Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Ubuntu: Faster, But More Power Hungry Than Mac OS X?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    São Paulo, Brazil
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Hi Michael, there's some small problems in the graphs generated by PTS:
    On the OpenArena, Nexuiz, John The Ripper graphs it's writen Milliwatts, Higher Is Better;
    The last graph doesn't say which one is better;
    The C-Ray graph doesn't show the end of Ubuntu's timeline.

    And I think you should use something like Higher-Lower instead of Higher-Less, but that is just an opinion and I'm not the best with english anyway.

    Keep up the good work

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    You should've done an energy consuption graphic... It' very interesting that although Ubuntu spends more average power than Mac, it takes much less time to do the tasks tested here... Which means, it might be consuming some less energy than a Mac!

    Btw, for me, Linux >> Mac
    Cheers

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    234

    Default

    Earlier this week I noted there's new Apple hardware in our labs being used to tighten
    I call my bedroom my "lab" as well.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    As the previous posters said, peak power consumption is not a very useful metric. Idle and total consumption are far more useful in drawing conclusions.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,120

    Default

    I always wondered how much the DE affects power consumption. ie I'd love to see a Kubuntu vs Ubuntu comparison...

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,248

    Default

    Yeah, these tests showed nothing except that ubuntu was much better at using the hardware to it's full potential. Given the performance difference, the fact that it is using more power at peak is obvious.

    Power tests that would actually be useful:
    1. Idle at the desktop
    2. Watching a Youtube video at 1080p, or a DVD
    3. Browsing the web, loading a page every 30 seconds or so

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    912

    Default

    I'll chime in on this discussion, having worked with electricity meters...
    Peak power is important to know what level a battery / power supply / whatever must be capable of supporting, but equally important is how long that power level can be sustained for.
    So for tasks that finish as soon as possible, you really have to look at total energy consumption (Wh), but for games you'll be more interested in power (W) - and frame rates of course.
    So yes, while those graphs are useful, a Wh value at the end would be even more so.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15

    Default Peak and average power usage are very important when you using battery

    Quote Originally Posted by jsantala View Post
    You should however take into consideration the "rush to idle" factor - even though Linux uses much more peak power it also finishes in a fraction of the time OS X used to complete the task, which means that completing task might have actually used much less power overall in Linux than it did on OS X. The Linux box could idle (or even sleep/shutdown) when OS X would still be hard at work, thus using very little power.
    This is very true when you have unlimited power source with static efficiency. But here we are talking about battery. The battery capacity (Ah or mAh) is specified at optimal discharge current (Id). If you discharge the battery with greater current the battery heats up and it capacity drops rather quickly. So I suspect that Apple engineers has reduced the max/avg load by slowing down the "OS X" in order to optimize the battery capacity. Ubuntu and other distribution engineers don't have the needed data in order to do the same. They just optimize for speed. I wish I had the knowledge of the kernel and slowly over time to build library of profiles that every Linux user can use to have maximum battery life if they want.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    197

    Default

    OMG What do you know, a computer thats faster uses more power. What a ludicrous concept...


    /phoronix phail

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jsantala View Post
    You should however take into consideration the "rush to idle" factor - even though Linux uses much more peak power it also finishes in a fraction of the time OS X used to complete the task, which means that completing task might have actually used much less power overall in Linux than it did on OS X. The Linux box could idle (or even sleep/shutdown) when OS X would still be hard at work, thus using very little power.
    I agree. Those graphs indicate that Ubuntu is using less energy than Mac OS X for the same task. That means better energy efficiency.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •