Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #72539 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-06-03 17:28 +0000 |
| Last post | 2014-06-08 13:09 +1200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 132 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-03 17:28 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-05 10:14 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 18:38 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-05 11:42 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 22:48 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-05 22:27 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-06-05 22:28 +0100
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 23:03 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-06 13:21 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 01:54 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-07 10:20 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-06-07 09:32 +0100
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-07 11:54 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2014-06-15 10:55 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-07 08:52 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-06-07 11:13 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-07 11:54 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-06-07 17:10 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-07 23:32 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-06-06 00:41 +0100
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 01:54 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-05 20:13 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 02:35 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-06 05:45 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-06 13:39 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 01:54 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 02:03 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-06-05 02:09 -0700
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 16:10 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-05 22:07 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 06:18 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-05 23:12 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 23:02 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-06-05 22:23 +0100
Re: OT: This Swift thing Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-06 00:53 +0300
Re: OT: This Swift thing Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-06-05 23:13 +0100
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-06 02:52 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2014-06-15 11:33 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-15 16:10 +0300
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 07:36 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-06 13:20 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 22:23 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2014-06-07 09:30 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-06-05 18:18 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-06 13:11 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-06-06 13:06 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2014-06-10 15:32 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 23:02 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-05 23:08 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 23:08 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 09:21 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-06 03:16 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 13:27 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 08:33 -0600
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 01:44 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 18:09 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 11:18 -0600
Re: OT: This Swift thing Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 13:49 -0500
Re: OT: This Swift thing Travis Griggs <travisgriggs@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 23:28 -0700
Re: OT: This Swift thing Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2014-06-06 10:25 +0200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 20:41 -0600
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-07 04:57 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-06-07 11:23 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-07 11:51 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-07 19:18 +0300
Re: OT: This Swift thing MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-06-08 15:10 +0100
Re: OT: This Swift thing Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 11:37 -0600
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-07 14:11 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:00 -0600
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-07 15:11 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-06-07 17:59 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-06-08 13:25 +1200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-07 23:38 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-07 20:09 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 10:37 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-08 03:50 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-08 10:51 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2014-06-08 11:21 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-08 12:09 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2014-06-08 13:14 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 03:25 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 18:09 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 04:16 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-09 01:44 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 19:24 -0700
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-09 04:20 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 23:32 -0700
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-09 09:27 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 04:51 -0700
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-06-11 19:41 +1200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-11 13:44 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-06-11 08:28 -0700
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-12 02:08 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-12 12:16 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-12 09:06 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-06-12 09:34 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-06-12 23:32 +1200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-06-16 13:57 +0300
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-06-17 10:12 +1200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-17 08:34 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-06-17 11:16 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2014-06-18 07:41 +0100
Re: OT: This Swift thing Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-06-12 05:54 -0700
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-12 17:04 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-13 03:18 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-06-12 18:59 -0700
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-13 03:26 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2014-06-12 14:43 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-27 23:21 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Joshua Landau <joshua@landau.ws> - 2014-06-15 02:51 +0100
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-15 03:33 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2014-06-09 10:11 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-09 17:27 +0300
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-06-11 18:56 +1200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-09 09:14 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 07:56 -0600
Re: OT: This Swift thing Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-09 17:30 +0300
Re: OT: This Swift thing Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 19:35 -0700
Re: OT: This Swift thing Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 12:23 +1000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-06-11 19:50 +1200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-11 12:34 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-11 08:48 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-06-11 20:17 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-06-12 01:25 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-06-12 14:11 +1200
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2014-06-11 23:06 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-06-13 08:55 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-06-09 21:51 -0400
Re: OT: This Swift thing Carlos Anselmo Dias <carlos@premium-sponsor.com> - 2014-06-08 18:56 +0100
Re: OT: This Swift thing Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 23:34 +0000
Re: OT: This Swift thing Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 19:32 -0700
Re: OT: This Swift thing Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-06-08 13:09 +1200
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-09 03:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.10889.1402248357.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #72968 |
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> wrote: > I have lost several nvidia video cards over the years from fan > failures. >From a discussion on one of Threshold RPG's out-of-character channels: Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller. Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD without a fan? ;) Leshrak: heh, yeah Leshrak: actually. it's not a pretty smell Kurdt: Especially when it's overclocked. It goes FZZZZT in under two seconds. I think that's about right. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-08 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.10895.1402251003.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #72968 |
Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller. > Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD without a fan? ;) > Leshrak: heh, yeah > Leshrak: actually. it's not a pretty smell > Kurdt: Especially when it's overclocked. It goes FZZZZT in under two seconds. > > I think that's about right. One would think that in 2014, a device called a "thermostat" would shut down the power before expensive equipent goes up in a ball of smoke. Sturla
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-09 04:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.10898.1402251392.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #72968 |
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> wrote: > Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller. >> Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD without a fan? ;) >> Leshrak: heh, yeah >> Leshrak: actually. it's not a pretty smell >> Kurdt: Especially when it's overclocked. It goes FZZZZT in under two seconds. >> >> I think that's about right. > > One would think that in 2014, a device called a "thermostat" would shut > down the power before expensive equipent goes up in a ball of smoke. That exchange actually happened back in 2005 (wow! ages ago now), but same difference. However, I think there are very few thermostats that can cut the power quickly enough for an overclocked chip that loses its heat sink. MAYBE if the heat sink is still on and the fan isn't, but not if the hs falls off. "Under two seconds" might become "the blink of an eye". ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-09 01:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53951178$0$29988$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #72990 |
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 04:16:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller. Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD >>> without a fan? ;) Leshrak: heh, yeah >>> Leshrak: actually. it's not a pretty smell Kurdt: Especially when >>> it's overclocked. It goes FZZZZT in under two seconds. >>> >>> I think that's about right. >> >> One would think that in 2014, a device called a "thermostat" would shut >> down the power before expensive equipent goes up in a ball of smoke. > > That exchange actually happened back in 2005 (wow! ages ago now), but > same difference. However, I think there are very few thermostats that > can cut the power quickly enough for an overclocked chip that loses its > heat sink. MAYBE if the heat sink is still on and the fan isn't, but not > if the hs falls off. "Under two seconds" might become "the blink of an > eye". The fact that CPUs need anything more than a passive heat sink is *exactly* the problem. A car engine has to move anything up to a tonne of steel around at 100kph or more, and depending on the design, they can get away with air-cooling. In comparison, a CPU just moves around a trickle of electric current. (No currently designed car with an internal combustion engine uses air- cooling. The last mass market car that used it, the Citroën GS, ceased production in 1986. The Porsche 911 ceased production in 1998, making it, I think, the last air-cooled vehicle apart from custom machines. With the rise of all-electric vehicles, perhaps we will see a return to air- cooling?) CPU technology is the triumph of brute force over finesse. -- Steven D'Aprano http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-08 19:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4858ee10-6b22-4aba-b5c9-62b4f13080b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #72996 |
On Monday, June 9, 2014 7:14:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 04:16:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > > wrote: > >> Chris Angelico wrote: > >>> Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller. Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD > >>> without a fan? ;) Leshrak: heh, yeah > >>> Leshrak: actually. it's not a pretty smell Kurdt: Especially when > >>> it's overclocked. It goes FZZZZT in under two seconds. > >>> I think that's about right. > >> One would think that in 2014, a device called a "thermostat" would shut > >> down the power before expensive equipent goes up in a ball of smoke. > > That exchange actually happened back in 2005 (wow! ages ago now), but > > same difference. However, I think there are very few thermostats that > > can cut the power quickly enough for an overclocked chip that loses its > > heat sink. MAYBE if the heat sink is still on and the fan isn't, but not > > if the hs falls off. "Under two seconds" might become "the blink of an > > eye". > The fact that CPUs need anything more than a passive heat sink is > *exactly* the problem. A car engine has to move anything up to a tonne of > steel around at 100kph or more, and depending on the design, they can get > away with air-cooling. In comparison, a CPU just moves around a trickle > of electric current. Trickle? Ok... only its multiplied by a billion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count > (No currently designed car with an internal combustion engine uses air- > cooling. The last mass market car that used it, the Citroën GS, ceased > production in 1986. The Porsche 911 ceased production in 1998, making it, > I think, the last air-cooled vehicle apart from custom machines. With the > rise of all-electric vehicles, perhaps we will see a return to air- > cooling?) > CPU technology is the triumph of brute force over finesse. If you are arguing that computers should not use millions/billions of transistors, I wont argue, since I dont know the technology. Only pointing out that billion is a large number in pragmatic terms - So is million for that matter - Actually not so sure even on that count [Never counted beyond hundred!]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-09 04:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53953616$0$29988$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #72997 |
On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:24:52 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote: > On Monday, June 9, 2014 7:14:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> The fact that CPUs need anything more than a passive heat sink is >> *exactly* the problem. A car engine has to move anything up to a tonne >> of steel around at 100kph or more, and depending on the design, they >> can get away with air-cooling. In comparison, a CPU just moves around a >> trickle of electric current. > > Trickle? > Ok... only its multiplied by a billion: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count A typical desktop computer uses less than 500 watts for *everything* except the screen. Hard drives. DVD burner. Keyboard, mouse, USB devices, network card, sound card, graphics card, etc. (Actually, 350W is more typical.) Moore's Law observes that processing power has doubled about every two years. Over the last decade, processing power has increased by a factor of 32. If *efficiency* had increased at the same rate, that 500W power supply in your PC would now be a 15W power supply. Your mobile phone would last a month between recharges, not a day. Your laptop could use a battery half the size and still last two weeks on a full charge. In practice, hard drives are not likely to get more efficient, since you have to spin up a lump of metal. (Solid state drives tend to be either slow and unreliable, or blindingly fast and even more unreliable. Let me know how they are in another ten years.) Network cards etc. are relatively low-power. It's only the CPU and some of the bigger graphics cards that really eat electrons. Moore's Law for power efficiency is probably asking too much, but is it too much to ask that CPUs should double their efficiency every five years? I don't think so. >> CPU technology is the triumph of brute force over finesse. > > If you are arguing that computers should not use millions/billions of > transistors, I wont argue, since I dont know the technology. No. I'm arguing that they shouldn't convert 90% of their energy input into heat. > Only pointing out that billion is a large number in pragmatic terms - So > is million for that matter > - Actually not so sure even on that count > [Never counted beyond hundred!] Not really. A single grain of salt contains billions of billions of atoms. A billion transistors is still a drop in the ocean. Wait until we get the equivalent of an iPhone's processing power in a speck of dust that can float in the air. http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=245 -- Steven D'Aprano http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-08 23:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7912937-c7da-4b6d-8c61-6b8bc4d9b4e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #73004 |
On Monday, June 9, 2014 9:50:38 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:24:52 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 9, 2014 7:14:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> CPU technology is the triumph of brute force over finesse. > > > > If you are arguing that computers should not use millions/billions of > > transistors, I wont argue, since I dont know the technology. > > No. I'm arguing that they shouldn't convert 90% of their energy input > into heat. > Strange statement. What should they convert it into then? JFTR: Information processing and (physics) energy are about as convertible as say: "Is a kilogram smaller/greater than a mile?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-09 09:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53957dfe$0$29988$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #73009 |
On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 23:32:33 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Monday, June 9, 2014 9:50:38 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:24:52 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Monday, June 9, 2014 7:14:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> >> CPU technology is the triumph of brute force over finesse.
>> >
>> > If you are arguing that computers should not use millions/billions of
>> > transistors, I wont argue, since I dont know the technology.
>>
>> No. I'm arguing that they shouldn't convert 90% of their energy input
>> into heat.
>>
>>
> Strange statement.
> What should they convert it into then?
Useful work, duh.
Everything *eventually* gets converted to heat, but not immediately.
There's a big difference between a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon,
and one that gets 1 mile to the gallon. Likewise CPUs should get more
"processing units" (however you measure them) per watt of electricity
consumed.
See, for example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_per_watt
Quote:
Theoretically, room‑temperature computer memory operating
at the Landauer limit could be changed at a rate of one
billion bits per second with only 2.85 trillionths of a
watt of power being expended in the memory media. Modern
computers use millions of times as much energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle
Much to my surprise, Wikipedia says that efficiency gains have actually
been *faster* than Moore's Law. This surprises me, but it makes sense: if
a CPU uses ten times more power to perform one hundred times more
computations, it has become much more efficient but still needs a much
bigger heat sink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koomey's_law
> JFTR: Information processing and (physics) energy are about as
> convertible as say: "Is a kilogram smaller/greater than a mile?"
(1) I'm not comparing incompatible units. And (2) there is a fundamental
link between energy and entropy, and entropy is the reverse of
information. See Landauer's Principle, linked above. So information
processing and energy are as intimately linked as (say) current and
voltage, or mass and energy, or momentum and position.
--
Steven D'Aprano
http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-09 04:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d2d0cb1-46ab-45ae-839f-88b04ccf1d06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #73016 |
On Monday, June 9, 2014 2:57:26 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle Hey thanks for that! Always thought something like this should exist but did not know what/where/how! > On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 23:32:33 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote: > > On Monday, June 9, 2014 9:50:38 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:24:52 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote: > >> > On Monday, June 9, 2014 7:14:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> >> CPU technology is the triumph of brute force over finesse. > >> > If you are arguing that computers should not use millions/billions of > >> > transistors, I wont argue, since I dont know the technology. > >> No. I'm arguing that they shouldn't convert 90% of their energy input > >> into heat. > > Strange statement. > > What should they convert it into then? > Useful work, duh. > Everything *eventually* gets converted to heat, but not immediately. > There's a big difference between a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon, > and one that gets 1 mile to the gallon. Likewise CPUs should get more > "processing units" (however you measure them) per watt of electricity > consumed. > See, for example: > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-power-consumption-efficiency,3060.html > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_per_watt > Quote: > Theoretically, room-temperature computer memory operating > at the Landauer limit could be changed at a rate of one > billion bits per second with only 2.85 trillionths of a > watt of power being expended in the memory media. Modern > computers use millions of times as much energy. Right so we are still very much in theoretical zone. As the next para there says: | If no information is erased, computation may in principle be achieved | which is thermodynamically reversible, and require no release of | heat. This has led to considerable interest in the study of reversible | computing. Particularly interesting as no-information-erasure corresponds to functional (or maybe relational) programming. Of course still all theoretical. > Much to my surprise, Wikipedia says that efficiency gains have actually > been *faster* than Moore's Law. This surprises me, but it makes sense: if > a CPU uses ten times more power to perform one hundred times more > computations, it has become much more efficient but still needs a much > bigger heat sink. That was essentially my point
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-11 19:41 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <bvqfglFqp6oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73016 |
Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Everything *eventually* gets converted to heat, but not immediately. > There's a big difference between a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon, > and one that gets 1 mile to the gallon. With a car, the engine converts some of its energy to kinetic energy, which is subsequently dissipated as heat, so it makes sense to talk about the ratio of kinetic energy produced to energy wasted directly as heat. But when you flip a bit, there's no intermediate form of energy -- the bit changes state, and heat is produced. So all of the heat is waste heat. -- Greg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-11 13:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53985d21$0$29988$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #73156 |
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:41:12 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> Everything *eventually* gets converted to heat, but not immediately. >> There's a big difference between a car that gets 100 miles to the >> gallon, and one that gets 1 mile to the gallon. > > With a car, the engine converts some of its energy to kinetic energy, > which is subsequently dissipated as heat, so it makes sense to talk > about the ratio of kinetic energy produced to energy wasted directly as > heat. > > But when you flip a bit, there's no intermediate form of energy -- the > bit changes state, and heat is produced. So all of the heat is waste > heat. Not the point. There's a minimum amount of energy required to flip a bit. Everything beyond that is, in a sense, just wasted. You mentioned this yourself in your previous post. It's a *really* tiny amount of energy: about 17 meV at room temperature. That's 17 milli electron-volt, or 2.7×10^-21 joules. In comparison, Intel CMOS transistors have a gate charging energy of about 62500 eV (1×10^-14 J), around 3.7 million times greater. Broadly speaking, if the fundamental thermodynamic minimum amount of energy needed to flip a bit takes the equivalent of a single grain of white rice, then our current computing technology uses the equivalent of 175 Big Macs. (There are approximately 50 grains of rice in a gram, and a gram of rice is about 1.3 Calories. A Big Mac is about 550 Calories. You do the maths.) -- Steven D'Aprano http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-11 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1188a167-0b8d-43c5-ae24-d05ba8aaf899@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #73156 |
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:11:12 PM UTC+5:30, Gregory Ewing wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > Everything *eventually* gets converted to heat, but not immediately. > > There's a big difference between a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon, > > and one that gets 1 mile to the gallon. > With a car, the engine converts some of its energy to > kinetic energy, which is subsequently dissipated as heat, > so it makes sense to talk about the ratio of kinetic > energy produced to energy wasted directly as heat. > But when you flip a bit, there's no intermediate form > of energy -- the bit changes state, and heat is produced. > So all of the heat is waste heat. Actually the car-drive and the bit-flip are much more identical than different. Its just that the time-scales are minutes/hours in one case and nanoseconds or less in the other so our powers of visualization are a bit taxed. In more detail: One drives a car from A to B for an hour (assume no change in height above sea level so no potential difference). All the energy that was there as petrol has been dissipated as heat. A bit flips from zero to one. Pictorially (this needs to be fixed-pitch font!): +------------- | | | -----------+ However in reality that 'square' wave is always actually sloped +---------- / / / -----------+ Now for say CMOS technology, one may assume no currents in both zero and one states (thats the C in CMOS). However when its neither zero nor one (the sloping part) there will be current and therefore heat. So just as the car burns energy in going from A to B, the flipflop burns it in going from 0 to 1 Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Not the point. There's a minimum amount of energy required to flip a bit. > Everything beyond that is, in a sense, just wasted. You mentioned this > yourself in your previous post. It's a *really* tiny amount of energy: > about 17 meV at room temperature. That's 17 milli electron-volt, or > 2.7×10^-21 joules. In comparison, Intel CMOS transistors have a gate > charging energy of about 62500 eV (1×10^-14 J), around 3.7 million times > greater. > > Broadly speaking, if the fundamental thermodynamic minimum amount of > energy needed to flip a bit takes the equivalent of a single grain of > white rice, then our current computing technology uses the equivalent of > 175 Big Macs. Well thats in the same realm as saying that by E=mc² a one gram stone can yield 21 billion calories energy. [Ive forgotten how the units stack up, so as usual relyin on google instead of first principles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Practical_examples :-) ] ie. from a a pragmatic/engineering pov we know as much how to use Einstein's energy-mass-equivalence to generate energy as we know how to use Landauer's principle to optimally flip bits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-12 02:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53990bad$0$29988$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #73176 |
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:28:43 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> Not the point. There's a minimum amount of energy required to flip a >> bit. Everything beyond that is, in a sense, just wasted. You mentioned >> this yourself in your previous post. It's a *really* tiny amount of >> energy: about 17 meV at room temperature. That's 17 milli >> electron-volt, or 2.7×10^-21 joules. In comparison, Intel CMOS >> transistors have a gate charging energy of about 62500 eV (1×10^-14 J), >> around 3.7 million times greater. >> >> Broadly speaking, if the fundamental thermodynamic minimum amount of >> energy needed to flip a bit takes the equivalent of a single grain of >> white rice, then our current computing technology uses the equivalent >> of 175 Big Macs. > > Well thats in the same realm as saying that by E=mc² a one gram stone > can yield 21 billion calories energy. [...] > ie. from a a pragmatic/engineering pov we know as much how to use > Einstein's energy-mass-equivalence to generate energy as we know how to > use Landauer's principle to optimally flip bits. You know, I think that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Chernobyl and Fukushima (to mention only a few places) might disagree. We know *much more* about generating energy from E = mc^2 than we know about optimally flipping bits: our nuclear reactions convert something of the order of 0.1% of their fuel to energy, that is, to get a certain yield, we "merely" have to supply about a thousand times more fuel than we theoretically needed. That's about a thousand times better than the efficiency of current bit-flipping technology. We build great big clanking mechanical devices out of lumps of steel that reach 25% - 50% of the theoretical maximum efficiency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency while our computational technology is something of the order of 0.00001% efficient. I'm just pointing out that our computational technology uses over a million times more energy than the theoretical minimum, and therefore there is a lot of room for efficiency gains without sacrificing computer power. I never imagined that such viewpoint would turn out to be so controversial. -- Steven D'Aprano http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-12 12:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.11028.1402548495.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #73194 |
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > I'm just pointing out that our computational technology uses > over a million times more energy than the theoretical minimum, and > therefore there is a lot of room for efficiency gains without sacrificing > computer power. I never imagined that such viewpoint would turn out to be > so controversial. The way I understand it, you're citing an extremely theoretical minimum, in the same way that one can point out that we're a long way from maximum entropy in a flash memory chip, so it ought to be possible to pack a lot more data onto a USB stick. The laws of physics tend to put boundaries that are ridiculously far from where we actually work - I think most roads have speed limits that run a fairly long way short of c. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-12 09:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53996daa$0$11121$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #73201 |
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:16:08 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> I'm just pointing out that our computational technology uses over a
>> million times more energy than the theoretical minimum, and therefore
>> there is a lot of room for efficiency gains without sacrificing
>> computer power. I never imagined that such viewpoint would turn out to
>> be so controversial.
>
> The way I understand it, you're citing an extremely theoretical minimum,
> in the same way that one can point out that we're a long way from
> maximum entropy in a flash memory chip, so it ought to be possible to
> pack a lot more data onto a USB stick.
Um, yes?
Hands up anyone who thinks that today's generation of USB sticks will be
the highest capacity ever, that all progress in packing more memory into
a thumb drive (or the same memory into a smaller drive) will cease
effective immediately?
Anyone?
> The laws of physics tend to put
> boundaries that are ridiculously far from where we actually work - I
> think most roads have speed limits that run a fairly long way short of
> c.
"186,000 miles per second: not just a good idea, it's the law"
There's no *law of physics* that says cars can only travel at the speeds
they do. Compare how fast a typical racing car goes with the typical
60kph speed limit in suburban Melbourne. Now compare how fast the
Hennessey Venom GT goes to that speed limit.
http://www.autosaur.com/fastest-car-in-the-world/?PageSpeed=noscript
Speed limits for human-piloted ground-based transport ("cars") are more
based on social and biological factors than engineering ones. Similarly,
there are biological factors that force keyboards to be a minimum size.
We probably could build a keyboard where the keys were 0.1mm square, but
what would be the point? Who could use it? Those social and biological
factors don't apply to computing efficiency, so it's only *engineering*
factors that prevent us from being able to run your server off a watch
battery, not the laws of physics.
It is my contention that, had Intel and AMD spent the last few decades
optimizing for power consumption rather than speed, we probably could run
a server off, well, perhaps not a watch battery, but surely a factor of
100 improvement in efficiency isn't unreasonable given that we're just
moving a picogram of electrons around?
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-12 09:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fuemv.402540$IE6.366626@fx16.am4> |
| In reply to | #73212 |
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:06:50 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:16:08 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>> I'm just pointing out that our computational technology uses over a
>>> million times more energy than the theoretical minimum, and therefore
>>> there is a lot of room for efficiency gains without sacrificing
>>> computer power. I never imagined that such viewpoint would turn out to
>>> be so controversial.
>>
>> The way I understand it, you're citing an extremely theoretical
>> minimum,
>> in the same way that one can point out that we're a long way from
>> maximum entropy in a flash memory chip, so it ought to be possible to
>> pack a lot more data onto a USB stick.
>
> Um, yes?
>
> Hands up anyone who thinks that today's generation of USB sticks will be
> the highest capacity ever, that all progress in packing more memory into
> a thumb drive (or the same memory into a smaller drive) will cease
> effective immediately?
>
> Anyone?
>
>
>> The laws of physics tend to put boundaries that are ridiculously far
>> from where we actually work - I think most roads have speed limits that
>> run a fairly long way short of c.
>
> "186,000 miles per second: not just a good idea, it's the law"
>
>
> There's no *law of physics* that says cars can only travel at the speeds
> they do. Compare how fast a typical racing car goes with the typical
> 60kph speed limit in suburban Melbourne. Now compare how fast the
> Hennessey Venom GT goes to that speed limit.
>
> http://www.autosaur.com/fastest-car-in-the-world/?PageSpeed=noscript
>
>
> Speed limits for human-piloted ground-based transport ("cars") are more
> based on social and biological factors than engineering ones. Similarly,
> there are biological factors that force keyboards to be a minimum size.
> We probably could build a keyboard where the keys were 0.1mm square, but
> what would be the point? Who could use it? Those social and biological
> factors don't apply to computing efficiency, so it's only *engineering*
> factors that prevent us from being able to run your server off a watch
> battery, not the laws of physics.
>
> It is my contention that, had Intel and AMD spent the last few decades
> optimizing for power consumption rather than speed, we probably could
> run a server off, well, perhaps not a watch battery, but surely a factor
> of 100 improvement in efficiency isn't unreasonable given that we're
> just moving a picogram of electrons around?
but a 20 year old server would probably take a week to do what a current
one does in an hour (random figures chosen for effect not accuracy).
How does the power consumption compare on those time-scales, not to
mention the cost of the wasted time?
I would agree that for the average desk-top users modern processor
performance exceeds that required by a considerable margin so perhaps
optimising for power consumption is now possible, wait a minute arn't
intel & AMD now developing lower powered processors?
--
Breeding rabbits is a hare raising experience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-12 23:32 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <bvthdmFg5kaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73212 |
Steven D'Aprano wrote: > It is my contention that, had Intel and AMD spent the last few decades > optimizing for power consumption rather than speed, we probably could run > a server off, well, perhaps not a watch battery, Current draw of CMOS circuitry is pretty much zero when nothing is changing, so if you didn't care how slow it ran, you probably could run a server off a watch battery today. Users wouldn't like waiting a week for their web pages to load, though... -- Greg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-16 13:57 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <vg3wqcgvcb0.fsf@coffee.modeemi.fi> |
| In reply to | #73215 |
Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> writes: > Current draw of CMOS circuitry is pretty much zero when > nothing is changing, so if you didn't care how slow it ran, > you probably could run a server off a watch battery today. That was before 90 nm when leakage current started dominating over switching current. But has low power or battery life been in anyone's interest ever? Or rather, is battery life interesting enough that marketing would notice? Or maybe it's so that what a marketing guy or a manager needs is maybe one hour for his presentation so anything over that is extra? A few years ago jumbo sized but cheapish CULV laptops suddenly had 10 hours plus battery but did anyone notice or care? Today expensive Haswell ULT laptops get the same while being relatively thin and light but again, where's the interest? Apple didn't even bother trying to make improved battery life a selling point for the 2013 Macbook Air. I was seriously considering one but I prefer matte displays and cellular connectivity built in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-17 10:12 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <c098dtF8jiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73325 |
Anssi Saari wrote: > That was before 90 nm when leakage current started dominating over > switching current. Well, if you don't care about speed, you probably don't need to make it that small. There's plenty of time for signals to propagate, so you can afford to spread the circuitry out more. The point is that "optimising for power consumption" on its own doesn't really make sense, because there's no optimum point -- you can more or less make the power consumption as low as you want if you *really* don't care about speed in the slightest. In practice, people *do* care about speed, so it becomes a tradeoff between low power consumption and something fast enought that people will want to use it. > A few years ago jumbo sized but cheapish CULV laptops suddenly had 10 > hours plus battery but did anyone notice or care? I think people do care, it's just that going from something like 6 hours to 10 hours is not a big enough change to warrant much hype. If it were 100 hours, without losing too much else, I'm pretty sure it *would* be made a marketing point! -- Greg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-17 08:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.11097.1402958056.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #73326 |
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: >> A few years ago jumbo sized but cheapish CULV laptops suddenly had 10 >> hours plus battery but did anyone notice or care? > > > I think people do care, it's just that going from > something like 6 hours to 10 hours is not a big > enough change to warrant much hype. If it were > 100 hours, without losing too much else, I'm > pretty sure it *would* be made a marketing point! Partly that. But also, people want to know how long that will *really* last. For instance, 10 hours of battery life... doing what? Can I really hop on a plane for ten hours and write code the whole way without external power? Or will each minute spent recompiling Python (with the CPU pegged) cost 2-3 minutes out of those ten hours? What if I watch videos (on headphones, probably, given how noisy airliners are!)? That'll surely take more power than the manufacturers estimate. And what happens six months from now? Will battery life decay to the point where it's no longer interesting? (Obviously it'll decay some. But how much?) These are unanswerable questions. (Unless you count "It depends" as an answer.) If I have two laptop models I'm looking at, one with a boasted 10 hour battery and the other with "just" 8 hours, all those other considerations will be much more important than the two hours of rated difference. Now, if you had that 100 hour battery, well, then I'd be interested! Because even after six months of usage, that'll still be giving several times what a 10-hour battery would be. Obviously still read the fine print as regards usage patterns, but even if you get the full hundred hours *only* with the screen on minimum brightness *and* the absolute lightest usage, it's probably going to be possible to use that usefully. That's why purported battery life isn't such an advertisable point. And it's why the business I worked for recently, where we sold second-hand laptops, was very clear about our battery testing methodology - it was approximately equivalent to light usage, keeping the screen, CPU, and disk all intermittently active. If it lasted two hours in our test, we expect that it'll last two hours of, say, text editing. (And yes, the scale is very different. Our idea of a good, saleable battery was one that lasts one hour; below that was considered a fault to be discounted for. Two hour batteries were excellent. Anything more than that was "wow, this in a second-hand laptop?!?". I doubt we would *ever* see a ten-hour battery.) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web