3 ms·
Huh, so the benchmarks that show that a FX-8xxx is about on par to i3 for ST, but even better than a i5 for MT are misleading ?? I actually have no complaints
by BlueTemplar 4y ago
Huh, so the benchmarks that show that a FX-8xxx is about on par to i3 for ST, but even better than a i5 for MT are misleading ??
I actually have no complaints about MT performance (even though learning that it wasn't a "real" 8-core was disappointing), I can even run VR because it takes full advantage of MT, even though ST is often struggling for other tasks...
- adrian_b 4y agoThe benchmarks that you have in mind had probably been run on some later Piledriver/Steamroller/Excavator models, which corrected some of the initial problems, like the too low instruction decoding throughput, and which raised the clock frequency, due to an improved CMOS SOS process. I also had an AMD Richland APU of 4.4 GHz, which was reasonably faster for most tasks than an Intel Haswell U i5, but the speed ratio was much, much less than the power consumption ratio of 100 W for AMD vs. 15 W for Intel. The original Bulldozer fared much worse against Sandy Bridge.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoHmm, but AFAIK the performance didn't radically improve in P/S/E - and anyway, I had assumed that this whole discussion also covered them because B/P/S/E are still all using the same architecture - for instance : doesn't TFA apply to P/S/E ? (I have one of the last models, IIRC Excavator ?)