Xe Link Intel
Kum Dana
If your code does not make any Lapack95 or BLAS95 calls, but calls the Fortran 77 routines in Lapack and BLAS, the two extra libraries that you specified do not contain any routines that are needed, so the linker will pull nothing from them. The routines in the *95 libraries have shorter argument lists and often some of the arguments are optional, so any routine that calls these more convenient interfaces needs to provide interfaces to them. See the examples provided with MKL.
If you want to use the MKL versions of the Lapack and BLAS libraries, you will have to use the linker's -L option to specify the location of those libraries, and -l options to specify which MKL libraries to use.
To repeat what I wrote earlier: You should not be trying to link with libraries containing "95" in their names at all unless you are coding in Fortran and you chose deliberately to call Lapack95/BLAS95 routines.
You should not link libraries and objects with a mix of LP64/ILP64 conventions, with rare exceptions. LP64 is for calling MKL routines with 32-bit integer arguments, and ILP64 is for 64-bit integer arguments.
I suppose IpOpt is using standard BLAS and Lapack routines. So the above should cause the compiled IpOpt to use BLAS and Lapack routines from MKL. But 'ldd' says it's using BLAS and Lapack routines from system '/lib64'.
As your issue has been resolved, we are closing this thread. If you require additional assistance from Intel, please start a new thread. Any further interaction in this thread will be considered community only
Intel does not verify all solutions, including but not limited to any file transfers that may appear in this community. Accordingly, Intel disclaims all express and implied warranties, including without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement, as well as any warranty arising from course of performance, course of dealing, or usage in trade.
Since you are mentioning compatibility with your computer, we will need to look into this further through our support page. Once there, please provide the logs for your computer so we can better assist you. If you follow this link, it will instruct you on how to do so.
We're always trying to improve our software and implement any changes that increase the quality of the products. Since this is an engineering question, I'm not able to give an accurate answer on implementing this specifically but we're always trying to improve as best as we can!
Is Meta actively engaged in making the Quest 2 compatible with less than extremely expensive graphic cards?
I have bought a laptop with 11th Gen i7 processor 2.8Ghz with 8 cores and 16GB memory and iRISx 8GB graphics card....and that much power added to the Quest 2 resources is not enough to play a game? Very frustrating.
The Iris Xe is only around one third of the performance of a Nvidia GTX970, which was the 2016 minimum for Oculus VR games. The Quest 2 is a lot higher resolution than the headsets from back then and Link requires extra GPU for the video encoding.
This really sucks, my AMD Vega iGPU laptop broke and I moved over to an intel iris xe one that is a good bit more powerful and supports more codecs but it doesn't work for game streaming. It would absolutely be enough if you turn down resolution on most games.
Having trouble with a Facebook or Instagram account? The best place to go for help with those accounts is the Facebook Help Center or the Instagram Help Center. This community can't help with those accounts.
Hello,
Why wouldn't the motherboards be supported? It's a PCI-E card and the card shows up perfectly across both Linux and Windows.
A motherboard doesn't affect support of PCI-E card as long as the PCI-E Generations match, which they do.
This has nothing to do with the motherboard, please don't bother with such lazy responses.
If you would've read the post properly, you would've also realized that the issue present itself on the motherboard you claim to be supported, and that a cable that works perfectly fine in one slot, does NOT work in the other.
I've tried updating to the firmware you attached. The behaviour still exists across multiple cards, across multiple switches, across multiple motherboards.
This is CLEARLY an issue with the firmware on the card. Not with the surrounding equipment.
X710 cards require the use of Intel optic modules. We request you to check the below link to get the complete details on Compatible SFP+ Modules and Cables for Intel Ethernet Server Adapter X710 Series.
So after 3 weeks and all that troubleshooting and details you asked for you're returning to the lazy response of "Not approved adapter".
Also, clearly it DOESN'T "require" the use of intel optic modules because they work in some cards and some not, and there's plenty of non-intel modules that work.
However, you clearly state passive DAC cables are supported - Yet the cable works in one port, and not the other.
You gonna hide behind a lazy EULA on that too because you're not interested in providing proper firmware for your products?
What a garbage customer experience. If Intel wonders why it's stock has crashed in recent years and why you're losing customers across all your product lines because, this is a prime example.
We've sent NIC's back and will be buying other brands. Thanks for confirming the choice of EPYC servers was the right one too. Have a good one - cheers!
I'm finding that my Intel 5100 AGN wireless network card is not performing as well as it used to. I've tried everything... even drivers are fully up to date. But I keep losing connection to my wireless router, even though connection strength is between 3-4 bars. I find that I rarely get dropped if I have 5 bars. But if it weakens to 3, I get periodically dropped no matter what wireless network I am using.
What I meant by my statement regarding you having the better of the available cards for your notebook is that, yes, I am sure the Intel 5300 is an improvement over the 5100, but the problem is you can't install the 5300 in your notebook.
I suppose you can use an external USB adapter but I would get one with an external antenna connected to it, because I would have to believe the 3 antenna wire setup in your notebook has to provide superior reception over a plain USB wireless adapter with an internal antenna as its only antenna.
Did you fiddle around with your network card's advanced settings? They can be found by clicking on the card in the device manager, clicking on the advanced tab. make a note of where the settings are now so if something goes buggy, you can change them back.
Here is a link to the service manual. The supported WLAN cards with corresponding part numbers can be found in Chapter 3 starting on page 24. You MUST only get a wireless card with the HP part number on it or it will not work.
You mentioned that your drivers are fully up to date. I don't know what operating system you are running but if you are using the latest drivers from your notebook's support page, they are woefully out of date.
If you are (or even if you aren't), I recommend you run this scanning tool from Intel which will find and report the latest drivers for any Intel component installed in your notebook and give you the link to the downloads.
Thanks very much for your response and the link to the dv5t service manual! I had thought that the 5300 is a better wifi card, but if it's a nominal difference from the 5100, I guess I'll just continue with my current one. Or, I'm thinking of trying out a USB network card (some come with an external antenna which might help with reception). Have you heard of any notable improvements going that route?
I did use the Intel update, which gave peculiar results. On the one hand, it would tell me that my driver is up to date, but then it would also tell me that the product isn't recognized. Weird! I went ahead and downloaded the full software package and installed it. No real change in function as far as I can see.
Wow, my bad for abandoning this topic I started. Sorry, Paul.
To follow up, it appeared to be a combination of issues. I ended up completely removing all of the wireless software and drivers. I then installed the default OEM software that was provided with the laptop. The signal appeared to be more reliable. I then also adjusted my wireless router so that the antennas point to my usual location. Overall, this helped.
Meanwhile, I bought a used Intel Wifi Link 5300 card. And you know what? It works. No compatibility problems at all. The only thing is that the card has 3 antenna sockets and the dv5 has only two antennas. I attached a 3rd antenna wire and ran it out of the laptop, so I could use it as a "user controlled" aerial antenna. Ultimately, I found the card performed slightly weaker than my 5100. So... seems that the 5100 is the better card for this laptop.