/tech/ - Technology★

They're still preparing to open their new Arizona based chip fab that will ultimately produce 10nm processors

Yes, not having to deal with cheap Chinese shit and actually support American manufacturing takes some time booo hoo hoo

>>904736

>you should be grateful that the NSA will have even tighter control on your silicon, goyim

CPUs appear to be racing towards a dead end as far as Moore's law is concerned.

Do HDDs/SSDs have some overhead left or will their development also stall with no survivors sometime after CY+10?

>>904736

Based Trump bringing jobs back to the US. He will get my vote again.

>zen2 will be out before intel's 10nm

smugloli.jpg

>>905220

>CPUs appear to be racing towards a dead end

Good. Hopefully now other architectures can reach that dead end (ARM and RISC-V)

>>905284

This. It's the only thing that still matters. We have to get rid of x86. High electricity cost, being bugged by the 3 letter agancies and inefficiency is the only thing they still have.

I DON'T think the emulation costs on other architectures is worth the struggle with x86 or amd64.

>>905285

Why do you hate x86-64 if you value efficiency? Given the fact x86-64 has significantly higher IPC than ARM?

Don't answer that. I know its because you're a retarded LARPer. Shoo shoo now retard this isn't your Role Playing safe space

>>905292

That's true but not long term when my PC has no heavy application running.

>IPC

what you mean is throughput

x86 is also like a clusterfuck of tape, overly complicated, filled with legacy shit and full of bugs.

>>905293

This.

>>905296

>no source

>>905301

Exactly how new are you?

>>905306

Nobody in the entire world uses ARM for speed. If it were an issue of efficiency, surely they would use ARM or RISC-V to keep electricity bills down. Perhaps somewhere inside that pea brain of yours, you think the CIA got to all of these other countries and forced them to use x86?

>>905314

There is still POWER.

>forced them to use x86

No the operating systems are already manufactured there. And Windows and OS X (the main consumer OSs) use x86.

Apple switched to it and Microsoft had a long partnership with Intel.

Since most applications are on Windows naturally most people use Windows and thus x86.

It was a historic development. You think because there are tons of Apple or Java users it makes it good?

>>905294

Naw you're retarded. Intel Atoms have comparable TDP to ARM but significantly higher IPC. The only real reason all our Smartphones aren't x86 right now is the fact Intel is a bunch of Jews not only towards their designs but also pricing compared to ARM. That and Qualcomm's anti-competition policies basically playing Intel at their own game. ARM is cheap chunk garbage all around though

>>905319

>ARM

I never said anything about ARM. I hoped for a great future with POWER or the advancement of RISC V but x86 and amd64 are irredeemably broken.

I know you don't like to hear that you told me already

>>905323

Will RISC-V use standard form factor motherboards with a standardized EFI/BIOS and configuration interfaces? All I ask is anything that wants to succeed the IBM PC standard will not be taking any steps backwards in this regard. I have a deep seeded hatred for ARMshit in case you couldn't already tell for various reasons.

>>905357

Can you fuck off with your server lists taken from random websites with no source?

I highly doubt chink spyware CentOS makes up 21.8% of all systems let alone all server systems.

>Linux an OS

WAY TO PROVE YOU'RE A FAGGOT

>>905366

>RHEL

Damn it.

I thought china had some equivalent of Red Star OS but maybe I was just imagining shit.

>>905374

No they're not that bad.

Although they do have their own distros. 3 of them actually!

There's Deepin OS, which is a Debian-based distro with their own DE.

pretty much confirmed to be spyware by some people on jewtube recently, although I would HIGHLY suggest trying it in a VM just for the sake of laughing at the translations in their app store. Last time I checked they were really hilarious.

https://www.deepin.org/en/

Then there's Ubuntu Kylin, a special version of Ubuntu with, once again, a custom DE (UKUI)

http://www.ubuntukylin.com/index.php?lang=en

And lastly, there's Kylin OS. I can't read the moonrunes, so I have no idea what it's based on, but it looks like it's meant for servers and cloud stuff.

http://www.kylinos.com.cn/

>>905412

I'm too lazy to google it apparently.

>>905335

>At the moment nearly nobody produces them

That's because nearly no one wants them, supply is predicated by demand.

Only a few thousand Talos systems have been ordered my order was in the low one thousands and I placed it only a few months ago and the demand is largely coming from people who need a Power system for development reasons more than people who are security-minded. RISC-V is aimed at a completely different market to Power and as such has even less demand.

>>905327

>Will RISC-V use standard form factor motherboards with a standardized EFI/BIOS and configuration interfaces? All I ask is anything that wants to succeed the IBM PC standard will not be taking any steps backwards in this regard.

Probably not, that takes more effort and most people who make ARM shit are lazy fucks.

>>905426

You're on a website hosted in Reno, Nevada and founded by Americans living in the Philippians with Flip escorts

This entire website is a "mutt" website

>>905433

>Probably not, that takes more effort and most people who make ARM shit are lazy fucks.

It doesn't take effort so much as it takes an industry consortium to come together and draft former standards for something like this. And these industry types are very conservative when it comes to these things (mostly for good reason, appeal to novelty fallacies.etc) And the reality is that there is simply no good reason to switch from x86-64. Its a fast, solid, well supported, and proven architecture for its workloads. RISC-V would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY faster before industry types take notice.

>>905436

>It doesn't take effort so much as it takes an industry consortium to come together and draft former standards for something like this.

He wasn't talking about drafting new standards, he was talking about ARM boards being things like ITX/ATX form factor compliant and using things like a BIOS like how x86 and Power systems work.

>>905426

You used false pretense to shit up this entire thread when you could have just said you used ARM because it wasn't Israeli. Are you proud of yourself?

>>905445

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multinational_companies_with_research_and_development_centres_in_Israel

ARM is Israeli, as is Intel, and AMD, and IBM, and pretty much every major architecture design firm

>>905464

Just because a company has an R&D office in Israel doesn't mean its an Israeli company. A lot of tech companies have been setting up offices outside the US for quite a while now since they worked out that in many cases its cheaper and easier to have an overseas office than it is to import the talent to the US even more so since Trump has been tightening down the H1B program, you just don't hear much about those offices since they usually operate under the radar in terms of media so that competitors don't also set up offices and start competing for talent.

ARM is actually Japanese since its owned entirely by Softbank which brought it using money from the Saudis.

>>905469

>even more so since Trump has been tightening down the H1B program

No one cares. We have an ample supply of intelligent and skilled workers to fill those jobs. H1B just needlessly lowered the wages for those positions.

>>905489

>No one cares. We have an ample supply of intelligent and skilled workers to fill those jobs. H1B just needlessly lowered the wages for those positions.

Not only do you have no idea how the US tech industry works when it comes to its workforce, you also thought I was criticising Trumps actions in regards to the H1B program I don't live in the US and as a result don't give a fuck since I don't want to live there, I was just mentioning the link.

>>905504

>implying my opinion is trash because I don't live in a low trust warmongering police state with questionable standards of living in many parts of it, lower life expectancy, less economic freedom, and less personal freedom than the one I currently live in

k dude

What's the advantage of 10nm?

>>905555

The TL:DR is smaller feature size means lower power consumption and less silicon area for any given design, theoretically going from 14nm to 10nm while keeping everything else the same would yield ~50% decrease in power consumption but in practice its less because of other factors.

Intel follows the 'tick-tock' approach, where every 'tock' is an architecture update and every 'tick' is feature size decrease (and sometimes bugfix).

>>905220

>CPUs appear to be racing towards a dead end as far as Moore's law is concerned.

Moore's law has been dead for years, anon.

>>905489

>profit is needless

>>>/leftpol/

>>905319

>Intel Atoms have comparable TDP to ARM but significantly higher IPC

Laughably wrong. x86 has never been able to match ARM in mobile power efficiency, ARM is even creeping into the low end server market thanks to its performance/Watt:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/arm-takes-wing/

>>905555

Depending on the priorities of the chip's designers, increased headroom for some combination of:

>lower power consumption and heat output

OR

>faster clock speed

>>905327

>ATX is not space inefficient with the massive standardized IO plate and gigantic power connectors

>UEFI is not poorly implemented

>POWER OpenFirmware or coreboot are not much more suitable solutions to Tianotrash

>>905555

>>905562

>>906295

so the big autobot in your PSU can't send as many angry bees into a smaller CPU, and it so the CPU doesn't get stung as many times

>>905436

> And the reality is that there is simply no good reason to switch from x86-64. Its a fast, solid, well supported, and proven architecture for its workloads. RISC-V would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY faster before industry types take notice.

If you're only going to run C and UNIX programs, there's no reason to switch, but there are other CPU architectures and operating systems that don't make your computer into a faster PDP-11, like mainframes, segmented architectures, and tagged architectures like Lisp machines. This is where a new architecture has an advantage.

http://multicians.org/multics-vm.html

>In Multics, the number of segment descriptors available to each computation is sufficiently large to provide a segment descriptor for each file that the user program needs to reference in most applications. The availability of a large number of segment descriptors to each computation makes it practical for the Multics supervisor to associate segment descriptors with files upon first reference to the information by a user pro gram, relieving the user from the responsibility of allocating and deallocating segment descriptors. In addition, the relatively large number of segment descriptors eliminates the need for buffering, allowing the user program to operate directly on the original information rather than on a copy of the information. In this way, all information retains its identity and independent attributes of length and access privilege regardless of its physical location in main memory or on secondary storage. As a result, the Multics user no longer uses files; instead he references all information as segments, which are directly accessible to his programs.

The fundamental design flaw in Unix is the asinine belief
that "programs are written to be executed by computers
rather than read by humans."  [Now that statement may be
true in the statistical sense in that it applies to most
programs.  But it is totally, absolutely wrong in the moral
sense.]

That's why we have C -- a language designed to make every
machine emulate a PDP-11.  That's why we have a file system
that forces every file to be viewed as a sequence of bytes
(after all, that's what they are, right?).  That's why
"protocols" depend on byte-order.

They have never separated the program from the machine.  It
never entered their tiny, pocket-protectored with a
calculator-hanging-from-the-belt mind.

   Maybe the idea of a portable operating system is a good
   thing, but unfortunately, they only invented the idea,
   but still haven't come up with an implementation.

Multics was written in a high-level language first.  ITS ran
on the PDP-6 and PDP-10.

Sure they came up with an implementation.  You just make a
machine that looks just like a PDP-11 and you can port unix
to it.  No problem!

The latest idea is to build machines (RISC machines with
register windows) which are designed specifically for C
programs and unix (just check out the original Berkeley RISC
papers if you don't believe me: it was a specific design
goal).  Now, people tell me that the advantage of a Sun over
a Lisp machine is that it's a general-purpose machine ("Of
course it's general purpose." they say.  "Why it even runs
unix.").

Hmm, well this example shows that at least the weenix unies
know how to USE recursion!

>>906389

Wrong. You get used to the parentheses fairly quickly.

>>906389

>a more confusing array of parentheses than a /pol/ poster

Is having (){{{([(([][]),())])}}} found in C based languages any better though?

>>906447

>Sage in name field

>Missing the main point of the post so completely

WE'VE GOT A REDDITOR ON OUR HANDS

>>906483

Shitting on your keyboard doesn't produce idiomatic C code.

>>906511

and just typing parenthesis doesn't produce idiomatic Lisp code.

>>906429

So... they're less powerful than dual-core x86 chips?

>>906767

>same transistor budget

>quadruple the cores on each die

I don't think you understand what "efficient" means

>>906774

More cores only matters when programs can use them. If the programs can't be multithreaded for whatever reason, those cores end up being waste.

>>906781

How do they get more than 1 instruction per clock? Isn't that the theoretical maximum for any single core?

>>906790

Only with a scalar (single execution unit), non-pipelined core. Basically all modern CPUs have a substantial amount of instruction-level parallelism, even within single cores.

>>906781

>5GHz barrier in 2005

Wasn't it rather a 4GHz barrier that manifested around 2004? Intel's planned 4.0GHz P4 housefire never made it into production

>>906846

Yes, though SMT is a little beyond what I was talking about, since it requires multiple explicit threads. By "modern", what I meant was since the late '80s or mid '90s in the case of 80x86.

>>906856

Yeah. Reading a little to refresh my memory, I was amused to see some articles from 2000 about Intel's plans at the time to scale to 10GHz by 2011, presumably using bazillion-stage pipelines:

https://web.archive.org/web/20000919185204/http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2601717,00.html

>>906856

How do we know that these barriers aren't completely staged to force us onto the cloud? All the corporations are owned by the same handful of satanists.

>>906774

4 times the number of cores + 1/30th the performance per core core = fucking TERRIBLE performance.

>>907171

The ARM implementation of Go clearly wasn't up to snuff, as that article noted. In all other tests, ARM single-thread single-core performance was 40-80% of 80x86.

>>906856

>>906872

The problem with going faster is kind of a catch-22 situation.

The faster you clock tje CPU the higher the power draw and therefore the higher the current density, so you go to a smaller feature size to reduce the transistor gate capacitance and your current drops, but now the wires that connect all the transistors together are also smaller so they have higher resistance and since the transistors are smaller they also have higher on-resistance so in the end you can't push as much current around so you can't clock your chip any faster. Not to mention as the wires in your chip get smaller the effects of electromigration start becoming significant so you can't just safely bump up the supply voltage and clock it higher since then the chips don't last as long, people seem to forget that an aluminium wire 14nm wide is only 80 or so atoms wide.

There is also other effects going on like signals taking a finite amount of time to travel around the chip, meaning there is an upper limit to the clock determined by how long data takes to travel along the internal busses of the chip.

>>907284

>so you can't clock your chip any faster

Every new fab node I can recall resulted in a linear increase in clockspeed at a similar power/dissipation req, even for totally unmodified optical shrinks.

>people seem to forget that an aluminium wire 14nm wide is only 80 or so atoms wide

I'm aware of all the quantum fuckery happening at the smallest nodes 7nm, but keep in mind that we've already made single-atom semitransistors in the lab. The main barrier to smaller fab nodes is simply the ability to economically mass manufacture devices with acceptable defect rates per wafer.

Reminds me a little of a paper about space I read back in the late 90s about how using current day technology, the benefits (zero-g, cheap vacuum) would actually be enough versus the obvious additional expenses to make orbital factories financially viable in the electronics sector.

>>TMSC inefficient 7nm has less problems than Intel 10nm

sad state of affairs

>>TSMC inefficient 7nm has less problems than Intel 10nm

sad state of affairs

>>911139

That's cool and all but NO OS or software will EVER make enough use of such a system. It's bad enough trying to get shit to work with just multi-core period, much less multi-core with different specs per core.

>>904736

GF and TSMC have fabs in the US, GF has their most advanced ones in the US

There's literally no 14nm fab in China from anyone, chinks were preparing 14nm nodes but iirc they still aren't online

Intel won't hit 10nm until 2020 at the earliest. Cap this.

blogpost:

I fucking hate Intel's naming scheme. This gay, completely nondescriptive "-Lake" bullshit has no fucking rhyme or reason. Its prefix words "coffee, cascade, etc." have no theme or pattern, they're just fucking retarded.

>>904736

>>904793

Is this some new kind of D&C? You fucking idiots are so goddamn new it's pathetic. If you paid shill kikes had ever built a computer you could answer this question: When was the last time you installed a cpu that was made in the USA? You should be able to give me a year. I ask the same question of the other idiot shill in the first post - when was the last time you installed a cpu that was made in China?

You are pathetic disgraces even to shills, but beneath contempt for any of the competent individuals left on this board. Go back to /g/ and fucking stay there.

>>911518

Are you done looking like an idiot? Can you post your argument now or do we both have to keep wasting our time?

>>911518

Intel is cianiggers, so they use the same kind of stupid names. Except they're not in all caps (that's enough to fool the goyim).