3 ms·
It also doesn't pass the smell test in that the single core performance is higher than the Ryzen 4900 and it also has both more cores and more threads yet it is
by AnotherGoodName 7y ago
It also doesn't pass the smell test in that the single core performance is higher than the Ryzen 4900 and it also has both more cores and more threads yet it is far behind on multicore performance?
Likely some thread affinity issue that just needs a patch.
- zrm 7y agoAt the turbo clock the i9-10900F is 5GHz vs. 4.3Ghz for Ryzen 9 4900HS. At the base clock the i9-10900F is 2.8GHz vs. 3GHz for the Ryzen 9 4900HS. Basically implies that Ryzen has better performance per watt, which doesn't affect absolute performance until you exhaust the power budget and have to lower the clock speed, i.e. use all the cores instead of just one. edit: 4900HS, not 4900H
- kllrnohj 7y agoSmall nit but the comparison here is against the 4900HS 4900H: 4.4ghz boost, 3.3ghz base 4900HS: 4.3ghz boost, 3.0ghz base With the non-S variant being the more power hungry one with an up to 54W TDP vs. the S's 35W TDP.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- zrm 7y agoInterestingly even the faster 4900H has a lower TDP than the 65W i9-10900F.
- throwaway2048 7y agoMultithreaded applications tend to share a lot of data between threads, and we already know Intel's mesh fabric core interconnect[1] seems to be inferior to AMD's chiplet+io die in terms of performance and access latency uniformity. [1] used in all 10core+ Intel CPUs.
- wmf 7y agoThe 10900 uses a ring and IMO the mesh is superior to Infinity Fabric.
- lliamander 7y agoAMD's 4000 APUs are monolithic and don't use separate chiplets and IO die. The chiplet + infinity fabric has higher latency than Intel, but that's not a problem for the APUs.
- leetcrew 7y agothis part isn't quite as hard for me to believe. intel cores are less efficient than amd cores, so they have to downclock more when more cores are loaded.
- rasz 7y agothrottling