Intel Core with Radeon RX Vega M Graphics Launched: HP, Dell, and Intel NUC
anandtech.com
anandtech.com
Anyway:
> t provides an additional six displays up to 4K with the Intel HD graphics that has three, giving a total of nine outputs. The Radeon Graphics supports DisplayPort 1.4 with HDR and HDMI 2.0b with HDR10 support, along with FreeSync/FreeSync2. As a result, when the graphics output changes from Intel HD Graphics to Radeon graphics, users will have access to FreeSync, as well as enough displays to shake a stick at (if the device has all the outputs).
Yes, if those NOCs/HTPCs provide all of those capabilities, otherwise it's just marketing words. In reality, only top notch has more than 1 DisplayPort, I guess.
However, I read the article hoping to figure out why Intel is doing this, and no luck there. Are they giving up on the Intel graphics?
We've already seen laptops with Intel/AMD hybrid graphics, this just moves it from the motherboard to the other side of the socket without actually giving you the high-speed interconnect that an GPU-on-CPU gets.
Each of the new parts is a quad-core design using HyperThreading, with Intel’s HD 630 GT2 graphics as the traditional ‘integrated’ low power graphics (iGPU) for video playback and QuickSync. This is connected via eight PCIe 3.0 lanes to the ‘package’ graphics (pGPU) chip, the Radeon RX Vega M, leaving 8 PCIe 3.0 lanes from the CPU to use for other functionality (GPU, FPGA, RAID controller, Thunderbolt 3, 10 Gigabit Ethernet).
So Intel isn't throwing in the towel on the iGPU, they're just augmenting it with a discrete GPU in an all-in-one package for system builders.
I suspect that other products using this processor will be less generous in terms of connectivity, simply because it's total overkill for the overwhelming majority of users.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12226/intels-hades-canyon-nuc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#Multiple_displays_...
Personal computers are, well, not like that. And yet they often have peoples important creative works, correspondence etc on them. ECC is probably more useful there, it's just that it is harder to make any benefit visible to the customer.
(That doesn't mean customers don't care about realiability. It is just that they have no sane way of distinguishing a product that really is realiable from one with advertising that lies about being reliable).
You really don't need ECC as normal user, most of the time bit flips won't really hurt you. However, if, for example, you run long-running tasks like 3D rendering or Physical Simulations you may want ECC just to be sure your OS won't be killed by a bit flip in the wrong section. Your photo gallery or music collection however will most likely never be hurt by something like that, so still, consumers don't need to waste their money on overpriced ECC memory.
On the contrary, these are generally highly compressed. A single bit flip has major consequences.
My personal photo and music collections are what I care most about bit flips for, as I intend to keep them for a lifetime.
I suspect that the target market for this product would be mobile gaming and thereforce ECC would be a negative for the system as a whole.
Citation needed that people don't care about their photos and music. Human error and storage failures are more likely sources of loss but we're a big industry and can make progress on more than one thing at a time.
> consumers don't need to waste their money on overpriced ECC memory
If ECC went mainstream, prices would drop as volume increased.
In such a scenario ECC memory is not really a high priority, no?
Looking at the PCI-Express lanes available those other 8 CPU lanes look ripe for a thunderbolt 3 controller, with the rest of the peripherals being powered from the PCH (or does that make no sense at all?)
I think Intel still makes flash chips and they originally started out as a DRAM manufacturer as well..
You can ask them, I guess.
It would also mean that manufacturers would have to order different parts for two systems that are identical, expect from memory or storage. In your example, with 16 or 32GB of RAM and 256 or 512GB of storage, you'd end up having to order four different SKUs from Intel, and Intel would have to manufacture four different SKUs, plus one without memory and storage.
Logistically I don't think it makes sense to add storage and memory to the package, it just adds inflexibility and more SKUs.
all systems you see today with like 6-8GB of RAM and <500 GB SSD storage will practically force their users to upgrade in <3 years, whereas if you sell to the average home user a system with >=16GB RAM and >500GB SSD, he could keep using it for up to 6 years with no chance of it feeling underpowered... so very bad for business!
You can buy it barebones, but you can also buy some of them with everything pre-installed (including RAM and flash storage and licensed Windows OS)
So Intel goes cap-in-hand to AMD for their tech.
Intel isn't threatened by ARM yet in a performance laptop.
Of course one could reply laptops don't need that much power anymore to do what most users use them for today (thus people even here using tablet as their main tool) but that's another issue entirely, "much cheaper and good enough", one where Apple isn't Intel's main opponent either (I would even wager in that one, Intel is its own ennemy, given how terrible they've been handling the Atom brand and performance to protect margins).
Not sure I get you re Apple being an opponent to Intel for "cheap" parts. It goes without saying that Apple would not sell their own stuff to anyone else. And for their own use, I'm sure the hardware would be very cheap to manufacture.
Intel has to worry about Nvidia taking over the graphics and machine learning, AMD punching above its weight in workstation with EPYC and ThreadRipper, and ARM being cheap and good enough in all the low power fields and growing.
A middle of the line, ARM based performance oriented chip for laptop is no threat to i5/i7, except indeed the risk to lose their place in macs.
If they ditched Intel, that would very publically rip a stripe off of Intel, regardless of absolute market share. Not something Intel wants, and is what I contended Intel have gone to an unusual length, integrating AMD graphics, to avoid.
Now they should co-develop and promote a well designed open source ML framework, something that can compete with CUDA. AMD isn't up to the task, but Intel is.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if Intel ignore such judgement, what UK would do, stop selling all laptops/desktops?
Also who negotiated the deal to let Intel slap only its logo on the packaging, even though the AMD die is clearly larger?
Well, take a wild guess at which way the money is going to flow.
I don't know how they have the audacity to release new CPUs while all their products just went to shit...
The real elephant in the room is the first spectre vulnerability (exploiting the normal jump predictor), which allows untrusted code (think JS) to read anything in the same process. Apparently most [1] CPUs are affected by this. There is currently no mitigation for this, other than rewriting applications to use separate address spaces, and even then, I think with carefully crafted inputs even that can be exploited.
[1] apparently simple, in-order cpus are not, but in principle there is no reason for the attack to work there as well.
edit: another possible mitigation for spectre v1 is converting all bound checks controlled by untrusted input to force non-speculation (via if-conversion). It is going to take a very long time to covert all applications (it might be easier for VMs and JITs).
2) If you actually think the eBPF JIT being turned off is going to save you and that Ryzen is magically immune because it's off: you're deluding yourself completely. Thinking eBPF is the key or whatever is a full misread of the actual vulnerability... Attacks never get worse, they only get better. You are guaranteed to see more exploits that do not leverage eBPF, but other components of the kernel to compose gadgets. Modern systems are millions of LOC; there's ample surface area for this to happen.
I think all the "Intel sucks" comments should have a disclaimer "Full disclosure: I've never designed hardware in my life, I have no idea how to run a business, I really just hate Intel and this is an excuse to vent my hatred."
Oh and also, who in their right mind would buy a CPU with those bugs?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't almost every modern CPU vulnerable in some way with Spectre? If so isn't every modern CPU manufacturer "producing shit" in your eyes?
I also admit to taking a fairly dim view of Intel's PR around the issues, and the suspicion that Meltdown, in particular, exists because they - specifically - have played it a bit fast and loose with their processor designs in order to gain a performance edge, and perhaps to a greater extent than AMD and ARM.
Granted, this will take years for a final resolution in hardware though.