Lol fanbois & haters kena burn by the truth so you folks dont like it, well tough. Yes you can voice your opinion but to do that and conveniently ignore that others have opinion is just meant your a fanboi.

Intel will release an official reply, just as AMD did with their own CPU burn case, that is given.

Stop with the pissing posts then maybe people will have respect what you say.

Both sides CPU have issues when pushed too far le. This is what happens when zero efficiency and both sides ramp up the power game then make worse allow users to go even further.

ARM & RISC V FTW!

This post has been edited by babylon52281: May 11 2024, 03:41 PM

Nah not on GPU, maybe only 4090 can fully utilise the x16 on a Gen4 bandwidth. It is for M2 SSD and even if you dont see much benefits today, DS will allow faster drives to load world details with less latency meaning a less laggy gaming experience.

Its the saying that few years ago people might not see the need for >8GB VRAM on GPU but oh boy isnt that an issue for more & more todays games. If games world building becomes bigger & more detailed, it will sooner need to load direct from SSD at faster pace.

You can also has inefficient ARM cores either if you clocked them to the moon, note that power scales linearly with frequency, and a factor of 2 with voltage
This is why high clock speeds can be a bad thing if the process node or the architecture are not built for it (even Intel admits it on their slide deck, see their flat-ish curves on the power scaling chart):

https://download.intel.com/newsroom/2022/cl...nalyst-deck.pdf

But then for some reason, despite the huge advances in x86 efficiency we still have ridiculously inefficient chips because both Intel/AMD practically clocked them up to near unsustainable levels (I mean, why does 5GHz+ ULV mobile chips and 6GHz+ desktop chips exist?)

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 04:10 PM

? Find one game that actually makes use of high speed I/O then - even games like Rift Apart (which claims to utilize disk I/O heavily) will do just fine on a SATA SSD, and considering the very long dev times for AAA titles I think your machine will be long out of date before you need a faster SSD to run the game
People here are vastly overestimating the I/O requirements for disks in modern titles

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 04:14 PM

Anyway let's get back to the topic, we're getting a bit derailed there - the original topic is Intel's 14th gen stability issues, not a discussion between ISA and power efficiency

Fully agree with you, without being tied to X86 legacy, Apple could wipe the slate with a new CPU design and they clearly showed what real modern CPU uarch could do current manufacturing process. Both Intel/AMD X86 will need some newfangled complex & expensive SOC layout or exotic materials to push speeds higher and all that just to match even current M3/M4 that is made on the same matured process.

chocobo7779
I dont fully agree on the reason why Apple charges that much, while yes their CPU SOC is much larger the cost to make is not exponentially like what you pay. Apple charges waterfish prices simple bcoz its an Apple. And for the sheer volume their CPU costing per unit isnt that all much different as these will be inside iphones too.

Well thats the thing. ARM shtick is not power game but power efficiency. Like Netburst vs Core back then, do you want a high clock inefficient chip vs cooler, slower but technically 'faster' chip? The death of Netburst and rise of Core clearly indicates what the market wants.

Yeah, but that'll require wider, larger core designs, which are not area efficient and will need larger dies unless you want AMD/Intel to cannibalize their far more profitable server/HPC business that is

More like the original topic was a pissing game between AMD fanbois & Intel fanbois. Both sides are real losers when each have their own hardware issues and there exist better CPU uarch.

Again, ISA doesn't really matter especially when you consider how complex modern CPUs are. The x86 bloat is mostly vestigial at the moment and doesn't really affects the ability to make highly efficient chips


Well, they do, see AMD APUs on the PS5/Series X consoles for an example (not directly comparable to Apple Silicon as AMD will need to design them with a budget in mind, after all those consoles cost around 500USD and both Sony/Microsoft still have to sell them at a loss and recoup the loss through game sales and subscriptions)

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 04:25 PM

Im advocating more towards fully realising ARM uarch to a desktop equivalent or else a new CPU uarch from scratch without the inefficient legacy (hello RISC V?)

Again, no, according to Jim Keller who worked at AMD/Apple/DEC/PA Semi (probably one of the best acquisitions Apple made) and is responsible for CPUs like the AMD K8:



https://www.anandtech.com/show/16762/an-ana...person-at-tesla

...and it's not like ARM is a 'bloat free' ISA either

RISC-V? Probably but unless there is a chip that is commercially available and has a large enough software library then there's little reason for that ISA to take off. Note that the success of ISA goes way beyond performance/efficiency, so that's why back in the 1990s Intel was able to defeat a lot of alternate ISAs (such as Alpha/MIPS/Itanium/SPARC) despite those ISAs are far superior to x86, due to its strong install base, as well as the massive economies of scale it offers

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 04:39 PM

TSMC dont actually play that game. Why, bcoz their leading the node shrink pack so without throwing prices they ady got a line of customers willing to throw money for each new node.

What they do is preferential block batching, where a the first batch nodes will be sold at the highest markups (invariably Apple came with the first pick), and then the markup goes down as subsequent batches are fulfilled. Others playing catchup will charge less but its the release of these new nodes which is important as many tied their product launches to their CPU SOC which is based on each cutting edge node iteration. No fool will launch a flagship phone using CPU based on older nodes, good luck if they do coz its simply bad marketing.

so what is your problem anyway, which posts pissing u? mind to explain?

p/s: Intel screw up their face is not our problem, we r consumer only...

This post has been edited by hashtag2016: May 11 2024, 04:58 PM

x86 is important legacy, an important one. I would rather it stay than gone.
If x86 no no more.. very likely pc diy no more.

Look back at your own postings to know. You made your opinion, okay, so just leave it or else your just trolling here

what post, I have many posts recently..nothing special so far..

Socketed ARM chips do exist, but yeah you don't have to really worry about the state of x86 right now

One of the reasons why x86 couldn't compete with ARM chips on efficiency is that there's really not much innovation and progress going on in the x86 realm (especially power efficiency) for over a decade, due to a severe lack of competition. AMD's Phenom series of chips are lukewarm at best from a performance/price standpoint, and Bulldozer was a huge disaster to the point of driving AMD towards near bankruptcy and probably lead Intel to making small iterations on their CPUs. It wasn't until 2017 where Ryzen arrived to the scene, and even that AMD didn't return to proper competition all around with Zen 2

On the other hand, Apple has been designing low powered ARM chips for iPhones and iPads for over a decade now (they have been dabbling in semiconductors since the early 1980s), and their offerings have been outperforming lots of SoCs from Android competitors significantly for many years, even today. By doing so they have gathered quite a lot of know-how on how to design high performance low powered SoCs coupled with the stagnant x86 market it's not hard to see why they switched to their in house silicon (note that the M series chips are not just a scaled up A series chip)

x86 incumbents, by comparison hasn't really focused on efficiency-minded chips, with their design targets being mostly performance and areal efficiency. Power efficiency for x86 was sort of a niche thing back them outside of netbooks/subnotebooks (remember those?)

That being said however it seems both AMD/Intel are starting to focusing on power efficiency (see Phoenix and the upcoming Strix Point APUs, along with Intel's new Meteor Lake chips) on mobile chips. It certainly isn't as groundbreaking as Apple Silicon but it sure is a good stepping stone at that after many years of stagnancy (note that chip design and manufacturing can be incredibly time intensive)

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: May 11 2024, 11:51 PM

AMD burnt CPU is because OC
Intel stock setting

dont you see the difference?