Seems like there are quite a few other reasons why someone would "jump in", including being a relative expert. Maybe you could think of a few others yourself?
Sustained contact with metal at a temperature as low as 45C is sufficient to cause discomfort, and it's a surprisingly small rise above that before you can actually cause burns (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&d...). Skin temperature is a standard input to DPTF policies, and during my testing I was certainly able to get the skin temperature of my test laptop well above that level - DPTF would trigger throttling instead.
> why else would you jump in to an article about unlocking manufacturer-crippled products with FUD like "not the correct approach"?
DPTF defaults to a "safe" configuration, where "safe" is a euphemism for "almost unusably slow". If what you care about is your laptop not being almost unusably slow, it's reasonable to choose an approach that obtains that without introducing any additional thermal concerns. If what you care about is obtaining the absolute maximum performance possible from your hardware with no regard to any safety or longevity concerns, then yes, implementing the DPTF policy is probably not what you want to do. But recommending the latter without providing any information about the tradeoffs is irresponsible.
That's not evidence, that's just theory. I'm asking for ACTUAL EVIDENCE of people who got burned by their laptops after disabling DPTF or using ThrottleStop, because I haven't found any. And assuming that humans won't have a natural "this is hot, better not touch it" response is absurd.
But recommending the latter without providing any information about the tradeoffs is irresponsible.
Clearly, common sense is not something you and the rest of the authoritarians in Big Tech want, because you'd rather be paternalistic control-freaks. Pulling out the tired "safety" argument only shows your commitment to that.
If you're fully aware of the possible consequences of ignoring those policies then go wild. I think it's the wrong choice for most people, and as I said I think it's irresponsible to suggest people change the thermal policy in that way without ensuring they're aware of the possible consequences. If saying "You should only do this if you're ok with your laptop potentially becoming hot enough to burn human skin" is authoritarian then I guess I'm authoritarian?
Also, why is Intel so reluctant on fixing this themselves? It looks so simple to me too fix this by releasing the docs and fixing thermald, and still, here we are having to use throttled for those wanting a little bit more punch.
And finally, how is it that nobody it's creating a custom, patched thermald that takes all this into account? Is it that the process for reverse engineering is too complicated and that we don't have the full picture yet? It shouldn't be too difficult to read the values Windows takes and reverse engineer it, although it may be tougher than it seems at first.
FWIW, the incidence of people burning themselves on hot pads / body warmers would strongly suggest otherwise:
https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/wounds/reviews...
You choosing to not even look for evidence so you could make an argument in ignorance does not automatically mean it doesn't exist. This is literally the first google result for "laptop case temperature causing burns": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4292129/
Also look at this fun condition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythema_ab_igne
> Temperatures between 43 and 47 °C can cause this skin condition; modern laptops can generate temperatures in this range. Indeed, laptops with powerful processors can reach temperatures of 50 °C and be associated with burns.
Some more results:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4n04r793
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23164210_Thigh_Burn...
Despite literally zero evidence of that actually being a problem in practice?
I've also been pretty consistent in criticising Intel for refusing to document DPTF. Whose company line do you think I'm toeing here?
Not Intel, but there's plenty of evidence that DPTF just cripples performance; and why else would you jump in to an article about unlocking manufacturer-crippled products with FUD like "not the correct approach"? It's like posting "may cause processor damage" and advocating for stock speeds on every article about overclocking.
For the record, I've been overclocking (not at extreme or competitive levels) since the early 90s and haven't killed any hardware because of it. The system I'm posting this from has been on a 50% overclock for over a decade and it's still rock-solid stable.