First "Carbon-Free" CPU Fights Global Warming 221
An anonymous reader writes "VIA is doing its bit to fight Global Warming by introducing the 'world's first carbon-free' desktop PC processor. The RoHS-compliant C7-D consumes 20W at 1.8GHz, and is accompanied by a 'Clean Computing Initiative' that aims to offset the chip's environmental cost. According to a LinuxDevices report, VIA has pledged that atmospheric carbon released during generation of the power needed to run the chip throughout its expected life-cycle will be offset by regional conservation, reforestation, and energy programs initiated or contributed to by VIA."
Very interesting (Score:3, Informative)
I know that AMD has been making the power saving argument for awhile (I saw ads in downtown Chicago at busstops in early July).
Here's info from the article about AMD's CPUs in comparison...
"AMD, meanwhile, is currently shipping "energy efficient" desktop chip models that typically draw 65 Watts, instead of 85 Watts. Additionally, the company offers "energy efficient, small form factor" models rated at 35 Watts, although only the single-core Sempron model in this category appears to be shipping -- the long-awaited, 35 Watt, dual-core Athlon64 X2 3800+ model is expected to ship to PC-makers in time to go into holiday-season PCs"
Re: (Score:2)
Transmeta's [transmeta.com] original claim to fame was low power consumption. Sadly they haven't done that well in the market.
Sun is currently making big claims for its new multicore servers, dubbing it CoolThreads [sun.com] technology. Their blurb is 5x the performance for 1/5 the power and 1/4 the space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Green Paypack (Score:5, Insightful)
only carbon? (Score:5, Interesting)
but it is a start, and more companies could adopt the same attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Y'know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a) A computer that isn't contributing to global warming
b) A computer that is contributing to global warming
c) No computer
You would take choices B or C?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2) But let's say it could be done. If we're telling people who can't afford "carbon-neutral" that they have to do without or the world will come to an end, don't you see something creepy about eco-celebrities bragging about how they're spending extra to break even on their private jets? On the CPU level it's harmless,
It's nothing but PR fluff (Score:2)
Carbon chips (Score:3, Funny)
They may be able to offset the carbon output... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Woo, I feel so smug! (Score:4, Informative)
Clock-for-clock, the optimized WinChip core (yes, even the C7 uses the very same core) can only process one integer and one floating-point instruction in parallel. This makes it 2-3x slower per-clock than modern CPUs. So, while you're still waiting on your Via C7 to crunch those numbers (at 20w), a Core2 Duo or A64 X2 system can do it in 1/4-1/6 the time (at 35w), and clock down to low-power state (3-5w).
So, I hope you feel good about how much carbon Via saves building the chip, because not only does it uses more power than competing processors to do the same amount of work, it takes longer too
Via's day in the sun is over. They were faced with the poor performance of the Winchip core, and instead of redesigning it, they touted the low power (which is true) and efficiency (which is not true). Intel and AMD responded with innovations like real-time voltage and frequency adjustment, and all of a sudden Via is scrambling just to try and keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
So do real-world comparison tests. Run similar tasks over a period of time on machines built on the
Re: (Score:2)
Two reasons I can't:
1. I don't own a C7 system.
2. Regardless of how thoroughly I set up the test, there would be constant naysayers, and people with other ideas of how to erform the test. In other words, it wouldn't solve anything. Remember how it took almost a year for the computing community to realize just how much reduce the power consumption of the A64 9
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-1, Wrong (Score:2)
So, while you're still waiting on your Via C7 to crunch those numbers (at 20w), a Core2 Duo or A64 X2 system can do it in 1/4-1/6 the time (at 35w), and clock down to low-power state (3-5w).
That's funny. I have a Via C3 box and an Athlon64 X2 box right here. One uses 30W when idle; the other, 75W. Care to guess which? (Hint: the systems and the numbers are given in the same order.)
Re: (Score:2)
That surely has a lot to do with having a good power supply in the VIA, fewer hard drives, a lower-power graphics card, etc. Either that, or your Athlon64 has CnQ disabled for reasons I can't imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a very clear sign you've got a serious problem with CnQ. The difference should be MAJOR.
I'd suggest starting off by removing all but one stick of RAM, and any nonessential accessories (old problems I would expect to be fixed by now). Looking for BIOS updates and errata on the manufacturer's website can't hurt either.
You might also look here:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article172-page1.htm l [silentpcreview.com]
an
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely right. I've been saying for quite a long time now, that was exactly my experience. C3s perform perhaps a hair less than half as fast as similarly-clocked AMD/Intel processors.
I replaced a 750MHz Thunderbird system with a Via C3 800MHz system (actually swapped the hard drive), and the performance dropped through the floor. I added RAM, external video card, etc., all in a futile attempt to get it up to speed. Shortly after that, I returned, b
Here's a more energy efficient processor. (Score:3, Insightful)
You will need to use a language that fits the architecture.
They are way more efficient that general processors.
Re: (Score:2)
(and for grammar's sake, s/fits/fit)
Carbon-free? What then? Nuclear? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Biggest element reducing power consumption? (Score:3, Funny)
Why do we need this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well somebody seems to have taken care of the problem. After all, the number of hurricanes is way down this year, isn't it?
It makes me wonder. Why does anecdotal evidence in support of global warming gloom and doom predictions played up so much, but when that evidence fails to emerge the following year nobody wants to talk about it? At the very least it makes the "killer hurricanes every year" prediction by global warming enthusiasts absolutely BS.
I think global warming deserves serious attention. I am in favor of the Kyoto accord. Having said that I fear that for every wingnut who values profit over human life there is an equally deranged nut on the other side of the political spectrum who spouts nonsense because, out of ignorance, they don't know any better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By "everyone" you mean "nobody" right?
After Katrina, I'd turn on my TV, and every 15 minutes, the newspeople would be saying "The number of hurricanes has nothing to do with global warming, it's a standard 15-year cycle." I heard that so many times I got sick of hearing it. I heard it from news people, climatologists, meterologists, NOAA, etc.
I get the feeling the people spouting the blatantly obviously bullshit idea that the
They couldn't be green by normal standards (Score:3, Interesting)
chemical use, water pollution and what their subsidiaries in china were up to.
But since you can buy certificates to clean their otherwize uncontrolled electrical
supply they decided that if they could buy a green corporate image for by getting
certificates a small fractional percentage of their production.
This smells like Chiquita's banana stickers, nowhere close being accepted by
any real certification system, but bragged about in commercials everywhere.
Chiquita - Going Green or Greenwashing Corporate Crime? [organicconsumers.org].
Everyone can make a difference by conserving power, but not by buying more stuff.
So.... (Score:2)
Are they advertising it won't run OS X?
LOL (Score:2)
You mean... like most people don't need a car as big as an SUV ? Besides for compensating some physical shortcomings...
Remember the old Sega commercials? (Score:2)
Anyways I'm thinking it's the same thing here. You have two F1 cars, Ferrari with the AMD/Intel logo and the Renault with the VIA logo. The light goes green, Ferrari flies down the road at close to double the speed, While the Renault is in persuit but the entire time you hear a speaker from the car "We're saving
Ri-ight (Score:4, Insightful)
yeah, but making the northbridge killed thousands. (Score:2)
Carbon Isn't Free (Score:2)
Its probably too late for this to get modded, but. (Score:5, Informative)
A quick check of several carbon neutral sites, where they propose to offset your carbon output for a fee dependent on how much driving you do etc..., left me feeling as if it were a scam of some sort. They offer no real assurance that your money is being placed into long term land/biomass projects. IE, the data is not publicaly verifiable. Its just their word. "pay us 88 dollars and you are Carbon Neutral!!" The sites/entities proclaming carbon offsets should be required to have verifable data to those that join.
I saw no evidence of that, and it is needed.
So some digging was in order. A quick call to the Chicago Carbon Exchange, and subsequent dialog with a nice enough bloke in charge of the offsets regarding the siging up of our ranch up in carbon offsets struck me as odd. The exchange currently favors pine plantations with poplars, vs native hardwoods. Native hardwoods live longer and are a a climax species for my area (East Tennessee).
The fellow said that our pine planataion could qualify for listing with the carbon exchange, but they really want actively managed plantations vs. unmanaged tracts of woodlands (even if they are recoverving from clear cutting).. I tend to disagree on the track of these offset schemes, because even the Carbon Exchange wants the timber to be harvested.
The whole process is just getting started I will admit, but it needs some serious thinking through on their part. The trees when mature are harvested. Which emits C02, and then proccessed, and then that carbon slowly degrades back into the atmosphere.
It really doesn't make sense. They should really be trying harder for longer term preservation with native species into climax ecosystems, with selective logging.
Now, about the late comment, I would have posted earlier but I have been running a business all day, and came home to plant yet another acre of white pines for a seperate christmas tree thing we are trying at the homestead...(yep /me = hippie, geek, rancher, musciaion type)
So please folks treat it as more than just feel good, pass the buck public image/advertising.
And demand verification from the offset folks, don't just take thier word on it.
Peace out, D
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Via has pledged that atmospheric carbon released during generation of the power needed to run the chip throughout its expected lifecycle will be offset by regional conservation, reforestation, and energy programs initiated or contributed to by Via.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A step in the right direction (Score:2)
But I'm glad to see this trend. Along with the LCD displays, we're started to make a difference in power consumption. Good for VIA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW RoHS means lead free. Just wondering if someone didn't know what it meant and confused carbon with lead.
Since that CPU is probably packed in paper and plastic box, the factory that makes it probably gets at least some of it's power from a carbon powered power plant. It gets shipped in a ship or plane burring fossil fuel. Well you get the idea that doesn't have a zero carbon footprint.
Cause you're a moron? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and exactly, what is neonprimetime doing? offering a compliment to Gore?
Re: (Score:2)
The other way of seeing it (Score:2)
Re:Heck with Carbon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Damn, even then I wouldnt be sure... perhaps seven years of penance as a Franciscan brother might do the trick.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you mean the H1 or H2...
Re: (Score:2)
You need a better power supply (Score:5, Funny)
I also contribute to reforestation efforts in China - each $50 funds a slave laborer who can plant 100 trees a day as part of his "reeducation".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The 2006 Hummer H1 Alpha is supposed to get around 12 mpg. The H2 gets about the same, which is especially pathetic because it's a chevy tahoe. The H3 gets around 17 [fueleconomy.gov] (combined) and as such it's the least apt model of hummer you could have picked. Actually, the funny thing is, the Tahoe gets about 17mpg as well, and that's what the hummer H2 is based upon.
Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (Score:5, Insightful)
Weird, because when I was in school in the 80s, they were telling us about global warming (and the ozone hole). Of course global warming has been warned about since then, non-stop.
These are all part of nature's climate cycles of cooling and warming trends. To say that man's activity is warming the earth is unproven.
Yes there are natural cycles, although the amount of carbon in the atmosphere seems to coniencide with global warming treads (as CO2 amounts rise, so does the temp). We're now pumping carbon into the atmosphere, more than has ever been present in the atmosphere. It stands to reason that more carbon will help warm the earth. To deny that is foolish.
However, under the name of "Global Warming", there are large power-grabs between nations. Notice that China, the world's largest polluter, is excluded from the Kyoto agreement, yet the US is supposed to follow it.
I can't speak to China and the Kyoto agreement, but just because one big polluter doesn't follow doesn't mean the other big one shouldn't. A reduction is a reduction. FWIW, nations have to agree to sign the Kyoto agreement. I doubt they'd not ask China. The US refused to sign.
I'm a conservationist. There are many ways to conserve the environment and have full economic activity. That is in stark contrast to the environmentalists and Global Warming theorists who want us to reduce and/or stop our economic growth.
This is perhaps one of the stupidist comments I've ever heard. They aren't trying to stop / reduce economic growth, they want that growth to happen in an environmentally friendly way. You seem to forget that something which slows growth in one area may trigger larger growth in others. For example, if you need some kind of filter on your smoke stacks, someone needs to build those.
You want to conserve only when it doesn't inconvience you in some way. I assume you have similar attitudes as those that tried to justify dumping any chemical waste into rivers. We've cleaned those up, and the economy hasn't tanked. Get a grip.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that you should read his post more closely. You missed by a few years. And of course, the reason for everyone to go to school is so that they can learn how not to think critically and no one with a political agenda ever lies.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that the theory has been around going on 20 to 30 years now, unchanged. Unfortunately the OP never said how long they had been discussing global cooling. Funny your quipe about school; they actually DID instill critical thinking skills in us. As I said in anoth
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Next time I shall endeavor to use my [sarcasim] tag. My apologies.
Actually, I believe the burden of proof would be on you to prove there there are NO environmentalists that call for a reduction in economic activity. Just as the burden of proof would be on the grand poster for his equally unsubstantiated claim. I just wanted to point out the difficulty of disproving an unsubstantiated claim with yet another unsub
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh.. easy to miss sarcasm in text. I apologize also.
Actually, I believe the burden of proof would be on you to prove there there are NO environmentalists that call for a reduction in economic activity.
Again, that's NOT what I said. I said their main objective is not a reducting in economic activity, which is what the OP was said. If they are calling for a reduction in economic activity, its a means to a goal, not their goal in and of itse
minor point ... (Score:2)
>>We were told that we would all freeze to death. Now
>>the big scare is Global Warming. We're all going to
>>overheat, melt the icecaps, and drown.
>Weird, because when I was in school in the 80s, they
>were telling us about global warming (and the ozone
>hole). Of course global warming has been warned about
>since then, non-stop.
Um, minor point here, but the 70s are not the 80s.
Re: (Score:2)
If you know your geological history, you wouldn't have made this claim.
The second atmosphere of earth was mostly carbon dioxide. (The first atmosphere was a mixture of hydrogen and helium, while the current (third) oxygen-rich atmosphere came from cyanobacteria.)
I give the above example first since the three atmosph
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More accurately: this is avoiding the unfairness of us having polluted to high heaven and back while getting through the stage of economic growth that developing nations have not yet reached or completed. It avoids the charge of us pulling up the ladder behind us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your brilliant debate skills aside (see ad hominem [wikipedia.org]), you're actually making the case for the person you so eloquently responded to. The keyword here being sensible. If you truly believed that Kyoto were a sensible policy that would stimulate innovation and growth, then you would have no problem with it being applied to everyone equally.
Or, perhaps you're arguing that it's meant to penalize the lesser economies by excludi
Re: (Score:2)
"Global warming is caused by man, and increases in temperature on the planet are manmade. I can prove the nighttime temperature of the Earth has gone up 0.01 C in the past decade. Therefore I prove Global Warming is caused by man." Spot the logical fallacy.
The g
Globalcooling never had serious scientific support (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not that small. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely.
The old regulations that called for coal plants to install scrubbers when expanding capacity seemed like a fair trade to me. We could still burn coal with greatly reduced emissions. I guess to me, the cost associated with upgrading the technology is completely worth it.
I think there would be an impact economically, and that's what the current administration uses an excuse when discussing environmental regulations, but nobody can explain what the potential impact would
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, note that the US has not signed Kyoto, but inst
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, as far as tieing global change to killing our economic growth, well history is against you. Nearly every time, that a better solution is found, it spurs economic growth. In particular, the only real way to stop the CO2, is to quit producing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the '70's the big scare was Global Cooling. We were told that we would all freeze to death. Now the big scare is Global Warming. We're all going to overheat, melt the icecaps, and drown. These are all part of nature's climate cycles of cooling and warming trends. To say that man's activity is warming the earth is unproven.
My take is that this sort of argument isn't constructive. Yes, there are "big scares". But we shouldn't dismiss a theory just because it's been hyped up by a "big scare".
If o
Re: (Score:2)
To say that man's activity is warming the earth is unproven.
Here's what I don't get about the global warming naysayers: Which part of the science behind it are you disputing?
Are you denying the research that's proven that CO2 levels have risen rapidly since the 1940s?
Are you denying the causal correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature?
Or are you (like many naysayers) flatly denying that billions of h
Re: (Score:2)
The greenies are the one that need to PROVE their assertions.
They're the ones suggesting we need to abandon Western Civilisation because of this bugbear. They've reclassified carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Next thing you know, when they realise water vapor is the bigger problem, will "water" be a pollutant?
RE: Are you denying the research that's proven that CO2 levels have risen rapidly sinc
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what would be tangible evidence, in your opinion?
We can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's tangible.
We can measure the global temperature over time. That's also tangible.
We can experimentally prove that CO2 causes warming in the lab. Seems pretty tangible to me. We know the mechanism, and we've measured the inputs and outputs.
The part you're having trouble with is in thinking that CO2 levels are the ONLY cause of temperature change. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
But why "ignore the cooling between...." it would seem to me that carbon dioxide emissions started going up quite a bit between 40-80 so wouldn't the earth have been getting hotter during this period?
The point I was trying to make is this - that we really have no clue what the hell is going on, pretty computer doom and gloom video game to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For that matter, Al Gore is an idiot*, so don't believe everything he says - I'm pretty sure he's secretly in league with law breaking PETA militants. George Bush's far superior IQ** always prevails.
* compared to a genius mon
Re: (Score:2)
Eh. Mods: it's all in good fun, I assure you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Carbon-Free Joke - a.k.a. Uneducated Marketing. (Score:2)
No - just some sort of dope.