The principle applies to pretty much all equipment. A CPU will happily sit at 100-ish% utilization for years (if there are no thermal constraints), because it can’t have an emotional breakdown.
Well, maybe it can, that would certainly explain a couple of cases that I have had…
A cpu will not do boost speeds sustainably. That is what its best performance is though. If I remove the thermal limiter my cpu will happily cook itself even though it is rated for 5GHz top frequency.
Edit: Saying there are no thermal constraints is like saying it will not break. You presume the conclusion there.
If there are no emotional constraints I will also function a lot better sustainably.
I specifically didn’t mention overclocking because then there is no defined top speed. Depending on the binning, a CPU can be pushed arbitrarily far. If you provide proper cooling it can be sustained relatively indefinitely, but you still wouldn’t do that all the time because energy efficiency tanks. That 10-20% performance usually isn’t worth the added 100% power draw.
This argument hinges on the definition of “top speed”. Is top speed what’s written on the speedometer and what the device is designed for, or is it the max speed it can go before it explodes? I think, in this context we are talking about is max sustained speed/performance, judging by the fact that neither the human or the Enterprise have died/exploded. While devices are often designed to and perform at their “top speed”, people can’t for reasons other than inefficiency.
The thing is modern CPUs boost behavior is the intended, design for thing. We as humans should have a working regulator when top performance is acceptable even if damaging if sustained. A cpu also has that. That is a thermal/current/voltage limiter.
At least my takeaway from the post is that you one can’t sustain a level of power/performance that is achievable in moderation / bursts.
The principle applies to pretty much all equipment. A CPU will happily sit at 100-ish% utilization for years (if there are no thermal constraints), because it can’t have an emotional breakdown.
Well, maybe it can, that would certainly explain a couple of cases that I have had…
A cpu will not do boost speeds sustainably. That is what its best performance is though. If I remove the thermal limiter my cpu will happily cook itself even though it is rated for 5GHz top frequency.
Edit: Saying there are no thermal constraints is like saying it will not break. You presume the conclusion there.
If there are no emotional constraints I will also function a lot better sustainably.
I specifically didn’t mention overclocking because then there is no defined top speed. Depending on the binning, a CPU can be pushed arbitrarily far. If you provide proper cooling it can be sustained relatively indefinitely, but you still wouldn’t do that all the time because energy efficiency tanks. That 10-20% performance usually isn’t worth the added 100% power draw.
This argument hinges on the definition of “top speed”. Is top speed what’s written on the speedometer and what the device is designed for, or is it the max speed it can go before it explodes? I think, in this context we are talking about is max sustained speed/performance, judging by the fact that neither the human or the Enterprise have died/exploded. While devices are often designed to and perform at their “top speed”, people can’t for reasons other than inefficiency.
The thing is modern CPUs boost behavior is the intended, design for thing. We as humans should have a working regulator when top performance is acceptable even if damaging if sustained. A cpu also has that. That is a thermal/current/voltage limiter.
At least my takeaway from the post is that you one can’t sustain a level of power/performance that is achievable in moderation / bursts.