Both are extremely complex with a lot of nuance after that but the "percentage time spent not idle due to program" type this article refers to tends to be simpler than trying to figure out cache/mode switches/instruction level parallelism/instructions per clock per type/and so on on top of everything you need to figure out in the first case anyways.
That should never happen and it's ridiculous that we just let manufacturers get way with it.
Prime95 is basically a synthetic workload so it makes little sense to optimize for it.
At 100 the processor is at high risk of damage, which is why there's a built-in throttling mechanism.
Just imo, if it was safe it would be running at full speed (or at least max base clock) at that temperature.
As someone else said, they're made for burst operation these days, but again, that does not excuse manufacturers using subpar cooling.
I can see the majority is fine with it, but I'm not. A 15-25% failure rate in 2 years would make any other product a rotten lemon. But somehow it's acceptable for computers. Probably because people replace them every 2 years regardless, which is another insanity on its own.
Temperature junction throttling is a last resort. No laptop should rely on it in normal operation. Of course, both HP/Dell/Lenovo/etc and Intel benefit from increased sales so they don't care.
> The etiology of military power is from War Emergency Power (WEP) which in the WWII era was a higher than normal rating power (i.e. >100% rated power) setting on an aircraft engine. Such power settings were approved for short durations (typically 5 minutes or less) such as takeoff and battle maneuvers.
> The term was quickly shortened to military power.
The internet and GPS, the core technologies of our time, are both direct descendants of the US military.
You may not like it, but the entire IT and tech field are built on US military tech
In ancient times both mercantile and military incentives propelled the design of ships. Is fair to say the whole ship building field built on military tech?
Even if it were true that in the distant past a thing had a military application/funding, there's no reason to use their terms for new things which aren't military in nature. No commercial liner calls it's full speed "military power". It's just cosplay at this point.
There's plenty of room to debate how much of our technology came from the military, but I don't think naming is a big deal.
Take the word "screen" for example. The original meaning was a partition to protect from heat. Many of these were fabric, and led to "magic lantern" shows done with shadows. The word was repurposed again for the projection era. And yet again for tube TV's and beyond.
If you told somebody from 100 years ago to look at the screen they would have no idea what you're talking about because the original meaning is lost.
That's why I don't think it matters whether we use military terms for computer stuff. It doesn't have its original meaning anymore.
Good, we agree, no more tacti-cool cosplaying in IT.
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.res...
> The percentage specifies how much CPU time the unit shall get at maximum, relative to the total CPU time available on one CPU. Use values > 100% for allotting CPU time on more than one CPU.
This will take into account machine to machine variance, and even environmental factors effecting maximum speed.
Anyway, current processors run a separate clock per core, and maximum clocks are only available when a small number of cores are active; if all cores are busy, that should really be 100%, even if each core is only doing 80% of max for a single core.
Mostly, I want to see % of time cpu is busy, and separately, stats on how throttled the cpu is, because it's hard to combine both into a coherent number. Maybe also some idea of how much of the core is being exercised, if it can be easily measured... I'd love to know when a program is keeping the cpu busy, but not making good use of it.
That’s hard to do without hardware support, but I wonder how hard it would be to get a decent metric with currently available performance counters.
CPU Usage measured in percentage doesn't make sense on any CPU with modern performance features like speculative execution and branch prediction.