Viper1 said:
JEMC said:
To put some perspective here, let me post this wikipedia info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware#List_of_revisions
|
Codename
|
CPU |
GPU |
HDMI |
Power Supply |
In Production |
Date Released |
| Xenon |
90 nm |
90 nm |
No |
203 W |
No |
November 2005 |
| Zephyr |
90 nm |
90 nm |
Yes |
203 W |
No |
July 2007 |
| Falcon |
65 nm |
90 nm |
Yes |
175 W |
No |
Late September 2007 |
| Opus |
65 nm |
90 nm |
No |
175 W |
No |
June 2008 |
| Jasper |
65 nm |
65 nm |
Yes |
150 W |
No |
September 2008 |
| Trinity (Valhalla) |
45 nm (combined "Vejle" chip)[27] |
Yes |
135 W |
No |
June 2010 |
| Corona |
45 nm (combined chip)[28] |
Yes |
115 W |
Yes |
August 2011 |
The first Xbox360 used +200W and the newest one, with all the optimizations, the single chip for both the CPU and GPU, etc still uses more than 100W.
Even including the efficency of the power supply, that's still a lot.
|
I'd also like to note that just because the Power supply is rated at a certain spec doesn't mean that is actually what the entire system draws. In fact, you really don't want it running too close to peak at all. A 20% headroom is about ideal for a console.
|
Power consumption of current-gen consoles:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xGJhVr3FGYkJ:https://wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/ceic/pdfs/CEIC_11_01.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShXys6w-mmVsQMjoEebGXWxq_dypu1mJzeC64P4TR6KRBqli6ZK5b3eJ673NhuXXp98CZu5qJJAezdB9rl_gm0nK2Udgrei1b6Q1XDUTq-ySBwkUzRVpo-LJPhN1_3yDI8GquCN&sig=AHIEtbTFeF34BsguPfmcNVn2k6Wi5D73dg
That 20% is just about right from that table (172W for original 360, so with 20% headroom it's just in area of its 203W rated power supply). "Fat" PS3 has 380W power supply, replaced with 250W unit in "Slim" and 190W in "Superslim". I'd say quite a lot of watts, even for more hungry GPU/CPU combos of today in that "Fat" model.
