Is there a 4900HS laptop around already that can be recommended for Linux usage?
No, Nvidia Optimus is still an unsolved problem in Linux. Vegas run fine tho.
10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU
101–110 of 148 posts
Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU
#102Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Nvidia Optimus is still an unsolved problem in Linux. Vegas run fine tho.
Well, there is the question, are there 4900HS laptops with Vega or just with their builtin graphics available?
That's what I meant, built-in Vega. Works fine OOTB on the latest kernel. I'm not aware of any dedicated Vega GPUs.
Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there is the question, are there 4900HS laptops with Vega or just with their builtin graphics available?
That's what I meant, built-in Vega. Works fine OOTB on the latest kernel. I'm not aware of any dedicated Vega GPUs.
Any laptop to be recommended for Linux usage?
Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU
#105The 65W is a bit misleading, according to https://www.techpowerup.com/265695/intel-core-i9-10900f-can-... and https://wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-10900f-10-core-desktop-cp... it is allowed to draw 170W in PL1 mode and up to 224W(!) in PL2 mode. Those numbers should feature prominently alongside the 65W figure. It does not look good for Intel at the moment.
Yes, Intel's "marketing TDP" is a complete sham. You get completely different digits once you get full engineering datasheets under NDAs. Intel's 5W "ultraportable" CPUs for examples go to 17W. 15W ones can boost well above 40W.
Interestingly, it was not like that previously. I'd say it slowly started with Haswells. Sandy and Ivy were often less power hungry than their TDP suggested.
Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I meant, built-in Vega. Works fine OOTB on the latest kernel. I'm not aware of any dedicated Vega GPUs.
Any laptop to be recommended for Linux usage?
Everything with an iGPU will just work. If you have a dGPU and don't setup render offloading, you won't use it (unless you connect to an external screen and reload with dGPU drivers to directly output). That being said, nouveau "works" as a replacement for nvidia shenanigans at a colossal performance compromise.
Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Despite the protestations of l33t Cyberhaxxing Z3r0 Cools everywhere, you only have to turn off hyper-threading if you are sharing a machine with someone you don't trust. 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…
> Despite the protestations of l33t Cyberhaxxing Z3r0 Cools everywhere, you only have to turn off hyper-threading if you are sharing a machine with someone you don't trust. If you're reading this reply, you probably automatically executed `hn.js`. Are you _sure_ you know what it does? Unless you're browsing the web with Javascript completely disabled, and you also don't have any applications that automatically update…
AFAIK hyperthreading issues are related to some narrow set of bugs (zombieload?), which are extremely difficult to exploit, at least not in a browser. Correct me if Iam wrong.
Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU
#108Hmm I need some schooling please: "The TDP for the latter part is 35 W while the i9-10900F is listed at 65 W, but being an Intel desktop processor that just reflects the TDP for the base clock, with much higher energy demands required for higher clocks (e.g. maximum PL1 has been recorded at 170 W)." So where do I find the actual maximum power consumption on recent desktop CPUs then? Do I set a limit in the BIOS? Do I…
Here is a link to a test of 101 different processors, with corresponding power consumption figures. Alas it is in Russian.
https://www.ixbt.com/platform/101-cpu-platform-test-2017.htm...
Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU
#109Is there a 4900HS laptop around already that can be recommended for Linux usage?
Reading this now on a ROG Zephyrus G14 ($1,449)[1] running Arch. I've had a few random lockups with Linux 5.6.4, though they seem to have become less frequent with amd-ucode and a bios update. Additionally, I haven't had any problems with 5.7rc1, though the proprietary Nvidia driver (440.82) doesn't compile with that kernel yet.
Otherwise, it's been running great. The screen looks great, the touchpad feels really good, and the performance is amazing. The biggest complaint I have at the moment is the lack of PgUp/Dn and Home/End keys.
[1] https://www.bestbuy.com/site/asus-rog-zephyrus-g14-14-gaming...
Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah TDP is calculated differently for Intel and AMD, usually to make Intel look better. It makes it harder to compare because hardware components are going to be different (e.g. different mobo, different memory, etc) but they should measure wattage out the wall.
Intel's is roughly "the thermal dissipation required to maintain base clock speeds indefinitely without thermal throttling". AMD's is roughly "the thermal dissipation required for all-core turbo indefinitely". In recent generations (since AMD's Zen architecture), AMD is much closer in testing to their published numbers than Intel is. It is important to note that this is a thermal specification, rather than a power co…
I really wish they'd publish the range. Last year I built an AMD EPYC 3201 (embedded) with a 30W TDP (replacing a Xeon E3-1220v3[1]). Because it sits idle or under very low load most of the time, and though my power is effectively free (under my office lease I pay a fixed share of building utilities based on my square footage), I don't want to unnecessarily waste energy, generate a ton of heat (130-year-old building, A/C is adjusted by window height), or go deaf from the fans. Also, I prefer short depth rack mount cases which means everything is stuffed in there tight.[2]
It idles at about ~20W and maxes ~45W (+/- 5W, I forget) as measured at the outlet, but if a more powerful CPU idled at 30W and only peaked to 100-150W at full load, I'd prefer that (especially for a future replacement for my VM host), as the 1% of time I need the performance it's definitely worth it. But it's hard to find reliable numbers, if any numbers at all other than the marketing TDP, so I just err on the safe side.
[1] The older E3s were amazing, at least in the pre-Meltdown, pre-Spectre era. I built 2 E3-1220v2 boxes and 2 E3-1220v3 boxes, and at full load (all cores at max, with or without heavy memory transfer) both drew under their published TDPs at the outlet.
[2] Supermicro's EPYC embedded motherboard is a poor fit for the officially paired short depth case, especially the power connector. The case was originally designed for their Atom, Xeon E3, and Xeon D boards. With their EPYC embedded board the power connector needs an adapter, and the adapter and wires have to be stuffed forcefully in an awkward and worrisome manner, much more awkward than is typical for a poorly designed configuration. I think I spent a day confirming that I wasn't doing something wrong, and than another day looking in vein for an alternative adapter that wasn't so large. But I really wanted the EPYC to replace the E3, and didn't want to wait any longer. And it seems I'd still be waiting if I had. For all its flaws Supermicro's solution still seems the most practical for stuffing an AMD Zen CPU into a short depth rackmount case, whether EPYC or Ryzen.