Snow Leopard up to 10 percent more energy efficient than Leopard
For the user of a 17-inch MacBook Pro, the savings might not add up to a dollar over the course of a year. However, when spread across the 10 million or so Macs, Apple will sell over the next year, the savings in terms of dollars and kilowatts add up quickly.
News.com has benchmarked the energy efficiency of a 17-inch MacBook running Apple’s last-gen OS X 10.5.6 Leopard and the same machine running OS X 10.6. As you would expect, the latest and greatest iteration of the mothership’s operating system crown jewel, a.k.a. Snow Leopard, is more efficient — about 10 percent more so — than its two-year-old predecessor. Moreover, this improvement comes simply via software as the hardware tested in both instances was exactly the same.
“We took a 17-inch MacBook Pro and ran it though our standard energy use tests, first under OSX 10.5.6 (a.k.a. Leopard) and then after we installed Snow Leopard, which brought us up to OSX 10.6. Our test system, already Energy Star-compliant, had a 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPU, and we had the discrete Nvidia GeForce 9600 graphics turned on.”
Multiplying fishes and loaves
Of course for an average everyday sort of user, even a parsimonious cheapskate such as myself, the savings are negligible and it would take 29 years of use to pay down the $29 single user cost of Snow Leopard (a Family Pack license could yield a 10-year payback timeframe). However, multiply the energy usage reduction across the 10 million Macs Apple will sell this year and the savings are much, much more substantial.
Yes, there are lots of other ways Snow Leopard’s gonna save you money, but don’t buy it just because you will save a few kilowatts and almost enough spare change for a single item — before tax — from the McDonalds dollar menu.
Nevertheless, that the operating system I just installed makes my already fully amortized MacBook faster, smoother, more stable and significantly future proofed is cool. That makes better energy efficiency the sweet n’ creamy icing on the cake.
All told that’s a lot more value than the pittance Apple got from me…
What’s your take?
Related Posts:


September 5th, 2009
less energy = longer battery life.
September 5th, 2009
I don’t quite understand the figures. All the energy consuption figures appear to be lower under 10.56 except for idle use. So unless that means they expect people to leave their machines on 24/7when they calculated the estimated annual use, how can there be such a significant energy saving?
September 6th, 2009
snow leaopard is supposed to really good …
but i dunno if i should upgrade just yet …
here is why …
http://subcorpus.net/blog/2009/09/the-big-cat-roars-in/
what do you think … ???
September 6th, 2009
Rimmer, I agree with you. I don’t understand the numbers either. The article’s author needs a better way to explain the numbers to readers.
September 6th, 2009
Total use is a mix of load and idle so reducing either is good.
I like SL. It fixed a couple of minor annoyances and feels smoother and tighter. So far no crashes or hang ups. Hooray for SL.