Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 180

Thread: More Radeon Power Management Improvements

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monraaf View Post
    Well, the code is open source, so you can reduce the number of pcie lanes yourself to find out. I played around with that a bit when power management was only in the user space driver and I did not find that reducing the number of pcie lanes resulted in lower power consumption, only to instability

    FWIW I'm currently using fglrx at the moment and it's using all of the 16 pcie lanes with a HD 5750, regardless of the performance level.
    I already did have a look at the code in radeon_pm.c but it is a bit too complex for me
    So you mean, the PCIe lanes are not so important..that's interesting...maybe it is the algorithm used in the radeon driver that needs improvement

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    ...maybe it is the algorithm used in the radeon driver that needs improvement
    What would you suggest, remembering that the PM code in the open source stack is perhaps 1/20th the size and complexity of the corresponding code in fglrx ?

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    What would you suggest, remembering that the PM code in the open source stack is perhaps 1/20th the size and complexity of the corresponding code in fglrx ?
    less code means higher code quality.
    and less security holes.
    and higher stability.

    i think the FGLRX only have more code as the linux kernel because the linux kernel delete bad and obsoled code and fglrx collects all code.

    more core is just a 'number'

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    What would you suggest, remembering that the PM code in the open source stack is perhaps 1/20th the size and complexity of the corresponding code in fglrx ?
    I guess it's mostly about determining the absolute minimum settings on each card. Many laptop users would probably be perfectly happy with that? That's a rather tricky thing though if the card BIOS does not contain the absolute minimum settings. Should the driver still rely on them or ship with overrides users could manually enable?

  5. #165
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    maybe it is the algorithm used in the radeon driver that needs improvement
    In all honesty I don't really have any complaints about the power management in the open source radeon driver. It works like a charm for me with a HD 5750, so I don't see what exactly needs improvement.

    System power consumption Idle Desktop:
    -----------------------------------------
    fglrx : 62 W
    radeon: 65 W

    GPU Temperatures Idle Desktop:
    -----------------------------------------
    fglrx: 40 C
    radeon: 42/43 C


    The only thing that I'm missing is something to manually control the fan, so I can make the thing just a little more quiet.

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,375

    Default

    The driver (open or proprietary) use the power state tables in the vbios. That's why they are there.

  7. #167
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monraaf View Post
    In all honesty I don't really have any complaints about the power management in the open source radeon driver. It works like a charm for me with a HD 5750, so I don't see what exactly needs improvement.

    System power consumption Idle Desktop:
    -----------------------------------------
    fglrx : 62 W
    radeon: 65 W

    GPU Temperatures Idle Desktop:
    -----------------------------------------
    fglrx: 40 C
    radeon: 42/43 C


    The only thing that I'm missing is something to manually control the fan, so I can make the thing just a little more quiet.
    That's exactly my issue...it is not quiet at all most of the time...as it seems it takes too long to go back to normal speed...(more than 5 minutes instead of a couple of seconds). The problem is not the power consumption.

  8. #168
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    it seems it takes too long to go back to normal speed
    Do you use profiles or dynamic pm?
    Because dynpm is still experimental and should not be used.

  9. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    16

    Default

    I use profile method.

  10. #170
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    That's exactly my issue...it is not quiet at all most of the time...as it seems it takes too long to go back to normal speed...(more than 5 minutes instead of a couple of seconds). The problem is not the power consumption.
    I approve of this post:

    I regularly ramp up the fan (if for my taste the card is getting to warm - it's still summer after all ) and then after a short while turn it down to a pretty low frequency/rpm number where it doesn't annoy me

    it would be really nice to have kind of a virtual "knob" to control how fast the fan turns

    for my 5850 (with fglrx / catalyst) that's in general around 21-24%, so it doesn't have to be in explicit numbers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •