Greenpeace: Sony is 'significantly greener' than Microsoft or Nintendo

by Alan Tsang { Dec 4th 2008 at 6:30PM }

Greennpeace, an environmental organization, had put together a report on how environmentally friendly a number of leading companies are. Each company is given a score out of a possible 45 points; the higher the score is, the greener the company is deemed. Included in them are the big three video game manufacturers: Sony received a 24/45, compared to Microsoft's score of 15/45 and Nintendo's abysmally low score of 4/45.

So why does Sony deserve the higher score? Speaking to Edge Online, Greenpeace's toxics campaigner Iza Kruszewska cites a number of reasons, including high marks for "chemical management and take-back initiatives." Sony is the first company to introduce a take-back recycling program for all their products in the US, according to Kruszewska.

But what about all those reports which indicate each PS3 uses as much power as a fridge? Kruszewska admits they are true, but reminds us that "there is a wider picture to look at than just the power consumption of a console." He offers this in the PS3's defense: "If you look at the graphics processor that your PS3 or 360 will have, it's hard to put them into exactly the same category [as the Wii]. I mean, the PS3 is being used by universities globally when they have lots of number crunching to do because it's that powerful. We're talking about a 9-core processor here."

Well, there you have it, environmentally-conscious boys and girls -- now you know the PS3 is Mother Earth's console of choice.

Tags: greenpeace, microsoft, nintendo, playstation-3, ps3, sony, wii, xbox-360

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Phantom @ Dec 4th 2008 6:53PM

9 core?

I thought there were 7. (or maybe 8, I can't remember)

MBO @ Dec 4th 2008 7:10PM

isnt there 8 but 1 isnt used?

M @ Dec 4th 2008 7:11PM

8 cores...

blkant @ Dec 4th 2008 7:12PM

no, there are 9, but like someone said above, one of them is locked for some apparent reason....

Gunegune @ Dec 4th 2008 7:46PM

Cell Processor
=========
PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
total floating point performance : 218 GFLOPS

Source: http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/050517e.pdf

superaktieboy @ Dec 4th 2008 8:12PM

the 9 cores part is 8SPE's and 1PPE.. thats why its 9 cores ;)

warlock7 @ Dec 5th 2008 8:23AM

And Superkiteboy wins the prize for being the only one here with a clue...

Sheesh...

Try this again...

Jackster @ Dec 6th 2008 4:03AM

No, 7 cores. One core is disabled to improve yields (i.e. if a processor comes out with a defective core they can still put it in a PS3), and the graphics processor is not usable by people running something other than an official game (i.e. Linux in a supercomputer set up)

CL34N3R @ Dec 4th 2008 6:55PM

Well the cell is not the gpu dude, but nice try. And I don't think we've become globally conscious enough yet that anyone is making console decisions based on how "green" their options are. Still, good news for Sony...?

brad450 @ Dec 5th 2008 8:33AM

thats pretty cool but i dont expect microshits to change there "GREEN" ways. they dont manufacture as many devices as sony MS makes xbox a few keyboards mice ETC that all sony makes TV's, stereos, computers, cameras, storage devices and PS3's THINK ABOUT IT

massive_98 @ Dec 4th 2008 7:05PM

I think its fair to place less emphasis on power consumption because not all PS3's are powered by dirty energy. Actually my entire second story (where my PS3 is) and hot tub are powered by solar panels.

The Wii's power consumption is also deflected by partial battery use. Also, in every single DS game I've bought comes with an internet connection booklet(in too many languages), a french game manual, english game manual and a nintendo power offer. Nintendo deserves to be at the bottom of the list.

iamkid @ Dec 4th 2008 7:28PM

lucky, i wish i had solar, but its really just too expensive right now :/

required @ Dec 4th 2008 7:33PM

Indeed. The Wii is a disposable battery stink hole, it's very inefficient.

MoJo @ Dec 5th 2008 8:34AM

still quoting that fridge nonsense? that was discredited ages ago. Firstly the current PS3 draws 110w, massively less than the 360's 170w. also the fridge comparison involved leaving your PS3 on (not in standby) all year round. Who on earth does that. Are you people at PS3fanboy thick or something?

Fane @ Dec 7th 2008 5:45PM

People folding proteins.

iamkid @ Dec 4th 2008 7:30PM

as much power as a fridge? i was unaware of this. i guess i should have realized that when i heard that other report that it uses 11 times as much power as a wii. but i suppose with the hardware inside, its understandable.

Kattleox @ Dec 5th 2008 8:34AM

Well, a fridge uses 300kw of electricity when going full out and the 360 uses 165kw on average. Just turn the lights out in the house while you are playing LittleBigPlanet and you will break even with the kilo-wattage. (Lots of lights are 100kw)

That whole refrigerator thing was silly, I thought, since a fridge is relatively low power and MOST (I know some people use it as a heating alternative, but still, MOST) people don't have their PS3s on for 24hrs--more like 5 a day. 25 days a month, five hours a day, 300kw (assuming all you do is folding@home) and you have yourself 38kw hours/ month.

In that respect, though, the Wii is probably the most environmentally friendly choice, since nobody will be playing it and it wont, therefore, be consuming any power.

iamkid @ Dec 5th 2008 8:31PM

i lol'd at the end of that post

Hyperfludd @ Dec 4th 2008 7:54PM

Aren't these the guys that gave Nintendo a 0 just because they didn't report in on time? Everyone should just stay away from companies like that

Dave @ Dec 8th 2008 9:57AM

Back when I was in school, I'd get a 0 if my stuff wasn't in on time. Business world shouldn't be any different. If you don't care enough about the party evaluating you, you deserve to get the lowest possible score.

Granted, I wouldn't care either way if I was running Nintendo. I could give a crap what Greenpeace thinks about my company either way, but saying people should stay away from companies who give 0s to work that isn't turned in is just plain silly

Viewtiful Jason2 @ Dec 4th 2008 7:54PM

That news still doesn't cover the long-known fact of the PS3's power consumption. Won't using the console for years be more harmful from the type of electricity used to power the console than the process it takes to make it?

Tez @ Dec 4th 2008 8:03PM

Good for Sony, I guess. F Greenpeace.

Woogs @ Dec 4th 2008 8:24PM

Greenpeace is never to be trusted with information like this. Their "rankings" of Apple have been nothing but double-talk and admitted targetting of "high publicity" companies. Whether the ratings are in Sony's favour or not, Greenpeace are simply a marketing organization.

Seriously, go to your marketing organization in your workplace (if you have one). Find that sleazeball that talks in nothing but buzzwords and has more illegitimate kids than he has IQ points. Now imagine an organization made up entirely of that guy. That's Greenpeace. Not scientists, not statisticians, not engineers or even technologists - just marketing drones. Their "reports" on environmental concerns are about as useful as CERN's picks for the next winner on American Idol.

Johnny @ Dec 5th 2008 11:08AM

Thank you! Greenpeace does suck.

Topher08 @ Dec 4th 2008 8:49PM

Viewtiful Jason2, are you seriously going to worry about the long term effects of people using the PS3?

People are wasting much more energy every day then what the PS3 runs on. The PS3 runs on the power of not more then 2 100W lightbulbs at peak performance, if you're worried about how much power the PS3 uses, then convert 3 - 6 100W light bulbs into 15W CFL light bulbs to offset the use.

People don't run their PS3 24/7 either, so a few hours of use a day isn't going to destroy the planet.

Also BS this talk about leaving things like the PS3 in standby. The PS3 consumes 1.7W of power in standby so if in stand-by 24/7 for an entire year, that is only around 15W of total power and at today's prices is around $.89 of total power used.

Take one 100w lightbulb lit for 4 hours a day on average. The total power for a year is 146W with a total yearly cost of close to $9, compound that with the fact most people have 5 - 10 100w lightbulbs in their home.

Now of course your going to say, but what if a million people unplug their PS3 instead of using standby, that would save 15 million watts of power a year, but what 1 million people convereted one 100W lightbult to a 15W lightbulb, that would save 125 million watts of power.

People have to stop with this energy nonsence, they fret over the energy one piece of high profile equipment uses without realizing that it runs off at most a few dollars of electricity a month and is less power hungry then a handful of 100w lightbulbs staying lit for a couple of hours a day.

I tire of the whole "every little bit counts" mentality. The government can do more to ban the sale of 100W lightbulbs then to worry about the power a PS3 consumes on or in standby.

master811 @ Dec 4th 2008 9:07PM

You should have added a few 'k's into that. It should be 15kWh used for the PS3 when left in standby over a year and 146kWh used for a lightbulb etc...

Roto13 @ Dec 4th 2008 10:22PM

Why do I find articles about Greenpeace talking about consoles every week? Do they have a special division that does nothing but research game consoles? And are they still butthurt that Nintendo won't give some random information?

Byron517 @ Dec 5th 2008 12:16AM

SPOILER ALERT

I know this isn't exactly on topic but I thought I'd show this to my fellow PS3 Fanboys.. Below is a link to a 9+ min video of the opening sequence of Killzone2 and it looks nothing short of amazing!!!

http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_9616_en.html