Actual System Power Costs
On the previous page, we estimated the efficiency for each system as being 82%. Obviously, that's not a true way of calculating power requirements or efficiency. Now we're going to shift to the real world and see what the three sample systems end up costing on an hourly basis.
Before we get to the tables, it's important to remember that just because a power supply advertises 90% efficiency doesn't mean you'll always reach that level. You can look at any of our power supply reviews -- or just read Debunking Power Supply Myths -- to understand this better. The short summary is that all power supplies have an efficiency curve, which depends on the load you place on the power supply.
At lower loads and maximum load, efficiency is lower than if you run at a medium load (relative to the PSU's rated output). If you're just surfing the Internet, writing a document, or viewing pictures your system will largely sit idle. Playing a game, doing 3D rendering, encoding a video, or other complex calculations will place a higher load on your PSU. The following tables use actual efficiency with a real power supply to calculate power costs.
System 1
Our entry-level system, System 1, will utilize the Thermaltake TR2 QFan 300W power supply we recommended in our last article. System 1 consumes 90W to 140W of power, depending on load -- those are best-case/worst-case figures. We haven't posted our review of the QFan yet, but it achieves 82% efficiency at 90W load and 84% efficiency at 140W load. The hourly power costs are:
| System 1 Power Costs with Real Efficiency | |||||
| Load | Efficiency | Outlet Power | Cost/hr NC | Cost/hr CA | Cost/hr GER |
| 90W | 82% | 110 | $0.008 | $0.014 | €0.024 ($0.031) |
| 140W | 84% | 167 | $0.013 | $0.021 | €0.037 ($0.048) |
System 2
System 2, our midrange system, will use the OCZ ModXStream Pro. This system requires between 160W and 350W of power. The OCZ power supply runs at 84% efficiency for 160W and 85% efficiency for 350W. That gives the following power costs:
| System 2 Power Costs with Real Efficiency | |||||
| Load | Efficiency | Outlet Power | Cost/hr NC | Cost/hr CA | Cost/hr GER |
| 160W | 84% | 190 | $0.014 | $0.024 | €0.042 ($0.054) |
| 350W | 85% | 412 | $0.031 | $0.053 | €0.091 ($0.118) |
System 3
Lastly, our high-end system is running two graphics cards for maximum performance. This time we selected the OCZ EliteXStream 800W PSU. Note that even this beefy system still only requires 550W at maximum load, whereas it idles at 310W. In this case, efficiency is 84% idle and 83% at full load.
| System 3 Power Costs with Real Efficiency | |||||
| Load | Efficiency | Outlet Power | Cost/hr NC | Cost/hr CA | Cost/hr GER |
| 310W | 84% | 369 | $0.028 | $0.047 | €0.081 ($0.106) |
| 550W | 83% | 663 | $0.050 | $0.085 | €0.146 ($0.190) |
My current PC uses about 120 watts idle in XP, up to about 150 watts when actually doing stuff (cpu slightly loaded, HDD churning). Then in games with the GPU loaded it uses about 200 watts. I only managed to get it to 233 watts when running both a cpu stress test (Orthos) and GPU benchmark (3dmark06) at the same time.
I'm in CA and pay about 13 cents/Kilowatt/hour so theoretically if I left my system on 24/7 (I don't) at idle it would cost me about $11 per month. In reality I use my computer about 5 hours a day, with about half games (200 watts) and half just surfing, etc (120 watts) so say average 160 watts x 8 hours x $.13 x 30 days = $5 per month.