51–60 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ECC does not protect against Rowhammer attacks.
It seems you are correct, but surely it must make a practical attack much harder?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure they mean single-threaded, but I've seen different numbers floating around. Here I see between 11-29% depending on the model: https://videocardz.com/72112/intel-claims-i7-8700k-to-be-11-...
Okay. Well, you should wait for benchmarks. If like in the anandtech article mentioned the clock rate gets decreased, and that would be very normal when adding more cores, then a single thread performance increase is very unlikely. In the last launch Intel did not get close to those numbers, and that was without a core increase. Also, there seems to be some confusion whether those processors now are a kaby lake refre…
Isn't it better to have more powerful single thread performance for developing in single threaded languages? Looks like a step backwards than? Double the core count and more l3 cache sounds good, even though they crippled the base clock speed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay. Well, you should wait for benchmarks. If like in the anandtech article mentioned the clock rate gets decreased, and that would be very normal when adding more cores, then a single thread performance increase is very unlikely. In the last launch Intel did not get close to those numbers, and that was without a core increase. Also, there seems to be some confusion whether those processors now are a kaby lake refre…
The table in the article shows a ~5% increase in boost clocks for the high end models. Those are what matters for single-core performance, not the base clocks.
The Turbo/base ratio is getting interesting. The previous generation saw a 1.6x Turbo max but this generation now sees 2.2x -- a clear testimony how the four cores, alas, are for show. Obviously there will be a little improvement but I wouldn't expect earth shattering results.
Very strange scaling this chip has.
Oooh moving to a baseline of 4 cores; this means we'll see quad core Lenovo X1 Carbons / Ultrabooks soon. :) I for one am excited.
Yep, Intel's problem is that most folks don't need a new CPU, especially for a computer that's always plugged in.
I'm refurbishing a 6-year-old system with a Pentium E5800 for a friend, and initially it felt dog slow. However, once I swapped the mechanical hard drive with a solid state disk, it instantly feat like a zippy little machine. It already had enough processing power for everything they wanted (browsing, office, youtube, etc.)
Isn't it better to have more powerful single thread performance for developing in single threaded languages? Looks like a step backwards than? Double the core count and more l3 cache sounds good, even though they crippled the base clock speed.
In practice, the clock is set to limit power usage and thermal load. A better-cooled system will automatically run faster (not really applicable to laptops), and if you're only using a single thread then you'll see the same clock rate you did before, or a bit above.
Isn't it better to have more powerful single thread performance for developing in single threaded languages? Looks like a step backwards than? Double the core count and more l3 cache sounds good, even though they crippled the base clock speed.
They lowered the base clock speed, yes. That's the minimum clock you can count on, assuming a correctly designed laptop, even if all four cores are going flat out. In practice, the clock is set to limit power usage and thermal load. A better-cooled system will automatically run faster (not really applicable to laptops), and if you're only using a single thread then you'll see the same clock rate you did before, or a…