And if you go for actual GPUs it'll run much faster, I'd say 24gb may be pushing it for context, but my 5090 with 32GB VRAM is usually somewhere between 60 to 100 tok/s with mtp and 2-3k tok/s for prompt processing. I'm not sure what they cost now but it's definitely still quite far from the macbook, and there's also some other 32GB GPUs that are considerably more affordable
AC is sorely lacking in the EU, e.g. right now I have one in my office but not in my bedroom and nights are horrible, but I do read a lot about people overdoing it quite a bit with AC, aiming at 18-20°C during 30s outside which is a huge energy expenditure when a healthy human should be perfectly fine at higher temperatures
More niche hardware has been impossible for me to find in the EU marketplaces I got to with searches, with only availability from US ebay, and then Chinese marketplaces. Or if it does exist here it's the same used part but it costs 500€ instead of 40
Idle and light load is bad for degradation only because that's the most common scenario where the boosting algorith will actually go to the highest clocks. More loaded cores will have the CPU target lower clocks on all cores so that it actually can get the power for it and have the CPU be coolable, but if you're idle and then some task loads just a single core for a bit the CPU will boost it the highest it can. The voltage spikes from those boosts will cause local hotspots even if the CPU is cool overall
Not sure what's supposed to be wrong with that? The clock tree degrades at high voltage. Some theories I've seen were on the CPU requesting significantly higher voltages during alternating clocks when there's a short lull in load from e.g. a pipeline stall. Then there doesn't seem to be a good enough of a sensor net in the correct places for the CPU to react to this, so it just "burns" itself down gradually. Assuming these are true, actual fixes from intel would be relaxing boost clocks to ones that are universally safe and open themselves to a lawsuit from everyone that bought the high end SKUs, or do a new stepping which is extremely expensive for a done design.
When you degrade the CPU naturally needs higher voltages to be stable, until the point where it just breaks completely and no amount of voltage it help it. But if your CPU doesn't degrade because it hasn't been overdoing it on voltages then there'll be no issues for Vmin to shift.
As an anecdotal experience from someone I know that runs these in prod for game servers, limiting the CPU to 80°C and 1.4V-1.45V, 400A has been keeping them alive for years doing 24/7 loads. Maybe a bit lower on the voltage if one wants to be sure longer term, as they are fine with just mass RMAing these. There's also large amount of differences in the silicon quality between samples that can make one run cool and completely fine even at the old stock settings, and an another sample that'll have to pull say 1.5x the power for the same load and clocks having it degrade.
Undervolting would definitely help, and is the actual fix. The current Intel fixes were mostly just for the symptoms, as the main issue is high voltage+power when pushing high clocks, but they can't actually fix that as it'd downgrade the advertised clocks the cpus were sold with
Because it's spinning blades among manufacturing tolerances you also have to account for the blades expanding when rotating at high speed, and possibly working with 40-50 °C air from the components
Factories working at (significantly) less than full capacity gets a bit harder when you've got one of the most expensive machines on earth working in them, and production lines that'll be out of date in a couple of years
There are some very specific workloads (say simple object detection) that fit into cache and have crazy performance where the value of the cpu will be unbeatable, as the alternative is one of the cache epycs, everywhere else it'll only be small improvement if the software is not purpose made for it
> The assumption is simply false, and not due to the "SSD wear" argument. Many consumer SSDs, especially DRAMless ones (e.g., Apacer AS350 1TB, but also seen on Crucial SSDs), under synchronous writes, will regularly produce latency spikes of 10 seconds or more, due to the way they need to manage their cells. This is much worse than any HDD. If a DRAMless consumer SSD is all that you have, better use zram.
Do mind that DRAMless is much less of an issue on NVMe. NVMe can use Host Memory Buffer to use system RAM for its logic, which is still orders of magnitude faster than relying on the NAND.
DRAMless is strictly worse in every way on SATA, where you really don't want to use it if you can help it; on NVMe, the difference is more about having a bad lower-quality drive or a good higher-quality drive. Having DRAM is a good indicator of the drive being good as the manufacturer is unlikely to pair it with slow NAND and controller, but lacking it doesn't necessarily mean a drive will perform badly. When comparing drives between generations, DRAMless often ends up performing better, even in loaded scenarios, compared to an older drive with DRAM.
The difference between my 27" 4k and 1440p screens is still quite obvious and I don't consider myself particularly sensitive to these things.
For rendering of text/video even an underpowered integrated gpu can handle it fine, only issue is using a bunch more ram.
For reference my very underpowered desktop AMD igpu on 3 generations old gpu architecture (2CUs of RDNA 2) only has trouble with the occasional overly heavy browser animation
The swap/memory situation in linux has surprised me quite a bit coming from Windows.
Windows remains mostly fully responsive even when memory is being pushed to the limits and swapping gigabytes per second, while on linux when I ran a stress test that ate all the memory I had trouble even terminating the script
Apple doesn't expose the kind of introspection necessary to compare with the data the article is about. Any mention would just be about Apple's chips existing and being better
Wouldn't having an adversarial country to be spying on you be the better option for you personally? At least privacy wise, not using your machine as some infiltration point, as the country you reside in has many more opportunities to abuse the data
How can the solar panel itself radiate heat when it's being heated up generating supplying power? Looking at pictures of the ISS there's radiators that look like they're there specifically to cool the solar panels.
And even if viable, why would you just not cool using air down on earth? Water is used for cooling because it increases effectiveness significantly, but even a closed loop system with simple dry air heat exchangers is quite a lot more effective than radiative cooling
It's a matter of deploying it for cheaper or with fewer downsides than what can be done on earth. Launching things to space is expensive even with reusable rockets, and a single server blade would need a lot of accompanying tech to power it, cool it, and connect to other satellites and earth.
Right now only upsides an expensive satellite acting as a server node would be physical security and avoiding various local environmental laws and effects