Don’t beat yourself up, the M1 did well in some benchmarks and poorly in others. Then again, last time I said anything about an upcoming processor, I was off by a million miles, so what do I know? For lowering the TDP I would set the CPU frequency lower, something at 2.5GHz or 2GHz. It is indeed good advice to study the data and the rules behind what generated the data. The lesson of Apple’s M1 is that you don’t need new instructions (to the best of our knowlege there are no additional instructions in the M1 for that), but a different Mode to implement the intel consistency model so the code would execute more like an x64 processor. What the Chinese are up to at a hardware level is a response but I’m fearing the Chinese are basically taking an open system and (like NVidia who are ten times worse than AMD/ATI ever were) are effectively closing it in practice. While Apple claims the octa-core M1 delivers “the world’s best CPU performance per Watt,” the M1 breaks down to less than 100 CoreMarks per Watt, claims Huang, an industry notable who designed the Finesim simulator. I think this really needs a technical vision articulating examining what is and isn’t possible then a deeper look at the gotchas and whether vendors will cooperate or not, and the use and abuse of patents and copyright to stop an advance in this area. I’d really like to see RISC become the platform of choice for FOSS, but we’ve got a bit of a catch-22: we need manufacturers to make these products viable, yet all too often when they do it comes will strings attached, proprietary blobs, and owner restrictions. New RISC-V CPU claims recordbreaking performance per watt. I was just adding my own opinion. Performance-per-watt (DAPC) profile is the default, and represents an excellent mix of performance balanced with power consumption reduction. For a broader context there are software versus fastpath issues where a given OpenGL function may have been fully or only partially implemented in typically faster graphics card hardware . A lot was identical differing only in implementation where implementations certified for industrial use took less shortcuts and were pixel accurate, and retail implementations were a bit quick and dirty in places and sacrificed accuracy for performance reasons. I’m sure someone will find a use. Extraordinary claims requite extraordinary evidence, and I feel like some vague photos just doesn’t to the trick of convincing me. I agree we are unlikely to see any movement on this although there are plenty of technical people who are interested. An individual Edge TPU is capable of performing 4 trillion operations (tera-operations) per second (TOPS), using 0.5 watts for each TOPS (2 TOPS per watt). They add one or more layers of printed SolarPV to conventional PV to boost performance. AMD has launched the next-gen lineup of its Embedded processors in the form of the V2000 chips. Seeed studios sells various versions of them (and a rather cheap FPGA board if you want to experiment yourself). This is the level I’m kind of discussing. During a presentation at HPE Cast 2019, AMD revealed that their 3rd Generation Zen 3 based EPYC CPUs codenamed 'Milan', would offer better performance per watt than Intel's 10nm Xeon chips. Huang demonstrated the CPU -- running on an Odroid board -- to EE Times at 4.327GHz/0.8V and 5.19GHz/1.1V. Small world. As a FOSS user, what I want most is a very consistent and reliable boot strapping process where the owner is in control with no proprietary dependencies. With both M1 and this there is a reason for healthy skepticism, even if the results ultimately prove out in the end. Ars Technica summarises and looks at the various claims made by Micro Magic about their RISC-V core. The x86 memory model is more strict and emulating it in software is inefficient. Core processors focus on energy efficiency and a better performance per watt ratio, which the Pentium M already offered. I’m just happy being able to broach the subject. AMD’s Ryzen 7 3700X is a generational CPU update that’s worth ... octa-core processor reached just 148 watts under load in ... demolishes its predecessor in performance per watt. That is is. Post sell off of ARM I feel there has been an uptick in RISC-V astroturfing. As for whether it is good for all things all the time we don’t really know so comparing them to currents major CPUs isn’t an exact comparison. RE: Dell Power Edge R320 - Windows Server 2012 R2 - Hyper V - High CPU Utilization - Performance Per Watt Making the change in my environment did more than resolve high CPU usage. Well you can see some of that discussed in the FAQ, and you can get into the weeds by looking at the implementer’s guide. Tags: None. We need to give implementers the freedom to experiment and innovate, and RISC-V gives them a compatible ISA to do that. But isn’t it OK for those to be a subset of the whole, so consumers can choose, and still know that code will run on those processors transparently as proprietary implementations? There is flexibility but this contains gotchas. Ook kunnen we hierdoor het gedrag van bezoekers vastleggen en analyseren, en deze informatie toevoegen aan bezoekersprofielen. I’m sure there will plenty of opportunity to revisit this in the future. In onze tests van processors is het energieverbruik een vast onderdeel. Daarom kijken we vandaag naar de performance-per-watt, oftewel de efficiëntie waarmee processors werken. CPU Performance Per Watt The data shows that both AMD and Intel demonstrate higher peak performance than the ARM CPU but at much higher power. Putting words in your mouth, huh? You’ve explained some of the detailed issues which helps but there’s two issues here. I hear what you are saying, but I think you are looking for RISC-V to be more than it is, and that it wants to be. The Ice Lake and Zen 2 … . I’m quite confused that this is your response to me. This may well be the same tactic for the processors, you can imagine an array of these devices working at low bandwidth/demand feeding a centralised conventional chip with heavily curated data, in effect doing all the housekeeping which could massively improve performance and efficiency. In the example case of the Intel Core i7-7820EQ, when CWR is applied with 94% performance preservation, the CPU power can be reduced to as low as 56% while the Performance-per-Watt is increased to 1.71 times higher. I hear it is near 500 MFLOPS/W for entire computer ( ), but What is the current record for bare CPU or GPU chip? Lobbyists and vested interests with deep pockets and now too many politicians spend more time leaning on marketing than creating good legal frameworks and policy based on the public interest. GCC and LLVM collaborated on what they wanted from a compiler implementation level, but anyone is fine to define their own (as with any other CPU). For example: The Core processors added SSE3 but continued to use a 32-bit instruction set. It's because they've invested so much in performance per watt that they can be in all markets with ease and not having to waste time and money on new masks and semi-custom product research. I’m content to leave thinsg there for now. Given that it's a single CPU machine, too, a lot of resources are saved by not having to care about cache coherency. We would do the same if we were in their shoes. (In some cases CPU was actually faster than the hardware renderer due to the technology of the time. I’m a bit sceptical of RISC-V as it seems more of an American thing, Oh china is biting pretty hard on RISC-V as well. There was a universal core you could depend on with everything else being an extention. Because RISC-V doesn’t dictate the implementation, extra instructions for emulation aren’t guaranteed to matter. This means that a RISC-V CPU can be anything from a microcontroller to a server grade CPU, and doesn’t have to implement the modules it doesn’t need. ... 20 percent price/performance advantage at the chip level compared to the best that Intel and AMD can throw at the cost per performance per watt equation that dominates the buying decisions of the hyperscalers and cloud builders that Ampere Computing is targeting. Micro Magic adviser Andy Huang claimed the CPU could produce 13,000 CoreMarks (more on that later) at 5GHz and 1.1V while also putting out 11,000 CoreMarks at 4.25GHz -- the latter all while consuming only 200mW. Implementations are potentially going to vary within a single semiconductor company, and this is what we want. I’m old enough to remember scenes on the news of Chinese wearing Mao suits and going everywhere on bicycle. Switzerland recently had its own scandal when it turned out one Swiss supplier of backdoored security products was owned by US and German intelligence. If your questions are indeed about governance, you have done a bad job of explaining what you mean. Since performance per watt is computed as a ratio of system performance (by some measure) divided by power consumed , a power-optimized CPU This is the point where I think engineers need other people who understand the governance and consumer rights issues to step in and add support otherwise engineers are always going to be at the mercy of the boss class and financiers. Once you get to the FAB you are so caught up in proprietary processes you simply can’t be as open as you want (If I am reading you correctly), and if there were more restrictions placed on it then you wouldn’t see as many private companies adopting RISC-V so quickly (for example Western Digital). So am I, but times change. And you can find that at the RISC-V website, I won’t google that for you. RISC-V is one of the ways they are doing that, along with RISC-V, MIPS, ARM, and x86. Reading through wiki I note RISC-V have incorporated themselves in Switzerland to avoid the issue of unilateral sanctions. You would be better served by talking in a less technical way, and in one that emphasizes clarity. I have some major reservations about all of these claims, mostly because of the lack of benchmarks that more accurately track real-world usage. I’m more concerned about the abstract meta stuff like interoperability versus lock-in than what happens at the FAB end of the problem. CPU performance-per-watt test: wat is de efficiëntste processor? Huang demonstrated the CPU—running on an Odroid board—to EE Times at 4.327GHz/0.8V and 5.19GHz/1.1V. Micro Magic adviser Andy Huang claimed the CPU could produce 13,000 CoreMarks (more on that later) at 5GHz and 1.1V while also putting out 11,000 CoreMarks at 4.25GHz—the latter all while consuming only 200mW. I think you have to just look at the spec or trust me when I say the core spec defines a thoroughly modern CPU with feature sets on par with any modern CPU, I also think you need to define what you mean by transcoding, because it feels alien to my understanding of the term, After a lot of thought I suspect by transcoding you mean additional instructions to facilitate emulating other architectures (for example x64) vit a JIT or AOT compiler, and yes there is working group J that is looking into that, however that may not be the right approach.