mevinyavin's Thread of Random Randomness

[Randomex]

Just hit a record actual write speed of 2.04GB a second when syncing between two internal SSDs. You generally don't get this kind of speed in the real world (only in tests of brand-new, empty drives). The sync's total was 16.4GB of mixed files (like you would expect a sync to be, and mine hadn't been done in 28 days), and the sync completed in about 40 seconds. The files that it copied at peak speed were large OGG audio files.
My previous record, in similar circumstances, was 1.42GB per second.

What were those files? (The largest OGG file I ever dealt with was probably about 45 MB - someone decided to
chart a 40-minute prog-death metal album as a single track for Frets On Fire. IIRC, I played through it once.)

[mevinyavin]

What were those files? (The largest OGG file I ever dealt with was probably about 45 MB - someone decided to
chart a 40-minute prog-death metal album as a single track for Frets On Fire. IIRC, I played through it once.)

Installed files from Bravely Default II for PC, I think.

[mevinyavin]

In my quest to categorize all storage drives and provide a price threshold for DDF, I came across this $10,000 product.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1675297-REG/owc_owcssdacl8m264m_64_0tb_accelsior_8m2_pcie.html/overview
It consists of 8 M2 SSDs, each PCIe 4.0, mounted on a PCIe 4.0 x16 card (like a graphic card), for a total of 64TB of data. When the SSDs are in RAID, the listing says, you can achieve "up to twenty-six thousand megabytes per second" of "data transfer speed" (I assume in the niche task of transferring to another card just like this one, but they are only guaranteeing reading with this language, not writing). That sounds better than 25.39GB per second, I guess.
So whoever NEEDS this kind of speed probably doesn't write his department's budget, right? Who needs to quickly transfer a 4K video (that's about one video, btw) and cannot afford to wait more a second? Unless this is actually for those people who need four copies of that video because they are too nervous. Whatever.

[USam]

Thanks. This should complement nicely with my 146" screen.

[mevinyavin]

A few T-shirts I came across this morning. I'm sure some have been around a while, but there's probably at least one you haven't seen before...

[mevinyavin]

Nintendo, as has been their wont since the dawn of console games, has filed DMCAs against a prominent set of hacking software for the Switch. This software has been around for a long time; so why now? Well, duh:

[mevinyavin]

Gene Weingarten just posted the beginning of the Barney & Clyde comic strip, which I did not even know that he writes. (I knew him only as the originator of the Washington Post Invitational until he was fired, essentially for saying that Indian food is bad.) So naturally I am reposting it here.

[mevinyavin]

T-Shirt contest imaging if the world's fiction was all in one shared universe. Or, mixing them together so well that it is really a MULTIverse. (These are old. You can probably buy most of them on W00T's t-shirt site if you look for them.)

[mevinyavin]

More T-Shirts - celebrating Woot's 5 for $29 sale. Every shirt posted here is available in the sale. (Hence, you will see some doubles.) Visit the link for a sort-of greatest hits collection of Woot T-shirts going back at least three years by my estimation.
https://shirt.woot.com/plus/5-shirts-for-29?utm_campaign=Daily%2bDigest%2b15%2b05%2b23&ref=eml&utm_source=Daily%2bDigest&utm_medium=email&utm_term=m_1&utm_content=Subheader-B&ref_=pe_3185080_723747700

[mevinyavin]

Kotaku had an article about this ridiculous video ad for Pokemon Red & Blue. Boy, how times have changed... Warning: Don't let your kids watch this.
https://youtu.be/5tTc8__lXkM

[mevinyavin]

A few selections from the COVID era. There will probably be more at some point.



























(NY Times Editorial May 18th 2020)

[mevinyavin]

Everything you wanted to know about laptop processors (Don't want to? No one is forcing you to read this)
By mevinyavin
Written exclusively for DDF

Introduction
The marketing labels for laptop CPUs have always been somewhat obscure. However, the current generation has taken this to a new level. Out of frustration, I am endeavoring to explain what's what, hopefully in a way that will be practical and useful to a buyer. (I doubt this to a large extent.)

Wattages
Laptop processors come rated with wattages, known as the TDP. These are not absolute, but rather, are a bracket in which they perform.
7W: Utra-thin computers like the Swift 7 or Firefly leather edition, or ultra-cheap computers.
15W: the standard for thin and light, or at least it was.
28W: Introduced by Intel in the 12th gen as a compromise between performance and light builds/cooling.
35-45W: For workstation computers and gaming laptops. The HS variants gave up a bit of performance (usually around 5%) for 10W less, and were usually fine-tuned by the processor manufacturer for this. One of the advantages of these processors is the high performance they gave even after a long time. Whereas 15W processors can give high performance for a few minutes, 35W processors outperform them on grueling, long-term tasks.
55W: For computers that want bragging rights.

HISTORY
2019-2020
Intel's 10th gen processors were made on a brand-new architecture and the clock speeds were dismal. In many ways, the 8th gen on an older but more mature architecture was better. On the AMD side, the 3000 series processors were just mature enough to not be terrible, but still had work to do and had terrible efficiency (read: battery life). Summary: Avoid any Intel 10xxxGx and AMD Ryzen 3XXX processors.

2020-2021
Intel's 11th gen fixed up all the problems of the tenth. i3s came with two* cores, i5s and i7s with 4 cores. However, AMD's 4000 series outperformed them in every metric - price, performance and efficiency - almost always. Ryzen 3 came with four cores, Ryzen 5 with six, and Ryzen 7 with 8. Despite this, there were no disadvantages to the Intel processors to deter a buyer - unless you needed to take advantage of the extra power AMD brought to the table. The above applies to the 15W processors, denoted with a G4/G7 suffix on the Intel side and a U suffix on the AMD side. Regarding high power processors, Intel offered both six and eight core i7s and i9s, and AMD basically sold the same processor as U with better cooling, simply offering better clock speeds with the extra power. This was the beginning of the murky waters, because several thin and light laptops, which over the years used only 15W processors, shipped during this period with 35W processors. (For example: the ASUS Zenbook shipped with a Ryzen 7 4800H instead of a U-series for the first time.) Naturally, this did not make the Zenbook suddenly capable of beating the monster workstation laptops (its cooling wasn't up to it), but it did handily outperform the 15Wers of its time.
In order of performance:
i3-1115G4 (2 cores 15W) came close to the 8th gen i5 (4 cores) with two less cores, quite an achievement in only two or so years. Modern comparison: Intel N97 (for $200 computers)
Ryzen 3 4300U (4 cores 15W) was about 25% better, similar to the 10th gen i5 (4 cores)
*i3-1125G4 (4 cores 15W) was introduced 8 months in to counter the Ryzen 3's dominance, but it was never sold as cheaply. It performed about 8% better than the 4300U.
i5-1135G7, i7-1165G7, i7-1185G7 (4 cores 15W) were very close in performance, the worst about 25% better than the Ryzen 3 4300U and the best about 30% better. Modern equivalent: Intel i3-N305 (7W for $300 computers)
Ryzen 5 4500U (6 cores 15W) matched the performance of the best 15W i7. (It needed two more cores to do so, but was sold at a cheaper price point.)
i5-11300H (4 cores, 35W) performed about the same, but used more electricity to do so.
Intel sold two 4 core 45W i7s, the 11370H and 11375H which squeezed out 13% gains over the Ryzen 5. There was no label indicating that these were quad core i7s instead of six-core i7s, so consumers had no clue they were not getting the best. Modern equivalent: i3-1215U (15w for $350 computers)
The Ryzen 7 4700U (8 cores 15W) still performed 7% better at less electricity, but it was kind of embarrassing that it needed this many cores to do so. The Zen 2 architecture was more advanced than Intel's 10nm architecture, but it was still immature. Again, the consumer had no idea that this wasn't the best Ryzen 7 nor that some Ryzen 5s performed better, especially since some of the high-wattage processors hid in Zenbooks. Modern equivalent: i3-1315U (the most modern 15W i3 that just came out)
The Ryzen 5 4600H/HS (six cores, 45W/35W) had 16% better performance than the 45W Intel i7s above, and a 7% advantage over the 8 core 15W Ryzen. Modern equivalent: the 15W Ryzen 5 in the next generation (it's called fine-tuning).
The Ryzen 7 4800U (8 cores 15W) clocked higher than the 4700U and outperformed even the six-core 45W by 15%. Modern equivalent: the 28W i7-1260P.
The Ryzen 7 4800H/HS (eight cores, 45/35W) had a 9% advantage over the 15W version. Modern equivalent: the 28W i7-1280P.
Intel did eventually release an 8-core 45W i7: the 11850H, and because Intel was able to finesse a lot more from their processors, it was 9% better than the 45W Ryzen 7. Modern equivalent: the 28W i5-1340P. Also the M2 Pro 10 core and the 15W Ryzen 7 7735U.
(We're not discussing i9s because they are priced in the stratosphere and not worth it.)
Conclusion: the AMD 4XXX processors are almost completely gone from the market, but you can use the above list to see if it is worth buying. Intel 11XXGX is still common, though, and they are fine if not overpriced.

2021-2022
Okay, we're almost up to date. Lots of these processors are still common on the market.
AMD's 5000 series came first. This was almost identical to the 4000s (4 cores, 6 cores and 8 cores) except it hit higher clocks speeds and came with greatly improved integrated graphics.
Then Intel launched a brand-new architecture and things became hugely confusing. The 12th gen came in more wattages: 7, 15 (U), 28 (P), and 45 (H/HX). It also came with two types of cores: P-cores, fully powered and fully enabled, and E-cores, which were low-powered and intended to run background processes to save up the bigger cores for more intense workloads. Most importantly, despite identical labeling, the 15W processors got LESS CORES than the 28W processors, and the 45W got even more.
In this generation, the AMD processors got even better at efficiency, resulting in stellar battery life. On the other side, the huge gains Intel got in power came at the cost of efficiency, and they ran hot and got dismal battery life (growing pains of a new concept, which seem to be back in control in the 13th gen).
Also in this generation, i9s and Ryzen 9s became affordable, and so, gain mention here.
Okay, the list:
The Ryzen 3 5300U (15W, 4 core) performed in the same range as the 11th gen i5/i7 15W. As you can imagine, it was sold for less. Mpdern equivalent: 7W i3-N305.
The i3-1210U (2 P cores and 4 E cores) performed 17% better than the Ryzen 3. The i3-1215U is slightly better.
The 15W i5s and i7s of the 12th gen: i5-1240U, i7-1250U, i7-1260U all have 2 P cores and 8 E cores. The extra clock speed and E cores only results in a 4% gain.
The Ryzen 5 5500U (15W, 6 cores) shows the difference between P cores and E cores by eking out similar results. Modern equivalent: 15W 13th gen i3.
The higher-clocked Ryzen 5 5600/25U pulls ahead 3-8%.
The Ryzen 7 5700U (15W, 8 core) achieves 6% better.
Intel's 28W processors outperform all the above - even the one marketed as an i3!
Their gains range up to 12% more than the lowerclocked 15W Ryzen 7. Note that the i3-1220P has the same 2 P cores and 8 E cores as the 15W i5-i7, but the i5-1240P and i7-1260P have 4 P cores and 8 E cores. (Doesn't seem to net them much advantage over the i3, so it seems the wattage is doing more for performance than the cores.) Modern equivalent: 13th gen 15W i5.
The Ryzen 5 5600H (35W, 6 cores) falls in the same range as Intel's 28W processors.
So, for that matter, does the higher-clocked 15W Ryzen 7 8-core: the 5800U and 5825U.
Outperforming the above by a tiny margin is the i5-12450H, a 45W with 4 P cores and 4 E cores.
A higher-clocked 28W i7-1270P and 1280P have a further 3% gain.
Intel's cheapest i9-12900H, a 45W monster with 6 P cores and 8 E cores, didn't provide much total performance gain (1.5%). (However, it provided huge advantages over long-term.) Modern equivalent: 28W i7 13th gen.
The 35/45W Ryzen 7 5800HS/H (8 cores) gained 7% over the i9. Oddly, the Ryzen 9 5900H was similar.
The 55W Ryzen 9 5900HX (8 cores) was 10% better. Modern equivalent: 45W i5 13th gen.
The 55W i5-12600HX (4 P cores, 8 E cores) absurdly outperformed the Ryzen 9 by 6%. Modern equivalent: 6000 series 45W Ryzen 9.
Intel's 55W i9-12900HX was a crazy 8 P cores and 8 E cores, netting 20% better performance (but more than 20% more $$$$). Modern equivalent: 35W Ryzen 9 7940HS.
The i9-12950HX with the same rating and core count was a further 21% better - nearly double the result of the Ryzen 9. Modern equivalent: 45W i7 13th gen.

I'll continue this some other time. No one is reading it, anyways.

[mevinyavin]

2022 and beyond
AMD refreshed their laptop processors with Zen 3 early. Once again, there were few changes to their lineup and core count. Instead, the integrated graphics got a huge boost.
Intel's 13th gen is now hot off the press. The focus was on fixing the efficiency of the 12th gen (mostly successfully), and they also added more E-cores in some cases.
Lastly, AMD's 7000 series muddied the waters once more (lest things get too boring, I guess). The Zen 4 processors made the headlines for improving integrated graphics to insane levels and also the efficiency, but AMD also released Zen 3 and Zen 2 processors into the mix (my guess is because they now supported DDR5 RAM). They revamped their processor numbers so that anyone who knows can tell what architecture is inside, but that does not include most people. (Don't worry, Intel has already announced that they will do this to us next generation.) More detail about this below with the individual processors.

The rankings:
The new Athlon Gold 7220U is a Zen 2 processor with 2 (regular) cores. It compares to the 10th gen i3.
Slightly better is Intel's set of budget processors: the largely identical N95, N100 and N200 processors, containing just 4 E-cores at 7W. These provide up to 12% gains in performance, but this doesn't amount to much. (The 8th gen i5 is still better.)
The Ryzen 3 7320 (15W) is another Zen 2 chip with 4 cores. Note that this is Zen 2, though. Although you should get stellar efficiency from this processor, it is still physically similar to the old Ryzen 3 4300U, which it outperforms by 13%. This still places it near the 11th gen quad cores, which is not that high. The same applies to the Ryzen 5 7520U (15W), with the same architecture and core count and a mere 7% advantage. Neither of these come close to the Ryzen 3 from the 5th generation... because they are old.
This is emphasized by the 7W Intel i3-N305, a budget processor from the 13th generation with only 8 E-cores, which manages to outperform the Zen 2s above by 6%. It is a bit overpriced now, but you should see this selling in computers for $100 less than the former two processors.
As I said, AMD is making things very confusing this round. The Ryzen 3 7330U (15W) is a Zen 3 processor with 4 cores, and the difference in architecture is telling. At the same core count, it outperforms the Zen 2 by 11%. How the consumer is supposed to know - this is a Ryzen 3 and that's a Ryzen 3 - is beyond me. I guess check here when you want to buy...
Intel's 13th gen i3-1315U (15W) has 2 P-cores and 4 E-cores. It performs roughly at the level of the Ryzen 5 in the 5000s, which is a whopping 21% advantage over the Zen 3 Ryzen before it. This is a stellar win for Intel if it turns out to give decent battery life. (Jury is still out.)
Intel's 13th gen i7-1355U (15W), with 2 P-cores and 8 E-cores, is less of a win. They perform at the level of the 8-core M2 and just under the Ryzen 5 7530U (15W, Zen 3 with six cores), about 14% better than the i3. I am inclined to think this is a fluke or the processors came in bad builds, because even the 13th gen i5 has a better showing.
AMD's Ryzen 5 6600U with six cores ekes out a few percent win, again showcasing the advantages in architecture (the 6000s were known as Zen 3+).
Which leads us to the anomaly I mentioned above, the i5-1335U (15W), same core count as the i3 below it and i7 above it but with a 13% gain. We'll have to see if this averages out better with more data.
The 35W Ryzen 7 6600H with 6 cores gets you a 10% gain. The Ryzen 7 7730U (15W, Zen 3, 8 cores) is also very close to the above. A percent or so more is the Ryzen 5 7535HS, a 35W 6 core with Zen 3+. A bit above that is the i7-1360P, a 28W i7 that outperforms the 1270P even with the same core count (4 P, 8-E).
Just better is the i5-13420H, a 35W with 4 P-cores and 4 E-cores. This demonstrates the advantage of wattage over cores when the computer can handle it.
The best 15W Ryzen of the 6000s, the Ryzen 7 6800U (8 cores), hits the score of the 35W Ryzen 5000 on lower electricity. It is 4% higher than the i5 above it. (This is about the ability of the M2 Pro 10 core.)
However, the 15W Ryzen 7 7735U (8 cores, Zen 3+) outperforms it by 2% even though it has the same architecture and core count.
The i7-1370P (28W, 6 P-cores and 8 E-cores) is 8% better.
Intel put out a better 35W i5 with more cores: the i5-13500H with 4 P-cores and 8 E-cores. This gives it 4% over the 1370P. AMD's 45W 8 core Ryzen 7 6800H is slightly better, and the 35W 6800HS is even better. The 7735H and HS are essentially the same processor, and the gains are less than a percent (except they support DDR5). So do the Ryzen 9 6900HS (45W) and HX (55W), with the same core count. The i5-13600H is still better with the same core count as the 13500H.
i7-13700H and 13800H (6P, 8E, 35W) gain 13% better.
Which brings us to out first Zen 4 processor, the Ryzen 7 7840HS (35W, 8 cores). 6% better than the i7s and likely to sell in the same price range. The Ryzen 9 Zen 4 (7940HS) does not appear to serve any advantage.
Intel's i9, the 13900H (45W, 6P 8E), is barely better than the Ryzen 7.
There are still more watts to bring in, though. The 55W i7-13650HX does not dethrone the Ryzen 7 7745HX, and small gains are bought to bear by adding cores (13700HX has two more P cores, and 13850HX has four more E cores.)
The i9-13900HX and 13950HX have a whopping 8 P cores and 14 E cores, gaining 15% over the 13850HX and a huge 32% advantage over the 13900H.
So AMD added cores, too. The Ryzen 9 7845HX is 55W and has 12 cores (the normal kind), ekes out a win over the 13900 and 13950HX (3%, but hey). Intel's best processor is the i9-13980HX (same count as 13950HX) and beats the 7845HX by a further 5%.
But AMD has a 16 core (55W Ryzen 9 7945HX), and its top score is 16% better. Thus ends this round.
I will add another post putting everything together to give the buyer a better idea.

[mevinyavin]

This post constitutes a stream of PCMark average scores for a list of processors. It lets you see just how much better the i3 is than the Celeron in the $180 laptop, and whether or not you should spend $100 to upgrade to an i7. As of today, every processor sold should be in this list (use ctrl-f but only the number). I also threw in a few old ones for those who are buying that 6-year-old refurbished Thinkpad/Latitude, so you can see how bad of a deal you are getting (or maybe good? Nah...). Within the same category, the order is lower to higher.
Ryzen is abbreviated R. The first number after the Intel processor denotes the generation. (For AMD see the previous posts and good luck.)
c=single thread cores C=multithread cores P=Intel's fully powered cores E=Intel's low-powered background cores
When no mention of voltage, 15W is standard.
By the way, when you see anomalies such as the Ryzen 7 outperforming the Ryzen 9 from the same generation, that just means the former was put in better computers than the latter. Either way, this is an average score and may not pertain to your perspective purchase.

Under 2000: A6-9220C, Celeron N3350, Celeron N4000 (2c)
2152- Celeron N4020 (2c)
2500-2800: i7-4500U (2C), Pentium Silver N5000 / N5030 (4c), i7-5500U (2C)
~3000: Athlon Silver 3050U (2c), i5-6200U (2C), Pentium Silver N6000 (4c)
3200-3500: i7-6500U (2C), i5-7200U (2C), i5-L16G7 (high class 10th gen ultralow powered 5c)
~3600: i3-8130U, i7-7500U, i7-6660U (the special processor for the Microsoft Surface), all 2C
~3800: R3-3200U, i3-8145U, R3-3250U, all 2C
3900-4200: i3-10110U, Athlon Gold 3150U, i7-7660U (for Surface again), Pentium Gold G6400 (desktop), all 2C
5000-5300: Athlon Gold 7220U, i3-1005G1, Pentium Gold 7505, all 2C
5400-5600: Intel's 7W N200, N95, N100, all 4c
5850-6300: R3-3350 (4c), i5-8250U (4C), i7-8550U (4C), i5-8265U (4C), Intel N97 7W (4c), i3-1115G4 (2C), i7-8565U (4C), i5-10210U (4C). This line shows Intel's dual core (1115G4) catching up to their quad core (8565U) from a mere two years earlier.
6700s: i7-10510U, R5-3450U, both 4C
7000: R5-3500U (4C)
~7500: i5-8300H (35W 4C), R3-4300U (4c), i5-1035G1 (4C), i5-9300HF (30W 4C)
7689: i5-9300H (35W 4C)
8000: i5-1035G4 (4C)
8300: i5-10200H (35W 4C)
8450-8555: i5-1035G7 - i7-1065G7 (4C 15W), i5-10300H (4C 35W)
8824: i5-1130G7 (4C)
9250: R3-7320U (4C)
9786-10063: R3-5300U, R5-7520U, i3-1125G4, i5-1135G7, all 4C 15W. i7-8750H (6C 35W). i3-10320 (desktop, 4C). This line shows the performance of 15W quad cores (1135G7) catching up to 35W six-cores (8750H) in two years.
10300s: i3-N305 (7W 8c), i7-1165G7 (4C). This line shows the top portable i7 being matched by a budget i3 in 2.5 years (again). It also shows performance of budget laptops quadrupling in five years, all the more amazing considering that in the five years before that, the best processors only went from 2000 to 4000.
10617-10735: i7-1185G7, R3-7330U, both 4C
11000s: i5-11300H (4C 35W), i7-9750H (6C 35W), R5-4500U (6c), i3-1210U (2P 4E)
11212: i3-1215U (2P 4E)
11443-11586: i5-10500H (6C 35W), R3-5400U & 5425U (4C)
11814: i7-11370H (4C 35W)
12098-12315: i7-10750H (6C 35W), i7-11375H (4C 35W), i5-10400F (6C desktop)
12774: i7-1250U (2P 8E)
13019-13196: i7-1260U (2P 8E), R5-5500U (6C)
13500-13750: R7-4700U (8c), i5-1245U (2P, 8E), i3-1315U (2P 4E), i5-10600 (6C desktop)
13939-14061: i7-1255U & i7-1265U (2P 8E)
14298-14425: R5-4600HS (35W 6C), i5-1240U (2P 8E), i5-10600K (6C desktop)
14581-14625: i3-1220P (28W 2P 8E), R5-4600H (45W 6C)
15100-15369: i3-10100 (4C modern budget desktop processor), R5-5560U and 5625U (6C), i7-1365U (2P 8E), Apple M2 (8c)
15485: R5-5600U (6C)
15800s: R7-5700U (8C), i7-1335U (2P 8E)
16371-16481: i5-1345U (2P 8E), R5-7530U (6C)
16940: R7-4800U (8C)
17163-17549: R5-5600H (6C 35W), R5-6600U (6C), i7-1260P (28W 4P 8E), R5-7535U (6C), i5-1240P (28W 4P 8E)
17722-12886: i7-1270P (28W 4P 8E), i5-12450H (45W 4P 4E)
18552-18776: R7-5825U (8C), R7 4800HS (35W 8C) and 4800H (45W 8C)
18900s: R5-6600HS (6C), i5-1335U (2P 8E)
19358: R7-7730U (8C)
19700s: i5-11600K (6C desktop), i7-1360P (28W 4P 8E)
20271-20381: i5-13420H (35W 4P 4E), i7-1280P (28W 6P 8E)
20500-20700: R7-5800HS (35W 8C), R7-6800U (8C)
20838: i5-1250P (4P 8E)
20900s: i7-11800H (35W 8C), R9 5900H (45W 8C), R7-7735U (8C)
21000-217000: i5-1340P (28W 4P 8E), R7-5800H (45W 8C), i5-12500H (35W 4P 8E), M2 Pro (10c)
22500s: i5-1350P (4P 8C), i7-1370P (6P 8E), both 28W
22823-22998: R9 5900HX (55W 8C), R7 6800HS (35W 8C), 15-12600H (45W 4P 8E). This line shows AMD taking the same processor and getting better performance one year later while using less wattage. Intel shrugs and adds more wattage and does even better. (See the next line for AMD + wattage.)
23700-23825: R9 5980HX (55W 8C), i5-13500H (45W 4P 8E), R7 6800H (45W 8C)
24000s: R9 6900HS (35W 8C), i7-12650H (45W 6P 4E)
24326-24470: R7 7735H (45W 8C), R7 7735HS (35W 8C), i5-12600HX (55W 4P 8E)
24900s: R9 6900HX (55W 8C), i7-12800H (45W 6P 8E)
25776: i5-13600H (45W 4P 8E)
26128-27188: i9-13900HK (55W 6P 8E), M2 Pro and Max (12c), i7-12700H (45W 6P 8E), i5-13450HX (55W 6P 4E), i7-12620H (45W 6P 4E)
28000s: i7-13800H, i9-12900H (both 45W 6P 8E)
29000s: i7-13700H (45W 6P 8E), i5-13500HX and 13600HX (55W 6P 8E)
30000s: i9-9990XE (a 14-core desktop monster that was Intel's best desktop processor at the end of 2020), i7-12850HX (55W 8P 8E)
31000s: i9-13900H (45W 6P 8E), R7 7840HS and R9 7940HS (35W 8C)
32000s: R9 7940H (45W 8C), i7-13650HX (55W 6P 8E)
33000s: i7012800HX and i9-12950HX (55W 8P 8E)
34000s: R7 7745HX (55W 8C), i7-13700HX (55W 8P 8E)
35122: i9-12900HX (55W 8P 8E)
36564: R7 7700X (8C desktop - AMD's current Ryzen 7 offering for desktops)
38000s: i7-13850HX (55W 8P 12E), i5-13600K (desktop, 6P 8E)
40935: M1 Ultra 20-core in Apple desktops
44323: i9-12900KS (desktop, 8P 8E. This was Intel's best desktop processor in 2022)
45000s: i9-13900HX and 13950HX (55W, 8P and 16E(!)), R9 5950X (16C desktop, AMD's best desktop offering at the end of 2020)
~47000: R9 7845HX (55W, 12C), i7-13700K (desktop, 8P 8E, Intel's current i7 offering for desktops)
49000: i9-13980HX (55W, 8P 16E, Intel's best laptop processor at the moment)
58000: R9 7945HX (55W, 16C, AMD's best laptop processor at the moment)
62175: i9-13900KS (desktop, 8P 16E, Intel's current best desktop processor - not including workstations)
63610: R9 7950X (desktop, 16C, AMD's current best desktop processor - not including workstations)

Tomorrow we'll be back to regular news.

[mevinyavin]

I had wondered if I was the only one being constantly entertained by the FTC case against Microsoft's acquisition of Activision, and the funny things the FTC, Microsoft and Sony were saying.

https://www.polygon.com/23777333/xbox-ftc-hearing-phil-spencer-nintendo-console-wars

The Nintendo GameCube launched in 2001. It’s the last time everyone agreed what generation Nintendo’s console belonged to.

Microsoft, Sony execs put on the spot with a question now 17 years old

One of the more amusing tangles Microsoft, Sony, and the Federal Trade Commission have gotten into over the past week is something that has roiled video game forums, and particularly riled Nintendo fans, for nearly two decades: Is Nintendo’s latest console part of the current generation?

Even if, as Xbox boss Phil Spencer said on Friday, the “console wars” are a social construction, this is still something that has built up since the days of the Wii and a memorable Game Developers Conference rant in which a Maxis developer dismissed Nintendo’s then-new console as “two GameCubes duct-taped together.”

The argument returned in force when the Wii U launched in 2012, and there was much garment-rending over whether Nintendo’s first high-definition console was part of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 console generation, or if it had begun the next generation. I remember, vividly, the resentment from Wii U fans when Activision PR played coy about the idea of Call of Duty: Ghosts launching on Wii U. (It was the last Call of Duty to launch on a Nintendo platform.) And it didn’t help that the Wii U was a clunker at retail, and that third-party publishers all but gave up on Nintendo at the time.

Today, it’s no longer a console-wars pub argument. The FTC is asking a judge to stop Microsoft’s $68.7 billion acquisition of Call of Duty maker Activision Blizzard, contending that a console maker with that kind of publishing scope and control would harm consumers and the marketplace. The question is, who is part of that marketplace?

A heavily armed, masked soldier readies his weapon among the rubble of a collapsed building Image: Infinity Ward/Activision
Call of Duty: Ghosts (2013) was the last Call of Duty to launch on a Nintendo console.
Lawyers for the government and Microsoft have offered competing visions of what that market is: If it’s just PlayStation and Xbox, it’s a little easier to argue Microsoft gets an unfair advantage in acquiring Activision Blizzard. If it’s a global three-way race, especially against the blistering sales performance of the Nintendo Switch, Microsoft can better make the case it’s more of an underdog than a market bully.

That has put witnesses like Jim Ryan, the head of Sony Interactive Entertainment, in the uncomfortable position of commenting on competing hardware’s capabilities without looking like he’s punching down. And it’s seen some interesting admissions and contortions from Xbox boss Phil Spencer as he explains why Microsoft would view the Switch as an equal competitor even if it couldn’t run some of the biggest games his division publishes.

“In terms of processing power, of GPU, the graphics processor, CPU, Switch is more akin to a generation eight than a generation nine [console], right?” the FTC’s James Weingarten asked Spencer on the stand Friday.

“I wouldn’t agree with that,” Spencer replied, veering into a discussion of the Switch’s mobile capabilities, where the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One have to be plugged into a wall. Weingarten then led Spencer through the Switch’s resolution and frame rate capabilities, getting Spencer to acknowledge they were inferior to what the Xbox Series X supports.

It’s weird hearing government lawyers wade into an argument that has roiled gaming forums for almost 20 years
It’s also somewhat jarring to hear government lawyers referring to generations eight or nine of consoles, whose classification and chronology, by my reckoning, come from Wikipedia editors, publisher-level marketers, and investor relations representatives.

Weingarten brought up Call of Duty later in the hearing to further press the difference in console generations. “If Call of Duty launches on the Switch, it’s not going to look the same to a player, if that player were playing on an Xbox X [sic], correct?” he said. Again, Spencer deflected.

“Our goal if we launched Call of Duty on the Switch is that it would be at equal or better quality as other Switch games,” Spencer replied. Weingarten referred back to Spencer’s deposition where the same question was asked. “Answer: ‘It will not,’” Weingarten said, reading Spencer’s testimony.

Spencer was also asked why the company has separate competitive analyses that both include and exclude the Switch. Again, they did the deposition do-si-do, where Spencer had to be reminded that he earlier had testified that Xbox includes the Switch “to show an accurate global perspective of our relevance.”

The analyses that exclude the Switch are, Spencer said, because the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X are both “at the same point in their life cycle,” which would at least suggest he doesn’t literally view the Switch as a current-generation console. (The Switch launched more than three years ahead of the PS5 and Xbox Series X.)

In his videotaped deposition, presented Tuesday, SIE’s Ryan didn’t try to have it both ways. “Many of the games that we make for PlayStation are simply too powerful to be played on the Nintendo Switch,” Ryan said under questioning from Microsoft’s attorney, Beth Wilkinson. “The Nintendo hardware does not have the processing power, the graphics capability to be able to play those games.”

Later on, Ryan was asked his views on Nintendo in the console market. “They are in the console market, but they are not our direct competitor,” he said. Wilkinson even walked Ryan right up to the edge of the Nintendo-as-kids’-stuff bait swamp, which he respectfully tiptoed around.

“Did you have a sense for why Call of Duty sales on Nintendo were not successful?” Wilkinson asked.

“My opinion would be [Call of Duty] is aimed at a very different audience to the standard Nintendo audience,” Ryan said, “[which] enjoys Mario, Zelda, not Call of Duty. My opinion.”

No one from Nintendo has been called as a witness, so we’re not sure if the company agrees with Spencer or Ryan here. But we’re sure at least their fans were chuckling when Wilkinson asked Ryan why Xbox was more popular in the United States than overseas.

“The majority of their games, many of their games, involve the element of shooting,” Ryan said.

[mevinyavin]

More FTC case fun.

https://www.pcgamer.com/microsoft-lawyer-tells-judge-that-elder-scrolls-16-is-coming-in-2026-accelerating-bethesdas-release-calendar-by-124-years/

This week's FTC v Microsoft hearing, in which the US agency is seeking a temporary injunction against Microsoft's attempt to buy Activision Blizzard, has been a messy one. The latest blunder: A Microsoft lawyer claiming that The Elder Scrolls 16 will release in 2026, which is wrong in every way it could be.

The lawyer, whose words were transcribed by The Verge, was attempting to correct a misunderstanding, but only managed to confuse the situation more when she said: "There are two Elder Scrolls games, one is online called Elder Scrolls Online—that is a multiplayer game, it is on PlayStation today. [The FTC's lawyer is] talking about Elder Scrolls 16, that is projected for release in 2026 as a singleplayer game."

Obviously, Microsoft's lawyer meant to say "The Elder Scrolls 6," but that only makes things worse in a way, because The Elder Scrolls 6 is no more expected to release in 2026 than The Elder Scrolls 16.

TES6 was announced years ago, but that was just Bethesda letting its audience know that it plans to make the game, not an indication that it's anywhere close to existing. At the hearing last week, Xbox head Phil Spencer said that TES6 is still "so far out, it's hard to understand what the platforms will even be" and that it's "five-plus years away," as reported by Axios' Stephen Totilo.

That's far from the only blunder in this blunderous hearing. Others include an improperly redacted PlayStation document and an unredacted, and then later redacted, Microsoft document that revealed some of its past acquisition targets.

The Verge also jotted down a couple instances of PC gaming-related bewilderment during the hearing. At one point today, the FTC reportedly struggled to articulate to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley that not every PC has the capabilities of a gaming PC. A funny exchange along similar lines occurred on June 27 when, as The Verge's Tom Warren reports it, Judge Corley interrupted the FTC to ask why people don't just play games on PC, since they can also use a PC for work. If you ask us, the judge is onto something with that one.

It's a struggle to listen to lawyers fail to explain things that any of us could clear up in two sentences, but I suppose it's easy for me to say that while typing from behind a desk rather than speaking spontaneously in court, where I'd probably be even more tongue twisted. (Although I probably wouldn't accidentally announce the release date of The Elder Scrolls 16.)

Today is the last day of the hearing, and the judge's order should come fairly quickly given the circumstances. If the FTC gets its way, Microsoft will be prevented from closing its Activision Blizzard acquisition before early August, when the agency can try to kill it for good. If the FTC loses, Microsoft will do everything it can to get the imperiled deal done ASAP, despite also facing opposition from UK regulators.

[mevinyavin]

Background: The Misrad Hapnim requested birth certificates. My children were all born in Israel, and so, Consular Reports of Birth Abroad will not suffice - only the birth certificate issued by, you guessed it, the Misrad Hapnim.
Very well, four birth certificates were submitted. However, two were rejected - they lack my name as the father on the certificate.


Logic was rejected, including:
A) the fact that I am listed in several agencies (including them) as the father, or that
B) even when they deem me worthy of being listed as the father, a disclaimer is added stating that this is only what they have been informed, and therefore what is it worth to begin with?

C) I tried to get them to put me on when my children were born, but they refused, saying "We know she was born from her mother; we don't know anything about you!" Good thing none of these issues bothered the US Consulate.

Okay, then. I have to go to the lair and try to convince them to do this for me...

Attempt one was made on Thursday, the 28th of June. They have afternoon hours on Wednesday, so I left my house immediately after picking up my kids from school and arrived ten minutes before opening time. There were about 100 people waiting to enter the building. You see, MAY (ie the month before) was when the Misrad Hapnim decided to do something about the backlog of passports. They abolished appointments for the month (too bad if you needed to renew your visa, my friend) and let anyone show up to apply for passports. How was I to know that this state of affairs had been extended, and that the day I chose to show up was the last day for this? Of course there would be tons of people waiting till the last day. I cornered a Misrad Hapnim employee and asked him if my task was doable. "Sure," he said, "But it will probably take four or five hours." He leaned in confidentially. "Take my advice and go home. Come back on Sunday at 8AM." (In Israel, Sunday is a regular weekday.)

Sunday, I davened netz and went straight to the Misrad Hapnim. I arrived at 7:40. This time, there were about 135 people waiting outside. I was allowed entry into the building at around 8:15. (Pro tip: when going through security, put all your loose stuff in a plastic bag. It takes a lot less time than making sure you didn't miss that flash drive or quarter. [Yes, I always carry a quarter. And a penny. Ask me a different time.]) I told them what I wanted, and they printed me a ticket labeled "Sherut Mahir" (quick service) and sent me to the second floor. It took about ten minutes for my name to be called.
In the Misrad Hapnim, they have desks in different rooms and also offices. However, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason regarding where you will be sent. When my number was told to go to Room 1, it took me a few minutes to find it. (There were signs every few feet - I kid you not - saying, "This way to Room 1" or "Room 1" with an arrow.) Inside is a pleasant but absentminded chiloni lady sitting by herself in a room with three desks. She was using a Lenovo Thinkstation with a Lenovo-branded monitor, and both turn off when her keycard was not in a little holder attached to the computer. The bulletin board behind her desk had a few cute kids (probably grandkids), a picture of Harav Abuchatzera and one of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
I explained to her what I needed, and she wasn't sure she was authorized to do it. She asked to see everything - what the two newer birth certificates looked like, what the visas said, the date on my marriage certificate... Did I have my wife's expired passport that was under her maiden name? No, but I had a picture. Did I have the tissue-paper birth certificates they issue you at the hospital? Yes, but they were written in pencil and many many years old. She pulled out a magnifying glass and examined what it said under father's name. She sent off a number of voicemails and emails (whatsapps? who knows), scanned pictures of the tissue-paper. Went in and out of the room. Finally, she told me to wait in the lounge until she got an answer from her boss. Meanwhile, she started seeing other people.
The lounge had a few decently comfortable chairs and some fancy decorative balloons, but there was no food, kosher or otherwise. I couldn't get on the wifi and there was no flight attendant to ask for help. 1 star. Instead, I learned the daf.
At about 9:30 she gave up on servicing me that day. She scanned my passport and my wife's, took down my phone number and told me she would contact me. I had to leave the two birth certificates of the older two kids plus one of the younger kids' that showed my name, and the tissue-paper. I went to Yeshiva.
The phone rang from a restricted number at around 2PM. It was her, telling me she received permission and printed them out, and I could come back the next day between 8 and 12 to get them.

Monday morning, I went first to Yeshiva. I have a chavrusah for the daf at 9:15 (I had missed him the day before), and since I didn't need to get a ticket, I figured I would go after. It was only after I was in yeshiva that I realized I didn't have my passport! Technically, it is against the law to be outside without a valid form of ID - not that this is usually a problem - and I usually carry my passport for this reason. However, the day before, my passport had gone into my bag of important papers and I never transferred it back to my jacket. I decided to go anyway. I left the Mir at around 10:15, via the alleys of Meah Shearim and straight through to Yafo. Luckily security did not ask for ID (they spot-check), and I bounded up the stairs and straight to Room 1. All I had to do was poke my head in - the lady reached over and pulled out a sleeve of papers, handed them over, and I was back out. I got back to Yeshiva at 10:40. As of this writing, the Misrad Hapnim's approval of the new documents (that they themselves printed!) is pending.

Overall, I do not recommend a trip to the Misrad Hapnim. However, if you have no other options, it definitely is a doable trip. 

[mevinyavin]

Screenshots from the Corona-era...
A LOT of them, so fair warning.

























(Pandemic, in case you didn't get it)

[mevinyavin]

A curated collection of the best pics in the first 50 pages of the random/interesting pics thread. 37 in total. (Note that many of them are no longer up. One particular screenshot is a joke regarding how it looks today.) Excuse the filter for removing some (but not all) of the skin-color. Also, some other random screenshots NOT from the first 50 (but rather, from elsewhere) may have made it in.
Maybe in a few months I'll post the best from the next 50...

[mevinyavin]

From a trade magazine in the section on video game design.