If that's what you need to do in order to support your position because you have yet to do so so far.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP All Models Is Apple ****ing themselves over the ThreadRipper 3 yet?
- Thread starter macjunkie2013
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Finally 12-core laptops again. But now cheaper and with actual mobility:
www.anandtech.com
CES 2020: Clevo & XMG Prepare Notebooks w/ 12-Core AMD Ryzen 9 3000 CPUs
On the subject of raw single core performance of Intel chips I recall hearing that some of the common dev tools in use are actually done by Intel. Just wondering if the compilers/middleware would be giving them any advantage in this?
Just like Nvidia are writing drivers specifically to boost games and have a team tasked with helping studios to optimize games for their GPUs.
Just like Nvidia are writing drivers specifically to boost games and have a team tasked with helping studios to optimize games for their GPUs.
Intel compilers traditionally favor Intel processors.
But I think not that many people use them.
That's not a laptop any more than a 21.5" iMac is - that's a desktop CPU stuffed in a (somewhat) portable case.Finally 12-core laptops again. But now cheaper and with actual mobility:
CES 2020: Clevo & XMG Prepare Notebooks w/ 12-Core AMD Ryzen 9 3000 CPUs
I think AMD's 4000-series true laptop CPUs are a big step forward (and there's some chance of AMD-based Macs now because of them).
a junk-maker like Clevo stuffing desktop CPUs in something that looks like a laptop case, creating an unreliable hybrid between a computer and a space heater that barely runs on batteries, however, is not news.
That is definitely a laptop. Lighter than a 17" MBP.
The 12-core Xeon laptops that existed before weighed 5kg and the battery only lasted for half an hour. They also used a 350W charger. That is why I did not buy one. But this new stuff would seem acceptable.
EDIT: I thought if this XMG provided 1.5 hours of battery it would be usable. They quote 2 (real life?).
Last edited:
Have you ever thought about checking facts before you type?
What is the maximum number of threads a process can have in windows
In a windows process is there any limit for the threads to be used at a time. If so what is the maximum number of threads that can be used per process?
The correct answer is many thousands to tens of thousands.
In my toolkit I have a "broadcast ping" tool that I wrote to scan entire subnets. I limit it to 512 threads because it isn't any faster with more threads.
Jesus H. Christ riding a bicycle - how can you type such nonsense?
Should note: AMD has publicly complained Apple has an exclusivity agreement with Intel that includes incentives.
Neither Intel or Apple have said anything, but AMD themselves is pretty sure it’s why they don’t have business with Apple.
I did search before posting. HARDWARE threads.Have you ever thought about checking facts before you type?
What is the maximum number of threads a process can have in windows
In a windows process is there any limit for the threads to be used at a time. If so what is the maximum number of threads that can be used per process?stackoverflow.com
The correct answer is many thousands to tens of thousands.
In my toolkit I have a "broadcast ping" tool that I wrote to scan entire subnets. I limit it to 512 threads because it isn't any faster with more threads.
Jesus H. Christ riding a bicycle - how can you type such nonsense?
View attachment 888856
Windows 10 supports four sockets and 256 logical cores. Windows Server supports up to 64 sockets.
Note that the kernel is basically the same, so increasing the core count over 256 is a licensing matter, not engineering.
Last edited:
I know about the total limit, but it seems one process is limited to one Processor Group and one Processor Group limited to 64 logical cores.
That's true only when such program is not programmed (or optimized) to assign process affinity to other processor group isn't it? I'm not that familiar with the concept, but what you say is only applicable for apps written in such way that doesn't utilize the possibility. So I don't know how you can say Windows not supporting it.
The default is to limit to one processor group, but applications can ask to use multiple groups.
Processor Groups - Win32 apps
The 64-bit versions of Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 and later versions of Windows support more than 64 logical processors on a single computer. This functionality is not available on 32-bit versions of Windows.
docs.microsoft.com
The 64 Core Threshold – Processor Groups on Windows
TL;DR – Microsoft hacked in support for more than 64 logical CPU cores by adding ‘processor groups’. Unless an application is written to take advantage of multiple processor group…
bitsum.com
The fact that AMD is now releasing a 64 core 128 thread part for under $4k that could very well fit into the budget boundaries of the Mac Pro... yeah, I'd say Apple is now staring down Intel with an unimpressed look.
NOTHING without a power-optimized mobile CPU is a laptop... Is it "portable" - yes, in the same sense an Osborne 1 was. Is it capable of getting meaningful work done away from an outlet? No...
2 hours of idle power means no more than 30 minutes on anything you'd buy this machine for.
A 16" MacBook Pro has an honest 10+ hours in Word, Mail, Safari - and a couple of hours in heavy use in Lightroom, Final Cut, Logic, etc. It can also use USB-C power packs to improve that. With 85%+ the performance of a big iMac (or, embarrassingly, a base Mac Pro) - that's a real high performance laptop.
There may be reasons to buy a portable computer with a big Ryzen (a machine that needs to be used in two places, both with outlets)... I'd look carefully at the cooling - Clevo doesn't have the best of reputations.
A 5kg machine is portable like an Osborne. A 3kg machine can be a real laptop even if it uses a desktop CPU.
If 12-core Xeon could run for half an hour 6 years ago, I can believe 3900X@65W can run for 2 hours now.
I care about power, not 8-hour battery. Not even cMBPs were powerful machines.
Last edited:
Now that CPUs can have 128 threads on one socket, maybe it is time for a bigger mask.The default is to limit to one processor group, but applications can ask to use multiple groups.
Processor Groups - Win32 apps
The 64-bit versions of Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 and later versions of Windows support more than 64 logical processors on a single computer. This functionality is not available on 32-bit versions of Windows.docs.microsoft.com
The 64 Core Threshold – Processor Groups on Windows
TL;DR – Microsoft hacked in support for more than 64 logical CPU cores by adding ‘processor groups’. Unless an application is written to take advantage of multiple processor group…
But I guess it would have to be kept to 128-bit.
I don't expect a core bump for a couple years, but maybe AMD will increase to 4 threads per core sooner. Maybe 256-bit for the server and workstation versions would not cause much trouble.
Last edited:
Maybe when we get 128-bit or 256-bit ISAs!
There are several problems with the approach of making processor groups larger:
- The scheduler is one of the most performance critical pieces of the OS. By limiting the processor group to the size of the largest supported integer, far fewer instructions are needed at each scheduler tick.
- Processor groups allow parallel, rather than serial scheduling. Each group is an independent kernel thread.
- Most bigger systems have non-uniform memory access at main memory and/or cache. Processor groups provide a natural way to group memory and compute allocations to NUMA nodes.
I thought that maybe they could use XMM and YMM.Maybe when we get 128-bit or 256-bit ISAs!
There are several problems with the approach of making processor groups larger:
- The scheduler is one of the most performance critical pieces of the OS. By limiting the processor group to the size of the largest supported integer, far fewer instructions are needed at each scheduler tick.
- Processor groups allow parallel, rather than serial scheduling. Each group is an independent kernel thread.
- Most bigger systems have non-uniform memory access at main memory and/or cache. Processor groups provide a natural way to group memory and compute allocations to NUMA nodes.
I don't think Linux has these problems?
Last edited:
What problem? And if it's a problem, can you say the Apple OSX doesn't have the same problem?
(And since Apple OSX has never supported 64 logical cores - how would you know?)
The problem would be commercial massively multi-threaded programs that don't deal with Processor Groups.
I don't care about OSX.
In mathematics, we call this the "null set".
We're on the same page.. But seriously, you're knocking Windows for their solution for a problem that Apple OSX has never addressed?
Last edited:
I'm not knocking Windows, I think the hack is past its prime.In mathematics, we call this the "null set".
We're on the same page.. But seriously, you're knocking Windows for their solution for a problem that Apple OSX has never addressed?
People have upgraded machines just to see their software run slower.
I think this might be blocking the release of 48-core Threadripper.
Last edited:
"Processor groups" is not a hack - it's an elegant solution to the problem of how to schedule large numbers of cores that are bigger than the largest integer mask supported by a processor.
It "simply works" for most apps. For apps that create huge numbers of threads, it adds a minor extra bit of complexity when creating threads on processors with more than 64 logical cores.
Links? With supporting evidence that processor groups is the problem?
Links? Or is it just the lack of real world applications that can exploit 48 cores?
What if Intel/ATI/VIA announced a 640 core processor (2560 threads) at 4.0 GHz. Would anyone care?
Last edited: