Linux Kernel Set To Finally Retire AMD 3DNow!

[Anux]

unless that new is much less power hungry(which it will be if new enough)

You totally missed my point, you not only need to account for energy consumption while using hardware but also the energy that was used to produce an ship it, as well as the disposal/recycling process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agbogbloshie

But here my Phenom is as slow as a Raspberry Pi 4B... Yep, 50MB/s over SFTP...

Than your storage device seems to be the limit and your still better off not producing more waste if it doesn't improve your experience.

[TemplarGR]

Yep, there are millions of other bs lines of code to remove. Like the graphic drivers. A light and universal cpu vulkan support a la lavapipe should be enough to drive graphics until mesa or blobs are installed.

I am not an expert on the graphics stack but this does not make sense to me. The only parts of those drivers that reside inside the kernel are the lightweight parts..... Besides, why turn all the drivers into userspace drivers? This would drop gpu performance and (re-)create other issues.

[TemplarGR]

You could argue that about a lot of things. I don't, for example, use or need AVX512. Like I said, the hardware supports SSE4a so for me the loss of 3DNow! support will hardly be noticed.

AVX512 is far more powerful and modern, supported in modern hardware, and likely to be introduced to almost all cpu architectures in the near future. AMD will include it.... And Alder Lake shenanigans aside, Intel is likely to re-introduce it in consumer cpus as well. 3DNow is totally useless in modern use cases and used only in obsolete AMD processors. Apples to oranges comparison.

[TemplarGR]

With the global chip shortage, and no end in sight it is beyond me why support/features for older hw generations is getting removed from the linux kernel and mesa recently.

Yeah. People stuck on 2013-15 eras hardware are going to miss 3Dnow for their use cases....

[tildearrow]

Than your storage device seems to be the limit and your still better off not producing more waste if it doesn't improve your experience.

Nope, as transfer using netcat uses the available throughput entirely (which is 110 MB/s) unlike SFTP. Here:

sftp> put mmc-4.gz
Uploading mmc-4.gz to /location/mmc-4.gz
mmc-4.gz                                                                      100%  611MB  65.9MB/s   00:09     
sftp> ^D
~$ cat mmc-4.gz | pv | nc ??? 4567  
611MiB 0:00:05 [ 108MiB/s] [         <=>                                                                      ]

[Anux]

Nope, as transfer using netcat uses the available throughput entirely (which is 110 MB/s) unlike SFTP. Here:

sftp> put mmc-4.gz
Uploading mmc-4.gz to /location/mmc-4.gz
mmc-4.gz 100% 611MB 65.9MB/s 00:09
sftp> ^D
~$ cat mmc-4.gz | pv | nc ??? 4567
611MiB 0:00:05 [ 108MiB/s] [ <=> ]

You know about caching? You're a member of a forum all about benchmarks after all and wouldn't make such a big mistake right?

[jabl]

With the global chip shortage, and no end in sight it is beyond me why support/features for older hw generations is getting removed from the linux kernel and mesa recently.

In this case, if you look at the commit the article links to, the old 3dnow code had bitrotten and was broken. By removing that code and falling back to the default x86-32 memory copying and page clearing functions (that ALL other x86-32 CPU's use, so they are very likely correct and decently well performing), the commit actually made the kernel work again for those old CPU's.

[skeevy420]

You totally missed my point, you not only need to account for energy consumption while using hardware but also the energy that was used to produce an ship it, as well as the disposal/recycling process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agbogbloshie


Than your storage device seems to be the limit and your still better off not producing more waste if it doesn't improve your experience.

While I don't disagree, at some point it gets beyond stupid the things that can be correlated and accounted for.

What about the energy used to light the box while it sat on the shelf at Best Buy? What about the energy from the coffee maker used by janitor at the paper supplier of the shipping company?

What impact does Phoronix have on Linux's world-wide power footprint? Does all of Michael's benchmarks negate power efficiency improvements in Linux?

What impact do the improvements in internal combustion technologies have in regards to energy used to transport goods in the past and now? Do improvements in shipping and motor efficiency negate using older CPUs at home?

Which uses more net energy: using older, inefficient tech or recycling and buying newer, more efficient tech? You have to remember that the newer tech is both electronically more efficient and logistically more efficient (everything from better motors to how streets are mapped out).

Do all the computers and technologies that makes modern (smart) shipping more efficient use more net power than historical (dumb) shipping?

[Anux]

While I don't disagree, at some point it gets beyond stupid the things that can be correlated and accounted for.

Yeah your totally right, how stupid is mother nature? Why can't i just throw away stuff and its magically gone instead of polluting the world? Why must everything be produced before i can buy it, it should just exist!!!!

What about the energy used to light the box while it sat on the shelf at Best Buy?

Buy elsewhere if that is a problem for you. Even better, buy second hand used stuff.

What impact does Phoronix have on Linux's world-wide power footprint? Does all of Michael's benchmarks negate power efficiency improvements in Linux?

Thats a simple math problem which you don't even have to solve, if you know the scale.

What impact do the improvements in internal combustion technologies have in regards to energy used to transport goods in the past and now? Do improvements in shipping and motor efficiency negate using older CPUs at home?

Any small improvement there is still worse than no shipping.

Western Civs are the worst environment polluters, everyone has 1 or more cars, buys new mobiles every 2 years and basically throwing away stuff because its old or something newer is more cost effective. Even simple fruits that grow in your neighborhood, get picked on the other side of the globe by super cheap slaves and gets shipped in your next supermarket because capitalism doesn't care about nature and the well being of the human race.

Which uses more net energy: using older, inefficient tech or recycling and buying newer, more efficient tech?

Thats exactly the question you have to ask before throwing away perfectly working Tech. For IT-Stuff its always using older tech, because it uses so little energy in contrast to its production and recycling. And you have to ask, will it really get recycled or just burnt on big piles to salvage the gold? How do you even recycle the non metal parts of tech, and who should pay for it?

Do all the computers and technologies that makes modern (smart) shipping more efficient use more net power than historical (dumb) shipping?

You still didn't get it. Not buying something results in less shipment. Making shipment a little bit more efficient leads to cheaper shipments and people buying more stuff that gets shipped.

[pal666]

You totally missed my point, you not only need to account for energy consumption while using hardware but also the energy that was used to produce an ship it, as well as the disposal/recycling process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agbogbloshie

i didn't, it already accounted for in price. it can't consume more energy than its cost