4 ms·
Well, if we have 32 cores at 2 GHz, and 48 cores at 1.5 GHz, from the same chip architecture, which is better? For some workloads, it's one; for others, it's t
by rincebrain 3y ago
Well, if we have 32 cores at 2 GHz, and 48 cores at 1.5 GHz, from the same chip architecture, which is better?
For some workloads, it's one; for others, it's the other.
A one-dimensional performance axis is hard in practice.
- MBCook 3y agoYou could use a synthetic benchmark. Create your own Geekbench like thing and use those numbers. Intel-$singlecore-$multicore So an Intel-6-12 had twice the single core performance of the Intel-3-48 but is much worse in multicore. Yeah, things are WAY more complicated. But at least it gives you a chance without memorizing spec sheets first. Higher numbers are always better. No redefining. This year’s 5 can’t be better than last year’s 20 in performance. I don’t follow Intel/AMD chips anymore. If I wanted to buy a computer I’d have to learn it all from scratch. This would give me a nice leg up.
- bubblethink 3y ago>Intel-$singlecore-$multicore There will be power specs, and igpu specs, and ecc, and so on. It's hard to capture succinctly.
- Dylan16807 3y agoGpu can be a third number. Power doesn't need to be in the model number. Neither does ecc, also all cpus should have such an easy to implement feature.
- ddtaylor 3y agoFor the most part the transistor count (or something akin to it) is usually increasing, even if the die space is larger.
- atmavatar 3y agoFor some reason, that comparison reminds me of: "If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use? Two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?" -Seymour Cray