Old binaries using old libraries, single threaded; both on linux (so either non-free software or older software that doesn't work with newest libraries because of ABI breakage) and win7: worse (or almost on par) than Sandy Bridge. Latest gcc: multiple make operation: good or better performance compared to haswell-e or bw-e equilevant 8c/16th.
Not good. Very disappointing indeed. And thus x86/amd64 is dead.
>>35154 >there is a possibility of them supporting coreboot/libreboot I doubt they would support Coreboot (Libreboot out of the question) to any degree other than superficially, if that. The amount of people who care about the PSP/IME backdoors aren't significant enough for AMD to have a conscience and do the right thing. They're a for-profit company, after all, and to relinquish control over users is not in their best financial interests.
>>35178 And I can safely say that this reaffirms my own stance: stay on 32nm chips on Intel (Sandy Bridge) and with 45nm chips on AMD (Thuban). No more x86/amd64 cpu upgrades for me (hell, I'm fine with my k6 setup too).