4 ms·

> "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have" "An unthrottled CPU without any OS-level policy will generate enough heat that the case temperat

by mjg59 4y ago

> "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have" "An unthrottled CPU without any OS-level policy will generate enough heat that the case temperature may rise to levels that violate safety regulations" can certainly be interpreted as "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have", yes. > FYI, it is painfully obvious that you're toeing some sort of company line here. I work for a company that develops trucks. While thermal dissipation is something that we do need to worry about, I can promise that it is absolutely not at the scale involved here. I've also been pretty consistent in criticising Intel for refusing to document DPTF. Whose company line do you think I'm toeing here?

userbinator 4y ago
"An unthrottled CPU without any OS-level policy will generate enough heat that the case temperature may rise to levels that violate safety regulations" can certainly be interpreted as "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have", yes. Despite literally zero evidence of that actually being a problem in practice? I've also been pretty consistent in criticising Intel for refusing to document DPTF. Whose company line do you think I'm toeing here? Not Intel, but there's plenty of evidence that DPTF just cripples performance; and why else would you jump in to an article about unlocking manufacturer-crippled products with FUD like "not the correct approach"? It's like posting "may cause processor damage" and advocating for stock speeds on every article about overclocking. For the record, I've been overclocking (not at extreme or competitive levels) since the early 90s and haven't killed any hardware because of it. The system I'm posting this from has been on a 50% overclock for over a decade and it's still rock-solid stable.
- dannyobrien 4y ago
  Not Intel, but there's plenty of evidence that DPTF just cripples performance; and why else would you jump in to an article about unlocking manufacturer-crippled products with FUD like "not the correct approach"? Seems like there are quite a few other reasons why someone would "jump in", including being a relative expert. Maybe you could think of a few others yourself?
- mjg59 4y ago
  > Despite literally zero evidence of that actually being a problem in practice? Sustained contact with metal at a temperature as low as 45C is sufficient to cause discomfort, and it's a surprisingly small rise above that before you can actually cause burns (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=31f3cd71a5e5dc229156fe52457af2bfb59f69d0 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&d...). Skin temperature is a standard input to DPTF policies, and during my testing I was certainly able to get the skin temperature of my test laptop well above that level - DPTF would trigger throttling instead. > why else would you jump in to an article about unlocking manufacturer-crippled products with FUD like "not the correct approach"? DPTF defaults to a "safe" configuration, where "safe" is a euphemism for "almost unusably slow". If what you care about is your laptop not being almost unusably slow, it's reasonable to choose an approach that obtains that without introducing any additional thermal concerns. If what you care about is obtaining the absolute maximum performance possible from your hardware with no regard to any safety or longevity concerns, then yes, implementing the DPTF policy is probably not what you want to do. But recommending the latter without providing any information about the tradeoffs is irresponsible.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - mjg59 4y ago
      While developing my DPTF implementation for Linux I caused the outer skin of my test laptop to reach a temperature that would have caused burns to my legs if I had left it sitting on them for more than a couple of minutes. Now, I have working thermoreception, so I'd probably have noticed this and put it somewhere that wasn't my legs before that happened, but there are various scenarios in which people don't and manufacturers of objects that are intended to be put in your lap are kind of reluctant to design them in such a way that they could cause injury, which is why the manufacturer policies ensure that doesn't happen. If you're fully aware of the possible consequences of ignoring those policies then go wild. I think it's the wrong choice for most people, and as I said I think it's irresponsible to suggest people change the thermal policy in that way without ensuring they're aware of the possible consequences. If saying "You should only do this if you're ok with your laptop potentially becoming hot enough to burn human skin" is authoritarian then I guess I'm authoritarian?
- chmod775 4y ago
  > Despite literally zero evidence of that actually being a problem in practice? You choosing to not even look for evidence so you could make an argument in ignorance does not automatically mean it doesn't exist. This is literally the first google result for "laptop case temperature causing burns": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4292129/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4292129/ Also look at this fun condition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythema_ab_igne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythema_ab_igne > Temperatures between 43 and 47 °C can cause this skin condition; modern laptops can generate temperatures in this range. Indeed, laptops with powerful processors can reach temperatures of 50 °C and be associated with burns. Some more results: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4n04r793 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4n04r793 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23164210_Thigh_Burn_Associated_With_Laptop_Computer_Use https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23164210_Thigh_Burn... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3853603/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3853603/
  - userbinator 4y ago
    Maybe you should read my rebuttal first? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35026981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35026981
    - MaxikCZ 4y ago
      So your rebuttal consists of "just put it off your legs, duh". Got it.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - chmod775 4y ago
      That's a flagged and dead reply to a sibling comment which would look schizophrenic as a response to this one - on top of everything else that is already wrong with it.

by mjg59 4y ago

userbinator 4y ago

"An unthrottled CPU without any OS-level policy will generate enough heat that the case temperature may rise to levels that violate safety regulations" can certainly be interpreted as "now you have more performance than they wanted you to have", yes. Despite literally zero evidence of that actually being a problem in practice? I've also been pretty consistent in criticising Intel for refusing to document DPTF. Whose company line do you think I'm toeing here? Not Intel, but there's plenty of evidence that DPTF just cripples performance; and why else would you jump in to an article about unlocking manufacturer-crippled products with FUD like "not the correct approach"? It's like posting "may cause processor damage" and advocating for stock speeds on every article about overclocking. For the record, I've been overclocking (not at extreme or competitive levels) since the early 90s and haven't killed any hardware because of it. The system I'm posting this from has been on a 50% overclock for over a decade and it's still rock-solid stable.

dannyobrien 4y ago
Not Intel, but there's plenty of evidence that DPTF just cripples performance; and why else would you jump in to an article about unlocking manufacturer-crippled products with FUD like "not the correct approach"? Seems like there are quite a few other reasons why someone would "jump in", including being a relative expert. Maybe you could think of a few others yourself?
mjg59 4y ago
> Despite literally zero evidence of that actually being a problem in practice? Sustained contact with metal at a temperature as low as 45C is sufficient to cause discomfort, and it's a surprisingly small rise above that before you can actually cause burns (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=31f3cd71a5e5dc229156fe52457af2bfb59f69d0 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&d...). Skin temperature is a standard input to DPTF policies, and during my testing I was certainly able to get the skin temperature of my test laptop well above that level - DPTF would trigger throttling instead. > why else would you jump in to an article about unlocking manufacturer-crippled products with FUD like "not the correct approach"? DPTF defaults to a "safe" configuration, where "safe" is a euphemism for "almost unusably slow". If what you care about is your laptop not being almost unusably slow, it's reasonable to choose an approach that obtains that without introducing any additional thermal concerns. If what you care about is obtaining the absolute maximum performance possible from your hardware with no regard to any safety or longevity concerns, then yes, implementing the DPTF policy is probably not what you want to do. But recommending the latter without providing any information about the tradeoffs is irresponsible.
- userbinator 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - mjg59 4y ago
    While developing my DPTF implementation for Linux I caused the outer skin of my test laptop to reach a temperature that would have caused burns to my legs if I had left it sitting on them for more than a couple of minutes. Now, I have working thermoreception, so I'd probably have noticed this and put it somewhere that wasn't my legs before that happened, but there are various scenarios in which people don't and manufacturers of objects that are intended to be put in your lap are kind of reluctant to design them in such a way that they could cause injury, which is why the manufacturer policies ensure that doesn't happen. If you're fully aware of the possible consequences of ignoring those policies then go wild. I think it's the wrong choice for most people, and as I said I think it's irresponsible to suggest people change the thermal policy in that way without ensuring they're aware of the possible consequences. If saying "You should only do this if you're ok with your laptop potentially becoming hot enough to burn human skin" is authoritarian then I guess I'm authoritarian?
chmod775 4y ago
> Despite literally zero evidence of that actually being a problem in practice? You choosing to not even look for evidence so you could make an argument in ignorance does not automatically mean it doesn't exist. This is literally the first google result for "laptop case temperature causing burns": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4292129/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4292129/ Also look at this fun condition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythema_ab_igne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythema_ab_igne > Temperatures between 43 and 47 °C can cause this skin condition; modern laptops can generate temperatures in this range. Indeed, laptops with powerful processors can reach temperatures of 50 °C and be associated with burns. Some more results: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4n04r793 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4n04r793 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23164210_Thigh_Burn_Associated_With_Laptop_Computer_Use https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23164210_Thigh_Burn... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3853603/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3853603/
- userbinator 4y ago
  Maybe you should read my rebuttal first? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35026981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35026981
  - MaxikCZ 4y ago
    So your rebuttal consists of "just put it off your legs, duh". Got it.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - chmod775 4y ago
    That's a flagged and dead reply to a sibling comment which would look schizophrenic as a response to this one - on top of everything else that is already wrong with it.