Talk:Dynamic frequency scaling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Energy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Dynamic frequency scaling

CPU throttling seems to be the same thing. Suggest it be merged into dynamic frequency scaling. Would flesh this page out with links to some examples, and improve that by giving the theory. Zodon (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same concept, but this (Dynamic frequency scaling) is the correct name and that one is not. Raul654 (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Re: Proposed merger from voltage and frequency scaling[edit]

I think the merger should go the other way. Rather than having small articles on Frequency scaling, Dynamic Frequency scaling and Voltage scaling, seems clearer to merge them all into one article that covers Frequency and voltage scaling, both dynamic and static. Which would contain merger of the aforementioned articles.

  1. ) There is considerable overlap in content between the Dynamic voltage scaling and dynamic frequency scaling articles. (Both use the same equation, etc.).
  2. ) Frequency and voltage scaling interact - frequently change both at once, rather than just one or just the other.
  3. ) At present, the interaction between voltage and frequency scaling is not well covered, it would be nice to have better coverage of that. If they are kept separate then the problem becomes where to put the interaction.
  4. ) It isn't clear that there is enough else to be said about each topic to grow the separate articles into more fully fleshed article. (But I am not a hardware guru, so willing to be persuaded otherwise.)

I concur that there are too many articles on this subject, but think that one article could reasonably cover all of these topics: Voltage and frequency scaling, Frequency scaling, Dynamic frequency scaling, Dynamic voltage scaling, and undervolting and overvolting (parts of voltage scaling). As far as I can tell the reasonable place to put such an article would seem to be Frequency and voltage scaling.

Other related articles:

  • Underclocking is logically part of frequency scaling, status is debatable, could be left separate, could be merged.
  • Overclocking again, logically part of frequency scaling, but is a large enough article to stand on its own.
  • Power management - related, but also laps over into ACPI, hibernation, etc.
  • Low-power electronics - covers other aspects beyond voltage and frequency.

Those are some of my thoughts on the merge, interested to hear other perspectives. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Frequency scaling and dynamic frequency scaling are two very different beasts. The former is a technique used to increase performance in next-generation processors, the latter is a power conservation technique. Ditto voltage scaling, which (while done for the same purpose as dynamic frequency scaling) does so in very different ways. Beyond that, however, none of those other articles should exist except arguably overclocking, which is (IMO) well known and distinct enough from dynamic frequency scaling to merit its own article. (Also, overvolting, I think, should redirect to overclocking.) Raul654 (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this sentiment; DVS and DFS are usually considered together by today's microprocessor designers as the one naturally leads to the other (scale the voltage down and the maximum operating frequency lowers; scale the frequency down and you can lower the voltage), leading to even greater power reduction. So a single DVFS article makes more sense. I would also agree that "overclocking" and "overvolting" are a different thing, although clearly the theory behind "overvolting" comes from the same basic science. Ptoboley (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Voltage scaling is always done with frequency scaling, and frequency scaling is almost always done with voltage scaling. In the VLSI research community they are considered a single technique. Quanticles (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Other reasons to throttle back[edit]

The article fails to mention that there are other reasons why you'd want to throttle back CPU performance. Sometimes older software (e.g. 3D games) won't run properly unless the CPU is throttled. I remember Unreal (released in 1998) having a lot of weird issues when played on my AMD Phenom II X4 965 on Linux via WINE when it was running at the stock 3.4GHz, but ran normally after I throttled it back to 800MHz. I'm going to post this both here and in the underclocking article. 24.131.27.231 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Units?[edit]

The phrase "frequency (as a unitless quantity)" seems wrong. Power is energy per unit time so doesn't f provide the /s ? --Chuunen Baka (talkcontribs) 16:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

term "Dynamic frequency scaling" used for wifi networks too![edit]

It seems you may find online articles using the term "Dynamic frequency scaling" on wifi networks too! A BGN wifi router can dynamically scale between B and G speeds, and among them have several subdivisions in speed. When a wireless (mobile) device accesses a router at a close distance, quite often, the wifi router will assign a 54Mbps pathway between both devices. When the signal to noise ratio increases between them, like when the distance increases between the router and wireless mobile device, or when a 2,4Ghz interferrence device (like a microwave) is radiating interferrence, the noise might overwhelm the actual usable data on the wireless connection. To prevent a connection to be lost between both devices, the ROUTER generally assigns a lower bandwidth to the pathway. A lower bandwidth would increase signal perception, as well as range slightly, at the cost of lower transfer speeds. For most wireless modems this is not a real issue, as most wireless modems are connected to the internet through a 10Mbit connection. Eventhough their wireless speeds are much faster than their actual DSL/cable connection with the internet service provider, they don't actually make use of most of this gained bandwith, as the device is still throttled by the ISP (ISP is the bottleneck). In other words, most wireless routers might reduce their wifi connection from 54Mbits to 11Mbits, while still provide the same download speeds as before.

I presume this article needs to be expanded to include a wifi section of "Dynamic frequency scaling". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.246.242 (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Manual?[edit]

What about manual adjustments of cpu clock? -96.233.19.191 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)