|
|
|
|
|
by nbmh
3607 days ago
|
|
>crowdsourced homecomputers in a 9 cent kwh region My suggestion was not that an entity use crowdsourced home computers, rather that it would be more efficient for a company to setup their own hardware and rent CPU cycles that way. The big difference is that Suchflex is limited to using hardware that consumers regularly purchase, whereas a company could use significantly more energy efficient setups and negotiate a better electricity rate. This is essentially what AWS already offers. Additionally, if you already have to transmit everything remotely, there's no need to stay in the US. Iceland offers rates around 4.3 cents. I chose the 980 TI for my example because it's about as close to perfect as you can find for this scenario while sticking with consumer grade hardware, average setups would be much worse. My general point is that I don't think Suchflex's model is viable unless, as pliny mentioned, you have access to free electricity through some less-than-legal means (or you live in Iceland). |
|
I think it's theoretically possible for electricity costs to overwhelm hardware costs but so far, I haven't seen any numbers that make this disparity obvious. Some example AWS costs[1]:
Notice how 65 cents and $2.68 costs significantly more than the Iceland electricity rates of 4.3 cents/kwh. The hardware capex is "baked" into the AWS rates. The hardware capex for residential home computers is $0.More analysis would be required to see if particular computation tasks can done 15x faster on AWS optimized instances than the unoptimized residential computers ($0.65/$0.043==15x).
Without concrete spreadsheet of tasks, performance runtimes, and cloud costs, I still don't see obvious evidence that AWS (or Google Cloud) will be more cost efficient than unused home computers.
[1]https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/