• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 885 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dullard said:
I think that is where we differ. When there are plentiful E cores, there would be no need to preempt the preferred cores. We could finally have dedicated cores to our important programs with no* context switching, no preemption, etc. of those important tasks.


* Yes, gdansk, there would still be context switching of the unimportant tasks on unimportant cores.


"Usually" is not sufficient in my experience. I see all kinds of stutters and delays when background tasks kick in. Maybe it is fine with your tasks. But certainly not for me.
Click to expand...
Well, as of now there is no way to avoid context-switching completely. But we can mitigate the effects of context switching by setting process affinity & core pinning.
 
SiliconFly said:
But we can mitigate the effects of context switching by setting process affinity & core pinning.
Click to expand...

Only partially. Even on same core if process A ran, then process B ran, once process A needs to run again, it will find TLBs, branch predictors etc etc flushed. Even with caches it's not straitforward due to ASID usage and the common sense fact that B "ran" and evicted lines of A's first run.
It will take a lot of cycles for process A to reach peak perf due to TLBs and BPs needing refilling and 'training".
 
1695142272568.png
Genuinely think Intel borked their slides accidentally, or Intel pulled up like waaaay faster than anyone thought they could. PTL before 2025 sounds wild.
 
Henry swagger said:
Arrow lake is 20A confirmed 😄✅ .. lunar lake is looking good
Click to expand...

I am starting to think, that ARL performance estimates were like being Sierra Forrest 144C only -> designed to weed out rabid leakers.
If it is really on 20A, numbers we were "given" don't really make sense at all.

Anyway not long to wait, seems like 2024 is gonna be a year we all will drown in some Lake.
 
JoeRambo said:
I am starting to think, that ARL performance estimates were like being Sierra Forrest 144C only -> designed to weed out rabid leakers.
If it is really on 20A, numbers we were "given" don't really make sense at all.

Anyway not long to wait, seems like 2024 is gonna be a year we all will drown in some Lake.
Click to expand...
I hope that’s true but I wouldn’t bet on it. The only way that’s the case is if they can somehow get ARL-S to clock in the neighborhood of 5.4ghz.
 
JoeRambo said:
I am starting to think, that ARL performance estimates were like being Sierra Forrest 144C only -> designed to weed out rabid leakers.
If it is really on 20A, numbers we were "given" don't really make sense at all.

Anyway not long to wait, seems like 2024 is gonna be a year we all will drown in some Lake.
Click to expand...
I have to give mild credit his intel leaks are rarely wrong.. intel engineers must trust him
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top