## 4 Integrative Example
### Methodology of Testing and Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Resource** & **Variables** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{CPU} & Capacitance (C): 1 pF (hypothetical) \\  & Voltage (\(V\)): 1.2 V (hypothetical) \\  & Frequency (\(F\)): operation’s frequency in GHz \\  & Time (\(T\)): accumulated run time of the sample in seconds \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{RAM} & Consumption (C): 3 Watts depending on the RAM model \\  & Time (\(T\)): accumulated run time of the sample in seconds \\ \hline Storage & N/A \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Network} & Idle consumption (\(W_{u}\)): 0.4944 W [40] \\  & Active consumption (\(W_{l}\)): 1.1349 W [40] \\ \cline{1-1}  & Max. transfer rate (\(Lmax\)): 867 Mbps over the 5 GHz band according to \\ \cline{1-1}  & the 802.11 ac standard \\ \cline{1-1}  & Time (\(T\)): accumulated run time \\ \cline{1-1}  & of the sample in seconds \\ \cline{1-1}  & Load (\(L\)): sample’s network usage in Mbps \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Hypothetical hardware values used to estimate energy consumption. during the first experiment (the first cycle). With this result, we satisfy the first requisite for validating our approach, demonstrating that a quantitative approximation of energy consumption can be obtained by instancing our profiles. In the second experiment, a total energy consumption of 271,296.22 Joules over an operational time of 28,801 s were obtained using the BBCP approach. To conclude our first two experiments, we contrasted the results of the first cycle against those of the second cycle. The data are available in Table 13. The energy expenditure during the second cycle of the Game Stream Service BBCP results in an increment of 143,596.12 Joules and an increase of operational time equal of 14,403 s.  
To provide a comparison of our approach against the real energy consumption of the GeForce Now client's side, we set up a test bed and recorded the hardware consumption of GeForce Now for the same duration as the first and then the second experiments, using PowerJoular to obtain the power draw [41] of the CPU for each one. The hardware specifications used to calculate the RAM and network card energy consumption in the test bed can be found in Table 14, and a comparative table of the results of the test bed against the ones of the BBCP simulation is available in Table 15.  
The steps of the third experiment diverged from the previous ones in the following ways:  
1. We cloned the Insight Maker model and the values used in the second experiment and re-configured it to an agent simulation. 2. We set the beginning of the experiment to the third timed expectation (row 3 of Table 4), and a total duration of 3600 s for the simulation. The duration was decided after the previously observed performance issues of Insight Maker in longer simulations caused the simulator to encounter a memory error. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Cycle** & **Consumption (Joules)** & **Effective Operational Time (s)** \\ \hline
1 & 127,700.10 & 14,403 \\ \hline
2 & 271,296.22 & 28,801 \\ \hline Change & 143,596.12 & 14,403 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Game Stream Service: the difference in energy consumption between the first and the second cycles. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Experiment** & **BBCP** & **Test bed** & **Change** \\  & **(Joules)** & **(Joules)** & **(Joules)** \\ \hline
1 st Cycle & 127,700.10 & 151,818.16 & 24,118.06 \\ \hline
2 nd Cycle & 271,296.22 & 322,534.54 & 51,238.32 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 15: The difference in the estimated energy consumption of the experiments against the energy measurements obtained from our test bed. We reduced the Minimum Run Time to 300 s (5 min) so that agents would not spend most of the brief simulation in a run state. The evolution in the number of agents running throughout the third experiment can be seen in Figure 8. In addition, the sum of the run time and the projected energy expenditure of its agents are available in Table 16.