4 ms·

The top CPU is almost 4 times faster than my CPU (i5 6600K). Is it just down to the GHz and number of cores? Besides those two elements, what makes this proces

The top CPU is almost 4 times faster than my CPU (i5 6600K). Is it just down to the GHz and number of cores? Besides those two elements, what makes this processor so much faster?

axaxs 9y ago
It's really neither of those things. Example: see Mediatek. They throw a billion cores and good cpu speed at a problem to no real results. Also see, AMD of the last 5ish years. IPC is where the speed comes from, in conjunction with cores/hyperthreading. I won't attempt to explain it as I'm not qualified, but it's interesting reading.
- Brockenstein 9y ago
  Well yeah, they're all part of the whole. Neither thing is worth a damn without the other. A 1mhz single core CPU with 1000 IPC isn't going to come close to a high end CPU in 2017. Having a decent IPC coupled with a decent clock-speed, a decent architecture, and a good number of cores will get you a solid CPU. Ideally you have great numbers in every category that contributes to performance. But if your numbers are crummy in a category, poor IPC, low cores or poor clock speed that's going to have some serious performance implications unless your competition is also suffering from some sort of deficiency that keeps you on par. Ryzen addresses a lot of Bulldozer's weaknesses. But even Bulldozer was fairly competitive in highly threaded workloads compared to an i5. Having a truly competitive CPU with a high number of cores is just a different ballgame. And it's forced an Intel response. We've had about 7-8 years of the Core i series, and now suddenly when Ryzen appears we get an i9 with a serious number of cores. Because with multithreaded applications Intel's best 4 or 6 core i7's can't compete. Their per core performance isn't nearly superior enough to outperform 2-4x as many cores on a Ryzen CPU.
bassman9000 9y ago
L1/2/3 cache sizes, better instruction sets, improved instruction pipelines, more and larger registries... Some of the improvements come from having better SW too (e.g. better/more modern compilers). EDIT: grammar
akira2501 9y ago
That, and they literally pack multiple dies into a single "package." https://www.extremetech.com/computing/253416-amd-explains-threadripper-cpus-four-die-hood https://www.extremetech.com/computing/253416-amd-explains-th...
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  Those really are not why a 2017 CPU is faster than a 2012 CPU. It's much more pipeline architecture than anything else.
cjbprime 9y ago
It does seem to reward number of cores. The old AMD 2012 FX CPUs with 6/8 cores that run slowly are listed as some of the best CPU/$ deals, despite their poor single-core performance making them useless for e.g. gaming.
loeg 9y ago
It's a highly clocked 16 core (x2 = 32 SMT thread) part with good caches, decent IPC, and ok cache coherency fabric.
meanonme 9y ago
Pipeline depth, cache sizes and types, number of execution units, memory links and bandwidth and on and on. Absent are measurements for enterprise CPUs like the Xeon Platinum 8180M (street price about $13,000 USD) which trounces the fastest offering from AMD before even getting out of bed. [0] Note 0: For multi-threaded uses. For single-threaded use-cases, the Xeon Gold 6144 has the potential to be faster: - Gold 6144 vs. Platinum 8180M - Cores: 8 vs. 28 - Turbo: 4.2 GHz vs. 3.8 GHz - L2: 8x1 MiB vs. 28x1 MiB - L3: 24.75 MiB vs. 38.5 MiB It's really a shame that AMD isn't as comprehensively competitive as it could be in enterprise, because Intel could get somewhat lazier/pricier in some areas without effective competition.
- nrki 9y ago
  - Are you really comparing a $1000 CPU to a $13,000 CPU? - Threadripper is not Enterprise. Are you not aware of Epyc?
  - icc97 9y ago
    From what I can tell he's disappointed that AMD don't offer a $13,000 CPU that competes with Intel. Epyc falls short of the Xeon Platinum 8180 [0] [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/6ip3oi/xeon_platinum_beats_amds_epyc_by_20_in_cinebench/ https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/6ip3oi/xeon_platinum...
Brockenstein 9y ago
It would really depend on the work you're doing. Programs that use single cores, or only a handful of threads won't run four times faster on the 1950X or the i9 compared to your i5. Workloads that can use as many cores as you can throw at it, will naturally benefit from extra cores. Your i5 has 4 cores, and 1950x has 16 cores, and can execute 32 threads. Unless the architecture was truly inferior (which it's not) that's quite a disparity for your i5 to compete with in highly threaded workloads. Ryzen's architecture is solid. It can reach competitive clock speeds. The number of cores just add a lot more raw computing power. That's going to be far and away the biggest difference when looking at benchmarks that can use all the cores.

The top CPU is almost 4 times faster than my CPU (i5 6600K). Is it just down to the GHz and number of cores? Besides those two elements, what makes this processor so much faster?

axaxs 9y ago

It's really neither of those things. Example: see Mediatek. They throw a billion cores and good cpu speed at a problem to no real results. Also see, AMD of the last 5ish years. IPC is where the speed comes from, in conjunction with cores/hyperthreading. I won't attempt to explain it as I'm not qualified, but it's interesting reading.

Brockenstein 9y ago
Well yeah, they're all part of the whole. Neither thing is worth a damn without the other. A 1mhz single core CPU with 1000 IPC isn't going to come close to a high end CPU in 2017. Having a decent IPC coupled with a decent clock-speed, a decent architecture, and a good number of cores will get you a solid CPU. Ideally you have great numbers in every category that contributes to performance. But if your numbers are crummy in a category, poor IPC, low cores or poor clock speed that's going to have some serious performance implications unless your competition is also suffering from some sort of deficiency that keeps you on par. Ryzen addresses a lot of Bulldozer's weaknesses. But even Bulldozer was fairly competitive in highly threaded workloads compared to an i5. Having a truly competitive CPU with a high number of cores is just a different ballgame. And it's forced an Intel response. We've had about 7-8 years of the Core i series, and now suddenly when Ryzen appears we get an i9 with a serious number of cores. Because with multithreaded applications Intel's best 4 or 6 core i7's can't compete. Their per core performance isn't nearly superior enough to outperform 2-4x as many cores on a Ryzen CPU.

bassman9000 9y ago

L1/2/3 cache sizes, better instruction sets, improved instruction pipelines, more and larger registries... Some of the improvements come from having better SW too (e.g. better/more modern compilers). EDIT: grammar

akira2501 9y ago

That, and they literally pack multiple dies into a single "package." https://www.extremetech.com/computing/253416-amd-explains-threadripper-cpus-four-die-hood https://www.extremetech.com/computing/253416-amd-explains-th...

ComputerGuru 9y ago
Those really are not why a 2017 CPU is faster than a 2012 CPU. It's much more pipeline architecture than anything else.

cjbprime 9y ago

It does seem to reward number of cores. The old AMD 2012 FX CPUs with 6/8 cores that run slowly are listed as some of the best CPU/$ deals, despite their poor single-core performance making them useless for e.g. gaming.

loeg 9y ago

It's a highly clocked 16 core (x2 = 32 SMT thread) part with good caches, decent IPC, and ok cache coherency fabric.

meanonme 9y ago

Pipeline depth, cache sizes and types, number of execution units, memory links and bandwidth and on and on. Absent are measurements for enterprise CPUs like the Xeon Platinum 8180M (street price about $13,000 USD) which trounces the fastest offering from AMD before even getting out of bed. [0] Note 0: For multi-threaded uses. For single-threaded use-cases, the Xeon Gold 6144 has the potential to be faster: - Gold 6144 vs. Platinum 8180M - Cores: 8 vs. 28 - Turbo: 4.2 GHz vs. 3.8 GHz - L2: 8x1 MiB vs. 28x1 MiB - L3: 24.75 MiB vs. 38.5 MiB It's really a shame that AMD isn't as comprehensively competitive as it could be in enterprise, because Intel could get somewhat lazier/pricier in some areas without effective competition.

nrki 9y ago
- Are you really comparing a $1000 CPU to a $13,000 CPU? - Threadripper is not Enterprise. Are you not aware of Epyc?
- icc97 9y ago
  From what I can tell he's disappointed that AMD don't offer a $13,000 CPU that competes with Intel. Epyc falls short of the Xeon Platinum 8180 [0] [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/6ip3oi/xeon_platinum_beats_amds_epyc_by_20_in_cinebench/ https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/6ip3oi/xeon_platinum...

Brockenstein 9y ago

It would really depend on the work you're doing. Programs that use single cores, or only a handful of threads won't run four times faster on the 1950X or the i9 compared to your i5. Workloads that can use as many cores as you can throw at it, will naturally benefit from extra cores. Your i5 has 4 cores, and 1950x has 16 cores, and can execute 32 threads. Unless the architecture was truly inferior (which it's not) that's quite a disparity for your i5 to compete with in highly threaded workloads. Ryzen's architecture is solid. It can reach competitive clock speeds. The number of cores just add a lot more raw computing power. That's going to be far and away the biggest difference when looking at benchmarks that can use all the cores.