I can tell you exactly how I noticed it because it was on my workstation this reproduced originally.
I have a Ryzen 9 5950X CPU and it has a crazy fan ramp. Anytime a process maxes out the CPU it will be audible to me when I'm working. Now, to put this in perspective. It doesn't happen when I'm gaming. I can play Diablo 4 and Cyberpunk 2077 without this noticable fan noise but when setup.exe loses it, the fan noise is how I notice it. It will max out one core and I'm going to assume "never" complete. The longest I waited was 78 CPU minutes before killing the process. This would happen now and then but it would not prevent Chrome from successfully updating. So, it was bizarre to begin with.
This is so fitting because even if Microsoft is deprecating and giving up on this monstrosity the executable is still sitting there. Serving legacy web apps that should have been abandoned a long time ago...
This thing branched horribly. You had to use instructions to selectively write to distinct memory locations to avoid typical branching because misprediction was expensive.
Here's a good explanation of some of the issues w/ common programming patterns at the time colliding with the 360 design. This was a huge problem with the initial ports of older game engines to the 360 that required a lot of rewrites to achieve ok performance.
On top of being power architecture, both the 360 and the PS3 chose to push the 4 GHz clock limit before everyone else. To do this they sacrificed lots of speculative and out of order execution features of the CPU. The thinking of the hardware engineers was that the software is compiled for a fixed architecture doing a fixed job so the compiler should be able to statically order the instructions to make the best use of the very long, very static, very linear pipeline of the CPU. In practice, that only makes sense for very long stretches of instructions with no branches and no cache misses —which is completely the opposite of every piece of gameplay code ever written. The CPUs were great at large scale linear algebra. Not great at much else.
One thing that Intel and AMD do better than any other player in the industry is branch prediction. An absolutely stupifying amount of die area is dedicated to it on x86. Combining this with massive speculative execution resources and you can get decent ILP even out of code that's ridiculously hostile to ILP.
Our modern CPU cores have hundreds of instructions in flight at any one moment because of the depth of OoO execution they go to. You can only go that deep on OoO if you have the branch prediction accurate enough not to choke it.
> An absolutely stupifying amount of die area is dedicated to it on x86.
Yep. For example, on this die shot of a Skylake-X core,[0] you can see the branch predictor is about the same area as a single vector execution port (about 8% of the non-cache area).
> One thing that Intel and AMD do better than any other player in the industry is branch prediction. An absolutely stupifying amount of die area is dedicated to it on x86.
Zen in particular combines an L1 perceptron and L2 TAGE[0] predictor[1]. TAGE in particular requires an immense amount of silicon, but it has something like 99.7% prediction accuracy, which is... crazy. The perceptron predictor is almost as good: 99.5%.
I wrote a software TAGE predictor, but too bad it didn't perform as well as predicted (heh) by the authors of the paper.
Everything is relative. They do things that seemed quite neat in the 90s, but then progress slowed to a crawl.
I'd call the state of the field quite bad. For example they do embarrassingly little for you to help with the 2 main bottlenecks we've had for a long time: concurrency and data layout optimization. And for even naive model (1 cpu / free memory) there is just so much potentially automateable manual toil in doing semantics based transformations in perf work that it's not even funny.
A large part is using languages that don't support these kinds of optimizations. It's not "C compiler improvements hit a wall", it continues "and we didn't develop & migrate to languages whose semantics allow optimizations". (There's a little of this in the GPU world, but the proprietary infighting there has produced a dev experience and app platform so bad that very few apps outside games venture there)
There's a whole alternative path of processor history not taken in the case that VLIW had panned out, and instead of failing because of optimism about compiler optimizations.
They do a good job but the scheduling aspects are really really fuzzy.
LLVM and GCC both have models of out of order pipelines but other than making sure they don't stall the instruction decoder it's really hazy whether they actually do anything.
The processors themselves are designed around the code the compilers emit and vice versa.
Optimizing compilers aren't that great on x86. Sure, they're good enough to make something 60fps that wasn't before, but they don't really have much specific x86 knowledge.
As said in other comments, not a power thing. Example, the Nintendo Wii U chose to use 3 1.2ghz (iirc) Out of Order execution cpu's that were more like a PC than the cores in the Xbox 360 even though sounding similar in instruction set and composition.
This lead the Wii U to be able to do things like Run Mass Effect 3 and Deus Ex better (arguably) than the PS3 and 360 most of the time. The Wii U was probably the better hardware platform in hindsight but it came too late and the development tools were not as robust so ports just kinda afterthoughts.
You're comparing the 2012 Wii U against 2005/2006 360/PS3. The PPE was indeed terrible but it's not clear that IBM had anything better available at that time.
The Wii U also needed to be backwards-compatible with the Wii, which used the bespoke paired singles and locked cache line features of the GameCube's PPC 750 derivative. This almost certainly locked them out of newer PowerPC designs without more engineering work than Nintendo would be willing to put into its systems.
For context, Nintendo has always been weirdly quirky and low-buck when it comes to core silicon engineering. The Switch is a Tegra X1 in a trenchcoat, the SNES used a 65C816 at about half the clockspeed it needed to be[0] and had half the VRAM removed at the last minute, and the NES stole[1] the 6502 masks so they didn't have to pay MOS for legit chips. All of those design decisions were made purely to improve margins and genuinely constrained game developers in the process. "Lateral thinking with withered technology" is kind of just their thing.
At least now they're 100% on board with a silicon vendor with a sane roadmap, so they'll at least have a steady supply of backwards-compatible last-gen chips to repackage.
[0] At least it wasn't as slow as the Apple IIgs they pulled it from
[1] Technically legal as IC maskwork rights did not exist yet. This is also why decimal mode was removed - it was literally the only thing MOS had a patent on in the 6502 design.
I've never heard anything suggesting that video RAM was removed. AFAIK, the SNES was planned to have only 8KB of main RAM, which was increased to 128KB by release. I think any support for 128KB VRAM was for future proofing, like if the SNES's hardware was reused for arcade systems, or something.
The Genesis's video chip can support 128KB video RAM as well, which besides allowing a larger variety of tiles on screen and doubles DMA bandwidth. It was used in the System C2 arcade board. The Genesis was originally designed to use 64KB video RAM, but after hearing about the SNES, support for 128KB was added. Then they decided that the extra RAM didn't make enough of a difference to justify the cost, so they left it at 64KB.
It wasn't a POWER thing since POWER has been superscalar since the 604 back in '94. This was because when you're designing for a console and paying by the wafer instead of shopping around for a pre-finished unit one needs to consider die area more strictly. Something had to give in the design and given MS controlled the design of the whole stack they thought they could do parallelism at the thread level in the OS scheduler rather than having to devote massive amounts of die area to it.
The xenon core was a slightly modified cell ppe, where there it was focused on saving gates for the cores needed for system management versus more spus.
The idea using it in xenon without the spus was that high perf code could be tailored specifically for this core's uarch being a console, so the in order nature wasn't the worst thing and the gate savings are pretty huge.
Not yet but now that there's so much overlap between the two, it's possible one will try to undercut the other. When you're producing tens of million of devices, a small pricing advantage of one over the other can move the needle. The biggest strength of HDMI now is going to be how many other existing AV devices there are that only support HDMI.
Sure there’s overlap, and DisplayPort could mostly do what HDMI could do for the past 10 years (apart from minor differences where one standard eg supported 4K a but earlier).
Nevertheless HDMI stayed the main interface in the TV/Entertainment world. So I doubt this will change anytime soon
Screens will probably get new ports, but I seriously doubt HDMI ports on new screens will be removed before the VGA ports are. New TV's still have SCART connectors.
You expect some enormous sea monster but all you got was some kind of immortal sea weed. Trees have this thing as well. Many tree organisms are 100 000 years old. There's also some kind of distinction between tree organisms and tree individuals. Tree individuals don't get to be that old.
No it's not. I'm currently contemplating leaving my country of residence because absurd tax rates. I'm a productive member of society and high earner but I'm starting to loose faith in my institutions. If you keep on taxing, and fail your responsibilities, people get fed up and leave, that's what they do. Only the people that don't have the means to leave stay creating a particular nasty downward spiral of people without jobs and home ownership dependent on government subsidies.
> If you keep on taxing, and fail your responsibilities, people get fed up and leave,
Well sure. But that's probably true of "fail your responsibilities" regardless of tax rate. Nobody wants to live in a state without a well-functioning government.
N=1 isn't an argument either. I'm simply saying what a lot of people in my situation also thinks. It's just sensible that you don't stay because you like paying taxes. You stay where you are because of family and friends. To say that it doesn't influence people decision is deceiving.
Where is your country of residence? What is your effective tax rate? (Please don't tell me about your top marginal rate -- that is nonsense unless you have a enormous taxable income.) What do you think is the "correct" tax rate for your income level?
Sweden, the way I think we should look at it is the discrepancy between what my employer is paying me and what I receive in my bank account.
That's 51.8% of what I make. That is the government is taking just slightly more than half of everything I earn.
In order to answer what I think is reasonable to pay in tax, we need to look at what the Swedish government spends it's money on. Core infrastructure, health care, school, police etc. This is about 30% of the current government spending. That is frightening to me. I'd be happy to pay less in tax, frankly I want to pay as little as possible but Sweden has this huge government apparatus and it's growing by the day with all kinds of more or less non-essential government arms. I could go into details but I won't right now. I just don't want to finance a lot of this with my money.
It won't be possible any time soon but I'd love to see my tax rate cut in half and given the spending of our governments it should be possible but only if we make it a priority.
Are you a Swedish national or a high income foreigner? If #2, I strongly encourage you to stop complaining and leave soon. Sweden is a highly advanced democracy. This tax rate has been confirmed by numerous, fairly elected governments. The result of this policy is very low income equality and very strong social safety net.
I can assure you that an effective tax rate of 25% would result in much higher income inequality, and much weaker social safety net. Is this the society that you want?
It's sounds like you'd be interested to live in my country (born and raised here, I'm almost 40 now and have two kids, happily married etc) but I don't think you know all too much about Sweden. And if you really want to know, ask away, I will answer as truthfully as I can.
The tax rate hasn't always been this high. It's basically the result of government overreach over the past 100 years. I don't think you need to take more than 25% to provide essential services but I also expect people to pay more for the services that they use. I want people to allocate capital more so that the government.
Right now, Sweden has a serious immigration problem. 2 million new people over that past 20 years, a lot of them from radically different cultures. Our social welfare is being used to support these people and they aren't able to contribute back. This is a net drain on our economy and I'm not super happy about that. The studies we have show that these people don't integrate and don't generate tax revenue. And I'm not paying these taxes for their benefit, I'm paying these taxes to build a better future for my kids.
For the longest time, the lie that was being told was that it be a huge asset and opportunity for Sweden and it could have turned out this way, Sweden has had successful immigration in the past but it didn't turn out this way this time.
You talk about progressive taxation and income inequality but people forget that you need a healthy economy as well. You can't just tax everybody and expect equality.
Despite everything you think you may know about Sweden, we have the most gun violence and the most rape in Europe. The Swedish police can't be bothered with solving all the rape because of all the killings.
We have an energy crisis because environmentalists wants to shut down our nuclear reactors (50% of our energy production) and replace it with wind whit cannot work short term or during winter.
I will stop here. At some point Sweden did deserve it's reputation but this country is living on old merits. There's so much crap going on right now that I will take my chances. At least in a free and open society I'd be able to make a bigger impact myself.
Zero trolling: Did you ever consider relocation? Nothing radical: How about Norway, Denmark, or Finland? I've heard there is lots of language overlap with Norway and Denmark. And Finland has lots of respect for Swedish speakers given their special minority status (Hello Linus Torvalds!). Maybe the taxes might not be a /lot/ lower, but the social issues might be /different/. Another good point about those three nations: They are all close to home, if you need/want to visit relatives often (in a low carbon manner!).
If you want something radical, I would recommend:
(1) Australia -- very rich (they avoided the 2008 global financial crisis), much less fair than Sweden (but not stupidly so like US/HK/SG), and crazy high quality of life.
(2) New Zealand -- still rich, more fair than AUS, and insanely good nature / food.
Yes, we're spending the summer in Denmark. If we like what we see this is the best option. It all hinges on how this year's election goes. I don't know why I believe we can change but I hope we bring about something new and start fixing problems.
Taxes in the Scandinavian countries are similar but it wouldn't be as frustrating to pay them if everything else was working as intended.
My situation is foobar and I rather go to some place where you as an individual have more freedom and responsibilities. New Zealand sounds nice and warm though.
We should all learn from this and understand that if we don't fight for and uphold our liberties they will be taken away from us. Every fight matters and if it wasn't for the US constitution this might have gone down very differently.
All. Even nominally commercial ones get a whopping disaster liability subsidy, and decommissioning cost is omitted from the price, but charged to ratepayers on top of whatever actual power they are also paying for.
It will cost at least a $billion to take apart and dispose of Indian Point, shut down recently because it was leaking radioactive stuff into the Hudson.
See, now I know you're just lying because the equation isn't at all the same across all countries. Maybe you don't like nuclear and that's fine but you don't have to lie about it.
It remains the case that NPPs have never, anywhere, been built into a competitive market. They are only built when customers can be forced to pay for them.
So, what's your argument? That people won't buy nuclear energy on an open market or that an open market for nuclear energy doesn't exist?
In Sweden, where I live, about half of our electricity is from nuclear. It's built and operated by a state owned entity called Vattenfall and while they currently have a politically appointed board that is against nuclear they operate (for profit) all of our nuclear reactors. The only reason we don't build more is because they've made it practically impossible (not illegal) to expand nuclear energy through various political motivated decisions. Sweden had a referendum on the continuation of nuclear energy after the Chernobyl accident, we did vote, though by a narrow margin to transition away from nuclear. However, this past winter we had huge supply issues and people ended up having to pay 4x for electricity due to the premature shutdown of nuclear (meanwhile we had to power up oil and gas burning to compensate). Right now, most people in Sweden are of the opinion that we should keep our nuclear reactors. I, together with several others would like to us to expand our energy production from nuclear to prevent a reliance on oil and gas.
Politics is how policy is determined. People have tried other ways. Sometimes they worked. For a while.
Diverting money from building out renewables (and transmission lines) to build nukes ensures, at minimum, another decade of increasing reliance on oil and gas, and then paying more for power than you would have for renewables.
Politics aimed at making a specific type of energy unprofitable by taxing it to death is not. It's activism.
Sweden cannot depend on solar alone, we have plenty of hydro in the northern parts of the country and wind doesn't work during winter. Wind also kills birds and insects, en masse.
People have an irrational fear towards nuclear. Fact is, very few people have died because of nuclear energy. If you compare deaths vs produced watts, nuclear is the single safest energy source by several orders of magnitudes.
Also, I don't know if that's a typo or a misunderstanding but we are not talking about nuclear weapons, i.e. nukes we are talking about thermonuclear energy production. These are two different things altogether.
This must be part of some disinformation effort to streer people away from the simple answer.
Their conclusion is that you're helpless if your fat and that's just not true. The idea that this is not in your hands is ridiculous. If you are fat and you don't want to be fat you simply change your eating habits. This can be very difficult to do because you have formed these habits throughout your life but it isn't complicated and you should just do it anyway.
Obviously you [0] didn't read the article, but that is not their conclusion.
There seems to be some kind of unfortunate "shame brigade" out on the Internet that comes out of the woodwork to overrun any conversation around obesity that even hints that there might be reasons for the obesity epidemic other than individual people's poor choices.
The lab rats whose rate of obesity has increased over the last 30 years, despite consuming the exact same controlled diets, are certainly not "changing their eating habits" -- there must be more to the picture than merely eating habits.
This set of articles explores that. We don't have answers yet, but these folks make a strong argument that the question is worth asking.
[0] It's an unfortunate fact of scientific progress that ideologues have, in other fields, at other times, held back that scientific progress for decades through their inability to consider disconfirming evidence against a favored theory. This kind of comment should be ignored by anyone who values truth over consensus.
When I was obese and I thought about my own obesity, I decided it was under my control and I changed my habits (this was hard!) and I lost 110lbs. There was no more to the picture than my eating habits. Perhaps I was a strange outlier; lucky for me.
But when I think about other people's obesity, I am not allowed to think that, because I would be part of a shame brigade.
I wish the shame brigade had gotten to me years earlier.
The question "what can I do about this thing affecting me personally?" and the question "what can the group do about this thing that is affecting the group in large numbers?" are going to have quite different answers. I'm glad you've found a solution that works for you, but there's a good deal of data to support that telling this story to more people will not fix the group problem.
Even if your obesity was helped along by plastic based endocrine disruptors or micro-biome based issues or weird viruses, you found a solution for you.
> Our suggestions are very prosaic: Be nice to yourself. Eat mostly what you want. Trust your instincts.
>
> Diet and exercise won’t cure obesity, but this is actually good news for diet and exercise. You don’t need to put the dream of losing weight on their shoulders, and you can focus on their actual benefits instead
I haven't read it all but I have read a lot and I have been doing this for a long time.
To give people an excuse that diet and exercise is not the answer, it's irresponsible.
Our world makes it incredibly difficult to be healthy. My opinion is simply that you should still try everything you can to be healthy. The problem as I see it is that people have no clue what to eat and what not to. Most people just eat what their parents ate and think nothing of it. We buy food at a grocerie store thinking this is food because it came from a grocerie store. Most stuff in a grocerie store will slowly kill you.
And about those lab rats. They are inbred clones. Maybe suitable for some lab work but the fact that they are getting fatter has to do with their awful genetics. And yes, there's obviously some variability there.
I've been thinking about what this blog series for the past days and they don't seem to understand that muscle gain and weight loss happens slowly over years. If you're fat and you don't want to be fat anymore you have a really difficult job a head of you.
To make up excuse to pretend and act as if reality isn't exactly this is disingenuous and it's going to lure people into false sense of security. Not good.
> This kind of comment should be ignored by anyone who values truth over consensus.
I hope you're talking about your own comment, because consensus is truth, for all practical purposes.
What's really toxic is taking a fringe theory and pretending it has equivalence and/or equal weight with scientific consensus, when it doesn't have even 1% of the rigor and reproducible evidence behind it. That kind of attitude is absolutely glorifying ignorance and is utterly toxic to actual progress.
Oof, you are definitely right about this. Very few people are able to distinguish truth where it deviates from consensus, and basically no one can do it in domains where they lack expertise.
That said, there is no scientific consensus about the causes of the obesity epidemic, so I'm not sure what criticism you're directing at me, exactly -- though I deduce from your tone that I triggered you in some way.
I'm not putting forth any fringe theory about the causes of the obesity epidemic; the link I posted examines common explanations for the epidemic and tries to figure out whether they're valid, and if not, what other causes there might be. They don't claim anything definitive, in the end, because it would take actual studies to prove any real connection. They're pretty clear about what they can and can't claim.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean:
> it doesn't have even 1% of the rigor and reproducible evidence behind it. That kind of attitude is absolutely glorifying ignorance and is utterly toxic to actual progress.
Also, the questions asked generally here "How can society as a whole have less obesity" is different from the one you are answering: "If I am obese, what can I do to improve my health."
I'm assuming you know we excrete unused chemical energy, so we aren't a closed system in which the CICO principal would be more deterministic.
I was similarly skeptical until I read it (ever since the first part appeared on HN) and it convinced me on many points.
That said, I think you're half right? SMTM's environmental contagion hypothesis is an explanation for population-level obesity rates, not individual cases of obesity. Anybody who cares sufficiently about their own obesity can change it through individual efforts. However, on a population level, "just change your habits", or even worse, shaming people who are obese, is a less effective strategy than "figure out what is causing their bodies to signal hunger and store fat in dysfunctional, self-harmful ways that they didn't used to anywhere on earth until the mid-1900s".
Well the messaging should be positive. Maybe we someday can have a public informed discussion on health. I don't think shaming will work too well but we have to acknowledge that being fat is not good. But also that it's a fixable thing you shouldn't be ashamed of. When we concede language to protect feelings I'm not sure we're going down the right road. I wish for people to be healthy and their best but you have to know that there are options to be better.
> And, despite our best efforts, we still don’t have a single good answer as to the cause of obesity’s rapid rise in prevalence.
What compelled this person to write that sentence!? I know he's looking for a very technical answer but the answer to this question is simple and everybody knows it. They just ignore it.
That's is part of it, but not the single answer. Since cheap sugar has been around for a century at least. Epigenetics, lack of exercise, cultural changes, car dependence, also factor in.
More to it than sugar. Processing subtracts as well as adds. Pthylates, endocrine disruptors, lots of good stuff in our water and food now. Gut biomes aren't the same either, thank you antibiotics.
(Plus/minus on antibiotics is plus, I'll take alive and obese over painful and dead most days.)
Not talking about fortification. Food processing in this context means taking food through some incredible steps in order to create a cheap, "addictive" product you can sell. This often involves adding some kind of sugar.
We agree on that. It subtracts and it adds other stuff too. Mac and cheese add pthalates in the cheese from the rubber used in the machinery. It could be as simple as the sugar, but have you controlled for any other variables as well?
Most of what you can buy in a grocerie store is bad for you. It has been optimized for profit, i.e. consumption.
Then you can of course pile on all kinds of contributing factors but this isn't necessary to understand why people are fat.
I don't blame fat people for being fat but it's not a mystery why they're fat. And it's not easy for them to change everything about their lifestyle to get fit but that's what they need to do.
You’re in luck because that’s exactly what happened over the last 20 years and it’s had basically no affect on the increase in obesity[1]. I’m curious, does this information change your belief at all?
This is false because everything isn't metabolized the same. I don't like this idea of trying to apply physics. It's not the right model.
Simple example, you eat only protein and fat, you don't gain weight. You substitute some fat for carbohydrates and you suddenly go up in weight. This despite you just went down in calories.
You can also mess with your feeding window and loose weight. Simply cram in a days worth of calories over a few hours and eat nothing for the rest of the day and you'll likely loose weight do the opposite (eat several times during the day) and you gain weight. Assuming same total calorie count overall.
To add to this train of thought: different diets might change the use of the incoming calories in more or less favorable ways. If you hold calories constant, but otherwise vary the diet, conceivably the body could respond with differing amounts of muscular hypertrophy, cell repair, etc. Given that different diets result in different impacts to various hormone levels, it is (in my view) worth consideration.
Interesting. So is it sugar, lithium, gut and system biome, or God? (Lots of God in our decision-making, apparently beliefs make things important.) Do I have a shred of science of my own? Not going to "think" about it, evidence please.
I strip the sugars pretty heavily from my diet now. But I ate a pint of ice cream, a big bowl of Lucky Charms, and supermarket bagged bread every day for over a year and didn't get even slightly fat. So maybe there's not a single known answer here.
Given what you just shared, I'd guess your metabolism is quite high. That just means it takes more for you to put on weight. If you're young then this even less of an issue. For me, a lot of sugar has about the same effect as a lot of alcohol because they break down into glucose all the same. Didn't use to be like this but gotten more noticable with age for me.
Refined sugar is evil. Food companies use this to sell more, lookup "bliss point". Sugar is also addictive. We are not equipped to deal with this.
Nutrition science is recovering but it was set back by some bad research that should have been abandoned post WW2. Lookup the origin of calorie counting. Since you're cutting out sugar from your diet I'm assuming you understand precisely how bad something like the standard American diet is for your health.
Insulin is key to weight gain and loss. If you struggle with high insulin levels then you cannot lose weight because your body doesn't burn fat when insulin is high.
I believe (based on what I've read) that weight gain and loss is not a mystery. If someone is fat it is because of what they eat. You may wish to find a specific chemical reaction at the core but the body is a complex system. You make one change and it will effect something else. This is what should have been studied in place of "calories". Hormones regulate and we mess with them by putting bad food into our bodies, we fix that by not putting bad food into our bodies.
Therefore, I see no reason to say that we don't know why people are fat. We know precisely why people are fat.
Which is sugar or too many calories altogether? About time some actual experts joined the threads or we'll just be talking past each other. I'm simply doubting the absolute simplicity that you are presenting, without saying that you are wrong.
Nothing wrong with taking out the refined sugar IMHO. I don't even like the supermarket bread, I need real bakery stuff now.
I've been doing this long enough and I know this stuff well.
If you want a simple answer there is one. It's all about the nutritional quality of the food you eat. Everything is down stream from that.
We can go into all the specifics but it doesn't change the fundamentals. Moreover, given just how complex biological systems are you are of course going to have things like gut health play a role but it doesn't change the fact that if you eat the wrong stuff you wreck your gut. This in turn will create more complexities but the solution though is somewhat simple. Stop eating and give your body a break. This is why fasting is super useful.
You talk about going to a bakery to get "real stuff" unfortunately bread is excess carbohydrates (like sugar) no matter what. Unless you're physically active you should probably just cut down on bread altogether. Bakery stuff could be made with love and care which would make it a better quality food but it's not nutritionally important. It's just rocket fuel for your muscles and you don't need a lot of it.
I have a Ryzen 9 5950X CPU and it has a crazy fan ramp. Anytime a process maxes out the CPU it will be audible to me when I'm working. Now, to put this in perspective. It doesn't happen when I'm gaming. I can play Diablo 4 and Cyberpunk 2077 without this noticable fan noise but when setup.exe loses it, the fan noise is how I notice it. It will max out one core and I'm going to assume "never" complete. The longest I waited was 78 CPU minutes before killing the process. This would happen now and then but it would not prevent Chrome from successfully updating. So, it was bizarre to begin with.