TLP or Power-Profiles for Battery Life

I have a lower end laptop, and I’m looking for some advice on saving some battery life while not entirely killing performance. On other Linux distros I would typically default to installing tlp and powertop, but it looks like Arch/EOS are using power-profiles-daemon and that conflicts with tlp? Also, I have no experience setting configurations for tlp there were typically pretty workable default configs already set up on the distros I’m familiar with. So which is better, power-profiles or tlp?

I’m currently using powertop in auto-tune with cpupower-gui and a profile set to Conservative.

I prefer thermald and power-profile daemon

You can read more on power profile here

1 Like


Why do you prefer those options?

So you recommend TLP over power-profiles?

I’m using old Macs, therefore they (TLP+mbpfan) work well.

Makes sense. My system is a Lenovo IdeaPad Ryzen 3 3200U 12gb ram.

Have a look at the article I linked. It talks about TLP and few other alternatives on what they miss out on.
Lot of the heavy lifting is done through the kernel when using power-profiles. This also comes standard on Gnome from what I recall. I use Plasma so I had to manually install it.

I personally use tlp on a Lenovo t480s. It is easy to configure, my battery thresholds are set using tlp, I occasionally conduct battery recalibration using it, and I get good & stable battery life with it. :slightly_smiling_face: I have also tried power-profiles-daemon, but was not satisfied with the battery life on Balanced mode and performance on Power saving, so I returned to tlp, with which I am able to get a good balance between battery life and performance.

1 Like