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 295516
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Back to basic first
by rayiner on Sat 12th Jan 2008 17:49 UTC 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

RE[7]: Back to basic first
by rayiner on Sun 13th Jan 2008 19:41 in reply to "RE[6]: Back to basic first"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

]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.

First of all, the US and Switzerland are two vastly different examples. For starters, the physical scale of the United States is completely different, at all levels of geography. I live in downtown Atlanta and I've got to walk a mile and a half just to get to the nearest coffee shop. My brother commutes almost 20 miles to his high-school. If you start in DC, all the major population centers in the state of Virginia are within about 250 miles. If you start in Paris, driving 250 miles in any direction will take you to major cities in: France, Belgium, the UK, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland. And Virginia is a relatively small, heavily-populated state! The scale aspect alone means that a lot of the things that would greatly reduce energy usage in a country like Switzerland (improved public transportation, rezoning to make cities more pedestrian-friendly, etc), are completely inapplicable in the US without ripping up our cities and starting from scratch.

Second, I didn't get my info from Greenpeace or the oil companies. Its a conclusion I've come to from talking to other engineers, people who actually study all the things that go into making cars, houses, planes, etc, more efficient. FWIW, btw, all the engineers I know seem to have pretty similar opinions of Greenpeace: they don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about. Their completely unscientific oppositions to nuclear are reason alone to ignore them.

You probably didn't saw it, but the oil price reached 100$/barrel. Conserving energy is a simple part of having an economical advantage.

I don't disagree with that point in the slightest. With the prices of oil as they are, energy-efficiency can give you a strong economic advantage. That's why Boeing's "big new thing", the 787, is focused so heavily on fuel efficiency. However, the same example should also tell you why conservation is never going to solve the energy crisis itself. The 787, the culmination of 20 years of research and billions of dollars of investment, is merely 20% more efficient than its predecessors. Us engineers consider that huge (we'd kill for 5%!), but in the grand scheme of things, small constant-factor improvements aren't going to change the realities of exponential growth in population and energy demand.

Yes, why? Maybe because - if you like it or not - the term "global" means, that you are part of it?

And if you're an insignificant part of it, who cares? This is perhaps a philosophical difference, but engineers and scientists ignore meaningless terms in equations all the time. The philosophy of "if its close enough to zero, just ignore it" has been good enough to make planes fly, trains run, computers compute, etc, so what's wrong with it?

You can't just point your fingers to China or India. Because they will point back at you (and rightfully so!).

It's not a matter of pointing fingers at anybody. China and India have worked hard to achieve economic prosperity, and they deserve to reap its benefits. However, it is inevitable that their prosperity will come with a huge demand for energy, just as it did for us. Not too long from now, the energy demand of China will be comparable to the energy demand of Europe. What do we do then? Any cut-backs the developed world makes will be a drop in the bucket. Even if the whole developed world made a 30% cut, it would push back the ultimate "we run out of oil" point what, another 20 years? BFD! What do we do after that?

Now you're getting dogmatic. Your statement is unfounded. Just ask yourself the question why nature survived billions of years without an energy problem.

Because nature didn't have computers and cars and 650 mile plane rides just to go home for Christmas... The fundamental problem is thus: our current energy sources are fixed. No matter how much we conserve, we're going to run out sooner or later. The only solution is to find new, preferably renewable sources of energy. Spending a lot of money and effort on conservation programs, just to push the inevitable back a few years is utterly pointless. At the same time, history shows a positive correlation between prosperity and energy use. This trend greatly limits our options as far as new energy sources go. By the time the oil does run out, progress in the developing world will have led to a doubling of our overall energy demand. The usual suspects for alternative energy sources (hydro, solar, etc), can't even handle our current energy demand, much less a doubling of it. And conservation won't change the equation in any significant way.


...

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


I'm sure the people who did the study factored the rising price of oil into account. The simple fact is, rising oil costs aren't going to be enough to offset rising energy demand in the developing world for quite awhile. Just look at the numbers. In the last decade, oil has gone from $25 a barrel to pushing $100 a barrel, and it has done relatively little to dampen the US's 3% annual GDP growth rate, much less China and India's 8-9% annual GDP growth rate. Nor has it done much to dampen India and China's explosive increase in energy demand during that period. Oil is going to have to get really expensive before it slows down China and India's economy. It will, eventually, once the oil starts running out, but the time-scale for that is 70-100 years, and its going to be an exponential curve so we won't even start seeing drastic increases for many decades yet. Meanwhile, 2025 is only 17 years away. There is no way in hell oil prices are going to rise fast enough to stop the projections from coming true.

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.

Oh, they're not going to trot out these solutions until they've milked the oil thing for what its worth, but they are working on them. They know was well as anyone else that the oil is running out, and they're willing to invest some of their $$$ to ensuring that they still have something to sell in the future. Like it or not, the energy industry is the one best-poised to solve the energy crisis. The scientists and engineers work for Exxon-Mobil and Shell, not Greenpeace. They're the ones with the billion-dollar R&D budgets, not the conservation movement. Progress takes expertise and money and the energy industry (along with the Department of Energy, etc) has those coming out of their ears.

As for "single source" solutions, whatever you might think of nuclear, it is the _only_ alternative energy source we have right now that can meet all of our current and projected energy demands. Everything else depends on either scientific or social miracles.

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

I'd be really entertained to hear your reasoning behind this little tidbit. I can't think of any reason why this would be true, but what the hell do I know about thermodynamics, I only spent two years studying it...

Reply Parent Score: 2