One thing you all might know though. A while back a enviromental care report was released. This report showed that each wii made is hurting the enviroment many times more than a ps3 because nintendos poor enviromental protection plan.

Yeah some details of it is sketchy but it's several months since i read it.

It also showed that the xbox360 is very unfriendly to the enviroment.

On the other hand it showed sony (playstation) as Number 1 (or 2 cant remember) for hurting the enviroment the least.

(its probably all based on production and while i can't show you the specific article (since i don't have a link for it) i can tell you that i was pretty shocked by it :\ )

Staude said: One thing you all might know though. A while back a enviromental care report was released. This report showed that each wii made is hurting the enviroment many times more than a ps3 because nintendos poor enviromental protection plan. Yeah some details of it is sketchy but it's several months since i read it. It also showed that the xbox360 is very unfriendly to the enviroment. On the other hand it showed sony (playstation) as Number 1 (or 2 cant remember) for hurting the enviroment the least. (its probably all based on production and while i can't show you the specific article (since i don't have a link for it) i can tell you that i was pretty shocked by it : )

 You mean the one where Greenpeace scored them zero for not talking to them? Rather than do a little research, Greenpeace just slapped a goose egg on their report and moved on.

It's kind of like getting a zero in a class you never signed up for.

The Wii is clearly the winner here, you'll save money on electricity by using it. It's not just because it uses simpler chips, also because Nintendo focused on low power consumption when designing the console. 18 W is very low for a console!

Wii is Green!

WARNING INCORRECT INFO ABOVE
The sticker on the console is a MAXIMUM SURGE rating which has almost no bearing on continual power usage - on many appliances this rating will be over 10* the typical continual power usage.

REAL Approx continual usage is shown below.

PC (dual core+GPU ~=RSX) 200watts
PS3 (old 60 and 20GB models ) 195watts
XBOX360 180 watts
Wii 20 watts
PS2 (guessing here ) 10 watts

Newer PS3's use less around ~155watts (65um CELL, no PS2 hardware, smaller 65um GPU) and
new Xboxes also use less ~140watts at a guess.
And the power use will gradually improve as they move to newer smaller chips.
With 45 um for CPU and GPU i would expect under 100Watts for both PS3 and X360.

Yes Wii was ~10 x less power than early PS3's and ~9 x less than early X360's.

stephen700 said: WARNING INCORRECT INFO ABOVE The sticker on the console is a MAXIMUM SURGE rating which has almost no bearing on continual power usage - on many appliances this rating will be over 10* the typical continual power usage. REAL Approx continual usage is shown below. PC (dual core+GPU ~=RSX) 200watts PS3 (old 60 and 20GB models ) 195watts XBOX360 180 watts Wii 20 watts PS2 (guessing here ) 10 watts Newer PS3's use less around ~155watts (65um CELL, no PS2 hardware, smaller 65um GPU) and new Xboxes also use less ~140watts at a guess. And the power use will gradually improve as they move to newer smaller chips. With 45 um for CPU and GPU i would expect under 100Watts for both PS3 and X360. Yes Wii was ~10 x less power than early PS3's and ~9 x less than early X360's.

You should have pointed out what the incorrect info was. All i see is mostly correct info. So, where do you base your PS2 guess?

bdbdbd said:   You should have pointed out what the incorrect info was. All i see is mostly correct info. So, where do you base your PS2 guess?

I think he's talking about the people who were giving the figures in the power adapters. Just because a console's adapter can provide N watts, it doesn't mean that the console will use N watts while playing games. All it means is that it uses less than N watts (usually quite a bit less due to safety margins).

 

The old power supply in the PS3 is rated at 385 watts. Which as stephen700 implied is greater than the expected peak of the system to ensure any fluctuations in power will still allow the system to operate properly. This goes for the Xbox 360 and Wii.

This is a recent article of the 40GB power use.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/30/40gb-ps3-features-65nm-chips-lower-power-consumption/
The 360 has probably reduced its power usage as much over the years.

May I add that the amounts I've summed up are "maximum", so with the PS3 using all things at the same time and loading about 2-4 controllers at the same time. Same with a TV if it says 100 Watts, like my precious Sony Bravia it doesn't mean it uses 100 Watts all the time, especially not since I have it on power saving.

NJ5 said: bdbdbd said:   You should have pointed out what the incorrect info was. All i see is mostly correct info. So, where do you base your PS2 guess? I think he's talking about the people who were giving the figures in the power adapters. Just because a console's adapter can provide N watts, it doesn't mean that the console will use N watts while playing games. All it means is that it uses less than N watts (usually quite a bit less due to safety margins).

Yes, but that isn't incorrect info at all. They just are the peaks plus safety margins. Assuming that the devices are meant for similar use, the safety margins are similar, the percentage of peak values is pretty close the same in actual situation. And since all 3 have standard ports, we don't need to guess their power consumption (only the number of ports matter). If we need to make an estimation, actual situation is usually 50% of given peak value.