-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Gregory Shearman on Monday 21 Nov 2011 07:54 : \____
> On 2011-11-21, 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-11-20, 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Enough CPU / RAM (and flash) for X costs nothing these days.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It might cost nothing in terms of dollars, but it *does* cost in terms
>>> of battery use.
>>>
>>> Lower CPU/RAM means longer battery life.
>>
>> The smart way to manage power is to turn off CPU cores and RAM not in use.
>> Some companies are moving towards it for CPU cores. Memory chips can also
>> go into idle operation - but I'm not sure if anyone has completely powered
>> down RAM chips (it can cause problems with the bus).
>
> Yeah, it would be better if these companies would work together to
> provide a consistent and *open* manner of powering down these devices,
> so that *all* OS can safely use these functions.
It would be *really* nice to switch off cores, e.g. when away from the computer,
even automatically based on some logic. But is it practically possible
given that the same wafer is shared? AMD doesn't offer this feature on my boxes.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz, Research Fellow
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
Managing partner @ http://scifitness.co.uk & http://iuron.com
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk7KIXcACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7HegCgqUZDLpR1IbfIXABHH46N+lBV
XZEAn3Mjl6lW57cZ/I3dk2G5ygjiSuQ2
=D44I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
