Sure, but that doesn't explain shipping units with different firmware. In Eben Upton words: “some thermal optimizations that are not installed by default on early production units.”W. H. Heydt wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:27 pmThere are a couple of issues here. The first is, that by the very nature of things, chips vary some from one to the next. The factory tests them to meet basic requirements (will it run at the specified clock speed? do all functions work correctly? can you read and write all the cache? stuff like that). Some chips can be overclocked further than others, for instance. And pertinent you your questions, some will run hotter than others.
Aardappeltaart wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:31 pmSure, but that doesn't explain shipping units with different firmware. In Eben Upton words: “some thermal optimizations that are not installed by default on early production units.”W. H. Heydt wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:27 pmThere are a couple of issues here. The first is, that by the very nature of things, chips vary some from one to the next. The factory tests them to meet basic requirements (will it run at the specified clock speed? do all functions work correctly? can you read and write all the cache? stuff like that). Some chips can be overclocked further than others, for instance. And pertinent you your questions, some will run hotter than others.
It would be nice for buyers to know whether they have a somewhat lower quality batch unit, or just old firmware.
As noted, early firmware is NOT "lower quality". It's just earlier firmware. For the first time, the firmware is field upgradeable, so it isn't even a case of being stuck with early firmware. (Want to take a look at my very early RPF 7" screen that will only do the backlight on or off?)Aardappeltaart wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:31 pmIt would be nice for buyers to know whether they have a somewhat lower quality batch unit, or just old firmware, before they rush out to buy heatsinks or fans.
He, that's was my question in OP: `and how they can be identified?`W. H. Heydt wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:32 pmAnd that makes an interesting point... Anybody got a quick, easy way to check the EEPROM program version and date?
That just isn't true.fruitoftheloom wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:55 pmAll Raspberry Pis are fully tested, there is no such thing as lower quality, it is insult to state that....
I'm not stating that. I was just asking about different firmware shipped. W. H. Heydt made the suggestion that the thermal (throttling) issues could be caused by some chips simply running hotter than others.fruitoftheloom wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:55 pm
All Raspberry Pis are fully tested, there is no such thing as lower quality, it is insult to state that....
Isn't the time fit to explain that some models were shipped with old firmware and that owners of those models can experience thermal issues for the time being? To be clear we're talking about 20% performance difference (throttling) in some benchmarks (7-zip). See link OP.fruitoftheloom wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:55 pmJust have to patient and wait for updates as and when RPF / RPT feel they are fit for public consumption.
Just to clarify perhaps: there's a difference between "identifying" the bootloader version installed in a given P4B's eeprom (which will need to be updated a some point by those folks wanting to USB boot when that's available in any case) or, what is usually called "firmware" (for all Pi's) which is on the uSDHC card, or identifying a P4B with a specific bootloader and/or firmware. Most, if not all, "firmware" updates (once stable) usually happen along with O.S. updates for all Pi's AFAIK.
Code: Select all
sudo apt update && sudo apt full-upgrade -y
if you would have 5°C differences of temperature only by different quality of the components on your SBC, you should hire a new qc employee...W. H. Heydt wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 5:27 pmThere are a couple of issues here. The first is, that by the very nature of things, chips vary some from one to the next. The factory tests them to meet basic requirements (will it run at the specified clock speed? do all functions work correctly? can you read and write all the cache? stuff like that). Some chips can be overclocked further than others, for instance. And pertinent you your questions, some will run hotter than others.
As regards the firmware... The Pi4B has updateable firmware. I've seen references to people getting firmware updates and applying them, so that functionality already exists as a practical process. I suspect that, going forward, along with doing update/upgrade setup will include getting and writing the latest firmware. Not sure if all of that is in place yet without using bleeding edge versions.
Probably they started with the production a bit earlier cause they knew they will sell a bunch of boards once the RPi is announced? Likely that the software wasn't really ready at this time (it's not even fully ready yet, otherwise USB-boot and PXE would work, but okay for the average use-cases)? You want unpack thousands of boards only to send them with the newest 'firmware' and risk a even bigger delay.Aardappeltaart wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:31 pmSure, but that doesn't explain shipping units with different firmware. In Eben Upton words: “some thermal optimizations that are not installed by default on early production units.”
It would be nice for buyers to know whether they have a somewhat lower quality batch unit, or just old firmware, before they rush out to buy heatsinks or fans.
What else? If the temperature lowers 3-5°C between before and after firmware upgrade without any other significant drawbacks, the older firmware is by definition of lower quality..W. H. Heydt wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:32 pmAs noted, early firmware is NOT "lower quality". It's just earlier firmware. For the first time, the firmware is field upgradeable, so it isn't even a case of being stuck with early firmware. (Want to take a look at my very early RPF 7" screen that will only do the backlight on or off?)
...The guys at the Raspberry Pi Foundation somehow noticed my post, and I received an email from Eben Upton explaining a new Raspberry Pi 4 VLI firmware had “some thermal optimizations that are not installed by default on early production units.”
otherwise, this new firmware would already be out and somewhere stated how to upgrade it...The Raspberry Pi Foundation provided me with a test version of the firmware, which they’ll release in the next few days, or weeks after testing is completed.
I think we're going to run into a terminology issue with the Pi4B (and, most likely, subsequent Pis). We have the ROM bootloader that is part of the SoC and will only change if there is a version step. It is, for all intents and purposes, fixed. There is the EEPROM--the contents of which is what I would refer to as "firmware"--which can be reloaded. Then there is the binary blob, which heretofore has been referred to as "firmware", but is actually just a file on the boot media. So... Do we now have "hard firmware" (the EEPROM contents) and "soft firmware" (the binary blob)?FTrevorGowen wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:02 pmJust to clarify perhaps: there's a difference between "identifying" the bootloader version installed in a given P4B's eeprom (which will need to be updated a some point by those folks wanting to USB boot when that's available in any case) or, what is usually called "firmware" (for all Pi's) which is on the uSDHC card, or identifying a P4B with a specific bootloader and/or firmware. Most, if not all, "firmware" updates (once stable) usually happen along with O.S. updates for all Pi's AFAIK.
Trev.
SPI Bootloader version (this is the current "production" version):Aardappeltaart wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:27 pmHe, that's was my question in OP: `and how they can be identified?`W. H. Heydt wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:32 pmAnd that makes an interesting point... Anybody got a quick, easy way to check the EEPROM program version and date?
Code: Select all
rpi4:~ # vcgencmd bootloader_version
May 10 2019 19:40:36
version d2402c53cdeb0f072ff05d52987b1b6b6d474691 (release)
Thank you.milhouse wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:53 amSPI Bootloader version (this is the current "production" version):Aardappeltaart wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 9:27 pmHe, that's was my question in OP: `and how they can be identified?`W. H. Heydt wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:32 pmAnd that makes an interesting point... Anybody got a quick, easy way to check the EEPROM program version and date?Code: Select all
rpi4:~ # vcgencmd bootloader_version May 10 2019 19:40:36 version d2402c53cdeb0f072ff05d52987b1b6b6d474691 (release)
AFAIK new firmware (VIA VL805 PCIe USB 3.0) enables ASPM (Active-State Power Management) for the USB controller. All from the post linked in OP.W. H. Heydt wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:29 amThank you.milhouse wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:53 am
SPI Bootloader version (this is the current "production" version):Code: Select all
rpi4:~ # vcgencmd bootloader_version May 10 2019 19:40:36 version d2402c53cdeb0f072ff05d52987b1b6b6d474691 (release)
Code: Select all
sudo lspci -vvv | grep ASPM
--
LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- CommClk-
Code: Select all
sudo lspci -vvv | grep ASPM
--
LnkCtl: ASPM L0s L1 Enabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- CommClk+
Sorry, always getting my Watts and amps mixed up.
Thx, but that contradicts Eben Upton words “some thermal optimizations that are not installed by default on early production units.”
Well, the important thing is: improvements are on the way.jamesh wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:17 amNot sure what Eben was talking about specifically, but I know that the vli firmware has not been released.
Reviewers have had devices for some time. In that time many things have changed, bootloader, kernel etc. But I don't think vli changes were sent out.
It may be just this one guy was sent it. I don't know.
As for idle temperature variations, tdepend what the device is doing while idling. Desktop? Console? 4kp60?