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

GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

gmplib.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 240 posts

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#221

Post by Auracle »

RachelF wrote: post #128
topspin wrote: post #4

As there is ongoing drama with Zen 5 and power issues, there are people with the instruments and the motivation to investigate this. You should consider contacting Gamers Nexus, and help them to get your test suite running. They can measure power draw and do a thermal analysis of this CPU, and they'd likely be eager to do it, given the possibility of making a bunch of dramatic YouTube content about design flaws in wi…

AMD has failed to be reliable with its Zen 4 and Zen 5 consumer CPUs, just at the same time Intel did the same with their 13k and 14k higher end CPUs. AMD is somewhat worse than Intel as their DDR5 memory bus is very "twitchy" making it hard to get the highest DDR5 timings, especially with multiple DIMMs per channel.

I had to put together an AM5 computer pretty quickly after I accidentally fried some components in my last computer, so I got a Microcenter bundle.

I got 2x32GB sticks of RAM with the plan to throw in another two sticks later. I had no idea that was now a bad plan. I wish manufacturers would have just put 2 DIMM slots on motherboards as a “warning.”

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#222

Post by Mistletoe »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #172
Mistletoe wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain further about Beyoncé? Do you mean the elevator video where her sister attacks Jay Z?

http://i.imgur.com/oyUfxWE.jpg

Haha I love that one. She should have just leaned into it and laughed.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#223

Post by Gracana »

edgineer wrote: post #179

"We don't overclock or overvolt or play other teen games with our hardware." You overclock as a teen so that as an adult you know to verify your CPU's voltage, clock speeds, and temperature at a minimum when you build your own system. They made no mention of monitoring of CPU temperature, ECC corrected/detected errors, or throttling. They then ran CPU benchmark loads for several months on the system. "The so-called T…

CPUs with stock cooling solutions will turbo boost up to max temp and stay there, that's completely normal and shouldn't cause a CPU to physically burn up, even if you do it for months.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#224

Post by OhMeadhbh »

Gracana wrote: post #204
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #197

When I worked at Linden Lab we had a deal going with IBM. Either as part of that deal or in an attempt to impress our larger partner, many of us got Thinkpads. I actually kind of like them, since the cost wasn't coming out of my budget. Inside Linden, about 90% of meetings were held in-world, so we constantly had the Second Life viewer up. About three months later our Thinkpads started failing. Apparently they though…

Delaminating the PCB is absolutely wild. I'm really fascinated by the idea of doing meetings in Second Life, though. What did people use for avatars at work?

We used whatever avatars we put together.

Here's a link to Philip's avatar, which he intentionally kept basic for quite some time: https://community.secondlife.com/forums/topic/517881-help-me...

And here's a shot of mine: https://www.flickr.com/photos/opensourceobscure/2476204733/i...

And about in-world meetings. One thing Second Life did VERY WELL was it was always clear who was speaking. If someone was talking, there were green arrows sort of exploding out of their avatar's head. You couldn't miss it. Web-Ex at the time was HORRIBLE in this regard. Teams, Google Meet and Zoom are a little better than Web-Ex, but when meeting in Second Life, you could adjust your camera to get a good view of everyone in the meeting which also helped out.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#225

Post by db48x »

menaerus wrote: post #217
db48x wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, TDP is only supposed to be a marketing number. It would be nice if it were a real number that meant something, but CPU manufacturers don’t want to include really complicated information in their marketing. When they want to emphasize that a processor is powerful, they increase the TDP number! When they want you to buy an efficient laptop, they just lower the number! Same cpu, same number of transistors, same numb…

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/cooldc16/cool... uses 84W TDP-rated Haswell-architecture Intel i7-4770, and authors constructed the synthetic microbenchmark with 1.67 IPC FPU and 3.86 IPC integer workloads. Then they use RAPL (Running Average Power Limit), something I learned that exists as of today, to measure the power usage on the level of the whole chip package. Reported numbers are ~22W. Consideri…

They didn’t measure 22W, they measured 6W + 22.1W + 4.9W + 1.8W + 4.8W + 11.2W = 50.8W. Add in 66.3W for the other three cores and that would be 117.1W. Benchmark #2 measured a few watts less than that.

But they don’t give the IHS temperature so you could repeat the exact same experiment using the same hardware and get different numbers simply because your cooling setup was better or worse than theirs.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#226

Post by rangestransform »

RachelF wrote: post #128
topspin wrote: post #4

As there is ongoing drama with Zen 5 and power issues, there are people with the instruments and the motivation to investigate this. You should consider contacting Gamers Nexus, and help them to get your test suite running. They can measure power draw and do a thermal analysis of this CPU, and they'd likely be eager to do it, given the possibility of making a bunch of dramatic YouTube content about design flaws in wi…

AMD has failed to be reliable with its Zen 4 and Zen 5 consumer CPUs, just at the same time Intel did the same with their 13k and 14k higher end CPUs. AMD is somewhat worse than Intel as their DDR5 memory bus is very "twitchy" making it hard to get the highest DDR5 timings, especially with multiple DIMMs per channel.

I think that's just a result of being at the limit of what a right-angle memory slot can handle, it's about time that desktop move to CAMM or soldered memory

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#228

Post by cogman10 »

keanebean86 wrote: post #137
cogman10 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man that was a beast of a CPU back in the day. The Conroe Intel era was amazing for the time.

That was such a fun time to be into hardware. For years Intel had the money and relationships to keep the Pentium 4 everywhere even though AMD had the better product. The P4 might edge ahead in video rendering but the Athlon would win overall and use less power. Then Conroe launched and the balance shifted. Even the cheapest Core2Duo chips were competitive against the best P4s and the high-end C2Ds rivaled or beat AM…

Absolutely. Intel was also keeping up the tick-tock processing. I could be misremembering, but it seemed like every tock intel was getting something like 20% improvements over the last tock. It really wasn't until ~Haswell that that slowed down and continued to slow down to basically nothing. I think Kaby Lake IIRC was the last major performance jump from intel. Everything else has just been incremental changes.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#229

Post by bayindirh »

cogman10 wrote: post #228
keanebean86 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was such a fun time to be into hardware. For years Intel had the money and relationships to keep the Pentium 4 everywhere even though AMD had the better product. The P4 might edge ahead in video rendering but the Athlon would win overall and use less power. Then Conroe launched and the balance shifted. Even the cheapest Core2Duo chips were competitive against the best P4s and the high-end C2Ds rivaled or beat AM…

Absolutely. Intel was also keeping up the tick-tock processing. I could be misremembering, but it seemed like every tock intel was getting something like 20% improvements over the last tock. It really wasn't until ~Haswell that that slowed down and continued to slow down to basically nothing. I think Kaby Lake IIRC was the last major performance jump from intel. Everything else has just been incremental changes.

One of the reasons that Intel only shipped 5% incremental updates was AMD was basically non-existent due to both Intel pressuring them and AMD has done a massive mistake with bulldozer/piledriver architecture.

They vastly underestimated how much a single FPU would be bottleneck on a multicore/SMP processor.

Then AMD took things personal and architected Zen/EPYC. The rest is history.

Re: GMP damaging Zen 5 CPUs?

#230

Post by cogman10 »

bayindirh wrote: post #229
cogman10 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Intel was also keeping up the tick-tock processing. I could be misremembering, but it seemed like every tock intel was getting something like 20% improvements over the last tock. It really wasn't until ~Haswell that that slowed down and continued to slow down to basically nothing. I think Kaby Lake IIRC was the last major performance jump from intel. Everything else has just been incremental changes.

One of the reasons that Intel only shipped 5% incremental updates was AMD was basically non-existent due to both Intel pressuring them and AMD has done a massive mistake with bulldozer/piledriver architecture. They vastly underestimated how much a single FPU would be bottleneck on a multicore/SMP processor. Then AMD took things personal and architected Zen/EPYC. The rest is history.

Certainly, and by that time Intel just sort of dropped all the balls. They were already struggling to do die shrinks and it seems like they simply lost all their ability to develop the architecture.

That had maybe happened years earlier. The thing about Conroe is, IIRC, its ancestry came from the P3 and Intel's mobile CPU designs. P4 was steady evolutions on the Netburst architecture. The years of improvements to conroe were mostly just incremental changes and porting over features from Netburst (such as hyperthreading). Once that all played out, intel really didn't have anywhere else to go or plans on how to evolve the architecture. They fell back on the same old "let's just add wider SIMD instructions (AVX)".

I also seem to recall that intel made fab bets that ultimately didn't pay off. Again, IIRC, I believe they were trying to use the same light lithography (230nm light?) rather than going into UV lithography. That caused them to dump a fair bit of money fabrication that never really paid off.

Post reply on HN