Shop Learn P1 Docs P2 Docs Events
Random/LFSR on P2 - Page 92 — Parallax Forums

Random/LFSR on P2

1868788899092»

Comments

  • You have B350 vs the A320 mentioned, correct?
    Now I'm confused about 5000 CPU support, as the A320 notice is recent, so wouldn't B350 have been first?
    Not sure about TPM 2.0, so hope it is present.
    Motherboards without support will require a TPM add-in card for W11... unless you disable the TPM requirement, which I have seen discussed.

  • evanhevanh Posts: 14,026
    edited 2021-11-15 23:59

    Two things:
    1: I don't think there is any B350 motherboards yet supporting the Ryzen 5000 series CPUs. Only A320 motherboards so far.

    2: However, I also found there is a recent updated BIOS for my B350 board when I looked on the website. But of course that's primarily just a defaults change so as to smooth the installation of Win11 by enabling TPM by default.

    Then, what I discovered about TPM support is it seems to be fully functional - which I hadn't expected to find given the TPM slot in the motherboard is unpopulated. My conclusion is the required hardware is present in the Ryzen 1700X - has been there all along.

    But, finally, the updated BIOS clearly contains more than just a default setting flipped. The menus haven't changed between the two BIOS versions but the compressed size has.

  • evanhevanh Posts: 14,026

    PS: Speculation online, for why only the A320 is getting this support, seems to be that the cheapest end of the market aren't likely to upgrade the whole kit to move from Zen/Zen+ to Zen3. Therefore the reasoning goes that AMD, and the board makers, are strategically providing this to get more CPUs, and RAM, sold without cutting into the newer motherboard sales.

  • Happy New Year!

  • evanhevanh Posts: 14,026

    Yep, Happy New Year to all. 13:00 here already. :)

  • xoroshironotxoroshironot Posts: 307
    edited 2022-01-06 22:54

    More 5000 on 300 series support banter: Here

  • evanhevanh Posts: 14,026

    Thanks.

    The argument about a board's power capacity limit seems a little bogus to me. I can understand AMD having not verified all combinations of CPU and chipset on the simple basis of not bothering ... but to generally lump X370 and B350 boards as whimper than A320 boards does seem just a tad on the nose.

  • evanhevanh Posts: 14,026

    Pondering IC supplies ... My Geforce 960 is getting long in the tooth and I have been getting more interested in trying out a Radeon GPU on Linux. But haven't acted yet. I was eyeing up the 5600XT when they vanished due to covid19 supply shortages, then the 5700XT soon followed. I wasn't much interested in the 5500XT but sure enough even it went out of stock. The 6000 series is just too expensive and at any rate the 6500XT is only 4-channel PCIe, which is a problem when my mobo is limited to PCIe 3.0.

    None of the 5000 series has reappeared since. As if production was stopped completely ... or at least not worth continuing at the old prices.

    Lately, I've drawn up a PCB design with stepper motor ICs on board. Getting there wasn't as smooth sailing as usual ... The reference part I started with didn't have current limiting feature so I went a looking for something better ... every part I looked up was out of stock and not to be restocked for over a year. I knew that meant covid19 supply shortages and that even a year was a wild guess on their part.

    What I ended up with, to get current limiting feature built in, is a part that also required a minimum of 20 volts supply. An awkwardly high minimum. Which told me it was a part that couldn't easily be exchanged into an existing board design ... therefore it hadn't been snatched up in the frenzy to ensure on-going parts supply.

    Conclusion: The only ICs not out of stock are either a pricey narrow selection, or old stock that had virtually no turn-over.

    It's a little surprising to me just how wide the IC shortages are. There doesn't seem to be anything unaffected. The early excuse about the auto-industry not up-dating is looking more and more bogus. A deflection from something else.

  • evanhevanh Posts: 14,026
    edited 2022-10-21 08:16

    The 5950X is still an efficient CPU. Just been reading TechSpot's latest review - https://www.techspot.com/review/2552-intel-core-i9-13900k/

    Comparing the 7950X in its default power config (Max power raised compared to the 5950X) it is driven to a notably higher clock frequency. This results in the 7950X being less efficient than the 5950X - Seemingly contrary to AMD's claim but the fine print is likely when compared at the same power or clock frequency.

    Blender run comparison:
    5950X used 105.4 kJ (477 seconds at 221 Watts)
    7950X used 119.3 kJ (336 seconds at 355 Watts)

    12900K used 198.9 kJ (536 seconds at 371 Watts)
    13900K used 187.8 kJ (381 seconds at 493 Watts)

    Interestingly, the doubling of the number of E-cores in the 13900K would appear to have improved Intel's position. Maybe Intel should ditch the P-cores altogether.

  • @evanh said:

    Maybe Intel should ditch the P-cores altogether.

    No HT, but increase the clocks?
    While initially it sounds like a step backwards to me, I wonder what the actual impact would be?
    “According to Intel, the space occupied by one P-Core is enough to fit in a cluster of 4 E-Cores plus a 4Mb L2 Cache.”
    https://techedged.com/intel-p-core-and-e-core/

    I plan to resume my PRNG work next year after a lengthy hiatus. The code is locked, but constants and research paper need work.
    In my day job, our group lead is retiring after 50 years, so I expect to at least partially fill the void.

    Happy Holidays!

  • evanhevanh Posts: 14,026
    edited 2022-12-25 11:08

    @xoroshironot said:

    @evanh said:

    Maybe Intel should ditch the P-cores altogether.

    No HT, but increase the clocks?
    While initially it sounds like a step backwards to me, I wonder what the actual impact would be?
    “According to Intel, the space occupied by one P-Core is enough to fit in a cluster of 4 E-Cores plus a 4Mb L2 Cache.”
    https://techedged.com/intel-p-core-and-e-core/

    I'd heard that too, but eye-balling the die image says the E-cores ain't quite that compact. EDIT: Maybe the older 12 series E-core was smaller and fitted that description better.

    I wonder how 2P+32E would go for gaming. It should work nicely for everything else and would be a little smaller in die area than the existing 8+16.

    I plan to resume my PRNG work next year after a lengthy hiatus. The code is locked, but constants and research paper need work.

    Gonna stick your neck out then. :open_mouth:

    In my day job, our group lead is retiring after 50 years, so I expect to at least partially fill the void.

    That sure is a long time in one job. Work's not related to the above PRNG stuff, right?

  • @evanh said:
    That sure is a long time in one job. Work's not related to the above PRNG stuff, right?

    I just had my 30th anniversary this year, but I’ll likely retire well before my 50th. No relation to PRNGs. The related assembly language programming is just a hobby I picked up from the electronics engineer that designed the speech module prototypes for the Corvette in the early 1980s.

  • @evanh said:
    Maybe Intel should ditch the P-cores altogether.

    You called it, but this efficient core beast will not be ready till next year:
    https://tomshardware.com/news/intel-massive-lga7529-socket-pictured

  • evanhevanh Posts: 14,026

    Damn, that's a lot of pins!

Sign In or Register to comment.