From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gunter Ohrner Subject: Re: cpufreq: powernow-k8 frequency transitions question Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:47:41 +0100 Message-ID: References: <84EA05E2CA77634C82730353CBE3A84303D430BD@SAUSEXMB1.amd.com> <20060103162946.GF13887@poupinou.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: 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="iso-8859-1" To: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk Bruno Ducrot wrote: > I'm wondering if this would have some more power saving if there are more > low p-states. I should some day look at this more seriously. I own a Winchester 3000+ (max. 1,8GHz) which I tried to operate at 800 MHz (instead of 1,0GHz) but it locked hard. It can be forced to intermediate out-of-spec speeds (1,2GHz, 1,4GHz and 1,6GHz, although 1,4 should not be reachable according to AMDs frequency transition spec). Though I'm not sure if there's any win from these unsupported P-states as 1,0GHz should suffice for most tasks and for everything else the system can quickly toggle to 1,8 GHz. I currently can't think of any task which would require more processing power than provided by 1,0GHz but less than provided by 1,8GHz over a longer period of time, so that the intermediate P-states would actually be used by the ondemand governor for longer than a fraction of a second... Though it could be interesting for faster CPUs than mine that are decoding HD video or similar. Greetings, Gunter --=20 Ever noticed that people who spend money on beer, cigarettes and drugs=20 are always complaining about being broke and not feeling well? =20 -- Unbekannter Autor *** PGP-Verschl=FCsselung bei eMails erw=FCnscht :-) *** PGP: 0x1128F25F ***