[Klug-general] MiniPC to compete with eeePC

[Stuart Buckland]

On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 19:32 +0000, MacGyveR wrote:
> On Thursday 31 Jan 2008, Andrew Miller (Spode) wrote:
> > I think the Via suggestion is a valid one, and I couldn't agree more in
> > terms of enthusiasm. Hardware has been getting less and less exciting
> > over the past 3-4 years.
> >
> >  From memory, the difference in battery life was as much 100%, but when
> > taking into account the lower clock speeds, and the fact they have used
> > an ultra low voltage chip, the difference might not be as great.
> > Certainly the chips would be cheaper as all the Pentium M's with dodgy
> > L2 cache can just be stuck in the Celeron bin.
> >
> > Citing this article
> > (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/intel-thermal-features-pm.html),
> >
> > "It [Pentium M] lacks Enhanced Intel SpeedStep as well as Thermal
> > Monitor 2. So, if you buy Celeron M, you *will not be able* to manage
> > its performance states or power consumption, as well as to enable the
> > effective overheating protection."
> >
> > More in the article itself.
> >
> > Spode
> >
> 
> You can manage the cpu throttling on a celeron M using frequency scaling with 
> the kernel's ACPI, there is also a KDE applet that will do all this for you 
> if you like that sort of thing :-)
> 

True but it isn't anywhere near as efficient as EISS and TM2, neither of
which are as efficient as VIA's dual PLL solution.  Intel's (and AMD's)
solution involve stopping the bus for the duration of the clock change
which VIA's doesn't.

-- 
Stuart Buckland <stuart at nightime.org.uk>