Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Jan 2008 11:57 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Benchmarks "Earlier this week Apple released updated Mac Pros that use Intel's new Penryn processors. Also new is the fact that the standard Mac Pro configuration now comes with eight (instead of four) cores. Of course, what I've been wondering (as I sit here and think about getting a new Mac Pro) is how does the new standard eight-core Mac Pro perform compared to the old high-end Mac Pro? I've gathered Geekbench 2 results for both Mac Pros to find out."
Thread beginning with comment 295484
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Back to basic first
by MysterMask on Sat 12th Jan 2008 09:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Back to basic first"
MysterMask
Member since:
2005-07-12

Mac laptops hibernate by default.


No, they don't. They go into sleep and will go further into hibernate mode if the battery charge falls under a certain level (you need an App like DeepSleep to make a Mac go into hibernate mode at once).
Nevertheless, this is waisted energy which is ridiculous just to "save" a few seconds boot time.

In any case, Macs tend to sleep particularly efficiently

You mean you waste energy particularly efficiently?
Your method of pulling the power cord is even more wasteful, since using the battery and recharging it is even less energy efficient and leads to battery degradation (use e.g. CoconutBattery and have a look at loading cycles and battery capacity degradation).

A modern operating system shouldn't need rebooting just for the sake of ongoing housekeeping, and last I looked, none of the UNIX-based ones (including Mac OS X) do.

The important word here is "shouldn't need". However, in reality, there is no such thing as a bug free OS. Unix based OS are normally used in server environments, where the amount of apps and services is mostly within a narrow range, the hardware is certified for a certain OS, is well tested under 7x24h conditions and the behaviour of the OS over time is known by the administrators (e. g. our industry grad OpenServer was rebooted every few weeks in order to prevent performance downgrading or unexpected reboots).

I guess the situation looks quite different when it comes to a "desktop" Unix. Sloppy programming, not very thouroughly tested drivers, hardware that was not meant for 7x24h usage, a whole bunch of services and apps, etc.

Do the environment and yourself a favour. Just shutdown your PC/Mac if you don't use it. No matter how capable or good your system is: waste stays waste.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Back to basic first
by rayiner on Sat 12th Jan 2008 17:49 in reply to "RE[4]: Back to basic first"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

"Waste stays waste" is catchy, but non-sensical.

How about, "if you its lost in the noise, it doesn't matter?" Not as catchy, but it has the advantage of actually making logical sense!

Conservation in general is feel-good bunk, but micro-conservation like this is especially-so. The sad truth is this: you'd need extreme, radical conservation steps to decrease energy usage by even 10% in a country like the USA, and given the current energy market, that won't even be a global savings. China and India will just use up whatever excess energy (oil, mainly) production the US and Europe don't. At the time scale of real, measurable, environmental and social impact, it won't change things, not a whit. So why inconvenience yourself over something that doesn't matter? Why feel bad about contributing so imperceptibly to something that is a huge, systematic, global problem?

Entertainingly enough it might even be the case that those people who are environmentally conscious end up hurting the environment in the long run. Conservation is never going to be a solution to the energy problem. By 2025, the increase in global energy use by China and India will have wiped out any conservation-related savings in the West many, many times over. Unless you want to be the guy in charge of telling the developing world that they're stuck being poor, conservation isn't going to work. The only solution is increasing global energy capacity, and believe it or not its the big bad energy companies that are doing the research to achieve that. So paying your tithe Exxon-Mobil may actually contribute more to solving the energy crisis in the long run than turning off your damn laptop instead of letting it sleep.

Edited 2008-01-12 17:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Back to basic first
by MysterMask on Sun 13th Jan 2008 12:41 in reply to "RE[5]: Back to basic first"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

Good heavens. So much nonsense on such a tiny space. This is so wrong, that not even the opposite is true.


Conservation in general is feel-good bunk, but micro-conservation like this is especially-so.
The sad truth is this: you'd need extreme, radical conservation steps to decrease energy usage by even 10% in a country like the USA, and given the current energy market, that won't even be a global savings.


Strange. Studies for Switzerland show that it is possible to decrease energy usage by 30% without any decrease in comfort or standard of living. I don't see that much difference between the US and Switzerland and I guess while my 30% study was done by Greenpeace or WWF, your 10% study was funded by the oil or nucear industry. The truth, I guess, is somewhere in between. But it's surely far more than 10% and withoug any "extreme" measure (I wouldn't call using the "shutdown" instead of the "sleep" button an extreme measure - neither is using the on/off-switch for any CE device)



China and India will just use up whatever excess energy (oil, mainly) production the US and Europe don't. At the time scale of real, measurable, environmental and social impact, it won't change things, not a whit.

You probably didn't saw it, but the oil price reached 100$/barrel. Conserving energy is a simple part of having an economical advantage. If energy consumption in India and China rises, energy prices will, too. Whoever wastes more energy than necessary, will be in a n economical disadvantage - products will be more expensive. So either start saving or say goodby to your non-competitive economy.

An if you want to see a simple example of how easy it is to save energy, just have a look at the energy consumption during the first oil crisis in the 1970's. All of a sudden, things were so simple..



So why inconvenience yourself over something that doesn't matter?


Shuting down a PC instead of put it to sleep is inconvenient? May I laugh?



Why feel bad about contributing so imperceptibly to something that is a huge, systematic, global problem?


Yes, why? Maybe because - if you like it or not - the term "global" means, that you are part of it? "Global" is not somewhere else. And global solutions are not done abroad.
You can't just point your fingers to China or India. Because they will point back at you (and rightfully so!). The "hugh, systematic problem" (and that's the real problem here) is in fact a problem caused by almost everybody in the industrialized countries.


Conservation is never going to be a solution to the energy problem.


Now you're getting dogmatic. Your statement is unfounded. Just ask yourself the question why nature survived billions of years without an energy problem. Maybe because energy was used efficiently (even in thiniest amounts) and without depleting sources on the back of the following generations?



By 2025, the increase in global energy use by China and India will have wiped out any conservation-related savings in the West many, many times over.


Those numbers are wrong:
1. They don't factor in the enconomical impact on energy price due to higher demand.
2. They don't reflect the limited availability of energy.
3. They don't factor in the impact on local and global economy and the disadvantage of shipping goods around the world when energy prices rises over a certain level.
4. They don't factor in any impact of political and social instabilities which are probable if energy demand rises.
5. ..

In fact, everybody who says he knows how much energy China or anybody else will use in 10, 20, 30 years is most probably wrong and will use those numbers only to make us feel "comfortable" despite that we know exactly that our energy consumption is way over the long term sustainable level.


The only solution is increasing global energy capacity, and believe it or not its the big bad energy companies that are doing the research to achieve that.


Are they? Funny enough, I haven't seen a single solution from Shell, BP or anybody else in this corner. Why should they? They only survive when the world stays away from any alternative to "single source solutions" like oil or nuclear fuel.

In the meantime, more and more people started to build energy autarchic houses, use local energy sources like wind or biogas, instal intelligent energy management systems (those that turn of energy consumer when they are not needed).

Du to the laws of thermodynamic, increasing global energy consumption cannot be solution in the long term anyway.


.. than turning off your damn laptop instead of letting it sleep.


Turning off the laptop will:
1. save energy
2. save battery lifetime (and thus money)
3. will produce less waste (waste from batteries is toxic)
4. comes for free, since it is as easy as putting it to sleep (no impact on comfort)

By your logic, we'd better not turn off flashlights in bright sunlight. After all, just putting a new battery in now and then saves the planet by supporting the energy companies.

Reply Parent Score: 1