Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:53:26 +0100 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: Status of X86_P4_CLOCKMOD? |
| |
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 05:27:01AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Saturday 25 February 2006 02:57, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 08:59:37PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > And if the option is mostly useless, what is it good for? > > > > > > It's sometimes useful in cases where the target CPU doesn't have any better > > > option (Speedstep/Powernow). The big misconception is that it > > > somehow saves power & increases battery life. Not so. > > > All it does is 'not do work so often'. The upside of this is > > > that in some situations, we generate less heat this way. > > > > Doesn't less heat imply less power consumption? > > Not in this case no. >...
Sorry for the dumb question, but how could this work physically?
If a computer produces less heat with the same power consumption, what happens with the other energy?
> -Andi
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |