Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Reply
Thread Tools
meegofan is offline meegofan
2012-10-05 , 21:27
Posts: 68 | Thanked: 25 times | Joined on Aug 2012
#11
I just installed Faster N9 and overclocked the CPU slightly to 1.1ghz. Now I basically have a new phone, buttery smooth, I don't think it will get noticeably smoother than this, even at higher clock speeds! My N9 is just perfect now, thank you all for your great work!!!
 
romu is offline romu
2012-10-06 , 08:59
Posts: 602 | Thanked: 735 times | Joined on Mar 2011 @ Nantes, France
#12
Ok, thanks for these useful answer, I'll go to FasterN9 in priority.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to romu For This Useful Post:
m4r0v3r is offline m4r0v3r
2012-10-06 , 09:05
Posts: 1,746 | Thanked: 1,832 times | Joined on Dec 2010
#13
As its been said overclocking only helps in intensive tasks, faster n9 was what made the massive difference for me. It made multitasking and switching between home screens so fluid
 
ladoga is offline ladoga
2012-10-06 , 11:56
Posts: 230 | Thanked: 302 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Helsinki, Suomi (Finland)
#14
Originally Posted by DarkSkies View Post
I'd say FasterN9 should be enough. OCing will only decrease battery life.
Have you measured this?

I would expect that overclocking actually increases the battery life in some cases. This is because executing code is faster at higher clock rate, thus the CPU spends more of it's time idling at low frequency.

Normal usage profile of cell phone is such that CPU is rarely under constant load. Probably you would see increased battery consumption under heavy load (where some process keeps CPU at higher clock rate for fixed period of time), for example playing a video. But doing the usual stuff of browsing the web, running occasional app and making phonecalls the effect could be quite the opposite.
Last edited by ladoga; 2012-10-06 at 13:28.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to ladoga For This Useful Post:
DarkSkies is offline DarkSkies
2012-10-06 , 17:14
Posts: 256 | Thanked: 110 times | Joined on Jan 2012 @ Europe
#15
Originally Posted by ladoga View Post
Have you measured this?

I would expect that overclocking actually increases the battery life in some cases. This is because executing code is faster at higher clock rate, thus the CPU spends more of it's time idling at low frequency.
This isn't so simple and in regard to how processors work this is a misguided logic.

Processor power consumption is closely connected to their clock frequency. An OC chip will consume/require higher ad hoc wattage input hence draining the battery faster (simply said, with aspects for example regarding erratic power management when working outside of factory specs and so on left alone). Google overclocking vs power consumption and perhaps electric current in regard to microprocessors.
__________________
NOKIA N9 16GB BLACK
Last edited by DarkSkies; 2012-10-06 at 20:28.
 
meegofan is offline meegofan
2012-10-06 , 20:35
Posts: 68 | Thanked: 25 times | Joined on Aug 2012
#16
I haven't noticed any significant change concerning battery life. In theory, energy consumption might be a little higher due to overclocking of the CPU, however this is not important to me since I charge my device every day anyway. And as I've already mentioned, in practice you won't notice any difference in battery life assuming only slight overclocking and a normal usage scenario of the device. The situation might be totally different at overclocked CPU speeds close to 1.4ghz though...
 
ladoga is offline ladoga
2012-10-07 , 11:02
Posts: 230 | Thanked: 302 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Helsinki, Suomi (Finland)
#17
Originally Posted by DarkSkies View Post
This isn't so simple and in regard to how processors work this is a misguided logic.

Processor power consumption is closely connected to their clock frequency. An OC chip will consume/require higher ad hoc wattage input hence draining the battery faster (simply said, with aspects for example regarding erratic power management when working outside of factory specs and so on left alone). Google overclocking vs power consumption and perhaps electric current in regard to microprocessors.
OMAP3630 is rated for 1.2GHz so running it below that isn't exceeding factory specs. Higher frequency will naturally consume more power, but if you had read my message you'd probably realize that I wasn't arguing against that at all.

What I was saying is that it's possible to have CPU spend more time idling at low frequency/voltage by using relatively higher frequencies when necessary.

This is the reason why for example using the "conservative" CPU Freq governor in the Linux kernel, which adjusts frequency in steps correlating with the CPU load often uses more power than using the "ondemand" governor, which skips to highest frequency when load on the CPU reaches a certain treshold.

My N9, currently clocked to 1200MHz spends most of it's time at 300MHz and increase in battery consumption hasn't been noticeable. I'm not saying that it doesn't consume more power, just that the difference is so miniscule that it's hard to notice without proper measuring.
Code:
$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq 
1200000
$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq 
300000
 

The Following User Says Thank You to ladoga For This Useful Post:
HELLASISGREECE is offline HELLASISGREECE
2012-10-07 , 12:18
Posts: 896 | Thanked: 978 times | Joined on Feb 2011 @ Greece, Athens
#18
Originally Posted by romu View Post
Ok, thanks for these useful answer, I'll go to FasterN9 in priority.
Yep,
FasterN9 has no belles and wistles.
Just a small script that makes the device faster.

that's all we need. Not tons of mumbo-jumbo tweaks

Originally Posted by dommau View Post
oc to 1350 mhz does make a difference but at the cost of battery life and probably reduces cpu lifetime...
Theoritecally yes, If you plan to keep the phone for 10 or more years.
We've been OCing the N900 for two years now.

Still going strong : )
Last edited by HELLASISGREECE; 2012-10-07 at 12:20.
 
DarkSkies is offline DarkSkies
2012-10-08 , 01:50
Posts: 256 | Thanked: 110 times | Joined on Jan 2012 @ Europe
#19
Originally Posted by ladoga View Post
but if you had read my message you'd probably realize that I wasn't arguing against that at all.
Don't patronize me (especially as you are not really making much sense).

Originally Posted by ladoga View Post
What I was saying is that it's possible to have CPU spend more time idling at low frequency/voltage by using relatively higher frequencies when necessary.
As said, this doesn't work like that. A cpu running OCed for a moment will consume more energy than running balance for a longer while for what it's optimized by design. Go ahead, oveclock and measure this. (you can alternatively remain stubborn, I approve).
__________________
NOKIA N9 16GB BLACK
Last edited by DarkSkies; 2012-10-08 at 01:54.
 
ladoga is offline ladoga
2012-10-08 , 15:09
Posts: 230 | Thanked: 302 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Helsinki, Suomi (Finland)
#20
Don't patronize me (especially as you are not really making much sense).
It's good if you will correct my false impressions so please point out where I'm wrong instead of trying to pick a fight. I'm not trying to patronise and I'm certainly not in any position to do so.

This is my current understanding more or less (sorry if I'm repeating myself, but i try to put it more clearly):

When OS is not busy it issues halt instructions which suspend operation of parts of the CPU and result in reduced energy consumption per tick. Thus a core running at higher clock rate can spend comparatively more time at less energy consuming state. If it consumes more or less energy overall is up to CPU design (idle power consumption, power consumption at different clock rates) and usage profile (continuos load, most of time idle or anything in between).

And the rest of what I (think I) know about subject is simply from following debate around Linux CPU Freq. governors and reading documentations such as these:

https://lesswatts.org/documentation/faq/index.php
At lower freqs, your CPU may take more time to execute heavy tasks, so will spend less time in idle (power saving) state. The "ondemand" governor solves this by elevating the CPU to full speed when needed, so it can go back to idle state quickly.
https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/...ide/index.html
...since (in principle) a slow CPU on full load consumes more power than a fast CPU that is not loaded. As such, while it may be advisable to set the CPU to use the Powersave governor during times of expected low activity, any unexpected high loads during that time can cause the system to actually consume more power.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to ladoga For This Useful Post:
Reply
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:59.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top