Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'll respectfully disagree. Running my Pi 4 with no fan/heatsink reduces performance to an absolute crawl. It's on par with the desktop on the original Pi released in 2012, i.e. nigh unusable for anything beyond saying "yep, it boots to desktop". Thermal throttling effectively neuters the device.

I have it in an open-air acrylic "sandwich" style case now, with the same Pi-Fan as the author, and it feels performant enough to use as a daily driver for web browsing and other light duties (basically on par with any Chromebook I've come across the past few years). It's still not "desktop replacement" level due to the SD card performance hit, but it's finally good enough for its intended use case in education without being frustrating. Once boot-from-USB3 arrives it will likely be fast enough to use as a second Linux workstation in a serious capacity.



He said "no fan", why do you include "no heatsink" into that? Those are very different things to operate without.


The parent was claiming the Pi was designed with thermal throttling in mind so that no cooling solution was needed. I disagree based on my experience (I’ve owned at least one of every model B Pi since launch as well as three revisions of the Zero).


The assumption implied here is that the Raspberry Pi should deliver continuous peak performance equal to its burst performance.

If the RPi4 specs indicated a peak performance of 10% of burst performance, adding a fan would be a material alteration of the published thermal envelope of the purchased RPi4.

Was this performance characteristic clearly indicated at time of sale?

If so, then the article title, and the assumption above, is wrong: RPi4 does not need a fan, as long as it adheres to the published burst and continuous specs. Clearly there’s room in the thermal envelope for improved continuous performance with a fan, but that in no way is a “need” if they are transparent about this spec.

If not, then they are in good company with Apple and other compact hardware manufacturers in failing to publish their thermal envelope burst/continuous details in clear specifics. If they comply enough to say “min speed / burst speed” then they comply with what modern users generally expect in marketing documentation.

Does the RPi community wish further detail to be included at time of sale regarding thermal envelope behavior and timings at room temperature using the passive cooling case provided? If so, that’s a fair request to make of RPi and one they can easily comply with.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: