3 ms·
The performance here is less interesting than the apparently quasi imminent availability of real RVA23 devices. If/when that occurs it will set a baseline and t
by fidotron 1y ago
The performance here is less interesting than the apparently quasi imminent availability of real RVA23 devices. If/when that occurs it will set a baseline and things should not warrant from scratch rebuilds constantly for at least a while.
Anyone that believes semiconductor performance claims before device availability is in for a rough time.
- gchamonlive 1y agoYou are right, but I think this is different than say performance claims for the next generation by mainstream GPU or CPU manufacturers. This is a chicken and the egg problem. You need interest in the architecture and belief in performance for device availability to start to pop, after all who would invest a lot of money in something they don't think will have a market, but you also need device availability to support performance claims. So I think for newer products, performance claims will have to do.
- brucehoult 1y agoManufacturers don't lie about how many clock cycles Dhrystone or Coremark or SPEC takes on their design. The first two can be checked at the verilator (or commercial equivalent) stage, and SPEC in FPGA, both long before physical chips. The only things in doubt are: - whether they hit the hoped-for MHz - whether the code you want to run has the same characteristics as their benchmark For example SG2044 GeekBench results have been appearing on the site from time to time for more than half a year now. GB as a whole is pretty much worthless for what I care about, but the Clang test within it aligns closely with what I do, including the rqtio between multi-thread and single-thread.