Using Linux saves the CPU!

[villerk]

I made a little test last weekend. I removed my CPU cooler and booted Windows. After Win had crashed (only a couple of minutes) I waited for 30 seconds and booted Linux. I used Linux happily for over an hour and it didn't even complain about anything! I compiled a new kernel and at the same time listened to an MP3 and wrote some text with StarOffice 5.0.

To what conclusion does this lead me in? Windows, as it's not truly multitasking, rapes the CPU until it crashes, while Linux just works well with or without a CPU cooler. Get Linux today and live without trouble!

------------------
AMD K6-2/500 Mhz, A586B (Ali Aladdin V), 128MB 100 Mhz SDRAM, 20GB Maxtor DiamondMAX VL 20, Quantum Fireball EX6.4A, HP 9110i, Creative 32x mx, Intel i740 8 MB (laughter...), SB64PCI, Winbond W940C (or such, 10MB/s), Yakumo EN1570DO (15"), Mice, keyboard and stuff, Kenwood amplifier and stuff, Win98 (seldom), RedHat 7.0 (mostly) (sometimes also BeOS 5)

[Paulr]

Like to see you try that with a modern CPU.

[Pace]

So...um, run Quake 3 on both - lowres of course. Tell me how long they both last, and what FPS you get in both. And, just curious, what Windows version is it?

P.

PS: Get a real Linux distro

[This message has been edited by Pace (edited 11 April 2001).]

[az]

And maybe you could repeat the test but this time use a windows cpu cooling tool like waterfall or something?

AZ

[spoogenet]

I believe your issue is with the HLT command (that's the right name, isn't it???). NT4, Win2k, and Linux all execute HLT commands when the CPU is not needed to actively do things. This instruction effectively tells the CPU to do nothing at all, kinda like sleeping. Common sense says this will save on power.

Win9x (not sure about ME) do not execute the HLT command, and therefore will have higher idle temperatures than the others listed above. Waterfall, I believe, runs HLT commands when the CPU is not needed and thus saves on power and cuts your temp down.

Thus your conclusion isn't exactly true.

b

[az]

That's what I wanted to say but I was too laz to post all that stuff - but on this forum there will always be others explaining the tech if someone doesn't

AZ

[Wombat]

Looks like others beat me to it. Linux is executing the HLT command, but Win9x doesn't. I'm a big Linux advocate, but I wish people would stick to applauding it for things that it actually CAN do.

[Liquid Snake]

Well, my RH 7.0 linux box has been running 94 days. But that's because I rarely touch it. My main machine, that runs Win2K, usually stays up for a week before rebooting. I often make config changes, requiring reboots.

[spoogenet]

Hehe, I remember when Win98 first came out, and it couldn't even run for 48 days without crashing even if you left it alone. Some timer issue or something....one way or the other, that was damn amusing.

b

[villerk]

Did I forget to mention that I use Powerleap CPU Control Panel in Win? It does the same thing as Waterfall or Rain, i.e. sends the HLT instruction to the CPU. But note this: I didn't do anything in Win and it still overheated the CPU. As I compiled the kernel in Linux, gcc used only ~30 % of the CPU and when the programs mpg123, gcc and StarOffice were running, only ~85 % of the CPU was used, so Linux could still send HLT instruction to the CPU. As I understand it, if the CPU is used at 100 % (or more ) it doesn't help if HLT instruction is send to it as it can't execute it.

I could run Quake3 with both configs, but I don't have it (just pure lazyness, I guess ) and as my i740 isn't fully supported in Linux (no hardware support in Mesa), Quake3 runs only in software. Is it possible to force it run in software in Win also?

Note this also: the CPU was HOT all the time while in Linux and in Win.

------------------
AMD K6-2/500 Mhz, A586B (Ali Aladdin V), 128MB 100 Mhz SDRAM, 20GB Maxtor DiamondMAX VL 20, Quantum Fireball EX6.4A, HP 9110i, Creative 32x mx, Intel i740 8 MB (laughter...), SB64PCI, Winbond W940C (or such, 10MB/s), Yakumo EN1570DO (15"), Mice, keyboard and stuff, Kenwood amplifier and stuff, Win98 (seldom), RedHat 7.0 (mostly) (sometimes also BeOS 5)

[spoogenet]

Yes, you had forgotten to mention that.

Does Linux complete the given task in the same amount of time that it takes Windows?

b

[villerk]

Huh? I don't quite follow. Do you mean that a program executes as fast in Linux than in Win (i.e. games are faster in Linux than in Win) or what?

[Technoid]

Did you remove the Heartsink or just disconected the fan?

[spoogenet]

I'm just asking how tasks execute in Linux compared to Windows. I really have no clue which would run identical (well, as identical as you can get them) tasks more quickly.

Maybe Windows dedicates as much of the processor to the foreground task as it needs up to 100%, while Linux maybe keeps some spare cycles around and gives it less. Or maybe the tasks you were running didn't need full CPU time, whereas they did in Windows. For instance, watching a DVD doesn't take up 100% CPU, but running simulations does.

b

[villerk]

Technoid: Yes, I removed everything, fan AND heatsink. It was just the bare CPU.

spoogenet: As I said, I ran no programs in Win and it still crashed. Linux just has a better multitasking system.