however with light loads and low clock gaming (e.g 2d clocks playing like dead cells or something) the cpu governor on linux is far more efficient. Microsoft is pushing that game to game optimization on the handheld makers when it should really be them doing it.
Example from the article, Hogwarts needed 35W to reach 60fps on Windows, and only needed 17W to reach 62fps on Linux.
If you cap the fps to 60, then you also let the system rest when it manages to render a frame more quickly than 16.6 ms, saving more power in calm moments or maybe while menuing/managing inventory/reading quest logs (most games don’t have intense 3d graphics in the menus).
I’d love to see the difference it makes to battery life.
I switched my gaming laptop to Linux and the battery life more than doubled (while not gaming)
for the heavy games, itll likely not change much.
however with light loads and low clock gaming (e.g 2d clocks playing like dead cells or something) the cpu governor on linux is far more efficient. Microsoft is pushing that game to game optimization on the handheld makers when it should really be them doing it.
Unless maybe you cap the fps.
Example from the article, Hogwarts needed 35W to reach 60fps on Windows, and only needed 17W to reach 62fps on Linux.
If you cap the fps to 60, then you also let the system rest when it manages to render a frame more quickly than 16.6 ms, saving more power in calm moments or maybe while menuing/managing inventory/reading quest logs (most games don’t have intense 3d graphics in the menus).
It’s bad test.
Watch the video the tdp, clock speeds for cpu and gpu are much higher on Linux which accounts for the differences
So battery life would be much better in windows since it’s running fast more conservatively