3 ms·
What I don't understand is that AMD/Intel differ so much. The subsequent question I haven't seen clarified is: In any of these situations, are Intel's results
by headsoup 9y ago
What I don't understand is that AMD/Intel differ so much.
The subsequent question I haven't seen clarified is:
In any of these situations, are Intel's results actually accurate FPS or could it be showing 'accelerated' FPS?
I.e. is Intel taking a performance hit, or are their 'non-HPET' numbers cosmetically showing faster performance that isn't there?
- wtallis 9y ago> What I don't understand is that AMD/Intel differ so much. At least one of the factors seems to be the Meltdown workarounds that are required on Intel but not AMD processors. My intuition is that this explanation is sufficient to account for the entire discrepancy between vendors, but I can't rule out other factors. (Querying the HPET incurs all the Meltdown workaround overhead of accessing peripherals like storage, but with none of the actual waiting on a peripheral device, so on a percentage basis this is probably the most severely affected task.) > I.e. is Intel taking a performance hit, or are their 'non-HPET' numbers cosmetically showing faster performance that isn't there? When the system is forced to always use the HPET instead of the TSC, the performance hit is real and not just an artifact of inaccurate timers. When you're not overclocking, the TSC is usually reliable and TSC-based time measurements should differ from HPET-based time measurements only by the overhead of accessing the HPET. That overhead got much larger this year for Intel processors. Ian's initial benchmarks didn't include overclocked processors, just a test configuration intended to be suitable for future comparison against overclocked processors.
- headsoup 9y agoThanks for the explanation