PS3 slammed for high power consumption (article)

Link

Not sure if this has already been discussed but I hadn't seen it posted yet. Anyway, it brought some information that I didn't know to light. And I thought it was pretty interesting given how a lot of people use associated cost as a factor in determining the "price" of a system (I can't tell you how many threads I've read saying that the 360 actually costs the same as or even more than a PS3, because in 4 years a gold subscription to xbox live will add $200 more dollars to the console price). Now I always thought that was a dumb comparision, but many support the logic in it.

Well for those who believe in that kind of comparison, what do you have to say about this?

The site warns that the US version of the PlayStation 3 comes with a sizeable 380W power supply, which is over twice as big as its main competitor, Microsoft's Xbox 360 at 165W, and over seven times more power hungry than the PlayStation 2.

If a user combines a PS3 with a sizeable plasma display to take full advantage of the graphics capabilities of the machine, users could be burning 1.4kWh of power per hour costing up to £1.19 for a five-hour session.

For us chaps in the US £1.19 = $2.30.... Well I know many people who play on their consoles 5+ hours EACH DAY.  In 22 days (basically 3 weeks) that would pay for a YEAR Xbox live subscription! So basically, if you are one of those people who are always on your gaming system, the costs will never even out. And after you add up your gaming times when you play Oblivion or GTAIV (because u know you'll be in those games for a combined 100hrs if you're really having fun) then let me know if you still want to use the associated cost comparison.

EDIT: A few people have referred me to this article which directly contradicts some of the power usage estimates referenced by the article this post references (which is referring to this link). I will definitely be looking further into these discrepancies and try to get to the facts. Findings will most likely be posted on my blog.

Also, several people have complained that I included the TV in the comparison. My rebuttal is simple, these are quotes from the article. However, further in the thread I do work out the math for the cost of JUST the PS3 to alleviate all the fanboys calling ME a fanboy :P So, if you want to know what it's going to cost you per hour, I think it works out to 17 pence (13 cents) per hour. But there is an actual post that steps through the math and figures it all for how much you might be spending per year. And even that little bit adds up to a chunk of change in the end.

Lastly, some questioned why I used a british article to discuss this. That answer is simple too. I just came across that article while browsing, and as I said I thought it was interesting. Hopefully now, some of the more repetitive items have been answered up front.

i bet half the people in here are kids, so they don't have to worry about bills or anything. They just get their parents to do it.iammason

 true

ancient information. we know it consumes a lot of power. we were talking about this 2 years ago.Dreams-Visions

By that logic, shouldn't you include the lightbulbs, since most people don't play in the dark? Then include the heat since most people play where it's nice and warm? Then why not include the speakers, since most people who have a decent plasma TV have surround sound?

See? Not very good logic, now is it?
caje47

$2.30 for 5 hours? That's not that expensive.. -supercharged-

High power consumption is a problem(ish?) with both PS3 and 360.D0013ER

Next gen gaming and television pushed my electric bill  up $70 a month.

Yes, we know the architecture is sloppy and inefficient.karicha9

[QUOTE="-supercharged-"]$2.30 for 5 hours? That's not that expensive.. iammason

You guys that don't get the point of the post. I'm not bashing the PS3, I'm debunking the "associated cost" argument that alot of people use to validate their purchase of the PS3 over the 360. That is a bogus argument, and this information substantiates just how silly it is. People who buy the PS3 should just say that they bought it because they like the games/hardware, but should NEVER say because "it's really cheaper than the 360".klactose

You guys that don't get the point of the post. I'm not bashing the PS3, I'm debunking the "associated cost" argument that alot of people use to validate their purchase of the PS3 over the 360. That is a bogus argument, and this information substantiates just how silly it is. People who buy the PS3 should just say that they bought it because they like the games/hardware, but should NEVER say because "it's really cheaper than the 360".klactose

i remember reading that the wii used some ridiculously low amount of watts.Ontain

[QUOTE="klactose"]You guys that don't get the point of the post. I'm not bashing the PS3, I'm debunking the "associated cost" argument that alot of people use to validate their purchase of the PS3 over the 360. That is a bogus argument, and this information substantiates just how silly it is. People who buy the PS3 should just say that they bought it because they like the games/hardware, but should NEVER say because "it's really cheaper than the 360".KungfuKitten

You're not accounting for the fact that the 360 will be on more than the PS3 because it actually has games to play :) !!tcarruth

[QUOTE="klactose"]You guys that don't get the point of the post. I'm not bashing the PS3, I'm debunking the "associated cost" argument that alot of people use to validate their purchase of the PS3 over the 360. That is a bogus argument, and this information substantiates just how silly it is. People who buy the PS3 should just say that they bought it because they like the games/hardware, but should NEVER say because "it's really cheaper than the 360".-supercharged-

[QUOTE="-supercharged-"][QUOTE="klactose"]You guys that don't get the point of the post. I'm not bashing the PS3, I'm debunking the "associated cost" argument that alot of people use to validate their purchase of the PS3 over the 360. That is a bogus argument, and this information substantiates just how silly it is. People who buy the PS3 should just say that they bought it because they like the games/hardware, but should NEVER say because "it's really cheaper than the 360".klactose

the ps3 does take a lot of energy and is costly, but they are moving to a 65mm "cell" which SHOULD reduce power consumption....

power supply number =/= number of watts usedwarmaster670

It is so sad that critics have to resort to slamming a console's power consumption. Perhaps we can compare and contrast which company's manufacturing process provides for the least amount of gas emissions next?asmallchild

Well the press' duty is to inform the public. I'm never mad about any information I learn via the press. I'm just made when I don't hear news that I should have been told!

Edit: Well I get pretty ticked when the information is incorrect too! :o

It is so sad that critics have to resort to slamming a console's power consumption. Perhaps we can compare and contrast which company's manufacturing process provides for the least amount of gas emissions next?asmallchild

Its only in response to the nutters that are harping on about the cost of XBlive. Every penny of which the PS3 crowd would gladly pay for to get a similar service... oh the hypocrisy!

Link

Not sure if this has already been discussed but I hadn't seen it posted yet. Anyway, it brought some information that I didn't know to light. And I thought it was pretty interesting given how a lot of people use associated cost as a factor in determining the "price" of a system (I can't tell you how many threads I've read saying that the 360 actually costs the same as or even more than a PS3, because in 4 years a gold subscription to xbox live will add $200 more dollars to the console price). Now I always thought that was a dumb comparision, but many support the logic in it.

Well for those who believe in that kind of comparison, what do you have to say about this?

[Quote=""]

The site warns that the US version of the PlayStation 3 comes with a sizeable 380W power supply, which is over twice as big as its main competitor, Microsoft's Xbox 360 at 165W, and over seven times more power hungry than the PlayStation 2.

If a user combines a PS3 with a sizeable plasma display to take full advantage of the graphics capabilities of the machine, users could be burning 1.4kWh of power per hour costing up to £1.19 for a five-hour session.klactose

For us chaps in the US £1.19 = $2.30.... Well I know many people who play on their consoles 5+ hours EACH DAY. In 22 days (basically 3 weeks) that would pay for a YEAR Xbox live subscription! So basically, if you are one of those people who are always on your gaming system, the costs will never even out. And after you add up your gaming times when you play Oblivion or GTAIV (because u know you'll be in those games for a combined 100hrs if you're really having fun) then let me know if you still want to use the associated cost comparison.

I've seen the power consumption values and whilst the PS3 is extremely high compared to the Wii, so is the Xbox 360 theres only 2W difference which means that if you leave both consoles on for 24hours non stop youll only be paying a 5p difference.meischris39

[QUOTE="Ontain"]i remember reading that the wii used some ridiculously low amount of watts.-supercharged-

By that logic, shouldn't you include the lightbulbs, since most people don't play in the dark? Then include the heat since most people play where it's nice and warm? Then why not include the speakers, since most people who have a decent plasma TV have surround sound?

See? Not very good logic, now is it?
caje47