Are CPUs like Muscle Cars?

Allow me to begin with the disclaimer that I own no stock in Transmeta or any other x86 CPU company. In light of the recent tech articles and discussions of TCO, I wonder if we can draw a comparison between CPUs and The Muscle Car Era.

The American car industry went through a period of rapid growth in the 1960's fighting for the Muscle Car titles. Huge sums of corporate money were invested in designing and creating more and more powerful engines. Hobbyists spent loads of cash and built upon the manufacturer's designs to squeeze a few more horsepower from the massive engines. Titles of "fastest", "most powerful", "quickest quarter mile" continually changed sides as manufacturers released greater and greater products.

So far, this is echoed today by the CPU industry. Read the first paragraph again and substitute CPU for engine, cycles for horsepower, and convert the last title to "quickest kernel compile".

The question is: What became of the Muscle Car? The 1970's oil crisis "encouraged" consumers to use more efficient cars. And after some growing pains, many very good cars were getting much better mileage. I will agree that the newer cars can not get a sub 12 second quarter mile and still maintain fuel efficiency, but how often does the average person need as sub 12 quarter mile? Also, consider that today's cars need much less maintenance and have a much longer projected working lifespan.

So, how does this all relate to CPUs? The latest statistics show some staggering numbers for power requirements and cooling solutions required for regular running. Before going further I will concede there will always be a need for, and a niche market to fill, the need for raw, brute strength, the cost of fuel and maintenance be damned. But, just as in the automobile industry, what does the average consumer really need/use/want? Sure everyone wants more power, faster, better performance, etc... but at what cost, and define "performance". Many people today have several computers in their homes. Perhaps we should take the "average" family, mom, dad, two high school kids and a dog. Say everyone has their own computer (except, perhaps, the dog) and they leave them on most of the day if not all day.

With most new computers requiring at least a 300w power supply, you are looking at 1200w of energy just to run the boxes, monitors not included. But how much is 1200w really? What helps me understand 1200w is imagining leaving a burner on my stove turned on 24/7. That is going to seriously run up my power bill, and the local power company is going to love me. 1200w * 24 hours a day * 7 days a week gives me an annual total of 201,600w. Now, let's convert those four computers to notebooks. Real notebooks, not "desktop replacements" with no battery, but the kind that can really run for 3 or 4 hours on battery. The sum total to run all of these might weigh in at 300w. That 900w difference is going to add up to some real savings over the life of the computer. Yes, laptops do cost more, but is that cost covered in the energy savings? 300w * 24 hours a day * 7 days a week gives me an annual total of 50,400w. As for performance, many of the latest laptops can handle more than the average user will throw at them, and handle it respectably. (Hardcore gamers/users see caveat above.)

Let's move away from the home example and look at this from the business perspective. For this example we'll use 100 employees with computers * 300w equaling 30,000 watts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a year total of 5,040,000w. Using the above conversion we are looking at an annual total of 1,260,000w... a huge difference. Businesses are also concerned with uptime.

Many are seeing the low power options today as ways of increasing uptime. "LANL used low-power Transmeta Corp processors in its other RLX-based grid cluster, dubbed Green Destiny, to test ways to lower cooling costs and raise the stability associated with large computers." -- http://www.gridtoday.com/02/1202/100823.html "Thanks in part to the low-power Transmeta processors, which generate relatively little heat, the lab's cluster resided, for a time at least, in a hot, dusty warehouse in Los Alamos, N.M. The new cluster will join other systems at the lab in a specially cooled server room." -- http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/story/0,10801,76139,00.html "Specifically, the RLX/Transmeta solution results in a 5x to 10x savings in power, i.e., 15 watts versus 75 watts under load, and seven watts versus 75 watts at idle." -- http://www.transmeta.com/why/where/

Now here is a place to really lower TCO. [total cost of ownership, Ed.] Is it really worth it in the long run? I don't know. I don't own a company, paying the bills for 100 computers to be on all day. But if I did, I'd be doing the math.

Doug Hutchinson
Email address supplied