From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [ACPI] Re: [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:34:25 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040115223425.GC18488@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20040111211255.GA31105@dominikbrodowski.de> <20040112154611.GH14031@poupinou.org> <20040112173922.GA6154@dominikbrodowski.de> <20040112191122.GK14031@poupinou.org> <20040115121833.GB12963@elf.ucw.cz> <20040115134229.GT14031@poupinou.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040115134229.GT14031@poupinou.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk To: Ducrot Bruno Cc: acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > > voltage scaling. It offers a much better (quadratic) saving than clock > > > > modulation (linear saving). Doing both [and you need to do it, as the CPU > > > > won't run with fewer volts at the same frequency] gives you cubic savings. > > > > > > Yes I know. But does it offer more 'cooling'? > > > > Of course. > > > > If you eat less power, you create less heat. CPU is basically fancy > > "turn-electricity-into-heat" device. > > > > I don't like certitudes (I was wondering if better heat dissipation > in Sorry. > case of throttling even if more heat generation, but that not the > case). I guess throttling is way too fast (in kHz range, IIRC), so there should not be any strange effects. > > [Have you seen that "first use of PentiumPro in house appliances" > > picture?] > > No, but I do have seen some that have burnt in a production server, > some years ago... There was a picture of four-plate cooker, with PPro in the middle of each plate. Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]