121–130 of 214 posts
From a quick read, in case anyone is wondering, this is built on the latest-gen 10nm process which is a refinement on the previous 10nm process. Intel's goal was to focus on clock increases, so the instruction per clock is apparently not much changed. From looking at the tables, the whole line of processors appear to have nicely improved one core max clock speeds, which should hopefully help single core performance,…
What happens to Intel's independent GPU project? With the new nVidia 30xx series it seems that Intel GPU will have a hard time finding its niches.
Not too interesting for those interested in high performance desktop and server offerings. The fact that Intel's only new releases on 10nm are AMD did a really smart thing with their processor designs. Instead of doing a large monolithic multiprocessor like Intel (which may be able to eek out some extra performance due to optimized wire placements), they use smaller chiplets. This results in requiring no manufacturin…
As far as chiplets: multichip packages are an ancient idea, and the industry goes back and forth on them. Both Intel and AMD shippsed multi-chip solutions way back in the day, the current age of integration is actually the anomaly. You win on yield but lose on package costs, and the decision as to which to use depends on the specifics of the market you're trying to target.
Certainly AMD would prefer to ship single-chip solutions and pocket the savings, but they can't. Likewise Intel accepts some loss of scaling because of the need to share die designs across the product line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anecdote: a family member and software dev just bought the latest macbook pro coming from about an 8 year old macbook pro. Apparently he doesn't perceive much real world performance difference between the 2 machines. He said single core synthetic benchmarks were higher, but not by much. It really depends on the workload. My old MacBook Pro feels the same as the newer model 98% of the time that I'm using it, but I r…
Also anecdotally, I'd say the only things that would make a clearly noticeable performance difference to a layperson or casual computer user from the last few years would be: 1. If they previously had less than 4GB of memory and were often swapping 2. If they previously had a spinning HDD and moved to an SSD 3. If they previously had a really low end CPU like something outside the Core range, and moved to an i5 or be…
These days, it's more like if they previously had less than 12 GB of memory and were often swapping. Having a few dozen tabs open isn't that uncommon and interactive websites (Twitter, Gmail, Google Docs) can use an enormous amount of RAM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1080p outright looks blurry after using 4k, so its pretty hard to even contemplate going back
The whole point of bitmap fonts is that they're designed to be used without anti-aliasing. There's no blur. Examples: https://github.com/Tecate/bitmap-fonts If you're on 4K you can simulate how they look on 1080p with 2x integer nearest neighbor scaling.
The by current standards normal sharpness is nice too (1080 screens aren't really blurry, they're pixely).
Not too interesting for those interested in high performance desktop and server offerings. The fact that Intel's only new releases on 10nm are AMD did a really smart thing with their processor designs. Instead of doing a large monolithic multiprocessor like Intel (which may be able to eek out some extra performance due to optimized wire placements), they use smaller chiplets. This results in requiring no manufacturin…
> The fact that Intel's only new releases on 10nm are That logic seems backwards. If you have poor yields you tend to favor higher-margin products (i.e. datacenter CPUs). This is a laptop CPU intended to sell at significantly lower $/mm2. As far as chiplets: multichip packages are an ancient idea, and the industry goes back and forth on them. Both Intel and AMD shippsed multi-chip solutions way back in the day, the c…
I say this having no idea what Intel's defect rate is right now, and I acknowledge fusing of bad sections can mitigate this a bit.
Weird to see this "partial" announcement - since it's mostly for the U-series chips (up to 28W TDP). This suggests that Intel must really be getting pressure to release something competitive against AMD's Renoir offerings. The more performance-orient chips (traditionally known as "H series" but who know the new branding...) is still unannounced and unknown. Will have for 3rd party benchmarks to determine the real per…
Yeah. But I think 4 cores at 50% higher base single thread vs 8 cores is actually a pretty reasonable tradeoff for many workloads. If they managed 6 cores though... would have been pretty awesome. I hope this delivers. I'd hate to see Intel go down in flames.
From a quick read, in case anyone is wondering, this is built on the latest-gen 10nm process which is a refinement on the previous 10nm process. Intel's goal was to focus on clock increases, so the instruction per clock is apparently not much changed. From looking at the tables, the whole line of processors appear to have nicely improved one core max clock speeds, which should hopefully help single core performance,…
Honestly, I think this speaks to the quality of Apple's hardware and engineering (8 years ago), combined with the lack of serious improvement from Intel lately.
That said, one thing I've noticed when doing IT and desktop support is that, unless someone's hardware is woefully inadequate, they won't notice a huge change going from slower to faster, but they will notice faster to slower after they've been using it for a week or two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this one hard to swallow. On 60Hz software is already the bottleneck even on high end hardware. If anything, it’ll drive a perfectionist mad because crappy software that the high end hardware allowed to operate just over that threshold (say 64Hz) would suddenly be exposed. I think jitter is more important than FPS and until software has caught up (likely never) I would rather cap the frame rate at 60 FPS and e…
120Hz is incredible for gaming. Unity and Unreal Engine dynamically scale tessellation and many other things to accommodate hardware performance, so as to maintain FPS on high-refresh screens. The polygon counts, texture detail, AI complexity of modern games is bonkers, but multiple moon landings of engineering time has gone into keeping solid 100Hz+ frame rates. However, you are definitely correct when it comes to G…
...if you're playing with v-sync :-P. I got a (rather expensive too) 165Hz monitor recently and the main benefit is to lessen the lag that Windows' forced composition (which also does v-sync) has. But in games i always played with v-sync turned off (i do not mind the tearing, unless it only happens at a fixed position i never really notice it) and the responsiveness was already very high. And on Linux and older versions of Windows where i could disable the compositor, i already had high responsiveness on the GUI too (if anything i feel like even with the 165Hz monitor, the Windows 10 desktop is still not as responsive as Windows 7 and previous versions of Windows were with the compositor disabled).
Though a large issue with that is how modern monitors work. I also have a CRT connected to an older computer here which can do 120Hz and the motion feel is considerably better to the point where i wonder what the hell was wrong with people in the mid-2000s to switch away from CRTs when in pretty much every other area except size and weight, the CRTs were superior - especially at the time (better image quality, better and true dark colors, better responsiveness/no 'response time', higher refresh rates, higher resolutions, variable resolutions with no scaling artifacts, etc). In fact a reason i decided to try a 165Hz monitor was because i recently connected that CRT to a machine that can do 120Hz and have some games to run at 120fps and wanted that experience for my main PC too.
(sadly i do have a feeling that if i hadn't used a CRT the last few years i'd be more enthusiastic about my new monitor since i do not think the currently technology can do much better - at least without going to something like that gigantic $3k OLED monitor though even that would annoy me for its size)