Power measurements

Power measurements

[Phil Endecott]

Dear All,

I would like to share some power consumption numbers that I have just 
measured on my VIA C7-M system.  It uses the e_powersaver module and 
can run at 400MHz or 1.2GHz.  I have measured the power consumption 
when idle and when running a "while(1){}" program at each speed:

         400    1200
Idle    16W    16W
Busy    17W    20W

What I find interesting is that the idle power at 1.2GHz is identical 
to that at 400 MHz.

This makes me wonder if the on-demand governor would actually save any 
power at all.

I plan to do some more accurate measurements and to experiment with 
some different workloads.  Has anyone else done anything like this?


Regards,

Phil.

Re: Power measurements

[Len Brown]

On Saturday 23 June 2007 08:54, Phil Endecott wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> I would like to share some power consumption numbers that I have just 
> measured on my VIA C7-M system.  It uses the e_powersaver module and 
> can run at 400MHz or 1.2GHz.  I have measured the power consumption 
> when idle and when running a "while(1){}" program at each speed:
> 
>          400    1200
> Idle    16W    16W
> Busy    17W    20W
> 
> What I find interesting is that the idle power at 1.2GHz is identical 
> to that at 400 MHz.
> 
> This makes me wonder if the on-demand governor would actually save any 
> power at all.
> 
> I plan to do some more accurate measurements and to experiment with 
> some different workloads.  Has anyone else done anything like this?

In idle, the processor is executing at 0MHz --
so idle power consumption has little to do with cpufreq.

The exception is if the processor doesn't automatically
adjust it voltage when entering idle.  In this case,
idle power would depend on the frequency of the processor
when idle was entered -- not because of the frequency --
but because of the associated voltage.

I don't know about VIA C7, but some Pentium M's used to
have different idle power depending on the P-state because
of this.  But the more recent ones all have "Enhanced" C-states
where the voltage is automatically lowered in idle.

back to you question -- 20 - 16W = 4W is on the table;
and the performance difference between 400 and 1200 is on the table.
how you choose to use these states will depend on how you use
the machine.

cheers,
-Len

Re: Power measurements

[Phil Endecott]

Len Brown wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007 08:54, Phil Endecott wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> I would like to share some power consumption numbers that I have just 
>> measured on my VIA C7-M system.  It uses the e_powersaver module and 
>> can run at 400MHz or 1.2GHz.  I have measured the power consumption 
>> when idle and when running a "while(1){}" program at each speed:
>> 
>>          400    1200
>> Idle    16W    16W
>> Busy    17W    20W
>> 
>> What I find interesting is that the idle power at 1.2GHz is identical 
>> to that at 400 MHz.
>> 
>> This makes me wonder if the on-demand governor would actually save any 
>> power at all.
>> 
>> I plan to do some more accurate measurements and to experiment with 
>> some different workloads.  Has anyone else done anything like this?
>
> In idle, the processor is executing at 0MHz --
> so idle power consumption has little to do with cpufreq.

Well, the clock is running so signals will still be toggling in the 
processor.  Many of them will be gated off though.

Do other people observe that reducing the clock frequency with cpufreq 
does not reduce idle power consumption?

> The exception is if the processor doesn't automatically
> adjust it voltage when entering idle.  In this case,
> idle power would depend on the frequency of the processor
> when idle was entered -- not because of the frequency --
> but because of the associated voltage.

Ah, I had wondered about this.  According to sensors, Vcore is always 
1.09 V.  (Hmm, I can't be sure that I'm looking at the right line in 
the output of the sensors program, or that it is configured correctly.  
But none of the voltages change.)  Are there any VIA experts reading 
this who know what's supposed to happen?

> I don't know about VIA C7, but some Pentium M's used to
> have different idle power depending on the P-state because
> of this.  But the more recent ones all have "Enhanced" C-states
> where the voltage is automatically lowered in idle.

> back to you question -- 20 - 16W = 4W is on the table;
> and the performance difference between 400 and 1200 is on the table.

Well, in idle, the power difference is zero and the performance 
difference is zero.
When active, on-demand would use the higher frequency anyway.
So it looks to me as if 'on-demand' and 'performance' will behave 
identically in terms of both power and performance.

> how you choose to use these states will depend on how you use
> the machine.

I don't think there's a situation where I would want to use on-demand.

Unless I'm missing something.  Which is quite likely.....


Regards,

Phil.

Re: Power measurements

[Rafał Bilski]

> Len Brown wrote:
>> On Saturday 23 June 2007 08:54, Phil Endecott wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I would like to share some power consumption numbers that I have just
>>> measured on my VIA C7-M system.  It uses the e_powersaver module and
>>> can run at 400MHz or 1.2GHz.  I have measured the power consumption
>>> when idle and when running a "while(1){}" program at each speed:
>>>
>>>          400    1200
>>> Idle    16W    16W
>>> Busy    17W    20W
>>>
>>> What I find interesting is that the idle power at 1.2GHz is identical
>>> to that at 400 MHz.
It isn't.
>>> This makes me wonder if the on-demand governor would actually save
>>> any power at all.
There is a difference of 0,5W~1,0W max.
>>> I plan to do some more accurate measurements and to experiment with
>>> some different workloads.  Has anyone else done anything like this?
>>
>> In idle, the processor is executing at 0MHz --
>> so idle power consumption has little to do with cpufreq.
> 
> Well, the clock is running so signals will still be toggling in the
> processor.  Many of them will be gated off though.
> 
> Do other people observe that reducing the clock frequency with cpufreq
> does not reduce idle power consumption?
Yes. Because of RAM, VGA, harddisk, etc. If I understand correcly You are 
measuring entire system power consumption. This isn't P4 4GHz which 
needs 150W. This is VIA C7-Eden 1,2GHz which needs 10W - 50% less is 5W.
>> The exception is if the processor doesn't automatically
>> adjust it voltage when entering idle.  In this case,
>> idle power would depend on the frequency of the processor
>> when idle was entered -- not because of the frequency --
>> but because of the associated voltage.
> 
> Ah, I had wondered about this.  According to sensors, Vcore is always
> 1.09 V.  (Hmm, I can't be sure that I'm looking at the right line in the
> output of the sensors program, or that it is configured correctly.  But
> none of the voltages change.)  Are there any VIA experts reading this
> who know what's supposed to happen?
% dmesg | grep eps 
But most C7-Eden doesn't scale voltage.
>> I don't know about VIA C7, but some Pentium M's used to
>> have different idle power depending on the P-state because
>> of this.  But the more recent ones all have "Enhanced" C-states
>> where the voltage is automatically lowered in idle.
> 
>> back to you question -- 20 - 16W = 4W is on the table;
>> and the performance difference between 400 and 1200 is on the table.
> 
> Well, in idle, the power difference is zero and the performance
> difference is zero.
> When active, on-demand would use the higher frequency anyway.
> So it looks to me as if 'on-demand' and 'performance' will behave
> identically in terms of both power and performance.
If CPU is sleeping a lot even 0,5W can make a difference. But there is 
time needed to enter 400MHz and time needed to leave 400MHz. In real 
life "performance" governor will use less power.
>> how you choose to use these states will depend on how you use
>> the machine.
> 
> I don't think there's a situation where I would want to use on-demand.
> 
> Unless I'm missing something.  Which is quite likely.....
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Phil.
Regards
Rafa³

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Linda jako gospodyni domowa - zobacz!!!
>>> http://link.interia.pl/f1a79

Re: Power measurements

[Phil Endecott]

Rafal Bilski wrote:
>> Len Brown wrote:
>>> On Saturday 23 June 2007 08:54, Phil Endecott wrote:
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to share some power consumption numbers that I have just
>>>> measured on my VIA C7-M system.  It uses the e_powersaver module and
>>>> can run at 400MHz or 1.2GHz.  I have measured the power consumption
>>>> when idle and when running a "while(1){}" program at each speed:
>>>>
>>>>          400    1200
>>>> Idle    16W    16W
>>>> Busy    17W    20W

Here are some more accurate numbers:

         400      1200
Idle    10.55    10.91
Busy    11.47    13.48

[The first numbers were made with a mains power meter.  The second ones 
were made between the power supply and the motherboard; I used a power 
supply extension cable, cut in half, with some 0.01 and 0.1 ohm series resistors.]

>>>> What I find interesting is that the idle power at 1.2GHz is identical
>>>> to that at 400 MHz.
> It isn't.
>>>> This makes me wonder if the on-demand governor would actually save
>>>> any power at all.
> There is a difference of 0,5W~1,0W max.

Agreed!


>>> The exception is if the processor doesn't automatically
>>> adjust it voltage when entering idle.  In this case,
>>> idle power would depend on the frequency of the processor
>>> when idle was entered -- not because of the frequency --
>>> but because of the associated voltage.
>> 
>> Ah, I had wondered about this.  According to sensors, Vcore is always
>> 1.09 V.  (Hmm, I can't be sure that I'm looking at the right line in the
>> output of the sensors program, or that it is configured correctly.  But
>> none of the voltages change.)  Are there any VIA experts reading this
>> who know what's supposed to happen?
> % dmesg | grep eps 

Thanks, yes, I found this after I posted my last message.  Apparently 
it should use 860 mV at 1.2 GHz and 844 mV at 400 MHz.  So I was 
looking at the wrong line when I reported 1.09 V;  0.86 V is reported 
in another line.

> But most C7-Eden doesn't scale voltage.

That is consistent with what I'm seeing, and it's unfortunate.  (You 
say 'most'; do you know of *any* C7 boards that DO change the voltage?  
And how much difference would it make?  (0.844/0.860)^2 = 0.96, i.e. a 
4% saving if power is proportional to V^2, which is what how CMOS 
worked back in the days when I understood it.)

(And just to be certain: in e_powersaver you write to one register 
which both changes the frequency and asks for a different voltage at 
the same time; so there's no chance of a software change to correct 
this - right?)

>>> back to you question -- 20 - 16W = 4W is on the table;
>>> and the performance difference between 400 and 1200 is on the table.
>> 
>> Well, in idle, the power difference is zero and the performance
>> difference is zero.
>> When active, on-demand would use the higher frequency anyway.
>> So it looks to me as if 'on-demand' and 'performance' will behave
>> identically in terms of both power and performance.
> If CPU is sleeping a lot even 0,5W can make a difference. But there is 
> time needed to enter 400MHz and time needed to leave 400MHz.

My understanding of the C7 clock switching (which only comes from a VIA 
powerpoint presentation) is that because it has 2 PLLs it can change 
from one clock to the other much more quickly than other processors 
which have to wait thousands of cycles for the PLL to stabilise after changing.

> In real life "performance" governor will use less power.

Well, if that's true then I think we ought to discourage people from 
using 'ondemand' with the C7.


Many thanks for your feedback.  My aim is to make this machine as 
power-efficient as possible, which I've achieved mainly by working on 
the PSU (the first one I had was < 40% efficient, now I'm up to about 
70%), and by using a solid-state disk.  It's getting increasingly 
difficult to find things to improve!


Regards,

Phil.

Re: Power measurements

[Rafał Bilski]

>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to share some power consumption numbers that I have just
>>>>> measured on my VIA C7-M system.  It uses the e_powersaver module and
>>>>> can run at 400MHz or 1.2GHz.  I have measured the power consumption
>>>>> when idle and when running a "while(1){}" program at each speed:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
> 
> Here are some more accurate numbers:
> 
>         400      1200
> Idle    10.55    10.91
> Busy    11.47    13.48
> 
> [The first numbers were made with a mains power meter.  The second ones
> were made between the power supply and the motherboard; I used a power
> supply extension cable, cut in half, with some 0.01 and 0.1 ohm series
> resistors.]
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> The exception is if the processor doesn't automatically
>>>> adjust it voltage when entering idle.  In this case,
>>>> idle power would depend on the frequency of the processor
>>>> when idle was entered -- not because of the frequency --
>>>> but because of the associated voltage.
>>>
>>> Ah, I had wondered about this.  According to sensors, Vcore is always
>>> 1.09 V.  (Hmm, I can't be sure that I'm looking at the right line in the
>>> output of the sensors program, or that it is configured correctly.  But
>>> none of the voltages change.)  Are there any VIA experts reading this
>>> who know what's supposed to happen?
>> % dmesg | grep eps 
> 
> Thanks, yes, I found this after I posted my last message.  Apparently it
> should use 860 mV at 1.2 GHz and 844 mV at 400 MHz.  So I was looking at
> the wrong line when I reported 1.09 V;  0.86 V is reported in another line.
> 
>> But most C7-Eden doesn't scale voltage.
> 
> That is consistent with what I'm seeing, and it's unfortunate.  (You say
> 'most'; do you know of *any* C7 boards that DO change the voltage?  And
> how much difference would it make?  (0.844/0.860)^2 = 0.96, i.e. a 4%
> saving if power is proportional to V^2, which is what how CMOS worked
> back in the days when I understood it.)
I was thinking about processors. Most C7-Eden CPU's have same voltage on 
high and low frequency. Looks like Your's has different voltages. If 
You don't see 844mV at 400MHz then probably VID pins aren't connected 
to VRM on motherboard.
Mode	MHz		Voltage (mV)	Power (W)
P0	1200		860		7
P1	400		844		3
Looks like P0 is much more power efficient then P1. I'm assuming that 
1200 will be 3 times faster then 400MHz. It is what I saw on VIA C3 
processors.
But it is easier to keep CPU cool at 400MHz.
> (And just to be certain: in e_powersaver you write to one register which
> both changes the frequency and asks for a different voltage at the same
> time; so there's no chance of a software change to correct this - right?)
Right.
>>>> back to you question -- 20 - 16W = 4W is on the table;
>>>> and the performance difference between 400 and 1200 is on the table.
>>>
>>> Well, in idle, the power difference is zero and the performance
>>> difference is zero.
>>> When active, on-demand would use the higher frequency anyway.
>>> So it looks to me as if 'on-demand' and 'performance' will behave
>>> identically in terms of both power and performance.
>> If CPU is sleeping a lot even 0,5W can make a difference. But there is
>> time needed to enter 400MHz and time needed to leave 400MHz.
> 
> My understanding of the C7 clock switching (which only comes from a VIA
> powerpoint presentation) is that because it has 2 PLLs it can change
> from one clock to the other much more quickly than other processors
> which have to wait thousands of cycles for the PLL to stabilise after
> changing.
Yes. And C7 is better from P4-M in this because C7 doesn't require 
chipset support. P4-M SpeedStep is only supported on Intel chipsets. 
Unfortunatly I have SiS. HT isn't working either.
> [...]
> Many thanks for your feedback.  My aim is to make this machine as
> power-efficient as possible, which I've achieved mainly by working on
> the PSU (the first one I had was < 40% efficient, now I'm up to about
> 70%), and by using a solid-state disk.  It's getting increasingly
> difficult to find things to improve!
Newer PSU's should have 80%-85% efficiency. But 70% isn't that bad.

You should probably poke some registers in northbridge. I don't 
know much about newer VIA chipsets, but older (CLE266) had many bits 
which could improve power savings - dynamic clock stop to different 
chipset components, ACPI C3 can put memory to sleep and so on. 
Unfortunatly these bits are disabled by default and are never touched 
by BIOS.

Btw. Can You benchmark Your's C7 for me? I would like to compare it to 
my P4-M which is eating much more power. I'm not sure how much exacly 
because I had to change FSB frequency, but something about 25W.
Maybe "nbench"?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Phil.

Regards
Rafa³




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ile masz w domu niepotrzebnych rzeczy?
Wymien sie z sasiadami >> http://link.interia.pl/f1a93

Re: Power measurements

[Phil Endecott]

Rafa³ Bilski wrote:
>>> % dmesg | grep eps 
>> 
>> Thanks, yes, I found this after I posted my last message.  Apparently it
>> should use 860 mV at 1.2 GHz and 844 mV at 400 MHz.
>> 
> Most C7-Eden CPU's have same voltage on 
> high and low frequency. Looks like Your's has different voltages. If 
> You don't see 844mV at 400MHz then probably VID pins aren't connected 
> to VRM on motherboard.
> Mode	MHz		Voltage (mV)	Power (W)
> P0	1200		860		7
> P1	400		844		3

May I ask where these numbers come from?

>> My aim is to make this machine as
>> power-efficient as possible, which I've achieved mainly by working on
>> the PSU (the first one I had was < 40% efficient, now I'm up to about
>> 70%), and by using a solid-state disk.  It's getting increasingly
>> difficult to find things to improve!
> Newer PSU's should have 80%-85% efficiency. But 70% isn't that bad.

Don't believe that until you've measured it.
The numbers that they advertise are always in the best conditions, 
which is normally maximum load.  If you operate it in different 
conditions the performance will be worse.  For example, the power 
supply that is giving me 70% efficiency advertises itself as having 
>80% efficiciency.

> You should probably poke some registers in northbridge. I don't 
> know much about newer VIA chipsets, but older (CLE266) had many bits 
> which could improve power savings - dynamic clock stop to different 
> chipset components, ACPI C3 can put memory to sleep and so on. 
> Unfortunatly these bits are disabled by default and are never touched 
> by BIOS.

Is there any documentation available for any of this?
Hmmm, I really should learn something about ACPI.

> Btw. Can You benchmark Your's C7 for me? I would like to compare it to 
> my P4-M which is eating much more power. I'm not sure how much exacly 
> because I had to change FSB frequency, but something about 25W.
> Maybe "nbench"?

Here is nbench for my Jetway J7F2 with VIA C7 @ 1.2G with the 
'ondemand' governor:

BYTEmark* Native Mode Benchmark ver. 2 (10/95)
Index-split by Andrew D. Balsa (11/97)
Linux/Unix* port by Uwe F. Mayer (12/96,11/97)

TEST                : Iterations/sec.  : Old Index   : New Index
                     :                  : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
--------------------:------------------:-------------:------------
NUMERIC SORT        :          354.96  :       9.10  :       2.99
STRING SORT         :          39.736  :      17.76  :       2.75
BITFIELD            :      1.1172e+08  :      19.16  :       4.00
FP EMULATION        :          46.664  :      22.39  :       5.17
FOURIER             :          2729.8  :       3.10  :       1.74
ASSIGNMENT          :          8.4321  :      32.09  :       8.32
IDEA                :          1042.5  :      15.94  :       4.73
HUFFMAN             :           525.7  :      14.58  :       4.66
NEURAL NET          :          4.7302  :       7.60  :       3.20
LU DECOMPOSITION    :           298.8  :      15.48  :      11.18
==========================ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS==========================
INTEGER INDEX       : 17.572
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 7.148
Baseline (MSDOS*)   : Pentium* 90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0
==============================LINUX DATA BELOW===============================
CPU                 : CentaurHauls VIA Esther processor 1200MHz 1200MHz
L2 Cache            : 128 KB
OS                  : Linux 2.6.21-1-686
C compiler          : gcc version 4.1.3 20070601 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.2-12)
libc                : libc-2.5.so
MEMORY INDEX        : 4.507
INTEGER INDEX       : 4.295
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 3.964
Baseline (LINUX)    : AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38
* Trademarks are property of their respective holder.

The results for 'performance' are

INTEGER INDEX       : 17.530
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 7.157

i.e. essentially the same.  For 'powersave' (400 MHz) the results are:

INTEGER INDEX       : 5.828
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 2.379

which is almost exactly 1/3 of the speed.

For comparison a 1 GHz C3 gives:

INTEGER INDEX       : 13.785
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 5.219

Comparing the C3 and the C7, the C7 gives 14.61 integer-index per GHz 
and the C3 gives 13.79 integer-index per GHz, so the C7 is 6% faster 
per GHz.  For floating point it's 14% faster per GHz.  (I think my C3 
probably has slower RAM, but I'm not sure about that.)


How does this compare with your Intel chip?


Regards,

Phil.

Re: Power measurements

[Rafał Bilski]

>>>> % dmesg | grep eps 
>>>
>>> Thanks, yes, I found this after I posted my last message.  Apparently it
>>> should use 860 mV at 1.2 GHz and 844 mV at 400 MHz.
>>>
>> Most C7-Eden CPU's have same voltage on high and low frequency. Looks
>> like Your's has different voltages. If You don't see 844mV at 400MHz
>> then probably VID pins aren't connected to VRM on motherboard.
>> Mode    MHz        Voltage (mV)    Power (W)
>> P0    1200        860        7
>> P1    400        844        3
> 
> May I ask where these numbers come from?
ACPI tables.
> [...]
>> You should probably poke some registers in northbridge. I don't know
>> much about newer VIA chipsets, but older (CLE266) had many bits which
>> could improve power savings - dynamic clock stop to different chipset
>> components, ACPI C3 can put memory to sleep and so on. Unfortunatly
>> these bits are disabled by default and are never touched by BIOS.
> 
> Is there any documentation available for any of this?
No. All datasheets are NDA protected. However You can find in Google 
datasheets for older chips.
> Hmmm, I really should learn something about ACPI.
Well, ACPI C3 isn't available anyway due to VIA's policy. Check 
"/proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/power" file for supported C states. There is 
almost no difference in power consumption between ACPI C1 and C2.
>> [...]
> 
> Here is nbench for my Jetway J7F2 with VIA C7 @ 1.2G with the 'ondemand'
> governor:
Asrock P4S61 with P4-M @ 1,2GHz (12x100MHz) @ 1,3V. Without cpufreq.
Note that P4-M is starting in "battery optimized mode" which means x12 
multiplier. I'm not able to change multiplier to x17 nor enable "Hyper 
Threading" because Asrock says: "sorry, this motherboard isn't 
supporting P4-M". All I can do is to change FSB to 133MHz and have 
1,6GHz (12x133MHz).
> BYTEmark* Native Mode Benchmark ver. 2 (10/95)
> Index-split by Andrew D. Balsa (11/97)
> Linux/Unix* port by Uwe F. Mayer (12/96,11/97)
> 
> TEST                : Iterations/sec.  : Old Index   : New Index
>                     :                  : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
> --------------------:------------------:-------------:------------
> NUMERIC SORT        :          354.96  :       9.10  :       2.99
NUMERIC SORT        :          425.52  :      10.91  :       3.58
> STRING SORT         :          39.736  :      17.76  :       2.75
STRING SORT         :          25.959  :      11.60  :       1.80
> BITFIELD            :      1.1172e+08  :      19.16  :       4.00
BITFIELD            :      1.4342e+08  :      24.60  :       5.14
> FP EMULATION        :          46.664  :      22.39  :       5.17
FP EMULATION        :          42.897  :      20.58  :       4.75
> FOURIER             :          2729.8  :       3.10  :       1.74
FOURIER             :          6879.9  :       7.82  :       4.39
> ASSIGNMENT          :          8.4321  :      32.09  :       8.32
ASSIGNMENT          :          11.601  :      44.14  :      11.45
> IDEA                :          1042.5  :      15.94  :       4.73
IDEA                :          1214.2  :      18.57  :       5.51
> HUFFMAN             :           525.7  :      14.58  :       4.66
HUFFMAN             :          465.84  :      12.92  :       4.13
> NEURAL NET          :          4.7302  :       7.60  :       3.20
NEURAL NET          :          10.503  :      16.87  :       7.10
> LU DECOMPOSITION    :           298.8  :      15.48  :      11.18
LU DECOMPOSITION    :           459.6  :      23.81  :      17.19
> ==========================ORIGINAL BYTEMARK
> RESULTS==========================
> INTEGER INDEX       : 17.572
> FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 7.148
> Baseline (MSDOS*)   : Pentium* 90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0
INTEGER INDEX       : 18.267
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 14.648
> ==============================LINUX DATA
> BELOW===============================
> CPU                 : CentaurHauls VIA Esther processor 1200MHz 1200MHz
> L2 Cache            : 128 KB
> OS                  : Linux 2.6.21-1-686
> C compiler          : gcc version 4.1.3 20070601 (prerelease) (Debian
> 4.1.2-12)
> libc                : libc-2.5.so
> MEMORY INDEX        : 4.507
> INTEGER INDEX       : 4.295
> FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 3.964
> Baseline (LINUX)    : AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3,
> libc-5.4.38
> * Trademarks are property of their respective holder.
CPU                 : GenuineIntel Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 - M CPU 1.70GHz 1203MHz
L2 Cache            : 512 KB
OS                  : Linux 2.6.22-rc4
C compiler          : 4.1.2
libc                :
MEMORY INDEX        : 4.727
INTEGER INDEX       : 4.436
FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 8.124
> 
> [...]
> 
> How does this compare with your Intel chip?
Intel seems to have some weak points. Sometimes it is faster. But at 1,2GHz 
it needs *26,5W* and *10,7W* in ACPI C1. At 1,7GHz it needs *38,9W*. IMHO 
VIA wins this round. I wish that C7-M for Socket478 would exists...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Phil.
Regards
Rafa³


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ile masz w domu niepotrzebnych rzeczy?
Wymien sie z sasiadami >> http://link.interia.pl/f1a93