31–36 of 36 posts
I really like the new Apple hardware ; it's fast enough to do most things on (like this example), but there are no real serious production apps for developers. I have been building my own tooling for iPad but it's really not something that can be released. I do use the iPad as daily driver for most things, but writing code on it is still not very feasible. There is no way (as far as I know) to 'catch' actual crashing…
It's worth keeping in mind that Intel tied architecture to process node, and have been stuck on 14nm for many years. Very little changes have been made to Skylake (2015) by Intel even with the latest 9th gen release. They're starting to look long in the tooth on many fronts, AMD's SMT is more efficient, and AMD has a much better boost algorithm as well (Precision Boost 2), among other aspects. Had their roadmap not t…
Except it's what Intel is selling in 2018.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> noone has put together a real ARM alternative for the server side Cavium (now under Marvell) and Ampere both did. Huawei/HiSilicon are also apparently coming. (Also Qualcomm, but they quit for mysterious reasons. "Want to focus on mobile" or something.) But these are all very high end solutions. For the low end, there's Marvell's Armada8k (MACCHIATObin)… and kind of an empty void in the middle :(
Cavium’s is a 96 core x 4 node in a 2U config. Sure it’s high end, but it’s what you need to compete with similar compute dense rack servers from eg Dell.
ThunderX2 is 64 cores in 2 sockets, with 4-way SMT, up to 3GHz turbo, and the cores are way better.
// It's great that they're competing with dense rack servers, I just wish the low end to mid range market wasn't ignored :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cavium’s is a 96 core x 4 node in a 2U config. Sure it’s high end, but it’s what you need to compete with similar compute dense rack servers from eg Dell.
The original ThunderX was up to 96 cores in 2 sockets, but single core perfomance was unimpressive (comparable to Cortex-A72). ThunderX2 is 64 cores in 2 sockets, with 4-way SMT, up to 3GHz turbo, and the cores are way better. // It's great that they're competing with dense rack servers, I just wish the low end to mid range market wasn't ignored :(
It's worth keeping in mind that Intel tied architecture to process node, and have been stuck on 14nm for many years. Very little changes have been made to Skylake (2015) by Intel even with the latest 9th gen release. They're starting to look long in the tooth on many fronts, AMD's SMT is more efficient, and AMD has a much better boost algorithm as well (Precision Boost 2), among other aspects. Had their roadmap not t…
> This benchmark is essentially Intel's 2015 design on 14nm vs Apple's 2018 design on 7nm. Except it's what Intel is selling in 2018.
Nor am I defending Intel (I recently chose and now use a Ryzen 2700X), I'm just contributing additional facts and context to the conversation for anyone who wasn't aware of it since I read all the comments here and no one mentioned it.