4 ms·
I'm confused, isn't this exactly the same as for intel? Intel processors can turbo-boost, and you can manually cap the frequency by setting the package power-li
by krackers 2y ago
I'm confused, isn't this exactly the same as for intel? Intel processors can turbo-boost, and you can manually cap the frequency by setting the package power-limit register (or well, you used to before some firmware update). That obviously doesn't change the % CPU reported either.
- BeeOnRope 2y agoYes it the same for Intel. One quantitative difference is that tasks assigned to the E cores may run at a sustained frequency much lower than the maximum (3.7x here) while on Intel any sustained load generally results in frequency scaling up over a few 100 ms to a maximum value which is much closer to the absolute max.
- MBCook 2y agoYeah. When the article compares what Apple is doing to Intel, I think they mean “classic Intel processors of years ago” that didn’t frequency scale. Like the numbered Pentiums, IIRC. That did stand out to me a little bit. You’re right that everyone has been doing this for quite a while, it’s certainly not an Apple invention. The Electric Light Company often covers Mac stuff and Activity Monitor is the tool you use to view this stuff in OS X, so it’s just the domain this article is focusing on.
- eastern 2y agoIt's not as if they don't know that this is a false comparison, specially because generations of Intel CPUs used in Macs also did frequency throttling. "Unlike traditional Intel CPUs, CPU cores in Apple silicon chips can be run at a wide range of frequencies, as set by macOS." The use of the word 'traditional' here is essentially gaslighting.
- MBCook 2y agoI don’t think so. Like I said, I think it’s referring to much older generations. It just seems like awkward phrasing.