Technology

59161 readers

1744 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

128

Intel's CPUs Are Failing, ft. Wendell of Level1 Techs (www.youtube.com)

submitted 4 months ago by recursive_recursion@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bruhduh@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Intel problem is that they keep pushing extensions race while AMD proved with their Ryzen series that if you keep your instruction set to a minimum, then your CPUs will be energy efficient, even arm proved this by pushing extensions too far like intel and getting overheating chips

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The overhead of additional instructions isn't the issue, they often translate those instructions into a smaller set of actual operations. It's not like they have a special circuit for every instruction, a lot of instructions translate to a pipeline of multiple, modular circuits.

The actual silicon will look more like ARM despite having a very large difference in instruction set sizes.

[–] bruhduh@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Then why AMD is more efficient then intel and arm nowadays?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That depends on what you mean, but here are a few reasonable explanations:

Intel's chips are still on their Intel 7 process (similar to TSMC's 7nm process), whereas AMD is using TSMC's 4nm process, so AMD's CPUs are 2 nodes ahead; smaller process generally means more transistors in the same area, as well as lower power usage per clock
AMD's chiplet architecture makes it easier for them to move the CPU bits to a smaller arch, and the IO bits can stay on a cheaper arch (e.g. AMD uses 4nm for the cores, 6nm for the IO die); this increases yields and dramatically reduces costs, so AMD can invest more in architectural improvements
ARM prioritizes battery life over performance, so performance per watt won't be great at the high end, but it'll probably win at the low end; they also don't make their own chips (just designs), so comparing process nodes is meaningless
AMD focuses on different aspects of computing than either Intel or ARM, so perhaps they've just done a better job optimizing for what you care about

Anyway, that's my take.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

And for AMD's 3D v-cache chips, there's an enormous energy benefit, as taking stuff from the (much larger than usual) cache is far more energy efficient than constantly going back and forwards to RAM.

[–] bruhduh@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Thank you for detailed explanation

[–] sauce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

Correction, meteor lake's (Intel 14th gen) CPU tile is on the Intel 4 process (though admittedly that's a 7nm euv process). And they've also moved to a chiplet design. (CPU, GPU and IO are on 3 different processes)

[–] Dyf_Tfh@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This isn't true anymore, Intel dropped AVX512 since they moved to Big+Small cores design while AMD actually implemented it with Zen 4.

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 6 points 3 months ago

Does AMD just keep winning or what? I just don't want CPU's with a 500 Watt tdp.