More niche hardware has been impossible for me to find in the EU marketplaces I got to with searches, with only availability from US ebay, and then Chinese marketplaces. Or if it does exist here it's the same used part but it costs 500€ instead of 40
Undervolting would definitely help, and is the actual fix. The current Intel fixes were mostly just for the symptoms, as the main issue is high voltage+power when pushing high clocks, but they can't actually fix that as it'd downgrade the advertised clocks the cpus were sold with
Sorry, but that understanding is dangerously incomplete. You're describing the first set of issues they uncovered, but there's also:
"Microcode and BIOS code requesting elevated core voltages which can cause Vmin shift especially during periods of idle and/or light activity" (emphasis mine)
Recall also that "Vmin shift" means "the minimum voltage the processor needs to run correctly goes up" so if the issue isn't addressed, that level of undervolt may stop working
Not sure what's supposed to be wrong with that? The clock tree degrades at high voltage. Some theories I've seen were on the CPU requesting significantly higher voltages during alternating clocks when there's a short lull in load from e.g. a pipeline stall. Then there doesn't seem to be a good enough of a sensor net in the correct places for the CPU to react to this, so it just "burns" itself down gradually. Assuming these are true, actual fixes from intel would be relaxing boost clocks to ones that are universally safe and open themselves to a lawsuit from everyone that bought the high end SKUs, or do a new stepping which is extremely expensive for a done design.
When you degrade the CPU naturally needs higher voltages to be stable, until the point where it just breaks completely and no amount of voltage it help it. But if your CPU doesn't degrade because it hasn't been overdoing it on voltages then there'll be no issues for Vmin to shift.
As an anecdotal experience from someone I know that runs these in prod for game servers, limiting the CPU to 80°C and 1.4V-1.45V, 400A has been keeping them alive for years doing 24/7 loads. Maybe a bit lower on the voltage if one wants to be sure longer term, as they are fine with just mass RMAing these. There's also large amount of differences in the silicon quality between samples that can make one run cool and completely fine even at the old stock settings, and an another sample that'll have to pull say 1.5x the power for the same load and clocks having it degrade.
You're implying that if you don't run the CPU at high power and high heat it won't have problems, and that undervolting or underclocking will prevent damage. This is not correct: while that is helpful, Vmin degradation occurs during idle or light activity as well
Vmin will creep up, and the headroom for undervolting will degrade. It will affect the high clocks first (they demand the highest voltage), which is why dropping the max boost multiplier a step or two can also work around it (at the cost of basically downgrading it to a cheaper processor)
Idle and light load is bad for degradation only because that's the most common scenario where the boosting algorith will actually go to the highest clocks. More loaded cores will have the CPU target lower clocks on all cores so that it actually can get the power for it and have the CPU be coolable, but if you're idle and then some task loads just a single core for a bit the CPU will boost it the highest it can. The voltage spikes from those boosts will cause local hotspots even if the CPU is cool overall
"Even under idle conditions at relatively cool temperatures, sporadic elevated voltages are observed when the processor is resumed from low power states in order to service background operations before entering a low power state again."
They now support passkeys with things other than their shitty app. I use 1Password, and it works fine.
I've also had a yubikey for a long time and can't be bothered to type in codes, so I didn't know their shitty app did OTP or even that OTP was actually a possibility for MS accounts.
Because it's spinning blades among manufacturing tolerances you also have to account for the blades expanding when rotating at high speed, and possibly working with 40-50 °C air from the components
I don't think that's it. You're referring to tolerances specified in the design. The article talks about the tolerances the manufacturing technique allows, and this process is an order of magnitude better than this article says. The material used and the design of the part influence how much it deforms in practice far more than the injection moulding process itself.
In their own description of Sterrox® LCP they say it has "extreme tensile strength, exceptionally low thermal expansion coefficient, high environmental inertia and excellent dimensional stability". With such an advanced polymer any deformation in operation has to be a rounding error compared to the manufacturing tolerances.
Factories working at (significantly) less than full capacity gets a bit harder when you've got one of the most expensive machines on earth working in them, and production lines that'll be out of date in a couple of years
There are some very specific workloads (say simple object detection) that fit into cache and have crazy performance where the value of the cpu will be unbeatable, as the alternative is one of the cache epycs, everywhere else it'll only be small improvement if the software is not purpose made for it
> The assumption is simply false, and not due to the "SSD wear" argument. Many consumer SSDs, especially DRAMless ones (e.g., Apacer AS350 1TB, but also seen on Crucial SSDs), under synchronous writes, will regularly produce latency spikes of 10 seconds or more, due to the way they need to manage their cells. This is much worse than any HDD. If a DRAMless consumer SSD is all that you have, better use zram.
Do mind that DRAMless is much less of an issue on NVMe. NVMe can use Host Memory Buffer to use system RAM for its logic, which is still orders of magnitude faster than relying on the NAND.
DRAMless is strictly worse in every way on SATA, where you really don't want to use it if you can help it; on NVMe, the difference is more about having a bad lower-quality drive or a good higher-quality drive. Having DRAM is a good indicator of the drive being good as the manufacturer is unlikely to pair it with slow NAND and controller, but lacking it doesn't necessarily mean a drive will perform badly. When comparing drives between generations, DRAMless often ends up performing better, even in loaded scenarios, compared to an older drive with DRAM.
The behavior that you see depends a lot on your workload.
I frequently write big multi-gigabyte files and this overflows any kind of buffers, so I often see pauses of many seconds for garbage collection on Samsung Pro NVMe SSDs.
Someone who only writes small files is unlikely to see such pauses, but when writing big amounts of data, pauses are guaranteed on any SSD.
The difference between my 27" 4k and 1440p screens is still quite obvious and I don't consider myself particularly sensitive to these things.
For rendering of text/video even an underpowered integrated gpu can handle it fine, only issue is using a bunch more ram.
For reference my very underpowered desktop AMD igpu on 3 generations old gpu architecture (2CUs of RDNA 2) only has trouble with the occasional overly heavy browser animation
reply