Agreed. With all the drama around Intel processors regarding Hyperthreading and other past Intel issues I really want to avoid using them in the future if I can. I'm hoping it can be achieved, and...
Agreed. With all the drama around Intel processors regarding Hyperthreading and other past Intel issues I really want to avoid using them in the future if I can.
I'm hoping it can be achieved, and at this point I'm realising that all the slowdowns that I could have experienced with AMD was probably due to not implementing all these "tricks" Intel have used, which has only now bit them in their arses.
I have read mixed opinions on whether AMD suffers from the issues that Intel has, and if not all, how many of them. And what is tye situation with other architectures? Am I better off if I get an...
I have read mixed opinions on whether AMD suffers from the issues that Intel has, and if not all, how many of them. And what is tye situation with other architectures? Am I better off if I get an AMD laptop next, or how safer would a PineBook would be (which I do consider buying)?
I think you are pretty safe with AMD. They were vulnerable to Spectre, but everything else was only found on Intel's designs. Everything saying that the same bugs might happen on AMD have all been...
I think you are pretty safe with AMD. They were vulnerable to Spectre, but everything else was only found on Intel's designs. Everything saying that the same bugs might happen on AMD have all been speculation. And now we all know the problems with speculation (ba dum tiss).
If you are looking for other architectures, the only current competitor for performance is ARM, though realistically the high performance chips are so locked down that they are useless as a replacement. RISC-V is a hopeful contender, but it is not up to the task yet.
Thanks a lot for the info! I am looking for battery life and portability. And I hear ARM is better at that. My current laptop has a 1.8Ghz i3 cpu and 4GB of RAM. Since when I slapped an SSD into...
Thanks a lot for the info!
I am looking for battery life and portability. And I hear ARM is better at that. My current laptop has a 1.8Ghz i3 cpu and 4GB of RAM. Since when I slapped an SSD into it it has been great. If ARM can deliver something similar and better portability, I'd be sold on it. I hear comparing the Ghz figures is not really informative cross-architecturally, tho, so I am not sure what to expect when I read the specs of ARM machines.
Clock speeds don't really mean much of anything anymore. It only means something when compared within the same microarchetechture, and even then only after considering single cores. There are more...
Clock speeds don't really mean much of anything anymore. It only means something when compared within the same microarchetechture, and even then only after considering single cores. There are more helpful benchmarks like MIPS and FLOPS, which measure integer and floating point performance respectively. But synthetic tests don't give you accurate readings of real-world applications.
Like I said before, the major problem with ARM is that the high-performance chips are all locked down with proprietary bits. While ARM provides developers with documentation on how to use their hardware, actual hardware is produced by licensees who combine the ARM core with peripherals - graphics accelerators, touch display inputs, WiFi, and the like, and those are basically black boxes. That means you can't just stick your choice of OS on it and expect it to work.
If you are running on Windows, Microsoft does support a version of Windows that runs on ARM. It even has an emulator that will allow you to run your x86 programs as if they were native. That being said, those programs will run extremely slowly, and there aren't that many software developers who create ARM windows binaries. Don't quote me on this, but I think Microsoft limits ARM software to those published on their Windows Store.
To put a long story short, you would do much better to simply switch to AMD processors and keep running all the software you are running now.
That's fine with me then, I don't use anything closed source (which is, it's great to be alive now, when I think about it: you can (almost) easily live on FOSS software!).
That's fine with me then, I don't use anything closed source (which is, it's great to be alive now, when I think about it: you can (almost) easily live on FOSS software!).
Additionally, I'm sure AMD/Intel are patching up as much as they can in hardware with these new chips. It's not so much AMD vs. Intel (although AMD is definitely the safe bet here), but rather new...
Additionally, I'm sure AMD/Intel are patching up as much as they can in hardware with these new chips. It's not so much AMD vs. Intel (although AMD is definitely the safe bet here), but rather new vs. old.
Consider Intel's premature response, the i9 9900KS, seems to be "clock more, clock higher!", I'm not confident we will see Intel pulling even before next year's mid generation refresh by AMD. 10nm...
Consider Intel's premature response, the i9 9900KS, seems to be "clock more, clock higher!", I'm not confident we will see Intel pulling even before next year's mid generation refresh by AMD.
10nm is severely struggling (but 14nm++++++ seems to be working great), their core counts seem to be stuck and CPU vulnerability after vulnerability knocks down their performance. At least they seem to have some plans to also "glue together some desktop cores", though I think it'll take a while for that.
I'm confused, I thought the i7 line's whole shtick was that it's as many cores as an i5 but with hyper threading, too. Honestly don't know how they're still releasing any processors without it...
During their Computex demo, AMD benchmarked the 8 core, 16 thread Ryzen 7 3700X against the Intel Core i7-9700K, an 8 core and 8 thread processor.
I'm confused, I thought the i7 line's whole shtick was that it's as many cores as an i5 but with hyper threading, too. Honestly don't know how they're still releasing any processors without it when their competition is offering it on every single CPU but.
More competition is always good, a 12 core 24 thread for only 500 dollars is great.
Agreed. With all the drama around Intel processors regarding Hyperthreading and other past Intel issues I really want to avoid using them in the future if I can.
I'm hoping it can be achieved, and at this point I'm realising that all the slowdowns that I could have experienced with AMD was probably due to not implementing all these "tricks" Intel have used, which has only now bit them in their arses.
I have read mixed opinions on whether AMD suffers from the issues that Intel has, and if not all, how many of them. And what is tye situation with other architectures? Am I better off if I get an AMD laptop next, or how safer would a PineBook would be (which I do consider buying)?
I think you are pretty safe with AMD. They were vulnerable to Spectre, but everything else was only found on Intel's designs. Everything saying that the same bugs might happen on AMD have all been speculation. And now we all know the problems with speculation (ba dum tiss).
If you are looking for other architectures, the only current competitor for performance is ARM, though realistically the high performance chips are so locked down that they are useless as a replacement. RISC-V is a hopeful contender, but it is not up to the task yet.
Thanks a lot for the info!
I am looking for battery life and portability. And I hear ARM is better at that. My current laptop has a 1.8Ghz i3 cpu and 4GB of RAM. Since when I slapped an SSD into it it has been great. If ARM can deliver something similar and better portability, I'd be sold on it. I hear comparing the Ghz figures is not really informative cross-architecturally, tho, so I am not sure what to expect when I read the specs of ARM machines.
Clock speeds don't really mean much of anything anymore. It only means something when compared within the same microarchetechture, and even then only after considering single cores. There are more helpful benchmarks like MIPS and FLOPS, which measure integer and floating point performance respectively. But synthetic tests don't give you accurate readings of real-world applications.
Like I said before, the major problem with ARM is that the high-performance chips are all locked down with proprietary bits. While ARM provides developers with documentation on how to use their hardware, actual hardware is produced by licensees who combine the ARM core with peripherals - graphics accelerators, touch display inputs, WiFi, and the like, and those are basically black boxes. That means you can't just stick your choice of OS on it and expect it to work.
If you are running on Windows, Microsoft does support a version of Windows that runs on ARM. It even has an emulator that will allow you to run your x86 programs as if they were native. That being said, those programs will run extremely slowly, and there aren't that many software developers who create ARM windows binaries. Don't quote me on this, but I think Microsoft limits ARM software to those published on their Windows Store.
To put a long story short, you would do much better to simply switch to AMD processors and keep running all the software you are running now.
Thanks a lot for the info!
That's fine with me then, I don't use anything closed source (which is, it's great to be alive now, when I think about it: you can (almost) easily live on FOSS software!).
Additionally, I'm sure AMD/Intel are patching up as much as they can in hardware with these new chips. It's not so much AMD vs. Intel (although AMD is definitely the safe bet here), but rather new vs. old.
especially a 12 core 24 thread that matches the 9900k’s single-core performance (if amd’s numbers are to be trusted)
Consider Intel's premature response, the i9 9900KS, seems to be "clock more, clock higher!", I'm not confident we will see Intel pulling even before next year's mid generation refresh by AMD.
10nm is severely struggling (but 14nm++++++ seems to be working great), their core counts seem to be stuck and CPU vulnerability after vulnerability knocks down their performance. At least they seem to have some plans to also "glue together some desktop cores", though I think it'll take a while for that.
I'm confused, I thought the i7 line's whole shtick was that it's as many cores as an i5 but with hyper threading, too. Honestly don't know how they're still releasing any processors without it when their competition is offering it on every single CPU but.
No, the hyperthreading is on the i9 CPUs now. The i7 are i5 but the number is larger.