71–80 of 216 posts
We've already seen examples of this happening on non-OC'd server-style motherboards that perfectly adhere to the intel spec. This isn't like ASUS going 'hur dur 20% more voltage' and frying chips. If that's all it was it would be obvious.
Lowering voltage may help mitigate the problem, but it sure as shit isn't the cause.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/theslowwinte... "Unfortunately for John, the branches made a pact with Satan and quantum mechanics [...] In exchange for their last remaining bits of entropy, the branches cast evil spells on future genera- tions of processors. Those evil spells had names like “scaling- induced voltage leaks” and “increasing levels of waste heat” [...] the branches, those vanquished foe…
this is how I feel about electric car supercharging stations at the moment. There is a definitely a privilege aspect, which some attractive people are beneficiaries of in a predictable way, as well as other expensive maintenance for their health and attraction.
so I could see myself saying the same thing to my children
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was recently looking at building and buying a couple systems. I've always liked Intel. I went AMD this time. It seemed like the base frequencies vs boost frequencies were much farther apart on Intel than with most of the AMDs. This was especially true on the laptops were cooling is a larger concern. So I suspect they were pushing limits. Also, the performance core vs efficiency core stuff seemed kind of gimmicky wi…
> It seems AMD had an issue supporting ECC with the current chipsets. AMD has the advantage with regards to ECC. Intel doesn't support ECC at all on consumer chips, you need to go Xeon. AMD supports it on all chips, but it is up to the motherboard vendor to (correctly) implement. You can get consumer-class AM4/5 boards that have ECC support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was recently looking at building and buying a couple systems. I've always liked Intel. I went AMD this time. It seemed like the base frequencies vs boost frequencies were much farther apart on Intel than with most of the AMDs. This was especially true on the laptops were cooling is a larger concern. So I suspect they were pushing limits. Also, the performance core vs efficiency core stuff seemed kind of gimmicky wi…
> It seems AMD had an issue supporting ECC with the current chipsets. AMD has the advantage with regards to ECC. Intel doesn't support ECC at all on consumer chips, you need to go Xeon. AMD supports it on all chips, but it is up to the motherboard vendor to (correctly) implement. You can get consumer-class AM4/5 boards that have ECC support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems AMD had an issue supporting ECC with the current chipsets. AMD has the advantage with regards to ECC. Intel doesn't support ECC at all on consumer chips, you need to go Xeon. AMD supports it on all chips, but it is up to the motherboard vendor to (correctly) implement. You can get consumer-class AM4/5 boards that have ECC support.
You need W680 boards (starting at around 500 bucks) for ECC on desktop intel chips.
"Elevated operating voltage" my foot. We've already seen examples of this happening on non-OC'd server-style motherboards that perfectly adhere to the intel spec. This isn't like ASUS going 'hur dur 20% more voltage' and frying chips. If that's all it was it would be obvious. Lowering voltage may help mitigate the problem, but it sure as shit isn't the cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess is something like the following: Modern CPU's are incredibly complex machines with a ridiculously large amount of possible configuration states (too large to exhaustively test after manufacture or sim during design), e.g. a vector multiply in flight with an AES encode in flight with x87 sincos, etc. Each operation is going to draw a certain amount of current. It is impractical to guarantee each functional un…
It's worse than that, thermal management is part of the puzzle. Think of that as heat generation happening across three dimensions (X + Y + time) along with diffusion in 3D through the package.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was recently looking at building and buying a couple systems. I've always liked Intel. I went AMD this time. It seemed like the base frequencies vs boost frequencies were much farther apart on Intel than with most of the AMDs. This was especially true on the laptops were cooling is a larger concern. So I suspect they were pushing limits. Also, the performance core vs efficiency core stuff seemed kind of gimmicky wi…
More E-core is reasonable for multi threaded application performance. It's efficient for power and die area as the name indicates, so they can implement more E-cores than P-cores for the same power/area budget. It's not suitable for who need many single threaded performance cores like VM server, but I don't know is there any major consumer usage requires such performance.
Just want to say, I'm incredibly happy with my 7800X3D. It runs ~70C max like Intel chips used to and with a $35 air cooler and it's on average the fastest chip for gaming workloads right now.
The energy efficiency is much appreciated in the UK with our absurd price of electricity.
I think it's telling that they are delaying the microcode patch until after all the reviewers publish their Zen5 reviews and the comparisons of those chips against current Raptorlake performance.