[HN Gopher] AMD doubles the number of CPU cores it offers to Chr...
___________________________________________________________________
AMD doubles the number of CPU cores it offers to Chromebooks
Author : scrummy
Score : 90 points
Date : 2022-05-06 08:55 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| lupire wrote:
| How much Linux terminal and/or XWindows/Wayland apps (and power-
| hungry Android apps?) can you do on a modern Chromebook?
| ch_123 wrote:
| Up until recently I owned a Pixelbook, and the Linux layer
| (Crostini) made ChromeOS a very viable development platform.
| The one thing I missed was the ability to start virtual
| machines (and I believe this may have been addressed on newer
| ChromeOS hardware)
| blip54321 wrote:
| Expired Chromebooks are cheap, and great for installing Linux.
|
| For my purposes, a $100 used Chromebook is perfectly adequate,
| and is the sort of device I can take on a hike, kayak, or bike
| ride, and not worry if it's lost, stolen, or damaged.
| 41b696ef1113 wrote:
| What is the best source to learn more about replacing
| ChromeOS with Linux? When I was briefly considering this, I
| found most of the Chromebooks came with non-replaceable eMMC
| (<64GB), soldered ram (~4GB), or 720p resolution.
|
| I am willing to adjust my performance expectations
| considerably, but the non-expandable storage has made me
| think I am in for a world of annoyance if I want to use
| anything other than a web browser.
| blip54321 wrote:
| The trick isn't to shop for /most/ Chromebooks. The trick
| is to shop for /decent, expired/ Chromebooks. Chromebooks
| are designed around planned obsolescence, and all come with
| a use-by date, after which they stop updating:
|
| https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/6220366?hl=en
|
| Chromebooks near or past the planned obsolescence date can
| be had for a song, including decent models. The market is
| close to non-existent, so there's a glut of them.
|
| My Chromebook has a 3200x1800 display, 16GB RAM, and takes
| an SD card (for expandable, albeit slow, storage). That's
| plenty for most of the types of work I'd like to do on a
| boat. It was under $200, almost expired. New, it would have
| been close to a grand.
|
| The most popular way to install Ubuntu is with crouton:
|
| https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/install-ubuntu-on-
| chromebook#1-...
|
| However, I installed it natively. Here's a random tutorial:
|
| https://dbtechreviews.com/2018/09/how-to-install-ubuntu-
| on-c...
|
| The key annoyance (really the only difference from a "real"
| laptop) is you have to hit a special key sequence on every
| boot.
|
| I definitely don't think of it as a "world of pain." I
| wouldn't use it as my primary laptop, but it's great as a
| device I can use in places I'd never take my primary
| laptop.
| davidmitchell2 wrote:
| Really a lot. I recently installed CloudReady (equivalent of
| ChromeOS Flex) on a 8th Gen Dell latitude. From Gimp to running
| 3 different chrome browsers with different profiles. All just
| works.
| spicybright wrote:
| It really is impressive how much a cheap computer can do with
| the right software now a days. Cheapest I see glancing at
| amazon right now is $75. Chump change in the first world.
|
| Probably even the cheapest part of schooling equipment too
| now. Never seen a textbook go for less than $100, at least in
| my experience.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Still using my 300 euro Asus 1215B from 2009.
| agumonkey wrote:
| That's some serious frugal :)
| spicybright wrote:
| I still really miss my dell mini laptop. It fit my small
| hands well and was easily lighter than a book.
|
| I used to throw it into one of those mini fashion
| backpacks and bike to the park to write a bit of code on
| nice days.
|
| Not much fear of breaking it because it was so cheap. Had
| external batteries too which I sometimes brought an extra
| of to swap out (which actually sounds crazy compared to
| how most laptops are now a days)
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| If the Steam Deck didn't exist, then due to the recent support
| for Steam[], one of these would be my next choice for a portable
| Half Life 1/2 appliance.
|
| [0] https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/steam-on-chromeos/
| oblak wrote:
| Unless things have changed over the last few years, I think
| having 8/16 is a bit of an overkill for an OS this restricted. It
| says they all have 15W TDB but I'd hope that's just the just max
| they have been configured to work at. Hence me thinks even the
| 4/8 5425C should be plenty for web browsing and running android
| apps for many, many years.
| user_7832 wrote:
| Good hardware restricted by software reminded me once again of
| the thing that iPadOS is. Despite excellent processors, the
| software is essentially iOS, with all its restrictions. Though
| chrome os is Linux based at least.
|
| Question for any curious or innovative HN readers - what would
| you suggest to do with iPadOS' restrictions? I'm speaking both
| as an ipad owner disappointed with the software but also as an
| M1/Ax chip fan.
|
| Potential solutions I can easily think of are: 1. Jailbreak -
| but it needs specific software and can be finicky, and very
| likely forces you to not get security updates
|
| 2. Physically remove the storage and *do something*. Except I
| don't know what even is possible, assuming that you're okay
| performing BGA soldering on a $$$ device.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Sadly, to fully use the M1/Ax processors I think the best
| thing to do with it is to sell it and buy a MacBook, and
| encourage others to not buy the high end iPads right now.
| wumpus wrote:
| > and encourage others to not buy the high end iPads right
| now.
|
| My entire group at work bought iPads as dedicated Zoom
| devices at the start of the pandemic. Did we make a mistake
| because our needs are different from yours?
| user_7832 wrote:
| That is what I too think, however there are 2 issues that
| come to mind immediately: 1. There is a market for tablets
| - for note taking or reading magazines, it really is
| convenient. You could probably switch to a Samsung tablet
| and likely get a very decent experience, but a lot of the
| "good" apps are still iOS-only (Procreate, Goodnotes,
| Notability etc _). Not to mention a decent aspect ratio.
|
| 2. If buying a proper computer, personally unless you only
| use MacOS it's prudent to get an x64 chip. Intel's 12th gen
| chips are (fortunately, finally!) again competitive even
| with M1s. An Intel/AMD chip can run
| Windows/Linux/MacOS/BSD/most OSes, but M1 Macs
| unfortunately can't.
|
| Ironically I plan to upgrade from my Air to a Pro for the
| high refresh rate. Getting a 90hz phone really spoiled me
| in the most first-world way possible.
|
| _ - Things 3 is another classic example of an app that
| would be very easy to port to other platforms if so wished,
| but the devs aren't interested in going outside Apple's
| Walled Garden. And if it makes them good money I can't even
| blame them.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| > Things 3 is another classic example of an app that
| would be very easy to port to other platforms if so
| wished, but the devs aren't interested in going outside
| Apple's Walled Garden. And if it makes them good money I
| can't even blame them.
|
| A big factor is likely the quality of the UI frameworks
| on other platforms. On Windows, only the older "legacy"
| frameworks come close to the depth of AppKit but are a
| bear to work with (and in questionable maintenance
| status). GTK isn't the worst, but version 3 and up makes
| no attempt to fit in on non-Linux desktops. Qt probably
| comes closest but it comes with the caveat of being tied
| to C++ or Python, and distribution can be a pain. With
| Electron you have to bring your own everything.
|
| I follow some Apple platform devs (on top of being one
| myself) and there's will from them to produce software
| for other platforms, but only once there's an option as
| nice as AppKit/UIKit to do so with.
| user_7832 wrote:
| Yeah that's quite understandable. I just wish
| Microsoft/Google would attempt to improve this aspect -
| they probably already are doing things but from the sound
| of it not enough.
| user_7832 wrote:
| (Replying because I can't edit - the italics are
| accidental, I intended to use an asterisk for the Things
| 3 point)
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| The base iPad with an Apple Pencil under $500. I find
| 64gb to be workable, but if you want 256gb, it's another
| $150 (ouch).
|
| Granted, it's not Samsung tablet cheap.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Samsung also makes very expensive and very high quality
| tablets. All they're missing imo is a bit more processor
| oomph.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| A touch screen and pen support is just too good to pass up
| sometimes. I would love an M1 class android tablet that had
| all of this - thankfully we're getting close.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Wait and hope somewhere like the EU forces Apple to open up
| the software/store restrictions has seemed the most
| realistically hopeful path to me. Alternatives are wait for
| someone to find a way to hack the bootloader open and add
| Asahi support for it (for this and every device that comes
| out for the rest of time). Or Apple to allow the bootloader
| to be opened like they do on the PC counterparts but
| obviously that's not what Apple wants to do or they wouldn't
| have released the M1 iPad fully locked.
| Snowworm wrote:
| Even better, Apple could port MacOS to the M1 iPad. Maybe
| they could have both iOS and Mac OS merged together and
| allow people to switch between tablet and desktop mode
| (like what they have done with Samsung devices). They could
| sell an external keyboard + trackpad for the desktop mode.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| They probably won't ever fully merge the UIs of macOS and
| iOS, but given that the underpinnings of the two are so
| similar it would make a lot of sense for iPadOS to be
| able to suspend its touch-based userland and boot up a
| macOS-based KB+mouse userland.
| Veliladon wrote:
| Mac Catalyst is basically UiKit userland for macOS. I
| think Springboard and Finder will remain discrete UI
| paradigms but I think iPadOS might be going towards a
| place where it can use either depending on what it has
| connected (see:
| https://www.macrumors.com/2022/05/06/apple-patent-ipad-
| with-...).
| bpye wrote:
| I would be entirely unsurprised if Apple doesn't already
| have macOS builds targeting the M1 iPad...
| user_7832 wrote:
| For sure, there were A14 based mac minis given to devs
| during the switch. The only "missing" components are
| drivers for the display/speakers etc which is the
| smallest part of getting a working system (compared to
| the OS + kernel).
|
| It's also this thing that infuriates me to some extent.
| Apple _can_ do amazing things if it wanted but... it
| doesn 't appear to care about consumer benefit.
| znpy wrote:
| > Question for any curious or innovative HN readers - what
| would you suggest to do with iPadOS' restrictions?
|
| Sell it and get a proper computer.
|
| If ipad os is restrictive for you then the ipad is not for
| you.
| user_7832 wrote:
| True but I already have a normal windows laptop. I just
| wish something as capable as the iPad could reach its
| potential.
| staticassertion wrote:
| I have an 8 core CPU + 32GB RAM + 1TB Chromebook and it's my
| daily driver. I have ~100 tabs open, ~2 intellij projects open,
| some streaming service like youtube, netflix, hulu, etc. I run
| builds that pin the CPU such that if I had twice the cores I'd
| absolutely notice it.
|
| I'd be very happy to see 16 core Chromebooks tbh, I definitely
| make heavy use of all 8 of mine today.
| leodriesch wrote:
| At these specs I expect the price to be pretty hefty, what
| was your reason to go for a Chromebook instead of another
| laptop + Linux?
| staticassertion wrote:
| It was like 3,400 or something like that.
|
| It's a work laptop, although I use it almost exclusively
| these days since I can easily use a "personal" profile.
| It's very easy to manage things like SSO/device policies on
| Chromebooks because of the GSuite integration.
|
| There's pretty much nothing that it's "worse" at, other
| than in some niche scenarios - like there's a bug where the
| VM will return an invalid code for a specific CPUID, and it
| doesn't support nested virtualization, etc. Pretty niche
| stuff.
|
| Otherwise... it works. Funny enough I'm now in quite a
| pickle with my Ubuntu laptop, which updated to a new
| kernel, failed, and now I can't roll back to the previous
| kernel. Because of this, virtually no drivers are working,
| so I can't connect to the internet... making it really
| really fun to deal with! Stuff like this doesn't really
| happen on my Chromebook.
| jeffbee wrote:
| It's really surprising to me when people suggest that
| ChromeOS is worse than some other Linux. To me it's head
| and shoulders above all the rest, because all the drivers
| always work perfectly, the touchpad works perfectly when
| other Linux developers are still putting out press releases
| every time they fix something trivial in their incredibly
| broken multitouch input stacks, and all the binaries
| including the kernel are peak-optimized with profile
| guidance for every specific CPU platform. There is no Linux
| distribution that can touch ChromeOS.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| Can you use it for 'regular' computer stuff like compile
| python modules or run random binaries?
|
| I had a cheap ChromeBook I used for quite a while,
| basically until the battery gave out and it turned into a
| desktop machine, but chromeOS was pretty limited back
| then so I just threw fedora on it. Almost all my Blender
| dev work was on that poor little underpowered thing...
| lann wrote:
| Yes, on most[1] hardware: https://chromeos.dev/en/linux
|
| [1] Released since 2019 plus these:
| https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/chromium-
| os/chro...
| jeffbee wrote:
| Yep, and it's incredibly easy to install. You just tap
| one button in the settings and wait a moment.
| tpmx wrote:
| Yes, people still underestimate the value of single core perf
| and overestimate the value over multi core perf.
|
| In practise: what matters to users of these devices is web
| browsing performance (which is still mostly a single core job -
| perhaps a second core can be practical in some browser/OS
| combos).
| izacus wrote:
| We're talking Chrome here, it'll happily chew through all the
| cores.
|
| Also, remember, this "restricted" OS is more than capable of
| bringing up a full Debian container.
| rr808 wrote:
| Chome on a Chromebook is much more efficient than Chrome on
| other OSs.
| izacus wrote:
| It's the exact same codebase.
| staticassertion wrote:
| In fact it's capable of bringing up many. You can create N
| VMs and M containers if you want to.
| moondev wrote:
| > I think having 8/16 is a bit of an overkill for an OS this
| restricted.
|
| Restricted? It's capable of running:
|
| * android apps directly from google play
|
| * multiple linux containers (lxc)
|
| * gpu accelerated linux gui apps (wyaland/lxc)
|
| * docker containers inside lxc
|
| * kvm virtual machines capable of linux, windows and even macOS
| guests
| sliken wrote:
| Sadly dram memory latency has stayed pretty constant over the
| last decade. As the cores per memory channel keeps increasing,
| does make one wonder when more memory channels will be added.
| jotm wrote:
| Did adding more channels start improving performance in a
| significant way sometime in the past decade?
|
| Last time I checked, single vs dual channel was like a 5-10%
| performance difference, mostly useful for integrated graphics
| (and even then latency was the bigger problem)...
| blip54321 wrote:
| Cores are basically free.
|
| Interconnect is expensive.
|
| Seriously. A Pentium IV was 40M transistors. A Ryzen V 2000 has
| around 5 billion transistors. It could fit 100 Pentium IV cores
| if desired.
|
| That's not desired -- those transistors are better spent
| bumping up IPC a little bit -- but we can have a perfectly
| adequate processor at 1% of a modern CPU.
|
| Pentium IV single-core performance is almost identical to a
| modern entry-level netbook processor:
|
| https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-4-300GHz...
| gruez wrote:
| >Pentium IV single-core performance is almost identical to a
| modern entry-level netbook processor:
|
| >https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-
| Pentium-4-300GHz...
|
| No it isn't.
|
| 1. userbenchmark is a joke in the hardware community. just
| search for "userbenchmark bias". It's also banned from both
| /r/intel _and_ /r/amd.
|
| 2. even they themselves admit that the "modern entry-level
| netbook processor" is 59% faster in single-threaded
| performance. The only making up for it is "Memory Latency",
| which I doubt can make up for a 59% gap in performance.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| I'd love to have a computer with a hundred little pentium
| cores to play around with -- makes me wonder why nobody has
| made one yet (AFAICT).
|
| Or one that doesn't cost big dollars since the arm server
| chips seem to be going in this direction.
|
| I mean, 256 x86 cores seems perfectly reasonable, right?
| NavinF wrote:
| You could get a pair of used epyc 7601 and a motherboard
| for like $1200. Unlike a hundred little pentium cores,
| these 64 cores can run real workloads ~4x as fast as a
| modern desktop in the same price range.
|
| Alternatively an old 4 node server could get you there even
| cheaper if you don't care that they are separate computers
| in one chassis. I got a used C6100 with 24 cores across 8
| CPU sockets for $600 6 years ago. You could probably get
| >100 cores for the same price today.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| You'd be better off comparing to a pentium M. If you put 100
| netburst cores on a single die, it would melt
|
| [edit] or Maybe a Core-2 as that was 64-bit. E7500 with 3MB
| of cache was dual-core with 228M transistors, which puts you
| at 40 cores with 60MB of cache for 5B transistors.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Pentium IV single-core performance is almost identical to a
| modern entry-level netbook processor:
| https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-
| Pentium-4-300GHz...
|
| Almost identical? The wimpy netbook processor is 59% faster
| on a single core. Ignore that site's overall speed numbers,
| they make no sense.
|
| But a fair comparison _has_ to be to a desktop chip. Let 's
| look at an i3-12300. It rates +597% on single core
| performance; seven times faster.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Memory throughput keeps increasing. While the number of
| channels per core doesn't increase, the clock rate keeps
| increasing, and when it stops increasing then bus width
| typically increases.
| NavinF wrote:
| >when more memory channels will be added
|
| Already happened a few months ago. DDR5 doubled the number of
| memory channels in a normal desktop from 2 to 4. That's 2
| channels per DIMM.
|
| Of course DDR4 still has lower latency today, but that should
| change next year.
|
| Today the only way to reduce latency is to overclock your RAM.
| It's pretty easy to get a $200 DDR4 kit to perform better than
| what you'd find in $5000 prebuilt PCs.
| tedunangst wrote:
| DDR5 also halved channel width.
| Veliladon wrote:
| Ironically it makes it faster. TRP and TRCD numbers are
| getting so big compared to transfer clock rates that it's
| more efficient to double the bank groups and send data on
| more smaller channels vs speeding up a single one.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Because bandwidth has already been increasing
| exponentially.
| minorkey wrote:
| Now if only Chromebooks could offer better resolution than
| 1920x1080.
|
| Do I have to buy an AMD Windows laptop, pay the Microsoft tax,
| and convert it to a Chromebook? (Assuming it's possible).
| soared wrote:
| Pixelbook is 4k. Seems like google discontinued the line but I
| use my 5 year old machine every day and it's amazing. Boots in
| 1 second. Meanwhile my windows laptop is unusable.
| minorkey wrote:
| Is there a Pixelbook with an AMD CPU?
|
| Nevermind - as you mentioned, it's been discontinued.
| minorkey wrote:
| Anyone here have any luck converting a high end ASUS or Acer
| Windows AMD laptop to ChromeOS? Any pitfalls to be aware of?
| Const-me wrote:
| Microsoft only taxes laptops sold by physical retail outlets.
| When ordering them online, one can often find a laptop without
| any OS preinstalled. Vendors are usually selling them to
| corporations who want Win10 enterprise covered by their volume
| licensing contracts.
|
| Another good thing about them, it's very uncommon for
| enterprise-targeted models to have soldered RAM or SSD. For
| instance, my secondary computer is HP ProBook 445 G8 with Ryzen
| 5 5600U which I upgraded to 32GB RAM / 2TB SSD, can recommend.
| However, I have no idea about ChromeOS compatibility, I'm using
| Windows and ordered a version with the OS license included.
| nicklaf wrote:
| I'd be more interested in turning a Chromebook into a vanilla
| linux box if they moved away from soldered RAM (which is all I
| saw in Chromebooks a few years ago).
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Hopefully this will put some pressure on manufacturers to bump
| specs on their lowest end offerings. Dell's $300 Windows laptop
| offering right now for instance is built with a dual core
| Celeron, which is hard to excuse when most phones and tablets at
| lower prices are at least tri or quad-core.
|
| Once the bottom end baseline is finally moved up to quad or hex-
| core, there should be a stronger drive for software _not_ aimed
| at users with heavier workloads to be multithreaded well.
| tyrfing wrote:
| 9W Alder Lake mobile CPUs start at 5 cores (1P+4E), even for
| Pentium/Celeron. 6W class will apparently be E-core only and go
| up to 8 cores, unclear what the minimum is since details
| haven't been announced yet. Overall, core counts should be
| going way up on average this generation.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I have a Chromebook (Samsung 4) with a Celeron N4020 2/2 1.1GHz
| ("up to 2.8GHz"), 6W TDP processor. It's not going to blow
| anyone away with its performance, but it's entirely adequate
| and I love that it has all-day battery life from a $100 device
| (mine was $92.44 delivered&taxed on sale; the typical street
| price is $119).
|
| I _don 't want_ the lowest end offerings to become 15W TDP
| chips in $300 laptops. I think there's a perfectly valid place
| for 6W chips in $100 devices, which brings computing access to
| more people and places.
| jotm wrote:
| For reference, it offers about half the performance of a
| Snapdragon 845...
|
| It's honestly a garbage chip for disposable devices, which is
| just bad for everything.
|
| I'd rather use one $300 device than 3x $100 devices over the
| same timespan.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Also for reference, it's about double the performance of a
| 3.7 GHz Pentium 4, which was a perfectly usable desktop
| CPU.
| jotm wrote:
| The Pentium MMX was also a perfectly usable desktop CPU,
| ran Windows XP and stuff.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Pentium 4 stopped being a benchmark for desktop usability
| a long time ago. Any JS website will bring it to its
| knees.
| KronisLV wrote:
| > Any JS website will bring it to its knees.
|
| Maybe that's a problem in of itself?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law
|
| There is nothing intrinsically different about computing
| from, say, 10 years ago. You might still want to read
| some text on a webpage, click on a few buttons and have
| them do something, maybe fill out some text fields, or
| even upload/download a few files.
|
| Instead, you get "visual experiences" with
| overcomplicated UIs with similarly overcomplicated
| underlying technologies (edit: not to say that there
| aren't benefits to technologies like Vue/Angular/React,
| however they aren't "necessary" to get things done most
| of the time, in many cases even server side rendering
| without JS would be enough), all of which waste all of
| the resources that you'll give them, especially if you
| don't have ad-blockers on which means that you'd get
| bogged down with dozens if not hundreds of malicious
| scripts.
|
| Of course, this is a bit akin to shouting at the cloud,
| but nobody should be too proud about the state the modern
| web is in and use it to justify wasteful hardware and
| software requirements:
| https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > I'd rather use one $300 device than 3x $100 devices over
| the same timespan.
|
| I agree, but do consider how many Chromebooks are purchased
| by schools. The calculus there might be different, because
| kids drop things.
|
| Note that ethically, I'm not convinced this need outweighs
| the environmental concerns.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Do you run Linux? I think even web browsing on Windows with
| this is challenging
| jewel wrote:
| The bottleneck is usually RAM. It looks like his device has
| 4GB, which is similar to what a cell phone has.
|
| It doesn't take much manufacturer-supplied bloatware, bad
| drivers, or background processes to use up that much RAM
| but a Chromebook is just the kernel and Chrome, so you get
| a lot of bang for your buck.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Similar to what a _mid-range_ phone has :)
| sokoloff wrote:
| It's running ChromeOS with the Linux dev system installed.
| I did last year's Advent of Code in Clojure on this device,
| including some airplane trips. (I didn't solve every
| puzzle, but the limitation on the ones I didn't get was me,
| not the Chromebook. It runs Emacs, cider, and the Clojure
| REPL just fine.)
|
| I'm typing on it right now and it's fine for casual use.
| (It gets a fair amount of weekend use because I neither
| want to undock my work laptop nor carry around something
| that large, expensive, and heavy.)
|
| Would I run it as my only computer if $500 wouldn't
| pressure my family finances? Probably not. If my choice was
| between this and nothing, that's an even easier choice.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| There shouldn't need to be such a large tradeoff between
| efficiency and core count, and in the world of ARM CPUs it's
| not. It's entirely possible to pack 4+ reasonably performant
| cores into a 6W TDP, and likely at non-extravagant prices.
| staticassertion wrote:
| > and in the world of ARM CPUs it's not.
|
| How can this be true? I'm not saying it isn't, but this
| makes it sound like ARM is just objectively better - lower
| power _and_ higher performance? I assume it 's more
| complicated.
| Veliladon wrote:
| Most of the time you can increase performance either by
| increasing clock frequency or doing more per clock.
| Raising clock speed usually increases power
| exponentially. On a desktop this is usually the strategy
| because we can put decent cooling rigs on them.
|
| Doing more per clock is difficult on an x86 compared to
| ARM. x86's instruction set is a hodgepodge collection of
| instructions of variable lengths and addressing modes.
| ARM64 on the other hand has far less addressing modes and
| a fixed 32-bit instruction length. When an x86 is trying
| to decode ahead of the instruction stream it needs to
| decode each instruction in order or have special logic to
| get around that which makes it more difficult to stay
| ahead of the processor. Normally you see an x86 chip
| described as having a certain number of complex and a
| certain number simple decoders because some instructions
| are just pigs of things to decode. Simple decodes will
| get stuff that decode to 3 uops or less while complex
| handles most of the rest. Some real pigs of instructions
| might even be sent to the microcode sequencer which
| generates a whole heap of uops which takes a while.
|
| In the case of ARM64 every 4 bytes you have an
| instruction come hell or high water. On a chip like the
| M1 it takes 32-bytes of instructions, splits every 4
| bytes between its 8 decoders, and each will spit out uops
| in parallel. From there the chip will issue those decoded
| instructions to the necessary execution ports. Because of
| the less complicated decoding, the huge increase in
| decoding throughput, and the huge reorder buffers an M1
| can keep more of its execution ports busy. If twice as
| many execution ports can be kept full it means you can do
| the same amount of work in half as many clock cycles.
| Because you're only running at half the clock speed your
| power usage is way lower.
| staticassertion wrote:
| Presumably the cost here is that your instructions are
| considerably larger, which means fitting fewer of them
| into cache?
| danachow wrote:
| The code density of ARM64 is not that much worse than x64
| - especially for anything generated by a modern compiler.
| You may get some small scale gains for hand tuned code
| with careful instruction and register selection (ie where
| Rex prefix can be more easily avoided) - but average
| binary density doesn't overcome the aforementioned
| differences in efficiency.
| [deleted]
| sudosysgen wrote:
| 15W TDP for 4x more performance means the processor can race
| to sleep faster, which means it may even have better battery
| life.
|
| The prices will eventually go down.
| magila wrote:
| It seems the "core myth" has replaced the "MHz myth" among
| computer buyers. Those low-end quad core phones and tablets are
| most likely using "little" ARM cores like the Cortex-A53 or
| A55. These cores are very small in terms of die area which why
| you can get four of them very cheaply.
|
| Meanwhile that dual core Celeron is using Intel's performance
| cores which are much larger and several times faster than those
| ARM cores. Even for multithreaded workloads the Celeron will
| run circles around cheap quad core ARM SoCs.
| yywwbbn wrote:
| Not sure if this is the case, Celerons are just plain bad...
|
| e.g. https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-
| intel_celeron_n450...
|
| Single thread performed is kind of close, 860 is faster
| though. And let's not even look at the MT benchmarks. And
| generally it seems that most medium/high end chromebooks with
| ARM cpus are generally able to outperform x86 ones.
| my123 wrote:
| Snapdragon 7c Chromebooks do indeed outperform the Pentium-
| based machines...
|
| Says more about Intel's Atom line than anything tbh.
| magila wrote:
| You're comparing an Atom based Celeron, which is the bottom
| of the barrel for Intel CPUs and not something which often
| shows up in Windows laptops, to a top-of-the-line
| Snapdragon SoC. The wholesale price of the 860 is probably
| 2-3x that of the N4500.
| coolsunglasses wrote:
| https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-
| intel_celeron_n402...
|
| The N4020 is the model of Celeron used in the 2021 Dell
| Chromebook. I'm seeing N3060, 2955U, etc.
|
| The Pentium Silver N5000, which isn't badged as a
| Celeron, is still much slower on multi-threaded and
| single-threaded perf: https://www.cpu-
| monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_pentium_silv...
|
| The entire Snapdragon 865 package cost manufacturers
| $150-$160. The Pentium Silver N5000 retails for $90-100.
| The 860 would presumably be even cheaper than the 865.
| jeffbee wrote:
| That's because it's an atom-type CPU core, and not a good
| one (the good ones are called "Atom"). A laptop with this
| CPU basically is using the "efficiency core" from a recent
| laptop but as its main core.
|
| There are plenty of Core-class x86 ChromeOS laptops and
| these smoke all ARM-based laptops excepting Apple's.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| I think this is good news, even though I bought a Chromebook last
| year and expect to use it for at least 5 years before replacing
| it. Linux containers are a very nice feature for development and
| having more CPU cores and general power is a great thing.
|
| My Chromebook, at $300 is a great deal, compared to my new large
| iPad Pro (just the magic keyboard is $350, pencil is extra - both
| included on the Chromebook).
| KSPAtlas wrote:
| AMD chromebooks would be amazing Linux machines if it wasn't for
| Google messing things up.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-07 23:00 UTC)