![]() ![]() ![]() > They don't work anyway, these SSDs throttle.īut you don't know what causes the throttling. This is what they have to get right (and some do, but not all of them). These NVMe SSDs are only interesting if you have large (and thus: long) file transfers. But: In those workloads there is no significant difference to a SATA SSD anyway. If you can't take my word for it, look at professional SSD reviews, they have covered this also for years now.Īnd sure: There are scenarios where this does not matter. I'm into this topic professionally for years now. GN often gets it right, stuff like that happens, but it made this one memorable and highlighted the positive effect of these heatsink coolers. Gamersnexus had a very impressive demonstration of this, one where they did get this wrong: They had an article about a MSI SSD heatsink where they claimed it did not help (so the SSD did throttle! Again something you said does never happen), where it then turned out that it did not work only because their applied temperature sensors (glued them to the heatsink), and IIRC they also missed the higher performance they got regardless. You can counteract this with a lot of targeted airflow and/or a heatsink, the heatsink will at least help move the throttling to a later moment. If you activate the other chart modes you see the measured performance, which shows the drops linked to the too high temperature, and that they did the same thing for write performance. The hour long constant load benchmark is a different graph, however, constant load is also realistic if it's longer than 5 minutes. However, this is a sequential read that's only 5 minutes long. Then you had a moving goalpost there, that those SSDs do not throttle under realistic workloads. This is only a small part of the market of course, but it goes to show that the throttling is a real thing that happens with multiple models. WD Black SN750 1TB (+ the same one with a cooler) In that graph are shown, going above the limit:Ĥ. All of them throttle (what you said does not happen). You see that a bunch of them go to the 80C line or hover above. One very last try - though I assume in the best case it's for potential other readers. I do not understand how you can still think that after my explanation and after looking at the graph I sent you. ![]() Now we can argue semantics all day, but to bring it back around if you're just going to say "top clocks" is what the SoC was designed for at a specific workload/power envelope (In AMD's PB, that'd be PPT, TDC, and EDC) then every laptops will "hit their top clocks with no issues," but I'd say that argument (statement?) is a bit circular/pointless. How do you characterize "clock" in this context? Base (minimum) and Boost (hard limit, now split to Max Turbo <2C and All Boost MC) seem to be reasonably sensible numbers. I agree that there's a lot of misunderstanding on clocks - I've been on the other end - evaluation and validation of embedded boards, including V1000 Ryzen SoCs, but I think I'd disagree somewhat with the characterization of clocks as purely "marketing BS."īack in the day, most CPUs had had a fixed clock, but these days modern Intel and AMD chips simply don't - they all clock opportunistically, which depends on powers, thermals, but also workload (try running an AVX-512 loads for example). AMD chips scale a little bit better due to 7nm having better power efficiency and how PPT works, but the same ratio roughly applies. In comparison, on a properly cooled desktop system, a same-gen i9-10900K desktop system should be able to maintain a sustained (all-the-time) clock of about 5GHz (very close to its 5.3GHz boost). In practice, unless your laptop's cooling is absolutely terrible, you'll probably end up mostly running in the 3-3.5GHz range under full load. This is so low to be meaningless as a top speed. Note that while a i7-10875H's top "boost" clock is 5.1GHz, the sustained "base" clock is only 2.3GHz. For AMD chips, you will want to look up STAPM, Fast and Slow PPT. If you are interested in how modern Intel laptop chips throttle and what base and boost clocks mean, you want to do a search for PL1, PL2, and Tau. On the workstation side, people complain about Macbooks, but recent MBPs actually throttle their Intel H processors less than a comparable XPS 15 for example. Here's an example chart that shows how various premium Athena/Evo U laptops perform. Most usually only sustain max performance for minutes (or seconds!) before throttling. Almost no laptops sustain their top (boost) clock on heavy workloads. Those SoCs hit (and sustain) their top clocks, whatever those are for that specific SKU. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |