Also - I'm unsure of the benefit of having a TCXO for the ethernet clock unless it runs so hot that ethernet can't sync using the usual uncompensated crystal. Is there some benefit I'm not seeing ?
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:35 PM Adrian Godwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 11:59 AM David J Taylor via time-nuts < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Given that the path to the outside Ethernet world on both of those models >> is >> via a USB controller, I would expect to see very little improvement with >> a >> TCXO in a constant temperature environment. Just perhaps with a RasPi-4 >> you >> /might/ see an improvement as the Ethernet has a more direct path, but >> that's a board where self-generated heat is greater, so the thermal >> issues >> might make things worse. >> >> > There's a bunch of 'ifs' there though - on the early Pis, the ethernet > chip was a major source of heat. Presumably it's a different, non-USB part > on the Pi4 so that may or may not have changed. > > Does the Pi4 inherently run hotter, or is it just capable of running at a > level where it consumes more power ? If it's under-used and maybe even > intentionally underclocked, it might do better than earlier versions. > > It would at least be worth including a Pi4 running the same workload as > the other boards in any parallel test. > > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com and follow the instructions there.
