BrightCandle
- 0 Posts
- 24 Comments
Not necessarily. Ignore chiplets because that is mostly about yield and price and look at what happens when we go very threaded. Smaller cores with less clockspeed take up less space and less power and are more efficient with both which leads to more total compute performance in a given space and power budget. The ideal CPU in a highly multithreaded environment has a small number of P cores that matches the number of single threaded combining threads and as many E cores as possible due to Amadhl’s law. The single threaded part comes to dominate given enough multithreading and all algorithms have some amount of single threaded accumulation of results.
AMD is working with the same limitations and bigger cores with more clockspeed will always have less total cores and achieve less total compute performance in that space. The single threaded component will dominate at high core counts so the answer is not all P cores and not all E cores and AMDs cores should be considered P cores. The ideal number of P cores is definitely more than 1 because the GPU requires one of those high performance threads and the game will need at least one depending on how many different sets of parallel tasks it is running.
But the problem is this theoretical future is a bit far off because we can clearly do today’s games with 6 cores quite happily and most don’t really utilise 6 cores well. They tend to prefer all high performance cores, no one is yet at the stage of dealing with the added complexity of heterogenous CPU core performance and its why both AMD and Intel have special scheluders to improve game utilisation a bit better, this approach of differing core performance first a little and then with E cores quite a lot is too new since big AAA games are in development for many years. So while its likely the future gains from silicon slow further, necessitating optimising the compute density and balance of cores, its unclear when Intel’s strategy will pay off in games, it pays off in some productivity applications but not games yet.
I am certain this approach and further iterations of it with multiple different levels and even instruction sets are quite likely the future of computing, so far its been critical for the GPUs success, its really unclear when that likely future will happen. It definitely doesn’t make sense now or the near future so buying a current Intel CPU for games makes no sense.
OpenWRT supports two devices for wifi 7 on filogic 880 at the moment in snapshot, the banana R4 with BE14000 wifi card add on, its a development board, and the Asus BT8. There are still plenty of issues but Wifi 7 is starting to come to OpenWRT and these MT7988 devices are going to be the major thing supported first.
Looks lovely. If it drives as well as Assetto Corsa and adds some of the modern physics features (which looks like with the puddles and night time) and it doesn’t loose any features it will be pretty popular. I am still hoping they will expand the features a bit especially on multiplayer game play and scheduled ranked servers.
I noticed today searching that the date search no longer seems to work right. There are some terms that only appeared since 2020 and up until my recent attempts those terms produced no results on DDG when date constrained but now produce terms in articles clearly after that date. I don’t know if this is some personalisation nonsense or always pulling but results if the constraints don’t match or what but its seriously problematic and means I can’t trust the date constraints anymore.
I suspect there are going to be many lawsuits all over the globe about this. The situation is so bad and so expensive Intel has decided to weather all those lawsuits and class actions instead of doing a recall. That suggests to me odds are everything they have made since the 13th Gen is soon for an early tech graveyard.
They are going to get sued for billions and this little stunt isn’t going to change that. Should have implemented proper software testing before you took ever corporate computer in the world, but companies like this always force their developers to rush instead of do the right thing and when it bites them expect that things will carry on as normal. I can’t see many renewals in their future.
These early days of processors I was constantly upgrading between the companies. A Pentium to K6 to a PIII celeron to a Duron and then an Athlon XP and then a Pentium HT before finally the stable era arrived with the Core 2 duo and all the subsequent CPUs largely being small incremental upgrades at more or less the same clockspeed peak and lots of the performance coming from more cores. There was a lot of back and forth in price/performance and absolute performance as various innovations and pipline length increases and clockspeed were release. Things changed drastically in the 8 years we went from 100Mhz Pentiums through to the Core 2 Duos where both companies lead and trailed and you needed to upgrade your machine most years to keep up with modern games.
The real value of uplink was that it was a game about hacking, it wasn’t trying to be realistic it had artificial tension added as well as simplified concepts but added gameplay around that. Almost all of the modern hacking games are much more realistic and capable but also miss what made Uplink the iconic game which is gameplay.
I would love a spiritual successor to Uplink, I would definitely play that, but so far all the hacking games I have seen since have fallen into the trap of realism and programming.