deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
on 06 May 2024 07:45
nextcollapse
I’ll go give you a hint: you made some crap CPU’s and rather than binning them as lower spec’d units you sold them as is and then claimed they were performance units.
This meant that the spec overhead that previously MB manufacturers relied on to stretch the performance wasn’t there anymore.
TL;DR: greed
Enkers@sh.itjust.works
on 06 May 2024 08:08
nextcollapse
Shit, that’s not great. As a consumer, is their any way to protect yourself if you’re in the market for a modern i9? Does the entire 12th gen lineup have issues?
I’m still using a 1st gen i7, and the lack of AVX is starting to become problematic, so I think it’s time…
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
on 06 May 2024 08:23
collapse
I personally try to support the underdog, so AMD when it comes to x86.
Intel also refuses to provide Vulkan drivers for older CPU’s iGPU’s to drive consumers towards buying new systems, which I considered a dick move, and upgraded that laptop with an AMD based replacement.
We bought three 13900’s for workstations at work, got burnt with two of them, bought 7950X3D’s instead for the next three.
So, if you’re set on Intel (which is your prerogative) ask someone else ;-)
Enkers@sh.itjust.works
on 06 May 2024 08:40
collapse
I think my main reason when I looked into things a while back was that Intel had the better single core speeds, but I’m not married to the idea. I’ll mostly be gaming and dabbling with local LLMs.
But yeah, I also haven’t been a huge fan of Intel’s anti-consumer business practices. Maybe it’s time for an AMD system! Thanks!
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
on 06 May 2024 09:00
collapse
In the last few years, IMHO, single core performance has been irrelevant (for me personally and professionally).
Almost everything can be parallelized, it’s just a bit harder to implement.
I’ve found disk I/O to be the biggest bottleneck recently, PCIe 5.0 NVMe has done more for speed than an extra few MHz have in years.
Enkers@sh.itjust.works
on 06 May 2024 09:13
collapse
Thanks for the advice! I’ve been out of the game a long time, so the quick refresher was super helpful.
They’re losing money on ARC so I suppose they felt they had enough headroom on their CPU division to make up for it. Might’ve got cocky and not properly tested the new CPUs before pushing them out.
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
on 06 May 2024 09:01
collapse
Straight from the Boeing book.
theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
on 06 May 2024 08:51
nextcollapse
tl;dw: x86 processors have been doing speculative execution of branches for years in an insecure way. New variants of the Spectre vulnerability keep being found and patches issued. Each patch reduces performance, and the performance reduction is cumulative. The video accuses Intel of adopting a fundamentally flawed architecture for the sake of pursuing performance, a cheat that they eventually got called out for. It’s not so much performance loss, the video claims, as performance that shouldn’t have been available in the first place in a secure design. (And AMD I guess cut some of the same corners to compete with Intel.)
For any x86 CPU these days you should not expect the performance shown in the initial reviews, because problems always come to light and get fixes that reduce it. It happens to AMD too, but Intel seem to be slightly worse for this.
mycodesucks@lemmy.world
on 06 May 2024 11:58
nextcollapse
But hey, at least they’re compatible with Windows 11, right?
threaded - newest
I’ll go give you a hint: you made some crap CPU’s and rather than binning them as lower spec’d units you sold them as is and then claimed they were performance units.
This meant that the spec overhead that previously MB manufacturers relied on to stretch the performance wasn’t there anymore.
TL;DR: greed
Shit, that’s not great. As a consumer, is their any way to protect yourself if you’re in the market for a modern i9? Does the entire 12th gen lineup have issues?
I’m still using a 1st gen i7, and the lack of AVX is starting to become problematic, so I think it’s time…
I personally try to support the underdog, so AMD when it comes to x86.
Intel also refuses to provide Vulkan drivers for older CPU’s iGPU’s to drive consumers towards buying new systems, which I considered a dick move, and upgraded that laptop with an AMD based replacement.
We bought three 13900’s for workstations at work, got burnt with two of them, bought 7950X3D’s instead for the next three.
So, if you’re set on Intel (which is your prerogative) ask someone else ;-)
I think my main reason when I looked into things a while back was that Intel had the better single core speeds, but I’m not married to the idea. I’ll mostly be gaming and dabbling with local LLMs.
But yeah, I also haven’t been a huge fan of Intel’s anti-consumer business practices. Maybe it’s time for an AMD system! Thanks!
In the last few years, IMHO, single core performance has been irrelevant (for me personally and professionally).
Almost everything can be parallelized, it’s just a bit harder to implement.
I’ve found disk I/O to be the biggest bottleneck recently, PCIe 5.0 NVMe has done more for speed than an extra few MHz have in years.
Thanks for the advice! I’ve been out of the game a long time, so the quick refresher was super helpful.
They’re losing money on ARC so I suppose they felt they had enough headroom on their CPU division to make up for it. Might’ve got cocky and not properly tested the new CPUs before pushing them out.
Straight from the Boeing book.
While not necessarily related, this article reminds me of this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlRxMUb-1MA
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=mlRxMUb-1MA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good bot!
tl;dw: x86 processors have been doing speculative execution of branches for years in an insecure way. New variants of the Spectre vulnerability keep being found and patches issued. Each patch reduces performance, and the performance reduction is cumulative. The video accuses Intel of adopting a fundamentally flawed architecture for the sake of pursuing performance, a cheat that they eventually got called out for. It’s not so much performance loss, the video claims, as performance that shouldn’t have been available in the first place in a secure design. (And AMD I guess cut some of the same corners to compete with Intel.)
For any x86 CPU these days you should not expect the performance shown in the initial reviews, because problems always come to light and get fixes that reduce it. It happens to AMD too, but Intel seem to be slightly worse for this.
But hey, at least they’re compatible with Windows 11, right?
/s
They laid off 2/3 of their QA team. No wonder.
Weird coincidence: Microsoft laid off their QA team too, and a few years later Windows feels buggier than ever.