On 19 Jun 2014, at 12:07, Chris Green cl@isbd.net wrote:
Do any of these 'low-power' systems actually quote total power consumption when integrated into a complete system?
Google finds some, but obviously the choice of other components influences that.
http://www.servethehome.com/intel-atom-c2550-power-consumption-comparison/ has some good figures: <10 at idle, 30-35 at load
For a lower-spec NUC http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-nuc-dn2820fykh-bay-trail-system-review_135... "NUC DN2820FYKH … kill-a-wat... 8-10 Watts of power to play 1080p video content."
http://www.neweggbusiness.com/product/product.aspx?item=9b-13-157-494 "Intel Celeron J1900 … 10 watts using pico-psu”
http://www.tuicool.com/articles/MFJNnq3 "Intel Celeron J1900 … 18 watts at idle and 25 watts during typical use, 30 at full load”
desktop system. With an efficient 80 watt power supply it runs at around 40 watts typically
Talking of power supplies, some of these take DC in to the board (e.g. Q1900DC-ITX), so you just add an external fanless brick. Keeps a lot of heat outside the case, and saves you having to buy a PSU. Then again, some cases come with a PSU. And a Pico-UPS is also an option.
For comparison typical Intel Atom based systems of about the same vintage (e.g. my Acer Revo) consume around 26 watts for a *much* feebler system.
That’s what’s appealing about this latest generation compared to the older atoms: much better performance and specs for the equivalent low power.
But I totally accept that you can approach low-power-at-idle with other systems too.
— Martijn