Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

notebookcheck.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

#131

Post by _ph_ »

papermachete wrote: post #106
_ph_ wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, concluding by the review on Ars Technica of the Asus laptop, "just work" isn't there yet, so I am curious for positive experiences.

Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

#132

Post by gsnedders »

kllrnohj wrote: post #23
briffle wrote: post #2

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.

> Does this new intel CPU have 'fixes' for all issues like spectre and meltdown It's worth noting that Spectre-V1 is likely to be with us for many many years. CPUs have so far only shown interest in addressing spectre when spectre is crossing process or ring boundaries. In-process spectre leaks (so variant 1, Bounds Check Bypass) are currently not really being considered a problem in the CPU's eyes. No privilege boun…

I mean what could the CPU do otherwise for Spectre v1? You clearly need a privilege boundary, which CPUs already have in multiple ways: how would a new boundary differ to those that already exist?

Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

#133

Post by Krasnol »

Krasnol wrote: post #93
vijaybritto wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Apple is already in the process of making their own chips. I'm thinking that they'll release an ARM chip for laptops. They are already blazing out on the mobile side.

Yeah and we already know, it won't be in any way better but it will cost you a 5digit number but it will look sooo nice.

@downvotes: you know I'm right and your anger just shows how guilty you feel because of it.

Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

#134

Post by vijaybritto »

Krasnol wrote: post #93
vijaybritto wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Apple is already in the process of making their own chips. I'm thinking that they'll release an ARM chip for laptops. They are already blazing out on the mobile side.

Yeah and we already know, it won't be in any way better but it will cost you a 5digit number but it will look sooo nice.

It's not wrong in any way. People buy their devices by choice. Their products their prices

Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

#135

Post by flatiron »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #69
flatiron wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware of any spectre POC that in JavaScript you can break out of that sandbox and do anything worth while?

Yeah, my understanding is that browsers added mitigations for this sort of stuff - so I'm curious about it too.

i believe that the browsers fuzz your timings now which is what spectre heavily relied on. i think people thinking JS+Spectre in the wild are misled especially since 99% of people run with mitigations enabled, why would someone try to exploit it on a browser

Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

#136

Post by kllrnohj »

gsnedders wrote: post #132
kllrnohj wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does this new intel CPU have 'fixes' for all issues like spectre and meltdown It's worth noting that Spectre-V1 is likely to be with us for many many years. CPUs have so far only shown interest in addressing spectre when spectre is crossing process or ring boundaries. In-process spectre leaks (so variant 1, Bounds Check Bypass) are currently not really being considered a problem in the CPU's eyes. No privilege boun…

I mean what could the CPU do otherwise for Spectre v1? You clearly need a privilege boundary, which CPUs already have in multiple ways: how would a new boundary differ to those that already exist?

Some people have asked for failed speculative execution to be truly side-effect free. Like a transaction buffer that speculative execution can manipulate without evicting or impacting L1/L2 until the speculation is committed.

I don't really think this is a great use of transistors, and is why CPUs will probably never do it, but theoretically possible maybe.

Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

#137

Post by nottorp »

SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #108
nottorp wrote: post #24

Hmm 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...

Oh that's helpful, thanks. Don't need to read the text.

It's also a bit insane how far they go with the marketing lies.

Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

#138

Post by jakogut »

_ph_ wrote: post #129
jakogut wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 goo…

The machine definitely looks tempting, but based on the mostly failed attempts by Ars Technica to run Linux on it, I had stopped looking at it. But perhaps the kernels they used were too old. Still, for that price, I would expect it to work without issues, as I really would buy it as a Linux machine. How is your experience, Ars had problems with the fans running too high and the battery not lasting as long as it shou…

I generally avoid Ubuntu, but I'm not looking for an out-of-the-box perfect experience, and I like new hardware.

The unfortunate reality is that hardware vendors, not OS vendors, provide software support for their hardware. Additionally, Linux is a minuscule portion of the desktop/laptop market, and hardware vendors can't justify dropping as much money on Linux as they do for Windows.

Still, plenty of hobbyists are happy to develop for, test, reverse engineer, and support good hardware, but using Linux on a new platform generally means being on the bleeding edge, which is one of the reasons I like Arch. It also means participating in mailing list discussions, diving into various software projects, and testing and submitting patches.

So far, the experience has been mixed, but positive. Like I said, I've experienced a few random lockups, mostly at first. The fans have been working as expected on Linux 5.6.4. Even now, I'm compiling Chromium (for VA-API support), which usually takes an hour or two even on a Threadripper 1950X, and they only spin up occasionally.

The battery life at the moment is generally either 2-3 hours (~35W-40W power usage), or 7-10 hours (~7W-10W), depending on hardware usage. This is close to what I've seen from reviewers using Windows, though not quite as good. I expect that to get better as Nvidia improves their dynamic power management, and software support for Linux gets better.

Regardless, if you want to play with new hardware, use a rolling release distro, or figure out how to compile newer versions of the packages that come with your distro.

Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

#139

Post by jakogut »

papermachete wrote: post #101
_ph_ wrote: post #82

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.

Unsolved, but with exciting new progress. I've gotten PRIME running on my new ROG Zephyrus G14, and all I have to do to run applications on the dGPU is use "prime-run". Dynamic power management also shuts down the GPU when it's not in use.

Re: 10-core i9-10900F desktop CPU lags behind 8-core Ryzen 9 4900HS mobile APU

#140

Post by SomeoneFromCA »

nottorp wrote: post #137
SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Oh that's helpful, thanks. Don't need to read the text. It's also a bit insane how far they go with the marketing lies.

Here is the graph you are looking for: blue = low CPU load yellow = medium red = maximal load

They measure the whole system consumption, so you need to subtract roughly 25-30 watts, to get raw CPU consumption.

Post reply on HN