TalkChess.com

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/1 ... _shipping/

Sounds interesting.

Yes, it is interesting, maybe mainly that there is now once more competition possible with Intel and that means lower prices across the market. The 7 nm that comes in the second generation of their roadmap I think will shrink the dice and it is only single socket so that could mean more speed. Or with the multi socket for the second generation maybe NUMA and two chips. But temperature and energy saving might hold up much of extra speed that for servers is not so important. For now, I don't think Windows 10 runs on ARM architecture. Not sure if there is a Stockfish yet for ARM. Oracle Linux is maybe a bit limited option for end users that don't run server software.

Eelco de Groot wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:47 amFor now, I don't think Windows 10 runs on ARM architecture.

I wouldn't be so sure https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/

mar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:01 pm

Eelco de Groot wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:47 amFor now, I don't think Windows 10 runs on ARM architecture.

I wouldn't be so sure https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/

Microsoft emulates x86 on ARM, there are already a few laptops with ARM architecture running this, the problem is that it runs so slow that it is not very usable in practice.

Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:36 pm Microsoft emulates x86 on ARM, there are already a few laptops with ARM architecture running this, the problem is that it runs so slow that it is not very usable in practice.

Emulated x86 apps will be slow for sure (my guess about an order of magnitude even if JITted, just the cost of emulation itself),
but both kernel and drivers are native ARM from what I've read.
So if you compile native ARM64 binary (you should be able to with VS, I haven't tried as I don't own such HW), it should run just fine.

Unless you meant x86 chips vs ARM chips, is the difference really still that big?
I've read somewhere that recent Apple's ARM mobile chips are very fast and comparable to old desktop chips?

mar wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:46 pm

Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:36 pm Microsoft emulates x86 on ARM, there are already a few laptops with ARM architecture running this, the problem is that it runs so slow that it is not very usable in practice.

Emulated x86 apps will be slow for sure (my guess about an order of magnitude even if JITted, just the cost of emulation itself),
but both kernel and drivers are native ARM from what I've read.
So if you compile native ARM64 binary (you should be able to with VS, I haven't tried as I don't own such HW), it should run just fine.

Unless you meant x86 chips vs ARM chips, is the difference really still that big?
I've read somewhere that recent Apple's ARM mobile chips are very fast and comparable to old desktop chips?

It is possible that both kernel and drivers are native on ARM, I don't know, the emulated x86 apps however, run very slow.
Here are some benchmarks from emulated and native apps on a snapdragon 835. https://www.techspot.com/review/1599-wi ... page2.html
Anyway, why would you want to run Windows on ARM if you can't run native Windows apps with acceptable performance?

Joost Buijs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:27 pm It is possible that both kernel and drivers are native on ARM, I don't know, the emulated x86 apps however, run very slow.
Here are some benchmarks from emulated and native apps on a snapdragon 835. https://www.techspot.com/review/1599-wi ... page2.html
Anyway, why would you want to run Windows on ARM if you can't run native Windows apps with acceptable performance?

Both kernel and drivers are ARM native, that's a fact.
The emulated performance isn't actually half as bad as I expected, so it seems fine (~4x slower compared to lowest rated i5 is actually pretty good for an emulator).
By native I understand native for target machine, x86 on ARM is not native. So native ARM binaries should run much faster than emulated,
and since we can produce such native binaries in VS, I don't see any problem.
I'd be interested in running my own apps on 32 ARM cores, not emulated x86 3rd party Photoshop or something.

MikeGL wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:03 am https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/1 ... _shipping/

Sounds interesting.

There is not much difference between ARM cores on newest cellphones, and those. The only difference is slightly higher frequency.
For example Mongoose M3 ARM of Samsung running on 2.7GHz generates around 600kn/s per core.
Assuming linear scaling those 32cores on 3.3GHz would produce at best 23Mn/s. That is at least 10% less then 16 cores 1950X Threadripper without HT.

My little 6-core i7-8700K is looking puny compared to the configurations being discussed here. Seems like a Threadripper 2990WX might be needed?