[HN Gopher] % CPU in Activity Monitor isn't what you think
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       % CPU in Activity Monitor isn't what you think
        
       Author : Brajeshwar
       Score  : 19 points
       Date   : 2024-11-09 15:23 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (eclecticlight.co)
 (TXT) w3m dump (eclecticlight.co)
        
       | simscitizen wrote:
       | Pretty sure it's just scheduled CPU time / wall clock time. If
       | you have multiple cores then scheduled CPU time can be greater
       | than wall clock time.
       | 
       | Also scheduled CPU time doesn't take in to account frequency
       | scaling or core type as explained in the article. Just how much
       | time the OS scheduler has allocated to the core to run tasks.
        
         | MisterKent wrote:
         | Why even comment if you're not going to read TFA which actively
         | disputes your "isn't it just" assertion in its _title_?
        
           | zamadatix wrote:
           | There are too many comments parading "you haven't read the
           | article", even when replying to comments referencing parts of
           | the article, lately. It's already one thing to complain about
           | someone's level of takeaway but another to only discuss the
           | assumption of how they came to a different conclusion rather
           | than just discuss the topic instead. The article title is
           | also nothing to be proud of, it's 0% actionable information
           | and 100% clickbait assumption - the person that wrote the
           | Activity Monitor gets the same knowledge assignment as
           | someone who's never even thought about it before.
           | 
           | I'd be curious what GP means in the difference between
           | allocated scheduled time vs the way the article describes it
           | (non idle process assignment time) though. It feels like
           | that's 2 ways of saying the same thing? I agree with GP the
           | frequency part seems off and can be surmised as a summary of
           | the point later in the article anyways. Particularly, the
           | opening of that section:
           | 
           | > Unlike traditional Intel CPUs, CPU cores in Apple silicon
           | chips can be run at a wide range of frequencies, as set by
           | macOS.
           | 
           | Is already setting off alarms - in what way is that different
           | from traditional Intel CPUs from the last 2 decades? A long
           | enough time ago there weren't enough (or any) cores to put in
           | clustered groups but beyond that frequency scaling boosting
           | by core/core group is just as common.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-11-09 23:02 UTC)