On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:32:26PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > I like this one better. Slow down the poll interval just a little so > it's not so hysterical, but also go straight to 100. If you need CPU, > you need CPU. It still backs down slowly, but that's just to prevent > getting caught in slow mode again.
Me too - my laptop is (as expected) more responsive than with the other diff. Playing a video, however, results in going up 100 going down 90 going down 80 going up 100 going down 90 going down 80 going down 70 going up 100 going down 90 going down 80 going up 100 going down 90 going up 100 going down 90 going down 80 going down 70 going down 60 ... which is not exactly bad (the video is played just fine), but I wonder whether it is as efficient battery-wise as converging to e.g. 60-70 over time. It is a hard one to wrap one's head around, and I tend to believe that the automatic throttling is better than fixing/converging the performance. When there is work to be done, it needs to be done. Doing it fast with higher power usage should be roughly the same as doing it slow with less power usage, however, the former case seems more responsive to the user (not relevant for the video example). My two cents. Thanks again. Martin
