AVX-512 can benefit the average Joe, it appears.

AVX-512 can benefit the average Joe, it appears.

  • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPMEnglish
    27·
    2 months ago

    Sadly, Intel takes another loss here.

    There is an issue, though: Intel disabled AVX-512 for its Core 12th, 13th, and 14th Generations of Core processors, leaving owners of these CPUs without them.

        • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPMEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          True, though it’s worth noting that AMD focus efficiency means that there isn’t a lot of extra performance you can get from their modern CPUs with overclocking.

          • boonhet@lemm.eeEnglish
            9·
            2 months ago

            I think it’s less because of their efficiency focus and more because the chips already auto-overclock to reasonably high levels.

            • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPMEnglish
              3·
              2 months ago

              I meant more of the whole approach of designing chips with efficiency as a top priority which means they get the best performance they can within their efficiency targets, which is always more optimal than users tinkering on their own. Efficiency and performance are kind of different sides of the same coin.

          • cubism_pitta@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, but Intel charges you $200 more for the -K sku so you can find out the same applies to Intel :)

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        Probably some BS market segmentation move.

        I imagine they noticed only certain server customers were using those extensions, so decided to limit them to high margin server SKUs.

        It would have been a smart move if there weren’t competitors putting that instruction in every CPU.

  • Mike1576218@lemmy.mlEnglish
    12·
    2 months ago

    Hand written assembly is pretty common in video, no matter what they say. All modern video codecs have hand written assembly for all modern SIMD extensions, even on ARM. They didn’t say anything about where these numbers come from. Likely compared against unoptimized C code. There will never be a case where having AVX-512 will give you that kind of speedup, because there will be fallbacks for more common extensions.

    • xan1242@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      5·
      2 months ago

      It’s mostly because AVX-512 doesn’t get used too well by compilers even today.

      However, what makes this impressive for me is that it is x86 after all. ARM is way easier to write assembly for.

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPMEnglish
      7·
      2 months ago

      It’s about code optimization and efficiency. Most assembly code these days just relies on compilers for optimization as hand optimizing is extremely time-consuming work.

      • propter_hog [any, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        To add to this, it’s also very easy and very likely to write assembly that has zero speedup or even significant slowdown versus what the compiler will write.

    • dev_null@lemmy.mlEnglish
      6·
      2 months ago

      It’s handwritten assembly as opposed to bytecode generated by a compiler, from handwritten higher level language.