Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 86

Thread: Ubuntu 10.04 Is More Power Hungry Than Windows 7

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,676

    Default

    Most likely the backlight is set to 100%, thats what needs much more power. Brighness is not controlled via backlight by default. I would disable compiz too.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Do note that Ubuntu boots into performance and reverts to ondemand after 60 seconds or so. This is done to improve boot times and does impact power consumption.

    (I disabled this feature today in favor of using the "conservative" governor everywhere. My mobile Core 2 doesn't really need the extra performance to boot).

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    914

    Default a bit to generous headline for the article

    you test a netbook and use also one of the few ion-versions. Thats not very representive because there is no good open nvidia driver, and the closedsource drivers all consume to much energie. Use a Netbook with intel grafics or use a small notebook with integrated ati hardware, thats representative.

    That Nvidia is the worst grafics solution for linux do we all now. Call it with nividia grafics + ubuntu linux is more power hungry than it is fair. Or alternativly test at least one of each other grafic-chip vendors.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    I disabled this feature today in favor of using the "conservative" governor everywhere. My mobile Core 2 doesn't really need the extra performance to boot).
    You should be aware that you are actually crippling[1] the ability of your processor to save power by forcing a lower clockrate. Unless you are worried about your thermal envelope, there is absolutely no reason to deviate from the ondemand governor.

    Modern processors save the most power when they have long periods of inactivity as they can then spend longer in deeper C-states. By slowing the processor down, you are requiring that it take longer to complete its work and therefore spend more time dissipating more power.

    [1] http://mjg59.livejournal.com/88608.html

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Sorry, but is there nobody who finds the results of the test a little bit strange?

    To refresh your memories, the raw numbers from the test :

    Code:
    Netbook 25W, 39W, 20W, 33W (W7,Ubuntu,W7,Ubuntu)
    T61     28W, 32W, 24W, 25W (W7,Ubuntu,W7,Ubuntu)
    Diff.   -3W,  7W, -4W,  8W
    Come on, a far more powerful T61-Notebook consumes less energy or in worst case 4W more than a netbook? A Core2Duo and a Nvidia Quadro card consume less energy than a Atom 330 and Geforce 9400 aka ION? How possible is this? The numbers absolutely make no sense.

    The only explanation is that the power-meter, used in the test, does not work correctly with the netbook battery-charger.

    Please Michael, check your numbers before writing an such an article.

    P.S. :

    I've just checked my own notebook (Dell Latitude D505, P-M 1.7Ghz, Linux-PHC-patched kernel) with a power-meter (No-name brand, bought at ALDI South, Germany) :

    Code:
    Low Brightness, 600Mhz (Idle)      -> ~15W
    Low Brightness, 1700Mhz (Idle)     -> ~16W
    Low Brightness, 1700Mhz (CPUburn)  -> ~25W
    
    High Brightness,  600Mhz (Idle)    -> ~21W
    High Brightness, 1700Mhz (Idle)    -> ~22W
    High Brightness, 1700Mhz (CPUburn) -> ~30W

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hannover
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Same here. A Thinpad R61p with NVidia Quadro FX 570M and Core2Duo 7700@2.40GHz consumes ~28-30Watt in idle mode at full brightness, ~32Watt on full hd playback in cpu mode, ~34Watt on full hd playback in gpu mode. I do not know the full power consumption, but it was something like 50Watt. It's allways less than with windows.

    The second meaningless windows 7 and ubuntu comparison.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Ubuntu 10.04 Is More Power Hungry Than Windows 7

    Yesterday we published our first benchmarks of Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 that provided an initial look at the OpenGL graphics performance between these two operating systems on six different systems. Today we are continuing to compare the two operating systems as we look at the power consumption of Ubuntu and Windows on a netbook and notebook.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14893
    I would really like to see you compare both of these to the EB4 beta on the Eee PC with the jupiter-support-eee package installed.

    A third party review would be really well received as it would give a fresh perspective.

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebird View Post
    The second meaningless windows 7 and ubuntu comparison.
    This comparison probably has sense, because it seems out of the box Windows 7 will operate longer on batteries. However, if Ubuntu favors performance over power consumption it would be nice if someone would just mention this.

  9. #19

    Default

    Oh, I'm pretty sure your numbers are off, though I don't have Ubuntu now my 1000HE never used more than 20 watts, the 1201 shouldn't use much more power if any at all.

    With EB4 you should see 6-8 watts when in power saver mode YMMV.

  10. #20

    Default

    I would love to see a Windows 7 vs Ubuntu 10.04 vs EB4 power management / battery life test. The latest EB4 bets can be downloaded from the Eeebuntu website.

Posting Permissions

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