False. The OSX kernel will not work on AMD CPUs by default. You need a custom kernel to boot on such hardware. The default kernel has checks for Intel specific hardware.
You may not have proper energy saving working, but the OS will boot and work....
False. The OSX kernel will not work on AMD CPUs by default. You need a custom kernel to boot on such hardware. The default kernel has checks for Intel specific hardware.
I am not expert of hackintoish, but i thought that they worked...False. The OSX kernel will not work on AMD CPUs by default. You need a custom kernel to boot on such hardware. The default kernel has checks for Intel specific hardware.
But if you or someone else remove checks for Intel specific hardware will it boot?
Sent fra min SM-G928F via Tapatalk
AMD CPUs have never worked well with OS X. Apple will have to make some tweaks.I am not expert of hackintoish, but i thought that they worked...
Really? Do you have a link for this??
To think: I've been following Anandtech for over a decade, and this is the first time someone mentioned this.
Ok, the sarcasm is getting tiring. Come on man, there's no need to lower the conversation with statements like that.
...in a Windows context.
Yes they both feature the same ISA, but some CPU instructions need to be specifically supported by Microsoft's kernel (e.g. Intel C/S sleep and power saving modes).
I think we've steered off-topic so I won't say much except this, and nothing after in this thread.Thanks, but I was being sarcastic.
I've been following Anandtech, and sites like Tech Report, Beyond3D and Real World Tech for over decade. I know that Intel and AMD CPUs are both x86 and x86-64 compatible.
I find it pretty lamentable that a fellow tech enthusiast would even question if someone knew that AMD and Intel CPUs were both x86. It really takes away from the sense of community here, IMO.
Yes I obviously get all that. But what I'm saying is that some CPU designs support instructions or extensions to the x86 ISA (e.g. SSE3, 3DNow!, SSE4.1, AVX2 and so on, as well as features such as power saving states and turbo modes) which need to be specifically supported by the operating system in order to be enabled. Most of these extensions are also not compatible with CPUs from rival vendors (as was originally the case with AMD64 before Intel licensed the tech from AMD).
So you can't develop an OS platform solely around Intel CPUs, support all their features, and then suddenly port it all to an AMD CPU platform and expect things to run perfectly. Things like turbo and sleep-states wouldn't work for example, and extensions such as AES or AVX2 may not be enabled, leading to performance issues. Beyond that there would be driver compatibility questions for all the system busses and perhaps even questions over compiler optimisation.
Could Apple solve these problems? Yes, of course they could. I never said they couldn't.
I simply take the position that they choose not to because they do not see enough of an incentive to change CPU vendors from Intel to AMD.
Steve Jobs stated that Apple's primary motivation for the transition was their disappointment with the progress of IBM's development of PowerPC technology, and their greater faith in Intel to meet Apple's needs. In particular, he cited the performance per watt projections in the roadmap provided by Intel
At the moment there are no details about the new models and the NDA should lift by the end of February.
on bottom you see 6pin 12v, It's weird?
Same as Z270
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-z270-xpower-gaming-titanium-review,5.html
Probably the price will the same
Some very specific details have leaked out from CES 2017 today. I use the word ‘leaked’ because it took some sleuthing on the part of Hardwareluxx.de to get the information directly from the Ryzen + Vega demo kiosk. They were able to find out the base and turbo clocks of the Ryzen sample and they do not disappoint. This particular chip was clocked at an impressive 3.6 GHz base clock and could turbo up to 3.9 GHz.
We can clearly see the Ryzen processor has a base clock of 3.6 GHz. We can also easily arrive at the stepping as well as the turbo clock using the identifying id given in the device manager. The Ryzen engineering sample used here is code named “1D3601A2M88F3_39/36_N” and instantly we can see that the turbo clock is 3.9 GHz (the 39/36 identifies the turbo/base clock). We can also see that the stepping used here is F3. Considering this is an engineering sample and not the final product, its really impressivel to see it perform so well.
As I mentioned before in my post about Ryzen’s overclock-ability, this kind of OC performance is something you should expect considering a single core can hit 5 GHz on air. It is also something that is very significant in the grand scheme of things because while a few hundred MHz changes will not make a huge difference in gaming, they will make quite a lot of difference in rendering and compute intensive applications. That said, even at this stepping, a 3.9 GHz turbo is more than enough for most modern day games.
Do they mean the new horizon presentation or was there an other demo?Ryzen demo was using F3 stepping that is clocked at 3.6 GHz / 3.9 GHz, F4 stepping to go even higher
Do they mean the new horizon presentation or was there an other demo?
I believe they mean the one specifically linked in that post, with that image--which, I believe, is the demo at CES the last day or so of Ryzen + Vega running Star Wars Battlefront.
Do they mean the new horizon presentation or was there an other demo?
https://twitter.com/aschilling/status/817014750018056194
3.6 base 3.9 turbo - 1D3601A2M88F3_39/36_N
https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/817044837358780416
3.6 / 4.0 exists
It seems like 3.6 is flattening out for baseclocks, I wouldnt give it more than 3.7 for final.. Turbo on the other hand