3 ms·
These were interesting results then, but I think code generation and OSes have evolved enough that current compiles on a current OS with a current toolchain are
by johnklos 4y ago
These were interesting results then, but I think code generation and OSes have evolved enough that current compiles on a current OS with a current toolchain are actually faster on an FX-8150 than on an i5 of the age from those results.
Even from the time that Ryzen first came out until now, OSes have been improving threading, reducing contention, et cetera, to noticeable degrees.
Tell you what - when I'm back on the coast that has my older machines, I'll run some modern compiles on a quad i5 of that era and on my FX-8150, and we'll see. If nothing else, perhaps it'll be interesting to see how much threading performance has improved in the last decade.
BTW - I did do side-by-side testing back then between the quad i7 and the FX-8150, and the results were certainly not as clear cut as these. Then again, I wasn't building a huge, barely portable source tree with -J 8 like Chromium - I was building many separate things in parallel at the same time. The cost is what ultimately tipped me in favor of AMD.
Not everyone who bought AMD then was necessarily a fanboi, and I'd point out that people who were fans of the Ryzens when they were new often liked both how they were very favorably priced compared with anything Intel, plus how we were assured that later Ryzens would work in our then current motherboards. Having just replaced a Ryzen 2600 with a Ryzen 5700X and seeing overall power usage go down, I'd have to disagree with your early Ryzen sentiment.