does power consumption of wireless devices (wifi, bluetooth) go down over time?

[her34]

processors reduce power as over time through die shrinks, intergration, architecture refining, etc.

do wireless devices reduce power over time?

 

[spidey07]

My quick thought would be no. Mainly because the advancement of each technology requires more and more DSP so it goes up and down but the mean would probably show an uptick overtime.

Just a guess.

 

[firewolfsm]

Die shrinks would lower power but every time we hit one we increase complexity so it goes up, much like graphics cards.

Because they still send out waves over long distances there is a base power consumption that can't be passed, we make the rest more efficient.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: her34
processors reduce power as over time through die shrinks, intergration, architecture refining, etc.

do wireless devices reduce power over time?

well you pretty much fail right off the bat with the statement "processors reduce power as over time", given as the exact opposite has been true for all of computing history except the last 4 years or so. Also, wireless stuff needs to radiate power to communicate, so all the power actually isn't bieng wasted, using more power actually helps range and such.

 

[her34]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: her34
processors reduce power as over time through die shrinks, intergration, architecture refining, etc.

do wireless devices reduce power over time?

well you pretty much fail right off the bat with the statement "processors reduce power as over time", given as the exact opposite has been true for all of computing history except the last 4 years or so. Also, wireless stuff needs to radiate power to communicate, so all the power actually isn't bieng wasted, using more power actually helps range and such.

just stay out of this thread

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Die shrinks would lower power but every time we hit one we increase complexity so it goes up, much like graphics cards.

Because they still send out waves over long distances there is a base power consumption that can't be passed, we make the rest more efficient.

to clarify, i meant reducing power consumption of the same standard over time. so are companies able to make a more power efficient 802.11g wifi adapter today then they could years ago?

when you speak of base power consumption vs rest, roughly what % of an adapter's power consumption is fixed? 50%? 90%?

 

[PottedMeat]

For a wireless device, assuming the required processing power stays the same, a shrink/more efficient architecture will reduce consumed power ( disregarding RF ). But maybe they'll use that power to make a more powerful LNA or add more stages or something ( assuming they already aren't at some FCC limit or something ). If they increase the power efficiency of the RF stages then sure overall consumption goes down.

 

[Mday]

power consumption by the chips that do the processing does decrease as time passes due to refined architectures, die shrinks, etc.

The DEVICE itself, yes, power consumption does go down also. But there are limits, since signals need to be transmitted, etc.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Mday
power consumption by the chips that do the processing does decrease as time passes due to refined architectures, die shrinks, etc.

The DEVICE itself, yes, power consumption does go down also. But there are limits, since signals need to be transmitted, etc.

Such has been the current trend. However, that has not always been true. There was a time when people where worrying about 200W CPUS and how to cool them (intel's Prescott). GPUs are much in the same cycle that CPUs where a few years ago. Right now, the GPU market is focusing on the fastest period. and not so much the most efficient. With all my inbuilt fortune telling abilities, I predict GPUS will eventually go through "the most efficient per watt" stage.

As for WiFi becoming more power efficient, I see it becoming more expensive first then more efficient. Essentially, right now it is in somewhat of a "The more power you put into the antenna the better the signal you get." And while that will always be true, I think that we might get a break through one of these days that allows us to send signals more reliably at lower power outputs. Probably will come in the form of broadcasting on 3 non-overlapping channels (Much like Raid 5 works, not the same signal but able to deduce what the missing signal is based on 2 signals) That is just my guess. Once something fairly complex like that is released, then the power usage should go down. Something else that might help is more advanced noise filtering.

 

[pm]

Process guys have a lot of variables to play with but two of the biggest are power vs. performance. By which I mean, you can make a low-power device that's slow, or a high-performance device that uses a lot of power. You can't make one transistor that does both - it's a trade-off. Faster switching speeds results in more leakage. If you want to lower leakage, you have to be willing to take a hit in terms of switching speed.

An example of this in CPU's is voltage versus clock frequency. You can lower voltage, which dramatically lowers power, but you pay a cost in terms of frequency which lowers performance.

Another example is this table of 65nm process technology offerings from TSMC:
http://www.tsmc.com/english/b_...tform/b010101_65nm.htm

In this table, you can see general purpose, low power and then high and low Vt process recipes. Low-power transistors will have longer effective channel lengths, and then high Vt gates will have a higher threshold voltage - both of these equate to lower power transistors... but slow.

Using CPU's an example of the power characteristics of modern IC's is problematic because, first, people generally think of desktop CPU's which in which power is only a concern once it reaches a certain threshold (say, 120W) and so it's not something that manufacturers specifically target. But even if you just look at laptop CPU's, even in mobile/laptop CPUs, power and performance play large roles and you can't heavily favor power vs. performance... performance is very important too.

With wireless chips going into portable devices like cell phones, power is generally near the top of the characteristics required. An example, look at Steve Jobs's claim that the first generation iPhone didn't have 3G wireless because the 3G chipsets burn too much power (*). In chips like bluetooth, and 3G and WiMax, power is extremely important. Obviously transmitted power is hard to reduce, but standby power and operational power can be reduced and they generally get lower with each revision of the wireless chipsets as engineers tune the design. So, in the case of wireless chipsets, speed is not the highest priority, power is. So the engineers will use process shifts to lower power while meeting performance goals. With each design iteration, the power dissipation decreases until it hits essentially a lower-limit driven by the transmission requirements. And then when the wireless spec changes, they restart the process with a higher power chipset that gets gradually shrunk and optimized.

So, if you want my answer, the answer is yes, they generally do get lower in power over time - but there are limits below which they are not likely to go, and each new generation of wireless communication chip usually brings with it an increase in performance along with an increase in power.



(*) Steve Jobs: "The 3G chipsets are real power hogs. Handset battery life cuts power to 2-3 hours. Our phone has a talk time of 8 hours and that?s really important when you want to use your phone for internet and music. 3G needs to get back up to 5+ hours, something we think we?ll see later next year. ? WiFi is way faster than any 3G network. Energy efficient EDGE with better, faster WiFi. That?s why we chose it.?
http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9780720-37.html