5 ms·

Interesting benchmark results: http://blog.imgtec.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/64-bit-CPU-performance-AMD-Intel-ARM-MIPS.png http://blog.imgtec.com/wp-content

by creshal 11y ago

Interesting benchmark results: http://blog.imgtec.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/64-bit-CPU-performance-AMD-Intel-ARM-MIPS.png http://blog.imgtec.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/64-bit-CPU... • Both MIPS and ARM have surpassed AMD in the low-power SoC area (the only where AMD is even remotely competitive right now), and are comparable to their desktop/server products • A (2? 3?) years old Intel architecture still beats all three by a wide margin. And the recent Skylakes are again some 10% more efficient.

low_battery 11y ago
AMD will be releasing a new architecture in 2016 and will use 14nm process. Hopefully Jim Keller's team will close the gap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(microarchitecture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(microarchitecture)
- rasz_pl 11y ago
  and their new Fury GPU will be fastest on the market!!1 enabling smooth 4K gameplay .... oh wait AMD is great on paper, almost never delivers. Every time they managed to deliver something good (K6, K7, R700) it was sudden and without much PR, you could even say it was a total surprise. If anything AMD has a long history of sitting quiet when they actually have the goods, and producing nice slide decks before usual flops.
  - low_battery 11y ago
    Why? I think their R9 nano cards are quite good. Looks like they are rushed to market, but still gives a run to gigantic nvidia titan cards a run for its money. I remind you that It was AMD who created 64 bit x86. This is why it is originally called (and still sometimes rightfully called) AMD64. I mentioned Jim Keller because he is the co author of x86-64 instruction set specification and lead architect of K8 (opteron) processors. He went back to AMD and working on the new Architecture since 2012. It is true that last 8 years was mostly disastrous for AMD, but I wouldn't count them off so fast, especially if they can ramp up on 14nm with a high IPC design. Time will tell.
    - hga 11y ago
      Doesn't deny his thesis, though? K7 out-of-order was great when Intel went on their P4 "Marketecture" boondoggle, AMD64 was great, K8 + Hypertransport plus on chip memory controllers blew Intel out of the water in pretty much every way, IA-64 couldn't compete. But they took their eyes off the ball, bought ATI, took 4 and a half years to update their microarchtecture, and the first shipped K10h chips had a bad TLB, requiring them to stop shipping until the next stepping fixed that 6 months later. I really liked them in that heyday, and, oh, back in the 486 DX4 days, but given their many decades losing corporate DNA (I'm sure it's still true they haven't in the long run made money for their shareholders), and their having to sell their foundries, it's doubtful they'll again be a big player.
      - alexvoica 11y ago
        I think a lot of people forget that 64-bit MIPS has been around for more than two decades - much longer than Intel, AMD or ARM. For example, the Nintendo N64 game console had a MIPS64 CPU.
        hga 11y ago
        It was probably overshadowed in most people's minds by the DEC Alpha, which was also introduced in 1992.
        SixSigma 11y ago
        But what's your point ? People don't buy CPUs based on the age of the brand.
        alexvoica 11y ago
        I'm not talking about buying, I'm talking about engineering expertise.
      - makomk 11y ago
        AMD blew Intel out of the water in every possible way, except sales. They had trouble selling chips to mainstream OEMs because the OEMs had questionably-legal deals with Intel that penalized them for buying processors from anyone else. In some cases AMD literally couldn't give them away. And in the long run that killed them - without the income they simply couldn't keep up.
  - ewindisch 11y ago
    The ATI (AMD) graphics are already better than Nvidia for 4k graphics, especially from a price/performance ratio with the 290x2 and 390x cards. The issue is that none of the cards from either ATI nor Nvidia can do 60fps on high quality settings with any of the games that are currently benchmarked. The ATI cards do worse at all resolutions up to 4k, which markably benefits by higher memory bandwidth. The question for consumers is: why spend >$400 on a card optimized for low-setting play at 4k? Especially when it's a marginal visual improvement over 1440p? Instead, with current-generation cards, players will rather use a lower resolution and higher settings.
    - cartoonfoxes 11y ago
      > The question for consumers is: why spend >$400 on a card optimized for low-setting play at 4k? Especially when it's a marginal visual improvement over 1440p? Playing as a marksman in Verdun (http://www.verdungame.com http://www.verdungame.com) is amazing in 4K.
Someone 11y ago
Uninteresting, I would say. Give me performance/Watt, performance/dollar or performance, period, not performance/GHz, or delve into details explaining what makes this this CPU do more per cycle. For example, this CPU runs at 1.5GHz, the Cortex A57 at around 2Ghz. There goes quite a bit of the difference in speed.
- alexvoica 11y ago
  I think I address some of your points in the article. I specify that overall peak power consumption for the chip is 30W - this is for an octa-core configuration. This means one CPU roughly consumes 3.5W (if you take out the coherency manager and fabric). Then I also referenced the SPEC CPU2000 performance number at 1GHz. From that you can easily calculate performance per W. If you want more technical details about the architecture, they do have an user manual here http://www.loongson.cn/uploadfile/cpumanual/Loongson3B1500_processor_user_manual_P1_v1.5.pdf http://www.loongson.cn/uploadfile/cpumanual/Loongson3B1500_p... I also state that a new processor will be released next year and it will run at above 2GHz which should solve the difference in frequency.
Symmetry 11y ago
There are tradeoffs to be made between executing more instructions per clock cycle and increasing the clock so measuring performance per clock can be interesting analytically but it doesn't actually say anything about how good a processor is overall. Even for a specific chip lowering it's clock speed will increase it's performance per clock as cache misses become less expensive.
rasz_pl 11y ago
Try 8 year old Intel, anything Core2 murders Arm and Amd clock per clock.
mcbain 11y ago
There's a few problems with that chart, but the one that jumps out is that there is no Intel Core i5-4660. Might be a typo, but makes you question the attention to detail.
- alexvoica 11y ago
  You're right, it is a typo. It's actually http://ark.intel.com/products/80817/Intel-Core-i5-4460-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/80817/Intel-Core-i5-4460-Proce... I'll update the chart, thanks for noticing.

by creshal 11y ago

low_battery 11y ago

AMD will be releasing a new architecture in 2016 and will use 14nm process. Hopefully Jim Keller's team will close the gap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(microarchitecture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(microarchitecture)

rasz_pl 11y ago
and their new Fury GPU will be fastest on the market!!1 enabling smooth 4K gameplay .... oh wait AMD is great on paper, almost never delivers. Every time they managed to deliver something good (K6, K7, R700) it was sudden and without much PR, you could even say it was a total surprise. If anything AMD has a long history of sitting quiet when they actually have the goods, and producing nice slide decks before usual flops.
- low_battery 11y ago
  Why? I think their R9 nano cards are quite good. Looks like they are rushed to market, but still gives a run to gigantic nvidia titan cards a run for its money. I remind you that It was AMD who created 64 bit x86. This is why it is originally called (and still sometimes rightfully called) AMD64. I mentioned Jim Keller because he is the co author of x86-64 instruction set specification and lead architect of K8 (opteron) processors. He went back to AMD and working on the new Architecture since 2012. It is true that last 8 years was mostly disastrous for AMD, but I wouldn't count them off so fast, especially if they can ramp up on 14nm with a high IPC design. Time will tell.
  - hga 11y ago
    Doesn't deny his thesis, though? K7 out-of-order was great when Intel went on their P4 "Marketecture" boondoggle, AMD64 was great, K8 + Hypertransport plus on chip memory controllers blew Intel out of the water in pretty much every way, IA-64 couldn't compete. But they took their eyes off the ball, bought ATI, took 4 and a half years to update their microarchtecture, and the first shipped K10h chips had a bad TLB, requiring them to stop shipping until the next stepping fixed that 6 months later. I really liked them in that heyday, and, oh, back in the 486 DX4 days, but given their many decades losing corporate DNA (I'm sure it's still true they haven't in the long run made money for their shareholders), and their having to sell their foundries, it's doubtful they'll again be a big player.
    - alexvoica 11y ago
      I think a lot of people forget that 64-bit MIPS has been around for more than two decades - much longer than Intel, AMD or ARM. For example, the Nintendo N64 game console had a MIPS64 CPU.
      - hga 11y ago
        It was probably overshadowed in most people's minds by the DEC Alpha, which was also introduced in 1992.
      - SixSigma 11y ago
        But what's your point ? People don't buy CPUs based on the age of the brand.
        alexvoica 11y ago
        I'm not talking about buying, I'm talking about engineering expertise.
    - makomk 11y ago
      AMD blew Intel out of the water in every possible way, except sales. They had trouble selling chips to mainstream OEMs because the OEMs had questionably-legal deals with Intel that penalized them for buying processors from anyone else. In some cases AMD literally couldn't give them away. And in the long run that killed them - without the income they simply couldn't keep up.
- ewindisch 11y ago
  The ATI (AMD) graphics are already better than Nvidia for 4k graphics, especially from a price/performance ratio with the 290x2 and 390x cards. The issue is that none of the cards from either ATI nor Nvidia can do 60fps on high quality settings with any of the games that are currently benchmarked. The ATI cards do worse at all resolutions up to 4k, which markably benefits by higher memory bandwidth. The question for consumers is: why spend >$400 on a card optimized for low-setting play at 4k? Especially when it's a marginal visual improvement over 1440p? Instead, with current-generation cards, players will rather use a lower resolution and higher settings.
  - cartoonfoxes 11y ago
    > The question for consumers is: why spend >$400 on a card optimized for low-setting play at 4k? Especially when it's a marginal visual improvement over 1440p? Playing as a marksman in Verdun (http://www.verdungame.com http://www.verdungame.com) is amazing in 4K.

Someone 11y ago

Uninteresting, I would say. Give me performance/Watt, performance/dollar or performance, period, not performance/GHz, or delve into details explaining what makes this this CPU do more per cycle. For example, this CPU runs at 1.5GHz, the Cortex A57 at around 2Ghz. There goes quite a bit of the difference in speed.

alexvoica 11y ago
I think I address some of your points in the article. I specify that overall peak power consumption for the chip is 30W - this is for an octa-core configuration. This means one CPU roughly consumes 3.5W (if you take out the coherency manager and fabric). Then I also referenced the SPEC CPU2000 performance number at 1GHz. From that you can easily calculate performance per W. If you want more technical details about the architecture, they do have an user manual here http://www.loongson.cn/uploadfile/cpumanual/Loongson3B1500_processor_user_manual_P1_v1.5.pdf http://www.loongson.cn/uploadfile/cpumanual/Loongson3B1500_p... I also state that a new processor will be released next year and it will run at above 2GHz which should solve the difference in frequency.

Symmetry 11y ago

There are tradeoffs to be made between executing more instructions per clock cycle and increasing the clock so measuring performance per clock can be interesting analytically but it doesn't actually say anything about how good a processor is overall. Even for a specific chip lowering it's clock speed will increase it's performance per clock as cache misses become less expensive.

rasz_pl 11y ago

Try 8 year old Intel, anything Core2 murders Arm and Amd clock per clock.

mcbain 11y ago

There's a few problems with that chart, but the one that jumps out is that there is no Intel Core i5-4660. Might be a typo, but makes you question the attention to detail.

alexvoica 11y ago
You're right, it is a typo. It's actually http://ark.intel.com/products/80817/Intel-Core-i5-4460-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/80817/Intel-Core-i5-4460-Proce... I'll update the chart, thanks for noticing.