3 ms·
You have to disable the efficiency cores to make it work, so it’s not exactly a net win unless you have some heavily AVX-512 workloads exclusively. The number o
by PragmaticPulp 5y ago
You have to disable the efficiency cores to make it work, so it’s not exactly a net win unless you have some heavily AVX-512 workloads exclusively. The number of people who might benefit from this is extremely small.
I’m guessing it’s more likely that they didn’t validate the chips for AVX-512 operation when selecting the thermal and power limits, and they’d really rather not have them coming back at higher warranty rates.
- teruakohatu 5y ago> they’d really rather not have them coming back at higher warranty rates. That would suggest that people are using them in enough quantities to warrent Intel "asking" for the functionality to be disabled.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago> I’m guessing it’s more likely that they didn’t validate the chips for AVX-512 operation when selecting the thermal and power limits, and they’d really rather not have them coming back at higher warranty rates. These are K parts. They're built for overclocking. People are going to take them outside of their thermal and power limits anyway.
- _kulang 5y agoProbably an issue with scheduling P/E cores when they don’t support exactly the same instruction set