Power consumption of the 6100 vs 5100
-
@keyser I want to make sure I purchase the correct/compatible SSD. If you don't mind, can you please provide the brand/model of the 512Gb SSD you've installed? Thanks in advance.
-
@raystn said in Power consumption of the 6100 vs 5100:
@keyser I want to make sure I purchase the correct/compatible SSD. If you don't mind, can you please provide the brand/model of the 512Gb SSD you've installed? Thanks in advance.
Transcend 512GB, M.2 2242, PCIE GEN3X2, B+M KEY (TS512GMTE452T)
-
@keyser Thanks, I appreciate it.
-
I just looked up the TDP for the 4100's CPU C3338R (10,5W) and the 6100's CPU C3558 (16W). I am not a CPU geek so how does this work? Just based on the TDP's the 4100 should consume 5,5W less than the 6100 but that's not the case.
6100 readings below are all in the 14W-15W range.
A buddy of mine has a 4100 and it's consuming 14W on his meter, two 1G ports in use, eMMC and very basic config.So how does TDP translate to real world energy consumption?
@stephenw10 said in Power consumption of the 6100 vs 5100:
With the internal devices removed (wifi, modem, SSD), only an single 1G link and powerd enabled I see ~11W. That's at idle.
So 11W for a 16W TDP, this means that the CPU doesn't necessarily reach its TDP value in real action.
@stephenw10 said in Power consumption of the 6100 vs 5100:
A spot figure for a 6100 I have here is 15W with only 1x1G and 2x2.5G NICs linked but that also has other internal devices.
@keyser said in Power consumption of the 6100 vs 5100:
@Cabledude I don’t think it does matter to be honest. My 6100 measures about 14 watt with two 1Gbe ports active (both using SFPs) and a 512Gb SSD installed. I do not have PowerD enabled.
I hope you don't mind me hammering on about this, but energy consumption is very important to me and if I could save 5W (4100 vs 6100) it would be an important aspect to consider.
You know I think the 4100 is beefy enough for me now, but I am considering the 6100 for only 200 more just in case I need it later. -
Thermal Design Power simply means the power the cooling system must be able to dissipate. So the maximum power it might consume.
So at low loads neither CPU should consume anywhere near that.
Also bare in mind those plug-top style power meters are not that accurate, they are uncalibrated. And that that includes the PSU which will be less efficient at low loads.
-
@stephenw10 said in Power consumption of the 6100 vs 5100:
Thermal Design Power simply means the power the cooling system must be able to dissipate. So the maximum power it might consume.
So at low loads neither CPU should consume anywhere near that.
Okay I see. I just looked up TDP for the Celeron J4125 (my Synology DS720+ NAS) is 10W, but at idle that unit, including two Samsung 250GB SSD’s, consumes 6W total.
Also bare in mind those plug-top style power meters are not that accurate, they are calibrated. And that that includes the PSU which will be less efficient at low loads.
Yes good point. Still, measuring my buddy’s 4100 vs. my (future) 6100 using the same meter should give a pretty good indication.
-
@keyser said in Power consumption of the 6100 vs 5100:
How about getting a SG-2100? It’s the same as 1100, but has 4Gb RAM and an additional NIC with allows a good deal more peak throughput (about 600’ish Mbps).
So it will handle the 500Mbps if you do not enable NTOPNG. If you enable that, expect the throughput to drop to 250-300Mbps peak.
Most importantly: power consumption is very very low,Dear @keyser ,
Have you ever measured the power consumption of your SG-2100? And do you have the Base (eMMC) or the Max (NVMe SSD) version?Thanks so much!
-
My 2100 was bought as the standard version and I used it as such initially (230v Europe supply).
Back then i did some measurements on it and it idle’ed at about 4,2 watt when using two RJ45 port, and would go to 6w under “heavy load”I later upgraded it with a 480Gb SSD and a 1000base-bx20 SFP for direct fiber Connect of My ISP WAN, and it then idle’ed at about 5,3w and could reach 8.5w under “heavy” load that also incurred a lot of writing to SSD.
If less writing was done, it peaked at about 7,5wSo a Very power efficient - But not Very powerfull - device.
-
My SG2100 with 32GB SSD use 6W, EU 230V.
-
@NOCling Note the difference in 110v US vs 230v EU supplies - US supplies will cost you .2 to .4w more power because of the less efficient transformation
-
Thank you both for your insights.
@keyser may I ask why you decided to get a 6100 despite being so pleased with the 2100?
Kind regards,
-
@Cabledude I have both boxes and are happy with them both - I upgraded my 2100 at my home to a 6100 because I went from 500/500mbps to 1000/1000.
And nearly at the same time I got a 2nd house for summer periods with 500Mbps GPON - which is where my 2100 now lives ;-) -
@keyser Until the summer house came up I considered just keeping the 2100 on my 1000/1000 line, but it maxes out at about 540mbit in my usecase, and about 620mbit if I dial it down to a bare minimum config. Not really optimal for such a ISP link.
-
@keyser Good thinking. That's nice, a summer house
So you chose eMMC on both boxes, but added SSD to the 2100? Or did you get the 6100 max?
Actually it's a pity you had to upgrade to such an expensive higher tier model just for the connection speed. Your 6100 is probably idling away most of the day I reckon? -
@Cabledude A summer house (even though it is TINY) is such a privilige that I cannot even begin to tell you how lucky I feel
Yeah, I got the base model in both cases - and upgraded them both with a 500Gb'ish SSD because I - luckily - realized soon enough that my use of logging, pfBlockerNG, NtopNG and Syslog-NG would kill the eMMC on both boxes in short order.
I stage logs for my switch and access points on each site in Syslog-NG, filters it and transfers it with TCP to my Raspberry Pi log analyzer (Geeky - i know....
)The 6100 is way overkill for 1000/1000 - it is never above 20% utilization on CPU or Memory. It would require use of the 10Gbe interfaces to go higher - but at least a have that for future use now.
At the time there was no 4100 which would be the much more obvious and sufficient choice. The 3100 which was the alternative was going EOL and already suffered from not being a 64bit device (no ZFS filesystem fx.), so that was never actually in play.
