Ubuntu 10.04 Is More Power Hungry Than Windows 7

[mugginz]

A netbook that consumes as much energy as a far more powerful mobile workstation aka Thinkpad T61, is not plausible.

The results certainly do surprise.

Given that the machines were plugged into AC power, surely all that the tests are measuring are a given operating systems power consumption while connected to an AC outlet. This in itself has diminished value when one wants to make decisions based on power usage while not connected to AC, and instead running solely off batteries.

If someone wants to make operating selection decisions that revolve around how much on battery usage time is available, it would seem they should really wait for further tests. While strictly speaking the title of the article is accurate, it looks somewhat unnecessarily inflammatory

Numbers are generated and are never checked for plausibility. And if there is prove that the numbers are incorrect, they will never be corrected and the flawed article stays online forever.

It looks like the methodology isn't quite what's needed in order to draw conclusions for what someone can expect while away from an AC outlet.

I do think it's valid to use Ubuntu to represent Linux in the tests given its popularity and is equaly valid to test it in its vanilla configuration as this is what a lot of people will use. There would be additional value though in including results for a fine tuned configuration in order to provide a clearer picture for what someone might expect while using a system that's been set up by a more expert technician.

[mugginz]

While strictly speaking the title of the article is accurate, it looks somewhat unnecessarily inflammatory

Perhaps the title should read "Ubuntu 10.04 Is More Power Hungry Than Windows 7 while on AC power"

[notzed]

I find it curious that you're using ubuntu to do any performance tests. I've found it to be really very slow in relation to the hardware performance, which also translates into higher power use (although that's pretty much par for the course for all the newer distributions).

[locovaca]

I find it curious that you're using ubuntu to do any performance tests. I've found it to be really very slow in relation to the hardware performance, which also translates into higher power use (although that's pretty much par for the course for all the newer distributions).

You may want to check out alot of the other articles on this site with the head to head comparisons. It's fair to say that Ubuntu is at least on par with other distributions, but usually exceeds others in performance.


As to the power tests, this isn't your run of the mill netbook. It is a Dual Core Atom (4 watts right there) with an Ion chipset (even more power draw). I am not surprised by the results. If you read other articles citing power numbers for the Ion platform you'll see that they usually found low to mid 20's on DESKTOP systems. Take away the desktop hard drive and replace it with a LED LCD + Laptop Hard Drive and the results seem to be pretty appropriate.

[krazy]

A couple of points:
- Proprietary drivers are crappy. Please try this with intel integrated graphics.
- Please install laptop-mode-tools. The kernel has a laptop-mode which isn't enabled without this package.
- Please retest using battery-power, as this is a much more relevant and important test. Some power-saving techniques are only enabled when on battery power.

[Ragas]

Changing the fan is not an option (I tested), because with ondemand core temperature simply rises to the point where the fan triggers again (tried up to 64 degrees - anything over that is uncomfortable, both physically (it burns!) and conceptually (nvidia bumpgate, better not push it)).

I once had a Problem like yours where the laptop reached the spinning up temperature on high clocks, afte some amount of time it cooled down a little and sun down ... in the end it left me with a constantly up- and down-spinning system, which was really annoying. and there it helped me to increase the upspinning value a tiny bit to have it silent. which is why I suggested it could help.

Right now I'm using PHC so actually it never gets that hot anymore. cause the processor does maximum clock at minimum voltage.

[yankeeDDL]

Well ... what can I say? This is a big surprise for me.
I actually thought that Ubuntu was a tad better in power savings compared to Windows. Clearly, I was wrong.
This said, perhaps there's another datapoint that would be interesting: when you use Windows you need to have firewalls, antivirus and, typically, a number of services in background. Add to that your "normal" activities (web browsing, music, emails, light office work ...) and the scheduler may actually start playing a role.
Meaning: if the PCs are totally idle, then Windows7 has a clear lead. But what about normal PC use? Does it make a difference?

[glasen]

Well ... what can I say? This is a big surprise for me.
I actually thought that Ubuntu was a tad better in power savings compared to Windows. Clearly, I was wrong.

And this is the point why such articles are complete rubbish. People only see the numbers but never really read the article. And they also never read the complete discussion following the article.

Phoronix only tested the power consumption on AC-power, not the consumption when running on battery!

[gescom]

Great comparison from Phoronix and this news is all over the web already.
Uninstall Ubuntu -> Install Windows 7 is the case. Thanks.

[mugginz]

Great comparison from Phoronix and this news is all over the web already.
Uninstall Ubuntu -> Install Windows 7 is the case. Thanks.

Yes, given the title of the article I'm not surprised. If the on-battery power usage is the same story as the on-AC power usage you could justify a title along the lines of what was used. I guess we'll have to wait and see but without those other results I reckon it's understandable that some people think it was about trolling for page views, and unfortunately as a consequence damages the Linux brand in the eyes of the great unwashed.