Timeline for Comfortable long-term operating temperature for Raspberry Pi 4B
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 23, 2020 at 17:20 | comment | added | natiiix | Pushing hardware into a thermal throttling state simply seems like redlining a car to me. Sure, it's not an issue if it happens during a spike, but running the hardware like that for years? It's obviously a state it doesn't want to be in, considering it's a safety precaution in itself. As you indicated yourself, higher temperatures lead to a shorter semiconductor life and the temperature at which thermal throttling begins to happen is at the edge of what the hardware itself considers safe, so it doesn't feel like something that'd be okay for a long time. Regardless, thanks and bye. | |
| Aug 22, 2020 at 23:09 | comment | added | Seamus | @natiiix: Yes, actually I would, and without hesitation. The only exception would be a task with two attributes: 1) Demanded near 100% CPU/GPU capacity for extended periods of time, AND 2) Had real time or near real time requirements. Your job may fall into one of these categories. If that's the case, consider more computing "horsepower". However, as your question includes no measurements showing the "supply vs demand" metrics suggests that you don't understand how this works. If I'm wrong, pls excuse me for being forward. In any case - I'd like to drop this conversation. | |
| Aug 22, 2020 at 22:46 | comment | added | natiiix | I started my first comment by saying that crippling the performance constitutes an unsafe, or rather an undesirable, state, which is consistent with thermal throttling being hugely undesirable. You certainly wouldn't want to run a critical server in a thermal throttling state for years and call that safe. | |
| Aug 22, 2020 at 21:53 | comment | added | Seamus | @natiiix: I think you are confused... I'll leave it at that. | |
| Aug 22, 2020 at 21:49 | comment | added | natiiix | It's not "unsafe" in the sense of having the potential to harm the hardware. However, it's a clear indication of insufficient cooling and generally happens at the edge of what's considered a safe operating temperature (i.e., in desktop/laptop graphics cards). Even if it didn't indicate any such issue, it's undesirable to compromise the performance, which is precisely what thermal throttling would result in. Therefore, while protecting the hardware, it hurts the workload, which would be a much bigger problem for me than a worn-out fan. | |
| Aug 22, 2020 at 21:31 | comment | added | Seamus | @natiiix: Throttling is not "unsafe" behavior... I'm completely puzzled why you would say that. Perhaps you've left something out of your question? | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 19:55 | comment | added | natiiix | Thank you for your insight! I was aware of the questionable word choice with "safe". I meant "not unhealthy for the SoC in a significant way" / "not worsening its performance". I would consider thermal throttling as an unsafe state in this context. I mentioned reboots to emphasize that there are no breaks in the workload - it starts once and never stops until either the project or the platform dies. A reboot (or rather a shutdown) could indicate a period (no matter how short) of being completely idle. Seems like 50°C would probably be okay, but even a fan like this is cheaper than a new Pi. | |
| Aug 21, 2020 at 19:00 | history | answered | Seamus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |