AVX-512 can benefit the average Joe, it appears.

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'm surprised Intel would remove a feature that AMD provides in their desktop CPUs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Then this is your reminder that ALL AMD CPUs are Unlocked and support overclocking...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think it's less because of their efficiency focus and more because the chips already auto-overclock to reasonably high levels.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago
    [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Hand written is impressive? I thought all code was hand written until AI

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Otherwise known as x86 64 bit assembly

  • source