Calm down, remember you're in an AMD thread, there's no point getting your knickers twisted every time someone disses your mighty Intel.🤷♀️ If you want to believe that Intel is hopelessly behind and will never catch up, ok. The psychological bias in seeing current realities as immutable exists, it affects us all, I feel it too, but probably worth defending against with reason. What makes you certain that this is the time that AMD becomes immune to competition, and Intel unable to adapt?
I think his point is that people are over-estimating how behind Intel is.
Look, there's a way to go about it without getting personally invested, without making it a personal discussion about, and without having to estimate anything or creating new belief in any direction:🤷♀️ If you want to believe that Intel is hopelessly behind and will never catch up, ok.
I understand that most people wont use the second slot anyway, as most dont have 2 GPUs. But i presume they are aware of that and since they put it in there anyway, they likely do it for those people, who would use it. In that case, why half-a** it like this? The problem here is the distance between the slots, even if someone wanted to put something else into the bottom slot, like M2 adapter as you mention, it would be too close to the GPU above it. They just should have moved upper slot one position up, there is clearly space, its simple as that.Not many people use a 2nd GPU. Those that will, they will get something more expensive and probably E-ATX. Then there's also PCIe extenders or riser cables. Most people are likely to leave the 2nd slot alone or at most, use it with an M.2 NVMe adapter.
AMD is not perfect. They had an excellent product in Zen, and they've iterated upon it successfully. But there have been some hiccups. Let's not ignore those. Also they continue to suffer from volume shortages. They're targeting specific, lucrative markets for many reasons, one of them being that it's the best use for their limited wafer supply. AMD can't become the Intel of 2006-2016 for that reason alone.Things wouldn't look so bad for Intel if AMD weren't firing on all cylinders.
You should check Top500 list, and especially TopGreen500 list.🤷♀️ If you want to believe that Intel is hopelessly behind and will never catch up, ok. The psychological bias in seeing current realities as immutable exists, it affects us all, I feel it too, but probably worth defending against with reason. What makes you certain that this is the time that AMD becomes immune to competition, and Intel unable to adapt?
The arguments being made distill to the simple meaning that Intel has a righteous God given place at the top of the table and soon, soon, they will regain it. A sort of manifest destiny thinking applied to CPUs.You should check Top500 list, and especially TopGreen500 list.
With the GFX940 patches in full swing since first week of March, it is looking like MI300 is not far in the distant future! Usually AMD takes around 3Qs to get the support in LLVM and amdgpu. Lately, since RDNA2 the window they push to add support for new devices is much reduced to prevent...forums.anandtech.com
Well it is, Intel servers/HPC market share is sinking no doubt.This is where you can see who is the leader.If you look further into the future, i don't see any detail how Intel can turn the situation to its advantage.
Get back to reality, Intel will never have same situation or advantage as from 2007-2016.World or market has changed, the situation today or in the future will be quite different.World is in big crisis, energy is expensive and so will be even more expensive in the future.
CPU Power consumption=performance, this is and will be the most important details on the scales.
This is old Intel slide, yes it is real slide of future advances in nm technology.
View attachment 63600
The L3 cache is shared between all cores, but the L2 is per core. Does Zen let cores access the caches that belong to other cores? That alone would make a difference for any single core programs which now only have access to 97 MB of cache.The L1 needs to be left out because it's inclusive, but there is an argument to be made that the correct way to measure Ryzen caches are L3+L2. Because that represents the maximum amount of data that can actually be cached. For an 8c Zen 4 X3D, that would be 104 MB (96+8*1).
You can load from other L2 caches, but no data ends up there in the first place unless the core in question accesses it.The L3 cache is shared between all cores, but the L2 is per core. Does Zen let cores access the caches that belong to other cores?
L2 is faster mostly because it's closer. The other L2s are obviously not as close as your own (or even as close as the L3).The access times are also vastly different. The L2 cache access times are around a third of the L3 times.
And the memory system needs to run cache coherency checks, but that's done against tags, IIRC, where a cache line may be 'poisoned' by a shared pointer that was altered on another core. So, no writes, just mark the that line as dirty (which must mean it can be written over). Geez, it's be around 25 years since I studied this stuff!You can load from other L2 caches, but no data ends up there in the first place unless the core in question accesses it.
The stories I could tell you about OpenAI…Oh dear. Let's hope nobody asks OpenAI about holocaust cloaks.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|P||Question AMD EPYC 7702 CPI||CPUs and Overclocking||3|
|Discussion AMD XDNA AIE and FPGA Speculation and Discussion||CPUs and Overclocking||3|
|Question AMD Phoenix/Zen 4 APU Speculation and Discussion||CPUs and Overclocking||259|
|G||Question Speculation: How would it affect AMD if Intel bought GlobalFoundries?||CPUs and Overclocking||21|