Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:44:49 +0300 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Gary Dunn <knowtree@aloha.com> Cc: FreeBSD acpi <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>, freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fighting for the power. Message-ID: <4A096131.4040405@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1242110455.2664.9.camel@slate01> References: <49FE1826.4060000@FreeBSD.org> <4A07BC4D.7080604@freebsd.org> <4A081868.6010906@FreeBSD.org> <3a142e750905111308o62a11c8em5465ea9aa1cfaebc@mail.gmail.com> <4A08B10E.4040702@FreeBSD.org> <1242110455.2664.9.camel@slate01>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary Dunn wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 02:13 +0300, Alexander Motin wrote: > ... >> What's about general effect, the main idea here is the same as in audio >> processing: result mostly depends on quality of the worst component. >> Your system may just have some other consumers which I don't have. For >> example, desktop CPU instead of mobile, desktop chipset instead of >> mobile, powerful external video instead of (or even in addition to) >> built-in, and so on. > > Interesting point. Is there a power consumption benchmark for evaluating > hardware for use with FreeBSD? It is difficult to speak about benchmark, as soon as we are talking about idle power. I think the first step evaluation could be made with vendor provided data, as it mostly depends on hardware. If vendor speaks about 2 hours on battery, then there is quite small probability to get much out of that system, as it looks mostly positioned as desktop and may have many desktop components. And opposite, system declaring 9 hours must support a lot of different power-saving technologies to reach it. -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A096131.4040405>