> Also this is just false [1]. Running AVX-512 adjusts the BASE clock for the package. There are throttling attempts to ensure every other core on the package t

> Also this is just false [1]. Running AVX-512 adjusts the BASE clock for the package. There are throttling attempts to ensure every other core on the package throttles back. This is a package wide effect, not a per-core effect. The explanatory page accompanying that table contains text that contradicts your claim: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/frequency_behavior https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/frequency_behavior > The frequency of each core is determined independently based on the workload described above. That is, cores running Non-AVX workloads can enjoy the full regular turbo frequency, whereas cores executing AVX-512 or AVX2 will operate at their own designated turbo frequencies. [...] > In Haswell, an AVX2 workload on one core meant all cores were capped at AVX2 Turbo frequency. This had the undesirable effect of reducing performance for non-AVX workloads on cores that were unrelated to the cores executing AVX2 workloads. This behavior was changed with Broadwell which grouped cores executing AVX2 workloads together and cores executing non-AVX workloads separately, allowing the former cores group to execute at the lower AVX2 turbo frequency while having the later cores group execute at full non-AVX2 turbo. Also: > The literal example to show AVX-512 is good at ends with statement that people using AVX-512 are now actively avoiding it. It's an example to show that cycle-by-cycle speedups due to the use of AVX-512 are not always worthwhile, especially in library code. Which was one of the points the article was trying to make. It's fine if that was an obvious point from your perspective, but it doesn't contradict the article and it doesn't make it "less than content".