Database Info

Improve battery life by Underclocking ??

I just installed "Overclock Widget", found here:
http://www.appbrain.com/app/org.freecoder.widgets.overclock
Which not only lets you overclock, but under-clock as well, and set ranges of frequencies for when the screen is both on and off. My phone is rooted and it appears to work fine, I just set it up so we'll see if it helps battery life. I set it so that when the screen is off the max frequency is 400,000 and when the screen is on the max is 800,000. The phone doesn't feel any slower than before -- to be honest, the speed is fine for me, I just need better battery life so we'll see if this helps.
Is anyone else using this app, or tried something like this to help with the battery life?
Another option is "SetCPU", available here on XDA:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=505419

I don't know if there really is a need for this. I installed System Panel on my phone and it shows that the phone automatically underclocks based on load. My phone went down to 100Mhz while I was watching it.
I saw on AndroidForums installed a clock manager and was boasting that he set his phone to drop to 700Mhz. So, in reality, he just forced it to run faster than the phone would've on its own!

meatrocket said:
I don't know if there really is a need for this. I installed System Panel on my phone and it shows that the phone automatically underclocks based on load. My phone went down to 100Mhz while I was watching it.
I saw on AndroidForums installed a clock manager and was boasting that he set his phone to drop to 700Mhz. So, in reality, he just forced it to run faster than the phone would've on its own!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting, I'll have to check that out. But, at the very least, with an app like this we should able to "throttle" the top speed to 800MHZ or so to save a little juice at the cost of some speed, correct? Or, is even something like that probably not worth it?

So is there no reason for SetCPU anymore? I just downloaded it, but I'll go ahead and uninstall it if people think its pointless on this phone

yeah the phone throttles on its own.

its still usefull if you can throttle voltage i guess

I thought about looking for something like this, but then when I went into system infoormation it showed that was I spending like 88% of my time with the cpu clocked to 100mhz, so there seems to be little point.

the screen is the real culprit in battery loss on this phone. black background swith red streaks are your friend.

[Q] Optimum "LOW" setting for performance based overclocking

I am loving my Android experience so far coming from and iPhone 4. I am running LeeDroid and have been playing around a lot with SetCPU. At this time, I am not concerned about battery as of yet. I am asking this question in regard to optimal, blazing fast performance with minimal hiccups.
I have done Quadrant testing at various min/max CPU levels. I had excellent results at 1804 high 904 min. However I had to yank the battery after not being able to unlock the device.
For profiles, real basic, again I am not concerned about battery charge life ATM. I have it set to revert to stock performace (1036/245) if the battery temp reaches 100F.
With the screen locked, I have it set to 499/245. All of my settings are using the "ondemand".
I would like to know what an ideal minimum is for PERFORMANCE as well as ideal max (1804? Highest might not always be fastest?). I got amazing results with Quadrant full benchmark with settings of 1804/499. This also caused a lockup when trying to unlock the device though. Maybe because there was a conflict with my lockscreen max setting? I would think the app would put priority to the lock profile though.
Also, does this phone have a built in CPU temperature sensor that I could utilize with a CPU temp widget?
Thanks for reading my lengthy ramblings.
Ray

Not all Processors are created equal and therefore some can OC to 1900+ and some cant overclock at all. Most will be in between. Sounds like you are over doing it. I clock mine to about 1400 when charging. I have had it to 1700 without an issue at all, but I don't find a need to be faster then 1400. When screen is off I actually tell it to go to 250MHz. Sometimes its alittle slow to "wake". But it saves mucho battery. When just on battery I am running at about 1250. Been this way for about 3 weeks. Not an issue.
I have never had to yank my battery and quite frankly if I did I would never run it that high again. You are going to burn it up running it at that speed. Nothing over 1500 for extended periods. 1800+ for showing off maybe? But that's kinda dumb too.
I have not read about any built in temp thing so can't really answer that.

I don't know what kind of power hungry apps you guys are running, but I run mine underclocked to 906MHz. Snappy as ever.

[Q] CPU Setting Question

As the thread states, I obviously have a question about SetCPU and processor settings.
Is it better to have the processor underclocked and almost always using 100% to use programs, or it better off to overclock and have more processing power without using 100% or close to that mark.
And what would be more beneficial for battery life.
Edit: And if mods could move this to Q&A. Clicked the wrong forum.
Thanks,
Cyanide

Cyanidex00 said:
As the thread states, I obviously have a question about SetCPU and processor settings.
Is it better to have the processor underclocked and almost always using 100% to use programs, or it better off to overclock and have more processing power without using 100% or close to that mark.
And what would be more beneficial for battery life.
Edit: And if mods could move this to Q&A. Clicked the wrong forum.
Thanks,
Cyanide
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually we could use some hard evidence regarding this. Theories are theories, but actual experience is golden. Maybe you could try some various processor settings are report back?

Well, before I posted this I was using 245/886 underclocked with 245/245 screen off profile. At the end of the day I had an average about 75-80% percent battery life with pretty moderate to heavy usage.
I'm current using 245/1574 overclocked and will report back, with same screen off profile.
And yes, I did wipe battery stats before I started this.

Cyanidex00 said:
Well, before I posted this I was using 245/886 underclocked with 245/245 screen off profile. At the end of the day I had an average about 75-80% percent battery life with pretty moderate to heavy usage.
I'm current using 245/1574 overclocked and will report back, with same screen off profile.
And yes, I did wipe battery stats before I started this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool, thanks for that info. Are you finding that forcing a 245 mhz screen off speed is impacting any apps running while your screen is off (e.g. music playing apps)? A couple of weeks ago I tried forcing the screen off at 122 mhz to see if that would help battery life, but I had big problems with music apps stuttering. I didn't play around with the speeds to see if raising the forced minimum to 245 would have fixed the problem. Some kernels advertise as a feature "Max speed - screen off 576MHz" or some other speed, but I don't know if it needs to be that high or not, for app stability.

I personally haven't tried any music or apps running while screen is off, I'll give it a whirl when I get home from work.
I know this obviously will vary from phone to phone, and how the user uses the phone. I'm pretty moderate to heavy usage daily. Hopefully maybe we can compile some data on what works for people.

I have my screen off profile set at 245 and have no problem streaming music from my SD card with the screen off. When streaming from the cloud, I sometimes get a very long pause between songs that isn't there with the screen on. I will try raising my screen off speed to see if that changes anything.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA Premium App

henrybravo said:
Cool, thanks for that info. Are you finding that forcing a 245 mhz screen off speed is impacting any apps running while your screen is off (e.g. music playing apps)? A couple of weeks ago I tried forcing the screen off at 122 mhz to see if that would help battery life, but I had big problems with music apps stuttering. I didn't play around with the speeds to see if raising the forced minimum to 245 would have fixed the problem. Some kernels advertise as a feature "Max speed - screen off 576MHz" or some other speed, but I don't know if it needs to be that high or not, for app stability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I noticed this yesterday. My screen off is also 245. My music stuttered, but only once (and it was fairly brief).

I raised the screen off speed to 368 and have not had any sputtering or long pauses between songs, even when streaming from the cloud.
Sent from my Inspire 4G using the power of the dark side.

biglittlegato said:
I raised the screen off speed to 368 and have not had any sputtering or long pauses between songs, even when streaming from the cloud.
Sent from my Inspire 4G using the power of the dark side.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good to know, thanks!

Cyanidex00 said:
As the thread states, I obviously have a question about SetCPU and processor settings.
Is it better to have the processor underclocked and almost always using 100% to use programs, or it better off to overclock and have more processing power without using 100% or close to that mark.
And what would be more beneficial for battery life.
Edit: And if mods could move this to Q&A. Clicked the wrong forum.
Thanks,
Cyanide
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use SetCPU at 460/1152 brazilianwax, screen off 122/537 conservative and have good battery life and no issues when playing music w/ screenoff....

Overclocking is almost guaranteed to worsen battery life compared to say if it was at stock 1 ghz or a little less.
With a governor like on demand, its gonna scale from the lowest to to highest allowed as soon as it gets some load on it, eg from 245mhz to whatever Max is (1017, 1075, or 1920 etc), without stopping in between.
Even conservative with fast scaling will probably scale close to Max clock speed pretty quickly under load, so theoretically this should be a /little/ better for battery than on demand, but will not seem as fast and could possibly make the phone seem more laggy. Smartass is very similiar to conservative as it scales depending on a preset % of CPU load. If its set to 70%, when CPU reaches 70% load, it scales to next frequency, when that frequently hits 70% load, its scales again. The version of the on demand governor most of us have in out kernels is the fastest scaling option, which goes from min CPU - straight to max

Best battery Saver

Idk if this goes in Q/A or not I never had a Q/A section as I came from the amaze but anyway. What battery savers do you guys find best? I Use Batter Defender but doesn't seem to really extend it. Would i be better of not using one at all?

I use 3 programs to help me maximize my battery life.
1) Badass Battery Monitor to figure out what's sucking juice, how long I've left, and how long until I'm full.
2) 2x Battery to manage background data. This probably saves me the most battery by disabling that data transfer a lot of the time.
3) Lux Auto Brightness to tweak my screen brightness. It's pretty much on "dark" now all the time aside for when I'm in really bright light.

JuiceDefender
I use the free version and it's very good!

I think the most effective battery saver is to flash a kernel that has become voltage control features and undervolt the cpu.
Sent using Tapatalk

klin1344 said:
I think the most effective battery saver is to flash a kernel that has become voltage control features and undervolt the cpu.
Sent using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not a fan of under volting the CPU. Mainly because if my understanding of Ohms Law is correct, it's pointless. And my personal experience with it seems to corroborate my feelings.
Under volting the CPU in my experience just introduces stability and reliability issues. I've personally never seen any battery savings from it, especially since the CPU should, theoretically, just draw more current (I) to compensate for the lower voltage (E). It's watts (P = ExI) that matter, and the CPU, if I understand correctly, is going to demand the necessary P for the frequency requested. So under volting either starves the CPU (it can't get enough P), or over currents it (it draws more I to compensate for less E). There are slight variations in each CPU, obviously, which may allow for a margin of under volting to be possible without issue, but the battery savings of this, I feel, are so small, any you notice are most likely a placebo effect. Your screen, and apps constantly polling the CPU or network are your biggest source of battery drain to worry about IMHO.
Sent from my H1S using XDA Premium.

I use Power Controls widget.
Unless I'm actively using internet, I make sure to turn 4G data to 2G. That alone saves so much battery. If I want further battery saved, I disable internet completely with a touch of a widget. Now my phone will last a week just by what phones do best: Making phonecalls and texting.

I'm on 2.1 GHz overclock processor and when battery goes below 30% it goes to 1ghz I can see the battery being saved
Sent from my HTC One S using xda premium

k1llacanon said:
I'm on 2.1 GHz overclock processor and when battery goes below 30% it goes to 1ghz I can see the battery being saved
Sent from my HTC One S using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With an higher frequency the phone will use more power, like a pc processor when you overclock it so this is natural, but overclocking/downclocking has nothing to do with undervolting, MadJoe is right.
With JuiceDefender for example you can set your 3g/4g to shut off when you don't use the phone, it activates 3g/4g when you use your phone and at regular intervals in backgroud so it can fetch emails etc.
All automatic so you don't have to switch off and back on network connection every time.
As network connection is one of the services that consumes the battery a lot this is really effective and really improves battery life!

I've read a lot of complaints about these PowerManagement Apps using more battery life then they safe.
I don't know if this is right.
At the moment I'm running CM9 with modified auto-brightness options, auto-sync and 2G/3G/WIFI always on.
I'm really happy with the battery life I get, so I don't see why you would need a Battery Saver app with this phone.

rickyoon.vegas said:
I use Power Controls widget.
Unless I'm actively using internet, I make sure to turn 4G data to 2G. That alone saves so much battery. If I want further battery saved, I disable internet completely with a touch of a widget. Now my phone will last a week just by what phones do best: Making phonecalls and texting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Heh, so why did you get a smart phone. Some older nokia's that can only talk and text can last for weeks on one charge, if you want a model # I can look it up 4 u.

[Q] CPU throttle won't work in surface pro?

In the power options, under processor power management, the maximum processor state on battery seems to always revert back to 100% after a reboot or changing power plans. Any ideas why the setting won't stick?

I noticed this as well
..very annoying
is that the only setting you noticed reverting? or are there more?

I assumed win8 handles processes differently requiring less battery consumption.
Sent from my EVO using xda premium

but that isn't the issue
if u go into settings and change the 100% to anything else
it always reverts back .....very annoying ....marked difference in battery life noticed

If you create a new power plan and use it, the settings will stay after a reboot. This is what I did.

Did anyone try 20% CPU so far ? And if so, how is the battery life?
I won't mind getting Surface Pro if I can throttle down its CPU when on battery to Surface RT's speed for a longer battery.
I currently have a RT version with me

Power consumption curve for CPUs is very non-linear. 90% from 100% will probably save you more power than 20% from 90% will. You'd just be wasting a ton of processing capability.

GoodDayToDie said:
Power consumption curve for CPUs is very non-linear. 90% from 100% will probably save you more power than 20% from 90% will. You'd just be wasting a ton of processing capability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not only that but the windows throttle percentage is not really as specific as a 0-100 range would suggest, so even if you set 20% it might limit the cpu to its minimum frequency.
If you use a tool such as this you can see what the current frequency is: http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/tmonitor.html
With my laptops (much slower) Core2Duo the minimum frequency was too slow, but about 50% of the max worked well and dramatically reduced the heat under load.
Some people reckon it is better to allow the cpu to use its full frequency so that it finishes the job faster and can move back to the lowest idle state. I am not sure that really applies to i5 (which doesn't support the ARM-style idle states that haswell will) and like you say the power consumption at lower cpu frequencies doesn't vary much. My experience with windows is that sometimes for no apparent reason at all programs such as word or chrome sit using 50+% of the cpu and you have to restart the process. It doesn't happen often at all but you might not realise until your battery is low. With the pro's i5 I expect you could get away with quite a low cpu frequency and would at least know you will always get roughly the same battery life.

This is the same problem that w700 has, an even earlier product. This situation made the biggest thread in the acer community because people are angry, some even took back their products and traded for the surface which made it the same than people realized it was not the w700 itself. Throttle stop didnt work because it seems to be more temp related.
Here are some interesting topics
http://community.acer.com/t5/Acer-T...rottling-Turbo-Boost-issues/td-p/6873/page/28
http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/acer-gateway/54122-w700-throttling.html

Walderstorn said:
This is the same problem that w700 has, an even earlier product. This situation made the biggest thread in the acer community because people are angry, some even took back their products and traded for the surface which made it the same than people realized it was not the w700 itself. Throttle stop didnt work because it seems to be more temp related.
Here are some interesting topics
http://community.acer.com/t5/Acer-T...rottling-Turbo-Boost-issues/td-p/6873/page/28
http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/acer-gateway/54122-w700-throttling.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, it is nothing like that problem. The OP is talking about manually limiting the max clock of the device using the Windows setting that has been there for a while now.