Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kukibl]

Yes, you could use frequency scaling on desktop, but I don't think that you will benefit as much as using it on laptop. Anyway, proper module should be p4-clockmod. If that doesn't work out you could try with speedstep-* modules (speedstep-ich, speedstep-smi etc).

@Joe1962

This is described as totally safe in the cpufreq kernel docs, as only the correct one will actually load.

Maybe it is safe, but it is not that good solution. For example, on my previous laptop with Core Duo CPU it loaded p4-clockmod module instead speedstep-centrino. Performance differences were huge!

[GrannyGeek]

Yes, you could use frequency scaling on desktop, but I don't think that you will benefit as much as using it on laptop. Anyway, proper module should be p4-clockmod. If that doesn't work out you could try with speedstep-* modules (speedstep-ich, speedstep-smi etc).

I tried all of those on the Celeron Tualatin desktop, but the only one that loaded was speedstep-lib. However, when I ran vcpufreq, the cpufreq driver was listed as UNAVAILABLE. So I did rmmod speedstep-lib. I guess cpufreq is not in the cards for the processor. No big loss. It's a PIII-class CPU, not a P4, and definitely doesn't do speedstepping.

I didn't have that laptop on yesterday, but the day before it ran pretty cool until I started Opera, which heats it up considerably to what Hardinfo reports as around 70 C (which report I don't trust). Regardless of what the actual temperature is, it definitely gets noticeably hotter when Opera is running.  With SeaMonkey the temperature stayed in the reported low 40s. I'll see what I can find out from htop.
--GrannyGeek

[exeterdad]

I was going to give my opinion the other day when you asked about using on a desktop.  "I" feel it would be worth it to green up a desktop. Though laptops would show the most obvious short term gain, a desktop would gain as well.  No sense at running full tilt for surfing the web, reading emails, or other low impact tasks.  At today's gas prices, you don't keep you gas pedal floored while going to the grocery store.  You just go at a reasonable pace. But on the other hand, it's nice to know if you ever see "Blue lights" in your mirror, and happen to have the back seat loaded to the gills with moonshine, you can get the heck outta Dodge if you have to.
Same thing with the desktop.  With "ondemand" the processor will run slower and cooler when doing light duty tasks, and then kick it in to high gear if you start doing something more demanding.
I've seen many debates amongst PC "experts" about what is more expensive. Running a desktop 24/7 or booting when you need it.  Some feel it's no more expensive to run 24/7 at a constant load compared to booting as needed and drawing larger amounts of power to get it started.  So I deducted that the cost of running 24/7 is trivial, and my desktop would be up and ready the moment I needed it. Recently my wife put her foot down, and forced me to shut the desktop down when I go to bed. I had no argument as I don't run servers or anything.  We immediately noticed our electric bill dropped just over a $100.00 a month and has been down that much consistently.  I still have it running nearly every day during the day. Also, the monitor is LCD rather then CRT.

So if you are able to save real money in any amount, and not sacrifice performance by simply enabling a feature of your hardware.  I think it is worth it.

Another point worth mentioning, many users aren't aware that many desktops are capable of sleep/suspend and hibernating.  And resuming from sleep/suspend to a working environment can be in as little as three seconds. With open documents, browser windows or whatever, open right where you might of left them.

[GrannyGeek]

The laptop is now running nicely with vcpufreq. No more fan on all the time! However, if I run Opera, it heats right up and stays there as long as Opera is open--even with plain old Web pages. This is too bad, as Opera is my favorite browser. However, I'm content with SeaMonkey and Firefox, so I'm using SeaMonkey as my usual browser on the laptop and start Opera just when I need something Opera offers that SM or Firefox don't. On my desktops this doesn't happen and Opera has no bad effect on them. Strange. I loaded powernow-k8 on my fastest desktop (on which I'm writing this) and configured vcpufreq for ondemand. The other desktop won't accept any cpufreq modules.

Thanks again, everyone!
--GrannyGeek

[kc1di]

However, if I run Opera, it heats right up and stays there as long as Opera is open--even with plain old Web pages. This is too bad, as Opera is my favorite browser.

Thanks again, everyone!
--GrannyGeek

Hi GrannyGeek,

I noticed on one of my desktop installs when running 5.9 light and LXDE desktop that Opera would max out my CPU usage (100%) and it would stay there until I rebooted the machine.  it did not stop even after shutting down Opera or logging out and back in.  only a reboot would stop it and only if I did not run Opera again. Don't know what's causing that.. but since have gone back to Standard and not notice a problem with Opera.

[GrannyGeek]

I remember reading that, Dave. I have 5.9 Standard Deluxe on my three Linux computers. Only the laptop has this problem with Opera. I have no idea why.
--GrannyGeek

[kc1di]

I remember reading that, Dave. I have 5.9 Standard Deluxe on my three Linux computers. Only the laptop has this problem with Opera. I have no idea why.
--GrannyGeek

Well light RC2 has been released will have to give it a try see it I get the same with Opera on that platform.

[wcs]

Is cpu-freq intended for laptops or is it useful for desktop systems, too?

I sometimes use vcpufreq with my desktop (an Intel Core 2 Duo).
It only gives me two options (1.6GHz and 1.86Ghz), though, which makes its usability somewhat limited.

I usualy run it in performance, which keeps it at 1.86, but if I see my temperatures going up on a particularly hot day, I might go for ondemand or conservative. Not that the lower frequency makes that much difference.

I find lmsensors (displayed by conky) to be very useful to monitor the current frequency and temperature.
However, the values are slightly different from the BIOS ones... there's also the coretemp module for intel's dual-core cpus (monitoring each core separately), which also gives different temperatures.

I'm not sure about these differences... different sensors, different monitoring.... I came to look at it in a relative sense (relative to some "normal" baseline on colder days), and don't care much about the actual absolute temperatures.

[exeterdad]

I didn't know about the coretemp module. Thanks!