Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: D Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: News : ARM Trying to Buy AmperComputing Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 17:12:08 +0100 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <7b19252d-bfe8-9d48-0cd2-eb33e4a64179@example.net> References: <_hycnQxlN5kAphr6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <36bf96a5-527c-1d8b-a93b-6788cdd589a2@example.net> <1PKcna3Yf6vdFhX6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@earthlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3892151"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="w/4CleFT0XZ6XfSuRJzIySLIA6ECskkHxKUAYDZM66M"; X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:64457 On Thu, 16 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 16/01/2025 10:58, D wrote: >> This is the truth! I've seen it in a few laptops. But I don't know if they >> are energy efficient enough to make a huge difference. I get about 14 hours >> or so from my 1.5 year old laptop. If arm would bump that to 25 I'd >> seriously consider one! But last time I had a look, 1.5 years ago, the >> battery time on arm laptops was far from impressive. > > There is some limit in terms of how much charge needs to get moved around > how many transistors of at least a given size that relates ultimate MIPS per > watt to a figure independent of architecture. > > The original ARM used very few transistors and an extremely well optimised > instruction set to get the performance that it did at such low power. > > Arguably it is now in the same ballpark as a late model INTEL *86 or even > RISC chip. This would correspond well with what I see in the market. It's a shame. I'd like to see a cpu focused on low power consumption since laptops don't need all the power they have today for regular day to day use. I'd much rather have a slow laptop that lasts me 30-40 hours, than a monster that runs out of power after 8 hours.