technically a 16 core but it's not that great.

default: 8 cores. due to isa incompatibility, since X100 implements Rv64H.

next is a100 sucks for anything but feeding the npu, so the A100 is actually a 4 core programmable npu in disguise. even spacemit doesnt want you to run normal apps on "AI cores".

10mb l2 cache but the cache itself is already LLC and 30 cycle L2 latency on X100 is subpar compared to eg. gracemont. vector throughput is also not impressive by any means.

"Quad issue out of order", yet can't seem to reach A76 performance. 8 X100 cores sometimes has an edge over Pi 5, and one would usually compare it to a RK3588, which kinda fits the description. to be honest the X200 is going to reach skylake performance, but it's 6-wide, and it's not near even X2 performance (which isnt even peak 6-wide technology...)

as i have come to ts conclusion...

lets fight

on the left side

it's the greatest cpu money can buy

Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 9282 Processor core ultra X9 388H ultra whatever i don't care. SHUT UP

right side

its the new one in town, jsut wake up

rockchip... (?) rk3688 12-core

last time we decided to do a quick "Comparison" of X9 388h vs spacemit k3... you know how that went. so time to get something that's at least competent...

focusing on the memory side first. rk3688 comes out on top with lpddr6, but is equally sided if lp5 was used. i don't have high hopes for latency and cpu bandwidth though.

gpu: as this is the least competent part of the x9 388h, i'll pass. OH WAIT, You remember who I am right? XJXIIJWIEIQJIJJ!OFOOADR!! OF COURSE IM GONNA MAKE USELESS COMPARISONS... LETS GO BOISSS

x9 388 Gpu: mali magni >2.0 TFLOPS

Rk36XX GPU: INTEL ARC BXXX > 7.0 TFLOPS

RK36XX is straight up mogmaxxing x9 388 in raw compute alone and it can even play games... how wonderful

Lets focus on the main party: the cpu.

cpu demonstration table is down below.

tbh rockcjp is producing these on like tsmc n6 so its a l for them... intels got a muh better node...

conclusion: dpendeds on your choce. if you want an arm sbc, maybe the RK36294994192491532042032425 is the choice that you may love. lol. x9 3838588248219321499533124759132h might not be even for you if you demand absolute mt performance. try something else like 270k or threadripper. good bye...

Bonus:

arm c1-ultra, arms latest "x-series"core carchitescture, > 3.1 specint2k17/ghz, > 25 specint2k6GHZ, arm is straight up mogging intel and amd in their own game, arms cooking rn, only losing to apple, sad for arm, arm still hasnt been able to keep up, and rockcjp would never integrate that to their socs

unfair comparison of two 16 core processors...

lets go

Spacemit k3:

8X X100 (2 clusters), X100 > Specint2K6/ghz of 9.0 (this is so funny), X100 supports the latest features, double pumped 256b vectors (compare: gracemont), Up to 2.5 GHZ...

8XA100 ("AI cores"), 15 TOPS inbuilt NPU, Based on older X60 architecture > Specint2K6/GHZ of 5.0, not accessible in normal usage, Only for AI CORES!!!, BIIIIIIIG VECTORS, 1024B VECTORS, 2X256B FMA (INTEL, YOU MUST LISTEN TO THIS, X9 388H, THEY ARE CATCHING UP!!). 2.0 Gjz..... because GJZ IS OUR SURVIVOR

CACHE: 4MBX2 (X100)+1MB X2 (A100) (again, gracemont would like to have a talk, its so funny)

X9 388H:

Cluster 1 4X coigar Cove (4 cores), Intels latest specint2k6 architecture, > 2.2 specint 2K17/ghz, > 18 specint2K6GHz* (listen up, X100? you thought HIGH PERFORMANCE means catching up to A76? LOLOLLLLL) , P cores, born from lion cove, node shrink of lion cove., 5.1 Ghz

8X Darkmont, node shrink of skymont. , 3.8 GHz

4x Lpe, which is going to still be more powerful than 8X X100 combined. LollllllUlz... 3.7 Gjz...

CACHE: 18M+3M * 4(L2)+4M*3(L2)

UNDOUBTEDLY THE K3 WINS. IN EVERY SINGLE THING. IF YOU WERE COMPARING BIIIIIG VECTORS, THAT IS.

* pretty sure if you used intel cheesemaxxing compilerz then it can get > 22 Specint2K6/GHZ. Just for lulz...

and we don't talk about the Arc B3XX (ceensored) GPU. It's not a fair contest to compare that to the greatest matrix engine ever.

as such i've collected some more details... looks like 4 engines that can do 8x16x8 matrix multiplications in A100... we'll wait for the next generation with X86's ACE to "compete" with this.

(compete? well... AMX is already 16c/52c for a full 16x64x16 matrix multiplication. Its so unfunny that I, X86 himself, would consider competing to something that's obviously miles superior....)

intel lakefield (10th gen)

power : 7W

cores: Intel core, Sunny cove (10.5th gen), 3.0 ghz, 4X Intel tremont (10th gen "Atom" line), 2.8 ghz, all core turbo 1.8 Ghz...

Memory: 8gb Lp4X

Cache: 4MB, 1.5MB shared across Tremont cluster, 512K For sunny cove

performance: Sunny cove : +60-70% ipc vs Tremont, Tremont: 1.14 SIR2K17 / GHZ ...

intel 270K plus (17th gen)

power : 253W

cores: Intel core, 8X Lion cove (16th gen), 5.4 ghz, 16X Intel Skymont (16th gen "Atom" line), 4.7 ghz, 5.5 ghz on favored cores

Memory: Up to 256G DDR5

Cache: 36MB, 3mb per lion cove core, 4mb per skymont cluster (40MB l2), 192K per lion cove core L1.5, ...

performance: Lion cove : +17% ipc vs Skymont, Skymont: 1.10 SIR2K26 / GHZ ...

conclusion: choose your sacrifice. there's no perfect cpu...

click here to get rickrolled 100% legit

click here to get coconut malled 0 virus, 0 strings, 0 requirements, 0 ads

GA102-200-KD-A1 @ 2.01 GHz:

• FP64 TFLOPS: 546.7 GFLOPS (1:64)
• FP64 WMMA TFLOPS: 546.7 GFLOPS (1:64)
• Int64 TOPS: 5.831 TOPS (1:6)
• Int32 TOPS: 17.50 TOPS (1:2)
• FP32 TFLOPS: 34.99 TFLOPS (1:1)
• FP16 TFLOPS: 34.99 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TF32 WMMA TFLOPS: 34.99 TFLOPS (1:1)
• FP16 WMMA (.f32) TFLOPS: 69.98 TFLOPS (2:1)
• FP16 WMMA TFLOPS: 139.96 TFLOPS (4:1)
• Int8 dot product TOPS: 69.98 TOPS (2:1)
• Int8 WMMA TOPS: 279.92 TOPS (8:1)
• Int4 WMMA TOPS: 559.84 TOPS (16:1)

Mali-G31 MP2 @ 650 MHz:

• FP64 TFLOPS: 0.00 GFLOPS (1:~\infty~)
• FP64 WMMA TFLOPS: 0.00 GFLOPS (1:~\infty~)
• Int64 TOPS: 0.00 GOPS (1:~\infty~)
• Int32 TOPS: 20.8 GOPS (1:1)
• FP32 TFLOPS: 20.8 GFLOPS (1:1)
• FP16 TFLOPS: 41.6 GFLOPS (2:1)
• TF32 WMMA TFLOPS: 0.00 TFLOPS (1:~\infty~)
• FP16 WMMA (.f32) TFLOPS: 0.00 TFLOPS (1:~\infty~)
• FP16 WMMA TFLOPS: 0.00 TFLOPS (1:~\infty~)
• Int8 dot product TOPS: 0.00 TOPS (1:~\infty~)
• Int8 WMMA TOPS: 0.00 TOPS (1:~\infty~)
• Int4 WMMA TOPS: 0.00 TOPS (1:~\infty~)

Mali-G31 MP2 @ 1.094 THz:

• FP64 TFLOPS: 0.00 GFLOPS (1:~\infty~)
• FP64 WMMA TFLOPS: 0.00 GFLOPS (1:~\infty~)
• Int64 TOPS: 0.00 GOPS (1:~\infty~)
• Int32 TOPS: 35.01 TOPS (1:1)
• FP32 TFLOPS: 35.01 TFLOPS (1:1)
• FP16 TFLOPS: 70.02 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TF32 WMMA TFLOPS: 0.00 TFLOPS (1:~\infty~)
• FP16 WMMA (.f32) TFLOPS: 0.00 TFLOPS (1:~\infty~)
• FP16 WMMA TFLOPS: 0.00 TFLOPS (1:~\infty~)
• Int8 dot product TOPS: 0.00 TOPS (1:~\infty~)
• Int8 WMMA TOPS: 0.00 TOPS (1:~\infty~)
• Int4 WMMA TOPS: 0.00 TOPS (1:~\infty~)

Conclusion: Mali-G31 MP2 wins!!*

*If you can clock it to over 1 trillion Hz as the above. YMMV.

following the testing methodology mentioned in the previous blog, here's an example result:

CPU: R7 7840U

GPU: RTX 3080 @ PCIe Gen4x4 (this is a HUGE limitation, see below for why)

Model: Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-MXFP4_MOE.gguf, target ctx = 69632

As you can see ub=2048 only loses about 7% of TG performance for 2.7X PP performance.

Peak power is only 210W and prompt processing TPS is only 800tps, even slower than 2xT4 while the card on itself should be way better. As you can see ub=2048 already saturates the (pretty slow) PCIe bus. The result will definitely look a lot better given a proper link (4x the speed), since a GTX 1660 Ti already can saturate this link.

also known as

• mario party 9 the beginning of an adventure
• mario party 10 nice job
• mario party star rush sharacter museum
• mario party the top 100 collection bgm
• mario party superstars staff credits of mario party 9/10
• super mario party jamboree free play results

Here's a 100% legit tutorial to tune for llama.cpp MoE models. Very simple.

To start, you need to determine your target context size and other parameters (e.g. context size 64k, ctk q8_0, etc.). Enable flash attention.

We'll focus on the two main parameters: -ncm and -ub. Set the "batch size" -b to 4096 and left there.

Now, here's simple initial tuning:

If targetting maximum tg128, etc:

• Decrease ncm until OOM, then increase ub in steps of 256 until reached 4096 or OOM. this is most effective when ncm = 0, but not really when ncm is high (see below).

Now, there's the option to do more comprehensive tuning. You can use this table as your template and change if neccessary.

here MAX can refer to your context size or [your context size] - 4096. Choose any but the former will leave a slight VRAM budget for other things.

Basically you can do the d8192 tests first and see what fits you best (maximum tg or PP.) If you have low VRAM, chances that just setting ub to max won't change the tg much, but pp performance can literally double. After that you can test on depths with step size 4k from 0 to MAX.