HN user
City kids have friends, play outside and go visit friends.
I think it's the degree that matters.
This is simply not true. If you look at social issues like alcoholism, drug use, suicides or domestic violence ... villages have plenty of those.
AMD fanboys will back Intel if it’s against ARM.
They take full power and subtract idle power.
>Which is why a naive perf/Watt metric like Notebookcheck does at each chip's top operating point is almost worthless for comparing efficiency.
You can't even get perf/watt curves on Apple's A series and M series of chips because it's impossible to manually control the wattage given to the SoC. On PCs, you can do that. But not on iPhones and Macs. Therefore, Geekerwan's curves are not real curves for Apple chips - just projections.
Geekbench shows the same gap in performance. Cinebench has historically favored Intel chips more than Arm.
I think Notebookcheck uses peak power in their perf/watt measurements.
They go over it in detail here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Our-Test-Criteria.15394.0.html
It doesn't necessarily use half the power. But it does have greater than 2x in perf/watt and it has noticeably faster ST performance.
Actually, Apple's M3 and even Qualcomm's X Elite are significantly ahead of the new Intel chip in raw performance and especially perf/watt.
Cinebench R24 ST[0]:
* M3: 12.7 points/watt, 141 score
* X Elite: 9.3 points/watt, 123 score
* Intel Ultra 7 258V (new): 5.36 points/watt, 120 score
* AMD HX 370: 3.74 points/watt, 116 score
* AMD 8845HS: 3.1 points/watt, 102 score
* Intel 155H: 3.1 points/watt, 102 score
Cinebench R24 MT[0]:
* M3: 28.3 points/watt, 598 score
* X Elite: 22.6 points/watt, 1033 score
* AMD HX 370: 19.7 points/watt, 1213 score
* Intel Ultra 7 258V (new): 17.7 points/watt, 602 score
* AMD 8845HS: 14.8 points/watt, 912 score
* Intel 155H: 14.5 points/watt, 752 score
PCMark did a battery life comparison using identical Dell XPS 13s[1]:
* X Elite: 1,168 minutes, performance of 204,333 in Procyon Office
* Intel Ultra 7 256V (new): 1,253 minutes, performance of 123,000 in Procyon Office
* Meteor Lake 155H: 956 minutes, performance of 129,000 in Procyon Office
Basically, Intel's new chip has 7% more battery life than X Elite but the X Elite is 66% faster while on battery. In other words, Intel's new chip throttles heavily to get that battery life.
>Of course they ignored things like node advantage, but who cares? ;)
>Where are all those people who for years (or since M1) were claiming that x86 is dead because ARM ISA (magically) offers significantly better energy-efficiency than x86 ISA.
------
[0]Data for M3, X Elite, AMD, Meteor Lake taken from the best scores available here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-anal...
[0]Data for Core Ultra 7 taken from here: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-Zenbook-S-14-UX5406-lapto...
The problem with the Nvidia replacement goal of big tech is that they don't have an ARM-like organization to design cores for them. Big tech use their own ARM CPUs because they use stock ARM core designs and its ISA. The hardwork was already done for big tech.
Big tech must design their own GPUs. From the looks of it, it's much harder to do it on your own than license cores from ARM.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-nvidia-aws-ai-chip-do...
Did you read my post from 4 years ago?
Is AMD the king of the Titanic (x86)?
I basically outlined why I would not invest in AMD and it's inevitable that ARM would take over servers and personal computers.
This is why you need unions.
What happens if the unions succeed in draining the profits, corporate has less money to invest in R&D, and a foreign efficient automaker comes in and takes all the market share away from the union-led automakers?
What happens then?
It's already proven that it's not just the node advantage. Just compare Apple's 7nm A series chips to Zen3 or M2 to Zen4. The power advantage for Apple is 3x - 10x.
Actually, it's way worse for Intel and AMD if you only use single core power.
If you run Geekbench 5 or 6 on an M1, the total package power ranges 0.3w - 5w, mostly staying below 3w. Intel and AMD can use 10x or more power to achieve similar or lower Geekbench scores.
With all due respect, I was a responsible user for the first year too. Good luck to you and I hope you never get addicted.
Unlike alcohol addiction, which can come on fast, weed grabs a hold of you over a longer period. It starts out as only beneficial with little to no downside. You won't notice you're addicted until much later.
Also, I find your decision to call the plant marijuana interesting. The names weed and pot have a negative connotation. But "marijuana" sounds a lot more acceptable. Nothing to do with you. Just something I noticed.
Well, I wouldn't have been strongly anti recreational use if I didn't go through what I did.
Extremely high THC products coupled with professional marketing agencies? Yikes. We're going to have a weed epidemic soon. Maybe it's a silent epidemic now.
They usually sell crippled GPUs to the low end of the market. That's a segment of the market they no longer really serve. They also didn't do anything to hide the fact that their GPUs were really being sold to miners and not gamers, something they got fined doing.
1. Low end GPUs have extremely small profit margins. It's smart business decision to not lower prices in a declining discrete GPU market. Business 101.
2. Nvidia did not sell GPUs directly to miners. They had no control/no way of verifying what the GPUs will be used for. And who cares if they sold to miners? It's just business at the end of the day - free market.
Their leadership is going to be transitory since they are not being competitive. Intel would never had entered the discrete GPU market if nVidia keep prices low.
Their leadership is extremely competitive.
Nvidia prices GPUs at the price the market is willing to pay. It has nothing to do with "greed" that you seem to be suggesting. Business 101.
Intel needs to enter the GPU market because AI runs on GPUs as well. It's both gaming and AI. Intel needs to be in the AI market or they're toast.
Lack of mobile GPUs and integrated GPUs is a red flag that they're charging too much money. Discrete laptop GPUs is a niche of the market. It is not what most laptops use.
No clue what you're talking about. Cite the source for lack of mobile GPUs? You mean laptop GPUs right? Nvidia doesn't make SoCs for phones or laptops.
Discrete laptop GPUs outsell discrete desktop GPUs. While it's not what most laptops use, it's still a much bigger than desktop GPUs.
I just quit weed after getting addicted for almost 2 years.
There is a large community of people who are trying to quit: /r/leaves
The article is nothing new to me. Read a few posts from the subreddit and you'd see a pattern.
Three weeks ago, I was pro-weed recreation legalization. Today, I'm strongly anti recreation use.
Edit: I'm not against decriminalization of weed. I'm highly against pro-recreational use. I'm against high THC %, easy access, advertisements, sponsorships, etc. I believe weed should be classified as a highly addictive drug - especially to youth. We should not have weed stores. It should be sold behind the counter. It should have a very high tax so that it's not cheap. It should have huge, bold warning labels on packaging. It should not be legalized at the federal level.
So much anti-China / pro-war propaganda. It's blindly strong.
Nvidia sold dedicated crypto mining cards. It definitely did went into crypto.
They crippled normal GPUs and sold them to miners. They did this because once the crypto bubble pops, the used GPU market won't be flooded.
They are charging non-competitive prices for their consumer GPU market. This is opening the door to more competition.
Ok, so what? All companies do this when they're the leader.
The desktop discrete video market is not the same thing as the consumer GPU market. You are ignoring a huge sector of integrated GPUs and mobile GPUs.
Nvidia does focus on laptop GPUs. It's much bigger than desktop discrete GPUs. Nvidia doesn't have a way to get into phone GPUs because they're tightly controlled by Apple, Qualcomm, and Mediatek. That's why they tried to buy ARM.
You're kidding right?
Nvidia never went into cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies went into Nvidia. Nvidia actively tried to sell GPUs to gamers instead of crypto people because crypto people will flood the used GPU market when the bubble inevitably pops every single time.
Nvidia isn't abandoning the consumer GPU market. They're still the leader by far. The consumer GPU market has actually been declining for nearly 20 years now.[0] They should not invest more into a declining market.
AI is the correct market to put their eggs in.
[0]https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/osFsEsoUthvCrzKiF5aoLn-120...
Yes.
I think Airbnb has gone way beyond its original intended mission. I live in a fairly luxurious large condo building. On my floor, there are about 12 apartments. At least 9 of them are Airbnbs. I feel like I'm living in a hotel with constant tourists and locals booking to throw parties.
The crazy thing is, I suspect that a lot of landlords don't actually know that people who rent the apartments are using it as Airbnbs.
Imagine if we legalized all drugs. How much easier would it get and what message would it send to kids?
"Nah we were on it just trusting in the growth plan which hasn't come through. It's all good I know how to grow this business. But gotta get costs in line first."
- Flexport CEO
Hard disagree.
I do not want my kids to have easy access to drugs that can destroy a person.
I can't answer that question. It's well above my expertise. I'm also biased because I had a weed addiction and thankfully was able to see it and quit. I never had alcohol problems.
But let me ask you this, should cocaine be legalized?
I see. You could have just said that.
But bleach isn't advertised nor meant to be consumed by the human body. Weed is meant to be consumed and advertised as such. I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. In fact, I don't think there is a comparison to weed.
What are you implying? Help me understand. I'm a recovering weed addict and my IQ hasn't come back to normal yet.
I don't know how much my experience with weed matters here. I've never tried psychedelics.
But with weed, I tried it in 2021 because it was "legal" so it must not be so bad. At first, I just used it socially. Eventually, I started using weed every single day, from morning to evening. This was made easy by WFH and boredom due to covid lockdowns. After lockdowns, I still used it - even more.
I justified it because it was "legal" and I felt like it was better than alcohol, which poisons the body and increases aggression in men.
Weed made me unambitious, scrape by at work, ignore family and friend messages, stop working on tech side projects, fat, lazy, dumb.
Weed slowly consumed my life. It wasn't sudden. Unlike alcohol addiction, weed felt harmless at first. Alcohol addiction has clear downsides immediately. Weed addiction is slow. Next thing you know, your whole life could be based on it.
I finally saw the negative effects of weed and made a decision to quit forever. Never again.
I'm not a mentally weak person. I have a fairly clean background. I never smoked cigarettes. I never drank alcohol by myself. Never tried other drugs.
Weed consumed 2 years of my life. I basically did almost nothing except get fat and scraped by work. If I continued, I'm sure I would have lost my career and I was prepared to be ok with it just so I can continue to get high everyday.
In the past, I was pro-legalization of weed because of all the things I read about jail times and the criminal injustice. Today, I'm not so sure anymore. In this case, I do not wish for California to legalize anymore drugs until we are absolutely 100% sure of its effects on society and that it's better. Let other states or countries try it first and then analyze the data.