zipityzi
Joined 5 years ago
Karma
97
Submissions
19
Member since
Dec 4
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 month ago
Comment · 4 months ago
It mentions Edge is also losing MV2: is it? Any source after the 2024 Neowin article that an Edge Canary build 16 months ago disabled UBO?
No issues with UBO on Edge 149 (stable) and it's still available on the Edge Add-ons (it was featured by Microsoft, funnily enough, a few months back):
https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/ublock-ori...
Did I miss something? Microsoft's official statement is that "The Microsoft Edge team is currently in the process of updating this MV3 migration timeline". Now, they've been working on that timeline since at least May 2025, so maybe with Chromium 150 / 151, they'll make it more concrete?
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/extensions/...
Comment · 7 months ago
>Cortex-X4 a.k.a. Neoverse V3 has significantly lower performance per core than Zen 5.
I don't quite believe that, especially per core. In SPECint2017 from David Huang [1], Zen5 (HX 370) @ 5.1 GHz boost = 9.9 points, so Zen5 is approximately 1.94 points per GHz. But Neoverse V3 (Cortex-X4) @ 3.2 GHz = 8.2 points, so V3 is approximately 2.56 points per GHz.
Arm 64C Neoverse V3 boosts to 3.7 GHz. AMD 64C Zen5 (9575F) boosts to 5 GHz. So this rough napkin mouth would show at maximum boost Neoverse V3 is right around maximum boost Zen5.
64C Neoverse V3: 2.56 pts / GHz * 3.7 GHz = 9.47 points
64C Zen5 9575F: 1.94 pts / GHz * 5.0 GHz = 9.70 points (+2.4%)
Zen5 fares much worse at base clocks, with Arm's 64C CPU offering +40% more SPECint perf per core than Zen5 because AMD downclocks to 3.3 GHz, but Arm is still up at 3.5 GHz + huge IPC advantage.
64C Neoverse V3: 2.56 pts / GHz * 3.5 GHz = 8.96 points (+40%)
64C Zen5 9575F: 1.94 pts / GHz * 3.3 GHz = 6.40 points
I remind these are both 64C core parts. I doubt AMD will achieve +40% higher perf / core / W with Zen6, but it'll be exciting if they can do that.
Comment · 7 months ago
> The new Intel Clearwater Forest Xeon processors use Darkmont cores, which have approximately the same performance per core, the same die area per core and the same power consumption per core as the Neoverse V3
In no world will Darkmont perform like Neoverse V3 / Cortex-X4. Darkmont is much slower.
SPECint2017
Darkmont @ 3.5 GHz boost = 7.13 points
Cortex-X4 @ 3.2 GHz = 8.20 points (+15% faster)
Source: David Huang, https://blog.hjc.im/spec-cpu-2017
Arm's Neoverse V3 136-core CPU has a 3.2 GHz base clock, so the exact same as this Cortex-X4. Your real problem arises when a 288C Clearwater Forest CPU at the highest 500W TDP means a maximum of 1.7W per core (generous, as we're excluding uncore, fabric, cache, etc.). It's probably closer to 1.5W, but let's be generous and toss in +200mW.
Darkmont will be *nowhere* near 3.5 GHz at a mere 1.7W / core power budget. It'll be much closer to 2 GHz. Sierra Forest (6780E) is 144 cores @ 350W (2.2W / core) → a pitiful 2.2 GHz base clock. Let's go crazy and assume Darkmont magically achieves +13% higher clocks (2.2 → 2.5 GHz) at 22% less power (2.2W per core → 1.7W per core) and much higher IPC.
Darkmont @ hypothetical 2.5 GHz = ~5.09 points
Neoverse-V3 @ 3.2 GHz would be 61% faster.
>The only way how the claim of Arm can be true is if they have compared their new CPUs with antiquated CPUs like the Intel Granite Rapids Xeon CPUs, instead of comparing with state-of-the-art Intel Clearwater Forest and AMD Zen 5.
Intel had a paper announcement of Clearwater Forest this month. They have not revealed SKUs: no clocks, no model numbers, nothing exists. Nobody—including Arm—will be benchmarking against a CPU that doesn't exist on the market yet.
Comment · 1 year ago
It is likely the hardware effiency of their chips. Apple SoCs running industry-standard benchmarks still run very cool, yet still show dominant performance. The OS efficiency helps, but even under extreme stress tests like SPEC, the Apple SoCs dominate in perf & power.
See Lunar Lake on TSMC N3B, 4+4, on-package DRAM versus the M3 on TSMC N3B, 4+4, on-package DRAM: https://youtu.be/ymoiWv9BF7Q?t=531
The 258V (TSMC N3B) has a worse perf / W 1T curve than the Apple M1 (TSMC N5).
Comment · 1 year ago
This seems mostly misinformed.
1) Apple Silicon outperforms all laptop CPUs in the same power envelope on 1T on industry-standard tests: it's not predominantly due to "optimizing their software stack". SPECint, SPECfp, Geekbench, Cinebench, etc. all show major improvements.
2) x86 also heavily relies on micro-ops to greatly improve performance. This is not a "penalty" in any sense.
3) x86 is now six-wide, eight-wide, or nine-wide (with asterisks) for decode width on all major Intel & AMD cores. The myth of x86 being stuck on four-wide has been long disproven.
4) Large buffers, L1, L2, L3, caches, etc. are not exclusive to any CPU microarchitecture. Anyone can increase them—the question is, how much does your core benefit from larger cache features?
5) Ryzen AI Max 300 (Strix Halo) gets nowhere near Apple on 1T perf / W and still loses on 1T perf. Strix Halo uses slower CPUs versus the beastly 9950X below:
Fanless iPad M4 P-core SPEC2017 int, fp, geomean: 10.61, 15.58, 12.85 AMD 9950X (Zen5) SPEC2017 int, fp, geomean: 10.14, 15.18, 12.41 Intel 285K (Lion Cove) SPEC2017 int, fp, geomean: 9.81, 12.44, 11.05
Source: https://youtu.be/2jEdpCMD5E8?t=185, https://youtu.be/ymoiWv9BF7Q?t=670
The 9950X & 285K eat 20W+ per core for that 1T perf; the M4 uses ~7W. Apple has a node advantage, but no node on Earth gives you 50% less power.
There is no contest.
Comment · 2 years ago
The article is estimating 15,000; however, Intel confirmed a "more than 15% headcount reduction".
As of June 29, 2024, according to their Q2 2024 release:
Intel: 116,500 employees
Mobileye & other subsidiaries: 5,300
NAND: 3,500*
Intel total: 125,300
* NAND employees will automatically move to SK Hynix after the divesture is complete.
Source: https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1704/...
15% * 116,500 = 17,475 employees (low estimate)
15% * 125,300 = 18,795 employees (high estimate)
Thus, it will be more than 15,000 employees for sure. :(
//
Written another way: at least 1 in 7 Intel employees will be let go. I don't know how a CPU & foundry can fire 15% in two quarters without significant negative repercussions.
It's a very sad day for Intel employees.
Comment · 2 years ago
I would've preferred the gov't handing Intel a check and expecting, in return,
1) ownership stake of Intel, including governance, for xx years
2) stock buyback ban
3) stock dividend ban
4) golden parachute ban
5) far more public disclosures of progress, setbacks, and other problems
If Intel—who's spent BILLIONS on buybacks—can't find enough money from the debt or equity or private markets, then, yes, serious strings should be required.
Currently, CHIPS only receives some profit sharing and that's it.
There were way too many alternative ways to implement this and we're paying the price of picking a "winner" that is massively cocky and arrogant with abysmal results. Major mistake and unlikely to deliver because it got wads of cash with very few serious strings attached.
Just exposed yesterday:
>The company is permanently grounding the Intel Air Shuttle, which flies workers between its major sites in Hillsboro, Silicon Valley and Arizona.
>The company stopped the flights last year then resumed flying in April. The shuttle was especially prized by Oregon employees, who sought to avoid the 30-mile drive across the metro area to Portland International Airport.
>The decision to permanently ground the shuttle, just five months after reinstating it, suggests that Intel executives didn’t recognize the severity of their financial situation until very recently.
Comment · 2 years ago
Projected to be better by Intel and Intel alone. Intel has disclosed virtually no details of Intel 18A on any industry-standard metric: perf / W with an Arm core, transistor density; precise perf & density improvements over Intel 4, 3, and 20A.
TSMC is far, far more transparent than Intel—which is backwards. Intel is who needs more customers. Intel's silence on 18A's specifics is not inspiring.
Qualcomm resoundingly rejected Intel 18A, according to the Wall Street Journal, due to Intel missing multiple promised 18A milestones.
>Qualcomm, which designs chips and outsources manufacturing, wanted to work with Intel, and assigned a team of engineers to work toward making mobile-phone chips at Intel’s factories. It was particularly interested in a cutting-edge chip-making technology that Intel hopes will be the most advanced in the world by late next year.
>In early 2022, Intel’s foundry arm sent a delegation to Qualcomm’s San Diego headquarters, where they met with CEO Cristiano Amon. Then Intel missed a June performance milestone toward producing those chips commercially. It missed another in December.
>Qualcomm executives concluded Intel would struggle making the kind of cellphone chips they wanted, even if it succeeded in making high-performance processors. Qualcomm told Intel it was pausing work while it waits for Intel to show progress, according to people involved in the discussions.
Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-gelsinger-nvidia-turnarou...
//
We have a long way to go. Intel only expects 18A high-volume manufacturing (HVM) in 2026, with "small amounts of 18A wafers [in 2025]".
Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/int...
//
Without Qualcomm, Intel has only found one real customer after a half-decade of hype: UMC's design subsidiary Faraday is an "evaluation [sever] platform" with Arm Neoverse cores, while Microsoft is making a vague "custom" chip.
Faraday won't even sell those CPUs (it's an ASIC firm primarily) and Microsoft couldn't be bothered to give a single word of detail of what they are producing.
I'm not hopeful, yet, until someone actually ships a key product on Intel 18A.
Comment · 3 years ago
This was hilarious
Comment · 5 years ago
This is purely a DIY problem for six-month old systems.
Not a single OEM desktop or laptop sold in the past six months as new should have any of these issues.
UEFI is non-negotiable, TPM 2.0 is virtually universal, and you only need to be Secure Boot capable—not actually have Secure Boot on.
This tool expects the person that built the computer (Dell, HP, Lenovo, or the DIY enthusiast) to understand the terms.
But, credit to the author, it presents them in a very poor way. It should’ve noted UEFI / GPT wasn’t enabled first before any other error. But it assumes you know UEFI requires GPT which means using mbr2gpt.exe.
Comment · 5 years ago
Thank you for the reply. Great to hear it's on Framework's radar.
While the reparability helps (as I'm used to even $800 laptops calling for $300 screens + webcam + Wi-Fi antenna), if it's profitable for Framework, it'd be an instant buy here.
Comment · 5 years ago
Thank you so much for starting this project and hopefully long-term investment. Incredibly refreshing.
The site is down for the moment. What is the situation about warranty?
Do you plan to offer multi-year options? I’m all for repairing my own laptop, but if there is an option to pay upfront for some peace of mind on at least the parts, I’d bite.
Comment · 5 years ago
Agreed. Zen3 would’ve been killer and cooler to boot.
I wonder if it is a supply concern? Zen2 laptops also ~seemed~ in scarce supply for quite some time last year, even after the launch.
How to tease out Intel’s anti-competitive belligerence versus actual supply issues? Zen3 on desktop seems to be regularly available, but desktop is lower volume than mobile.
This really deserves an AMD variant.
I would suspect Intel has juicy bundle discounts, especially if this is a part of the EVO program (which I don’t think it publicly is).
Comment · 5 years ago
I think it’s down again if you click the configurations. Home page is sometimes up, but that’s also down some of the time.
“ 500 Internal Server Error If you are the administrator of this website, then please read this web application's log file and/or the web server's log file to find out what went wrong.”
The hug of death.
> FUJITSU-MONAKA is a Next-Gen Arm-based processor, set for release in 2027, designed to address the challenges of next-generation data centers with its unmatched performance and power efficiency.
https://global.fujitsu/en-global/technology/research/fujitsu...
It is no secret it is Arm; MONAKA was announced in late 2024.
https://www.techpowerup.com/329761/fujitsu-previews-monaka-1...