Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Surprising Power Consumption Of Ubuntu 11.04 vs. Windows 7

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    201

    Default

    So the conclusion could be that Windows and Linux are both affected by the BIOS bug.

    Or, it could be that none of the systems have a buggy BIOS.

    TFA misses the most interesting point.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    202

    Default

    I wonder if the only system to suffer that bug is the T61, which clearly does experience a difference in usage.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Eerrrr... Michael... Why is the pro version of Windows 7 on powersave? I demand you press and hold [Windows]+[x] and see the battery getting sucked dry in 3 seconds. I can tell by the compoziting being turned off. Even if not; Windows 7 Pro doesn't have it disabled by default. No people; we can conclude that Linux without powersave and with the BIOS bug, is even more power efficient than Windows without the bug on power-save. ROFL.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Eerrrr... Michael... Why is the pro version of Windows 7 on powersave?
    Why wouldn't it be?

    Next on the list on the comparison however Micheal I would like to see what happens when something like a bluetooth device is connected and items like a USB stick plugged in.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    63

    Default

    What i'd like to see is a non-Ubuntu comparison. See the power consumption of Arch or Gentoo

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    How is this surprising?
    Because of this Tom's Hardware article where Ubuntu 11.04 has 40% less battery life than 11.10 (and windows too).

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krazy View Post
    So the conclusion could be that Windows and Linux are both affected by the BIOS bug.

    Or, it could be that none of the systems have a buggy BIOS.

    TFA misses the most interesting point.
    Tom's hardware should write some clarification about Ubuntu's power usage now.

    http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/0...nd-Performance

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,394

    Default

    Yes, it would certainly be interesting to see the results using the workaround as well as with an older Ubuntu release. But yes, it is rather surprising that they are so close in terms of power consumption. Also interesting that Catalyst performed nearly the same or better on Linux here, although this is a single case. Having a very similar system to the last one (Phenom II), it's rather relevant to me.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by down1 View Post
    Well that needs to be framed somewhere
    Not really, if you look way back, I remember when Phoronix was pointing out that Linux was faster than Windows Vista with the Catalyst driver.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Would be interesting to see this comparison for an Atom. My very unprofessional personal experience with an Inspiron 1018 (Atom N455) is:

    Ubuntu 11.04: 8.5 W idling
    Windows 7 home premium: 5.5 W idling

    So in my case it seems as if Windows is a lot more power efficient. And I run Ubuntu already with the "pcie_aspm=force" kernel option.

Posting Permissions

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