From Fedora Project Wiki
Line 1: Line 1:
I don't think this stands a chance in hell. It's hard enough convincing people we can live without i686; "we're gonna make Fedora stop working with all CPUs made before 2013" has zero chance whatsoever. [[User:Adamwill|Adamwill]] ([[User talk:Adamwill|talk]])
I don't think this stands a chance in hell. It's hard enough convincing people we can live without i686; "we're gonna make Fedora stop working with all CPUs made before 2013" has zero chance whatsoever. [[User:Adamwill|Adamwill]] ([[User talk:Adamwill|talk]])
: In fact, even some CPU made in 2013. I have a server (in a DC) with a Intel Atom® Processor C233, who was launched in [https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/77976/intel-atom-processor-c2338-1m-cache-1-70-ghz.html|Q3 2013], avx2 is not supported (and the server was installed 2 or 3 years ago). --[[User:Misc|Misc]] ([[User talk:Misc|talk]]) 17:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
: In fact, even some CPU made in 2013. I have a server (in a DC) with a Intel Atom® Processor C233, who was launched in [https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/77976/intel-atom-processor-c2338-1m-cache-1-70-ghz.html|Q3 2013], avx2 is not supported (and the server was installed 2 or 3 years ago). --[[User:Misc|Misc]] ([[User talk:Misc|talk]]) 17:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
::I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that unless this optimization is done as a runtime function switch (if AVX2 is present it uses an AVX2 optimized function, and if not it uses an older slower but compatible function. I believe there's distros out there that can/are doing this), then this is a SERIOUS issue.  As noted above things like Atom CPUs (and their ilk) have a tendency to resurrect old micro-architectures and put them on new processes which improves them greatly, but won't include that functionality, as well as actively trying to throw away a lot of still very usable hardware (even ~2011 hardware is still very usable for many applications).  --[[User:warthog9|warthog9]] ([[User talk:warthog9|talk]])
   
   
== Concerns around AVX2 requirement ==
== Concerns around AVX2 requirement ==


Over the next few years, there will be a growing number of alternative implementations of x86 available, many without AVX2 support. It seems to be highly premature, then, to mandate AVX2 as the minimum requirement, especially without evidence of a performance improvement or data showing number of impacted users (presumably quite large). This is a premature change. Premature by about 5-10 years in my own opinion, but that is debatable.
Over the next few years, there will be a growing number of alternative implementations of x86 available, many without AVX2 support. It seems to be highly premature, then, to mandate AVX2 as the minimum requirement, especially without evidence of a performance improvement or data showing number of impacted users (presumably quite large). This is a premature change. Premature by about 5-10 years in my own opinion, but that is debatable.

Revision as of 19:25, 22 July 2019

I don't think this stands a chance in hell. It's hard enough convincing people we can live without i686; "we're gonna make Fedora stop working with all CPUs made before 2013" has zero chance whatsoever. Adamwill (talk)

In fact, even some CPU made in 2013. I have a server (in a DC) with a Intel Atom® Processor C233, who was launched in 2013, avx2 is not supported (and the server was installed 2 or 3 years ago). --Misc (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that unless this optimization is done as a runtime function switch (if AVX2 is present it uses an AVX2 optimized function, and if not it uses an older slower but compatible function. I believe there's distros out there that can/are doing this), then this is a SERIOUS issue. As noted above things like Atom CPUs (and their ilk) have a tendency to resurrect old micro-architectures and put them on new processes which improves them greatly, but won't include that functionality, as well as actively trying to throw away a lot of still very usable hardware (even ~2011 hardware is still very usable for many applications). --warthog9 (talk)

Concerns around AVX2 requirement

Over the next few years, there will be a growing number of alternative implementations of x86 available, many without AVX2 support. It seems to be highly premature, then, to mandate AVX2 as the minimum requirement, especially without evidence of a performance improvement or data showing number of impacted users (presumably quite large). This is a premature change. Premature by about 5-10 years in my own opinion, but that is debatable.