-In the NAS benchmarks there are some programs executed on different number of
-nodes. The benchmarks CG, MG, LU and FT executed on 2 to a power of (1, 2, 4, 8,
-\dots{}) of nodes. The other benchmarks such as BT and SP executed on 2 to a
-power of (1, 2, 4, 9, \dots{}) of nodes. We are take the average of energy
-saving, performance degradation and distances for all results of NAS
-benchmarks. The average of these three objectives are plotted to the number of
-nodes as in plots (\ref{fig:avg_eq} and \ref{fig:avg_neq}). In CG, MG, LU, and
-FT benchmarks the average of energy saving is decreased when the number of nodes
-is increased due to the increasing in the communication times as mentioned
-before. Thus, the average of distances (our objective function) is decreased
-linearly with energy saving while keeping the average of performance degradation
-the same. In BT and SP benchmarks, the average of energy saving is not decreased
-significantly compare to other benchmarks when the number of nodes is
-increased. Nevertheless, the average of performance degradation approximately
-still the same ratio. This difference is depends on the characteristics of the
-benchmarks such as the computation to communication ratio that has.
-
-\subsection{The results for different powers scenarios}
-
-The results of the previous section are obtained using a percentage of 80\% for
-dynamic power and 20\% for static power of total power consumption. In this
-section we are change these ratio by using two others scenarios. Because is
-interested to measure the ability of the proposed algorithm to changes it
-behavior when these power ratios are changed. In fact, we are use two different
-scenarios for dynamic and static power ratios in addition to the previous
-scenario in section (\ref{sec.res}). Therefore, we have three different
-scenarios for three different dynamic and static power ratios refer to as:
-70\%-20\%, 80\%-20\% and 90\%-10\% scenario. The results of these scenarios
-running NAS benchmarks class C on 8 or 9 nodes are place in the tables
-(\ref{table:res_s1} and \ref{table:res_s2}).
+
+ \textbf{ The energy saving and performance degradation of all benchmarks are plotted to the number of
+nodes as in plots (\ref{fig:energy} and \ref{fig:per_deg}). As shown in the plots, the energy saving percentage of the benchmarks MG, LU, BT and FT is decreased linearly when the the number of nodes increased. While in EP benchmark the energy saving percentage is approximately the same percentage when the number of computing nodes is increased, because in this benchmark there is no communications. In the SP benchmark the energy saving percentage is decreased when it runs on a small number of nodes, while this percentage is increased when it runs on a big number of nodes. The energy saving of the GC benchmarks is significantly decreased when the number of nodes is increased, because this benchmark has more communications compared to other benchmarks. The performance degradation percentage of the benchmarks CG, EP, LU and BT is decreased when they run on a big number of nodes. While in MG benchmark has a higher percentage of performance degradation when it runs on a big number of nodes. The inverse happen in SP benchmark has smaller performance degradation percentage when it runs on a big number of nodes.}
+
+
+\subsection{The results for different power consumption scenarios}
+
+The results of the previous section were obtained while using processors that consume during computation an overall power which is 80\% composed of dynamic power and 20\% of static power. In this
+section, these ratios are changed and two new power scenarios are considered in order to evaluate how the proposed algorithm adapts itself according to the static and dynamic power values. The two new power scenarios are the following:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item 70\% dynamic power and 30\% static power
+\item 90\% dynamic power and 10\% static power
+\end{itemize}
+The NAS parallel benchmarks were executed again over processors that follow the the new power scenarios. The class C of each benchmark was run over 8 or 9 nodes and the results are presented in tables (\ref{table:res_s1} and \ref{table:res_s2}). \textbf{These tables show that the energy saving percentage of the 70\%-30\% scenario is less for all benchmarks compared to the energy saving of the 90\%-10\% scenario, because this scenario uses higher percentage of dynamic dynamic power that is quadratically related to scaling factors. While the performance degradation percentage is less in 70\%-30\% scenario compared to 90\%-10\% scenario, because the first scenario used higher percentage for static power consumption that is linearly related to scaling factors and thus the execution time. }
+
+The two new power scenarios are compared to the old one in figure (\ref{fig:sen_comp}). It shows the average of the performance degradation, the energy saving and the distances for all NAS benchmarks of class C running on 8 or 9 nodes. The comparison shows that the energy saving ratio is proportional to the dynamic power ratio: it is increased when applying the 90\%-10\% scenario because at maximum frequency the dynamic energy is the the most relevant in the overall consumed energy and can be reduced by lowering the frequency of some processors. On the other hand, the energy saving is decreased when the 70\%-30\% scenario is used because the dynamic energy is less relevant in the overall consumed energy and lowering the frequency do not returns big energy savings.
+Moreover, the average of the performance degradation is decreased when using a higher ratio for static power (e.g. 70\%-30\% scenario and 80\%-20\% scenario). Since the proposed algorithm optimizes the energy consumption when using a higher ratio for dynamic power the algorithm selects bigger frequency scaling factors that result in more energy saving but less performance, for example see the figure (\ref{fig:scales_comp}). The opposite happens when using a higher ratio for static power, the algorithm proportionally selects smaller scaling values which results in less energy saving but less performance degradation.
+
