211–220 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are behind. I think they have a chance to catch up with their 7nm which is supposed to be better than TSMC 7nm. But it won’t be soon.
But what does that really mean? They still seem to be producing the fastest processors available for desktop and server. It doesnt matter if someone else is making even a 3nm chip if the chip still can't outperform the current offerings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very good point. I hope AMD brings it up with the EU. Might be a very slow process though, but at this point it is anticompetitive behaviour. AMD could probably squeeze a fair bit more performance out of their processors if they were allowed to cut some security corners.
Who do you think is disallowing AMD from cutting security corners? (Not rhetorical)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just Anandtech. I feel like the entire "PC enthusiast" review space has dropped the ball on hardware vulnerabilities. Reevaluating performance between microcode and OS patches is an afterthought, and when a new CPU hits the market the numbers are presented without the obvious disclaimer that these performance gains may evaporate within months. Some even perpetuate the "only relevant to datacenter" myth despi…
I'm glad the PC enthusiast space hasn't succumbed to the wild hysteria caused elsewhere by the side channel issues. It's tiresome to see every new variation people come up with reported as a new apocalypse all over again. Half the reason I still pay attention is to find if there's a new Linux boot switch I need to turn on to disable some new performance regression. Even though I'm personally in the fortunate position…
I fully support a users right to bypass these mitigations, and you're correct that your typical desktop user, at least today, isn't a target. But it seems odd that websites dedicated to performance computing have a blindspot to how automatically installed updates will impact performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which begs the question, when will we see benchmarks of Intel's CPUs with all vulnerability mitigations on vs. AMDs CPUs?
As soon as the definition of "with all vulnerability mitigations on" stays stable long enough to put together a good review. Benchmarking a moving target is hell, and we don't have enough equipment or staff to do the around-the-clock regression testing that would be necessary to keep our benchmark database current with everything that's happened over the past 1.5 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad the PC enthusiast space hasn't succumbed to the wild hysteria caused elsewhere by the side channel issues. It's tiresome to see every new variation people come up with reported as a new apocalypse all over again. Half the reason I still pay attention is to find if there's a new Linux boot switch I need to turn on to disable some new performance regression. Even though I'm personally in the fortunate position…
I don't see how the act of taking and publishing measurements after microcode and OS updates constitutes hysteria. It's my understanding, at least on Windows, you pretty much have to opt-out of these patches or manually install an update that disables the mitigations. I fully support a users right to bypass these mitigations, and you're correct that your typical desktop user, at least today, isn't a target. But it se…
It's quite easy to sensationalize benchmark results even unintentionally. The average reader of PC hardware review sites is totally willing to latch on to a microbenchmark result that shows a 20% performance drop and claim that it's disastrous for performance, even if the actual added delay to real-world operations is a fraction of a millisecond and thus will almost never cause the result of your user input to be delayed by even a single frame. There's a certain degree of irresponsibility in publishing results that you know will be taken out of context by almost everyone who reads them. I've discontinued benchmarks in the past because it was frustrating seeing readers pretend like they show a meaningful difference between products when the reader's workload never comes close to the workload represented by that benchmark.
Intel has fallen so far. It's honestly a shame to watch at this point. I remember back when Sandy Bridge was first released, and I was extremely pleased by the performance improvements my new chip was able to provide. Did they really manage to mess everything up within such a limited timespan? Or was there just always a hidden incompetence that never showed itself until now?
Their design for 10nm and the implementation didn't line up. Whatever their (still undisclosed) problems were, the entire node was fundamentally flawed. It might have been hubris at having been at the cutting edge of fab tech for so long. It could have just been the fruits of pushing the envelope - sometimes what you predict will happen when you put theory to application proves false. It has warped their business hea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does stability mean, a bit more exactly? Just curious
The switching speed of silicon has also some upper limit. When you drive silicon faster, it starts to make mistakes. i.e. not all electrons go the where you want them to go. This causes soft-faults and CPU re-executes the part at best, or gives you a BSOD, oops or panic at worst. This upper limit depends on process, layout, power design and power limits of the CPU. Last but, not the least, not all CPUs are created eq…
I used to be Pro Anandtech and consider them one of the best Sources online for Hardware News. But the fact they have yet write a single post, big or small about Intel's Zombieload and its implication on performance worries me a bit. Then there is the "Intel" benchmarks as usual [1] on GPU. Trying to suggest the 2 CPU were both running at 25W TDP to give a "fair" comparison, without mentioning the Ice-Lake U CPU were…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which begs the question, when will we see benchmarks of Intel's CPUs with all vulnerability mitigations on vs. AMDs CPUs?
As soon as the definition of "with all vulnerability mitigations on" stays stable long enough to put together a good review. Benchmarking a moving target is hell, and we don't have enough equipment or staff to do the around-the-clock regression testing that would be necessary to keep our benchmark database current with everything that's happened over the past 1.5 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
show me what amd chip performs better instead of just downvoting.
performance benchmarks go out the window once you realize that a platform is woefully and unfixably insecure. performance benchmarks mean even less when those security issues are band-aided by performance metric-hurting-workarounds.