2 ms·
I think it would have been even easier to understand if they used the launch year of the architecture. Of course you may need a finer number (include the month
by kevincox 6y ago
I think it would have been even easier to understand if they used the launch year of the architecture. Of course you may need a finer number (include the month or just a count if there are multiple launches in a year?) but I think it is worth it to get a rough idea of how old something is without finding a lookup table.
- dragontamer 6y agoThe details of chip releases is more complicated than just a numerical year. FMA4 extensions on Bulldozer are no longer supported, so a 2012-era CPU supports FMA4, but 2018-era Zen processors do NOT support FMA4. Xeon Phi supported a whole slew of AVX512 stuff that no other chip will ever support. Intel experimented with some instructions, and decided against them moving forward. The point of a "vague" number, like "v3" is just to provide a general idea. Its purposefully vague, because the details are simply too messy to keep track of.
- kevincox 6y agoI never suggested that year should be precise. I just think it is useful to use year as a vague number instead of something completely arbitrary. I think the only real downside is if people assume too much from that number. > FMA4 extensions on Bulldozer are no longer supported, so a 2012-era CPU supports FMA4, but 2018-era Zen processors do NOT support FMA4. I don't see how this is relevant. Isn't this the same problem that v4 supports something that v9 doesn't?