Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Makes Cryptography Faster On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Yah!

    All right, I use encryption under LVM on a Pentium B940 laptop. Now it will run faster! Oh, wait, no it won't, Intel fused off AESNI and AVX on this chip. *middlefinger* to you Intel.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by willmore View Post
      All right, I use encryption under LVM on a Pentium B940 laptop. Now it will run faster! Oh, wait, no it won't, Intel fused off AESNI and AVX on this chip. *middlefinger* to you Intel.
      Err, you bought a reduced feature set processor and you're angry that it doesn't provide the full set of features? What kind of sense does that make?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gusar View Post
        Err, you bought a reduced feature set processor and you're angry that it doesn't provide the full set of features? What kind of sense does that make?
        Because they have a business model based on non-reality based feature differientation? Does AMD do that?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by willmore View Post
          Because they have a business model based on non-reality based feature differientation?
          How does this answer my question? You bought a processor with a known feature set. If this set is not sufficient for your needs, you shouldn't have bought that processor.

          Originally posted by willmore View Post
          Does AMD do that?
          From what I know, no. But why didn't you buy AMD then?

          Seems to me you didn't do enough research before making your purchase. If that's correct, this one is on you and only on you, and it makes no sense to be angry at Intel.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gusar View Post
            How does this answer my question? You bought a processor with a known feature set. If this set is not sufficient for your needs, you shouldn't have bought that processor.

            From what I know, no. But why didn't you buy AMD then?

            Seems to me you didn't do enough research before making your purchase. If that's correct, this one is on you and only on you, and it makes no sense to be angry at Intel.
            I never said it was insufficient for my needs. I said that it could have performed better. I'm sorry that you can't understand why a consumer would be unhappy with Intel and their business practices.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by willmore View Post
              Because they have a business model based on non-reality based feature differientation? Does AMD do that?
              Yup. Have since they started disabling SMP on Athlon XPs and forcing you to buy their then MP, now Opteron line. Same damn processor.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by willmore View Post
                I never said it was insufficient for my needs. I said that it could have performed better.
                You showed the middle finger to Intel. That says more than just "they could have performed better", it says you wanted a feature but it's not there on your specific processor. It doesn't make sense to show the finger for the lack of a feature you don't need anyway.

                Originally posted by willmore View Post
                I'm sorry that you can't understand why a consumer would be unhappy with Intel and their business practices.
                Next time you should articulate yourself better, then you won't need to be "sorry".

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                  You showed the middle finger to Intel. That says more than just "they could have performed better", it says you wanted a feature but it's not there on your specific processor. It doesn't make sense to show the finger for the lack of a feature you don't need anyway.
                  We don't need most of instructions in current CPUs. Basically all software can be run using only i486/i586 instruction set. But you don't want that as this makes software slower.

                  Intel uses the exact same silicon for both SKUs, one has some of the silicon just disabled/burned off. It's a concious decision to sell basically exact same hardware at different price points.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by tomato View Post
                    Intel uses the exact same silicon for both SKUs, one has some of the silicon just disabled/burned off. It's a concious decision to sell basically exact same hardware at different price points.
                    Yeah. So why show the middle finger if you know that beforehand and can make purchasing decisions based on it? I would only resort to the finger if I thought I got screwed over in some way. There's no screwing over in this case.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      @willmore
                      Gusar is right, you have bought that processor knowing its limits, why are you angry now? It would make sense if you bought a processor with that feature and it didn't work, but this isn't the case..

                      p.s. if you notice almost every producer sells crippled versions of its products to differentiate price ranges.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by willmore View Post
                        Because they have a business model based on non-reality based feature differientation? Does AMD do that?
                        Yes, HD6950 vs HD6970.

                        Previously Black series vs normal phenoms.
                        There are two methods to produce segmentation:

                        - produce one full featured design and cut the parts out. Top-down.
                        pros:
                        1) can mix damaged chips
                        2) easier to support by means of drivers etc, due to same "housing"
                        3) cheaper to make, because they are made en masse and cut down as needed
                        4) many other needed parts match all crippled models
                        5) as effect, longer support cycle because cheap to maintain
                        cons:
                        1) no one likes crippling
                        2) more raw material waste
                        3) more energy loss

                        - produce many designs, designed for each specific case. Bottom-up.
                        pros:
                        1) can pack more chips on single waffle, less raw material waste
                        2) more energy efficient
                        cons:
                        1) they actually have nothing to de-cripple. They are crippled from design
                        2) harder to maintain, smaller support window. For example, compare G92 based nvidia 8800-gtx295 vs HD2xxx-4xxx.
                        3) harder to test, more bugs
                        4) development costs more, more wastes due to incorrect overproduction

                        * do not perform any segmentation, only filter chips based on their readings and clocks.
                        Thats what I prefer.

                        But I don't think this should interest you.
                        You just pick good price and all features you need and you are done. Let manufacturers decide how they implement it - crippled after or crippled on paper, in the end it plays little role.

                        Originally posted by Gusar View Post
                        Originally posted by willmore View Post
                        I'm sorry that you can't understand why a consumer would be unhappy with Intel and their business practices.
                        Next time you should articulate yourself better, then you won't need to be "sorry".
                        That was an excellent troll you posted
                        Last edited by crazycheese; 12-15-2012, 08:42 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                          And AGAIN since the instruction set is just an abstraction and has NOTHING to do with the actual hardware you might as well shoot for performance. Who cares about that dreadful CISC code? Nobody is ever going to look at it. It shoots out of the compiler and into the instruction unit and nobody needs to actually look at it or appreciate its intrinsic beauty.
                          Good luck finding a compiler that will output any AES-NI instruction if you don't use intrinsics or assembly language inline.

                          You know, one of the funding principles of RISC was that compilers can't use too complex instructions.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X