131–140 of 370 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
x86 hasn't been CISC in 3 decades anywhere but in the frontend. An architecture doesn't consume power, a design does. I'm all for shitting on intel, but getting the facts right wouldn't hurt.
You’re contradicting yourself. The whole reason x86 burns more power is that the CISC front end can’t be avoided.
Gaming seems to be the final stronghold of x86 and I imagine that will shrink. Clearly games are able to run well on RISC architectures despite decades of x86 optimisation in game engines. Long term, an architecture that consumes more power and is tightly locked down by licensing looks unsustainable compared to royalty-free RISC alternatives. The instability, presumably because Intel are overclocking their own chips…
> Clearly games are able to run well on RISC architectures Theoretically that’s likely true. But is there any empirical evidence? Even underclocked Intel desktop chips are massively faster.
Gaming seems to be the final stronghold of x86 and I imagine that will shrink. Clearly games are able to run well on RISC architectures despite decades of x86 optimisation in game engines. Long term, an architecture that consumes more power and is tightly locked down by licensing looks unsustainable compared to royalty-free RISC alternatives. The instability, presumably because Intel are overclocking their own chips…
"Stronghold" is a joke phrase, is it not? Intel had ZERO progress in integrated graphics from 2013-2020. ZERO. That's the reason why "it works so well" - because they NEVER improved the performance or architecture! Sure, they diddled with the number of CU's, but as far as graphics architecture, they never changed it, and it was POOR to begin with (couldn't do 1080p esports very well ...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Breaks down" is a strong choice of words for a single, corrected bit error. ECC works as designed, and demonstrates that it does by detecting this re-occurring error. I take the confidence mostly from experience ;) And no, as ECC UDIMM for the speed (3600MHz) I run mine at simply does not exist - it is outside of what JEDEC ratified for the DDR4 spec.
JEDEC rated DDR4 at only 2400mhz right? And anything higher is technically over clocking?
DDR4-1600 (PC4-12800)
DDR4-1866 (PC4-14900)
DDR4-2133 (PC4-17000)
DDR4-2400 (PC4-19200)
DDR4-2666 (PC4-21300)
DDR4-2933 (PC4-23466)
DDR4-3200 (PC4-25600) (the highest supported in the DDR4 generation)
What's *NOT* supported are some enthusiast ones that typically require more than 1.2v for example: 3600 MT/s, 4000 MT/s & 4266 MT/s
I feel like both Intel and AMD are not doing great in the desktop CPU stability department. I made a machine with a Ryzen 9900X a while back and it had the issue that it would freeze when idling. A few years before I had a 5950X that would regularly crash under load (luckily it was a prebuilt, so it was ultimately fixed). When you do not have a bunch of components ready to swap out it is also really hard to debug the…
>M4 is faster than a lot of desktop CPUs Yea, but unfortunately it comes attached to a Mac. An issue I've encountered often with motherboards, is that they have brain damaged default settings, that run CPU's out of spec. You really have to go through it all with a fine toothed comb and make sure everything is set to conservative stock manufacturer recommended settings. And my stupid MSI board resets everything (every…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Clearly games are able to run well on RISC architectures Theoretically that’s likely true. But is there any empirical evidence? Even underclocked Intel desktop chips are massively faster.
Mobile gaming has run well on RISC for a long time and more recently Macs have shown gaming potential.
Yes, ARM is certainly competitive. But I don’t know how much is that down to Apple being good at making chips instead of the architecture itself.
Qualcomm of course makes decent chips but it’s not like they are that much ahead of x86 on laptops.
Even in Apple’s case, if you only care about raw CPU power instead of performance per watt M series is not that great compared to AMD/Intel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>M4 is faster than a lot of desktop CPUs Yea, but unfortunately it comes attached to a Mac. An issue I've encountered often with motherboards, is that they have brain damaged default settings, that run CPU's out of spec. You really have to go through it all with a fine toothed comb and make sure everything is set to conservative stock manufacturer recommended settings. And my stupid MSI board resets everything (every…
I'd bet you don't care that it's attached to a Mac. I bet you don't want to switch OS. Which is understandable. In a couple of years, when Microsoft finally offers Windows as an ARM purchase, Linux is finally full-fledged done implementing support, and Apple resuscitates Boot Camp, I think a lot of people like you will look at Macs like the Mac Mini differently.
I feel like both Intel and AMD are not doing great in the desktop CPU stability department. I made a machine with a Ryzen 9900X a while back and it had the issue that it would freeze when idling. A few years before I had a 5950X that would regularly crash under load (luckily it was a prebuilt, so it was ultimately fixed). When you do not have a bunch of components ready to swap out it is also really hard to debug the…
The M series chips aren’t the absolute fastest in raw speed, though they are toward the top of the list, but they destroy x86 lineage chips on performance per watt. I have an M1 Max, a few revisions old, and the only thing I can do to spin up the fans is run local LLMs or play Minecraft with the kids on a giant ultra wide monitor at full frame rate. Giant Rust builds and similar will barely turn on the fan. Normal st…
This anecdote perfectly describes my few generation old Intel laptop too. The fans turn on maybe once a month. I dont think its as power efficient as an M-series Apple CPU, but total system power is definitely under 10W during normal usage (including screen, wifi, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 7800X3D is amazing here, runs extremely cool and stable, you can push it far above its defaults and it still won’t get to 80C even with air cooling. Mine was running between 60-70 under load with PBO set to high. Unfortunately it seems its successor is not that great :/
The 7000 series of CPUs is NOT known for running cool, unlike the AMD 5000 series (which are basically server CPUs repurposed for desktop usage). In the 7000 series, AMD decided to just increase the power of each CPU and that's where most of the performance gains are coming from - but power consumption is 40-50% higher than with similar 5000-series CPUs.
Actually almost everything what you wrote is not true, and commenter above already sent you some links.
7800X3D is the GOAT, very power efficient and cool.