So out the window with my hopes of a full-blown MS Office device (including OneNote and an active digitizer!) with a 10" screen, 12 hour battery and 1/4 the weight of my Thinkpad tablet?
"your energy efficiency goes straight to hell, and your cooling solution gets more complex, expensive, and (usually) louder. Then factor in the extra electricity bills to feed the computer, and the AC bills in the summer."
So faster versions of the same chip don't use more power when they're sold as the faster version? Even though they're both rated at the same TDP, the 3.4GHz version of the chip might (and probably will) use [(3.4/3.2)-1]% more power than the 3.2GHz chip of the same type at full load.
Modern example: Will a Core i7 2700k use less power than a 2600k with its multiplier bumped up to the 2700k's stock multiplier? I HIGHLY doubt it.
Also: It's long become possible to overclock without losing any power-saving functions - things like Speedstep still work, so the only time you're using more power is when the machine is at full load - and at full load, the overclocked machine will be done faster, offsetting the jump in your power bill. IIRC power usage actually scales linearly with clock speed (provided all other factors are the same, and forgetting efficiency issues), so 30% more clock speed => 30% more power usage for the processor, but the required time drops to ~77% for CPU-limited applications... which exactly balances out that 30% bump in power consumption.
And when you consider that the CPU only makes up, say, half or 3/4 of the PC's full-load power consumption, that figure gets better - say the other components make up half of the full load power consumption, so that 30% overclock only results in a 15% net power increase - with a 30% speed boost. Even if the CPU uses 75% of the machine's power, you're still only looking at a 22.5% power usage increase.
I know this is all a very amateurish calculation, but I very much doubt that overclocking (within certain logical limits, like no adding voltage) a CPU will increase your power bill if done with efficiency in mind.
As for "complex cooling solutions": Intel chips from the last few years hardly need 'em unless you're going for a very high overclock (with overvolting and so on) or are bothered by the sound of rushing air. 45nm Core 2 Duo gen 45nm chips will often happily run at 50C full load with a 30% overclock on stock cooling... without any noticable increase in fan noise. I've been told it's similar with current Sandy Bridge chips...
WTF? Slashdot ate my post (and no, the machine I'm posting from isn't overclocked:P). Last sentence was supposed to be:
Yes, there is a limit that "normal" users should not go past (nice low temps, no overvolting), but if you're using the machine for something strongly CPU-limited, not using that untapped potential is a waste.
"When my cheap AMD Quad Core can handle HD Multimedia encoding in a decent length of time, why push it beyond it's capacity for a few seconds, minutes off of that time? For a production studeo, sure, but for a home user? get real."
When an encode takes 5 hours or longer, cutting that time by 30-40% is pretty awesome.
Yes, there is a limit that "normal" users should not go past (nice low temps if you're using the machine for something strongly CPU-limited.
So $200 for a 2500K is overpriced? I've been out of the PC hardware game for a while, but a 4-core Sandy Bridge chip with an unlocked multiplier for $200 seems pretty awesome.
Yes, the highest-end CPUs are hella expensive, but that's always been the case - not many of those are sold anyway.
The Wii bombed? Then why do all my non-gamer friends have a Wii and tons of games? Compare that to the two people I know who have PS3's or XBox360s... who made more money?
Do you have stats to back up your claim? I always thought the Wii was a huge success...?
For my next device, I"m hoping the Thinkpad X230 (or whatever they end up calling the X220's replacement) will have a full-sized (2.5", 9.5mm height) SATA slot again - that way, I can put my 1TB HDD in there and add an mSATA SSD - hopefully there'll be ~200GB ones out by then.
Any tips on which about:config entries I should be tweaking? What's the easiest way to turn off disk caching entirely? I thought that wasn't even possible in Firefox... that would be pretty much perfect, since I'm running 8 gigs of RAM in each of my machines...
Nope, not localstorage - turns out to be the SQL files and cache, mostly... and apparently, a lot of fragmentation. Gotta get that sorted out... trying a few tips from others here on Slashdot (Defraggler, CCleaner database consolidation), and they seem to be working so far.
Alright then, I've run CCleaner and defragged (with the regular Windows utility - apparently it hasn't been running as scheduled, because my drives were all fragmented - it's set to run once a week, but last run is November 2011 - WTF?)... now I've installed Defraggler, but can't find the coalescing mode you referred to - or is it maybe just the quick defrag?
CCleaner and the regular defrag already seem to have helped, though, so thanks for that:)
Accumulating cruft is EXACTLY what a Firefox profile does. To begin with, they're tiny... mine has grown to over 1GB in size, and Firefox thrashes the hard drive every time it's opened or closed.:(
Agreed - and the power consumption is much lower than Chrome's (the only viable alternative, IMO) too.
But how do I speed it up? Chrome is MUCH faster on my machine, and I'm using a Firefox profile that's barely a year old, without many add-ons installed (NoScript and ABP go without saying... ImageZoom, NoSquint... that's pretty much it). And Firefox keeps thrashing my disk (No, I'm not swapping it out for an SSD - I only have one hard drive slot in my laptop, and it's filled with a big-ass mechanical hard drive)...
You're right. "They look like crap" was just easier to type out on my smartphone than "The subpar viewing angles and washed out colors in full color mode make it a pain to use for anything other than reading high-contrast text"... you're right though, next time I'll be more precise and choose my words more carefully:)
I hope you're right in that the technology behind Pixel Qi is getting better and better, but the version in the Adam was pretty horrible for full-color use - so much so that it was a deal-breaker for me, and I would LOVE a decent non-backlit sunlight-readable tablet display. Unfortunately, in my case, that made the disappointment that was the NI Adam all the worse:(
I'm still waiting on a 12.1" drop-in replacement version for my Thinkpad... with better color reproduction and viewing angles, of course;)
I've held an Adam in my hands and played with it - because I was planning on buying one for the oh so fantastic pixel Qi screen... and the sunlight-readable mode is great, really. But as soon as I switched to full-color mode, I knew it wasn't for me - washed out colors, extermely narrow viewing angles from two sides (and barely so-so on the others), low contrast... it just isn't a good display.
Yes, sunlight-readable displays are awesome. But until the full-color backlit mode looks halfway decent, they're not going anywhere. And the thread-starter's claims of "BETTER color" are just plain wrong...
Have a nice day, and don't get yourself all worked up about your toys.
The screen isn't bad per se, but the full color mode looks significantly worse than the average LCD. Inaccurate colors, horrible viewing angles from two sides (but fine from the others)... just not a very nice experience if you're used to regular screens.
The outdoor viewable mode might make that trade-off acceptable for you, but that doesn't make the full color mode's picture quality any better.
Slashdot Mirror
So out the window with my hopes of a full-blown MS Office device (including OneNote and an active digitizer!) with a 10" screen, 12 hour battery and 1/4 the weight of my Thinkpad tablet?
Booooooooooo!
What's stopping a vendor from creating a Linux-based ARM tablet right now? Why is Linux suddenly viable when Windows ARM tablets appear?
If there was a (profitable) market for this stuff, we'd have $Distro tablets already.
"your energy efficiency goes straight to hell, and your cooling solution gets more complex, expensive, and (usually) louder. Then factor in the extra electricity bills to feed the computer, and the AC bills in the summer."
So faster versions of the same chip don't use more power when they're sold as the faster version? Even though they're both rated at the same TDP, the 3.4GHz version of the chip might (and probably will) use [(3.4/3.2)-1]% more power than the 3.2GHz chip of the same type at full load.
Modern example: Will a Core i7 2700k use less power than a 2600k with its multiplier bumped up to the 2700k's stock multiplier? I HIGHLY doubt it.
Also: It's long become possible to overclock without losing any power-saving functions - things like Speedstep still work, so the only time you're using more power is when the machine is at full load - and at full load, the overclocked machine will be done faster, offsetting the jump in your power bill. IIRC power usage actually scales linearly with clock speed (provided all other factors are the same, and forgetting efficiency issues), so 30% more clock speed => 30% more power usage for the processor, but the required time drops to ~77% for CPU-limited applications... which exactly balances out that 30% bump in power consumption.
And when you consider that the CPU only makes up, say, half or 3/4 of the PC's full-load power consumption, that figure gets better - say the other components make up half of the full load power consumption, so that 30% overclock only results in a 15% net power increase - with a 30% speed boost. Even if the CPU uses 75% of the machine's power, you're still only looking at a 22.5% power usage increase.
I know this is all a very amateurish calculation, but I very much doubt that overclocking (within certain logical limits, like no adding voltage) a CPU will increase your power bill if done with efficiency in mind.
As for "complex cooling solutions": Intel chips from the last few years hardly need 'em unless you're going for a very high overclock (with overvolting and so on) or are bothered by the sound of rushing air. 45nm Core 2 Duo gen 45nm chips will often happily run at 50C full load with a 30% overclock on stock cooling... without any noticable increase in fan noise. I've been told it's similar with current Sandy Bridge chips...
WTF? Slashdot ate my post (and no, the machine I'm posting from isn't overclocked :P). Last sentence was supposed to be:
Yes, there is a limit that "normal" users should not go past (nice low temps, no overvolting), but if you're using the machine for something strongly CPU-limited, not using that untapped potential is a waste.
"When my cheap AMD Quad Core can handle HD Multimedia encoding in a decent length of time, why push it beyond it's capacity for a few seconds, minutes off of that time? For a production studeo, sure, but for a home user? get real."
When an encode takes 5 hours or longer, cutting that time by 30-40% is pretty awesome.
Yes, there is a limit that "normal" users should not go past (nice low temps if you're using the machine for something strongly CPU-limited.
So $200 for a 2500K is overpriced? I've been out of the PC hardware game for a while, but a 4-core Sandy Bridge chip with an unlocked multiplier for $200 seems pretty awesome.
Yes, the highest-end CPUs are hella expensive, but that's always been the case - not many of those are sold anyway.
I requested data while offering up an anecdote - is that so horrible? Remember, I never portrayed my anecdote as anything more than such...
Defensive? Why that? I have no stake in the Wii, and neither own or particularly enjoy playing on one...
Thanks for the heads-up though - looks ike I just read that wrong. :)
The Wii bombed? Then why do all my non-gamer friends have a Wii and tons of games? Compare that to the two people I know who have PS3's or XBox360s... who made more money?
Do you have stats to back up your claim? I always thought the Wii was a huge success...?
Isn't consumer GPS artificially liimited in accuracy? I thought the military and government versions were much, much more accurate...
Nope, it's an ultraportable.
For my next device, I"m hoping the Thinkpad X230 (or whatever they end up calling the X220's replacement) will have a full-sized (2.5", 9.5mm height) SATA slot again - that way, I can put my 1TB HDD in there and add an mSATA SSD - hopefully there'll be ~200GB ones out by then.
Just did, and it's already running a bit smoother. Thanks. :)
Unfortunately, I'm already on 9.0.1 :(
Any tips on which about:config entries I should be tweaking? What's the easiest way to turn off disk caching entirely? I thought that wasn't even possible in Firefox... that would be pretty much perfect, since I'm running 8 gigs of RAM in each of my machines...
Nope, not localstorage - turns out to be the SQL files and cache, mostly... and apparently, a lot of fragmentation. Gotta get that sorted out... trying a few tips from others here on Slashdot (Defraggler, CCleaner database consolidation), and they seem to be working so far.
Alright then, I've run CCleaner and defragged (with the regular Windows utility - apparently it hasn't been running as scheduled, because my drives were all fragmented - it's set to run once a week, but last run is November 2011 - WTF?)... now I've installed Defraggler, but can't find the coalescing mode you referred to - or is it maybe just the quick defrag?
CCleaner and the regular defrag already seem to have helped, though, so thanks for that :)
places.sqlite (40MB)
urlclassifier3.sqlite (50MB)
Looks like the cache folder instantly grew to 50MB again too... the rest is 12MB (ABP) and less (bookmarkbackups, indexedDB and so on).
Anything sound out of place to you?
Sounds great to me, thank you!
Bulk deletion via filters sounds good... thanks for the tip!
Looks like cache, mainly. Just deleted that and it's back down to about 200MB - that's still huge though, isn't it?
Don't really have that many bookmarks, and my history shouldn't be all too big...
Accumulating cruft is EXACTLY what a Firefox profile does. To begin with, they're tiny... mine has grown to over 1GB in size, and Firefox thrashes the hard drive every time it's opened or closed. :(
Actually I meant that I've been using the same profile for all this time - that hasn't atopped me from upgrading to the latest FF ver
Agreed - and the power consumption is much lower than Chrome's (the only viable alternative, IMO) too.
But how do I speed it up? Chrome is MUCH faster on my machine, and I'm using a Firefox profile that's barely a year old, without many add-ons installed (NoScript and ABP go without saying... ImageZoom, NoSquint... that's pretty much it). And Firefox keeps thrashing my disk (No, I'm not swapping it out for an SSD - I only have one hard drive slot in my laptop, and it's filled with a big-ass mechanical hard drive)...
You're right. "They look like crap" was just easier to type out on my smartphone than "The subpar viewing angles and washed out colors in full color mode make it a pain to use for anything other than reading high-contrast text"... you're right though, next time I'll be more precise and choose my words more carefully :)
I hope you're right in that the technology behind Pixel Qi is getting better and better, but the version in the Adam was pretty horrible for full-color use - so much so that it was a deal-breaker for me, and I would LOVE a decent non-backlit sunlight-readable tablet display. Unfortunately, in my case, that made the disappointment that was the NI Adam all the worse :(
I'm still waiting on a 12.1" drop-in replacement version for my Thinkpad... with better color reproduction and viewing angles, of course ;)
Dear guy who likes to swear and insult people,
I've held an Adam in my hands and played with it - because I was planning on buying one for the oh so fantastic pixel Qi screen... and the sunlight-readable mode is great, really. But as soon as I switched to full-color mode, I knew it wasn't for me - washed out colors, extermely narrow viewing angles from two sides (and barely so-so on the others), low contrast... it just isn't a good display.
Yes, sunlight-readable displays are awesome. But until the full-color backlit mode looks halfway decent, they're not going anywhere. And the thread-starter's claims of "BETTER color" are just plain wrong...
Have a nice day, and don't get yourself all worked up about your toys.
The screen isn't bad per se, but the full color mode looks significantly worse than the average LCD. Inaccurate colors, horrible viewing angles from two sides (but fine from the others)... just not a very nice experience if you're used to regular screens.
The outdoor viewable mode might make that trade-off acceptable for you, but that doesn't make the full color mode's picture quality any better.