Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Analysis of Power Consumption in A Smart Phone
An Analysis of Power Consumption in A Smart Phone
Aaron Carroll
NICTA and University of New South Wales
Aaron.Carroll@nicta.com.au
Gernot Heiser
NICTA, University of New South Wales and Open Kernel Labs
gernot@nicta.com.au
Host bus
2.1 Device under test
LCD
The DuT was the Openmoko Neo Freerunner (revision Graphics SDRAM
A6) mobile phone. It is a 2.5G smartphone featuring a SD Card
large, high-resolution touchscreen display, and many of
the peripherals typical of modern devices. Table 1 lists
Figure 1: Architecture of the Freerunner device, showing
its key components. The notable differences between our
the important components and their interconnects.
device and a modern smartphone are the lack of a camera
and 3G modem.
30 80
70
25
60
Power (mW)
Power (mW)
20 50
15 40
30
10
20
5 10
0 0
GSM
CPU
RAM
WiFi
Graphics
Audio
Rest
GSM
CPU
RAM
WiFi
Graphics
LCD
Audio
Rest
Figure 2: Power breakdown in the suspended state. The Figure 3: Average power consumption while in the idle
aggregate power consumed is 68.6 mW. state with backlight off. Aggregate power is 268.8 mW.
Power (mW)
250 120
200 100
150 80
100
60
50
40
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 20
0
Brightness level
equake
vpr
gzip
crafty
mcf
idle
Figure 4: Display backlight power for varying brightness
levels.
Figure 5: CPU and RAM power when running SPEC
CPU2000 micro-benchmarks, sorted by CPU power.
We also measured how the content displayed on the
LCD affected its power consumption: 33.1 mW for a
completely white screen, and 74.2 mW for a a black we do not expect the benchmarks to behave similarly on
screen. Display content can therefore affect overall the different platforms, our aim is only to select bench-
power consumption by up to 43 mW. marks with different characteristics.
The SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks ultimately selected
3.2 Micro-benchmarks are equake, vpr, gzip, crafty and mcf.
As mentioned in Section 2.4, we used micro-benchmarks For each of the benchmarks, we measured the aver-
to determine the contribution to overall power from var- age CPU and RAM power at fixed core frequencies of
ious system components. Specifically we used bench- 100 MHz and 400 MHz. We also measured power for
marks to exercise the application processor (CPU and the system in the idle state. Figure 5 shows these results,
memory), the flash storage devices, and the network in- averaged over 10 runs. The RSD is less than 3 % in all
terfaces. cases.
For the idle, equake, vpr and gzip workloads,
3.2.1 CPU and RAM CPU power dominates RAM power considerably at both
frequencies. However, crafty and mcf show that
To measure CPU and RAM power, we ran a subset of the RAM power can exceed CPU power, albeit by a small
SPEC CPU2000 suite. There are several reasons for not margin.
running all benchmarks of the suite. Firstly, we could Table 3 shows the effect of frequency scaling on the
only use benchmarks which we could build and run on performance, as well as combined CPU and RAM power
the Android OS, which rules out those written in C++ and energy of the benchmarks. The wide range of slow-
or Fortran, due to Android’s lack of run-time support for down factors across the different benchmarks validates
these languages. They also needed to fit into the phone’s our selection of workloads as representing a range of
limited memory and their execution times needed to be CPU/memory utilisations.
short enough to give reasonable turn-around. Finally,
we were only interested in establishing the power con-
sumption of CPU and memory, rather than making com- Benchmark Performance Power Energy
parisons between different platforms’ algorithms, hence equake 26 % 36 % 135 %
completeness of the suite was not a relevant considera- vpr 31 % 40 % 125 %
tion. gzip 38 % 43 % 112 %
From the candidates remaining according to the above crafty 63 % 62 % 100 %
criteria, we selected a set representing a good spectrum mcf 74 % 69 % 93 %
of CPU and memory utilisation, from highly CPU-bound idle - 71 % -
to highly memory-bound. We determined memory-
boundedness by running the entire suite on a server Table 3: SPEC CPU2000 performance, power and en-
Linux system and comparing the slowdown due to fre- ergy of 100 MHz relative to 400 MHz. Both CPU and
quency scaling. Snowdon et al. [9] show that this slow- RAM power/energy are included.
down is primarily due to memory-boundedness. While
100 800
Reads WiFi
Writes 700 GPRS
80
600
Power (mW)
Power (mW)
60 500
400
40 300
200
20
100
0 0
NAND CPU RAM SD CPU RAM WiFi GSM CPU RAM
Internal NAND Flash SD Card
Figure 7: Power consumption of WiFi and GSM
Figure 6: SD, NAND, CPU and RAM power for flash modems, CPU, and RAM for the network micro-
storage read and write benchmarks. benchmark.
3.2.3 Network
3.2.2 Flash storage
In this benchmark we stressed the two main networking
components of the device: WiFi and GPRS (provided by
Bulk storage on the Freerunner device is provided by the GSM subsystem). The test consisted of downloading
256 MiB of internal NAND flash, and an external micro a file via HTTP using wget. The files contained random
Secure Digital (SD) card slot. To measure their max- data, and were 15 MiB for WiFi, and 50 KiB for GPRS.
imum power consumption, we used the Linux dd pro- The results of 10 iterations of the benchmark are shown
gram to perform streaming reads and writes. For reads in Figure 7.
we copied a 64 MiB file, filled with random data, to WiFi showed a throughput of 660.1 ± 36.8 KiB/s, and
/dev/null in 4 KiB blocks. For writes, 8 MiB of ran- GPRS 3.8 ± 1.0 KiB/s. However, they both show compa-
dom data was written, with an fsync between succes- rable power consumption far exceeding the contribution
sive 4 KiB blocks to ensure predictability of writes. Be- of the RAM and CPU. The increased CPU and RAM
tween each iteration we forced a flush of the page cache. power for WiFi reflects the cost of processing data with
Figure 6 shows the power consumed by the NAND a higher throughput. Despite highly-variable throughput,
flash and SD card, as well as the CPU and RAM, aver- GSM showed a relatively consistent power consumption
aged over 10 iterations of each workload. Table 4 shows with an RSD of approximately 2 %.
the corresponding data throughput, efficiency (including To test the effect of signal strength on power and
NAND/SD power and the CPU and RAM power to sup- throughput, we re-ran the network benchmarks with the
port it), and idle power consumption. The power and device shielded within a metal box of 2 mm thickness.
throughput RSD is less than 5 % in all cases. Over GPRS, this resulted in an increase of GSM power of
30 %, but no effect on throughput. The shielding resulted
The graphics module, which contains the physical in a reported signal strength drop of 10 dBm. Over WiFi,
SD card interface, showed a power increase of 2.2 mW the signal strength dropped by only 2 dBm, and no effect
(2.6 % above static) for writes, and a 21.1 mW increase on throughput or power consumption was observed.
(26 %) for reads.
3.2.4 GPS
Power (mW)
Disabled 0.0 60
50
Table 5: GPS energy consumption. 40
30
20
10
[10], which specifies that power consumption should 0
GSM
CPU
RAM
Graphics
LCD
Audio
Rest
drop by approximately 30 % after satellite acquisition. It
is unclear why we did not see such behaviour; perhaps
due to the GPS module itself, or more likely an error in
hardware integration or software. In addition, the power- Figure 8: Audio playback power breakdown. Aggregate
management features of the device are not exploited by power consumed is 320.0 mW.
software. Thus, these figures should only be considered
worst-case.
unknown reasons, the power consumed by the graphics
3.3 Usage scenarios chip increased by 4.6 mW. As a result, the additional
power consumed in the high-volume benchmark is less
Here we show the results of using macro-benchmarks to than 1 mW compared with the low-volume case.
determine power consumption under a number of typi- Again, maintaining a connection to the GSM net-
cal usage scenarios of a smartphone. Specifically we ex- work requires a significant and highly variable amount of
amined audio and video playback, text messaging, voice power, specifically 55.6 ± 19.7 mW in this case. While
calls, emailing and web browsing. the MP3 file is loaded from the SD card, the cost of doing
so is negligible at < 2 % of total power.
3.3.1 Audio playback
This benchmark is designed to measure power in a sys- 3.3.2 Video playback
tem being used as a portable media player. The sample In this benchmark we measured the power requirements
music is a 12.3 MiB, 537-second stereo 44.1 kHz MP3, for playing a video file. We used a 5 minute, 12.3 MiB
with the output to a pair of stereo headphones. The H.263-encoded video clip (no sound), and played it with
measurements are taken with the backlight off (which is Android’s camera application. Again we forced a flush of
representative of the typical case of someone listening the buffer cache between iterations. The power averaged
to music or podcasts while carrying the phone in their over 10 iterations is shown in Figure 9.
pocket). However, GSM power was included, as the re- Since the purpose of the macro-benchmarks is to anal-
alistic usage scenario includes the phone being ready to yse the full system, we have included backlight power
receive calls or text messages. in the results. However, rather than arbitrarily choosing
Figure 8 shows the power breakdown for this bench- a single brightness, we have plotted the results at 0 %,
mark at maximum volume, averaged over 10 iterations. 33 %, 66 %, and 100 %, corresponding to the position of
The audio file is stored on the SD card. Between suc- Android’s brightness-control slider. These correspond to
cessive iterations we forced a flush of the buffer cache to brightness levels of 30, 105, 180 and 255 respectively.
ensure that the audio file was re-read each time. GSM power is again included.
The results show the audio subsystem (amplifier and While the CPU is the biggest single consumer of
codec) consuming 33.1 mW with an RSD of less than power (other than backlight), the display subsystems still
0.2 %. Approximately 58 % of this power is consumed account for at least 38 % of aggregate power, up to 68 %
by the codec, with the remaining 42 % used by the am- with maximum backlight brightness. The energy cost of
plifier. Compared with the idle state, this corresponds to loading the video from the SD card is negligible, with an
a negligible change in codec power, with amplifier power average power of 2.6 mW over the length of the bench-
increasing by 80 %. Overall, the audio subsystem ac- mark.
counts for less than 12 % of power consumed.
In addition to maximum volume, we also measured the
3.3.3 Text messaging
system at 13 % volume. This showed little change—the
audio subsystem power decreased by 4.3 mW (approx- We benchmarked the cost of sending an SMS by using
imately 14 %), mostly in the amplifier. However, for a trace of real phone usage. This consists of loading
400 0% 800 0%
33% 33%
350 67% 700 67%
300 100% 600 100%
Power (mW)
Power (mW)
250 500
200 400
150 300
100 200
50 100
0 0
Backlight
GSM
CPU
RAM
Graphics
LCD
Rest
Backlight
GSM
CPU
RAM
Graphics
LCD
Rest
Figure 9: Video playback power breakdown. Aggregate Figure 11: GSM phone call average power. Excluding
power excluding backlight is 453.5 mW. backlight, the aggregate power is 1054.3 mW.
400 450
0% 0%
33% 400 33%
350 67%
350 67%
300 100% 100%
Power (mW)
300
Power (mW)
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
50
50
0 0
Backlight
GSM
CPU
RAM
Graphics
LCD
Audio
Rest
Backlight
GSM
CPU
WiFi
Graphics
LCD
Rest
GSM
CPU
WiFi
Graphics
LCD
Rest
WiFi GPRS
Figure 10: Power breakdown for sending an SMS. Ag-
gregate power consumed is 302.2 mW, excluding back- Figure 12: Power consumption for the email macro-
light. benchmark. Aggregate power consumption (excluding
backlight) is 610.0 mW over GPRS, and 432.4 mW for
WiFi.
the contacts application and selecting a contact, typing
and sending a 55-character message, then returning to
the home screen; lasting a total of 62 seconds. To en- onds. Thus, the time spent in the call was approximately
sure the full cost of the GSM transaction is included, we 40 seconds, assuming a 7-second connection time. The
measured power for an additional 20 seconds. The aver- total benchmark runs for 77 seconds.
age result of 10 iterations of this benchmark are shown GSM power clearly dominates in this benchmark at
in Figure 10. Again, the power for four backlight bright- 832.4 ± 99.0 mW. Backlight is also significant, however
ness levels is shown. note that its average power is lower than in other bench-
Power consumed is again dominated by the display marks, since Android disables the backlight during the
components. The GSM radio shows an average power of call. The backlight is active for approximately 45 % of
66.3 ± 20.9 mW, only 7.9 mW greater than idle over the the total benchmark.
full length of the benchmark, and accounting for 22 %
of the aggregate power (excluding backlight). All other 3.3.5 Emailing
components showed an RSD of below 3 %.
For this benchmark, we used Android’s email applica-
tion to measure the cost of sending and receiving emails.
3.3.4 Phone call
The workload consisted of opening the email applica-
Figure 11 shows the power consumption when making tion, downloading and reading 5 emails (one of which
a GSM phone call. The benchmark is trace-based, and included a 60 KiB image) and replying to 2 of them. The
includes loading the dialer application, dialing a number, results of the benchmark are shown in Figure 12, aver-
and making a 57-second call. The dialled device was aged over 10 iterations.
configured to automatically accept the call after 10 sec- The power breakdown between the GPRS and WiFi
450
0%
400 33% 600
350 67% Display
100% 500 Keyboard
300
Power (mW)
Buttons
Power (mW)
250 400
200 300
150
200
100
50 100
0 0
Backlight
GSM
CPU
WiFi
Graphics
LCD
Rest
GSM
CPU
WiFi
Graphics
LCD
Rest
0 50 100 150 200 250
Brightness level
WiFi GPRS Figure 14: Display, button and keyboard backlight power
Figure 13: Web browsing average power over WiFi and on the G1.
GPRS. Aggregate power consumption is 352.8 mW for
WiFi, and 429.0 mW for GPRS, excluding backlight.
etc.) are not available to us. Moreover, there is no reason
to expect these production devices would be capable of
benchmarks is comparable, except for the GSM and WiFi the type of instrumentation we have performed on the
radios. Despite presenting identical workloads to the ra- Freerunner, since the additional components and PCB
dios, GSM consumes more than three times the power of area would increase the per-unit cost.
WiFi.
600
Bluetooth (near) 495.7 36.0
500
Bluetooth (far) 504.7 44.9
400
300
Table 8: G1 Bluetooth power under the audio bench-
200
mark.
100
0
equake
vpr
gzip
crafty
mcf
idle
equake
vpr
gzip
crafty
mcf
idle
4.4 Benchmarks
Performance (%) Power (%) Table 9 shows total system power consumption for the
Benchmark G1 N1 G1 N1 Freerunner, G1, and Nexus One for a selection of our
equake 67 25 87 26 benchmarks. The power consumption of the backlight
vpr 68 25 87 26 (OLED for the N1) has been subtracted out, since it is
gzip 71 25 86 27 highly dependent on the user’s brightness setting. Ta-
crafty 76 25 89 28 ble 10 shows the additional power consumption of the
mcf 84 54 91 41 OLED display at minimum and maximum brightness
levels.
Table 7: SPEC CPU2000 performance and average sys- The lower power consumption of the G1 in the idle,
tem power of 246 MHz relative to 384 MHz on the G1, web and email benchmarks can be attributed to the ex-
and 245 MHz relative to 998 MHz on the N1. cellent low-power state of its SoC and effective use of it
by software. This can be seen in the SPEC benchmarks,
where the idle system consumes less than 22 mW; the
idle CPU power must be lower still.
4.3 Bluetooth The power disparity for the phone call benchmark is
likely due to power consumed by the non-radio compo-
As noted earlier, we were unable to get Bluetooth work- nents of the system. The G1 and Nexus One phones enter
ing reliably on the Freerunner phone. To get an idea a suspended state during the call, offloading all function-
of Bluetooth power consumption, we re-ran the audio ality to the UMTS module. In contrast, the Freerunner
benchmark on the G1 with the audio output to a Blue- remains in a fully-active state throughout. The power
tooth stereo headset. The power difference between this consumption of the GSM subsystem alone (832.4 mW) is
and the baseline audio benchmark should yield the con- comparable to the G1 and N1 system consumption. Due
sumption of the Bluetooth module, because (as shown in to lack of freely-available documentation, it is not clear
our Freerunner benchmarks) the power consumed by the whether the Freerunner’s GSM chipset lacks this feature,
audio subsystem is almost entirely static. or if it is not supported in software.
Average System Power (mW) OLED Power (mW)
Benchmark Freerunner G1 N1 Benchmark Min. Max.
Suspend 103.2 26.6 24.9 Idle 38.0 257.3
Idle 333.7 161.2 333.9 Phone call 16.7 112.9
Phone call 1135.4 822.4 746.8 Web 164.2 1111.7
Email (cell) 690.7 599.4 - Video 15.1 102.0
Email (WiFi) 505.6 349.2 -
Web (cell) 500.0 430.4 538.0 Table 10: Additional power consumed by the N1 OLED
Web (WiFi) 430.4 270.6 412.2 display at maximum and minimum brightness.
Network (cell) 929.7 1016.4 825.9
Network (WiFi) 1053.7 1355.8 884.1
Video 558.8 568.3 526.3 ure rises substantially. This leads us to the conclusion
Audio 419.0 459.7 322.4 that the most effective power management approach on
mobile devices is to shut down unused components and
Table 9: Freerunner, G1 and N1 system power (ex-
disable their power supplies (where possible).
cluding backlight) for a number of micro- and macro-
The RAM, audio and flash subsystems consistently
benchmarks.
showed the lowest power consumption. While our
micro-benchmarks showed that the peak power of the
SD card could be substantial (≈ 50 mW), in practice the
5 Analysis utilisation is low enough such that on average, negligi-
ble power is consumed. Even video playback, one of the
5.1 Where does the energy go? more data-intensive uses of mobile devices, showed SD
power well under 1 % of total power. RAM has simi-
Our results show that the majority of power consumption lar characteristics; micro-benchmarks showed that RAM
can be attributed to the GSM module and the display, power can exceed CPU power in certain workloads, but
including the LCD panel and touchscreen, the graphics in practical situations, CPU power overshadows RAM by
accelerator/driver, and the backlight. a factor of two or more. Audio displayed a largely static
In all except the GSM-intensive benchmarks, the power consumption in the range of 28–34 mW. Overall,
brightness of the backlight is the most critical factor in RAM, audio and SD have little effect on the power con-
determining power consumption. However, this is a rela- sumption of the device, and therefore offer little potential
tively simple device from a power-management perspec- for energy optimisation.
tive, and largely depends on the user’s brightness prefer-
ence. Our results confirm that aggressive backlight dim- 5.2 Dynamic voltage and frequency scaling
ming can save a great deal of energy, and further moti-
vates the inclusion of ambient light and proximity sen- Our CPU micro-benchmarks show that dynamic volt-
sors in mobile devices to assist with selecting an appro- age and frequency scaling (DVFS) can significantly re-
priate brightness. Moreover, the N1 OLED results show duce the power consumption of the CPU. However,
that merely selecting a light-on-dark colour scheme can this does not imply reduced energy overall, because the
significantly reduce energy consumption. run-time of the workload also increases. Our results
The GSM module consumes a great deal of both static show (Table 3) that only highly memory-bound work-
and dynamic power. Merely maintaining a connection loads (namely mcf) exhibit a net reduction in CPU/RAM
with the network consumes a significant fraction of total energy.
power. During a phone call, GSM consumes in excess However, such a simplistic analysis assumes that af-
of 800 mW average, which represents the single largest ter completing the task, the device consumes zero power.
power drain in any of our benchmarks. Unfortunately, Clearly this is not a realistic model, particularly for a
a phone-call-heavy workload presents little scope for smartphone. To correct for this, we can “pad” each of the
software-level power management. Dimming the back- measurements with idle power [5] in order to equalise the
light during a call, as Android does, is clearly good pol- run times, according to the following equation:
icy, saving up to 40 % power even with the large GSM
consumption. E = P t + Pidle (tmax − t)
Overall, the static contribution to system power con-
where
sumption is substantial. In all of our usage scenarios, ex-
cept GSM phone call, static power accounts for at least E is the equivalent energy consumed for the
50 % of the total. If the backlight is included, this fig- benchmark;
% Energy is ineffective due to the processor’s low-power idle state,
Benchmark Freerunner G1 N1 which is used aggressively.
equake 95.5 126.0 75.6
vpr 95.8 124.5 75.9
gzip 95.8 120.1 77.7 5.3 Energy model
crafty 95.5 115.6 77.3
We can express the results of Section 3 in a scenario-
mcf 94.9 105.3 65.9
based energy model of the Freerunner device, which
Table 11: SPEC CPU2000 percentage total system en- shows the energy for each usage scenario as a function
ergy consumption of the minimum frequency compared of time:
with the maximum frequency, padded with idle power.
Eaudio (t) = 0.32W × t
Evideo (t) = (0.45W + PBL ) × t
P is the average power over the run-time of
the benchmark; Esms (t) = (0.3W + PBL ) × t
t is the run-time of the benchmark; Ecall (t) = 1.05W × t
Pidle is the idle power; Eweb (t) = (0.43W + PBL ) × t
tmax is the maximum run-time of the bench- Eemail (t) = (0.61W + PBL ) × t
mark over all frequencies.
Table 11 shows the energy consumed for each of the The equations give the energy consumed in Joules when
SPEC benchmarks at the lowest frequency, compared to the time is supplied in seconds. PBL is the backlight
the highest frequency, padded with idle power. power (in watts), scenarios without a PBL term are as-
The results show that the practical benefits of DVFS sumed to run with backlight off.
depend largely on the CPU hardware (particularly idle
power), and to some extent, the workload. 5.4 Modelling usage patterns
On the G1, which has a good low-power idle mode, re-
ducing frequency always results in increased energy us- To investigate day-to-day power consumption of the de-
age. It appears that DVFS on this platform is completely vice, we define a number of usage patterns. Suspend rep-
ineffective. resents the baseline case of a device which is on standby,
On the Freerunner, DVFS only yields a marginal en- without placing or receiving calls or messages. The ca-
ergy reduction of approximately 5 %—a saving of at sual pattern represents a user who uses the phone for a
most 20 mW. However, the N1 shows considerable ad- small number of voice calls and text messages each day.
vantages to using DVFS, saving up to 35 %, correspond- Regular represents a commuter with extended time of lis-
ing to an average power reduction of 138 mW. Whether tening to music or podcasts, combined with more lengthy
or not to use DVFS on these two platforms is a policy or frequent phone calls, messaging and a bit of email-
decision, since reducing frequency can affect user expe- ing. The business pattern features extended talking and
rience. email use together with some web browsing. Finally, the
Much of the energy reduction on the Freerunner can be PMD (portable media device) case represents extensive
attributed to the high idle power. For a system going into media playback. The parameters of these patterns are
suspend (rather than idle) after completing the workload, summarised in Table 12. In each case, GPRS is used for
DVFS no longer offers an advantage. However, on the data networking.
N1 this is not the case: DVFS is still effective, even if The Freerunner uses a battery of 1.2 Ah capacity,
transitioning into a very-low power state. This is due to which is approximately 16 kJ. Table 13 shows the power
the processor’s high efficiency at low frequencies, which use, and resulting battery life corresponding to the above
can be seen in Figure 15. use patterns. We assume that in all cases requiring back-
In the case of an idle system, reducing frequency can light, illumination level is set at approx 66 %, corre-
result in an energy saving, and at worst has no effect. Our sponding to 140 mW. In all other cases, backlight is as-
results show that DVFS reduces idle CPU/RAM con- sumed off.
sumption by about 30 % on the Freerunner. However, in The table shows that total battery life varies by almost
absolute terms, this is less than a 20 mW saving: 6.5 % of a factor of 2.5 between use cases. It shows that GSM
an idle system. On the N1, this saving is approximately is the dominating energy drain, followed by CPU and
36 mW. On the G1, frequency scaling during idle periods graphics.
Workload SMS Video Audio Phone call Web browsing Email
Suspend - - - - - -
Casual 15 - - 15 - -
Regular 30 - 60 30 15 15
Business 30 - - 60 30 60
PMD - 60 180 - - -
Table 12: Usage patterns, showing total time for each activity in minutes.
Table 13: Daily energy use and battery life under a number of usage patterns.
5.5 Limitations an error of less than 9 % on average across all tested sub-
systems, including memory, chipset, disk, CPU, and I/O.
Our work has a number of limitations which need to be In a later work, Bircher and John [3] measure the
kept in mind when using our results. power consumption of the CPU, memory controller,
The biggest one is that the Freerunner is not a latest- RAM, I/O, video and disk subsystems under a number
generation mobile phone, but is a few years old. The of workloads. Their results show that CPU and disk con-
main feature it is lacking is a 3G cellular interface, which sume the majority of the power, with the RAM and video
supports much higher data rates than the 2.5G GPRS in- systems consuming very little. However, under the SPEC
terface. Our validation results show that this higher data CPU suites, they show that RAM power can indeed ex-
rate does not appreciably affect power consumption in ceed CPU power for highly memory-bound workloads.
practical situations. Sagahyroon [8] perform an analysis similar to ours on
Further, the application processor is based on a rela- a handheld PC. They show significant consumption in
tively dated ARMv4 architecture, however it is clocked the display subsystems, particularly in backlight bright-
at a rate consistent with 2009-vintage smartphones. The ness. Unlike our results, theirs suggest that the CPU,
difference in power consumption compared with more and its operating frequency, is important to overall power
modern processors can traced largely to idle power; in consumption. They also show significant dynamic power
other respects, the age of the CPU is not a substantial consumption in the graphics subsystems.
limitation.
Availability
Relevant software and data is available at http://
ertos.nicta.com.au/software/.
References
[1] A NDRIOD ON F REERUNNER COMMUNITY. 2009. http://
code.google.com/p/android-on-freerunner/.
[2] B IRCHER , W. L., AND J OHN , L. K. Complete system power es-
timation: A trickle-down approach based on performance events.
In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Perfor-
mance Analysis of Systems and Software (San Jose, CA, USA,
Apr. 25–27 2007), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 158–168.
[3] B IRCHER , W. L., AND J OHN , L. K. Analysis of dynamic
power management on multi-core processors. In Proceedings of
the 22nd International Conference on Supercomputing (Island of
Kos, Greece, June 2008), pp. 327–338.
[4] M AHESRI , A., AND VARDHAN , V. Power consumption break-
down on a modern laptop. In Proceedings of the 2004 Workshop
on Power-Aware Computer Systems (Portland, OR, USA, Dec.
2004), B. Falsafi and T. N. Vijaykumar, Eds., vol. 3471 of Lec-
ture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp. 165–180.
[5] M IYOSHI , A., L EFURGY, C., H ENSBERGEN , E. V., R AJA -
MONY, R., AND R AJKUMAR , R. Critical power slope: under-
standing the runtime effects of frequency scaling. In Proceedings
of the 16th International Conference on Supercomputing (New
York, NY, USA, June 2002), ACM Press, pp. 35–44.
[6] NATIONAL I NSTRUMENTS C ORPORATION. NI 622x Specifica-
tions, June 2007. 371290G-01.
[7] O PENMOKO , I NC . GTA02 — Neo Freerunner schemat-
ics. http://downloads.openmoko.org/developer/
schematics/GTA02, Aug. 2008. A7RC0.