Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
Sadly, Intel takes another loss here.
There is an issue, though: Intel disabled AVX-512 for its Core 12th, 13th, and 14th Generations of Core processors, leaving owners of these CPUs without them.
Common Intel L recently. Shame it effects 12th gen
I'm surprised Intel would remove a feature that AMD provides in their desktop CPUs.
Then this is your reminder that ALL AMD CPUs are Unlocked and support overclocking...
True, though it's worth noting that AMD focus efficiency means that there isn't a lot of extra performance you can get from their modern CPUs with overclocking.
I think it's less because of their efficiency focus and more because the chips already auto-overclock to reasonably high levels.
I meant more of the whole approach of designing chips with efficiency as a top priority which means they get the best performance they can within their efficiency targets, which is always more optimal than users tinkering on their own. Efficiency and performance are kind of different sides of the same coin.
Yeah, but Intel charges you $200 more for the -K sku so you can find out the same applies to Intel :)
Probably some BS market segmentation move.
I imagine they noticed only certain server customers were using those extensions, so decided to limit them to high margin server SKUs.
It would have been a smart move if there weren’t competitors putting that instruction in every CPU.
My reactions: Ooooh...... Awwww. 😮💨
Hand written assembly is pretty common in video, no matter what they say. All modern video codecs have hand written assembly for all modern SIMD extensions, even on ARM. They didn't say anything about where these numbers come from. Likely compared against unoptimized C code. There will never be a case where having AVX-512 will give you that kind of speedup, because there will be fallbacks for more common extensions.
It's mostly because AVX-512 doesn't get used too well by compilers even today.
However, what makes this impressive for me is that it is x86 after all. ARM is way easier to write assembly for.
Word, major respect for writing x86 assembly. That shit's trash.
Holy shit.
Otherwise known as x86 64 bit assembly
Hand written is impressive? I thought all code was hand written until AI
It's handwritten assembly as opposed to bytecode generated by a compiler, from handwritten higher level language.
It's about code optimization and efficiency. Most assembly code these days just relies on compilers for optimization as hand optimizing is extremely time-consuming work.
To add to this, it's also very easy and very likely to write assembly that has zero speedup or even significant slowdown versus what the compiler will write.
Well these days hardly anyone bothers with assembly