3 ms·

I blame Intel for that. They pushed the clock speed high for silly small perf gains. AMD could take the high road, then media would brag about how fast Intel

by sliken 4y ago

I blame Intel for that. They pushed the clock speed high for silly small perf gains. AMD could take the high road, then media would brag about how fast Intel is and AMD would lose market share.

MrFoof 4y ago
Indeed. The game Intel used to play is now the game everyone plays -- Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA, for both consumer CPUs and GPUs. At least on the desktop. They tend to run them to redline by default, because numbers. It's all about getting that big splash at launch, to ride it for higher average sale price as long as possible. Which is unfortunate, because when it comes to benchmarks, understanding the context of a test setup is extraordinarily important. Are you buying that very high-end memory the test setup used and then manually adjusting timings? No? Then you're not getting those numbers. Heck, you may be losing 20% or more performance compared to the test rig on just the difference in memory. Never mind adjusting other things, ensuring the system's thermals are entirely kept in check to prevent throttling, etc.
snvzz 4y ago
>AMD could take the high road, then media would brag about how fast Intel is and AMD would lose market share. This already happened in previous generations (especially Zen2). AMD has to play this stupid game, unfortunately, because the press is what it is.
midoridensha 4y ago
>I blame Intel for that. As you should. I worked at Intel back in the 00s when they were in the "megahertz wars". All they talked about internally was "we're winning the MHz wars!!! Yay!". When anyone mentioned power consumption, or how fucking loud the cooling fans were, or MIPS/Watt, they didn't care; all that mattered was MHz. Hitching their wagon to RAMBUS memory was part of this. Then they got pissed and indignant when consumers didn't want to spend a fortune on RAMBUS memory and bought AMD CPUs with cheap SDRAM instead.
- sliken 4y ago
  That fits. The p4 had a long pipeline, high clock speed, and poor perf per MHz. AMD pushed the general performance score, forget the name, and seems like the succeeded. Doubly so since they shipped x86-64 first, which people did care about. I wrote a few microbenchmarks to explore the performance promises of rambus, and didn't find anything.

by sliken 4y ago

I blame Intel for that. They pushed the clock speed high for silly small perf gains. AMD could take the high road, then media would brag about how fast Intel is and AMD would lose market share.

MrFoof 4y ago

Indeed. The game Intel used to play is now the game everyone plays -- Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA, for both consumer CPUs and GPUs. At least on the desktop. They tend to run them to redline by default, because numbers. It's all about getting that big splash at launch, to ride it for higher average sale price as long as possible. Which is unfortunate, because when it comes to benchmarks, understanding the context of a test setup is extraordinarily important. Are you buying that very high-end memory the test setup used and then manually adjusting timings? No? Then you're not getting those numbers. Heck, you may be losing 20% or more performance compared to the test rig on just the difference in memory. Never mind adjusting other things, ensuring the system's thermals are entirely kept in check to prevent throttling, etc.

snvzz 4y ago

>AMD could take the high road, then media would brag about how fast Intel is and AMD would lose market share. This already happened in previous generations (especially Zen2). AMD has to play this stupid game, unfortunately, because the press is what it is.

midoridensha 4y ago

>I blame Intel for that. As you should. I worked at Intel back in the 00s when they were in the "megahertz wars". All they talked about internally was "we're winning the MHz wars!!! Yay!". When anyone mentioned power consumption, or how fucking loud the cooling fans were, or MIPS/Watt, they didn't care; all that mattered was MHz. Hitching their wagon to RAMBUS memory was part of this. Then they got pissed and indignant when consumers didn't want to spend a fortune on RAMBUS memory and bought AMD CPUs with cheap SDRAM instead.

sliken 4y ago
That fits. The p4 had a long pipeline, high clock speed, and poor perf per MHz. AMD pushed the general performance score, forget the name, and seems like the succeeded. Doubly so since they shipped x86-64 first, which people did care about. I wrote a few microbenchmarks to explore the performance promises of rambus, and didn't find anything.