Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That was very different, here the problem is the game's threads get scheduled on the weak E-cores and it doesn't like that for some reasons, with the PS3 that would have been impossible, SPEs had a different ISA, and didn't even have direct access to memory, the problem was developers had to write very different code for the SPEs to unlock most of the performance of the Cell.


Even more weirdly: affinity was set to the P cores, so it wasn't being scheduled on E cores at all.

Maybe it was spawning more threads than P cores, because it expected to be able to use all cores.


You can replace "for some reasons" with it was scheduled on an inferior core that is used to inflate marketing metrics and should have never been on the silicon in the first place. The CPU in question is a Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 Processor 285K. No one buys this CPU for efficiency. In the absence of actual technical innovation, Intel has resorted to simply attempting to game the system with measures like

1. renaming all your process nodes to the next smaller size even though nothing changed

2. using TSMC process to ship products, when they already own a foundry

3. shipping multiple generations of products to consumers that just flat out destroy themselves, then blaming others

4. adding "efficiency" cores to inflate core counts

5. removing hyperthreading in the name of performance

6. introducing the "i9" series of processors, which are just the previous generation "i7" with a price premium added

7. Renaming all of your product lines to things like "9" instead of "i9" to obscure the absolutely absent generational improvements

8. shipping CPUs that support AVX512 and then disabling it after the product release

9. shipping an entire graphics product line with innovative new features, which do not actually work on launch

case in point: there are no fewer than 7 clock speeds listed for this CPU here on Intel's own page

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/241060/...

Which one is it? Why did they only list 7? Couldn't they have listed at least 23 more? Surely there are other clock speeds that are important. Do I have 8 cores, 16 cores, or 24? Can I use all 24? Are those cores the same? Are they even remotely comparable? Do they all support the same instruction set? Do I have 36 Megabytes of Intel smart cache, or is it 40 megabytes? Is this a 125 watt CPU or 250 watts? Does this processor do anything that is anyway different from a middle of the line CPU from nearly 8 years ago, that I can buy a fully working system from a recycler from for less than the cost of this CPU?




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: