Fujitsu To Show Off "Zero-Watt" PC At CeBIT 222
mobile writes "In August of last year Fujitsu announced new 'zero-watt' displays. This means the screens use absolutely no power when put into standby mode, unlike most other screens that use less than 1 watt, but still require some power. Now Fujitsu has announced they will be showing a zero-watt PC later this year at the CeBIT show. The PC is called the Esprimo Green and marks a first, in that it's able to use no power while in standby mode — but this is a feature that will be required from 2010 for new PCs released across Europe."
Define "Standby" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume "standby" means hibernate, not suspend due to the power required to refresh RAM. Or is Fujitsu introducing something with MRAM?
If it doesn't then there will most likely be a hit to resume standby/hibernate time. Of course some people will never see this 'cause they never turn off their computers.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
something else, like sleep or bathe...
You must be new here.
Re:Define "Standby" (Score:4, Funny)
something else, like sleep or bathe...
You must be new here.
We only shower. With coffee.
Re:Define "Standby" (Score:5, Funny)
they never turn off their computers
I have a Seagate drive and scared that if I reboot, I'll lose all my data, you insensitive clod!
Re:Define "Standby" (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmmm...that's weird. I have a Seagate hard drive and I've never lost d
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Define "Standby" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Define "Standby" (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new h
Re:Define "Standby" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
ENOUGH. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I do turn off the screens and speakers when I'm not around though. That counts as a good effort right?
Re:Define "Standby" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Define "Standby" (Score:5, Funny)
My computer doubles as the music streamer I listen to at work. It also doubles as the router my family uses to access the internet. It also doubles as a file server.
So it quadruples?
He doubled three times, there. 2*2*2 = 8. I'm afraid it actually octuples.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, talk about all your eggs in one basket...
Re:Define "Standby" (Score:4, Informative)
Buy, a router-HDD-WLAN combo for $180 top (can't get more expensive than the AirPort Extreme) or use a old notebook for that (which can also do audio and may cost nothing). Either one will consume about 20W (including additional HD for file-storage) instead of the 40W your computer is going to consume the least. The 40W does not account for an gaming capable graphic-cards or processor, in which case your computer easily consumes 100W-140W idle.
Assuming, that the computer consumes 100W 8h per day and 25cents per kWh, it translates to $160 saving per year.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a quad 3Ghz Xeon that I used to leave running all the time - until I worked out what made my power bill so high. Sending it to sleep when I'm not using it has cut a 1/3rd off my quarterly power bill. Bloody shocking!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even off where it uses 0 energy would be quite a step forward. Computers still use some electricity while supposedly off. Getting that down to whatever it takes to keep the clock functioning would be useful.
And suspend to disk ought to take 0 electricity while suspended as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary says DISPLAYS.
Re:Define "Standby" (Score:5, Informative)
No the summary says they introduced zero watt displays LAST YEAR. The new thing that's going to be introduced is a zero-watt PC.
Re:Define "Standby" (Score:5, Funny)
The zero-power use state is activated when the "zero-power" LED turns on.
Bloody greenwashing (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with just fixing and selling the small stuff is that this can actually be counter-productive. "Green guilt" has a positive purpose: make people feel bad so they do less of that bad thing. The "eco products" counter that: buy our xxx and you don't have to feel bad. This would be OK except that people often then modify their behavior. Someone that feels bad for driving 5 miles with an SUV might feel they're doing the planet good when they drive 100 miles with a Prius.
Same deal here. I don't feel bad about leaving my computer on any more because the monitor is now using zero Watts.
Re: (Score:2)
seems counterproductive, too (Score:3, Insightful)
If, for example, mandates like this end up requiring use of suspend-to-disk over suspend-to-RAM, increasing the unsuspend time, the likely effect is that more people will simply leave their computers fully powered on for more time, making the overall power usage worse than before.
Re:Bloody greenwashing (Score:5, Insightful)
I sort of agree with you, but this has a purpose.
When people put their equipment to sleep, they expect it to be effectively 'off'. The problem has been that most devices draw a TON of power when in standby - this something that certainly needs addressing (and there's no real good reason for it other than sheer engineering laziness).
Now, worrying about zero-power standby on your 300MW super-sized plasma might be hypocritical, but the EU (and other governments) have established targets for these sorts of things too. I'd have to say that considering every aspect of electronics with regards to efficiency is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not always just engineering laziness. At least for the UK, some digital television manufacturers need to find a compromise between turning everything off when in standby and listening for over-the-air firmware updates, which are typically only delivered in the middle of the night.
Re: (Score:2)
Your car analogy doesn't really work in this case, more's the pity (nothing like a good car analogy). We're talking about display technology, which relates more towards other display devices like TVs and not so much to the actual computer (although it mentions they're working towards that, too).
If I'm using a Prius instead of an SUV, why would it encourage me to drive farther? If I need to drive 5 miles then I'm going to drive 5 miles; no need to increase it by a factor of 20.
It's a step in the right dire
Battery? (Score:2)
Standby requires very little power. Couldn't they just put a battery in the computer that keeps giving power to the computer in standby? By the time the battery wears out, most users will have gotten a new computer, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not, the battery is charged by a newly invented infinite motion machine.
Re: (Score:2)
DDR3 is supposedly nonvolatile, so it would be (theoretically) possible with standby as well. Though this appear to only be the display that does it, so its actually neither.
Very nice. (Score:5, Funny)
I've been looking for a computer powered by zero-point energy [wikipedia.org] drawn from vacuum fluctuation. [wikipedia.org]
Maybe I can transplant the power supply into my car and get infinite miles per gallon?
a ZPM is to much power for a car put it in a space (Score:2)
a ZPM is to much power for a car put it in a space ship.
Re: (Score:2)
put it in a space ship
Those are such a bitch to park at the supermarket... plus MIB will show up wanting to see papers and whatnot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in fact you can. And then use it to cure the common cold. I have a working prototype if you're willing to send me six hundred dollars. More will get you an even bigger share of the profits when they come rolling in!
Re: (Score:2)
Per gallon of what?
Bulls@#$, obviously. :) Or is that measured by the pound these days?
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it's measured in either metric or imperial buttloads. An imperial butt-load is equivalent to 'about six seams' according to various sources that attribute that factoid to the OED. I am unable to verify that at this time. The imperial buttload is also known as the 'Gates'.
The metric buttload is either 1000 or 1024 shitloads, depending on context.
Standby? (Score:4, Informative)
How would you know whether the device is in standby or turned off? Normally an LED signifies this.
Perhaps a mechanical indicator? Or, e-ink?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Standby? (Score:4, Interesting)
It matters for security, if someone steals a PC in standby or hybrid standby.
(Yes, even with a password. Think about it.)
Re: (Score:2)
ZOMG (Score:5, Funny)
That's AMAZING NEW TECH!!! Zero watts, ha? I can't believe we finally figured this shit out! [alibaba.com]
Just unplug the damned things, people! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get this obsession with "standby" power draw... My computer and display and TV and DVD player already draw zero watts when off, thanks to the magic of the switch on the power strip.
And for the record, I don't even do this for the power savings - More than once, I've had my "expensive" electronic toys saved from nearby lightning strikes that took out things like alarm clocks and answering machines (No, a power strip won't stop a direct hit, but they do wonders to stop spikes up to a few hundred volts).
Well I understand reducing it (Score:2)
But I don't get the obsession with eliminating it. I mean reducing makes sense. There are situations where people can't or won't disconnect the power to a device. So let's make things efficient. A good example would be to use switching PSUs in wall warts instead of linear PSUs. They use less energy (in operation as well as standby), generate less heat and are smaller. Good, done. Likewise, a device shouldn't keep more on components than it needs in standby. If all you need is a small IR receiver to look for
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you could have a remote control - without even making it wired.
Magnets.
(Although this has some drawbacks of its own.)
Either that, or some switch that when it's exposed to a resonant frequency, powers a microcontroller for long enough to bring the TV up, and have the button on the remote emit that sound.
Re: (Score:2)
But that uses somewhat more energy than just powering a small microcontroller.
Your going backwards mate. :P
Re: (Score:2)
The magnets in the remote would use more power in the remote, but less from the wall.
The resonant frequency... not necessarily. The resonant frequency could actually use less power in the remote as well. Here's how it would work (I'll note that it was actually done as an early remote control, too.)
Depressing the power button strikes a tuning fork
Sound waves from the tuning fork causes vibration in a switch of some sort on the TV, powering a microcontroller for long enough to turn another switch on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have something like a remote control since you need power to watch for a signal.
Not really. See: AM radios, RFID tags...
Question is whether it costs any power to have a transistor there, so that the power from the signal alone could start a chain reaction that wakes up the system.
Re:Well I understand reducing it (Score:5, Interesting)
---Worrying over a device drawing milliwatts is silly.
Is it now?
Have you ever heard of QRP? It's a code for power reduction in terms of ham radio. When we're talking QRP, we're talking about 1w or LESS power to communicate anywhere in the world. In the early spring, we can communicate with Midway (the island), and we're in Indiana. We've done satellite communications on .5w, however that was using a parabolic antenna.
So yes, 1w is a lot of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh.. How much did your half watt transmitter draw? I've got a HT that goes down to 50 mW in some bands, but it sure as hell draws quite a bit more than that.
Receivers are pretty sensitive, but digital computers and many other electronic components just aren't nearly as efficient. yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Do I know exactly the draw? Nope. But I know I was using a lantern battery for xmit and recv for a few hours and it still wasnt dead. It was one of those '70s argonauts.
As another poster to you noted (Score:5, Interesting)
My point is not what can you do with a watt, my point is that a watt is a trivial amount of power compared to what our devices use. The monitor I'm looking at right now while typing this is drawing about 60 watts, and it's an LCD. My air conditioner draws around 3500 watts when active. My car can produce nearly 130,000 watts when run to it's full capacity.
So suppose you have a device that draws 1 watt idle. Most draw less, but suppose. Ok that means you can run that for 60 hours before equaling just one hour of my monitor usage. You can run it for half a year before equaling just one hour of my AC. The car, well I can't do an accurate comparison since it doesn't run at full power, but I'm betting you can run an idle device for over a year for the same amount of energy as a short trip.
So, my point is that worrying about that shit is stupid. That isn't where the majority of our energy usage is happening. Saying "Oh we reduced this to zero," sounds nice until you realize that in a single day an AC will use more than that thing will over a lifetime of idle.
I mean take my monitor as an example. As I said, I measure the power draw of it on to be about 60 watts. When it's idle, as in I've pressed the "soft off" switch, it doesn't read a power draw. My meter has a resolution of 1 watt so I don't know what the draw is. Somewhere less than a watt. We'll call it half a watt for argument's sake. I suspect it's actually less, but whatever.
Now I've owned the monitor for about a year, and in that time it's been on for 2090 hours (it's a professional monitor, keeps that in it's firmware). So during it's life it has used about 125kWh. Assuming that it is in soft off mode the rest of the time (I actually shut down my UPS) it would have spent about 6,670 hours idle. That would equal a usage of about 3kWh, maybe less.
So, what's the real thing to solve here in terms of less energy usage? Worrying about making it "zero power" when off (which I can do if I like, either with the monitor's hard off switch of the UPS) or reducing the power used when on by just 5%? Well 5% of 125kWh is 6kWh so over twice the draw as reducing the idle mode. It's also a lot more realistic. An LED backlight would probably get that 5%, maybe more.
That's what I mean. It is worrying about shit that just doesn't matter much. Even if you are just worried about the electronics, the power draw is in their on mode. An hour of on will equal days of idle. However all that pales in comparison to many other devices.
So sure, I see the point in saying "Keep your soft off draw as low as practical." Seems like modern devices do that already. However this "It must be zero watts," is stupid. I reiterate: 1 watt is NOT a lot of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, everything counts.
When you got 380 million (guesstimated EU population) people drawing 100 mW per device on standby (lets say on average we got 3 devices, 1 tv, 1 monitor and 1 computer - yes there are people who got neither, there are people who got multiple..) that's a 100 MW.
Always remember aggregate costs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Turning a computer on can take several minutes of repetitive, non-productive work. You need to boot the system, log in, open applications, open documents, and find you place in the documents. This can take several minutes.
Standby mode takes care of this hassle at the cost of a few Watts of power. Now they have a way to get the benefits without using those few Watts of power.
"...uphill both ways..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My computer and display and TV and DVD player already draw zero watts when off, thanks to the magic of the switch on the power strip.
TV and DVD sure, but computers are annoying to turn on and off because you (or at least I) often have substantial state to restore: open apps and files, terminal windows, etc. It's perfectly reasonable to normally use sleep or hibernate and only shut down for special circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get this obsession with "standby" power draw... My computer and display and TV and DVD player already draw zero watts when off, thanks to the magic of the switch on the power strip.
Its not so easy for all of us. My Dell 24" monitor frequently "crashes" if I use the powerstrip to turn it off. It still mostly works (usually it displays the video signal) but all of the user interface things (brightness control, switching inputs, power button, etc) are dead.
Let's get real (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's get real. It can't be ZERO watts and still be listening to the net, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Maybe less than one watt with custom CMOS net interfaces. But not ZERO.
Re:Let's get real (Score:4, Informative)
>It can be. The "wake-up" signal that the net, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth gives it could give it enough power to switch it back on.
Nice try, but no.
Twisted-pair Ethernet requires 2-way signalng, at about 1 volt across 200 ohms, 5 milliamps, 5 milliwatts. It's mighty hard to run a 100MBPS modem and ethernet frame detector on 5 milliwatts AND send 5 milliwatts back all the time.
Wi-fi and bluetooth deliver picowatts at best. Not enough to power the receivers.
Yep, a shell game (Score:5, Insightful)
To do that
1) They've managed to break the laws of physics or
2) They're lying or
3) They're storing power
And of course, if it's 3, that stored power has to be replenished when the computer is on, causing slightly higher draw then. It's certainly possible that the efficiency of doing that is greater than the efficiency of drawing a very small current from the line. But calling it "zero power" is just marketing. Truly "using zero power" would mean that any internal state of charge wouldn't be depleted either.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
4) They are drawing power out of band. E.g a net card running on the power of the packets, or the standby circuit activating from the power supplied by the VGA connector...
Re:Yep, a shell game (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or...
4) Gerbils. Awesome backup power source when combined with a small generator, just don't forget to feed them as the extended warranty won't cover their expiration.
No, seriously, they've probably got a supercap or something in there and have optimized the wake-up circuit to draw absolutely next to squat. Much better than running a power supply continuously at a low power draw, where they're typically very inefficient. Much better to draw a minute amount of load on top of the operating load and store
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhhhh.... (Score:2)
Other than the not-so-novel "bistable" ( "zero power" ala e-ink ) display, what's the big deal? And why the fuss about zero standby current when in S3 sleep ( standby ) mode it's measured in microamps?
jdb2
Re: (Score:2)
just do this : "sudo echo -n 'disk' > /sys/power/state "
Actually, that won't work. The > is interpreted by the shell, which means the "echo" command will run as root, but the shell redirection will run as the user -- the exact opposite of what you want.
I've taken to doing things like this:
The extra output can be suppressed, if you really care, with a >/dev/null at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
just do this : "sudo echo -n 'disk' > /sys/power/state "
Actually, that won't work. The > is interpreted by the shell, which means the "echo" command will run as root, but the shell redirection will run as the user -- the exact opposite of what you want.
I've taken to doing things like this:
The extra output can be suppressed, if you really care, with a >/dev/null at the end.
Heh. Oops. Having done this many times, I should have remembered ( one of ) the correct command sequences -- seems my brain is running slow again. ;)
/sys/power/state' -- for some reason I forgot to put in the 'sh -c'. Anyway
For the record, I usually use sudo sh -c 'echo -n disk >
jdb2
Real Men "su root - " (Score:2)
While I'm all for staying generally logged-in as a normal unprivileged user (okay, schmuck), when there's admin work to be done it's time to just su to root or switch to a different terminal and log in as "He who shalt be obeyed".
One "su root -" (plus password) is shorter than a lot of "sudo" commands.
Is this a rounding-error thing? (Score:2)
Is this some legalism, as in nutrition labeling, in which rounding is allowed? Can they round the power consumption to the nearest watt, and call anything drawing less than 0.5 watts "zero watts?"
I realize that geek.com does say "absolutely no power," but the farthest I can trace that statement is to pcworld [pcworld.com], not to Siemens.
World domination plan (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Invent zero-watt sleep mode for PC.
2. Patent relevant technology.
3. Lobby the Euros for legislation requiring feature.
4. Profit!
(forget about valid strategy of turning off PC--stupid consumers can't be bothered)
Re: (Score:2)
Modern PCs draw power while 'off'. It's only a trickle, but its there.
Zero-watt computer (screen) standby (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're right. According to that document (p. 4, about halfway down), the machine draws 1.6 to 2.7 W (depending on model) in standby; 1.5 to 2.1 W in soft-off with wake-on-LAN enabled; and no power in soft-off with wake-on-LAN disabled ("wake up power button only"). So the article is simply wrong when it says the computer is "able to use no power while in standby mode", unless they're redefining "standby" to mean S5 rather than S3.
It may simply be that, when WOL is disabled, shutting down the machine pu
Zero watts? I call foul (Score:2)
Any insulator, no matter how high the resistance, will leak *some* energy. The question is how much - zero is impossible, so how much above zero is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being a physicist! Any fool Engineer can tell you that if its too small to be measured than it might as well no be ther
Re: (Score:2)
And then your engineer proceeds to define 'too small to be measured' as 'under 0.5 watts'... :)
Re: (Score:2)
A shell game?? In this industry???
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure anything that uses a semiconductor to switch power to itself draws power constantly, unless they found some way to get around that.
I know its pretty new technology, but how about a mains power switch?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are also good to use since in some designs they leave the chassis ground connected. So you can cut power, but keep the case grounded (that's what it's grounded through) and then ground yourself to that by touching it. No static zap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow. So we've come full circle? (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, they'll make a modified one that doesn't keep those features active and opens a relay at the end of the hibernation process which is then closed by pressing a button on the case, triggering restoration from hibernation mode. And You can make hibernate zero-watt by unplugging the device. And you can still do all this by just turning the darn thing off and cutting the power. This isn't a situation that needs technological innovation. It needs people to be educated, then exercise some common sense. Then they can save money without having to spend it on new equipment.
If they want to save some freakin' power in the future, stop loading up operating systems with all this eye candy BS that require multicore processors and 128 megs of dedicated video ram just to work. Put out a "gets the job done" operating system that is rock solid and has a small resource footprint. Then start pushing the new low-power processors like Intel's Atom. Flood corporate America with those things and stop giving core 2 duos to secretaries who spend all day reading email, typing up documents, making powerpoint presentations, and all that other stuff that doesn't need a 100 watt CPU and aero effects.
THAT is where we need to cut power consumption. Saving 100 watts over 8-9 hours, not 1-4 watts over 15-16 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, you can cut the power to your computer if you use hibernate instead of standby.
Which definitely wasn't talking about AT systems =)
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't forget to feed it, or in Soviet Russia... oh wait, nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, my current dual core machine is much more energy efficient than my previous machine was. It doesn't heat my room the way that the old one did. During the summer the old one was basically unusable due to the amount of heat it was putting off. My new machine is throttled down quite a bit more and only puts off more energy when I'm recompiling the OS or something like that.
A properly designed computer is going to be more efficient now than it was previously.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. You could shut your hairdryer or toaster off a few seconds earlier or forgo using the toaster once and you've saved enough electricty to provide standby power for you devices guilt-free for a long time.