domenic at domenicdenicola.com
Thu Aug 8 07:50:10 PDT 2013
From: Forbes Lindesay [forbes at lindesay.co.uk]
>> Why so?
> I think it was something Domenic Denicola said that I'm remembering, but don't the extremely short timeouts mean more work (and thus power) for the CPUs timer. I'm sure I remember reading something about timeouts less than a certain amount using additional power.
> If I'm wrong (which I may be), I apologise for the mis-information.
This may be the case only on Windows, but Microsoft has repeatedly claimed (and shown) that scheduling timers somehow "wakes up" the computer from its low-power state. Thus repeatedly scheduling timers keeps it in some kind of "high alert" state where it's never ready to settle down into low-power because it knows that within a few milliseconds it'll need to perform the appropriate timer interrupt to fire the task.
This may be Windows-specific, or IE-specific, or even just FUD (i.e., if IE was smarter it could implement timers as efficiently as it does `setImmediate`). I am not really in a position to say. But it is the reality today with IE10 and IE11.
More information about the es-discuss