By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), June 29, 2013 11:21 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Exophase (exophase.delete@this.gmail.com) on June 28, 2013 1:54 pm wrote:
> Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on June 28, 2013 4:52 am wrote:
> > No AVX, in-order...
> > Coding anything fp intensive with Silvermont in mind sounds like a challenging* task. Which I,
> > personally, do not want to undertake. In that regard, Juguar is much more programmer-friendly.
> > The only problem with Jaguar in less cost sensitive parts of the market
> > - it's power requirements are uncomfortably close to ULV Haswell.
> >
> > * - or, being less polite, annoying
> >
> >
>
> Especially if Merrifield and BayTrail-T really are still disabling 64-bit.
Not sure about Merrifield, but disabling 64-bit on BayTrail-T would be monumentally stupid.
But then again, disabling 64-bit on Clovertrail/Clovertrail+ also does not make sense to me, so I am not going to bet against Intel's wizards doing the same to BayTrail-T.
> Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on June 28, 2013 4:52 am wrote:
> > No AVX, in-order...
> > Coding anything fp intensive with Silvermont in mind sounds like a challenging* task. Which I,
> > personally, do not want to undertake. In that regard, Juguar is much more programmer-friendly.
> > The only problem with Jaguar in less cost sensitive parts of the market
> > - it's power requirements are uncomfortably close to ULV Haswell.
> >
> > * - or, being less polite, annoying
> >
> >
>
> Especially if Merrifield and BayTrail-T really are still disabling 64-bit.
Not sure about Merrifield, but disabling 64-bit on BayTrail-T would be monumentally stupid.
But then again, disabling 64-bit on Clovertrail/Clovertrail+ also does not make sense to me, so I am not going to bet against Intel's wizards doing the same to BayTrail-T.