3 ms·

Single core performance? All i'm seeing is the confirmation that independently parallalizable tasks finish twice as fast on a cpu with twice the cores. cool, a

Single core performance? All i'm seeing is the confirmation that independently parallalizable tasks finish twice as fast on a cpu with twice the cores. cool, amdahl's law is proven. The handbrake one, all the times seems similar indicating similar single core perf. This matters for me since single core perf is pretty important for visual studio/other software with alot going on feeling "snappy" even tho the actual compiling/rendering might be faster and scale with moree cores.

wmf 3y ago
Single core should be not much worse than Ryzen.
- Racing0461 3y ago
  Yep seems about the same single thread wise which is a bit weird since 7950x3d base clock is 4.2 whereas the 7995wx is 2.5. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5726vs5234vs3862/AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-PRO-7995WX-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X3D-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X#:~:text=CPU%20Single%20Thread%20Rating https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5726vs5234vs3862/AMD-Ry...
  - coder543 3y ago
    Single threaded tasks should never run at the base clock. The base clock can pretty much be thought of as the minimum clock speed you should see when all cores are maxed out and the thermal solution is only just meeting the spec.
    - tedunangst 3y ago
      I still want my computer to remain responsive even when I'm rendering in the background.
      - dralley 3y ago
        I doubt 2.5ghz vs 4.2ghz is going to make any real difference to "responsiveness". The more pressing concern would be making sure the kernel actually schedules foreground workloads promptly.
        jacquesm 3y ago
        Typical desktop OS's don't have proper prioritization and terrible schedulers. It's definitely not the hardware.
        Racing0461 3y ago
        Maybe i'm missing why it doesn't matter. Ryzen runs at 4.5 base clock, TR Pro runs at 2.5 base clock, upon booting up nothing is happening so each cpu runs at their base clock. I open something like visual studio that isn't too intensive so each cpu doesn't realize it needs to boost. Won't the ryzen with 4.5 base clock feel snappier than the 2.5 one when vs loads? When a pretty big task (compiling, rendering) activates the scheduler and causes the cpu to boost to their respective 5 ghz or w/e, then yeah the numbers would be the same, but they don't be at the beginning when i'm dragging windows around and right clicking on stuff in visual studio. I don't believe this feeling is reflected in the scores.
        coder543 3y ago
        No. None of what you're writing is accurate. No processor made in the last decade will ever idle at the base clock. Any modern processor idles far, far lower than that, approximately 1Ghz, maybe even lower. Idling at multiple gigahertz would be a huge waste of energy. The minimum clock speed is not correlated to the "base clock" at all. It takes tens of milliseconds to reach the boost clock: https://stackoverflow.com/a/64254459 https://stackoverflow.com/a/64254459 The base clock is entirely irrelevant to everything you are talking about. Please reference my earlier comment for the meaning of "base clock": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37980293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37980293
        3y ago
  - dathinab 3y ago
    since a few generations ago boosts have become so good that for many use-cases base clock don't matter that much AFIK it's basically tweaked AMD EPYC™ 9654 with much higher boost and some other changes, so that's probably where the base clock comes from some situations where the base clock might still matter: - you perfectly max out CPU utilization (no I/O, hardly cache misses, etc.) and at the same time have exactly only the thermal headroom from the spec and run it for a "long" time - you want to max optimize for watter/perf the best power efficiency is likely around the base clock (for this one because of my assumption of it being more or less a tweaked server processor, on a typical consumer desktop PC I would say likely quite a bit below the base clock)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
FullyFunctional 3y ago
Threadripper is as the name implies, purely MT focused. I run simulations that are inherently completely single-threaded and I lean on Geekbench which tend to be a good predictor for me. As far as I can tell, Intel still holds the crown in absolute ST perf, granted at horrific efficiencies: https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks/ https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks/ (be sure to ignore the "Top Single-Core Results" which AFAICT is full of BS numbers). Intel's latest 14900K isn't there yet, but should be a smidgen faster: https://www.techspot.com/news/100034-intel-core-i9-14900k-tops-geekbench-record-breaking.html https://www.techspot.com/news/100034-intel-core-i9-14900k-to...
elromulous 3y ago
> All i'm seeing is the confirmation that independently parallalizable tasks finish twice as fast on a cpu with twice the cores. cool, amdahl's law is proven. Yes, but if you can squeeze more cores in the same space (and/or power) envelope, and not suffer a performance per core penalty, you're winning.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

wmf 3y ago

Single core should be not much worse than Ryzen.

Racing0461 3y ago
Yep seems about the same single thread wise which is a bit weird since 7950x3d base clock is 4.2 whereas the 7995wx is 2.5. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5726vs5234vs3862/AMD-Ryzen-Threadripper-PRO-7995WX-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X3D-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X#:~:text=CPU%20Single%20Thread%20Rating https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5726vs5234vs3862/AMD-Ry...
- coder543 3y ago
  Single threaded tasks should never run at the base clock. The base clock can pretty much be thought of as the minimum clock speed you should see when all cores are maxed out and the thermal solution is only just meeting the spec.
  - tedunangst 3y ago
    I still want my computer to remain responsive even when I'm rendering in the background.
    - dralley 3y ago
      I doubt 2.5ghz vs 4.2ghz is going to make any real difference to "responsiveness". The more pressing concern would be making sure the kernel actually schedules foreground workloads promptly.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Typical desktop OS's don't have proper prioritization and terrible schedulers. It's definitely not the hardware.
      - Racing0461 3y ago
        Maybe i'm missing why it doesn't matter. Ryzen runs at 4.5 base clock, TR Pro runs at 2.5 base clock, upon booting up nothing is happening so each cpu runs at their base clock. I open something like visual studio that isn't too intensive so each cpu doesn't realize it needs to boost. Won't the ryzen with 4.5 base clock feel snappier than the 2.5 one when vs loads? When a pretty big task (compiling, rendering) activates the scheduler and causes the cpu to boost to their respective 5 ghz or w/e, then yeah the numbers would be the same, but they don't be at the beginning when i'm dragging windows around and right clicking on stuff in visual studio. I don't believe this feeling is reflected in the scores.
        coder543 3y ago
        No. None of what you're writing is accurate. No processor made in the last decade will ever idle at the base clock. Any modern processor idles far, far lower than that, approximately 1Ghz, maybe even lower. Idling at multiple gigahertz would be a huge waste of energy. The minimum clock speed is not correlated to the "base clock" at all. It takes tens of milliseconds to reach the boost clock: https://stackoverflow.com/a/64254459 https://stackoverflow.com/a/64254459 The base clock is entirely irrelevant to everything you are talking about. Please reference my earlier comment for the meaning of "base clock": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37980293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37980293
        3y ago
- dathinab 3y ago
  since a few generations ago boosts have become so good that for many use-cases base clock don't matter that much AFIK it's basically tweaked AMD EPYC™ 9654 with much higher boost and some other changes, so that's probably where the base clock comes from some situations where the base clock might still matter: - you perfectly max out CPU utilization (no I/O, hardly cache misses, etc.) and at the same time have exactly only the thermal headroom from the spec and run it for a "long" time - you want to max optimize for watter/perf the best power efficiency is likely around the base clock (for this one because of my assumption of it being more or less a tweaked server processor, on a typical consumer desktop PC I would say likely quite a bit below the base clock)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

FullyFunctional 3y ago

Threadripper is as the name implies, purely MT focused. I run simulations that are inherently completely single-threaded and I lean on Geekbench which tend to be a good predictor for me. As far as I can tell, Intel still holds the crown in absolute ST perf, granted at horrific efficiencies: https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks/ https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks/ (be sure to ignore the "Top Single-Core Results" which AFAICT is full of BS numbers). Intel's latest 14900K isn't there yet, but should be a smidgen faster: https://www.techspot.com/news/100034-intel-core-i9-14900k-tops-geekbench-record-breaking.html https://www.techspot.com/news/100034-intel-core-i9-14900k-to...

elromulous 3y ago

> All i'm seeing is the confirmation that independently parallalizable tasks finish twice as fast on a cpu with twice the cores. cool, amdahl's law is proven. Yes, but if you can squeeze more cores in the same space (and/or power) envelope, and not suffer a performance per core penalty, you're winning.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]