Power measurements
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.
Quoted 11 lines · 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_powersavermodule 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
Quoted 8 lines
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
Quoted 9 lines · Len Brown
Quoted 8 lines · 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_powersavermodule 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
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
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?
Quoted 5 lines
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?
Quoted 7 lines
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.
Quoted 2 lines
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.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 8 lines · Len Brown
Quoted 7 lines · 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_powersavermodule 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:
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
400 1200 Idle 16W 16W Busy 17W 20WWhat I find interesting is that the idle power at 1.2GHz is identical to that at 400 MHz.
It isn't.
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 5 lines
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.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
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.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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.
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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!!!
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 4 lines · Rafal Bilski
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 3 lines · Len Brown
Quoted 2 lines · Phil Endecott
Dear All,
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
I would like to share some power consumption numbers that I have just measured on my VIA C7-M system. It uses the
e_powersavermodule 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.]
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
What I find interesting is that the idle power at 1.2GHz is identical to that at 400 MHz.
It isn't.
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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!
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
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.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
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.
Quoted 1 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?)
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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.
Quoted 1 line
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.
Quoted 39 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
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_powersavermodule 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.]
[...]
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
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.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
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.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 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.
Quoted 3 lines
(And just to be certain: in
e_powersaveryou 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.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
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.
Quoted 6 lines
[...]
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"?
Quoted 4 lines
Regards,
Phil.
Regards
Rafa³
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ile masz w domu niepotrzebnych rzeczy?
Wymien sie z sasiadami >> http://link.interia.pl/f1a93
Quoted 9 lines · Rafa³ Bilski
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
% 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?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
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
Quoted 3 lines
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.
Quoted 2 lines
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.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
% 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.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
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 3May I ask where these numbers come from?
ACPI tables.
Quoted 8 lines
[...]
Quoted 5 lines
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.
Quoted 1 line
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.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
[...]
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).
Quoted 8 lines
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
Quoted 1 line
STRING SORT : 39.736 : 17.76 : 2.75
STRING SORT : 25.959 : 11.60 : 1.80
Quoted 1 line
BITFIELD : 1.1172e+08 : 19.16 : 4.00
BITFIELD : 1.4342e+08 : 24.60 : 5.14
Quoted 1 line
FP EMULATION : 46.664 : 22.39 : 5.17
FP EMULATION : 42.897 : 20.58 : 4.75
Quoted 1 line
FOURIER : 2729.8 : 3.10 : 1.74
FOURIER : 6879.9 : 7.82 : 4.39
Quoted 1 line
ASSIGNMENT : 8.4321 : 32.09 : 8.32
ASSIGNMENT : 11.601 : 44.14 : 11.45
Quoted 1 line
IDEA : 1042.5 : 15.94 : 4.73
IDEA : 1214.2 : 18.57 : 5.51
Quoted 1 line
HUFFMAN : 525.7 : 14.58 : 4.66
HUFFMAN : 465.84 : 12.92 : 4.13
Quoted 1 line
NEURAL NET : 4.7302 : 7.60 : 3.20
NEURAL NET : 10.503 : 16.87 : 7.10
Quoted 1 line
LU DECOMPOSITION : 298.8 : 15.48 : 11.18
LU DECOMPOSITION : 459.6 : 23.81 : 17.19
Quoted 5 lines
==========================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
Quoted 6 lines
==============================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
Quoted 8 lines
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
Quoted 4 lines
[...]
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...
Quoted 4 lines
Regards,
Phil.
Regards
Rafa³
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ile masz w domu niepotrzebnych rzeczy?
Wymien sie z sasiadami >> http://link.interia.pl/f1a93