Honestly it's a little staggering how much better web video got after the W3C got fed up with Flash and RealPlayer and finally implemented some more efficient video and native video player standards.
<video> was a revolution.
Honestly it's a little staggering how much better web video got after the W3C got fed up with Flash and RealPlayer and finally implemented some more efficient video and native video player standards.
<video> was a revolution.
Is that good or bad? What cpu? How big is the screen? What encoding?
It's a Framework with 11th gen Intel i5. I've never seen it below 11W while doing this. I don't recall the exact number I got in Debian 12 but I think it was in the 11-13W range. The numbers were similar with Ubuntu LTS which I used till about a year ago. Now I see 9-10W. The screen is 3:2 13". Not sure about the enconding but I have GPU decoding working in Firefox.
It's a youtube video so whatever youtube is these days. I tested with this M1 Macbook Pro and it was using about 7 watts so 3 watts more is pretty good for pretty much anything. I think my 12th Gen. laptop typically draws about 13-15 doing the same thing, but with a much dimmer screen.
Obligatory: "Use Debian instead of Ubuntu. It's basically Ubuntu without Snap."
it was always wild to me back in the day when so many container images were based on ubuntu⦠was like PLEASE debian is functionally identical here at like 1/10th the base container size!
Mostly yes but there are functional differences in convenience. For example the standard upgrade process is completely manual. You have to disable third party repos. You have to change the repos. You have to check if you have space. You have to remove obsolete oackages. And more. On Ubuntu, the software update tool does all that, eliminating a lot of possibility for error. To an exoerienced user, the Debian process is fine. A novice would have plenty of opportunity for frustration and pain.
What? Software Center is GNOME, not Ubuntu. Discover is KDE, not Ubuntu. Debian updates can be done the same way? I don't do any of the things you mention. Using SC or just apt upgrade works just fine.
They're talking about a Debian 12 -> Debian 13 upgrade
On Debian, you get release notes on what commands to run.
Ubuntu has their own software update utility, separate from Software Center or Discover, that runs the commands for you
Ahhh OK. I've always gone fresh for a full upgrade. But does apt dist-upgrade not work? That's what the docs say to do.
You have to at least modify your sources.list.d manually first. For most people, updating sources.list.d and running full-upgrade will probably work fine...
The full instructions are
It takes like an hour? but it's still not "just press okay."
Ubuntu's has broken on some upgrades for friends and they had to do the whole Debian process manually, but it does try to automate the removals, disablements, and updating sources
Edit: instructions taken from Trixie release. I skipped some that aren't really unique, like make a backup
https://www.debian.org/releases/trixie/release-notes/upgrading.en.html
It has much slower release cycle and ancient kernel. For people with new hardware it's not suitable.
Unless you prototype in a cpu fab it does not matter, debian 13 came out last week and its kernel is not that old
This is why Backports exists. You can get any newer packages or kernels you need by enabling it.
And Ubuntu LTS doesn't go much farther ahead than base Debian.
If you need to rely on back ports to have day to day function of HARDWARE. Then your OS is not suitable to your use case. Backport reliance should not be the norm for your avg user.
At that point why not just run a rolling release? Debians whole selling point is stability which backports kinda ruins.
Your entire backlight is only 3w? I feel like my phone is over 3w.
You can use the Wattz app to monitor current/power flowing into/out of the battery on some Android phones. Yes, 3 W is about the average in normal use. Unfortunately you cannot gauge the power consumption while charging unless you have a USB wattmeter too: the system only measures battery current because it's required for battery capacity/percentages.
Me with an older notebook that doesn't support av1 decoding: π
There's a browser extension called "Your Codecs." which can prevent YouTube from serving you AV1-encoded videos.
I wish there were more M.2 cards beyond just SSDs and wireless NICs. The idea of a small form factor PICe interface is underutilized and things like hardware codec accelerators can keep laptops with older processors usable with new standards for longer. It's sad how PCMCIA had an entire ecosystem of expansion cards yet we somehow decided that the much higher bandwidth M.2 is only for storage and networking. Hell, do what sound cards in the 90s/00s did and have M.2 SSDs specifically designed for upgrading older laptops that also have built in accelerators for the latest media standards. Hardware acceleration is energy efficient and can probably just be bundled into the flash controller like they're bundled into the processor, and unless you have a top of the line SSD you're probably not saturating the M.2 interface anyway.
I've seen 10-12W easily on 4K for soc without av1. your soc (intel 11 gen) should support av1. try to play the video on mpv (with yt-dlp integration) with various hw acceleration options to see if it changes. probably your browser is software decoding.
for hardware decoding supported soc too I noticed 2-3W of extra power usage when playing youtube from website compared to mpv or freetube. the website seems doing inefficient js stuffs but I haven't profiled it.
What command do you use to see the Watt used?
That's very good, audio could do with some work
I agree the stock tuning could use some work. As a workaround, have you seen these EasyEffects profiles? The sound quality is significantly improved, but there's still resonance above >60% volume (I think due to the keyboard).
https://www.reddit.com/r/framework/comments/18cngrn/improving_perceived_sound_quality_on_the_fw13/
What cpu architecture is this?
ngl I expected to be ARM cause of the low power usage.
AMD has been proving that x86_64 can be at least as power efficient as ARM over the last few years (given a floor of performance for like a phone/laptop... I doubt it can get as low power as a little ARM microcontroller)
It seems like x86 was getting so power hungry because of Intel's laser focus on single core performance
top 50 comments