• fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m personally very interested in the “Low Power Island” and it’s efficiency cores for it’s efficiency cores.

    S0 standby is pretty rough on high end high power laptops like my Thinkpad with it’s 11th gen i9. I sometimes have power drain higher in standby than just normally on. If Windows is smart it could turn off all cores but the E E-cores and maybe make modern standby not so much worse than S1-3 standby.

    The Low Power Island also has DLVR finally, but sadly the rest of the CPU doesn’t.

    • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      Or maybe we could just maintain good old traditional sleep? Not like you want your laptop to be a phone with push notifications and alike

      • SharkAttak@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Exactly, with modern CPUs and ssd there shouldn’t be the need to have PCs that sleep with an eye open.

  • SharkAttak@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    This is because it’s the first client processor to be made using chiplets instead of a monolithic design.

    Wasn’t AMD already using chiplets for their CPUs?

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      For years. 2017 if you argue the separate CCXs in Zen1 Threadripper to be chiplets.

      2019 with Zen2 if you’re not counting that.

      AMD is pretty ahead of everyone when it comes to packaging tech.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Amd’s chiplets are different from Intel’s.

      AMD’s chipltets are discrete “modules” that are physically separate from each other.

      Intel is trying to make an almost monolithic die, but using distinct chips sitting directly next to each other with (I believe) an almost direct link.

      AMD’s chiplet design isn’t very good for low power low load uses (like laptops) while Intel’s approach should be much better for laptops. Sapphire rapids is closer to AMD’s chiplet design, but dear god do those CPUs use a lot of power.

      • SharkAttak@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Honestly I see little difference, the parts of the cpu are divided differently and Intel’s are closer and designed to have more modularity overall, but still declaring it to be the first made using chiplets is basically not true.
        I’m not bieng an AMD fanboy here, I just don’t like when company boast/hyping goes too far.

        • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Who’s saying it’s the first attempt at chiplets? It’s not even Intel’s first attempt, that would be sapphire rapids more recently, or those old awful pentium extreme dual “cores” that were almost literally two CPUs glued together.