I don't to talk about pro-and-con, but cca 5EUR/$ more per month for overclocked PC will not make crash to real gamer. Naturally PC without the CRT, which have consumption about 80W or LCD with 27W ( my LCD that I used for testing ) monitor is not PC, and finishing bill will be higher. My PC is switched-on cca 15 days per month for 24 hours for using p2p network, but with switched-off monitor. Overclocking of my PC in IDLE state increased consumption at 3097MHz against 2100MHz only for 56W. ( this can be consumption of the notebook ). In games was consumptions difference between these two states 117W. But try to play the game in full details with 4*AA and 16*AF at notebook... I wittingly left out 1000MHz state's, because I can decrease the power consumption in 2100MHz state to 1000MHz states by switching off LCD monitor.
If you want PC oriented to low power consumption, please do not select desktop PC as I have but select notebook. But your games in full details will be not playable.
Well, in my case for playing the games is better desktop PC and for standstill in my mind I'll always OC it too :). For usual use would be better nominal frequencies.



Here are two screens, that I owe you. First I did with more than 1 hour running ORTHOS and CPU at 3097,5MHz @ 1,392V. Because I want to show you, that my PC was at all benchmarks stable and results are true. Second picture shows OC potention of 65nm CPU Athlon X2 4000+.

That's all, I hope that measuring of power consumption of my PC will be helpful also for you. Final decision desktop/notebook is on you.

author: Ľubomír Kuzman