FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-05-2009, 07:48 PM
Derek Broughton
 
Default Processor Scaling

Ray Parrish wrote:

> Well, as I said above I'm not worried about the extra power the "cpu"
> not the whole desktop takes... The cpu is just a small chip inside the
> box, and runs on 5 volts. Reading comprehension my friend...

Electricity comprehension my friend. 5V or 500V is (largely) irrelevant -
it's the power, not the voltage.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-06-2009, 07:14 PM
Ray Parrish
 
Default Processor Scaling

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Ray Parrish wrote:
>
>
>> Well, as I said above I'm not worried about the extra power the "cpu"
>> not the whole desktop takes... The cpu is just a small chip inside the
>> box, and runs on 5 volts. Reading comprehension my friend...
>>
>
> Electricity comprehension my friend. 5V or 500V is (largely) irrelevant -
> it's the power, not the voltage.
>
>
>
Ok, I did some research, and this supports my view [From Wikipedia]

> Dynamic frequency scaling reduces the number of instructions a
> processor can issue in a given amount of time, thus reducing
> performance. Hence, it is generally used when the workload is not
> CPU-bound.
>
> Dynamic frequency scaling by itself is rarely worthwhile as a way to
> conserve switching power. Saving the most power requires dynamic
> voltage scaling too, because of the V^2 component and the fact that
> modern CPUs are strongly optimized for low power idle states. In most
> constant-voltage cases it is more efficient to run briefly at peak
> speed and stay in a deep idle state for longer (called "race to
> idle"), than it is to run at a reduced clock rate for a long time and
> only stay briefly in a light idle state. However, reducing voltage
> along with clock rate can change those tradeoffs.
>
Article url below -

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_scaling>

However, it uses more power than I thought as shown in the following quote -

"Sempron 3400+ has a die size of 84mm^2 , produced on AMD's 90-nanometer
silicon-on-insulator (SOI) process. It runs at 2.0GHz and features a
256KB L2 cache, and its max thermal power is 62 watts. "

From the following page -

<http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,1841866,00.asp>

So, although I'm not really using more power by setting my cpu scaling
to Performance, it still uses more power than I thought.

Later, Ray Parrish

--
http://www.rayslinks.com/ Web index of human reviewed links.
<http://www.rayslinks.com/Troubleshooting%20and%20fixing%20Windows.html>
Trouble shooting and Fixing Windows
http://www.writingsoftheschizophrenic.com My poetry in web pages


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-06-2009, 07:39 PM
Michael
 
Default Processor Scaling

Ray Parrish wrote:

Derek Broughton wrote:


Ray Parrish wrote:




Well, as I said above I'm not worried about the extra power the "cpu"
not the whole desktop takes... The cpu is just a small chip inside the
box, and runs on 5 volts. Reading comprehension my friend...



Electricity comprehension my friend. 5V or 500V is (largely) irrelevant -
it's the power, not the voltage.





Ok, I did some research, and this supports my view [From Wikipedia]



Dynamic frequency scaling reduces the number of instructions a
processor can issue in a given amount of time, thus reducing
performance. Hence, it is generally used when the workload is not
CPU-bound.

Dynamic frequency scaling by itself is rarely worthwhile as a way to
conserve switching power. Saving the most power requires dynamic
voltage scaling too, because of the V^2 component and the fact that
modern CPUs are strongly optimized for low power idle states. In most
constant-voltage cases it is more efficient to run briefly at peak
speed and stay in a deep idle state for longer (called "race to
idle"), than it is to run at a reduced clock rate for a long time and
only stay briefly in a light idle state. However, reducing voltage
along with clock rate can change those tradeoffs.



Article url below -

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_scaling>

However, it uses more power than I thought as shown in the following quote -

"Sempron 3400+ has a die size of 84mm^2 , produced on AMD's 90-nanometer
silicon-on-insulator (SOI) process. It runs at 2.0GHz and features a
256KB L2 cache, and its max thermal power is 62 watts. "

From the following page -

<http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,1841866,00.asp>

So, although I'm not really using more power by setting my cpu scaling
to Performance, it still uses more power than I thought.

Later, Ray Parrish



From another viewpoint:* My situation requires my computer to be inside
an enclosed space without a great deal of ventilation.* With scaling my
cpu runs at 1.3 ghz and about 48 degrees C and the gpu is 58.* At full
speed the temperature of the cpu raises to about 58 degrees.* If I go
to windows and play something like Crysis or Fallout 3 I have to keep
the cabinet door open to prevent the computer from crashing.* I can't
check the speed or temp very easily but when I reboot to Ubuntu the cpu
is running over 60 degrees and the gpu is over 65 degrees.* Also
everything is running from batteries so power matters to me.*







--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-06-2009, 11:50 PM
Ray Parrish
 
Default Processor Scaling

Michael wrote:
> Ray Parrish wrote:
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>> Ray Parrish wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well, as I said above I'm not worried about the extra power the "cpu"
>>>> not the whole desktop takes... The cpu is just a small chip inside the
>>>> box, and runs on 5 volts. Reading comprehension my friend...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Electricity comprehension my friend. 5V or 500V is (largely) irrelevant -
>>> it's the power, not the voltage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, I did some research, and this supports my view [From Wikipedia]
>>
>>
>>> Dynamic frequency scaling reduces the number of instructions a
>>> processor can issue in a given amount of time, thus reducing
>>> performance. Hence, it is generally used when the workload is not
>>> CPU-bound.
>>>
>>> Dynamic frequency scaling by itself is rarely worthwhile as a way to
>>> conserve switching power. Saving the most power requires dynamic
>>> voltage scaling too, because of the V^2 component and the fact that
>>> modern CPUs are strongly optimized for low power idle states. In most
>>> constant-voltage cases it is more efficient to run briefly at peak
>>> speed and stay in a deep idle state for longer (called "race to
>>> idle"), than it is to run at a reduced clock rate for a long time and
>>> only stay briefly in a light idle state. However, reducing voltage
>>> along with clock rate can change those tradeoffs.
>>>
>>>
>> Article url below -
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_frequency_scaling>
>>
>> However, it uses more power than I thought as shown in the following quote -
>>
>> "Sempron 3400+ has a die size of 84mm^2 , produced on AMD's 90-nanometer
>> silicon-on-insulator (SOI) process. It runs at 2.0GHz and features a
>> 256KB L2 cache, and its max thermal power is 62 watts. "
>>
>> From the following page -
>>
>> <http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,1841866,00.asp>
>>
>> So, although I'm not really using more power by setting my cpu scaling
>> to Performance, it still uses more power than I thought.
>>
>> Later, Ray Parrish
>>
>>
> >From another viewpoint: My situation requires my computer to be
> inside an enclosed space without a great deal of ventilation. With
> scaling my cpu runs at 1.3 ghz and about 48 degrees C and the gpu is
> 58. At full speed the temperature of the cpu raises to about 58
> degrees. If I go to windows and play something like Crysis or Fallout
> 3 I have to keep the cabinet door open to prevent the computer from
> crashing. I can't check the speed or temp very easily but when I
> reboot to Ubuntu the cpu is running over 60 degrees and the gpu is
> over 65 degrees. Also everything is running from batteries so power
> matters to me.
>
>
That's pretty hot! I converted your celsius numbers to fahrenheit, and
48 C is 118 F. My computer purrs along at 104 F, and during a four hour
virus scan of my Windows install, with the cpu maxed out the whole time,
it never got over 107 F...

I very seldom play games, so I don't know how it would perform under
those conditions.

Later, Ray Parrish--

http://www.rayslinks.com/ Web index of human reviewed links.
<http://www.rayslinks.com/Troubleshooting%20and%20fixing%20Windows.html>
Trouble shooting and Fixing Windows
http://www.writingsoftheschizophrenic.com My poetry in web pages


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2009, 12:20 AM
Derek Broughton
 
Default Processor Scaling

Ray Parrish wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Ray Parrish wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well, as I said above I'm not worried about the extra power the "cpu"
>>> not the whole desktop takes... The cpu is just a small chip inside the
>>> box, and runs on 5 volts. Reading comprehension my friend...
>>>
>>
>> Electricity comprehension my friend. 5V or 500V is (largely) irrelevant
>> - it's the power, not the voltage.
>>
>>
>>
> Ok, I did some research, and this supports my view [From Wikipedia]
>
>> Dynamic frequency scaling reduces the number of instructions a
>> processor can issue in a given amount of time, thus reducing
>> performance. Hence, it is generally used when the workload is not
>> CPU-bound.
>>
>> Dynamic frequency scaling by itself is rarely worthwhile as a way to
>> conserve switching power. Saving the most power requires dynamic
>> voltage scaling too, because of the V^2 component and the fact that
>> modern CPUs are strongly optimized for low power idle states. In most
>> constant-voltage cases it is more efficient to run briefly at peak
>> speed and stay in a deep idle state for longer (called "race to
>> idle"), than it is to run at a reduced clock rate for a long time and
>> only stay briefly in a light idle state. However, reducing voltage
>> along with clock rate can change those tradeoffs.

So what you've just said is that you didn't understand a word of what was
written...

Did you have a clue what it meant by V^2?

It also points out "modern CPUs are strongly optimized for low power idle
states" - and you've yet to provide any evidence that yours _is_ one of
those (it's not really even true - the _cutting edge_ cpus, are, but there
are still huge numbers of commodity cpus that don't even do frequency
scaling).

Absolutely, it's right that voltage scaling is the best way to reduce power
consumption - but that doesn't bear any relationship to what either you or I
said above.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2009, 12:58 AM
"Karl F. Larsen"
 
Default Processor Scaling

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Ray Parrish wrote:
>
>
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>> Ray Parrish wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well, as I said above I'm not worried about the extra power the "cpu"
>>>> not the whole desktop takes... The cpu is just a small chip inside the
>>>> box, and runs on 5 volts. Reading comprehension my friend...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Electricity comprehension my friend. 5V or 500V is (largely) irrelevant
>>> - it's the power, not the voltage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, I did some research, and this supports my view [From Wikipedia]
>>
>>
>>> Dynamic frequency scaling reduces the number of instructions a
>>> processor can issue in a given amount of time, thus reducing
>>> performance. Hence, it is generally used when the workload is not
>>> CPU-bound.
>>>
>>> Dynamic frequency scaling by itself is rarely worthwhile as a way to
>>> conserve switching power. Saving the most power requires dynamic
>>> voltage scaling too, because of the V^2 component and the fact that
>>> modern CPUs are strongly optimized for low power idle states. In most
>>> constant-voltage cases it is more efficient to run briefly at peak
>>> speed and stay in a deep idle state for longer (called "race to
>>> idle"), than it is to run at a reduced clock rate for a long time and
>>> only stay briefly in a light idle state. However, reducing voltage
>>> along with clock rate can change those tradeoffs.
>>>
>
> So what you've just said is that you didn't understand a word of what was
> written...
>
> Did you have a clue what it meant by V^2?
>
> It also points out "modern CPUs are strongly optimized for low power idle
> states" - and you've yet to provide any evidence that yours _is_ one of
> those (it's not really even true - the _cutting edge_ cpus, are, but there
> are still huge numbers of commodity cpus that don't even do frequency
> scaling).
>
> Absolutely, it's right that voltage scaling is the best way to reduce power
> consumption - but that doesn't bear any relationship to what either you or I
> said above.
>
>
>
Let me just say my motherboard comes set to over voltage the CPU
which is expected to get faster CPU speeds. Children are VERY interested
in this. I am 73 years old and not long ago I got a 10 MHz chip to put
in place of the regular 1 MHz chip. I raised the speed by 10/1 and it
was hard to tell! So my 1 GHz chip I know have is so fast it is
instantaneous.
So if my speed was cut by 4 it would not be noticed.

Karl

--

Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
Linux User
#450462 http://counter.li.org.
PGP 4208 4D6E 595F 22B9 FF1C ECB6 4A3C 2C54 FE23 53A7


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2009, 02:04 AM
Ray Parrish
 
Default Processor Scaling

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Ray Parrish wrote:
>
>
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>> Ray Parrish wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Well, as I said above I'm not worried about the extra power the "cpu"
>>>> not the whole desktop takes... The cpu is just a small chip inside the
>>>> box, and runs on 5 volts. Reading comprehension my friend...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Electricity comprehension my friend. 5V or 500V is (largely) irrelevant
>>> - it's the power, not the voltage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, I did some research, and this supports my view [From Wikipedia]
>>
>>
>>> Dynamic frequency scaling reduces the number of instructions a
>>> processor can issue in a given amount of time, thus reducing
>>> performance. Hence, it is generally used when the workload is not
>>> CPU-bound.
>>>
>>> Dynamic frequency scaling by itself is rarely worthwhile as a way to
>>> conserve switching power. Saving the most power requires dynamic
>>> voltage scaling too, because of the V^2 component and the fact that
>>> modern CPUs are strongly optimized for low power idle states. In most
>>> constant-voltage cases it is more efficient to run briefly at peak
>>> speed and stay in a deep idle state for longer (called "race to
>>> idle"), than it is to run at a reduced clock rate for a long time and
>>> only stay briefly in a light idle state. However, reducing voltage
>>> along with clock rate can change those tradeoffs.
>>>
>
> So what you've just said is that you didn't understand a word of what was
> written...
>
> Did you have a clue what it meant by V^2?
>
> It also points out "modern CPUs are strongly optimized for low power idle
> states" - and you've yet to provide any evidence that yours _is_ one of
> those (it's not really even true - the _cutting edge_ cpus, are, but there
> are still huge numbers of commodity cpus that don't even do frequency
> scaling).
>
> Absolutely, it's right that voltage scaling is the best way to reduce power
> consumption - but that doesn't bear any relationship to what either you or I
> said above.
>
>
>
Well, I'm just throwing a guess out, but V^2 seems to be normal notation
for voltage squared.

This is the closest information I could find on "low power idle states"
and comes from a pdf I found on AMD's site. They aren't very forthcoming
with the specifications for my AMD Sempron 3400+, and only list the
1,8ghz AM2 socket version now, while mine is the 2ghz Socket 754 version.

> Power Management
> – Multiple low-power states
> – System Management Mode (SMM)
> – ACPI-compliant, including support for processor
> performance states
Here is a quote from Wikipedia about the AMD cpus.

> *Cool'n'Quiet* is a CPU
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_processing_unit> speed
> throttling <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_throttling> and power
> saving technology introduced by AMD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD>
> with their Athlon 64 processor line. It works by reducing the
> processor's clock rate <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_rate> and
> voltage <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage> when the processor is
> idle. The aim of this technology is to reduce overall power
> consumption <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_consumption> and lower
> heat generation, allowing for slower (thus quieter
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_PC>) cooling fan
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_fan> operation. The objectives
> of cooler and quieter result in the name Cool'n'Quiet. The technology
> is similar to Intel's <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel> SpeedStep
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeedStep> and AMD's own PowerNow!
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerNow%21>, which were developed with
> the aim of increasing laptop battery life by reducing power consumption.
It says Athlon 64, but on another page it lists the Sempron 3400+ as
having the 64 bit instruction set, and Cool'n'Quiet technology.

Anyway, as I've said in previous posts on this topic, I save power in
quite a number of ways, but when it comes to my computer, I want it
running at full speed at all times. The power I save by leaving the heat
off far into the cold season, and wearing a coat indoors, eating 80% of
my food cold, washing dishes in cold water, and turning the warmer off
under the coffee pot as soon as it finishes brewing, as I don't mind
cold coffee either, should outweigh the amount of power my 64 watt cpu
consumes.

Later, Ray Parrish

--
http://www.rayslinks.com/ Web index of human reviewed links.
<http://www.rayslinks.com/Troubleshooting%20and%20fixing%20Windows.html>
Trouble shooting and Fixing Windows
http://www.writingsoftheschizophrenic.com My poetry in web pages


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2009, 08:31 AM
Ray Parrish
 
Default Processor Scaling

Ray Parrish wrote:
> Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 04:29 +0000, Anthony M. Rasat wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> sudo cpufreq-selector -g performance
>>>
>>>
>> If you are running the Gnome desktop, you can set the processor speed in
>> the CPU frequency scaling applet. Just left click on the applet after
>> you put it in a panel.
>>
>>
> Not unless you run another command first to tell the applet it has root
> privileges. I followed a link to instructions for that from someone in
> this thread, and now have been able to use the applet to set my cpu to
> 2000mhz, which is near it's top speed of 2100 mhz, and things are
> responding much more quickly now.
>
> Later, Ray Parrish
>
>
Now that I've run with the cpu frequency applet set to either 2000mhz or
performance, I have noticed that gray outs are still common and
frustrating as I try to use my system. On a whim, I changed the cpu
governor to ondemand, and what do you know, the gray outs went away...

It seems I was a bit hasty when I made the declaration that "things are
responding much more quickly now" above in the quote.

Later, Ray Parrish

--
http://www.rayslinks.com/ Web index of human reviewed links.
<http://www.rayslinks.com/Troubleshooting%20and%20fixing%20Windows.html>
Trouble shooting and Fixing Windows
http://www.writingsoftheschizophrenic.com My poetry in web pages


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2009, 10:15 AM
"Flynn, Steve (L & P - IT)"
 
Default Processor Scaling

> Anyway, as I've said in previous posts on this topic, I save power in
> quite a number of ways, but when it comes to my computer, I want it
> running at full speed at all times. The power I save by leaving the
heat
> off far into the cold season, and wearing a coat indoors, eating 80%
of
> my food cold, washing dishes in cold water, and turning the warmer off
> under the coffee pot as soon as it finishes brewing, as I don't mind
> cold coffee either, should outweigh the amount of power my 64 watt cpu
> consumes.

You're not a monk are you Ray?



This email and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee, are strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient any reading, dissemination, copying or any other use or reliance is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by email and then permanently delete the email. Copyright reserved.

All communications, incoming and outgoing, may be recorded and are monitored for legitimate business purposes.

The security and reliability of email transmission cannot be guaranteed. It is the recipient?s responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachment for the presence of viruses.

The Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries ("Capita") exclude all liability for any loss or damage whatsoever arising or resulting from the receipt, use or transmission of this email.

Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-12-2009, 09:02 PM
NoOp
 
Default Processor Scaling

On 01/05/2009 12:48 PM, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Ray Parrish wrote:
>
>> Well, as I said above I'm not worried about the extra power the "cpu"
>> not the whole desktop takes... The cpu is just a small chip inside the
>> box, and runs on 5 volts. Reading comprehension my friend...
>
> Electricity comprehension my friend. 5V or 500V is (largely) irrelevant -
> it's the power, not the voltage.
>
>

Might be interesting to connect one of these things & test:

http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/SearchDetail.asp?productID=14691
[P3 P4460 Kill-A-Watt EZ Electricity Usage Monitor]

Over on grc.techtalk.linux Mike Meyer posted this a few days ago:

<quote>
I'd heard that Linux is less power-efficient than Windows. I used a
Kill-A-Watt to test that assumption, and it seems to be wrong:

In Windows XP SP3:
When my laptop is at a blank desktop, no applications or unneeded
services running, the laptop consumes 56 watts. If I close the lid and
wait for 5 minutes for the hard drive to go into power-saving mode, the
laptop uses 50 watts.

In Fedora 10:
At a blank desktop with no unneeded services running (sshd is still
running) the laptop uses 37 watts. With the lid closed, it uses 31 watts.

In both cases, the laptop was wirelessly connected to the network and
ready for Internet surfing.

Laptop model is a 4-year-old HP nx9010.
</quote>


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:38 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org