To those wondering if the numbers are off, no they are not off. In fact, testing under each case was done twice.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu 10.04 Is More Power Hungry Than Windows 7
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by bgamari View PostYou should be aware that you are actually crippling[1] the ability of your processor to save power by forcing a lower clockrate. Unless you are worried about your thermal envelope, there is absolutely no reason to deviate from the ondemand governor.
Modern processors save the most power when they have long periods of inactivity as they can then spend longer in deeper C-states. By slowing the processor down, you are requiring that it take longer to complete its work and therefore spend more time dissipating more power.
[1] http://mjg59.livejournal.com/88608.html
(*) on a mobile Core 2.
Comment
-
So far everybody has been arguing over GPUs.
May other concern, however, is that my CPU is supposed to have 8 power states. Under Linux I only have 3, 550MHz, 1100MHz and 2200MHz (AMD Turion Ultra X2). Knowing that power consumption is proportional to frequency I would love to see a ~275MHz option. Others are welcome, too.
Point is, how is it possible that AMD doesn't show all available options?
Comment
-
Originally posted by bgamari View PostYou should be aware that you are actually crippling[1] the ability of your processor to save power by forcing a lower clockrate. Unless you are worried about your thermal envelope, there is absolutely no reason to deviate from the ondemand governor.
Modern processors save the most power when they have long periods of inactivity as they can then spend longer in deeper C-states. By slowing the processor down, you are requiring that it take longer to complete its work and therefore spend more time dissipating more power.
[1] http://mjg59.livejournal.com/88608.html
I can reduce my Eee PC 1000HE to *6 watts* utilizing a combination of CPUFreq, SHE (bus downclock), and C states. Working with the Eeebuntu team, I integrated this technology into Eeebuntu 3 and EB4 with great success.
The core flaw with his logic is that you are performing more operations faster, but if you lower the clock rate you perform those same operations at a slower rate but at a reduced power cost.
For the 1000HE it means the difference between playing video non-stop for 5 hours without down clocking, and playing video non-stop for 9.5 hours with down clocking. I have similar results with the Celeron CPU used in the 1000HD and countless others as reported by our users.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael View PostTo those wondering if the numbers are off, no they are not off. In fact, testing under each case was done twice.- Writing 25.00 suggests that you did the measurements with an instrument which has a resolution of 0.01. Seeing that all numbers end in .00, I suppose that this is not the case.
- I don't understand how 24.00W and 25.00W (especially with .00) lead to the conclusion that Ubuntu is 9% more power hungry.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kraftman View PostThis comparison probably has sense, because it seems out of the box Windows 7 will operate longer on batteries. However, if Ubuntu favors performance over power consumption it would be nice if someone would just mention this.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ebird View PostYes it is. But this test show only, that a bad supported device consumes more power under linux. A good suported device consumes the same. My Athlon II X3 435 consumes 40Watt (linux) instead of 50Watt in idle mode, without phc and with compiz, because windows 7 is allways doing something in the background. Same with my 4050e home server, but not as bad with Windows XP, 30Watt (linux) instead of 35Watt. The second difference should be just measuring tolerance. On my old Thinkpad R50p I got 3h (linux) instead of 2h battery runtime with a tweaked phc kernel. All my results are useless, a there are different service and programs running the background, not comparable.
Comment
-
I did a similar test a couple of days ago with my older laptop using the open source radeon driver in ubuntu and WinXP.
I find it odd that my older bulkier laptop consumes less power than a netbook.
I have been running 10.04 on my laptop for a couple of months, and one of the things I have noticed was that my battery only lasts about an hour now. UPDATE: I think I have determined that the battery is just old. One thing I suspected was the open source radeon driver. The driver has some power saving features, but they can only be enabled with a 2.6.34 kernel (Lucid uses a 2.6.32 kernel) or by disabling Kernel Mode Switching. Before I start blameing ubuntu, I figured I should do some
Code:Power Consumption (in watts) WinXP Ubuntu (Lucid Kernel) Ubuntu (2.6.34) Boot 29-32 27-50 29-53 Idle Desktop / Wifi On 18 19 18 Idle Desktop / Wifi Off 15 18 17 Lid Closed / Wifi On 15 12.1 12.3 Lid Closed / Wifi Off 13 11.3 11.1 Hd Sleep / Lid Open / Wifi Off - 16.1 15.0 Hd Sleep / Lid Closed / Wifi Off - 9 9
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael View PostTo those wondering if the numbers are off, no they are not off. In fact, testing under each case was done twice.
Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
And in this test the CPU wasn't idling!
Comment
Comment