chia

ivanh said:

1. Capacity depleted up to 20% of design should not fail to deliver peak power required by the iPhone;

2. Running down to 30% energy left after a full charge will still provide peak power required by any iPhone;

These are quite specific determinations and expectations.  Any citations?

Are they based on science, observation, experience or expert opinion; that of an electronic/electrical engineer or a cut and paster?

VRing said:

chia said:

VRing said:

macxpress said:

Hey @VRing, does that supposed magical and revolutionary custom build of yours that is SO much better than an iMac Pro do this? Didn't think so and never will! 

I know you're just flaming, but TPM chips have been in the vast majority of Windows computers and motherboards for enterprise use for years. As well, a number of these types of computers have a self-healing BIOS to restore a corrupt or potentially attacked BIOS.

Apple has been using EFI/UEFI right from its first Intel-based Mac in 2005, it may have even been the first to ship consumer x86 Intel systems that used EFI/UEFI.  No production Mac has ever used BIOS; can’t vouch for what was used on the computers in Apple’s labs for their Star Trek project, the one where they ran System 7 on PC-compatible hardware.

It amuses me that VRing conflates UEFI with BIOS.  UEFI is far more advanced in what it does compared to outdated BIOS.
I knew the moment that Windows PC manufacturers started making their systems using UEFI that people would continue to lazily and confusingly use the term BIOS in systems where it’s absent.

It's not anyone being lazy. BIOS can still be exposed in Class 2 UEFI. Class 3 or 3+ devices (Surface Book, etc.) expose only UEFI at runtime. My mention of self-healing was with respect to older systems for enterprise and a history of these secure features.

Sorry but you are one of those that is confused, VRing.  The Surface Book uses only UEFI.  UEFI devices can have a mode where they emulate a BIOS boot for legacy operating systems, but UEFI isn't BIOS.

VRing said:

macxpress said:

Hey @VRing, does that supposed magical and revolutionary custom build of yours that is SO much better than an iMac Pro do this? Didn't think so and never will! 

I know you're just flaming, but TPM chips have been in the vast majority of Windows computers and motherboards for enterprise use for years. As well, a number of these types of computers have a self-healing BIOS to restore a corrupt or potentially attacked BIOS.

Apple has been using EFI/UEFI right from its first Intel-based Mac in 2005, it may have even been the first to ship consumer x86 Intel systems that used EFI/UEFI.  No production Mac has ever used BIOS; can’t vouch for what was used on the computers in Apple’s labs for their Star Trek project, the one where they ran System 7 on PC-compatible hardware.

It amuses me that VRing conflates UEFI with BIOS.  UEFI is far more advanced in what it does compared to outdated BIOS.
I knew the moment that Windows PC manufacturers started making their systems using UEFI that people would continue to lazily and confusingly use the term BIOS in systems where it’s absent.

VRing said:

chia said:

VRing said:

Well beyond spec? What are you talking about. Turbo should be sustained. None of this looks promising.

from Intel:

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.

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.

That "short duration" is limited by the power and cooling, which shouldn't be an issue on a desktop workstation.

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 for

peak 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.

VRing said:

Well beyond spec? What are you talking about. Turbo should be sustained. None of this looks promising.

from Intel:

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.

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.