Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RHEL9 Raises Base Target For x86_64 CPUs Plus Possible Optimized Libraries With glibc-hwcaps

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

  • elatllat
    replied
    Ah
    CMPXCHG16B=CX16
    LAHF-SAHF=LAHF_LM

    HTML Code:
    grep -m 1 "model name" /proc/cpuinfo;grep -P "flags|Features" /proc/cpuinfo | cut -f 2 -d : | tr " " "\n" | sort -u | grep -iP "^(CX16|LAHF_LM|POPCNT|SSE4.1|SSE4.2|SSSE3)"
    model name : 11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-1165G7 @ 2.80GHz
    cx16
    lahf_lm
    popcnt
    sse4_1
    sse4_2
    ssse3
    and I assume there is an error in the artical because SSE3 would not be listed when sse4_1 is.
    So 6/6.
    Last edited by elatllat; 13 January 2021, 11:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • elatllat
    replied
    How to check those 7 items?
    Last edited by elatllat; 13 January 2021, 11:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by ms178 View Post
    This is an implementation detail which is becoming less true with newer generations on Intel CPUs.
    wrong 10900K and 11900K are both 14nm and this downclock to 1,7ghz problem does not go away with newer generation of intel cpus as long as they use 14nm.
    and it also does not go away with intels 10nm... why? simple: the 11900K has 5,2ghz
    the 10nm cpus with the newest 10+++ node only have 4ghz.
    intels 10nm node have more transistors on 1mm² because it is 3D structure but also not true for the AVX512 downclock problem because it is 3D structure the transistors are still "BIG"
    means they put more transistors on 1mm² but they failed to make the transistors smaller...

    so you see your point just shows complete imcompetence newer intel cpus like 11900K do not solve this problem. also 10nm of intel does not solve the problem.
    intel right now build 7nm note the 2D style with smaller transitors without the 3D structure of 10nm... this means the 7nm note will increase the AVX512 downclock from 1,7ghz to maybe 3ghz.
    what you do not get is this: intel does not have the 7nm note YET but AMD already produce in 5nm!!! and this is a fact. apple was the first to get 5nm note and AMD also has 20-30% of the 5nm after apple.

    this means in the moment intel does have 7nm it is a fact that AMD already have 5nm cpus everywhere. so this means your point is even a failure in 7nm because AMD will have 5,5ghz cpus in 5nm at this time.

    Originally posted by ms178 View Post
    Also this doesn't mean that this will be an issue with upcoming AMD CPU's. There are workloads where in spite of the downclocking, the benefits are still noticeable. These workloads are the last hold outs where Intel still trumps AMD in benchmarks. These might not be relevant to many people, but they are for some.
    i know 100% for sure that AMD WILL not build in AVX512 per one single core.
    believe it or not AMD has emulation for AVX512 instruction set to run it on AVX256
    zen4 also will not have AVX512 per core. instead it has AVX256 per core and the AVX units of 2 cores can put the units together to calculate AVX512.

    Originally posted by ms178 View Post
    Let's wait and see how AMD will implement it this time, while being good enough for most use cases at that time, this implementation strategy had its drawbacks, Intel's AVX2 implementation was faster where it was utilized fully. There is a chance for AMD to implement AVX-512 better than Intel though, without downclocking. AMD always hinted: We will implement it when the cost (die size) is reasonable and when they could avoid the downclocking, and with each newer process node these issues fade away. They originally wanted these workloads to be shifted onto the GPU - I don't know if you've noticed, but their HSA efforts failed, as this programming model never got wide enough traction and OpenCL versions above 2.0 haven't gotten any traction in the industry either.
    AMDs strategy is a strategy of downsizing they will only implement AVX units who can run at full speed without any downclocking. ZEN4 in 5nm you can expect a 256bit avx unit per core with 2 cores able to put the units together to perform AVX512.

    Originally posted by ms178 View Post
    At least Matt Pharr thinks differently, but he could make use of AVX-512 to a bigger extend, the speedups he achieved speak for themselves which showed good scaling in both vectorization and parallelization even in code which wasn't suited for this. He argued that from a performance per area perspective, wider vector engines were superior than putting more cores on the die. AMD went the opposite route with much success, but that is to a large part only reflecting Intel's inability to strike back on newer process nodes during the last several years. We are still stuck on a refined Skylake architecture on the desktop with Intel today. If they had kept innovating as they should have, AMD would have had a harder time coming back into the market. Also Intel failed for a long time to push software more to make better use these advanced capabilities of their CPUs, it took ages until RedHat finally drove this x86-feature level thing, why hasn't Intel done so already 5-10 years ago?
    i think outside of intel no one cares about "He argued that from a performance per area perspective" instead they all go after "performance per watt".
    also intels 10nm is 3D structure means high transistor count per area (same bullshit)
    and AMDs 5/7nm is smaller transistors and more performance per watt.

    "Intel's inability to strike back on newer process nodes during the last several years."

    intel for years did big mistake by only care for transistor count per dollar and profit and because of this they build 3D tranistors with many tranistors per 1mm² yes this keep profit and dollar high but it fails on "performance per watt" because the tranistors are still big and need a lot of power.
    AMD is multible times better the chiplet design keep the costs low and 5/7nm keep the performance per watt up.

    do not expect any good from intel the next 2 years. intel does have 7nm cpus with AVX512 in 2 years. the next 2 years AMD will rule for sure with zen4 in 5nm...

    and keep in mind even if intel has 7nm right now their monolite die is more expensive than the chiplet design.

    also keep in mind intel also go the downsizing way but they go for ARM-Big.Little design

    but apple 1M cpu shows big.little design will not save them because you do not need more than 4 small cores... means even a 16core design with 8 fast and 8 small cores is a failure because you do not need more than 4 small cores.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anvil
    replied
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: RHEL9 Raises Base Target For x86_64 CPUs Plus Possible Optimized Libraries With glibc-hwcaps

    As we reported almost one year ago, Red Hat was looking at likely dropping older x86_64 CPU support from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 and we now have a better idea of their plans in catering RHEL9 better to modern processors...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...86-64-v2-Plans
    who is " Red Hat " Michael? its all 1 word REDHAT

    Leave a comment:


  • ms178
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post

    you do a lot of advertisement for AVX512... nothing what you write in the benefit of intels AVX512 is true. why?
    simple to much power consumtion and the need to downclock the core if the AVX512 unit is used.
    your so called 5,2ghz 11900K turned into a 1,7ghz cpu if you use AVX512.
    and if you have mixxed workload this decrease the integer performance very much and 80% of all code used is integer.
    This is an implementation detail which is becoming less true with newer generations on Intel CPUs. Also this doesn't mean that this will be an issue with upcoming AMD CPU's. There are workloads where in spite of the downclocking, the benefits are still noticeable. These workloads are the last hold outs where Intel still trumps AMD in benchmarks. These might not be relevant to many people, but they are for some.

    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    AMDs cpu design in the past used the SIMD 128bit units of 2 cores to emulate AVX256bit
    and they design to use 2 simd 256bit units to emulate AVX512...
    Let's wait and see how AMD will implement it this time, while being good enough for most use cases at that time, this implementation strategy had its drawbacks, Intel's AVX2 implementation was faster where it was utilized fully. There is a chance for AMD to implement AVX-512 better than Intel though, without downclocking. AMD always hinted: We will implement it when the cost (die size) is reasonable and when they could avoid the downclocking, and with each newer process node these issues fade away. They originally wanted these workloads to be shifted onto the GPU - I don't know if you've noticed, but their HSA efforts failed, as this programming model never got wide enough traction and OpenCL versions above 2.0 haven't gotten any traction in the industry either.

    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    AMD is very successfull with this downsitzing strategy no need for AVX512 at all.
    At least Matt Pharr thinks differently, but he could make use of AVX-512 to a bigger extend, the speedups he achieved speak for themselves which showed good scaling in both vectorization and parallelization even in code which wasn't suited for this. He argued that from a performance per area perspective, wider vector engines were superior than putting more cores on the die. AMD went the opposite route with much success, but that is to a large part only reflecting Intel's inability to strike back on newer process nodes during the last several years. We are still stuck on a refined Skylake architecture on the desktop with Intel today. If they had kept innovating as they should have, AMD would have had a harder time coming back into the market. Also Intel failed for a long time to push software more to make better use these advanced capabilities of their CPUs, it took ages until RedHat finally drove this x86-feature level thing, why hasn't Intel done so already 5-10 years ago?

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by ms178 View Post

    I haven't heard any of this, AMD also doesn't explicitly support AVX-512 with Zen 3. By the way, AVX-512 was designed to be more multi-purpose friendly, and Matt Pharr, the original author of ISPC, thinks that it is a huge improvement. As more and more game engines make use of ISPC (such as the next EA and Unreal Engine), AVX-512 support will deliver these improvements to capable CPUs. The old mantra that AVX doesn't matter in games is about to change (ISPC makes good use of SSE on older CPUs, too. But there might be a performance delta where the newer ISAs provide huge benefits).
    you do a lot of advertisement for AVX512... nothing what you write in the benefit of intels AVX512 is true. why?
    simple to much power consumtion and the need to downclock the core if the AVX512 unit is used.
    your so called 5,2ghz 11900K turned into a 1,7ghz cpu if you use AVX512.
    and if you have mixxed workload this decrease the integer performance very much and 80% of all code used is integer.

    AMDs cpu design in the past used the SIMD 128bit units of 2 cores to emulate AVX256bit
    and they design to use 2 simd 256bit units to emulate AVX512...

    it is clear AMD will not support AVX512 per core because clock speed is to low.

    the AVX units from AMD do not need to downclock it run at full ~4,5ghz...

    compare it to car engine AVX512 is full 8L engine per core and AMD cpu cores are only downsizing useing one 3L engine with turbo and the AVX units of 2 cores can work together.

    AMD is very successfull with this downsitzing strategy no need for AVX512 at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • ms178
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post

    in my knowledge a 5950X has AVX512 emulation based on microcode on AVX256 hardware.
    means your thoughts are wrong AMD customers will not be hurt by AVX512 ISA.
    AVX512 is a death horse right now AMD will not implement it in hardware but they already implemented it in software emulation run on AVX256 hardware.
    I haven't heard any of this, AMD also doesn't explicitly support AVX-512 with Zen 3. By the way, AVX-512 was designed to be more multi-purpose friendly, and Matt Pharr, the original author of ISPC, thinks that it is a huge improvement. As more and more game engines make use of ISPC (such as the next EA and Unreal Engine), AVX-512 support will deliver these improvements to capable CPUs. The old mantra that AVX doesn't matter in games is about to change (ISPC makes good use of SSE on older CPUs, too. But there might be a performance delta where the newer ISAs provide huge benefits).

    Leave a comment:


  • Teggs
    replied
    Originally posted by zxy_thf View Post

    A lot of reviewers are targeting gamers, not people using computers in production.
    They would be would have been wise not to say that even for gaming in the last few years. Last year Destiny 2, Apex Legends, and Star Citizen at least were all requiring AVX and unpleasantly surprising would-be customers in the process (or in Star Citizen's case, current customers).

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by ms178 View Post
    As AMD usually lacks behind Intel in ISA-support, I'd say not having AVX-512 support now could hurt AMD users down the road tomorrow. I would have thought that they would bring it to AM4 with Zen 3, but they did not. We know now what that means for Zen 3 users as Zen 4 is rumored to get AVX-512 support, that is the next CPU to get for better long-term value....
    in my knowledge a 5950X has AVX512 emulation based on microcode on AVX256 hardware.
    means your thoughts are wrong AMD customers will not be hurt by AVX512 ISA.
    AVX512 is a death horse right now AMD will not implement it in hardware but they already implemented it in software emulation run on AVX256 hardware.

    Leave a comment:


  • ms178
    replied
    Originally posted by zxy_thf View Post

    A lot of reviewers are targeting gamers, not people using computers in production.
    Sure, but even they should at least mention the lack of these instructions so that people are aware of the drawbacks. People who care about longevity should have looked to other SKUs or the competition anyways.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X