Sandy Bridge consumes that much at full load, but that can also be said of current gen processors (which incidentally usually go even higher).
At idle or low load, Sandy Bridge is plenty economical just sipping power. These aren't Pentium 4s which guzzle power like it's draining Texas of its all its oil even at idle.
My Sandy Bridge i7 2700K is sipping 10W at idle/low load right now, and that's actually lower than my Alder Lake i7 12700K that's sipping 15W at idle/low load. At high loads they go up to 95W and 150W respectively, which still comes out in favor of Sandy Bridge.
>At idle or low load, Sandy Bridge is plenty economical just sipping power.
"Sipping power" is a bit of an overstatement. Sure, at 35W idle, they were very lower for the time but modern <10nm monolithic die CPUs are way more economically than the older 32nm, 22nm, and 14nm CPUs though. That can't be argued.
A 12th Gen quad core NUC CPU will use at full load what Sandy Bridge quad core uses at idle, while also getting better performance.
Yes, at full load a 12th gen NUC will be more efficient. But if you're just using the old system as a home server, most the time the CPU is idling and not consuming much more power than a new NUC.
Also an old system is likely in a case that accepts multiple drives. That NUC is not going to have space for my 3.5" storage drives. Yes I could invest in NVME SSD's, but the point of this is low cost and using parts I already have.
I have 10+ old 3.5" HDD's laying around, if one dies I can easily swap it out at zero cost to me and keep my home server going.
>That NUC is not going to have space for my 3.5" storage drives.
We were just comparing CPU power usage. We're going off-road here and splitting hairs trying to cater to the needs of every enthusiast who builds his custom home lab.
Nobody's telling you how you should build your NAS or home lab, but the point about big differences in CPU power consumption across >10 years of progress still stands.
Where do you get this number 35W from? My Ivy Bridge 3470 idles at 7 watt (cpu only). Most of energy is consumed by the monitor anyway (20-25 Watt) anyway, so the energy savings are minuscule.
Idle power consumption is hard to compare because peripherals, configuration and firmware have enormous sway.
However, painting with broad brushes, Sandy Bridge has modern power management and idles comparably to newer CPUs (a lot better than some modern ones even).
(Not the same commenter) HWInfo64 can report your CPU power consumption. Some digital power supplies can also give power for specific parts, like corsair iCue compatible PSU's
Well if you count expected power consumption of each component and limited efficiency of the power supply, plus reports of people idling their 3470 based machines at 12w (full system) yeah, good enough. I mean what is your point? The 35W idle for Ivy Bridge CPU only is a ridiculous claim, that should be retracted IMO.
I've got an Ivy Bridge quad core system in my closet that my UPS states is currently using ~15W of power with a few HDDs in it and an extra NIC as well. 35W idle CPU usage is thoroughly incorrect.
Sandy Bridge consumes that much at full load, but that can also be said of current gen processors (which incidentally usually go even higher).
At idle or low load, Sandy Bridge is plenty economical just sipping power. These aren't Pentium 4s which guzzle power like it's draining Texas of its all its oil even at idle.
My Sandy Bridge i7 2700K is sipping 10W at idle/low load right now, and that's actually lower than my Alder Lake i7 12700K that's sipping 15W at idle/low load. At high loads they go up to 95W and 150W respectively, which still comes out in favor of Sandy Bridge.