On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:52:29PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 20-Nov-02, 09:51 (CST), Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote: > > ...I suspect that even 5% is an overestimation, as this would be a > > pretty serious savings over the lifetime of a computer. > Assuming the processor is 100% busy, or even 50% busy, sure. But with > rare exception they're not, and if they are, then you build your own > versions of the critical programs/libraries. And what about modern x86 processors, which scale their clock speed down (and therefore use less energy) when they're less busy? If you can get 5% more work done per clock cycle by using optimizations, you can also get the same work done in 5% fewer clock cycles. Are the x86 power saving modes fine grained enough to make this a worthwhile savings? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpKruRQZDpPu.pgp
Description: PGP signature