[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801201216520.28200@anakin>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:18:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Chodorenko Michail <misha@....by>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Celeron Core
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > So while throttling may be less efficient in terms of watt seconds used
> > to compile something than running at full speed, it is incorrect to say
> > it uses less power. One machine running for an hour throttled to 50%
> > uses less power (and therefore less battery and cooling) than another
> > running at full speed for that same hour.
>
> Not for the same unit of work. If you just run endless loops you
> might be true, but most systems don't do that.
So you mean energy (measured in J).
Power is energy/time unit (measured in W, i.e. J/s).
So I guess what you really want to say is: throttling decreases power
consumption, but on modern CPUs it increases the amount of energy needed
to perform the task.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists