2 ms·
This is interesting. I'm getting much worse results on an i7-1165G7 than the ones published: Num cores: 8 Using RDTSC to measure time: true Num rou
by vladvasiliu 4y ago
This is interesting. I'm getting much worse results on an i7-1165G7 than the ones published:
Num cores: 8
Using RDTSC to measure time: true
Num round trips per samples: 5000
Num samples: 300
Showing latency=round-trip-time/2 in nanoseconds:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
1 70±1
2 53±1 42±0
3 73±5 134±5 80±1
4 16±0 49±1 56±1 46±1
5 63±4 28±1 128±5 67±1 66±1
6 56±1 49±1 10±0 81±4 124±4 72±1
7 57±1 57±1 45±1 10±0 63±4 130±5 87±1
Min latency: 10.1ns ±0.2 cores: (6,2)
Max latency: 134.1ns ±5.3 cores: (3,1)
Mean latency: 64.7ns
- consp 4y agoMight too-aggressive power saving be an issue? The spikes (100+ns) are all hyper-threads. edit: No, 4 to 6 is not a HT.
- vladvasiliu 4y agoI was thinking some kind of throttling, yes. I've always found this particular laptop (HP EliteBook 840 G8) surprisingly slow. If that's the case, I think it kicks in quickly because running this with 500, 5_000 and 50_000 round trips gives results in the same ballpark. There doesn't seem to be any difference between performance and powersave governors for this particular test.