extendedping
|
2010-05-10
, 21:51
|
Posts: 838 |
Thanked: 292 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
|
#11
|
|
2010-05-10
, 21:58
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 2,100 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#12
|
as a perspective buyer, doesn't this destroy the already not so great battery life?
|
2010-05-10
, 22:13
|
Posts: 604 |
Thanked: 108 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Phoenix, WA
|
#13
|
|
2010-05-10
, 22:27
|
Posts: 15 |
Thanked: 1 time |
Joined on Jan 2008
|
#14
|
|
2010-05-10
, 22:35
|
Posts: 1,427 |
Thanked: 2,077 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
@ Sydney
|
#15
|
the CPU does NOT IDLE at the lowest frequency (250MHz) but it SLEEPS at 0MHz! Thus reducing the lowest frequency would not reduce power consumption. It is only activated during low workload and may actually consume more power than a higher frequency, as it takes more time to go back to sleep/idle state.
|
2010-05-11
, 08:52
|
|
Posts: 4,365 |
Thanked: 2,467 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Australia Mate
|
#16
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to F2thaK For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-05-11
, 09:01
|
Posts: 5,795 |
Thanked: 3,151 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Agoura Hills Calif
|
#17
|
The Following User Says Thank You to geneven For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-05-11
, 09:04
|
Posts: 1,751 |
Thanked: 844 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Sweden
|
#18
|
|
2010-05-11
, 14:43
|
|
Posts: 2,473 |
Thanked: 12,265 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Jerusalem, PS/IL
|
#19
|
|
2010-05-11
, 14:46
|
Posts: 472 |
Thanked: 442 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
|
#20
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Laughingstok For This Useful Post: | ||