Intel Alder Lake Thunderbolt/USB4 Support For Linux 5.14

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Intel Alder Lake Thunderbolt/USB4 Support For Linux 5.14

Intel's Linux engineers continue squaring away the next-generation Alder Lake hybrid processor support. In addition to continued graphics driver work and other platform device IDs being added for the upcoming Linux 5.14 kernel, it looks like ADL's Thunderbolt/USB4 support will be merged too...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Alder-Lake-Thunderbolt-Linux

[uid313]

It's nice to finally see x86 desktop computers get heterogeneous computing with a mix big and small cores, something ARM have had with the big.LITTLE architecture for a decade already. Intel has been embarrassingly slow to adapt this, and AMD still don't have heterogeneous CPU with a mix of big and small cores.

Intel and AMD are very boring, so it is refreshing to see Apple bring the ARM-based Apple M1 CPU with amazing everything.
My computer is 8 year old and I have no desire to upgrade it. AMD and Intel are very boring, and the only thing that would make me interested is open source firmware and Coreboot support and such.

[schmidtbag]

It's nice to finally see x86 desktop computers get heterogeneous computing with a mix big and small cores, something ARM have had with the big.LITTLE architecture for a decade already. Intel has been embarrassingly slow to adapt this, and AMD still don't have heterogeneous CPU with a mix of big and small cores.

Intel and AMD are very boring, so it is refreshing to see Apple bring the ARM-based Apple M1 CPU with amazing everything.
My computer is 8 year old and I have no desire to upgrade it. AMD and Intel are very boring, and the only thing that would make me interested is open source firmware and Coreboot support and such.

It's funny, on Windows forums, people are like "why would I want the small cores?" but on Linux people are like "ooh how interesting" (I'm on team "how interesting" too).
I don't think AMD has been all that boring. It's thanks to them why we're seeing 8c/16t CPUs at affordable prices. Who knows how long 4c/8t would've stayed the norm.

Apple's M1 isn't that special, I'm still convinced it's the software that really makes it shine. I'm still anticipating mediocre Linux performance, at least until all of the Apple-specific instructions/extensions get utilized. Apple has been perfecting the performance of their platforms for years, having (spec-wise) underwhelming hardware that would still outperform better Android phones and tablets going back about a decade. Part of me wonders if x86-64 has too much baggage for that level of refinement.

[Paradigm Shifter]

I'm interested in Alder Lake, or rather the big.LITTLE style of architecture, but I am also very dubious about it given my experiences with SBCs using a big.LITTLE CPU. Phones seem to have done OK, but I hardly do anything on my phone to make it break a sweat. On the other hand, my computers (particularly at work) spend 99% of their lives at full load running things that like to finish at the same time.

For Windows, I'm more worried about how long it will take Microsoft to get their scheduler to a state which deals with big.LITTLE smoothly, and/or expose process core assignment to the user in a much more user friendly way than Powershell or fumbling around in Task Manager.

I expect Linux support to be solid, if not from day one, then at least from fairly soon after launch.

[uid313]

It's funny, on Windows forums, people are like "why would I want the small cores?" but on Linux people are like "ooh how interesting" (I'm on team "how interesting" too).
I don't think AMD has been all that boring. It's thanks to them why we're seeing 8c/16t CPUs at affordable prices. Who knows how long 4c/8t would've stayed the norm.

Apple's M1 isn't that special, I'm still convinced it's the software that really makes it shine. I'm still anticipating mediocre Linux performance, at least until all of the Apple-specific instructions/extensions get utilized. Apple has been perfecting the performance of their platforms for years, having (spec-wise) underwhelming hardware that would still outperform better Android phones and tablets going back about a decade. Part of me wonders if x86-64 has too much baggage for that level of refinement.

Small cores seem interesting to me because my computer is just idle doing basic tasks like listening to music while using the web browser, chatting or writing code. With small cores I could have less energy consumption, lower CO₂ footprint, lower noise from fans, maybe even semi-passive cooling.

You do got a point about AMD bringing forth 8c/16t CPUs. They'r pretty late to the game too, ARM-based CPUs had 8 cores for years, but at least AMD brought it in x86 before Intel.
I find AMD quite boring too though, Intel have a GPU on all their CPUs while AMD don't, and AMD used an old GPU on their new CPU. Intel is also known to work very well on Linux with support before the CPUs are even in store, I don't think AMD is as good as Intel when it comes to Linux support support.

So even if AMD has better products, I would still be inclined to go with Intel because Intel has better support, and AMD brings nothing new to the table. For me to consider AMD over Intel they would have to up their open source game with open source firmware.

But I find both Intel and AMD quite boring.

That Apple M1 seems really interesting, it seems even their MacMini can outperform Intel and AMD's best CPUs and the iPad Pro outperforms any Intel and AMD laptop. The benchmarks seem to indicate that the M1 is amazing. I don't like Apple but it seems they got a really good CPU and while I don't like Apple I do have to say it is going to be interesting to see their upcoming M2 CPU. I am not very excited to see what Intel and AMD are bringing next.

[schmidtbag]

Small cores seem interesting to me because my computer is just idle doing basic tasks like listening to music while using the web browser, chatting or writing code. With small cores I could have less energy consumption, lower CO₂ footprint, lower noise from fans, maybe even semi-passive cooling.

Agreed. And as I've said in other posts, on a desktop, the small cores should in theory be highly overclockable if you want to use them as high-performance cores instead of low power. Generally speaking (though certainly not always), the less complicated an architecture is, the less likely transistors will be unstable at higher speeds.
Aaaaand....
These cores ought to be cheap to produce. If people take a game console approach where you have a core or two dedicated to background processes, that's a waste of a good "big" core and you're paying for that complexity. So, if you had to choose between 2c/4t of big cores or 4 small cores to compensate for background processes, I'm sure the 4 small cores are cheaper.

You do got a point about AMD bringing forth 8c/16t CPUs. They'r pretty late to the game too, ARM-based CPUs had 8 cores for years, but at least AMD brought it in x86 before Intel.
I find AMD quite boring too though, Intel have a GPU on all their CPUs while AMD don't, and AMD used an old GPU on their new CPU. Intel is also known to work very well on Linux with support before the CPUs are even in store, I don't think AMD is as good as Intel when it comes to Linux support support.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Back when the Cortex-A17 was released, that had around 20 million transistors. Compare that to an i7-3770k (which was released I think prior to the A17) which had 1400 million transistors. The i7 has half the amount of cores yet 70x the transistor count. So, it's just not a reasonable comparison. ARM opted for more cores because that was the only way to improve performance-per-watt, and since each core had so few transistors, it was relatively simple to get away with. Remember, ARM prioritizes efficiency over performance. If they wanted to actually compete against Intel, they would have shoved in more instructions and boosted the clock speeds. Meanwhile, Intel had no chance of competing with the efficiency on mobile, because their architecture was way too complex to scale down in a way that wasn't horribly slow. That's why Intel dropped out of the mobile market.
I'm sure AMD would have a GPU on more products if there wasn't a shortage, and, if Intel wasn't going to beat them at their own game. They're selling their most profitable stuff first, and believe me, their APUs are easily the least profitable product. they make. The 5700G is $100 cheaper than the 5800X even though it's overall the same thing but with a GPU added. Intel's Xe, meanwhile, is a formidable contender, while AMD is still stuck on Vega.
So, once sales die down and AMD puts RDNA2 in their APUs, we're not going to see a whole lot of options any time soon.

So even if AMD has better products, I would still be inclined to go with Intel because Intel has better support, and AMD brings nothing new to the table. For me to consider AMD over Intel they would have to up their open source game with open source firmware.

You say that like new is inherently better... I have nothing against you going with Intel - I bought an 11th gen i5 a couple months ago. But I don't really follow your reasoning. Being boring isn't a good reason to pick a product. Both Intel and AMD are yielding substantial performance increases while staying within the same power envelope - what more do you really want that actually matters?

That Apple M1 seems really interesting, it seems even their MacMini can outperform Intel and AMD's best CPUs and the iPad Pro outperforms any Intel and AMD laptop. The benchmarks seem to indicate that the M1 is amazing. I don't like Apple but it seems they got a really good CPU and while I don't like Apple I do have to say it is going to be interesting to see their upcoming M2 CPU. I am not very excited to see what Intel and AMD are bringing next.

Again, this is not because of the CPU. It's almost entirely due to Apple's software. Apple has spent over a decade micro-optimizing their platform. Everything from the ground-up is purpose-built. Compare that to Windows, Linux, or Android, which has to sacrifice optimizations for general compatibility and freedom of choice. Y'know how everyone always complains Apple is so locked down? The way I see it, they only do that because the narrow path they set is what allows them to hone in on performance. Every deviation you have from hardware to programming language to API to other high-level abstractions, you're complicating the system and making it harder to optimize.
As always, compare to game consoles. They yield great performance despite having mediocre hardware. The only way they do this is through optimizations. Apple is no different.

[Paradigm Shifter]

I don't think windows support for hybrid architecture is going to be much of a big deal.According to reports,Intel and Microsoft are working together to ship the scheduler changes in the upcoming windows update which is expected to ship later this year,apparently around the same time at which Alderlake is expected to launch.It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Yes, you might well be right. I just remember Windows scheduler woes from Ryzen, and before that the Core 2 Quad (although that was horrible anyway, because the two dual-core parts had to communicate via the front side bus rather than directly...)

Microsoft does have a history of working closely with Intel, while dragging their feet over working with AMD (XP64 could have been a good OS!)...