Live data from Hacker News

Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

youtube.com

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#61
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last line of your comment is wholly unecessary (and explicitly not allowed on HN)

so we can't call someone out who apparently didn't even watch the linked content, while still posting a comment that criticizes the content? I'm curious about where in the rules it says we shouldn't call someone out on their BS.

From the guidelines

"Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#62
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last line of your comment is wholly unecessary (and explicitly not allowed on HN)

so we can't call someone out who apparently didn't even watch the linked content, while still posting a comment that criticizes the content? I'm curious about where in the rules it says we shouldn't call someone out on their BS.

[deleted]

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#63
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is less typing, and less data. save the planet.

'Δ' must be a sign of Greenpeace membership, then.

Only if you've memorized how to type it. If you have to Google it beforehand, it serves as cheap signaling at best and an environmental transgression at worst.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#64
post #7

I worked in HPC when NVIDIA started taking serious market share from Intel. My memory of Intel’s performance comparisons were that they were often technically unsupportable once you scratched the surface. In one case a third party who were demonstrating how much faster Intel Xeon Phi was for deep learning admitted that they were comparing highly-optimised code to unoptimised code in their results. This doesn’t surpri…

I've been in the same boat and I completely agree. One thing that's unexpected to people is that getting decent performance out of a GPU is actually easier than CPUs - vectorization and multithreading is unified in the parallel programming model, cache optimizations are mostly not needed. These are the two biggest time sinks you have when optimizing for CPU, solved right there. What you instead have to care about is…

Depends on how many if-statements / branches your code takes.

If you have simple if-statements and all branches are grouped together to be SIMD'd easily... then yeah. GPU threads kind of are like normal CPU threads.

But as soon as you have a serious degree of thread-divergence, your performance tanks. That's why things like Chess engines (which ARE parallel problems at heart), execute poorly on GPUs. Because even though it is massively parallel, chess has too many if-statements and can't extend to SIMD very easily.

--------

Raytracing algorithms are funny: they group rays together so that the GPU can SIMD over them more easily. But without the "re-grouping" step, its bad performance.

Ex: A bunch of rays start at the camera. Some might hit a diffuse surface like wood... some might hit a subsurface-scattering surface like skin, and others might hit a metalic surface. GPU-raytracing algorithms then save off all the rays, and then processes all "diffuse" rays together, to minimize divergence.

You can't just follow a singular ray in raytracing on a GPU. You gotta re-group to SIMD units for maximum performance.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#65
post #25

intel is failing benchmarks, security vulns all around. Nvidia is failing to deliver price/perf they promised years ago. amd is the opposite of both and it's stock continues to dive. go figure.

> amd is the opposite of both and it's stock continues to dive. go figure. AMDs share price is up almost 1400% in 2 years, what on earth are you on about?

exactly. it jumped from bankruptcy level ($1.5) to bottom of peers ($20) in august! since then it had a peak in sept and is on freefall again, while it should have been rising faster.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#66
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been in the same boat and I completely agree. One thing that's unexpected to people is that getting decent performance out of a GPU is actually easier than CPUs - vectorization and multithreading is unified in the parallel programming model, cache optimizations are mostly not needed. These are the two biggest time sinks you have when optimizing for CPU, solved right there. What you instead have to care about is…

Are there any good guides or tutorials? I've found GPUs difficult, in part because I don't really know where to start. FWIW, I have an AMD GPU with ROCm. HIP it's a lot like CUDA, so NVidea-focused tutorials ought to be fine. With the caveat that I'd have to be aware of hardware differences.

The main issue IMO is thread-divergence. Because "threads" on a GPU are really SIMD-elements, things work very differently.

Lets use a simple example:

    for(int i=0; i
In a CPU case, the thread will break out of the loop early on "someCondition". But in the GPU case, it will only break out of the loop when "someCondition" holds for the entire SIMD-group.

GPUs execute roughly 32-threads with the same instruction pointer. Lets say thread#0 had "someCondition" to be true. Then thread#0 will be set to "disabled", but otherwise, it will have to wait for the 31-other threads to be done with the loop before continuing.

Even if 31-threads have hit "someCondition" and have broken out of the loop, the 32nd thread will keep executing the loop until it is done (and threads 0-through-30 will "execute with" the 32nd thread, but will throw away the results).

That's the key with SIMD. Threads are run in groups of ~32ish at a time, at the same time. All 32-threads must execute if statements together and loops together.

In most cases, an if/else statement will be executed by BOTH threads (but the results "thrown out" by the GPU engine, through execution masks)

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#67
post #12
post #2

In text form: https://www.techspot.com/article/1722-misleading-core-i9-990...

This article says that Techspot has obtained the 9900 (without being bound by an NDA, as others are), and that Intel is releasing misleading results while other reviewers are bound by an NDA, but that Techspot is not going to show their own benchmarks--which could refute the misleading results Intel has authorized for public release--out of a sense of "professionalism." Actually , any "professional" journalism outfit…

But they give results for the fairly similar last generation processor, with similar behaviour. "Pissing off industry contacts" isn't needed.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so we can't call someone out who apparently didn't even watch the linked content, while still posting a comment that criticizes the content? I'm curious about where in the rules it says we shouldn't call someone out on their BS.

From the guidelines "Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

I don't want to split hairs here, but the linked content is not an article. I understand the spirit of it, but it technically does not apply here.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#69
post #58
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that the "Game mode" makes the AMD CPU's perform worse in game benchmarks...

The reviewers used Game Mode on a CPU without NUMA, so it was pointless and only meant to damage.

It can still help, if used in precisely the right circumstance. Not that this makes your statement any less true, I'm just being needlessly pedantic.

One amusing thing I've noticed is that, playing the same game (Minecraft), Windows runs it ~25% faster in game mode than default NUMA.

In Linux the situation is reversed; it runs 10% faster with NUMA enabled, maybe because the Java garbage collector is NUMA-aware and I'm using enough memory that it's split across NUMA nodes anyway.

But either mode is faster in Linux than Windows.

Re: Intel's New Low: Commissioning Misleading Core I9-9900K Benchmarks [video]

#70
post #56
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of a review embargo is to prevent things from collapsing into a race to be first with the scoop, by encouraging/forcing everyone to take a reasonable amount of time to prepare their review. Cooperating with review embargoes is usually the best way to promote honest and fair coverage, which is what most professional tech journalists really want. NDAs that try to restrict the content of a review and not just…

That isn't always the point of a review embargo. Take a game with heavy marketing that the corp realizes is going to get bad reviews. Sometimes they will delay reviews of things like that as long as possible, until day before or day of release.

The computer hardware market is pretty different from the video game market. Video games tend to be much more reliant on pre-orders and the first few weeks of sales, while computer hardware is subject to seasonal fluctuations but otherwise maintains strong ongoing sales throughout the product cycle. Games are also much less amenable to objective comparative analysis.

In the computer hardware world, a review embargo that coincides with the product hitting the shelves does not carry any negative connotations about expectations for the product's reception.

Post reply on HN