Intel Details Power Management Advancements in Haswell

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Details Power Management Advancements in Haswell

Posted by Unknown on Monday September 17, 2012 @11:51AM from the moar-power-...-reduction? dept.

MojoKid writes "Intel's next-generation CPU architecture, codenamed Haswell, puts heavy emphasis on reducing power consumption. Pushing Haswell down to a 10W TDP is an achievement, but hitting these targets requires collaboration. Haswell will offer finer-grained control over areas of logic that were previously either on or off, up to and including specific execution units. These optimizations are impressive, particularly the fact that idle CPU power is approaching tablet levels, but they're only part of the story. Operating system changes matter as well, and Intel has teamed up with Microsoft to ensure that Windows 8 takes advantage of current and future hardware. Haswell's 10W target will allow the chip to squeeze into many of the convertible laptop/tablet form factors on display at IDF, while Bay Trail, the 22nm, out-of-order successor to Clover Trail, arrives in 2013 as well. Not to mention the company's demonstration of the first integrated digital WiFi radio. Folks have been trading blows over whether Intel could compete with ARM's core power consumption. Meanwhile, Santa Clara has been busy designing many other aspects of the full system solution for low power consumption and saving a lot of wattage in the process." It's mildly amusing that Windows 8 is the first version to gain dynamic ticks, something Linux has had working since around 2007.

85 of 113 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Intel already realized where their market is by cheesybagel · 2012-09-17 12:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Contrary to other markets the mobile devices market is basically computer architecture agnostic. Since Intel cannot or do not want to manufacture CPUs cheaper than ARM licensees plus they still have lousy performance/watt their only remaining market is something which takes advantage of the vast catalog of pre-existing software for the x86 architecture namely Windows. I have little doubts Intel will eventually succeed to build a cheaper x86 CPU with better performance/watt than ARM given their manufacturing prowess and increasingly high amounts of integration they are providing. But it may take another processor generation or two.
1. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by aliquis · 2012-09-17 12:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They won't or aren't leading performance / watt already?
  Just not having as poor performance?
  It's a question not a troll. And feel free to answer with future processors from both sides.
2. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by recoiledsnake · 2012-09-17 12:33 · Score: 2
  
  >Since Intel cannot or do not want to manufacture CPUs cheaper than ARM licensees plus they still have lousy performance/watt their only remaining market is something which takes advantage of the vast catalog of pre-existing software for the x86 architecture namely Windows
  Wrong.
  http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/05/motorola-razr-m-europe-intel/
  http://www.anandtech.com/show/5770/lava-xolo-x900-review-the-first-intel-medfield-phone/6
  
  --
  This space for rent.
3. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by CajunArson · 2012-09-17 12:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  [quote]Since Intel cannot or do not want to manufacture CPUs cheaper than ARM licensees plus they still have lousy performance/watt[/quote]
  Show me an ARM solution with better performance per watt than a standard Ivy Bridge Xeon server (or even Sandy Bridge)... and yes, I am *waiting* for you to dredge up those idiotic Calxeda "benchmarks" that claim Sandy Bridge runs at maximum TDP while running at a load of 15% and being substantially faster than Calxeda's yet-to-be-released quad-core ARM server running at 100% utilization on all 4 cores... BRING IT ON.
  You have confused performance per watt with total power consumption. ARM is very good at the latter, but is by no means the best at the former.
  
  --
  AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
4. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 12:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If I've been keeping up properly, Intel has a pretty solid lead over ARM in pure performance/watt (look at how ARM clusters work out), but Intel has never been able to scale down well enough to compete with ARM in the 10W area.
5. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Arg, /. ate my less than symbol... that's less than 10W.
6. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by cheesybagel · 2012-09-17 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well the numbers on that second page seem better than I expected but it is still below the top of the line ARM offerings in term of useable hours you can get from the device. I have heard of smartphones with their chips. Namely the K800 lePhone by Lenovo but they aren't exactly something you can easily find.
7. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by somename · 2012-09-17 13:42 · Score: 2
  
  Medfield was likely just an exercise of sort for Intel. I'm guessing they're going for a big splash with Airmont in 2014 since they're finally pulling up the Atom die size schedule along with the Core line. I'm not sure what Silvermont is going to be. If paired with Haswell graphics, Intel might be able to compete with ARM seriously, but I'm guessing they''re going to concentrate on Airmont design to create something that has a definite edge over ARM. Apple might be a wild card partner with Intel. They seem to have a cozy enough relation already, and Apple probably want to find a way to end their relation with Samsung somehow.
8. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by foniksonik · 2012-09-17 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  What's amusing about the Apple timeline is that they've been through this one before*.
  PPC RISC => Intel CISC
  ARM RISC => Intel CISC
  Both times they kept a branch of code base up to date on the other architecture and have plenty of experience in both (I assume they have an X86 compatible iOS).
  *In the meanwhile they've secretly been creating their own architecture and instruction set.
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
9. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by Tough+Love · 2012-09-17 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  They've been trying for years, and what do we get.. Atom? That's not even close... they need to drop power consumption by an order of magnitude to compete.
  True, this has been going on way too long to be explainable by incompetence or lack of focus, though there certainly was some of the latter in the past. What is the problem? Maybe this is it: as transistor count drops the relative cost of CISC decoding circuitry goes up, way up. Or?
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
10. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by Locutus · 2012-09-17 14:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  the OP was more likely talking about the low end of the scale as you noticed.
  
  If all portable devices got the battery life of say an e-ink Kindle there wouldn't be a ARM domination at the low end. But as we've seen, you scale up the screen to full color and slightly larger along with more software to run apps then you start seeing how putting large enough batteries on the things has an effect on their "portability" capabilities.
  
  We all know Microsoft has been in the tablet market for well over a decade, almost two, and they've failed constantly because the resulting products were huge, heavy and battery life was not so great. Here we see Microsoft trying it yet again and this time they are tuning the hardware to the OS to try and get something even close to the current ARM platforms while providing x86 compatibility. I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with this time.
  
  As for ARM, how crippled will the OS and its capabilities be to get a comparable usability as existing options( iOS or Android )? There's still alot of secrecy in this area as recently noted by Microsoft's secret SDK. They want you to think it's about extra features for a marketing surprise but come on, when was the last time Microsoft surprised anyone with new useful capabilities? Most likely it's to limit how immature the platform is and possibly how limited it has to be to operate in the realm of existing battery life expectations. We'll know pretty soon though.
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
11. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by Guy+Harris · 2012-09-17 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  What's amusing about the Apple timeline is that they've been through this one before*.
  PPC RISC => Intel CISC
  ARM RISC => Intel CISC
  Both times they kept a branch of code base up to date on the other architecture and have plenty of experience in both (I assume they have an X86 compatible iOS).
  They have an x86-compatible kernel called XNU and a bunch of x86-compatible kernel-loadable modules and and a bunch of x86-compatible libraries and system daemons. Whether they ensure that, when those are built as part of iOS (e.g., with `CONFIG_EMBEDDED` #defined) rather than as part of OS X, they continue to work on x86, and whether the stuff that's iOS-only is and remains x86-compatible, is another matter.
  
  *In the meanwhile they've secretly been creating their own architecture and instruction set.
  ...assuming they think they can create one so much better that it's worth the effort of maintaining it and llvm/lldb/etc. for it, and doing the fat-binary dance yet one more time.
12. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by Sycraft-fu · 2012-09-17 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  Ya I find it hilarious when people talk about Intel desktop CPU power specs vs ARM mobile as though the chips had even remotely the same performance.
  Call me when ARM produces a chip that is faster than one of Intel's desktop/laptop chips, even a low end one, and does so with less power.
  However don't trot out a mobile chip and say "See! It only uses one watt!" and act like it is in the same league as the much larger Intel chips.
13. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by Pulzar · 2012-09-17 15:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You have confused performance per watt with total power consumption. ARM is very good at the latter, but is by no means the best at the former.
  Performance per watt isn't a single number that can be compared to tell the full story. In an envelope desired by small portable devices, ARM has a significant edge in performance per watt over Intel's Atom.
  In server market, Intel has an edge, of course, as they have chips specifically designed for those kinds of high-power workloads. ARM is still a few years away from having anything designed for similar use.
  Market share numbers in both categories reflect this.
  
  --
  Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
14. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by thelukester · 2012-09-17 16:50 · Score: 2
  
  NO, not in the low power segment. Here are some hard numbers from another /. article today.
  http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTE4NjU
  CPU Model Performance TDP Efficiency
  AMD FireStream9370 - 52 / 225 / 2.35
  Intel Atom N570 - 6.7 / 8.5 / .79
  ARM Cortel-A9 - 2 / 0.5 / 4
  As you can see in the low power domain, ARM is still more that 4x as efficient and uses 17x less much power than Intel.
15. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by symbolset · 2012-09-17 17:30 · Score: 2
  
  Intel has started making Windows-only chips. Until they back off of that stance they are off my "recommended" list. It's a huge risk for me. They have power. All I have is conscience, but I can't let it go whatever the cost. My customers trust me and I will not recommend a processor vendor who demands a sole-source software vendor. I would rather sell some other stuff to get my bread.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
16. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by yoshman · 2012-09-17 17:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, comparing Atom N570 based system vs some Cortex A9 SoC isn't really a fair comparison, is it? The Atom system has to power things like PCI busses, SATA-controllers etc.
  How about redoing that comparison using Medfield (Atom based SoC) that still using an Atom CPU (the Bonnell core) that can hit 1.6GHz, but uses FAR less power when looking at the system as a whole.
17. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by Kurlon · 2012-09-17 22:34 · Score: 2
  
  Intel doesn't make Windows Only chips, they make cpus and it just happens that for some they gave the specs to Microsoft for support and are letting others figure it out on their own. If there is interest in Linux running on them, it'll happen when the community dives in and makes it work, just like they have with nearly every other architecture out there. Intel isn't actively blocking other OSs from the platform. Just because Intel isn't devoting manpower to Linux support for a given chip you don't have to form a lynch mob.
18. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by slick7 · 2012-09-18 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  *?
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
19. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by slick7 · 2012-09-18 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Contrary to other markets the mobile devices market is basically computer architecture agnostic. Since Intel cannot or do not want to manufacture CPUs cheaper than ARM licensees plus they still have lousy performance/watt their only remaining market is something which takes advantage of the vast catalog of pre-existing software for the x86 architecture namely Windows. I have little doubts Intel will eventually succeed to build a cheaper x86 CPU with better performance/watt than ARM given their manufacturing prowess and increasingly high amounts of integration they are providing. But it may take another processor generation or two.
  intel business plan
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
20. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by symbolset · 2012-09-18 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  So you see what's going on, you just don't agree that it's a problem. You're entitled to that opinion.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
21. Re:Intel already realized where their market is by symbolset · 2012-09-20 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  Once Microsoft has had a year or two to patent every obvious or reasonable software implementation of the hardware, then the open software folks can have a peek at the specs? That's the cure you want to give?
  Time to go whole hog into ARM technologies then, where they don't feed one software vendor ownership of progress for no reason.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
Power Consumption. by bobwrit · 2012-09-17 12:13 · Score: 3, Informative

"Folks have been trading blows over whether Intel could compete with ARM's core power consumption. " For the mobile markets, Here's the best numbers I could find on the various processor's power output: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20110921142759_Nvidia_Unwraps_Performance_Benchmarks_of_Tegra_3_Kal_El.html The 10W Intel processor is still ~8x outside the power output of a Tegra 3 at 1GHz/Core, and ~6.662x the power output of a OMAP4 processor. While Intel is clearly working on getting down to the ~1W power range, they still have a ways to go. They may get there, but until I see silicon, I'm not holding my breath for it.

--
-- (this is a sig) My Computer Programming Forumhttp://www.programers.co.nr/
1. Re:Power Consumption. by aliquis · 2012-09-17 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  And it's how much faster than Tegra 3?
2. Re:Power Consumption. by CajunArson · 2012-09-17 12:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Uh... Fanboi much? Those Tegra 3 benchmarks have been shown to be *extreme* wishful thinking on Nvidia's part, and if you are naive enough to believe that Intel's lowest-power CPU burns 10 watts then I have a bridge to sell you...
  
  --
  AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
3. Re:Power Consumption. by Locutus · 2012-09-17 14:46 · Score: 2
  
  because the Tegra 3 isn't fast enough to do what? Run a desktop OS? Sorry, it might not have the power to run Windows.... see what's going on here?
  
  LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
4. Re:Power Consumption. by aliquis · 2012-09-17 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  People say performance per watt all the time even though all they compare is watt it seems. That's why.
  Also no, Tegra 3 isn't very fast. Same webpage had a comparision of Lenovos "fatblet" (laptop with swivel screen) and I think it was about 8 times faster than the iPad 2 or something such? Don't remember. I think it had a 35 watt model though whereas some Samsung one in the same test had a 17 watt one.
  "It doesn't use as little power when idle!" might not matter so much since the battery life when idle is likely good in both cases, and if it's much quicker with the same load it's unlikely to max the power consumtion. It could if it did things the slower processor couldn't but yeah, so what? Running the same task for the slower processor would take longer time and hence use up more power to.
  Considering someone mentioned display power consumtion running slower and for a longer time with more display power drain may even end up using up more power for the same task.
  Speed isn't uninteresting imho. And to talk about performance per watt without caring about performance is just wrong.
5. Re:Power Consumption. by RGladiator · 2012-09-18 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  They may get there, but until I see silicon, I'm not holding my breath for it.
  Does that mean when you do see the silicon you'll hold your breath? For how long?
6. Re:Power Consumption. by drinkypoo · 2012-09-18 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Convertible tablets are naturally going to be a lot faster if you compare the balls-out models. My lady has a Fujitsu Lifebook T900 with a Core i7. Yes, it is certainly several times more powerful than an ARM tablet. It's also several times thicker and yet gets less battery life. Without actually benchmarking that really doesn't prove anything about performance per watt either way, though, because the correspondingly larger machine has a correspondingly larger battery, and you also have to benchmark for a user's workload.
  There are more interesting questions than which gives better performance per watt. There's also the question of which gives better use characteristics (fast enough, and small enough) within the basic criteria.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:Power Consumption. by mrchaotica · 2012-09-18 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  I still don't understand why nobody seems capable of putting a swivel hinge (and Wacom digitizer) on the equivalent of a Macbook Air...
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
8. Re:Power Consumption. by drinkypoo · 2012-09-18 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully it will be a lot of years before I'm cracking open this T900 to find out. I'm thinking that the cost of a unibody laptop plus the cost of the swivel hinge crap plus the cost of multitouch plus wacom equals too much to have any significant market.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:Power Consumption. by mrchaotica · 2012-09-18 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Who says it has to have multitouch? (Okay, maybe the answer is "everybody but me...")
  Besides, a MacBook Air is $1000, and some equally-sleek Windows ultrabooks are in the $600-$800 range. Even if a 'wacom-tablet-ultrabook' cost $1500-$2000, I think the niche it would serve is big enough to be worth it.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
10. Re:Power Consumption. by drinkypoo · 2012-09-18 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  You can get a fat one refurb'd for $900 direct from Fujitsu. I don't know if that's an i7 or just an i5. The i7 is wicked fast, though, as you might imagine. They have wacom and they can have multitouch or daylight but not both, so you ought to be happy.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
11. Re:Power Consumption. by mrchaotica · 2012-09-18 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that it's fat is the problem. My point was that given the existence of other thin computers (e.g. ultrabooks), I see no technical reason it couldn't be thin.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Anti-MS sentiment at the end of TFS by thesupraman · 2012-09-17 12:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think you will find the point is that Intel/Microsoft are int he middle of making big things about the power efficiency of Windows 8, whereas they are playing catchup in a lot of areas with Linux, for which Intel currently say they will not release the same information on Haswell that they have given Microsoft.
Smells a lot of Intel teaming up with Microsoft specifically against ARM (which has very good Linux support..), and I am guessing means Windows on Arm is going to get pretty damn poor support.
The obvious (possible) trade here is Intel gives Msoft the advantage on Haswell in return for MSoft not taking their Win8 ARM 'commitment' quite as seriously as some thought they would.
Time will tell.
Amdahl's Law on Power consumption... by CajunArson · 2012-09-17 12:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Look at the pie charts on this page: http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intels-Game-Changer-One-Size-Fits-All-Haswell/?page=4
Notice how the display is quickly dominating the power consumption? The whole ARM vs. x86 power consumption bit is bunk. Intel has proven it can be competitive with ARM, and even if ARM could magically make a chip that uses zero power, your display isn't going to suck down any less juice based on the instruction set of the processor running your device....

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
1. Re:Amdahl's Law on Power consumption... by Tough+Love · 2012-09-17 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  Notice how the display is quickly dominating the power consumption? The whole ARM vs. x86 power consumption bit is bunk.
  Whoa, I think you're getting a little ahead of the curve there. Try running a moderately intense game and watch the battery drain.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
2. Re:Amdahl's Law on Power consumption... by CajunArson · 2012-09-17 14:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Try running a moderately intense game and watch the battery drain.
  I have... on my Motorola phone running on an ARM CPU using an embedded GPU that happens to be made by the exact same company that makes embedded GPUs for Medfield phones... So please explain to me how the exact same GPU magically uses zero power when it happens to be sitting next to an ARM core vs. an Intel core... your new learning amazes me!
  
  --
  AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
3. Re:Amdahl's Law on Power consumption... by complete+loony · 2012-09-17 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  Speak for yourself, I want to use phone hardware to run applications almost continuously, mainly for mesh networking, with the screen off.
  
  --
  09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Re:Windows is behind Linux by aliquis · 2012-09-17 12:34 · Score: 1

Behind?
I don't get the point. Should this read in front of?
Don't know whatever to read it as sarcasm or not.
This isn't the right site to mention it but if you're going to be so negative about Windows then I'd like to offer two seconds of though:

Windows is behind Linux
"It didn't get a decent GUI until" ... think for yourself, what may my point be?
"Didn't get decent preemptive-multitasking" ... snap, crackle and pop.. It's how my media player sometimes sound in KDE when under load ..
"Didn't have a web browser until 1996"
Some people have argued that shouldn't be part of the OS, especially not in Windows.
I don't need to say much considering what it's compared to. If it actually was AmigaOS, OS X or BeOS then fine. Maybe there was a point.
Re:Windows is behind Linux by aliquis · 2012-09-17 12:40 · Score: 1

Add laggy and disapperaring(?) mouse pointer in there to.
I know there's different ways which may improve interaction, audio and real-time performance of Linux. It's not amazingly good in my distribution (openSUSE 12.2, Linux 3.4.6) by default at least
The point is if you're going to complain on Windows look where you are yourself.
Feel free to throw in the amazing (not) user interfaces of many KDE applications. 90 degree rotated text on tabs, awesome idea! Panels, buttons, menus, file-trees all over.
Rather off-topic considering this is about an Intel processor and not Windows though.
Re:Anti-MS sentiment at the end of TFS by dbIII · 2012-09-17 12:44 · Score: 1

Windows on Arm is going to get pretty damn poor support.
When the OS licence costs an order of magnitude more than the CPU it's not going to get much of a run.
Not about Windows? by symbolset · 2012-09-17 13:18 · Score: 1

Until Intel stops making Windows-only processors, every Intel processor article is also a Windows article and we must drag out the "Microsoft business practices" dead horse for another flogging. Mobile, desktop, server, it doesn't matter. It's policy I'm afraid, and nothing can be done about it. Intel's own fault really. They tainted themselves with that brush.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
1. Re:Not about Windows? by DeathFromSomewhere · 2012-09-17 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Let me guess... you only read the headline from the last Haswell article and didn't bother reading the article, or the summary, or the comments.
  
  --
  -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
2. Re:Not about Windows? by symbolset · 2012-09-17 16:58 · Score: 1
  
  Actually no, all of this stuff is over a year old to me and I'm still pissed off. I've been holding it back for a year, so let me vent. Or not. Whatever.
  I live in a world where Intel makes Windows-only processors. I had hoped I would die before that day came. I am disappointed.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
3. Re:Not about Windows? by symbolset · 2012-09-20 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  In case you care, I've written a /. journal article about this that expands on why it's a bad thing.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
Funny by viperidaenz · 2012-09-17 13:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's mildly amusing that Windows 8 is the first version to gain dynamic ticks, something Linux has had working since around 2007.
Its also mildly amusing that Windows has always trumped Linux in battery life, despite not implementing this power saving feature.
1. Re:Funny by Tough+Love · 2012-09-17 14:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's mildly amusing that Windows 8 is the first version to gain dynamic ticks, something Linux has had working since around 2007.
  Its also mildly amusing that Windows has always trumped Linux in battery life, despite not implementing this power saving feature.
  Windows has always trumped Linux in batter life, you claim? That seems rather sweeping, whereas reports from the field seem mixed, with a significant number in fact reporting an advantage for Linux. I think it depends on a number of factors, including how much access Linux devs have to power management specs for a given OEM chipset. And there have been occasional regressions indeed. These get picked up pretty fast these days and usually corrected after a kernel bump or two.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
2. Re:Funny by TheNinjaroach · 2012-09-17 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  Its also mildly amusing that Windows has always trumped Linux in battery life, despite not implementing this power saving feature.
  Really? I'd like to see a citation on that.
  
  When my T410s was brand new, battery life was exactly even between Win7 and OpenSUSE 11.x for web browsing and other non-intensive tasks.
  
  --
  I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
3. Re:Funny by tlhIngan · 2012-09-18 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  It's mildly amusing that Windows 8 is the first version to gain dynamic ticks, something Linux has had working since around 2007.
  Windows CE and PocketPC has had dynamic ticks far longer actually - it was a BSP option you could have. The scheduler supported it (it told you how long to idle, you told it how long you actually idled (so your interrupts had to determine the time idled).
  OS X has supported dynamic ticks for god knows since when - I think pratically from the beginning. It was immune to the CPU time-cheating attack as a side effect. (It uses one-shot hardware timers, but it's still ticking based on that more so than a regular periodic tick).
  Though, technically, we can say Microsoft is learning all over again techniques it had already used before. It's just that Windows CE and PocketPC ended up being the red-headed stepchild - never being accepted because Microsoft was more concerned about its mainline Windows and Office products
4. Re:Funny by Zan+Lynx · 2012-09-18 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  I have personal evidence that the default original install of Windows 7 on a Samsung Series 9 uses less power than a default install of Fedora 15.
  Now, after I tweaked the Linux install using PowerTop and a rc.local script, Linux uses less power. This took some time and specialized knowledge of Linux systems.
  So for an average computer user just installing an operating system, Windows 7 would use less power and have better battery life.
Re:Windows is behind Linux by Tough+Love · 2012-09-17 14:09 · Score: 3, Informative

I was running Windows the other day and it's just amazing how much it resembles KDE. Of course it hasn't got quite the same fit and finish and a bunch of features are missing, but hey, give Microsoft a chance.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:LAST - ONLY FIVE YEARS BEHIND THAT'S ALL! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 14:31 · Score: 1

It's mildly amusing that Windows 8 is the first version to gain dynamic ticks, something Linux has had working since around 2007.
Yes, yes indeedy. When you think Microsoft, think INNOVATION!
Re:Anti-MS sentiment at the end of TFS by Locutus · 2012-09-17 14:41 · Score: 1

I think 'too little, too late' would have been more appropriate. lol

Oh, and lighten up Frances since it is probably true.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Or we could find other features Windows has by Sycraft-fu · 2012-09-17 14:44 · Score: 2

That Linux just recently got and find that "mildly amusing".
It is rather silly. Yes, OSes have different feature sets. They don't all implement everything at the same time.
1. Re:Or we could find other features Windows has by humanrev · 2012-09-17 14:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  To be honest it embarrasses me to want to associate myself with any "side" when it comes to operating systems and hardware. If I try to say why Windows is better at Linux than something (and make my statement completely without any emotional inflection or attachment), I'm gonna get piled on pretty quickly by a lot of hate posts that don't legitimately counter my points (posts that I would appreciate reading, since I don't know everything). If I go to say, Neowin.net, and try to make a comment about how I feel Windows 8 sucks for my workflow or how I like a particular feature in Linux that Windows doesn't have, I'll be piled on pretty quickly there too.
  There are a LOT of seasoned, battle-hardened vets of the operating system wars out there on the net who have nothing better to do than fight against those who don't have the same viewpoint as they do. The mere fact that people can't discuss things and see both sides of an issue without getting into an emotional wreck reminds me how fucking annoying and stupid humans really are.
  
  --
  Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
2. Re:Or we could find other features Windows has by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-09-17 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  What's amusing is people think MS couldn't do this before or it's some brilliant revolutionary idea. Microsoft has money, and they have Ph.Ds and they have ridiculously experienced software developers. If they choose not to implement something it's not because they're technically incompetent or unable to do it.
3. Re:Or we could find other features Windows has by TheNinjaroach · 2012-09-17 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Or we could find other features Windows has ... That Linux just recently got and find that "mildly amusing".
  Like what.. Metro UI? No thanks. A standard Linux distro comes with an insanely full set of software and utilities that "just work" out of the box. Don't know why I would waste my time installing software for days just to make Windows usable. That OS doesn't even have a decent software repository for it yet.
  
  --
  I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
4. Re:Or we could find other features Windows has by viperidaenz · 2012-09-17 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  you they must maintain backwards compatibility, which Linux's implementation of dynamic ticks can impact. If application X is using system timer Y to time something, and the kernel reprograms that timer because it wants to skip some interrupts that won't execute any code its going to change the time the number of ticks on that timer represent and cause application X to report something happened quicker than it really did.
5. Re:Or we could find other features Windows has by LordLimecat · 2012-09-17 16:50 · Score: 2
  
  Don't know why I would waste my time installing software for days just to make Windows usable.
  Im not sure what, but youre doing something wrong.
6. Re:Or we could find other features Windows has by unixisc · 2012-09-17 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  Between Metro UI, GNOME 3 and Unity, it's all a wash. Only thing is that w/ Linux or BSD, one can use older versions of the DEs, which is not possible in Windows 8 w/o external add-ons
7. Re:Or we could find other features Windows has by TheNinjaroach · 2012-09-18 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Between Metro UI, GNOME 3 and Unity, it's all a wash.
  I'm not disagreeing with you on that point. But I don't run older versions of KDE -- the latest and greatest are fully functional for me. Perhaps it's time you tried a different distro?
  
  --
  I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
8. Re:Or we could find other features Windows has by unixisc · 2012-09-18 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I agree on KDE - that's definitely good. I'd try giving Razor-qt a spin as well. Aside from that, I wish there was a GNUSTEP based DE - I loved NEXTSTEP when it was around, and would welcome something like it.
9. Re:Or we could find other features Windows has by djdanlib · 2012-09-18 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  First, I think your sig is awesome.
  Now. Come on now, you really want to go there? "Just works"? If you want to spend all day researching why libfoo-4.2.1-5r3.1.so isn't good enough for suparbar-3.6.1.35-r5.3-custom, that's cool, I'll be over here getting work done.
  The software repository you seek is called "just about every store" and "most of the Internet". It takes about an hour to install everything you really need to get productive on Windows, including the updates. Maybe more if you need Cygwin for some reason, because its installer downloads serially from one site. (Ugh.)
  But if we're going for hyperbole, then let me tell you a story of a previous Linux nightmare I lived... It takes like a week of configuring and compiling to get Gentoo running to the point where you can log in and get a desktop environment. Add another day if you want your wireless adapter to work (whoops, that particular kernel version doesn't work with the driver after all and none of the included modules are compatible!). Add another day if you want to enable your video card for gaming. Forget about games, that'll take all day for each one. Then it takes half a day to compile Firefox just so you can have a browser so you can do something while you wait for other things to be done... but wait, if you want features like antialiasing and stuff, you have to reconfigure and recompile! Gotta do it every time they release an update! But what about productivity again? I nuked a motherboard once when a fan quit while it was doing a 3-day compile of OpenOffice. Yeah, it took 3 days to install an Office clone from their repository. By the way, that clone turned out to be slow and buggy, didn't work right with some of my documents, and didn't have any of the fonts everyone else uses. Fonts that weren't in their repository. Fonts that I couldn't get from the manufacturer except by a script someone wrote to essentially steal them. So I wanted to make a PDF so other people could see my documents the way I saw them, ugly Linux fonts and all. That software took a day to compile, and it still didn't pull in all the dependencies from the repository. I had to dig online to find all the particular dot-dot-dash-dot-dot-revision versions that were compatible with each other, and you know what? Screw it, Office with CutePDF doesn't take this much hassle. Half an hour clicking Next five times and watching two installers' progress bars on Windows and it "just works" with PDF output, the right fonts, scripting and everything. Reminds me slightly of the good old days of Debian where "a chicken could install it" except I don't have to hunt down broken dependencies and figure out why that one package is blocked and the other one won't install without pulling in a whole new desktop environment.
  Yeah, I tried it on platforms with precompiled binaries. It still took a couple days to get it running with versions of everything that played nice together. And what did I get after those couple days? Occasional keyboard latency. Laggy, flickering mouse pointer. Stuttering MP3 playback when I scrolled in a web browser. Screen refreshing at a glacial pace sometimes for no reason. Random hitches and freezes. Huge temperature spikes. Poorly behaved Flash. Couldn't watch video full screen. No antialiasing in XY apps, ugly antialiasing in Z app. Nothing was smooth. C'mon, Linux should be better than this. Back when I used it as a command-line-only OS, it was. All the searches I perform tell me that I *could* get it working better, but I'll have to tweak endlessly and recompile various pieces of everything with new configurations. Yeah, changing timer frequencies, installing 'tainted' driver binaries, recompiling Firefox with support for etc etc, should I really have to do this?
  Metro UI? Meet Unity. I've used both. Bleh, I'll take Metro, it's far less buggy. Things do what they're supposed to when I click them, they stay put, and it's fairly obvious what will happen when I don't know what something does. At least I only have to interact with that infrequ
Re:Anti-MS sentiment at the end of TFS by Locutus · 2012-09-17 14:44 · Score: 1

except when Microsoft marketing tricks feeds lots of money back to the vendor for putting a Microsoft Windows sticker on the box and web pages. You know, like they did to erase Linux from the netbook segment with a limited version of Windows XP. Microsoft needs these markets badly and will/is spending billions on getting into them.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:Anti-MS sentiment at the end of TFS by Guy+Harris · 2012-09-17 15:00 · Score: 4, Informative

I think you will find the point is that Intel/Microsoft are int he middle of making big things about the power efficiency of Windows 8, whereas they are playing catchup in a lot of areas with Linux, for which Intel currently say they will not release the same information on Haswell that they have given Microsoft.
Explicitly, or is that an inference from various things Intel have publicly said and been claimed to say about Clover Trail and the Intel presentation talking about both Haswell and Clover Trail power-saving features? If so, note also that Intel have been claimed to say that "There is no fundamental barrier to supporting Linux on Clover Trail since it utilizes Intel architecture cores, we are simply focusing our current efforts for this Clover Trail product on Windows 8.", so I'm a little loath to assume what the truth is at this point.
Re:Anti-MS sentiment at the end of TFS by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-09-17 15:00 · Score: 1

Your misinformation is disturbing. First of all, Windows outlasts Linux on a laptop for most loads. Let's get that out of the way.
Second, Intel does _not_ say they will not release the same information on Haswell. I don't even know where you got that. I imagine you got it from the Clover Trail announcement, where they _also_ announced no such thing.
Those two facts and the fact that MS isn't worried about Linux put the remaining conspiracy theory to rest.
Re:Windows is behind Linux by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-09-17 15:01 · Score: 1

Lol, behind Linux? Right. Who gets better battery life? I shouldn't even argue, your desperate desire to "beat" Microsoft seems to be all you cling on to. More power to you, I guess.
Re:Windows is behind Linux by cpu6502 · 2012-09-17 15:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

>>>Lol, behind Linux? Right. Who gets better battery life? I shouldn't even argue, your desperate desire to "beat" Microsoft seems to be all you cling on to
I will never comprehend people who look at Micrsoft and believe it's a good OS. Maybe they are Xbox fanboys and that love is spilling-over to all the MS? It's a workable OS but certainly not the best. It was hard-to-use when it was invented in the 80s, crashprone in the 90s, buggy in the first decade of 2000s, and even now still has major flaws (mostly with security holes and illogical behaviors that confuse users... like claiming "there's no USB drive" just because the drive went into a low-power energy-saving state).
You'd think after 27 years of development they'd finally eliminate the flaws & make it near-perfect like Apple did with OS X. But no. ALSO: I was merely responding to this part of the /. article: "It's mildly amusing that Windows 8 is the first version to gain dynamic ticks, something Linux has had working since around 2007." I'm not sure how you missed that sentence.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Dynamic ticks by MtHuurne · 2012-09-17 16:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Linux has had the dynamic ticks (CONFIG_NO_HZ) feature for a while, but that only shuts down the timer tick when the system is completely idle. There is a new feature in the works named "adaptive tickless", see announcement and a recent progress update, that will also shut down the timer tick when the system is running a single task.
1. Re:Dynamic ticks by swillden · 2012-09-18 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  It should be pointed out that the adaptive tickless work has nothing to do with power savings. It's about reducing the CPU time the OS takes away from running tasks. By itself the time is insignificant, but when you factor in cache impact and critical sections it can cause non-trivial performance and latency impacts in high-performance and real-time workloads.
  Windows isn't used for high-performance computing, nor as a real-time OS, so it probably won't ever get this feature.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
2. Re:Dynamic ticks by drinkypoo · 2012-09-18 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Windows isn't used for high-performance computing, nor as a real-time OS, so it probably won't ever get this feature.
  O RLY? (okok, only 2 of the top500, but it's not like it's NOT used. I'd be surprised if it's used anywhere that's not being paid by Microsoft to do it though.)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:Dynamic ticks by swillden · 2012-09-18 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Windows isn't used for high-performance computing, nor as a real-time OS, so it probably won't ever get this feature.
  O RLY? (okok, only 2 of the top500, but it's not like it's NOT used. I'd be surprised if it's used anywhere that's not being paid by Microsoft to do it though.)
  As I said :-)
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
4. Re:Dynamic ticks by MtHuurne · 2012-09-19 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  My primary interest for this is games and emulators on handheld consoles, which have to do a certain amount of work per frame and then sleep until it is time for the next frame. If performance increases because there are less interruptions, a frame's work will be finished sooner, so the CPU can spend more time in sleep mode, thus saving power.
Re:Anti-MS sentiment at the end of TFS by unixisc · 2012-09-17 16:22 · Score: 1

Anti-MS? I thought that it was mocking Linux - Linux has been trying it for now 5 years, while Windows 8 got it right away.
Re:Anti-MS sentiment at the end of TFS by unixisc · 2012-09-17 16:25 · Score: 1

Oops, scratch that - I read it as 'Linux has been trying to have'.

But yeah, reason for that is that Linux does frequent incremental updates, whereas Windows does a big update every 4 years.
All android (since Froyo) has dynamic ticks by daniel_zy · 2012-09-17 16:32 · Score: 2

The freature was add to Linux kernel in 2.6.21 http://lwn.net/Articles/223185/
Re:LAST - ONLY FIVE YEARS BEHIND THAT'S ALL! by bhpaddock · 2012-09-17 18:16 · Score: 1

Except that this statement is meaningless and compares apples and oranges. But research is for nerds, am I right?
Re:Windows is behind Linux by SuricouRaven · 2012-09-17 19:08 · Score: 1

Windows is the best because it's the biggest. It's the one OS that you can be sure every major piece of software will not only run on, but by extensively tested on. Likewise hardware: You can buy any hardware and be sure that not only will it run on Windows, but the drivers will be tested and retested. The superiority of windows isn't inherent, it's just a business issue: It dominates, which is an advantage in itsself.
Re:Windows is behind Linux by aliquis · 2012-09-17 22:06 · Score: 1

I read it as Windows 8 was first to get it but Linux prople had been working on getting it since 2007. Not that it was the first Windows version which had gotten it and Linux have had it for long.
Amusing the other way around but totally wrong.
My excuses.
Re:Windows is behind Linux by Yunzil · 2012-09-18 01:56 · Score: 1

Windows has always been behind the curve. It didn't get a decent GUI until it blatantly copied the Mac OS in 1995
Uh huh. And where did Linux get its GUI(s)?
Re:Windows is behind Linux by marcello_dl · 2012-09-18 05:59 · Score: 1

Lol, behind Linux? Right. Who gets better battery life?
Linux, hands down.
Unless of course you refer to those laptops sporting intentionally obfuscated power management APIs?
There is even an email about ACPI among the halloween docs from the Gates man himself.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
Personally I achieve more stuff done under linux and less battery life, but if you prefer playing whack-a-mole with popups and nice aero animations for more hours, you can't beat windows.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Re:Windows is behind Linux by cpu6502 · 2012-09-18 06:21 · Score: 1

Yeah except it says "..... something Linux has HAD working since 2007". i.e. functional dynamic ticks.
And my comment was about how I'm not surprised another OS is ahead of windows.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Clunky intel architecture? by turgid · 2012-09-18 07:23 · Score: 1

So intel's CPU architecture is so clunky and complicated compared with the likes of ARM that it needs special intricate OS kernel hacks to get close to the same level of power consumption as the more efficient processors?

--
Stick Men
Re:Windows is behind Linux by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-09-19 06:49 · Score: 1

Shrug. It's an excellent OS, and I like how you cherry pick some dubious random issues but ignore the _glut_ of issues in Linux or OSX. And I am a fan but I'm a professional enterprise software developer so I actually use Windows/Linux for a living and don't just poke around looking for cherry-picked issues to whine about.