Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:28:47 +0000
Subject: Re: News : ARM Trying to Buy AmperComputing
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
References: <_hycnQxlN5kAphr6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <36bf96a5-527c-1d8b-a93b-6788cdd589a2@example.net>
 <1PKcna3Yf6vdFhX6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <b0808927-ab4c-5c09-69db-608552e94989@example.net>
 <vmapu2$3foi7$2@dont-email.me>
 <7b19252d-bfe8-9d48-0cd2-eb33e4a64179@example.net>
From: "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net>
Organization: wokiesux
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:28:47 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7b19252d-bfe8-9d48-0cd2-eb33e4a64179@example.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <vaWdnWhdjYASdxT6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 37
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.101.150.97
X-Trace: sv3-JrlhsOOPSGuDSrI7AWZiNun6ZU4qrx0REu3SMkIEYiAPN0kVz/+oBgg11vS3T6HcJfbAUHXvaDNC5qe!PSAWP1XZ+SMGLegGc6k8uwR6DZMBBNuauTnPLX+euSHh7ohpWCfcS/loQUcACHBa2g2/H6q9+YkL!b20zT0IGvLMcYir0Df3x
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 3183

On 1/16/25 11:12 AM, D wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> On 16/01/2025 10:58, D wrote:
>>> This is the truth! I've seen it in a few laptops. But I don't know if 
>>> they are energy efficient enough to make a huge difference. I get 
>>> about 14 hours or so from my 1.5 year old laptop. If arm would bump 
>>> that to 25 I'd seriously consider one! But last time I had a look, 
>>> 1.5 years ago, the battery time on arm laptops was far from impressive.
>>
>> There is some limit in terms of how much charge needs to get moved 
>> around how many transistors of at least a given size that relates 
>> ultimate MIPS per watt to a figure independent of architecture.
>>
>> The original ARM used very few transistors and an extremely well 
>> optimised instruction set to get the performance that it did at such 
>> low power.
>>
>> Arguably it is now in the same ballpark as a late model INTEL *86 or 
>> even RISC chip.
> 
> This would correspond well with what I see in the market. It's a shame. 
> I'd like to see a cpu focused on low power consumption since laptops 
> don't need all the power they have today for regular day to day use. I'd 
> much rather have a slow laptop that lasts me 30-40 hours, than a monster 
> that runs out of power after 8 hours.

   Having a choice, I bought an HP laptop with a lower-end i3
   rather than going for 'power'. It DOES last a lot longer on
   batteries and doesn't run nearly as hot. Good enough for
   anything I'm doing right now.

   In any case, laptops, seems MOST of the power goes to
   the DISPLAY. Be it LEDs or LED-backlit LCDs, the juice
   required is about the same. E-paper is too slow.