Jump to content


2016+ CPU/GPU News

amd nvidia intel cpu gpu polaris zen pascal kaby lake skylake

  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#151 Oldjim


    Uber tester

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1963 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 04:20 PM

and if you want to spend even more dosh

Attached File  2017-03-08_211906.jpg   28.03KB   0 downloads

#152 jaxa


    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1153 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 04:52 PM

The GTX 1080 Ti is crap. You need this one instead.

#153 MoroseTroll



  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 279 posts

Posted 09 March 2017 - 04:58 AM

As for ISA? They make new ones all the time don't they (SSE, SSE2, etc)?

Every x86 extension (MMX, SSE, AVX, FMA, etc.) just extends the x86 ISA, not replaces it. The "xor ax, ax" instruction still has the same byte codes (0x33, 0xC0), as it was in 1978, when 8086 was born. It's a binary compatibility.

If AMD or Intel would implement, say, GVX (let's name it Graphics Vector eXtension :)), then all other CPU/GPU vendors should do the same, in order to gain advantage. But AMD would never do that (remember 3DNow!, E3DNow!, XOP, FMA4? Many modern AMD CPUs don't support them anymore due to very serious reasons), nVidia cannot do that (because it hasn't its own x86 CPU), VIA is almost dead, so the only one who's left is Intel. Would Intel implement so named GVX? I don't know, but I doubt. You see, Intel still didn't implement AVX-512 in its desktop and laptop CPUs, whereas that extension has been announced in 2013, i.e. 4 (four!) years ago. So why should Intel bother about GVX?

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: amd, nvidia, intel, cpu, gpu, polaris, zen, pascal, kaby lake, skylake

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users