Interesting OC thing I noticed


Last Updated:

  1. Hypo Luxa

    Hypo Luxa Well-Known Member This Topic's Starter

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    32
    So I had my phone OC'd to 780 and it was pretty zippy and was loving it but after 8.5 hours of moderate use, I was down to around 30%. Today I dropped to 710 after a post stating that someone killed their CPU by using a setting that high and I just noticed that after 8.5 hours, I currently have 62% of my battery left..

    just saying... big difference for little gain
     

    Advertisement
  2. scary alien

    scary alien not really so scary Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    Messages:
    21,653
    Likes Received:
    22,000
    Yeah, that was, I think a certain gentleman with an attractive, very red-headed young lady as his avatar :eek::D (oh, yeah, you know who you are).

    It also could have been the ROM he was using and how much and what he used it for (i.e., a heavy/power user doing things like wi-fi tethering, etc.). We never did hear the full story about what might have actually fried his device, but he did get a replacement and was lucky enough to get an HBOOT 1.47 (which meant he could root, at that time--no leak-root method then).
     
  3. erisuser1

    erisuser1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    759
    Your observation is absolutely correct... here is the explanation.

    In a simple, fixed voltage processor which dissipates no power when the clock is not running, the power dissipation is proportional to the clock frequency. We might say something like:

    P ~= k*f

    Where 'k' is a constant and 'f' is the clock frequency. In this scenario, if you reduce the clock down to zero, the power dissipation goes to zero as well. Also, the total energy used by a program that always does exactly the same sequence of instructions every time it runs is fixed - no matter how slowly or rapidly the clock is ticking, running that program will use up a fixed amount of energy from the battery. The only choice you have in the matter is "do I want the result sooner or later"?

    If you dig down a little further, you might ask, "but what is this 'k' factor?". In doing that, you would find for the simple, fixed voltage processor (with no clock gating or other fancy power management tricks) that

    k = C * 0.5 * N * V^2

    where N is the total number of logic gates, C is a constant relating to the manufacturing process, and V is the logic supply voltage.

    So the Power dissipation equation is now

    P ~= C * 0.5 * N * V^2 * f

    It's that Voltage-squared term (V^2) which is causing the results you are observing. The reason? Our Eris uses successively higher logic supply voltages as the clock frequency is stepped up. This is done because detection of logic levels is always done in the presence of noise, and as you squeeze the logic timing tighter and tighter with increasing clock frequencies, you need a larger logic voltage swing to be able for the logic gates to run correctly - especially at the moment in time when you change the clock frequency.

    This is unfortunate - because it means that in reality, running faster means that our hypothetical computing job costs you more in Energy (battery reserve) when running quickly than if you ran it slowly. In very real terms, you are "going faster, but getting less work done" per mAh of battery capacity.

    In reality, what goes on with the processor relating to power dissipation is far more complicated than what I've indicated here, but that is a very rough, first-order approximation.

    To see how this works, imagine you are running at a given frequency, and suppose that the next step up in frequency is 10% higher, and that also the supply voltage is increased by 10%. Well - you will get 10% more computational work done per unit time; but the power will increase by

    (1.10)^2 * 1.10 = 1.33 ... 33%!

    Speed kills (batteries)!

    eu1
     
  4. Hypo Luxa

    Hypo Luxa Well-Known Member This Topic's Starter

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ouch.. that hurt my brain! I was actually thinking more along the lines of the analogy that if you mash the gas pedal down in your car, you will get up to 60 much faster, but you will also expend alot more gas than you would if you slowly worked up to the same speed.. not to mention going over 60 and attaining that speed for any length of time will also expend more fuel than if you maintained 60.

    Math was never a strong subject with me!
     
  5. NPH-

    NPH- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    5

    yo hypo, do you mind sharing your setcpu profile settings?
     
  6. thrawn86

    thrawn86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    33
    we need a thread for this.

    I do 710/245 screen off
    245/480 sleep
    245/480 temp failsafe

    I see a lot of people doing 710/480 or something like that but I don't get any noticeable lag from having it lower.
     

Share This Page

Loading...