AMD's Future Chips & SoC's: News, Info & Rumours.

Page 116 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MasterMadBones

Distinguished
Dec 26, 2012
353
37
18,890
49
Pretty sweet comparison of IPC between the CPU's like a broken record the FX bulldzoer was such a pile of crap!

https://i.redd.it/9kt1t1gws4h41.png
Which benchmarks are used to calculate IPC? I have a few problems with the numbers posted here.

I am pretty sure that Haswell's IPC improved on Ivy Bridge by less than 10%, let alone the 22.5% improvement shown here. On top of that, as far as I know, Nehalem was a significant step forward compared to Penryn, which isn't reflected here at all. All in all that should mean that Nehalem through Ivy Bridge should all have higher numbers.

Also, how does K8 regress by nearly 10% going from gen 2 to gen 3?
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Which benchmarks are used to calculate IPC? I have a few problems with the numbers posted here.
IPC is heavily application-dependent. The newest Intel and AMD CPUs get their 20-40% IPC bumps mainly from widening AVX units so only SSE/AVX-intensive workloads that specifically stress those widened resources will show gains anywhere near that large, same goes for most other architectures with significant improvements - you see the largest gains only in algorithms optimized specifically for them, the rest will be a somewhat mixed bag.
 

cdrkf

Distinguished
Which benchmarks are used to calculate IPC? I have a few problems with the numbers posted here.

I am pretty sure that Haswell's IPC improved on Ivy Bridge by less than 10%, let alone the 22.5% improvement shown here. On top of that, as far as I know, Nehalem was a significant step forward compared to Penryn, which isn't reflected here at all. All in all that should mean that Nehalem through Ivy Bridge should all have higher numbers.

Also, how does K8 regress by nearly 10% going from gen 2 to gen 3?
I would say this test is looking at (or at least heavily influenced by) floating point performance. It also depends on if this test is looking at single or multi-thread performance.

In single thread, bulldozer was faster than K10 (albeit only slightly) as it could execute more int and fp operations per clock. The issue was the module penalty so at 2 threads K10 had a good lead- one of the biggest failures of the original BD module was the fact that despite being '2' cores it could only issue instructions to one or the other per clock- halving it's max throughput. That is something that didn't get fixed until Steamroller (which you can see has higher IPC than K10). It's not really clear what this chart is measuring though- looks like it must be some composite of INT and FP, possibly looking at more than 1 thread as well (maybe 2 threads to account for HT?)....
 

alceryes

Distinguished
Pretty sweet comparison of IPC between the CPU's like a broken record the FX bulldzoer was such a pile of crap!

https://i.redd.it/9kt1t1gws4h41.png
If I were to guess I would say this is single core, floating-point arithmetic but we need context here. This graph is nothing more than pretty wallpaper without it.
Yeah, I had the FX-8350. The only thing it really did was push AMDs high multi-core (or pseudo-multi-core) solution into the spotlight.
 
Dec 27, 2019
37
8
35
0
As you can see down below Haswell was a pretty big jump for AVX performance which Cinebench uses. That's the main gain here. I also showed this a few pages ago with more tests comparing IPC, as you can tell fr om his limited testing he even got 20% improvement from Ivy-Haswell. Of course this is again mainly due to the FP operations more specifically AVX.

View: https://youtu.be/psKEiWXDR28?t=546


https://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/9
 
Dec 27, 2019
37
8
35
0
I would say this test is looking at (or at least heavily influenced by) floating point performance. It also depends on if this test is looking at single or multi-thread performance.

In single thread, bulldozer was faster than K10 (albeit only slightly) as it could execute more int and fp operations per clock. The issue was the module penalty so at 2 threads K10 had a good lead- one of the biggest failures of the original BD module was the fact that despite being '2' cores it could only issue instructions to one or the other per clock- halving it's max throughput. That is something that didn't get fixed until Steamroller (which you can see has higher IPC than K10). It's not really clear what this chart is measuring though- looks like it must be some composite of INT and FP, possibly looking at more than 1 thread as well (maybe 2 threads to account for HT?)....
In no way was Bulldozer more powerful clock for clock then the Phenom like you said it wasn't until Steamroller-Excavator and then Amd finally overtook the K10 architecture.

View: https://youtu.be/psKEiWXDR28?t=546



It's been so boring on the Intel side of things i can't wait for Ice Lake to land on desktops, from what i'm reading maybe even by the end of this year! Not that i'm switching over no way am i going to a new board every gen a new CPU comes out and i love testing the newer parts and tweaking it out.
 

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
Playstation/Xbox chip on a board, what I've always wanted. GDDR5 or DDR3/DDR4. Would make a fine general purpose PC. I think there was a Chinese clone at one point. Came with Windows Enterprise and a 'console' application as I recall, but did have GDDR5 for system memory.

Then again, still wanted Intel/Vega to be reasonably priced, oh well.
 

cdrkf

Distinguished
That is good - although keep in mind the 2080ti has been around a while now, AMD's new GPU needs to be significantly faster if it's going to be competitive with nVidia's 7nm range due out soon.

At 50% faster than the 2080ti (I imagine that is a best case so probably a bit less than that on average) it should be able to keep up with a theoretical 3080ti which is rumoured to be 30% faster than the 2080ti.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS