From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roberto De Leo Subject: Re: do Pentium4 & PentiumM consume about the same at their lowest possible freq? Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:49:25 +0200 Message-ID: <46B394D5.4030509@unica.it> References: <653FFBB4508B9042B5D43DC9E18836F50139486C@scsmsx415.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <653FFBB4508B9042B5D43DC9E18836F50139486C@scsmsx415.amr.corp.intel.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: cpufreq-bounces@lists.linux.org.uk Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk >>why slowing down the CPU at all if it doesn't save you any watt? I guess I'll stop >>using it. >> >> >It is meant to be used under thermal condition where slowing down CPU >will result in reducing the temperature and not for power savings in >normal conditions. > I thought that power consumption and heat dissipation in the CPU were more or less proportional but evidently my belief was too naif :-) I guess that the same thing holds for the Athlon64 so prolly centrino is the only CPU were I can get a substantial power saving by decreasing the freq when I don't need much of it (which is almost always), is this correct? Thanks, Roberto