yearly energy costs of current (and former) consoles determined by German electricity provider E.ON

Fritz

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,629
Assessments are based on an active operation of 2 hours per day

Current gen:

Xbox One X: ~ 36€
PS4 Pro: ~ 34€
Xbox One: ~ 25€
PS4 Basic Model: ~ 18€
Nintendo Switch: ~ 3€
SNES Classic Mini: ~ 1€


Older gens:

PS3: ~ 40€
PS2: ~ 5€
PS1: ~ 2€
Xbox 360: ~ 36€
Xbox: ~ 14€
Wii U: ~ 7€
Wii: ~ 3€



(c) Pablo Mesa

https://www.eon.de/de/eonerleben/spielekonsolen-im-stromcheck.html

All hail Nintendo!
 
Last edited:

Phonzo

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,616
Damn i hate that im suing my !X the most now.

Also does the Wii-U account for the controller? Cause it should.
 

bitSS

Self-requested ban
Banned
Nov 9, 2017
1,319
Portugal
Lol at PS3 eating up more than an Xbox One X. I never owned one, was it that bad?
 

Lichtsang

Banned
Jan 2, 2018
4,679
I'm not surprised that the PS3 is on top, but I am surprised that the Switch is on par with it's SD grandfather.
 

OrdinaryPrime

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,042
Wow the original Xbox One (god I hate the name of this console) to have to preface it with that has more of a power draw than the PS4 with less power? That's hilarious.
 

nib95

Member
Oct 28, 2017
11,895
Guessing this thread will be filled with some who don't realise newer SoC's, or GPU's and processors etc often have smaller die sizes and are actually more, not less efficient than older examples. Eg newer hardware often provides better efficiency in higher performance per watt, hence the PS3/360 results we're seeing vs the PS4 Pro/One X.

Nintendo's consoles generally offer far less performance than competitors, hence the difference there.
 

Akai

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,940
Pretty impressive to see that Xbox 360 = Xbox One X and PS3 > PS4 Pro. Technology is fascninating.

Also, those Nintendo results are something else. That's actually pretty crazy.
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,233
Damn i hate that im suing my !X the most now.

Also does the Wii-U account for the controller? Cause it should.
Does the PS4 include the controller? Cause that’s also terrible. Jk.

Can’t answer cause I don’t speak German, but I imagine the lack of a disc drive helps immensely.

Is the Switch being tested docked or in handheld? Docked would exclude the screen and controllers - which to be fair should be true of all the consoles.

Nintendo always looks crazy on these tests.
 

WickedCobra03

Member
Oct 27, 2017
663
Kind of a cool comparison. Checks out. The OG Xbox, 360 , ps3 were hot, loud and at the time the most powerful,

Definitely see a spike in power usage on sundays when a typically have the ps4 on for a couple hours whether it be movies or games.
 

Sesuadra

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,806
Guessing this thread will be filled with some who don't realise newer SoC's, or GPU's and processors etc often have smaller die sizes and are actually more, not less efficient than older examples. Eg newer hardware often provides better efficiency in higher performance per watt, hence the PS3/360 results we're seeing vs the PS4 Pro/One X.

Nintendo's consoles generally offer far less performance than competitors, hence the difference there.
 

Brock Reiher

Member
Oct 25, 2017
34,578
If you're somewhat stable financially I really really really recommend buying a Fire TV and ditching the PS4 for browsing/streaming. Uses less power, is way faster, and is better quality.
 

mclem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,277
Guessing this thread will be filled with some who don't realise newer SoC's, or GPU's and processors etc often have smaller die sizes and are actually more, not less efficient than older examples. Eg newer hardware often provides better efficiency in higher performance per watt, hence the PS3/360 results we're seeing vs the PS4 Pro/One X.
Isn't there also often a difference in consumption between different models? I'm sure I recall hearing that the 360 Slim drew less power than the original model.

Nintendo's consoles generally offer far less performance than competitors, hence the difference there.
Yes, although I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the Switch's output at least on a par with the 360, and there's still a massive power differential - is that entirely down to the modernity of the internals?
 
Oct 27, 2017
15,519
PS3 era really was arrogant Sony. They gave no fucks about price, power consumption or anything. That PS2 success was a hell of a drug
 

Gaardus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,062
Aside from the PS4 Slim, does the text of the article specify which revisions are used? I'm curious how much of a difference there is between, say, a launch PS3 and a Super Slim.
 
OP
OP
Fritz

Fritz

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,629
Aside from the PS4 Slim, does the text of the article specify which revisions are used? I'm curious how much of a difference there is between, say, a launch PS3 and a Super Slim.

No, unfortunately not.


But checking I stumbled upon another quote
Auch im Standby-Modus verbrauchen vor allem die Xbox- und Playstation-Modelle noch bis zu 15 kWh und damit bis zu vier bis fünf Euro im Jahr.
Especially Xbox and Playstation Models eat up to 4 - 5 EUR in Standby too. More than a Switch played on 2h a day.
 

Cymbal Head

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,612
Do we expect next gen power draw to be closer to the Pro/X or to the base models?

I'm having a hell of a time convincing my sister in law to use the Roku instead of the PS4 for streaming.
 

Peltz

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,762
Yes, although I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the Switch's output at least on a par with the 360, and there's still a massive power differential - is that entirely down to the modernity of the internals?
Sort of. Handhelds are always designed to draw as little power as possible to prolong battery life while still obtaining good performance.

Nintendo just happens to always emphasize low power consumption in the design of their consoles. It's been their philosophy since the Wii (or possibly even earlier). A lot of that is due to low/underclocked CPU/GPU speeds if I understand correctly (hopefully, someone smarter than me can chime in).

And yea, Switch is more powerful than Xbox 360.
 

Dekuman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,700
Sort of. Handhelds are always designed to draw as little power as possible to prolong battery life while still obtaining good performance.

Nintendo just happens to always emphasize low power consumption in the design of their consoles. It's been their philosophy since the Wii (or possibly even earlier). A lot of that is due to low/underclocked CPU/GPU speeds if I understand correctly (hopefully, someone smarter than me can chime in).

And yea, Switch is more powerful than Xbox 360.
That us true but design philosophies need to be backed up with tech. One can argue Wii was due to a die shrunk older design, Switch though is modern. Puts all the miracle ports in perspective
 

Mr_F_Snowman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,182
Interesting stuff. Guess the Switch being built on a mobile chipset really gives it a massive edge in performance relative to power
 

yyr

Member
Nov 14, 2017
701
White Plains, NY
This doesn't seem to take into account the different console revisions.

I know for a fact that the later revisions of the PS3 drew less power than the original George Foreman. That's one of the reasons I got a PS3 Slim. Likewise, later revisions of the 360 have lower-wattage power supplies than the original.

So...this chart doesn't mean a whole lot.
 

Kerozinn

Banned
May 11, 2018
1,057
some people even try to turn low power consumption into W for their console of choice lol
 

Slam Tilt

Member
Jan 16, 2018
5,574
Watching full console games like DOOM and Civ VI run on a Switch just got more impressive.
 

AmFreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,105
Aside from the PS4 Slim, does the text of the article specify which revisions are used? I'm curious how much of a difference there is between, say, a launch PS3 and a Super Slim.
It doesn't state it, but it's the launch ones that's inferable from the differences. Later revisions more than halved their power consumption.