funkmunk
|
2011-08-11
, 09:50
|
Posts: 463 |
Thanked: 103 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
@ Mumbai, India
|
#11
|
The Following User Says Thank You to funkmunk For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2011-08-11
, 09:53
|
|
Posts: 939 |
Thanked: 366 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
@ U.K.
|
#12
|
|
2011-08-11
, 09:55
|
|
Posts: 939 |
Thanked: 366 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
@ U.K.
|
#13
|
The Following User Says Thank You to corduroysack For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2011-08-11
, 10:02
|
Posts: 2,802 |
Thanked: 4,491 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#14
|
Even on idle, the frequency keeps on changing, with powerbias, in my opinion, the fluctuation should be reduced improving battery life.
110 is optimum in my opinion because, in higher values, i noticed the cpu is not using the maximum frequency most of the times, if not at all.
If someone can test the performance outcomes on idle and on usage and get talk time, usage times, idle times and power consumption per hour or more for each of those, I'd be glad
|
2011-08-11
, 10:25
|
Banned |
Posts: 32 |
Thanked: 11 times |
Joined on Aug 2011
|
#15
|
If reducing frequency "jitter" is your goal, you should concentrate on tuning the sampling_rate and up_threshold parameters, or even using the conservative governor. Note that this doesn't necessarily equate to longer battery life.
That's the entire point of powersave_bias, you sacrifice peak performance in exchange for (hopefully) reduced energy consumption.
You need to define a specific workload that can be executed non-interactively (for accurate testing), and then compare the total (ie, spontaneous measurements are useless) energy expended for performing that load at various configurations.
|
2011-08-11
, 11:18
|
Posts: 69 |
Thanked: 55 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
|
#16
|
|
2011-08-11
, 15:10
|
Banned |
Posts: 32 |
Thanked: 11 times |
Joined on Aug 2011
|
#17
|