Re: cpufreq* help.

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From	Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.misc
Subject	Re: cpufreq* help.
Date	23 Apr 2011 04:14:42 GMT
Organization	none-at-all
Lines	27
Message-ID	<slrnir4khi.i7f.spamtrap42@one.localnet> (permalink)
References	<iossat$mt6$1@speranza.aioe.org> <iot1uh$srf$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To	spamtrap42@verizon.net
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	individual.net cvYs5xluuBX/kYO75QEiVQ8kjdEUWOysRHkEutQH0MhzuyPRCT
Cancel-Lock	sha1:w7ykQNQ6eL5A9q4ksTyxEuA1mEw=
User-Agent	slrn/0.9.9p1 (Linux)
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.os.linux.misc:885

Show key headers only | View raw

On 2011-04-22, Todd <Todd@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 04/22/2011 02:35 PM, s. keeling wrote:
>> This's on an HP Pavilion AMD64 dv4.  It runs hot.  I'm wondering:
>>
>> -  I run it at lowest freq. to minimize heat.  Is that correct?
>>
>> -  I wonder if I should run it at highest freq. so it blasts through
>>     stuff, giving it no chance to produce heat.
>>
>> Which is correct?  Tests I've done with highest freq. were not
>> encouraging.  Help?
>
> With all digital circuits, the slower you run them, the cooler
> they run.  This has to do with the current that flows when they are
> transitioning between states (0/1 and 1/0).  The slower they run, the
> sharper the transition becomes and they less current they draw.
> So, running it slower should cool it down.

The relationship you describe holds true for CMOS circuits.
While nearly all current digital ICs are CMOS, there are other
logic families (NMOS, PMOS, TTL, ECL, etc.) that do not
necessarily run cooler with slower clock frequencies.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

cpufreq* help. "s. keeling" <keeling@nucleus.com> - 2011-04-22 21:35 +0000
  Re: cpufreq* help. Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-04-22 16:11 -0700
    Re: cpufreq* help. Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-04-23 04:14 +0000
      Re: cpufreq* help. Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-04-22 21:38 -0700
        Re: cpufreq* help. Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-04-23 04:47 +0000
          Re: cpufreq* help. Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-04-22 22:01 -0700
            Re: cpufreq* help. Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-04-22 22:04 -0700
              Re: cpufreq* help. Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-04-23 11:37 -0400
                Re: cpufreq* help. Bill Marcum <bill@lat.localnet> - 2011-04-23 13:22 -0400
  Re: cpufreq* help. Baron <baron@linuxmaniac.net> - 2011-04-23 20:10 +0100

csiph-web