4 ms·
The article explains why: What one will see, very quickly, is that the new SKUs generally offer slightly lower clock speeds to maintain a 45w TDP. Maintain
by biot 11y ago
The article explains why:
What one will see, very quickly, is that the new SKUs generally offer
slightly lower clock speeds to maintain a 45w TDP. Maintaining this
figure while adding 50% to 100% more cores and cache is no small feat
and it makes sense that clock speeds suffer. We also see the TDP
figures rise to 65w in order to accommodate more cores and higher
clock speeds.
We introduced the Core * Base GHz and Thread * Base GHz figures just
to show how much of an improvement this is. The new chips represent
double the cores but up to about 62% more clock cycles in aggregate
over what we had as the previous fastest chip, the Intel Xeon D-1541.
We also now, in the same TDP figure, have 23% more raw compute.
- voltagex_ 11y agoWith the "23% more raw compute" figure, say I've got a program running on an older system - do I need to recompile that binary (with new optimisations / assembly instructions) to see that improvement or is that an improvement in efficiency for existing instructions?
- cbhl 11y agoIf your program is single-threaded, it will run slower. If it parallelizes well (e.g. ray tracing) then you will see that improvement.
- gleenn 11y agoGiven that power consumption is related to the square of the clockspeed, generally small reductions mean relatively big power and heat savings. Respect for them anyways, I'm sure it wasn't a cakewalk either.