POPULAR RECENT STORIES

Techlogg.com RSS news feed

feed image
feed image

Login for our FREE daily newsletter






Lost Password?
No account yet? Register

Who's Online

We have 3 guests online
Visits today: 759
Visits yesterday: 815
Visits month: 5204
Visits total: 138953
Max.monthly visits: 24649
  occurred: 2008-9
Pages this month: 21153
Pages total: 753936
Data since: 2008-04-09
Blackle vs Google power savings – the final test PDF Print E-mail
Written by Darren Yates   
Wednesday, 08 August 2007




Del.icio.us!

StumbleUpon!

We’ve boosted our testing to now include 27 monitors so we’re now pretty certain we know what to expect after our final series of tests.

UPDATE 31 March 2008: Hi everyone. Some respondents have mentioned that LCD brightness has an affect on power consumption. Well, it certainly does. We carried out a small test last October and wrote up the results in a story called "Backlight consumes two-thirds of LCD monitor power"
 

Our tests on Blackle versus Google has been reported on by major newspapers and sites around the world. Well, while a few people have managed to pull out a monitor or two to test how much power they consume running the two search sites, we think we’ll have to last word.

27 monitors.

Yep, we’ve tested 27 monitors, including some 23 LCD monitors, to find out once and for all how both of these search engines stack up on monitor power consumption.

We’ve taken a range of sizes and brands to try and get the most reliable test results possible.

There’s no argument that on CRT monitors, Blackle does reduce the power consumption but it’s not by the 15-watts claimed. We tested the four CRT monitors we could get our hands on and found that only one unit, an older 22-inch Compaq, showed the 15-watts or more power differential.

But with the LCD monitor market penetration worldwide now beyond 75%, it’s the LCD monitor power consumption that’s just as, if not more, important.

The most interesting aspect we found was that of the LCD monitors we tested of size 22-inches or less, all showed an increase in power consumption using Blackle. Beyond the 22-inch mark however, five of the six models showed a fractional decrease in power consumption when using Blackle, except the ViewSonic VX2835wm, which showed a 2.2-watt increase.

For the five that dropped their power consumption, the average drop was 3.16-watts, again, not the 15-watts being suggested.

But for the sake of fairness, here’s what we suggest – if you’re using a CRT monitor, you can save some power by using Blackle however it won’t be as much as its supporters will have you believe. We still think it’s around half.

If you’re using a 22-inch or smaller LCD screen, stick with Google if you want to keep power consumption to a minimum. However, if you have a 24-inch or larger LCD monitor, on average, Blackle is the cheaper option but it’s not a guarantee – as we said, we found one 28-inch LCD monitor that bucked that trend.

However, the power consumption difference between Google and Blackle on all 23 LCD monitors was as small as you could get – an increase of 100mW (0.1Watts). So after all that testing, we’re in a better position to say that anyone else that Blackle makes next to no difference, on average, with LCD monitors.

If you’re really serious about saving energy, here’s just a couple of tips that will make far more difference: switch off your computer at the end of the day and don’t bother with a screensaver, because every screensaver costs power to run.

UPDATE August 10, 2007 - If you're serious about wanting to save power with your computer, read this story. We've outlined five simple ways  based on our tests that we can all use to help save amounts of energy that far exceed what you can do with a search engine.   

Darren Yates is a B.Sc. (electronics) graduate of Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. 

Monitor Size
(inch)
Resolution (pixels) Google
(watts)
Blackle
(watts)
Power difference (watts)
LCD models




LG SW570LE 15 1024x768 26.2 26.5 -0.3
AOC LM721 17 1280x1024 33.1 33.5 -0.4
Acer AL1916W 19 1440x900 28.3 28.8 -0.5
BenQ FP93G 19 1280x1024 31.1 31.9 -0.8
LG L1917S 19 1440x900 33.3 33.4 -0.1
LG L192WS 19 1440x900 24.5 25.1 -0.6
LG L196W 19 1440x900 38.6 39.7 -1.1
ViewSonic VX1932wm 19 1440x900 35.5 36 -0.5
Asus VW202 20 1680x1050 35.7 37.2 -1.5
BenQ FP202W 20 1680x1050 43.6 44.3 -0.7
Acer AL2216W 22 1680x1050 30.5 32 -1.5
Asus PG221 22 1680x1050 54.9 55.9 -1
Asus VW222 22 1680x1050 43.2 43.4 -0.2
BenQ FP222W 22 1680x1050 40.7 41.9 -1.2
LG L226W 22 1680x1050 39.9 42 -2.1
Samsung 226BW 22 1680x1050 43.6 44.8 -1.2
ViewSonic VX2255wmh 22 1680x1050 41.3 42.4 -1.1
BenQ FP241W 24 1920x1200 87.4 85.2 2.2
Dell 2407WFP-HC 24 1920x1200 82.7 81.3 1.4
NEC LCD2490WUXi 24 1920x1200 73.7 69.6 4.1
NEC LCD2690WUXi 26 1920x1200 89.3 85.2 4.1
ViewSonic VX2835wm 28 1920x1200 106.8 109 -2.2
Samsung 305T 30 2560x1600 111.5 107.5 4
AVERAGES

51.1 51.2 -0.1
CRT models




Acer AC915 19 1280x1024 75.9 64.6 11.3
Compaq P1210 22 1280x960 112.6 96.2 16.4
Digital PCXBV-HY 15 1024x768 73.6 65.1 8.5
Mitsubishi DV1770 17 1024x768 72.5 65.4 7.1
AVERAGES

83.7 72.8 10.8

Comments
Add New Search
wow gold   |220.178.20.xxx |2008-10-07 06:44:33
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
shanghai escort
http://item4sale.com  - http://item4sale.com     |220.178.20.xxx |2008-10-07 06:11:41
okjfg10 Eugene0810
http://item4sale.com  - http://item4sale.com     |220.178.20.xxx |2008-10-06 10:01:18
okjfg10 Eugene0810
http://item4sale.com  - http://item4sale.com     |220.178.20.xxx |2008-10-06 08:27:18
okjfg10 Eugene0810
wow gold   |220.178.20.xxx |2008-09-28 01:33:12
yyadd30 123snowing
wow gold
wow gold
[url=http://www.iae-longre.com/country/USA/]
PCHS-NJROTC  - Manufacturer vs. Screen Size   |74.4.127.xxx |2008-09-21 00:37:31
If you look closely at the LCD monitors tested that saved energy when using
Blackle, you'll notice that they were not only different sizes, but they were
also manufacturered by different companies. The larger View Sonic used more
energy on Blackle than Google just as the smaller View Sonics. The Dell monitor,
however, used less energy with Blackle. I think it's more of an issue with the
monitor brands than the monitor sizes.
Ankur Dewani  - Bandwidth at risk     |60.254.14.xxx |2008-09-15 06:01:17
Considering that blackle works only on CRT it might be a waste when it comes to
our new tech of Plasmas and LCD's using liquid display.... But Energy is only 1
part of the concern, there is also the myth of the internet bandwidth being
limited.
( http://news.cnet.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html ) and various articles
covered in the past few months have all been focused around how Ineternet usage
and bandwidth would be 50 times more than today and the content created then
would jam the internet space.

Typically utilization of bandwidth and usage is
directly proportional to the no.,quality & results of QUERIES that a user inputs
from the moment he logs on. These queries can be as simple as searching, or as
intense as uploading. At the end of it, its all about minimizing the no. of
queries.

We are trying to research the potential ways of minimizing these
queries by pre-defining most searched "keywords" & "categories"...
Jon   |24.5.219.xxx |2008-07-12 09:10:34
Hello Daren, I find your results for the monitor power tests very interesting.
Can I reference your article in my website/blog?

-Jon
Tim Mantyla  - Combine all methods     |152.160.55.xxx |2008-06-23 16:57:50
Someone should put up a website, or an article on one, that combines all methods of saving power.

I had to wade through countless comments to understand all these. How
many readers will do that?

Each method should be backed with solid research to be credible. Then get the EPA Energy Star site and other ecology
organizations to recommend the site or article.

And Blackle, as well
as Google, could put a choice of search engine displays:


"Click here to save power if you have a CRT or LCD (larger than
22")" and 

"Click here to save power with a small
LCD monitor."

Pretty darn simple.
BB     |206.169.169.xxx |2008-05-13 17:32:11
Start a campaign to force Google to go black.
Start a campaign to force
browser vendors to default the background color to black.

Use Brightle if you
want to save polar bears. http://brightle.com
Amit Tiwari  - HAHA   |206.126.163.xxx |2008-05-02 12:12:32
Keep your monitor turned off, you will save all the power !!!

saving .3
watts for a stupid site is not worth.
Tim Mantyla  - Micro-savings add up to macro-savings     |152.160.55.xxx |2008-06-23 19:06:07
Actually, if you do the math, it is worth it. Just do everything you can and watch the savings add up.

Remember that your actions, mirrored by thousands or millions of people, over time add up to huge savings.

You may not see or feel it--but your grandchildren (and theirs) will thank you in the future for doing the smart things now.
palmtree3000  - micro savings   |208.59.92.xxx |2008-08-04 21:05:13
Every Blackle search first hits the Blackle server, then goes to the Google
server. A Google search only goes to the Google server. So, Blackle is *wasting*
energy by setting up a new server, much more than its infinitesimal savings.
Aztec  - The end is near   |200.169.16.xxx |2007-10-31 18:58:16
I hear the world will end in 01/06/2014 so don't worrie with that...
Brazilian guy  - Its bullshit   |200.169.16.xxx |2007-10-31 18:56:02
I don't know why all this tests if the world will end in 01/06/2014... :?
sanjay   |74.99.170.xxx |2007-09-26 13:39:59
You might want to note that blackle is just the homepage of
www.searchincolor.com, which has offered web search in different colors since a
much longer time. In general, all dark backgrounds on light text are energy
saving-less illumination of the CRT-less pixel activation.


Sanjay
Henry   |71.135.44.xxx |2007-09-12 06:07:01
Use GreenBackSearch.com--the only proven way to really actually save energy. How can they do this
where other search engines fail? They use the search revenue
to purchase carbon offsets on your behalf. I kind of think that their
black background is just a distraction. The real value is in taking
the search revenue and spending it on sustainable energy and
reforestation projects.
Christene  - Blackle Sucks   |59.93.201.xxx |2007-09-11 18:02:33
Yes, there are several things going on with blackle, but people tend to
forget that there is more need of user interactivity then the
stupid blackle itself.
Now the age is of VIDEOS users are not going
to shift from google to blackle just like that. There is a site
named http://www.yaarii.com that gives the option to search videos as
well as as the regular web search. I think I would bookmark this site
, because it gives the option to see any video in the same page
without moving your ass!
Pandora's BoxVIDEOS
truth  - gimme a break   |216.36.133.xxx |2007-09-10 21:06:50
If people knew what saving a milliwat actually meant, this would have died long
ago, worrying about using ablack google site over the regular one, even if it
did save a few milliwatt's is like going to mcdonalds, ordering one of
everything, and washing it all down with a "diet" coke to try and stay
thin
Michael   |67.164.113.xxx |2007-09-09 01:20:36
How much energy was wasted in order to perform this experiment?
Greenle  - I use Greenle   |70.80.131.xxx |2007-09-08 01:05:46
Greenle is cool, because they're not pretending to be saving energy.

Greenle - Green Web Search
Jason  - www.regrowgle.com - actually doing somet   |203.23.42.xxx |2007-09-03 05:02:32
This is in response to the recent posts on blackle which got under my skin a)
because it isn't really agreed on that it works and b) he's actually making
money from it, but it goes into his own pockets!!!

Since it is is common
knowledge that black pages in general don't do anything productive, I would
suggest regrowgle.com as an alternative.

I know it's not the answer to
everything, but unlike blackle etc who are making money from uneducated
searchers, regrowgle.com re-invests any profit back into environmental schemes
in a bid to try and offset a small part of your web use.
volkon  - programmer   |65.189.131.xxx |2007-08-30 16:09:11
The best way to reduce enegy use to help yourself and the planet is to
reduce the time you are on the computer. Instead of 18 hours a day
surfing Japanese porn sites, lower it to 9. :grin null
Daryl  - Power wastage   |192.148.221.xxx |2007-08-28 22:34:53
SS, volts does not equate to power. In purely physics terms of the resulting
picture, more energy must be required to emit a brighter image. There is much
waste power in both CRT (compare to LCD) and LCD (continuous back light). Is
there any research into producing VDUs (including TVs and projectors) that use
high efficiency LEDs?
Chris O'Brien  - Mr   |81.107.80.xxx |2007-08-28 21:24:03
Obviously a way to reduce the power consumption - and your carbon footprint - is
to turn down the brightness of your screen - regardless of whether its a CRT or
LCD. My 20" dell LCD only needs to be at 40% brightness max. My Apple laptop
runs for longer on a less bright setting which is fine for most situations.
Makes sense really!
Andrew  - The real benefit of black screens   |58.105.88.xxx |2007-08-20 03:41:00
White text on a black background is much less harmful to your sight than the
usual black on white.
Gopal   |59.95.228.xxx |2007-08-17 15:55:10
There is a option in every browser to change the color. If anybody is too much
concerned about energy saving should go and change the option in their browser.
and should not force it to the website. for
firefox....

tool->option->content->colours , Use common sense after
that.

:D
SS  - black requires more power (not less)   |124.104.119.xxx |2007-08-17 05:22:14
Pls confirm this guys bec it was so long ago..

Read the biasing of CRT of the
monitors. Creating a black signal actually requires a bias voltage than white..
therefore. a black or gray image requires more power than pure white..

Hv u
notice when no signal is present that ur TV is white snow noise?
Darren Yates  - Yes, you're right, Paul.   |202.168.106.xxx |2007-08-12 10:10:42
This is the figure I think introduced by Mark Ontkush that came from market
research firm DisplaySearch however on reading the source (DisplaySearch) at
http://www.displaysearch.com/press/?id=781, here's what the statement actually
said "With worldwide penetration rates of LCD monitors reaching 74.7% for
all desktop monitors in Q1'06, and with Q1'06 being naturally a slow quarter for
B2B and B2C,..."
Does it mean 74.7% of all desktop PCs in that first
quarter of 2006 were sold with LCD monitors? Does it mean that 74.7% of desktop
PC monitors were LCD for that quarter?
Given the figure was 74.7% for Q1, 2006,
it's more than likely higher than that now.
While the figure affects how much
energy is saved given the vagueries of the LCD to CRT proportions, it doesn't
change the test results or my conclusions that if you're using an LCD, use
Google; if you have a CRT, Blackle will give you some power saving but not as
Paul Heckbert  - Meaning of the 75% statistic   |63.199.191.xxx |2007-08-12 07:00:45
What does "the LCD monitor market penetration worldwide [is] now beyond
75%" mean, exactly? Is this the percentage of purchases that are LCD, or
the percentage or monitors in use that are LCD, or the percentage of hours or
watts?

If we're going to get quantitative in this discussion, we should be
more precise with our statistics.
broom   |84.113.212.xxx |2007-08-11 09:21:21
would it really make that much of a difference? i mean lots and lots of pages
are white bg with black text color. i usually use google for searching and them
i'm done with it. all in all i guess i've spent more 'energy' reading this site
and the comments than i spend with googling for something in a whole week, it's
not that people have the google site on fullscreen 24/7 no?

i completely
agree with darren there are lots of other more sensible ways to save energy than
pointing the finger at google and 'telling them to make their page black'.
Brian   |160.33.20.xxx |2007-08-10 16:54:07
So here's the answer:

If you're a do-gooder, use blacle.

If your like me
and dont care- use google.
Mark Ontkush  - Sure   |68.166.230.xxx |2007-08-10 13:48:20
I think we finally fully see each others points here. Generally, and not to be
funny, I don't particularly fight for particular solutions, I merely point them
out. The ideas you suggest - turning off monitors, adjusting brightness and
contrast, etc. - these are good ideas as well, and I write about them regularly
on my column at Treehugger. While some are better than, there's no reason not
to consider all of them.

mjo
Darren Yates  - I get your point...   |202.168.106.xxx |2007-08-10 12:42:57
Mark, yes, I get your point. One CRT's power savings will be more than extra
energy used by three or four LCD monitors, I understand that. But have you
considered fighting for something more useful, such as getting business to turn
off their PCs at night for example?? The number of CRT monitors in the world is
shrinking but that number and the energy wasted by business PCs left on
overnight would dwarf any savings from a black Google screen. My point in these
stories was to show that a black google screen doesn't save as much as was
originally suggested - I think I've done that.
Did you read my other story
about ways to save power? The amounts of power that could be saved by getting
business to switch off at night leave this black-screen stuff for dead. I guess
it all depends on what your agenda is, I guess.
Mark Ontkush  - Or do this   |68.166.230.xxx |2007-08-10 12:30:26
Heres a experiment for you to try. pick three of those lcd monitors and plug
them into a power strip. then pick one of those CRT monitors, and plug that
into the same power strip. then plug the power strip into your testing
equipment, kill-a-watt,etc. then plug that into the wall outlet.

turn on all
the machines and get them all connected to the internet. Now show white Google
in full screen on all of them. Get the reading off your test equipment. Now
show Blackle or a Black Google in full screen on all of them. Read your testing
equipment.

You have two readings now, the second should be lower than the
first. Can you explain why?

mark