do it for you? Some people will pay for that.

[headinmysights]

Real PC Gamers build their own rig, so they'll never pay a whopping $3600 for a system that is only "mid-range". I'm building a rig which is almost top of the line, GTX270, Quad-core, for less than a third of that.

[streamline35]

I'm guessing you mean in 4 months or so, since the gtx270's aren't supposed to be out until november.

Core 2 quad, i7, or Phenom 2 x4? I got the q6600 (2.4 ghz core 2 quad) a year ago for a little less than $200 (it's still the same price), and I still haven't met a game that even remotely stresses it, even without overclocking (except GTA4, but that was pretty badly programmed for PC). You really can't go wrong with any of those three (though i7 is significantly more expensive).

[chickenorfish]

vs what? a xbox hooked up to a 52" tv? gimme a break

[streamline35]

No, vs a non-gaming PC. Read the article.

But given, I had your same though. I still suspect a console hooked up to a huge TV would consume similar amounts of power to a computer hooked up to a 20-24 inch monitor

[rhbrown]

My colleague David Katzmaier broke down some numbers for TVs and consoles here: http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-power-efficiency/. He's also been power testing for a lot longer than I have, and he has a massive pool of data to draw from.

If you don't want to click:
Average plasma: 339 watts
Average rear-projection: 211 watts
Average LCD: 213 watts

PlayStation 3: 197 watts
Xbox 360: 187 watts

Those are all load results only, so no sleep, off, etc., but it breaks out (roughly) to between 400 and 500 watts for a TV/console combo. The Digital Storm's average load was 489 watts. I don't have an average for LCD's handy, but the results from our recent tests seem to be in the 30 to 80 range at max luminance. Split the difference and call it 55, and you're looking at slightly higher load consumption for PCs, at least by these incomplete, statistically inaccurate parameters. Glad I could help?

Seriously, though, the TV/console vs PC/display power consumption could be an interesting index. We'll need more PC data first.

[mcbalaban]

Whoppity-do-di-da.....!
Congratulations!
You just bought your brand new Shelby Special Edition 427 GT500 Super Snake for $79.999, but do you realise you could paying an additional hidden annual fee in increased gasoline consumption ranging from anywhere around $300 up to $3000 if you have fun with it around the track a lot?

...HELL YEA, I DO!!! It effin' better do that, or I'm taking it back!

[Lerianis3]

A 4K computer is not anywhere NEAR mid-range for a gaming PC. I can get a gaming laptop from Toshiba or HP for a little less than 2K.... that's near high-end, if not high end, that 4K computer.

[dmv915]

Well, high-end for a laptop yes, but nowhere near desktop high-end. The current nvidia lineup has the gtx280m at the top, but it is only equivalent to a 8800gts before the die shrinks. As of now the 8800gts (gts250) is at the bottom of nvidia's lineup.

One thing that I do agree with you is that a $4k computer is no where near mid-range. Something that I found quite ironic from what Rich Brown commented earlier, "Regardless of how we categorize them, or the price of this particular system, I'd argue that its the core specs that are most relevant." Yet he still calls them midrange. The only thing that could of made it higher spec'd would have been an extra gtx295, ssd, blu-ray drive, and a higher i7 cheap. But the rig mentioned is pretty much already top tier performance.

As of now a mid-range computer is most likely a quad core, a gtx285/ hd4890, hdd, etc.

[rhbrown]

"The only thing that could of made it higher spec'd would have been an extra gtx295, ssd, blu-ray drive, and a higher i7 cheap."

$3,600 barely gives boutique vendors room to flex their muscles. Falcon NW, Maingear, Velocity Micro, etc., can hit $12,000 easy. I'm not sure how much extra performance you'd get for that price, but even the parts you mentioned would add another $1,000 to $2,000 to the $3,600 price tag. My perception of midrange might be skewed, but there's lots of room between this $3,600 spec and the upper limits of PC performance.

[Donniebrasco]

I have a 2.5 year old Asus laptop with a Geforce 7700 that can still play most of the games out there and was about 1200 back when I bought it. I clearly can't get the fps of a custom rig with dual cards, etc., but it gets the job done and probably doesn't burn $100 worth of electricity in a year.

[ImSpartacus]

I couldn't imagine spending that much on a computer. Technology gets outdated too fast to drop more than a grand on a desktop. You can get a capable i7 build with a manageable graphics card (I love my 4890 @ 1080p) that can be expanded appropriately for under $1000 on newegg, case and all.

[streamline35]

I agree, and when buying parts, I always try and hit what I consider to be the "sweet spot" when it comes to price/performance ratio. For processors and video cards, it seems to be whatever is around $200 - after that the price seems to increase alot faster than performance.

[rhbrown]

I attribute that minimal performance delta at the higher end to the fact that almost every game comes out on multiple platforms, and that the Xbox 360 and PS3 are powerful enough that games look pretty good on them. That means game developers finally have a respectable fixed configuration to start from.

That said, while you may find that games on modest rigs play perfectly well, to hit super-high resolutions (say, on a 30-inch display) with all IQ effects dialed up (16x AA, etc), you likely will need a high-end 3D card or two, at least for a few titles.

[Boomstickedition]

News flash! Higher energy components require more power! Oh and comparing it to an iMac is ridiculous since an iMac uses notebook components which under perform in comparison.

[douggdangger]

So are the Obama brownshirts now going to break down our doors, confiscate our gaming PCs and give us Mac minis?

[streamline35]

You can use the power - you just have to pay for it

[rhbrown]

Streamline summed it up.

I think we can all agree that efficiency is an admirable goal, and I'll definitely highlight a PC that boasts fast performance relative to its power consumption. But the primary reason for our power testing is to give you more information ahead of a purchase.

[molotov]

lol pc games are so 1999

[streamline35]

With comments like that, I'm guessing you haven't tried one since 1999. PC games are undeniably better looking that consoles (unless you're playing on a machine from 1999), usually cost less ($50 vs $60), and have lots of user created content. Plus some of us prefer keyboards and mice (especially for FPSs and RTSs)

[molotov]

You are so 1999. There are 6 cores in a Playstation 3. Sure you can get a 6 core computer for $4,000. Thats so 1999

[armands360]

@ molotov

The Playstation may have 6 cores while an average gaming PC has a 4 core processor, what's different is that the GPU has atleast 12 cores for games processing

[streamline35]

@ molotov

I don't even know where to begin... there are no PCs with six cores. The new core i7 processors use four hyperthreaded cores (which means eight processing threads). I also might point out that the cell has one core (an old power PC core @ 3.2ghz), with six SPEs, which are not cores (the help it run multiple threads). However, when it comes to general computing, the cell has never been faster - it does what it was designed to do very well, which is crunch numbers (alot of calculations), but it's never been any good at general computing (I can't do out of order processing and such). This is why it is generally used to super computers (which are usually used to do massive physics calculations), but it has never been seen in the world of personal computing.
But more importantly, the graphics chip the PS3 has in it is based off of the 7800gtx, which is pretty archaic by today's standards. More graphics chips today (9800gt and up) are worlds faster, and the 8xxx series and up all have phys-x processing, which offloads much of the physics calculations from the CPU. Though to be quite honest, even my older q6600 quad core only uses a fraction of it's power during most games - the GPU does most of the heavy lifting. Most games today rely far more on the GPU than the CPU.

Now, I'm not saying all this to explain how much more awesome the PC is for gaming or anything - consoles have their advantages as well, the greatest being uniform hardware that games can be better optimized for. People are welcome to play games on whatever they want. However, when it comes to certain areas, specifically graphics, an $800-$900 gaming PC will trounce a current gen console every time. I'm not going to give another response that long.

[Ryan_R]

I have a gaming PC not far away from that pricepoint (in $ AUD though, which probably changes things considerably).

Intel Core2Quad Q9550, XFX nVidia 9800 GX2, XFX nVidia 790i Ultra mobo, 3 HDDs + 2 DVD burners, TV Tuner card, and so on. The PSU is a Thermaltake ToughPower 1200w with APFC and 80%+ efficiency, so I'm not sure exactly how much power it uses.

Then again, I don't pay the power bill at home.

[boyracer2k]

It must be hard explaining the same thing over and over to people who don't read. Kudos to Rich for putting up with so many inane responses [amidst the good ones, of course] and keeping tabs on the subject.

I built my system, yes, but many people do not have the time or knowledge to know what they're getting themselves into when buying components, assembling the PC, or troubleshooting problems that often arise. This is why HP and Dell move so many systems a year.

Gamers who build their own system are still considered a niche in my opinion, of all my friends and people in my previous gaming clan, few have systems they built themselves, they're usually midrange desktops they purchased at a B&M and added some ram or a beefier GPU down the line. Much less hassle when something doesn't work, there's CS and if all else fails, you get a replacement of some sort.

But what I find funny is that so many people responding are missing the point of energy consumption. Even if you didn't care about the extra $$$ that goes into having a PC built to the hilt, the environmental impact is still there and you're still drawing 500+ watts when playing Crysis, but seeing how many people [and a lot of people do this] leave their PCs running practically all day, these numbers may even prove to be conservative.

[renGek]

I notice that when I bought my plasma tv, my electric bill was about $7 higher/month.

Entertainment is entertainment. If you're willing to sell out the money then its all good. One can argue its stupid to spend $3000 on a computer but one can also argue its stupid to spend more than $15 on any kind of jewlery or one can argue spending more than $1000 on a pair of speakers is silly or that more than $10,000 on a car is silly or that more than $500K for a 1 bedroom condo is silly...its all perspective.

Now you can actually save money too. If you spend all your time playing games on your pc and you're not going on dates and paying $150 for dinner and a movie or $1000 for the weekend getaways, why you'll make up for that $3000 pc in no time. :)