3 ms·

But why should it be on AMD? This needs to be a part of the OS as it is like in Linux, or as a user you're penalized for picking the company with less solid con

by Sakos 3y ago

But why should it be on AMD? This needs to be a part of the OS as it is like in Linux, or as a user you're penalized for picking the company with less solid connections to Microsoft and less budget available to do something like Intel's thread director (which is how Intel's mixed cores are "supported" by Windows). Windows doesn't have any native support for heterogenous cores. It just takes the CPU's advice on what to do. That seems crazy to me.

The_Colonel 3y ago
Well, who adds support for this into the Linux kernel? It's also the CPU vendors. While there is certainly a need for some common scheduler logic, there also needs to be per-vendor or even per-model support added, since the OS first needs to even figure out which cores are which and each vendor's efficiency cores have different characteristics.
- Sakos 3y ago
  AMD can't do that for Windows. Why do they have to add a hardware component to their CPU's to do it like Intel can afford to? > Intel’s Thread Director controller puts an embedded microcontroller inside the processor such that it can monitor what each thread is doing and what it needs out of its performance metrics. Linux literally has native support for heterogenous cores that works for both AMD and Intel. There's a world of difference between contributing to the kernel to ensure their CPU's work well and AMD being forced to put a microcontroller in their CPU and develop their own CPU-internal scheduling system.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    I think we're well past the point AMD is the "small indie dev" to "big corpo house" Intel. If AMD refuses to do what is necessary to fully bring out the performance of their hardware, that's not on Microsoft. I see Intel Thread Director quite similarly to how hardware manufacturers provide their own drivers. Sure, Microsoft could provide some generic driver, but that's not going to make full use of that hardware because only the manufacturer fully knows what's going on.
rewmie 3y ago
> But why should it be on AMD? It's in the best interests of OS vendors to get processors to work. It's in the best interests of CPU vendors to get processors to work optimally on major platforms. AMD's business is selling processors. Customers buy them if they perform better than the competitor's offers at the same price range. If your competitors optimizes implementations but you drop the ball and go with unoptimized ones, it matters nothing if your product performs better in theory if customers don't see that in the real world.

by Sakos 3y ago

The_Colonel 3y ago

Well, who adds support for this into the Linux kernel? It's also the CPU vendors. While there is certainly a need for some common scheduler logic, there also needs to be per-vendor or even per-model support added, since the OS first needs to even figure out which cores are which and each vendor's efficiency cores have different characteristics.

Sakos 3y ago
AMD can't do that for Windows. Why do they have to add a hardware component to their CPU's to do it like Intel can afford to? > Intel’s Thread Director controller puts an embedded microcontroller inside the processor such that it can monitor what each thread is doing and what it needs out of its performance metrics. Linux literally has native support for heterogenous cores that works for both AMD and Intel. There's a world of difference between contributing to the kernel to ensure their CPU's work well and AMD being forced to put a microcontroller in their CPU and develop their own CPU-internal scheduling system.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I think we're well past the point AMD is the "small indie dev" to "big corpo house" Intel. If AMD refuses to do what is necessary to fully bring out the performance of their hardware, that's not on Microsoft. I see Intel Thread Director quite similarly to how hardware manufacturers provide their own drivers. Sure, Microsoft could provide some generic driver, but that's not going to make full use of that hardware because only the manufacturer fully knows what's going on.

rewmie 3y ago

> But why should it be on AMD? It's in the best interests of OS vendors to get processors to work. It's in the best interests of CPU vendors to get processors to work optimally on major platforms. AMD's business is selling processors. Customers buy them if they perform better than the competitor's offers at the same price range. If your competitors optimizes implementations but you drop the ball and go with unoptimized ones, it matters nothing if your product performs better in theory if customers don't see that in the real world.