3 ms·
To clarify, the CPU wasn’t validated, tested, or binned with AVX-512 operation in mind. You also can’t just enable AVX-512 in the BIOS. You have to disable the
by PragmaticPulp 5y ago
To clarify, the CPU wasn’t validated, tested, or binned with AVX-512 operation in mind. You also can’t just enable AVX-512 in the BIOS. You have to disable the efficiency cores first, resulting in a net slower CPU in multithreaded apps unless you have some very specific workload that uses AVX-512. There are also potential quirks with stability, thermals, and clock speed because AVX-512 normally alters clock speed, which presumably wasn’t tested or validated much if they never intended to ship it.
Realistically, I doubt there are many people out there who are interested in disabling some CPU cores to make a specific AVX-512 workload run faster on a consumer chip. It’s also not ideal to have a weird software support loophole where a specific CPU won’t have AVX-512 instructions except for maybe weird circumstances where someone enabled it.
- Wowfunhappy 5y agoI don't know, it seems like the sort of thing the build-your-own-PC crowd likes to experiment with. Overclocking also comes with all sorts of "potential quirks with stability, thermals, and clock speed", and is also not tested or validated, but tons of people do it anyway.
- btown 5y agoI imagine this could be useful for iterated crypto use cases, where you need to brute force hash(hash(hash(…))) as quickly as possible, you can’t parallelize by design, and some hardware failure is acceptable for extra speed. Perhaps this is a way for Intel to either avoid their inventory being eaten up by miners solving these problems, or to upsell to other CPU lines?