3 ms·
IPC data seems a bit sus
by mhh__ 3y ago
IPC data seems a bit sus
- formerly_proven 3y agoIt's the average IPC improvement from the AMD marketing slides - Zen 2 over Zen, 15%, Zen 3 over Zen 2, 19% and Zen 4 over Zen 3 at 13%, so Zen 3 over Zen is 37% and Zen 4 over Zen is 55% (maybe a typo in the article)
- jeffbee 3y agoZen 1 was terrible and is not a useful baseline. It was obsolete at launch. Nobody bought them except companies who were paid to take them and agree to be in a press release. It was literally half the speed of Skylake on server workloads.
- phkahler 3y ago>> Zen 1 was terrible and is not a useful baseline. First off, it's a perfect baseline when comparing AMD chips since that time. Zen 1 was similar to Intel performance-wise, winning some benchmarks and losing some. Second, the Raven Ridge (Zen 1+) APUs were IMHO excellent performance for the price at the time - even against Intel. I have not felt the need to build a new system since the Mellori_ITX: https://github.com/phkahler/mellori_ITX https://github.com/phkahler/mellori_ITX
- ahartmetz 3y agoZen 1 was slightly slower per core, but had twice the amount of cores that Intel was willing to sell for desktop platforms! Kind of a big deal for use cases such as compiling C++ code...
- crote 3y agoEven worse: IPC data is pretty much useless when it comes to comparing CPU performance! How is it going to account for something like the introduction of AVX512, doubling the data throughput per instruction? What about increased cache greatly reducing the number of instructions waiting for memory access, or a faster memory controller? How would you even begin to quantify a new PCIe generation doubling SSD bandwidth, or a better core interconnect reducing NUMA penalties? IPC is basically just a marketing number with today's CPUs. If you want to get a proper comparison, use a real-world benchmark.