111–120 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is probably going to switch to their own chips before they switch to AMD.
So from a recent standing start Apple are going to beat Intel and AMD - I could see Apple using their own cpu's for tablets and phones but for work stations I don't think so.
Never bought an Intel CPU after learning about their illegal anti-competetive deals with OEMs. It's been probably 15 years with AMD CPUs. Happy to see AMD on top once again.
I always considered Intel for my builds but AMD always came out as best bang for buck in my price range in the end and I had no way of justifying use of Intel CPU.
This is comparing an unreleased CPU to a two year old one. But more importantly, it gives no information on how the Intel CPU was configured and we have no idea what kind of memory it was paired with. It's just comparing two random user submissions. Here's another i9-9980XE where Intel scored 7700 in single core. https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12111208
> This is comparing an unreleased CPU It comes out in 10 days, does it really matter? > to a two year old one. The 9980XE launched Q4 2018, did you mean 2 quarter old? This also seems to imply Intel has something else better is due for release in the next year, there is nothing on the roadmap. > It's just comparing two random user submissions. Here's another i9-9980XE where Intel scored 7700 in single core. Because t…
A more comparable part would be the i9-9980HK.
This was expected because the 3900X is optimized for fewer faster cores (12 at 3.8GHz) while the 9980XE is optimized for more slower cores (18 at 3.0GHz.) A better and far more impressive comparison would be the 3950X vs 9980XE which have comparable number of cores (16 vs 18). And in that instance AMD still beats Intel in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads! And by wide margins! And with AMD being 62% c…
This is comparing an unreleased CPU to a two year old one. But more importantly, it gives no information on how the Intel CPU was configured and we have no idea what kind of memory it was paired with. It's just comparing two random user submissions. Here's another i9-9980XE where Intel scored 7700 in single core. https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12111208
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple is probably going to switch to their own chips before they switch to AMD.
So from a recent standing start Apple are going to beat Intel and AMD - I could see Apple using their own cpu's for tablets and phones but for work stations I don't think so.
They’ve been calling them “desktop class performance” for a long time now, and they’ve included an Apple processor in their laptops in recent years for driving the touchbar and TouchID.
The A12X Bionic gets roughly the same Geekbench score as an Intel i5 8400 in both single and multi core benchmarks, and with an Nvidia Gt 1030 equivalent GPU performance and lower power use.
The idea of them switching entirely isn’t infeasible, it seems to me that they’re pushing hard to be able to have it as an option soon - a few years.
I just assembled a new computer: amd 2200g ($90) + MSI B450M MORTAR ($90) + Intel 512GB SSD M.2 ($68) + 4 x 16G 2666 memory (4 x $72). I installed the debian testing system. After the installation, X hung at starting up. But after installing amdgpu driver by following this tutorial: https://wiki.debian.org/How%20to%20install%20official%20AMDG... , it works like a charming now.
Out of curiosity, has anybody had anything in the AMD Ryzen instruction set missing that required you to purchase an Intel 9xxx instead? Any significant differences in regards to scientific applications or machine learning?
I use the TSC for high precision timing, and turning TSC ticks into nanoseconds requires interpreting model specific registers, so my timing code would need AMD specific patches to work properly on those processors. Not necessarily a deal-breaker, but it would definitely be an annoyance for me if I did decide to switch. Probably not super relevant to scientific computing or ML though.