The area I think where this would do fairly well would be as a SMB server. I know I tend to keep things for far longer than 5 years which would be the break even point on the cost - once they have something that works, and works well (and works correctly) they'll leave it in place until it dies, and for something as simple as file serving, you just want something durable and reliable.
Another great use is a HTPC. My HTPC uses a 35-watt haswell CPU. Passive cooling isn't an option because of location, so fans are required. Another 10 watt reduction in system heat would allow the fans to run just a little slower, making my nearly silent PC even quieter.
One other thing, my HTPC is on 24/7 and transcoding almost all the time. I would see a $25 savings in electricity over 3 years, and an HTPC should be able to last much longer (because it's just an appliance). The cost savings would be secondary (noise being the biggest factor).
My PC is number-crunching 24/7, so saving 12 W would save me about 6€/year (yeah, no fracking in Germany). A Z97 ECO could be interesting, because even with massive undervolting to ~1.0 V, current Intel CPUs are still asking to be OC'ed to ~4.0 GHz. I couldn't do that with a B chipset.
Is your math right? Your cost saving number seems low. For 24/7/365 operation a 1W load corresponds to 8.76 kwh/year; at an electricity price of 11.5 cents per kwh (reasonably close for most of the US) it works out as a dollar per wattyear or $12/year savings. My understanding is that German electric prices are several times higher, and am wondering if you lost a zero in your calculations.
"We used MSI’s base numbers (which in the world of marketing usually show the product in the best light possible), and calculated that in comparison to a standard range motherboard the MSI ECO can make financial sense to users with a 4-5 year upgrade cycle. Any shorter and it won’t make sense, though arguably our own numbers showed that the more the system is used in terms of loading, the better the financial outcome. If businesses are sticking to a 3 year upgrade cycle, this might not be enough of a saving to make sense."
It's worth keeping in mind for breakeven considerations that a price that's marginal at average electric prices will be a big winner in areas that have prices well above average. Hawaii pays almost 3x the national average, New York (and much of new england) are roughly one and a half times the average.
While the target market and idea is noble, I'm thinking... unless MSI can get an OEM to use these boards, I just don't see any business bulk ordering them from Newegg and assembling those thousands of custom rigs.
OEMs don't generally use retail boards, they contract out for their own variant. I can't see them doing that with this design right now because of the tight margins involved in PC sales and the difficulty in marketing a computer that's 10% more energy-efficient.
For $73 this would be right at home in a SMB or home server, HTPC (although with all the little android boxes out there this is a rapidly dying segment) or just your average little desktop. Even without the ECO claims the board isn't overpriced.
i alerdy confuse about this spesification is Four DDR4 DIMM slots supporting up to 32 GB Up to Dual Channel, 1600 MHz, but the test setup is G.Skill RipjawsZ 2x4 GB DDR3-1600 9-11-9 Kit, DDR3 , what the real spesification?
I live in Germany witch seems to be a target market going by the "TÜV-Saarland" certification and a medium size buisness I do the IT for has electrical costs of ~0.26€ / kWh = 0.32$ / kWh. Using your workyear assumptions this gives us savings of 7.73$ per year. With a more realistical 5 year product cycle you would save nearly 38$.
For office (and other non demanding uses) wouldn't it make more sense to go j1900 route rather than eco 1150 + celeron/pentium/i3 cpu ? It will use way less power than 1150 + fanless by default (even more power savings).
For most office work, you're probably right. But a socketed platform does offer a potential upgrade path if the dynamics of the work change to something more computationally intensive. Also going down the LGA1150 route offers faster response times, which some businesses might argue is important when continuously dealing with emails and so on. It really depends on the scenario.
"One of the points in the review was the inability to select a lower CPU voltage. Both voltage and frequency have a role in total system power consumption, but when full performance is still needed, voltage is the only variable left to modify. I posed this question to MSI, and received the following response:
“We actually did try to do some testing with lower CPU voltage settings. The reason why we didn’t include it into the current BIOS is because we think Intel’s current FIVR architecture puts too many limits inside their design and we [would] rather use Intel’s integrated power saving features like C-State (Up to C7) and also SVID power. But it’s still a good suggestion that we can request our R&D to do more testing and check if we can fine tune better settings to enhance the power saving ability.”"
Lazy excuse in my book, considering that its still possible to undervolt current generation Intel CPUs quite a bit, at least when it comes to load voltage susually something between 0.1 - 0.2 V. As a MB manufacturer I can imagine that it would even be possible to play around with everything between idle and full load voltage, something a normal user cant do.
So instead of waisting their time on hot marketing air, develop something along the lines of auto-OC software or as an option in BIOS, but instead of overclocking let it undervolt the CPU automatically until it fails. But please no "1-2-3 click ready nonsense" of predefined values, more along the lines of a small stress test, which lowers the voltage by 0.02V or something like that after every sucessfull pass. The perfect end result would be a bios voltage table (or in software), which fits the cpu installed - we all know the silicon lottery here. In an approach like this, lies much potential for saving energy.
I've worked in the cubicles of many large corporations, and most people just log off their session or lock their screens at the end of the day, they don't turn the computer off. So cost savings would be even more interesting in these scenarios.
So do unused ports and slots use power? Like if you use just 2 ddr3 SLOTS do the empty slots use power? Same with SATA and PCIE? So if the case is so why not use a MITX motherboard?
You cant just look at the cost to run the motherboard. What about an eco friendly Monitor? Then there is the heat that is created to use the motherboard. During the summer or in say a server room something is cooling off the hot air.
I hadn't really noticed that Anand wasn't reviewing business class motherboards. I picked up a H97 GAMING 3 MSI board for my wife a few weeks back.. certainly doesn't look like a business board.. but it does come with all the software. Maybe you will get a chance to review that one in coming months..
Anyway, on this one I almost thought it was a Sniper board at first geez.. GREEN.. Waiting to see your matx x99 review.. should be interesting!
I LOLed when seeing the TÜV Logos. There're only few certifications like GS that follow a normed procedure. Other than that you can basically specify the test procedure and criteria, deliver the products (and a boatload of cash) and they will certify you that your products passed test procedures by the criteria you've specified. Very useful...
The important point of information I'm missing here is: What were the tests? What were the passing criteria? Is there any competition which underwent the same certification and if so what were the results?
I have an HTPC/NAS/Steam Mini-ITX thats on 24/7 and is several years old. It's next replacement cycle would likely last 5+ years, and the lowered power draw (plus lower heat) would be a no brainer over that lifetime. Could also see a market for personal servers and the like in Mini-ITX.
I would echo the request for undervolting access, even if its rarely worth it. The option would be appreciated to tinker with, if nothing else.
I think the point of these "eco" boards is determined by the economy of scale. For a real world example, you would need to replace dozens if not hundreds of workstations/desktops in an office to realize the true savings potential. If one workstations nets a few dollars a year in savings on power costs, multiply that by the number of workstations that will be replaced, multiply that by the # of years between hardware refresh cycles and that will add up the potential power savings.
MSI should be selling this "ECO" brand to OEMs like Dell, HP, etc. and then the savings can be distributed on a mass market scale.
The cost delta between a non-ECO branded board and an ECO board is not worth it for SMB's and home users.
The price of electricity does not take into account the true cost of it's generation.
It might be good to also consider the amount of fuel that is required or carbon output for example 1kWh of electricity requires ~0.5kg of coal and produces ?? kg of carbon dioxide.
so assuming a 5 year upgrade cycle is going to happen no matter what, you are still stopping ~27.5kg of coal from being burned each year or 137.5kg over the life of the mobo. multiple by the number of machines in an office and every little bit helps.
Should the energy savings and cost savings not also include the cost for air conditioning/cooling? I know that server rooms care about that. So there should be at least some back of the envelope numbers which should increase the amount of savings somewhat.
One thing I wanted to point out: 300 Watt power supply? Eh eh...... even a bargain basement, non-gaming intended dicrete graphics card needs 400 Watts minimum, unless it is the REALLY cheap ones sold to HP/Dell/Gateway for their office PC's. A regular person cannot even order one of those unless they go online and 'lie' to the HP parts person telling them "Yeah, my video card died and I want to replace it myself, can I order one of your replacement discrete graphics cards?" 400 Watts is a more realistic minimum for a system with a discrete graphics card, though with the new integrated graphics from Intel being able to push HD 1080p and 1920*1080 resolution other content without a stutter while using less than 2% of the CPU's power on an i5..... they might have an argument that no one needs a discrete graphics card who is not an uber-gamer anymore.
Actually, a 300 watt power supply should be enough to power a single GTX 980. However, Ian was presumably thinking about the standard business PC, which uses integrated graphics these days. As you correctly note in your last paragraph, the primary market for discrete graphics cards is now gamers.
Thanks for reviewing a non-flagship board. Like others who have commented here, I could see something like this finding a home in a future personal build for productivity, light engineering and moderate gaming. And it's $25 to $50 less than the Z-series boards. Please, more like this in the uATX and mITX form factors!
Some feedback for MSI (and other board OEMs): ditch the (non-express) PCI already, please? Any business willing to buy enough of these isn't going to stick PCI add-in boards inside (assuming they can still find drivers for use with their modern operating systems). I would suggest eliminating the PCI slot altogether and keeping the x16 slot separated from the other 2 PCIe slots, as a lot of even low-end GPU cards (for business multi-monitor, say) are at least a double-slot width - rendering the 2nd slot unusable in those situations anyway, and make at least 1 of the remaining slots at least physically x8.
This seems like a really stupid test of the power efficiency since that is the main focus. A REAL PSU, like a bronze or higher rated PSU in the 350-500w range should have been used. Either a standard B85, or H85/7 or something should have been compared to it. you have a board with an over abundance of features versus one bereft.
Otherwise it is apples to oranges.
Also, if MSI's claims are accurate, the ECO frankly sucks. My Sever with a G1610 in it, H67, 8GB (2x4GB) G.Skill [email protected], SSD, 2 HDDs plugged in and a pair of Intel Gigabit CT NICs and Antec Earth Watts 380 burned 21w at idle, drives spun down. The ENTIRE system uses less than what MSI claims a typical uATX boards uses at idle. Based on Intel's numbers for some things like the NICs, I have to assume that the board is using at MOST 15w and probably closer to 12w.
Seems like at most we are talking 2-3w of power savings MAYBE comapred to a VAGUELY similar board.
Being an enthusiast site AT always played down power consumption numbers. But just making assumptions and low balling 4 different variables (price, hours, efficiency, years of operation) is both cumbersome and somewhat disingenuous. A more elegant way would be to create a realistic range for those variables and combine them into coefficients for min, max and typical scenarios. You could even do typical US, typical EU, UK, India or whatever. For me every 1 W saved 24/7 equals 2 EUR/annum, also 66 cent per Watt per year assuming 8 hours a day operation. Not to mention that PCs actually last anywhere from 5 to 10 years, though they are much less frequently used, once they are handed down to relatives.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
Back to Article
Jaaap - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
For these ECO boards it would be very interesting to get and idle power for a setup without external videocard.Jaaap - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
Arg i should read better: 21W minimumklagermkii - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
Thanks for showing separate idle and load power usage in the review and not just delta.bill.rookard - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
The area I think where this would do fairly well would be as a SMB server. I know I tend to keep things for far longer than 5 years which would be the break even point on the cost - once they have something that works, and works well (and works correctly) they'll leave it in place until it dies, and for something as simple as file serving, you just want something durable and reliable.mike_m_ekim - Friday, December 12, 2014 - link
Another great use is a HTPC. My HTPC uses a 35-watt haswell CPU. Passive cooling isn't an option because of location, so fans are required. Another 10 watt reduction in system heat would allow the fans to run just a little slower, making my nearly silent PC even quieter.mike_m_ekim - Friday, December 12, 2014 - link
One other thing, my HTPC is on 24/7 and transcoding almost all the time. I would see a $25 savings in electricity over 3 years, and an HTPC should be able to last much longer (because it's just an appliance). The cost savings would be secondary (noise being the biggest factor).MrSpadge - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
My PC is number-crunching 24/7, so saving 12 W would save me about 6€/year (yeah, no fracking in Germany). A Z97 ECO could be interesting, because even with massive undervolting to ~1.0 V, current Intel CPUs are still asking to be OC'ed to ~4.0 GHz. I couldn't do that with a B chipset.DanNeely - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
Is your math right? Your cost saving number seems low. For 24/7/365 operation a 1W load corresponds to 8.76 kwh/year; at an electricity price of 11.5 cents per kwh (reasonably close for most of the US) it works out as a dollar per wattyear or $12/year savings. My understanding is that German electric prices are several times higher, and am wondering if you lost a zero in your calculations.Jaaap - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
You're right. One WattYear is approx 2 euro.MrSpadge - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
8.76 kWh for 11.5 US-ct -> 1 W = 1 $/year in the US8.76 kWh for 23 EUR-ct -> 1 W = 2 €/year in Germany
... the cost is higher over here, but not an order of magnitude :)
DanNeely - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
"We used MSI’s base numbers (which in the world of marketing usually show the product in the best light possible), and calculated that in comparison to a standard range motherboard the MSI ECO can make financial sense to users with a 4-5 year upgrade cycle. Any shorter and it won’t make sense, though arguably our own numbers showed that the more the system is used in terms of loading, the better the financial outcome. If businesses are sticking to a 3 year upgrade cycle, this might not be enough of a saving to make sense."It's worth keeping in mind for breakeven considerations that a price that's marginal at average electric prices will be a big winner in areas that have prices well above average. Hawaii pays almost 3x the national average, New York (and much of new england) are roughly one and a half times the average.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/27/14176634...
xenol - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
While the target market and idea is noble, I'm thinking... unless MSI can get an OEM to use these boards, I just don't see any business bulk ordering them from Newegg and assembling those thousands of custom rigs.Flunk - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
OEMs don't generally use retail boards, they contract out for their own variant. I can't see them doing that with this design right now because of the tight margins involved in PC sales and the difficulty in marketing a computer that's 10% more energy-efficient.For $73 this would be right at home in a SMB or home server, HTPC (although with all the little android boxes out there this is a rapidly dying segment) or just your average little desktop. Even without the ECO claims the board isn't overpriced.
just4U - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
I'd have been more interested in a eco friendly variant that has long life claims similar to Asus Tuff series.mike_m_ekim - Friday, December 12, 2014 - link
Agreed; on the other hand, corporations that order thousands of computers do care about power consumption, so there is a chance of OEM adoption.yudha haryo saputro - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
i alerdy confuse about this spesification is Four DDR4 DIMM slots supporting up to 32 GBUp to Dual Channel, 1600 MHz, but the test setup is G.Skill RipjawsZ 2x4 GB DDR3-1600 9-11-9 Kit,
DDR3 , what the real spesification?
Mikemk - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
LGA 1150 would be DDR3Ian Cutress - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
It's DDR3, a copy/paste error from my table generation. Fixed!yudha haryo saputro - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
okey, Thanks for improvementsimonpschmitt - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
I live in Germany witch seems to be a target market going by the "TÜV-Saarland" certification and a medium size buisness I do the IT for has electrical costs of ~0.26€ / kWh = 0.32$ / kWh. Using your workyear assumptions this gives us savings of 7.73$ per year. With a more realistical 5 year product cycle you would save nearly 38$.simonpschmitt - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
I just found the board online for 68€ witch means one would break even after 2.2 Years.miksmi - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
For servers, I moved to the mini-ITX form factor and am interested in an ECO version. I keep servers 8-10 years.hojnikb - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
For office (and other non demanding uses) wouldn't it make more sense to go j1900 route rather than eco 1150 + celeron/pentium/i3 cpu ?It will use way less power than 1150 + fanless by default (even more power savings).
Ian Cutress - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
For most office work, you're probably right. But a socketed platform does offer a potential upgrade path if the dynamics of the work change to something more computationally intensive. Also going down the LGA1150 route offers faster response times, which some businesses might argue is important when continuously dealing with emails and so on. It really depends on the scenario.Folterknecht - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
"One of the points in the review was the inability to select a lower CPU voltage. Both voltage and frequency have a role in total system power consumption, but when full performance is still needed, voltage is the only variable left to modify. I posed this question to MSI, and received the following response:“We actually did try to do some testing with lower CPU voltage settings. The reason why we didn’t include it into the current BIOS is because we think Intel’s current FIVR architecture puts too many limits inside their design and we [would] rather use Intel’s integrated power saving features like C-State (Up to C7) and also SVID power. But it’s still a good suggestion that we can request our R&D to do more testing and check if we can fine tune better settings to enhance the power saving ability.”"
Lazy excuse in my book, considering that its still possible to undervolt current generation Intel CPUs quite a bit, at least when it comes to load voltage susually something between 0.1 - 0.2 V. As a MB manufacturer I can imagine that it would even be possible to play around with everything between idle and full load voltage, something a normal user cant do.
So instead of waisting their time on hot marketing air, develop something along the lines of auto-OC software or as an option in BIOS, but instead of overclocking let it undervolt the CPU automatically until it fails. But please no "1-2-3 click ready nonsense" of predefined values, more along the lines of a small stress test, which lowers the voltage by 0.02V or something like that after every sucessfull pass.
The perfect end result would be a bios voltage table (or in software), which fits the cpu installed - we all know the silicon lottery here. In an approach like this, lies much potential for saving energy.
andychow - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
I've worked in the cubicles of many large corporations, and most people just log off their session or lock their screens at the end of the day, they don't turn the computer off. So cost savings would be even more interesting in these scenarios.piasabird - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
So do unused ports and slots use power? Like if you use just 2 ddr3 SLOTS do the empty slots use power? Same with SATA and PCIE? So if the case is so why not use a MITX motherboard?piasabird - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
You cant just look at the cost to run the motherboard. What about an eco friendly Monitor? Then there is the heat that is created to use the motherboard. During the summer or in say a server room something is cooling off the hot air.just4U - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
Hi Ian,I hadn't really noticed that Anand wasn't reviewing business class motherboards. I picked up a H97 GAMING 3 MSI board for my wife a few weeks back.. certainly doesn't look like a business board.. but it does come with all the software. Maybe you will get a chance to review that one in coming months..
Anyway, on this one I almost thought it was a Sniper board at first geez.. GREEN.. Waiting to see your matx x99 review.. should be interesting!
Daniel Egger - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
I LOLed when seeing the TÜV Logos. There're only few certifications like GS that follow a normed procedure. Other than that you can basically specify the test procedure and criteria, deliver the products (and a boatload of cash) and they will certify you that your products passed test procedures by the criteria you've specified. Very useful...The important point of information I'm missing here is: What were the tests? What were the passing criteria? Is there any competition which underwent the same certification and if so what were the results?
Cygni - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
A Mini-ITX ECO would be right in my wheelhouse.I have an HTPC/NAS/Steam Mini-ITX thats on 24/7 and is several years old. It's next replacement cycle would likely last 5+ years, and the lowered power draw (plus lower heat) would be a no brainer over that lifetime. Could also see a market for personal servers and the like in Mini-ITX.
I would echo the request for undervolting access, even if its rarely worth it. The option would be appreciated to tinker with, if nothing else.
PaulJeff - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
I think the point of these "eco" boards is determined by the economy of scale. For a real world example, you would need to replace dozens if not hundreds of workstations/desktops in an office to realize the true savings potential. If one workstations nets a few dollars a year in savings on power costs, multiply that by the number of workstations that will be replaced, multiply that by the # of years between hardware refresh cycles and that will add up the potential power savings.MSI should be selling this "ECO" brand to OEMs like Dell, HP, etc. and then the savings can be distributed on a mass market scale.
The cost delta between a non-ECO branded board and an ECO board is not worth it for SMB's and home users.
ultimatexbmc.com - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
Good priceDaiz - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
The price of electricity does not take into account the true cost of it's generation.It might be good to also consider the amount of fuel that is required or carbon output
for example 1kWh of electricity requires ~0.5kg of coal and produces ?? kg of carbon dioxide.
so assuming a 5 year upgrade cycle is going to happen no matter what, you are still stopping ~27.5kg of coal from being burned each year or 137.5kg over the life of the mobo. multiple by the number of machines in an office and every little bit helps.
Conficio - Wednesday, November 26, 2014 - link
Should the energy savings and cost savings not also include the cost for air conditioning/cooling? I know that server rooms care about that. So there should be at least some back of the envelope numbers which should increase the amount of savings somewhat.I'm just curious.
Lerianis - Thursday, November 27, 2014 - link
One thing I wanted to point out: 300 Watt power supply? Eh eh...... even a bargain basement, non-gaming intended dicrete graphics card needs 400 Watts minimum, unless it is the REALLY cheap ones sold to HP/Dell/Gateway for their office PC's.A regular person cannot even order one of those unless they go online and 'lie' to the HP parts person telling them "Yeah, my video card died and I want to replace it myself, can I order one of your replacement discrete graphics cards?"
400 Watts is a more realistic minimum for a system with a discrete graphics card, though with the new integrated graphics from Intel being able to push HD 1080p and 1920*1080 resolution other content without a stutter while using less than 2% of the CPU's power on an i5..... they might have an argument that no one needs a discrete graphics card who is not an uber-gamer anymore.
KAlmquist - Friday, November 28, 2014 - link
Actually, a 300 watt power supply should be enough to power a single GTX 980. However, Ian was presumably thinking about the standard business PC, which uses integrated graphics these days. As you correctly note in your last paragraph, the primary market for discrete graphics cards is now gamers.jtd871 - Thursday, December 4, 2014 - link
Ian,Thanks for reviewing a non-flagship board. Like others who have commented here, I could see something like this finding a home in a future personal build for productivity, light engineering and moderate gaming. And it's $25 to $50 less than the Z-series boards. Please, more like this in the uATX and mITX form factors!
Some feedback for MSI (and other board OEMs): ditch the (non-express) PCI already, please? Any business willing to buy enough of these isn't going to stick PCI add-in boards inside (assuming they can still find drivers for use with their modern operating systems). I would suggest eliminating the PCI slot altogether and keeping the x16 slot separated from the other 2 PCIe slots, as a lot of even low-end GPU cards (for business multi-monitor, say) are at least a double-slot width - rendering the 2nd slot unusable in those situations anyway, and make at least 1 of the remaining slots at least physically x8.
azazel1024 - Thursday, December 11, 2014 - link
This seems like a really stupid test of the power efficiency since that is the main focus. A REAL PSU, like a bronze or higher rated PSU in the 350-500w range should have been used. Either a standard B85, or H85/7 or something should have been compared to it. you have a board with an over abundance of features versus one bereft.Otherwise it is apples to oranges.
Also, if MSI's claims are accurate, the ECO frankly sucks. My Sever with a G1610 in it, H67, 8GB (2x4GB) G.Skill [email protected], SSD, 2 HDDs plugged in and a pair of Intel Gigabit CT NICs and Antec Earth Watts 380 burned 21w at idle, drives spun down. The ENTIRE system uses less than what MSI claims a typical uATX boards uses at idle. Based on Intel's numbers for some things like the NICs, I have to assume that the board is using at MOST 15w and probably closer to 12w.
Seems like at most we are talking 2-3w of power savings MAYBE comapred to a VAGUELY similar board.
know of fence - Monday, March 2, 2015 - link
Being an enthusiast site AT always played down power consumption numbers. But just making assumptions and low balling 4 different variables (price, hours, efficiency, years of operation) is both cumbersome and somewhat disingenuous.A more elegant way would be to create a realistic range for those variables and combine them into coefficients for min, max and typical scenarios. You could even do typical US, typical EU, UK, India or whatever.
For me every 1 W saved 24/7 equals 2 EUR/annum, also 66 cent per Watt per year assuming 8 hours a day operation. Not to mention that PCs actually last anywhere from 5 to 10 years, though they are much less frequently used, once they are handed down to relatives.