41–50 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is worth noting that this is the i9-10900F, not the i9-10900k (thank you, Intel, for the lovely naming scheme). I'd expect the -k variant to be at least as fast as the i9-9900k.
Also, 9900 was much easier to say... how do you pronounce 10900? "Ten-thousand-nine-hundred"? Feels tortured. "Ten-nine-hundred"? Yeesh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the turbo clock the i9-10900F is 5GHz vs. 4.3Ghz for Ryzen 9 4900HS. At the base clock the i9-10900F is 2.8GHz vs. 3GHz for the Ryzen 9 4900HS. Basically implies that Ryzen has better performance per watt, which doesn't affect absolute performance until you exhaust the power budget and have to lower the clock speed, i.e. use all the cores instead of just one. edit: 4900HS, not 4900H
Small nit but the comparison here is against the 4900HS 4900H: 4.4ghz boost, 3.3ghz base 4900HS: 4.3ghz boost, 3.0ghz base With the non-S variant being the more power hungry one with an up to 54W TDP vs. the S's 35W TDP.
I'm really hoping apple puts these AMD mobile chips in their next MacBook Pro. At the moment I'm not seeing much reason to upgrade from my 2015 model, but if I could have 8 cores, that would a different matter...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also doesn't pass the smell test in that the single core performance is higher than the Ryzen 4900 and it also has both more cores and more threads yet it is far behind on multicore performance? Likely some thread affinity issue that just needs a patch.
Multithreaded applications tend to share a lot of data between threads, and we already know Intel's mesh fabric core interconnect[1] seems to be inferior to AMD's chiplet+io die in terms of performance and access latency uniformity. [1] used in all 10core+ Intel CPUs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So for that it's "Easier" because you check the VRM spec for the socket for server. That's the maximum draw the manufacturer expects any CPU for that socket to ever pull. Then generally most of the higher end parts will vary clock speed vs cores etc to stay on that line. This works because server motherboard manufacturers only ever build to that spec and not one iota beyond it for cost reasons. But yeah... average ex…
Yeah, but the mobo manufacturer has to plan on you putting in the thirstiest chips on there, when you might be putting lower end chips on because your workload is mostly memory or PCI channel constrained and you are looking to max out the density in the rack. Of course you also have to consider the cooling capacity of your chassis. 170W in a 1U form factor needs a hell of a lot of airflow to avoid thermal throttling,…
In regards to the new 3DS XL, Â a little "un-cheating" because of a few bugs and an awning bugs, but a lot of them are not a problem. The biggest is that if you place the volume on the front of the motherboard, you're gonna have no problems.
The only real issue is getting any of the parts on your board to work more in a PCI-accurate manner.
Does this new intel CPU have 'fixes' for all issues like spectre and meltdown, where you were supposed to turn off hyperthreading for better security? I'm just curious if the fixes for those (and other similar vulnerabilities) are starting to make their way into silicon, but also that the fixes recommended usually slow cpu's down quite a bit too.
If someone is on your machine and you don't know it, they don't have to use side-channel attacks.
They'll can just use any of the thousands of other ways of privilege escalation to read the super-secret information you have stored in RAM, or find it when it is written to disk.
The OpenBSD folks disabled SMT by default because of TLBleed.
A non-datacenter/cloud user disabling SMT to avoid TLBleed is like a normal person carrying a fireman's rescue saw around with them 24 hours a day in case they get into a situation they have to saw themselves out of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If apple ever switches CPU supplier for their macbooks, it'll probably be for their own.
I guess they could buy AMD. Not that it would make any sense. :-)
https://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, 9900 was much easier to say... how do you pronounce 10900? "Ten-thousand-nine-hundred"? Feels tortured. "Ten-nine-hundred"? Yeesh.
Does Intel ever even use those last two zeroes, or could we start leaving them off and calling this part the "one oh nine"?
Compare 10th gen i9 to i7:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/...
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/...
The crazy thing is the cost.. about $1000 for a base unit. Will be doing some comparisons to my other desktop threadrippers just to see where it stacks up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the key thing you've missed is the i9-10900F is a 65W part, while the i9-9900K is 95W. Given both are on basically the same manufacturing process with basically the same architecture, it's really not surprising the i9-10900F isn't keeping up with the i9-9900K in max load scenarios. Having 50% more power easily makes up for 20% fewer cores. Which is then also why the 4900HS is able to be so competitive with it…
you're right, I confused "F" with "KF". > And although TDP is a made up number that has very little meaning, it is roughly what the CPU will settle into when the boost duration has exceeded. So eventually under a constant multithreaded workload the 9900K and 10900F should settle in to their 95W and 65W limits respectively. this part isn't quite true. TDP for intel parts is more like max thermal dissipation at base cl…
They will, but that's technically no longer stock. Prebuilt systems from mainstream OEMs are unlikely to be configured like that, especially when we're not talking about the enthusiast line of motherboards.
If the motherboard is following Intel's actually spec for these (which does exist), then it will settle in to the TDP limit after PL2's duration is exceeded, which is supposed to be 8 seconds for Intel's 95W spec.
It is likely that the unnamed HP system with the i9-10900F is at least following Intel's recommended settings here. The 9900K system might very well not be, though, which would then make the power budget gap that much wider.