3 ms·
That is disappointing to hear. Is this first hand knowledge, or do you have a discussion/link you could share on the topic?
by stagger87 10y ago
That is disappointing to hear. Is this first hand knowledge, or do you have a discussion/link you could share on the topic?
- gcp 10y agohttp://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/performance-xeon-e5-v3-advanced-vector-extensions-paper.pdf http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/...
- DannyBee 10y agoIt's documented and known that you can't execute AVX2 continuously without it clocking the processor down :(
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago> clocking the processor down Nitpick, and certainly a matter of definition, but it's not clocking the processor down, it's just unable to turbo like it can with other loads.
- DannyBee 10y agoErr, no, actually. it really is clocked down, and that's what intel says. There is the normal base frequency (which is, again, the one people see on the box. Intel calls it "marked TDP frequency") There is the avx base frequency, which is less. If you execute all avx workloads, it will clock down to the avx frequency, which is below the marked tdp frequency. They are very explicit about this: "Workloads using Intel AVX instructions may reduce processor frequency as far down as the AVX base frequency to stay within TDP limits." See http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/performance-xeon-e5-v3-advanced-vector-extensions-paper.pdf http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/... IE if you buy a 2.3ghz processor, and run all avx workloads on it, it may operate at 1.9ghz