VRing
About
- Banned
- Username
- VRing
- Joined
- Visits
- 23
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 386
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 108
Reactions
-
Apple apologizes for iPhone slowdown controversy, will reduce out-of-warranty battery repl...
They're only doing this after they got caught, and it still doesn't help users that already changed devices.
-
First look: Benchmarks put Apple's entry-level $4999 iMac Pro to the test
"Should" is what I said, and yes, it should be sustained with an adequate cooling solution and power supply found in a reputable desktop workstation.macplusplus said:
Stop flooding the forum with meaningless numbers. You said “turbo must be sustained” above and that’s enough. You have transcended even Intel and I wish you a good Turbo life. I’m done with your posts.VRing said:
The W-2145 has a boost speed of 4.5 GHz, the W-2140B has a boost speed of 4.2 GHz. <-- The downclock.macplusplus said:
Turbo is for single core, dude...VRing said:
The stock Xeon W-2145 is supposed to turbo to 4.5 GHz and will not throttle. Most desktop cooling solutions can likely sustain even higher frequencies without throttling.macplusplus said:
No one would notice that minus 0.3 GHz in real life usage. The stock throttles more than that 0.3 GHz by the way...
“the clock speed to drop from 3.9GHz to about 3.6GHz for a second or two. This allowed the CPU to drop below 92 degrees, and the clock speed to rise back to the maximum 3.9GHz”
Apple's solution is downclocked and still throttles.
So your (mis)understanding "how may it throttle at 3.9 while it can Turbo at 4.5" doesn't make sense, you compare apples to oranges.
The W-2140B is seen throttling down to 3.6 GHz at sustained load. <-- The throttling.
So you're saying you don't understand what the numbers mean and because it proves you wrong you dismiss my posts. Yikes! -
South Korea probes Apple's decision to slow down iPhones with weak batteries
^Dismissing as a conspiracy theory.lkrupp said:
Yeah, well let them try to prove a ‘sinister upgrade scheme’ in a court of law. Conspiracy theories don’t hold water with a judge. And by the way, George W Bush (43) ordered the levies blown in New Orleans when Katrina hit. It was a sinister plot to kill poor people.jd_in_sb said:Apple’s intentions were good but I can see how some will view it as a sinister upgrade scheme. People love conspiracies.
^Deflecting because South Korea and Samsung.lkrupp said:Oh my, South Korea, home to Samsung, is asking Apple to explain themselves. Wow, that one came out of nowhere.
What nonsense. How toxic of you.
So here are the facts:- Apple slowed performance of iPhone models with degraded batteries (seen within a year of release).
- Apple didn't tell anyone, not even Apple Store staff.
- Users, some of which had been / are under warranty, had not been made aware that a battery replacement would remedy performance issues.
-
First look: Benchmarks put Apple's entry-level $4999 iMac Pro to the test
The "Turbo Boost" link is a general link that clearly states temperature, current and power as aspects that determine the boost. These are not constrained on most workstation systems. Both cooling and the power supply will be more than adequate to maintain long term boost performance. Point being, you're wrong in your interpretation.chia said:VRing said:
That "short duration" is limited by the power and cooling, which shouldn't be an issue on a desktop workstation.chia said:VRing said:Well beyond spec? What are you talking about. Turbo should be sustained. None of this looks promising.
from Intel:
Presumably it's safe to consider Intel, as designer and manufacturer of Xeon processors, a company that's been designing and manufacturing microprocessors for nearly fifty years, a better authority on the matter.Note: Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance.
In context with you're quote, it would apply more to a laptop.
These Xeons aren't for laptops but desktops have their power restraints too: even the largest of supercomputers have a finite amount of power to draw upon.Intel said:Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.01 accelerates processor and graphics performance forpeak loads, automatically allowing processor cores to run faster than the rated operating frequency if they’re operating below power, current, and temperature specification limits.
So you're telling us that:
a) you've not read the link I provided to Intel's explanation as to how they intend their Turbo Boost technology to work:
here it is directly in case you didn't realise I had embedded it:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html
b) that your understanding of how Xeon processors operate is better than Intel's, the company that designed and manufactured them. -
First look: Benchmarks put Apple's entry-level $4999 iMac Pro to the test
That "short duration" is limited by the power and cooling, which shouldn't be an issue on a desktop workstation.chia said:VRing said:Well beyond spec? What are you talking about. Turbo should be sustained. None of this looks promising.
from Intel:
Presumably it's safe to consider Intel, as designer and manufacturer of Xeon processors, a company that's been designing and manufacturing microprocessors for nearly fifty years, a better authority on the matter.Note: Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance.
In context with you're quote, it would apply more to a laptop.
