3 ms·
28 cores @ 2.5 GHz = 70 GHz Cores, 14 cores @ 3.1 GHz = 43.4 GHz cores. So the total performance (to first order) is almost twice as good for the 28 core part
by Coding_Cat 9y ago
28 cores @ 2.5 GHz = 70 GHz Cores, 14 cores @ 3.1 GHz = 43.4 GHz cores.
So the total performance (to first order) is almost twice as good for the 28 core part. Sure you need to use all cores for that comparison to hold, but usually software either scales up to 8 cores or less or it scales up to N cores.
- alkonaut 9y agoThis gets muddied by the use of boost clocks, and this part does 3.8Ghz in that mode. What would be nice to see is a processor aimed at long stretches of interactive use with few cores (1-4) and then long stretches of offline uses with many cores (16-32 cores). A lot of "workstation" use is long stretches of interactive use on a few cores followed by periods of offline use (NN training, Graphical rendering, Code compilation/testing etc). The boost clocks on these higher end cpu's should really be able to go even higher, even if it means the base clocks would have to go down somewhat. I'd rather have a 28core CPU where it runs either 20 cores entirely OFF and the rest at 4.5Ghz, than one where it runs at 2.5-3.8Ghz.