Can the router be set to dietary strength? 2

Can the router be set to dietary strength?




DPA / tmn Berlin The average idle wireless router consumes about ten watts of power. This is quasi-constant consumption, which essentially determines the cost, reports "c & # 39; t" (No. 13/19).

There is little potential for savings around this core value of consumption while working. Anyone who has but does not use a fixed-line radio (DECT) router can reduce their power consumption by a few tens of watts by deactivating the DECT function in the settings.

As less power becomes more consumption

But can't energy be saved by reducing the power of WLAN transmission in settings? The answer is not in almost all cases. Not only does power cut shorten the range but it almost always worsens the energy balance.

This is because the receiver receives a weaker signal, so the data rate drops and the flow of the same amount of data takes longer. Bottom line, the router needs to send more frequently and consume more power.

One exception: Reducing the power of WLAN transmissions can make sense if all radio traffic always takes place only in the room where the router is located. But this scenario should be an exception.

No network cable, no power consumption

What about a wired network? Switching LAN speed from Gigabit to Fast Ethernet in router settings is only valid if only one device is connected, which never needs more than 100 MBit / s, experts have found. This can happen with a smart TV.

As currently, no streaming service uses 100 MBit / s data bandwidth even approximately. Switching back only saves money if the port is already active. If there is no cable in the socket, the interface remains idle.

Unnecessary device removal

If you want to save online, identify the unnecessary hardware. For example, an active LAN hub (switch) into which only two cables are connected. This could be replaced by a passive LAN dual socket (RJ45 connector), which consumes no electricity.

Incidentally, turning off the LED light on the test router did not have the same energy-saving effect as switching USB ports from interface 3.0 to 2.0.