Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Intel AVX-512, MPX and SHA Extension

  1. #1
    Programmer Bulat Ziganshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Uzbekistan
    Posts
    4,572
    Thanks
    780
    Thanked 687 Times in 372 Posts

    Intel AVX-512, MPX and SHA Extension


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    1,497
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 132 Times in 102 Posts
    I wonder how close we are to the date when a PhD is required to understand x86 architecture.

    ;p

  3. #3
    Member WayneD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Down Under
    Posts
    7
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    caught this last week http://wccftech.com/mainstream-intel...-skylake-xeon/
    It was originally thought that AVX 512 will be available on every Skylake processor but that doesnt appear to be the case because a report form bitsandchips.it reveals that only Xeon based processors are going to be supporting it – ie mainstream support for the SIMD will be disabled. Even Xeon processors will have to wait for Cannonlake to enjoy the full feature set.
    No code has to be inserted here.
    bit of a followup from previous article regarding possible Intel launch of MorphCore http://wccftech.com/intel-preparing-...ure-morphcore/
    Last edited by WayneD; 8th March 2015 at 08:20.

  4. Thanks:

    Bulat Ziganshin (14th May 2015)

  5. #4
    Programmer Bulat Ziganshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Uzbekistan
    Posts
    4,572
    Thanks
    780
    Thanked 687 Times in 372 Posts
    it seems that AVX 3.2 will still hit markets in the 2H2015: http://www.kitguru.net/components/cp...r-1p-machines/

    usually low-level xeons are just the same as desktop cpus, including even GPU part, and has the same price: http://regmedia.co.uk/2013/06/01/int...processors.jpg

  6. #5
    Programmer Bulat Ziganshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Uzbekistan
    Posts
    4,572
    Thanks
    780
    Thanked 687 Times in 372 Posts

  7. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    358
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts
    Honestly I think that Intel is going in the wrong direction (just like Microsoft ).
    Adding more and more silicon, and latency, and complexity to CPU is not a great decision; why do not make a Intel-Java-VM in hardware?

    ARM CPUs is much, much smaller and much, much faster with the old-but-migthy RISC architecture.

    Intel, we want a 0.0001W i386 compatible silicon, to run Windows on a smartwatch with 30-days of power between charges, not a 1KW 32-core with supercomplex-vector primitives.

    Mah...

  8. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kraków, Poland
    Posts
    1,497
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 132 Times in 102 Posts
    Building overgrown cores doesn't preclude building small ones at the same time :]

  9. #8
    Member PAQer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    22
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Similar Threads

  1. Intel's Haswell CPUs
    By encode in forum The Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 13th August 2014, 15:46
  2. Intel C compiler find cpuid check
    By VoLT in forum The Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 6th September 2012, 11:24
  3. Intel Parallel Studio 2011
    By VoLT in forum The Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16th October 2010, 10:20
  4. gzip - Intel IPP
    By M4ST3R in forum Download Area
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2nd June 2010, 15:09
  5. Compiler related: Intel's code slower on AMD-CPUs?!
    By Vacon in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10th May 2008, 17:56

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •