Sony Android TVs waste 25W in standby due to built-in Google Chromecast

Post by VTimofeenko » Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 11:49 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #94

Grazester wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this has built in Chromecast. I love my Shield.

I love that my home screen is now jammed full of bullshit and it cannot be used without a Google account and if you use your personal Google account Nvidia needs a ton of permissions. Other than that I actually do the love the little device but I feel more and more jerked around when I shell out only to have junk foisted on me later.

Post by koolba » Mon, Sep 19, 2022, 12:17 AM UTC

lizknope wrote: post #103

londons_explore wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'standby' for many devices used to mean 'leave all the electronics powered up, but turn the screen/sound off'.

I had a DirecTV satellite receiver with DVR. They rolled out an update and made a big deal their new "Energy Star ECO power savings mode." I wondered how much power it could really save because it was a DVR with a spinning hard drive that would always record the last 30 minutes of the current channel even if you didn't set it to record anything explicitly. So I measured it while on and also in "power savings mode" wh…

Post by selcuka » Mon, Sep 19, 2022, 12:34 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #140

londons_explore wrote: post #25

Chromecasts in general seem like big power hogs... I don't need you to use 20 watts all the time to show a shiny background image and a clock... I really wish users who spend "Just" $/€/£ 40 on a Chromecast knew that it is going to cost them the same amount every year on their bill. I think many of those people wouldn't buy one if they realised they are almost buying a subscription. Google could adjust them to just d…

> Chromecasts in general seem like big power hogs... The original Chromecast product was a stick that ran off a default 10W USB 2 power supply. I don't know what the current ones are drawing, but I'd be pretty surprised if it was any more. This is a bug with this particular TV, which is running the Chromecast stack on a much less efficient SOC and clearly has some kind of integration bug which is preventing low power…

Post by stefan_ » Mon, Sep 19, 2022, 12:51 AM UTC

Panino wrote: post #38

If you're wondering how much energy is consumed by your electronics, a base model kill-a-watt for about $30 will show you watts and cumulative watt-hours. It's a fantastic tool that pays for itself besides giving an eye-opening, interesting experience. You'd be surprised at the things in your house consuming electricity 24/7. Almost everything in my house is either on power strip surge protectors or just unplugged.

Post by sidewndr46 » Mon, Sep 19, 2022, 1:48 AM UTC

Someone wrote: post #79

sidewndr46 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were devices that consumed 80 watts in standby. I have a cabinet full of equipment including my cable modem, a computer (server, no monitor) with 8 mechanical hard drives. The idle current is 76 watts or so. How could something be so high?

Cable modems and servers weren’t designed for standby. Also, if we’re talking consumer tech from the 1970’s or 1980’s, I think it’s twofold. Firstly, the market cared more about “time to wake up” than about power usage. People had fewer devices, they were (relatively) more expensive, and people were used to fully switching off stuff, so standby power usage wasn’t seen as a big issue. Secondly, the tech itself didn’t…