Geekbench
Weird choice of baseline CPU and even weird is that the baseline score is 2500.
i7-12700 does hardly 2000 in GB5 with the fastest DDR5.
Weird choice of baseline CPU and even weird is that the baseline score is 2500.
i7-12700 does hardly 2000 in GB5 with the fastest DDR5.
I've not followed closely announcements, but I don't think any announced CPU has SME2 support.
QEMU is not that slow if all you want to know is if your software behaves correctly.
I don't think QEMU supports AVX-512. Though now that I look at it it only supports SME, not SME2.
So I guess PrimateLabs might have used ARM FVP.
EDIT: PrimateLabs talks about SME, not SME2, so QEMU might be usable.
QEMU 8.0 CPU emulations - enable/disable flags/instruction
The latest version of QEMU is 8.0 and it offers way more CPU flags and features! There are more than 130 different CPU families and instruction sets to emulate.
ahelpme.com
Ice Lake Xeon is in that CPU emulation list and AVX-512 instructions are also listed. So it should work?
FlameTail
Platinum Member
- Dec 15, 2021
- 2,356
- 1,276
- 106
FlameTail
Platinum Member
- Dec 15, 2021
- 2,356
- 1,276
- 106
The ARM Cortex X4/A720/A520 utilised ARMv9.2 for the first time. SME2/SVE2 is part of ARMv9.2 But it seems X4/A720/A520 doesn't support SME2/SVE2 either way.
Yes, SME is an optional extension. You have the list here:
Documentation – Arm Developer
developer.arm.com
Hmm you might be right (I use conditional as AVX-512 might be supported only to enable KVM).
GitHub - corsix/amx: Apple AMX Instruction Set
Apple AMX Instruction Set. Contribute to corsix/amx development by creating an account on GitHub.github.com
Now why would Apple refuse to admit they exist?
Apple doesn't refuse to admit they exist, they want people to use library calls to use them. That way they can change the way the instructions work without breaking old software. Nothing stops someone from using AMX instructions, but if their code breaks with M4 they can't complain because Apple told them not to use the instructions directly.
But then aren't they preventing the use of these instructions in open source development? Or are their libraries using these instructions available for Linux?
Apple doesn't care about Linux on ARM Mac. They haven't impeded the efforts of the Asahi Linux crew but they sure aren't making extra work for themselves by directly supporting them either. So no, they won't make those libraries available for Linux.
Do you think the (at the very most) one person out there interested in running Linux on an ARM Mac to do tons of matrix multiplication is going to be pissed they can't get the best performance out of it due to the inability to use AMX?
So dismissive. There are people who would like to run a different operating system on a Mac and sometimes within it too.
I do miss Bootcamp but WoA works (virtualized) on M chips. It doesn't need amx but super secret features only known by reverse engineering are a step back to the Appendix H days.
I do miss Bootcamp but WoA works (virtualized) on M chips. It doesn't need amx but super secret features only known by reverse engineering are a step back to the Appendix H days.
Last edited:
If it benefits Apple's main customers - the ones who run iOS/iPadOS/macOS on their hardware - by allowing Apple to make non-compatible changes to the AMX instructions but disadvantages the tiny minority running Linux I think even the ones running Linux would concede that's what Apple should do.
Now whether Apple actually does make such non compatible changes is another matter, but they obviously feel it is important that they have the ability. They aren't doing it just to be jerks - there are some things they've done (for example the bootloader, read the Asahi blog for the details) that have really helped the Asahi effort. Not claiming they did those things with that goal in mind, but if they wanted to make it impossible or nearly so to run an unsupported OS on macOS hardware they easily could have been jerks and done so.
No, not documenting it doesn't benefit Apple's customers at all. It prevents some from using their hardware.
Having it documented wouldn't hurt anything, it is still unsupported. But instead you'll have to do HLE for a VM instead of allowing running software to issue AMX instructions directly. It should be good enough but it'll never be done.
And internally they already have such documentation but don't release it. Because it's Apple. The company that exploits BSD devs because they can and never gives back.
Having it documented wouldn't hurt anything, it is still unsupported. But instead you'll have to do HLE for a VM instead of allowing running software to issue AMX instructions directly. It should be good enough but it'll never be done.
And internally they already have such documentation but don't release it. Because it's Apple. The company that exploits BSD devs because they can and never gives back.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter