Re: Youtube nerd claim: intel 4 core + 4 fake/hyper cores, beats AMD 6 core ?

I am surprised quite how far down the list the AMD CPUs are these days.

I am no great fan of hyperthreading but it does work OK for some sorts of computation provided the memory bandwidth can keep up.

Although depending on the nature of the problem you might find that memory IO goes bandwidth limited if the threadcount is more than 6 or 7.

Complex chess analysis runs faster with threads limited to 6 or 7 on my i3770 as a concrete example. It slows down with the final 8th thread enabled and just generates more heat for a slightly slower answer. (on the standard Fritz benchmark set)

I suspect the same might well be true of LTSPice too but I have never bothered to benchmark it systematically since it is fast enough for me.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown

I'm not. I think AMD was able to catch and surpass only because they got rid of the FSB and added 64 bit with plenty of registers; that gave them a huge gain bigger than Intel's process advantage and with their lack of investment at that time, in the "IA-32" architecture, putting a money in the Itanium instead.

Interesting is that AMD got nearly 50% marketshare at that time but when Intel finally realized why AMD was eating their lunch, they quickly started to build AMD64 CPUs and later got rid of the FSB and came out with much more efficient CPUs because of their better processes.

All modern CPUs start to throttle fairly quickly when they start to get too hot. The 8 thread might help but only if you added better cooling.

Casper

" I am surprised quite how far down the list the AMD CPUs are these days. "

It's probably a deception.

All those xeons on the top of the list are many cores, very hot processors, like 16 cores or so... or even more.

140 watts or more... rack-like-processors, probably not suited for desktops.

Not realistic to compare those to 8 core amd's of 95 watts.

I'd like to see a chart where intel's quad core chips or their finest 8 core chip at around 95 watts takes on amd's 8 core 95 watts chip ?!

Not that I am looking into buying a 95 watts chip... cause that's what I am running for the last 10 years or so... and I want lower TDP cause I think it will be nice.. less noise of fans.

Entire system has to be low TDP though... if that's not possible than might as well get 95 TDP watts chip... or I would have to scale down other components too.

Bye, Skybuck.

AMD already caught up and overtook Intel with the K7 which had no integrated memory controller and did not implement AMD64. The Pentium III reached only 1133MHz, while the contemporary Thunderbird reached

1400MHz (at roughly the same IPC). The Pentium 4 had higher clock rate, but lower IPC.

The integrated memory controller of the K8 helped a bit, but I did not have the impression that it had a big influence for the stuff I did. And while 64 bits was certainly attractive to me and a few others, most people did not use it, because they did not run 64-bit OSs at the time.

I think they just had a good design with the K7/K8, while the Pentium

4 was not so great. Intel has steadily improved the P6-based microarchitecture since then, and it looks like AMD could not keep up. Let's hope they have another good one with Zen.

- anton

--
M. Anton Ertl                    Some things have to be seen to be believed 
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen 
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:37:29 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" Gave us:

Idiot.

ALL of the Intel i series CPUs have EXACTLY one virtual core for each hard core.

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:37:29 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" Gave us:

You're a goddamned retard.