From: Patrick M. <mo...@os...> - 2002-05-15 20:31:53
|
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > > > Well. Throttling a Crusoe processor ? Didn't you notice that > > > > > > such processors have _real_ power comsuption saving with their famous > > > > > > LongRun(TM) technology instead ? Also notice that Transmetta have > > > > > > > > > > Yep, throttling it makes sense -- it could lower voltage for CPU. > > > > > > > > The Crusoe has mtrr registers that allow you to set throttling ranges, > > > > > > Throttling in Memoty Type Range Registers? > > > > > > > and guide policy. The actual policy implementation is buried deep in their > > > > x86 emulator > > > > > > But.. this is user choice. If I want to throttle CPU I basically say "I'd > > > like batteries last longer, slow it down". x86 emulator can not do that for > > > me. > > > > Remember that the Crusoe is not an x86 chip. It is a VLIW architecture > > that emulates x86 instructions... see > > > > http://transmeta.com/technology/index.html > > I know what crusoe is; anyway, there are still reasons to want to > throttle the CPU. It is not only idle time that counts. > > Imagine a game of quake, played on batteries. User might decide that > he wants lower framerate but longer play. That's what throttling is > good for. This decision can not be done automaticaly. I wasn't disputing the goodness of throttling. I was just pointing out that the use of their emulator, or rather translator, isn't optional. ;) -pat |