So I have a quad core 1.5ghz. I under clocked it to 486mhz. I have been watching the processors and at what speed they are running. I find that most of the time for basic things one or 2 are running. But if I raise it to 594mhz or 702 the second one and the rest kick on less. Would it be more energy efficient to run one at a slightly faster speed vs running 2,3,4 more often at a slower speed? I locked the cpu max speed. For some reason the second one would run faster than what it was set at. So maybe I should undo the force lock because it might be more energy efficient to let that processor be the only one to go faster?
Related
This is a question for those who have overclocked their Xoom. How much is overclocking to 1.5Ghz affecting battery life?
Overclocking would be the only reason I would root right now, and I am trying to make up my mind on whether to do it.
My battery life is better after using setcpu to overclock. The reason is that the tegra2 chipset scales the performance based on whether it's needed(IE, when you're using your xoom) with setCPU you are extending the top end of how fast the CPU can go. The clever bit is you can also tell your xoom to slow itself down and go very efficient when the screen is off or if the chipset gets too hot (which it never has). If you do go for it I recommend using setcpu using interactive scaling (prioritising the user interface) and whack the max speed up to 1500 and the min speed down to 217 mhz
I wouldn't recommend setting screen-off profiles at the moment. It seems to lead to some strange issues once in a while.
That said, because you're only going to 1.5 GHz when needed, battery life doesn't really suffer. Additionally, at least in my usage, my screen uses ~70-85% of my battery. This is even during heaving gaming, where the Tegra 2 really has to work hard.
I wouldn't worry about its effects, personally.
MrGinger said:
The reason is that the tegra2 chipset scales the performance based on whether it's needed(IE, when you're using your xoom)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All CPUs do this, not just Tegras.
Re scaling, never said otherwise I've never had a problem with screen off profile. Maybe just lucky
I have question about 1,5 ghz ang 1,7ghz kernels. Is it huge different compare to 1,2? Did phone is faster or have better performance in games or what? And if they are safe for the phone? I have HTC Sensation.
Yeah, usually, the higher clock frequency, the better performance. It also means higher battery drain.
I flashed Sebastion's overclock kernel and installed System Tuner. I see that I have option to set the CPU overclocked to 1.8 GHz, I didn't even know it could go this high. Then I see "CPU0" and "CPU1". Are these both cores? Because if they are, I only see "CPU0" being overclocked. Does this mean only one core is being used at such a high speed?
I've set it for 1.51GHz and "ondemand". That seems reasonable, right? Any other suggestions?
Some kernels allow you to clock to 1.9, but its not recommended as you can easily fry your chip. CPU 0 and CPU 1 are the two cores, you are correct. I'm not entirely sure if one or both cores are overclocked, but my suspicions would be only the first core, simply because the 'ondemand' governor only turns on the second core if the first one is unable to run process the load efficiently. 1.5 is pretty reasonable yes, but you can even make it lower an still get good performance, an lower clock speeds mean slightly better battery too. I'm running at 1.4 with a badass governor, which is better again for battery consumption.
Sent from my Sensational pokeball that caught Charmeleon 5.1.0!
I'm running CM10, and it's running fine overclocked to 1600 MHz, yet the phone is factory clocked, (with a factory ROM), to 1200 MHz. Why? My phone seems to run perfectly fine using SmartAss2 management, but Samsung apparently purposely underclocks phones for some unknown reason. Obviously stability isn't a concern, or it would crash at 1600 MHz. Yet it is stable, so why is the default clock speed so slow? Considering the phone is perfectly stable at 1600 MHz, would it be possible to O/C my phone to 2 GHz, or would I risk frying my phone if I somehow managed to OC it by that much?
k-semler said:
I'm running CM10, and it's running fine overclocked to 1600 MHz, yet the phone is factory clocked, (with a factory ROM), to 1200 MHz. Why? My phone seems to run perfectly fine using SmartAss2 management, but Samsung apparently purposely underclocks phones for some unknown reason. Obviously stability isn't a concern, or it would crash at 1600 MHz. Yet it is stable, so why is the default clock speed so slow? Considering the phone is perfectly stable at 1600 MHz, would it be possible to O/C my phone to 2 GHz, or would I risk frying my phone if I somehow managed to OC it by that much?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
uhh well.... yea and no. there are a few things you need to understand about microprocessors. no two are alike. they are built on a scale of a few nanometers and any difference causes a significant difference. to keep production numbers up there is a line they have to draw between performance potential and stability. more chips will be stable at lower clocks so they pick an speed they can get a high production number out of. sometimes a whole line of chips is produced with exactly the same core. chips that pass the highest get boxed as the highest performing and priced. chips that dont pass will either have specific features turned off, cores turned off or be underclocked and sold as lower models. in addition to that the top performing models are actually over priced, and often many more pass the tests than they need so perfectly good processors are intentionally disabled to fill the market for lower speed processors, so yes the cpu may be "underclocked" in a sense. but i don't know if that really applies to the infuse because i don't know if there are any chips in the same family that have a higher rated clock speed, if there are they aren't used in phones.
in example, on my pc i have a 3 core processor, it's actually a 4 core and i can even turn the 4th core on in bios, but a certain percentage of that particular model of chip will be unstable with the 4th core active.
another thing to understand is how the clock speed is set. there is a buss and a table of multipliers and dividers. so as one part of the chip oscillates at one frequency the multipliers and dividers say how may times per oscillation the other components go. the cpu speed changes by changing these multiplier values. the problem is that there are only so many multipliers the cpu is designed to use. this is a hardware limitation and can't be overcome so at some point the only way to get more clock speed is to change the buss speed which affects the entire system and will cause instability in most cases. occasionally you can get around this if you change the multiplier values for other componants as well but it's probably not a good idea to mess with it. the hummingbird chip only has multipliers to go to 1600mhz regardless of stability unless you mess with the buss, one developer got the galaxy s to 1700 with buss overclocking but some things didn't really work at that speed and it took a lot of changes to other system clocks. snapdragon chips can go to higher clocks and process numbers better but the hummingbird is better for graphics and multimedia which is more important on a modern phone imho.
so yeah 1600 is it, as far as practicality goes anyway. there are a few infuses that can only go to 1400-1500 as well and galaxy s phones which have the same clock limitations but are only rates for 1000mhz rarely go to 1600, but a few do, my captivate was absolutely peaked out at 1300, believe me i tried to get it higher, i tried a lot of things with voltages to try to get it stable, but even 1300 took some doing. it took a long time before developers even produced a kernel for the sgs that used clocks over 1200 because many of the early builds of the sgs series were much like mine and were not stable at high speeds.
Beautiful. :thumbup:
Sent from my SGH-I997 using xda app-developers app
It seems to me many people overclock their HOX up to around 2ghz through various kernels/ROMs. I'm relatively new to Android phones but I do have a fair amount of OC experience on PC. The thing is, on PC the OC is generally well studied/tested by many people with well established thresholds, and people often upgrade their cooling system to accommodate OC. If stock cooler is used, there are usually established conservative limits. Furthermore, there are programs that stress test the setup to detect any instability. It's known that OC decreases hardware's lifespan, but if you do it right, that decrease can be negligible because of the realistic lifespan of PC.
Our phone is tiny and its cooling is not upgradable. If we overclock it by 30%, what effect will it have on its lifespan? Is there something about these S4 CPU's that I don't know about? Were they made to be able to easily handle the OC without any significant heat increase?
Please share your thoughts.
I'm not sure the true clock speed of the krait but I've read that most CPUs are under clocked by default
So I would think the impact would depend on its true clock speed
It also depends on how long you intend on keeping the phone. I change phones quite often.
If you intend on keeping it two years then I'd suggest just be safe and not sorry. This phone is fairly new and not much is know of long term issues quite yet
Sent from my One X using Tapatalk 2
i know the S4 can be clocked at different speeds by default (1.5-1.7 GHz Dual-core Krait). there is also superpi for android to test stability. it seems 1.5 - 2.0 GHz doesn't give much of a performance boost as far as benchmarks go imo. If we could somehow manage to tweak memory timings like on a pc that would be awesome.
OC = shorter life........to what extent I cannot say. But it's a fact
Sent from my HTC One X+ p_type 0.91.0
My P3 that was a stock speed of 733 an runs at 1.8ghz for last 6 years with factory cooling says don't worry about it.
Also, i couldn't hit 229ms in pi until 2ghz.
If your worried about shortening the life span, by over clocking, its not for you honestly.
WR
Sent from my One X
you overclocked a Pentium 3 733 to 1.8 ghz? i don't believe that at all..
DvineLord said:
you overclocked a Pentium 3 733 to 1.8 ghz? i don't believe that at all..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct, its a typo, it should read 1.4 and not 1.8.
WR
Sent from my One X