it’s intel in this case, the user in question refuses to give any money to intel, period.
I’m no fan of intel’s cpu division, I can’t stand them, but in my experience, intel nics, both wired and wireless, are the best on the market.
Zen Vulnerability:
Looks like it’s a blessing that we don’t have an AMD option yet.
https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-1039
1 Like
imo that security threat is basically meaningless… It’s unlikely to become a big problem, and will likely become patched before long!
Although it’s just my opinion I don’t believe that these security bugs are that severe considering they only trace proccesses on a instruction level! A hacker would basically need physical access to the machine in order to do anything.
1 Like
According to this entry on Red Hat, they need local privileged access (not physical). But if they have local privileged access, you’re screwed anyway in some shape or form. Though this seems to be specific to co-location. (e.g. Say, in the cloud, Admins of one organisation, can get encryption key of another co-hosted organisation’s VM)
2 Likes
try looking at how many CVEs intel have had over the last 5 years.
1 Like
It’s not about the numbers of CVEs.
(More about the CVE’s impact, and mitigation impact…In this case, mitigation impacts performance…by disabling SMT?)
My point still stands. Intel CVE microcode patches have caused MASSIVE performance loss repeatedly over the last 5 years, and they have repeatedly tried to foist their performance killing kernel patches onto AMD machines as well despite AMD not being vulnerable to the flaws the patches were intended to fix. AMD having a flaw is small beans compared to intel at this point
1 Like
I can vouch for this. The Spectre-meltdown double whammy beat 30% of the performance out of some processors. One could say that CPUs from the mid-2000s shouldn’t be in use, but that’s a bad take because functional hardware is good hardware, and having a quad-core processor suddenly take a beating for no reason beyond a manufacturer design issue is plainly unfair to the customer.
Processor design flaws like this are unacceptable.
2 Likes
No. Your point was only about “how many CVEs intel have had over the last 5 years.” No mention of severity. Do not outsource the responsibility of communication clarity to others to infer.
Now this is the point you should have started with. And that, I would agree, had experienced with as well, with their patches…time and time again. Painful performance drops…multiple times.
There’s Hertzbleed as well back in June…both Intel and AMD.
my point followed directly on from your suggestion that its a good thing that we don’t have an AMD board because of a CVE that needs a mitigation that causes performance loss. Intel have had at least a dozen CVEs needing mitigations that cause performance loss over the last 5 years. You framed the discussion, I responded within that same frame.
over 60% on some workloads. Plus they’ve removed AVX512 instructions from some newer cpus via microcode update as well. That leaves a very bad taste for me.
2 Likes
Yeah, that AVX drop was also pretty awful. Nothing like getting a chip, getting software developed that’s optimized for a feature set, and then having that feature set withdrawn without any explaination beyond market differentiation.
It’s intentional, too, and has its roots as far back as the late 80s, when they released the SX series of processors. What Intel learned back then is that if a feature isn’t consistantly provided, it gets overlooked. In this case, they did the reverse: encourage development, and then took it away to force buyers who then relied on the feature into upgrading to devices that features the unplugged pieces. It’s cynical, and it’s a waste of developers time.
The point to a platform is that it’s consistent. Sure, premium features can exist in other areas, but Intel wouldn’t dare yank Virtualization features now that it’s a standard Windows feature (and necessary for security). This essentially creates fragmentation where it didn’t exist before. Intel is, in this case, their own enemy.
1 Like
Is the idea of AMD CPUs still being considered by the Framework Team? I’d like my next chipset to be from AMD for power consumption reasons, seeing as the 11th and 12th gen are power hungry. Are there no options for us more power-conscious? (I need longevity more than performance for my office-oriented tasks).
I see competitors have solutions, but I’d like my next purchase to be from the Framework Team.
Did we get any official word on whether it was ever considered?
4 Likes
lmao I was about to say that…
Intel chips can also be very power efficient, it just depends on what settings you tweak. It seems right now most of the power problems are from the software/firmware not being optimized on Framework’s side.
(Although AMD 6000 chips do have far better power to performance last time I checked)
2 Likes
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the Framework team officially mention that they were “considering” AMD CPUs, but I challenge this forum to prove me wrong. The closest thing I know of is that Linus Sebastian has tried multiple times to get a conversation started between Framework and AMD, but I don’t believe that has panned out either time.
3 Likes
Yeah, that’s the extent of my recollection as well.
2 Likes
No, but the video decoders available to Linux users really push the intel chip. Even after configuring my browser to make use of hardware-accelerated video decoding, watching YouTube on my Framework laptop that runs Linux Mint 21 Cinnamon spins the fans so loud that I have to turn the volume up 20%. I’ll take every bit of thermal efficiency I can get, since I’m part of a population that does indeed push the chip to its limit on a day-to-day basis.
I fear we won’t get 7000 series from AMD either. Or at least not the best ones (no Zen 4 and no RDNA 3).
Phoenix only has HS chips, which start at a TDP of 35 Watt and can pull way more at boost. Even without that it’s already above the constant load the framework can handle, at boost it’s even worse.
7045 series are way too overpowered, so if we still want AMD we gotta look at 7035, 7030 and 7020 series (I don’t remember if there is a 7025 series).
7030 series probably don’t make any sense at this point, graphics, performance and efficency are on par or worse than Intels 12th gen, won’t look better next to 13th gen.
7035 series, rebranded 6000 series, could be interesting. They should have better graphics thanks to intel doing almost nothing in that department this gen (again), could be better in efficiency (6000 was better than 12th gen and 13th gen has to proof if it can close that gap) but will probably fall completely behind in performance.
7020 could also be intresting because of the rdna2 igpu, however I would be really surprised to see that one. Framework would have to create a whole new device, steam deck alike, just by putting it into the laptop we all know they just end up with a really expensive 7020 series product since they intended for cheap notebooks and not premium officeish devices with such a high resolution.
So the only realistic option would be 7035 series, but with the only “certain” advantage being the iGPU I don’t believe we’ll see them. Also framework would have to make a DDR4 board for AMD just for one generation. I’m no expert there but I guess u can reuse some stuff of old mainboard designes, more if the technology stays the same, so starting with a DDR5 product seems smarter.
8000 series is also still very far away, however with what Intel has on it’s roadmap I would even understand if framework won’t bother to release an AMD version. 14th gen is planned to come in H2 of 2023, with a potential Q3 release, bringing apparently huge efficiency uplifts, thanks to Meteor Lakes efficiency focus and Intel 4. Also the first tGPU, a GPU on a tile of the chip instead of being integrated, with Intel ARC cores means we should expect a huge step in gpu performance, I guess somewhere between RDNA 2 and 3 iGPUs. Since the usual GPU Generation release schedule is 2 years I wouldn’t be surprised to see Ryzen 8000 with the same iGPU as Phoenix, but maybe across the board. So with the gap being closed down, I wouldn’t see that as a reason to need AMD anymore. That combined with Intel’s efficiency and performance claims, high enough to seem Ryzen 8000 competitive, despite the earlier release, I wonder for what reason framework should invest into an AMD version at that point. And with Arrow Lake also coming with huge steps in performance and a Battlemage iGPU it does not look like that would change anytime soon. Intel might even pull ahead of AMD here. Sure, they also improve theyr tech, but Intel is talking about big steps and we’ll have to see if AMD also has some. With RDNA 4 the iGPU Battle surely gets intresting again, but then again, AMD will be on RDNA 4 for 2 years, while Intel’s roumored to step theyr iGPU up again at 15th gen with Celectial. Intel will have to slow down at that point, having finally cough up with their GPU architecture cycle, but they also will be in a very good position, not to forget the performance and efficiency improvements that Lunar Lake is rumoured to have.
Of course, for all of that to happen Intel has to do something they’r not really good at, meet deadlines. However they surely are working on that and improving themselves, so I wouldn’t say they won’t just because of the past.
So with all of that said, I wouldn’t bet on framework releasing an AMD version next gen either. They can’t take advantage of AMD’s better position right now and in the future it seems like they’ll lose that to Intel again, or be on par with them. Developing an AMD version would mean investing a lot of money into the option that is at best on par.
That doesn’t mean I don’t wish for an AMD version or there are no reasons for it.
- If AMD falls behind they’ll have to be aggressive with pricing and can bring better value, if Intel does not go aggressive on pricing and keep on hiding features behind a premium
- Framework gets less depended on just Intel
- Intel will have a rough 2023 and needs to stay on track with their deadlines, otherwise they stay behind and at some point they won’t have any money left to finance their comeback. Framework will need to be quick if they don’t have AMD CPUs in theyr lineup at that point already if they don’t want to sink with Intel’s ship.
For now, if u need a notebook now
- and want a framework, get a framework. The laptop stays the same and with that, upgradable in the future. And most people don’t even notice the difference in performance.
- and want an AMD CPU, no matter what, look for a different laptop. I explained why I don’t think we’ll see AMD any time soon here.
If u don’t need it immediatly but soon u can consider waiting for 13th gen if u think u need the extra performance or GPU features.
And if u only upgrade because u want a faster device, but not because u need it, consider waiting for 14th gen. Since Mobile might come already in Q3 it’s not waiting for a whole year and considering the upgrades that 14th gen promises compared to the situation 13th gen is in next to Ryzen 7000 it might be worth the wait, even when 1300P/U series only has to compete against 7035U, which is 6000U series, at max.
HS is to be followed by 7040/45 U series which are rated at a lower TDP!
13th generation has no new features both in CPU and GPU! In our TDP the core counts, cache, and clocks remain basically unchanged, the iGPU is also stagnant!
3 Likes