3 ms·
Fair enough. But if you're comparing single threaded performance, there isn't a reason to split the workload into two threads for AMD/Intel and have it as a sin
by Jonnax 6y ago
Fair enough.
But if you're comparing single threaded performance, there isn't a reason to split the workload into two threads for AMD/Intel and have it as a single thread for Apple.
If I had a single threaded application or a single threaded critical path of a multithreaded application.
I don't see a scenario where SMT will help
AnandTech have done a comparison here:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16261/investigating-performance-of-multithreading-on-zen-3-and-amd-ryzen-5000/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16261/investigating-performan...
You can see it's all within 1% with it on and off for single threaded.
- cpgxiii 6y agoBenchmarking multicore Performance+Efficiency (Apple) versus SMT (AMD) versus SMT+Wide vectors (Intel) is never going to provide perfect apples-to-apples comparisons. There's an entirely reasonable argument that single-thread performance is oversold as a metric, and that the focus on it advantages some platforms over others. At the end of the day, benchmarks are inherently only an approximate measure of how real-world code will perform. SMT, basically by definition, is rarely going to benchmark well, but is inherently going to show more of a benefit when running real-world mixed workloads.