Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Surprising Power Consumption Of Ubuntu 11.04 vs. Windows 7

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    So the conclusion could be that Windows and Linux are both affected by the BIOS bug.

    Or, it could be that none of the systems have a buggy BIOS.

    TFA misses the most interesting point.

    Comment


    • #12
      I wonder if the only system to suffer that bug is the T61, which clearly does experience a difference in usage.

      Comment


      • #13
        Eerrrr... Michael... Why is the pro version of Windows 7 on powersave? I demand you press and hold [Windows]+[x] and see the battery getting sucked dry in 3 seconds. I can tell by the compoziting being turned off. Even if not; Windows 7 Pro doesn't have it disabled by default. No people; we can conclude that Linux without powersave and with the BIOS bug, is even more power efficient than Windows without the bug on power-save. ROFL.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
          Eerrrr... Michael... Why is the pro version of Windows 7 on powersave?
          Why wouldn't it be?

          Next on the list on the comparison however Micheal I would like to see what happens when something like a bluetooth device is connected and items like a USB stick plugged in.

          Comment


          • #15
            What i'd like to see is a non-Ubuntu comparison. See the power consumption of Arch or Gentoo

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
              How is this surprising?
              Because of this Tom's Hardware article where Ubuntu 11.04 has 40% less battery life than 11.10 (and windows too).

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by krazy View Post
                So the conclusion could be that Windows and Linux are both affected by the BIOS bug.

                Or, it could be that none of the systems have a buggy BIOS.

                TFA misses the most interesting point.
                Tom's hardware should write some clarification about Ubuntu's power usage now.

                http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/0...nd-Performance

                Comment


                • #18
                  Yes, it would certainly be interesting to see the results using the workaround as well as with an older Ubuntu release. But yes, it is rather surprising that they are so close in terms of power consumption. Also interesting that Catalyst performed nearly the same or better on Linux here, although this is a single case. Having a very similar system to the last one (Phenom II), it's rather relevant to me.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by down1 View Post
                    Well that needs to be framed somewhere
                    Not really, if you look way back, I remember when Phoronix was pointing out that Linux was faster than Windows Vista with the Catalyst driver.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Would be interesting to see this comparison for an Atom. My very unprofessional personal experience with an Inspiron 1018 (Atom N455) is:

                      Ubuntu 11.04: 8.5 W idling
                      Windows 7 home premium: 5.5 W idling

                      So in my case it seems as if Windows is a lot more power efficient. And I run Ubuntu already with the "pcie_aspm=force" kernel option.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X