3 ms·
On paper those specs definitely look game-changing to me. The newer one has three of the older CPUs on the side, for free. The i9 is even more ridiculous, havin
by jeffbee 2y ago
On paper those specs definitely look game-changing to me. The newer one has three of the older CPUs on the side, for free. The i9 is even more ridiculous, having what amounts to 4 quad-core Skylake CPUs as coprocessors (efficiency cores, in the parlance).
But people are underestimating the compound effect of 10 years of 15% generational improvements. The CPUs in the article will run your web browser 4x faster than the older CPU you mentioned, about 2x faster than a Ryzen 5 5500 that is only 2 years old.
- michaelt 2y ago> On paper those specs definitely look game-changing to me. The reality is that the newer processor is better in all benchmarks. Like 4-5x on the benchmarks I looked up, yes. But back in the day, the 'turbo' frequency was only available for a few seconds for thermal and power reasons, and the 'base' clock speed was how it would actually perform on big, compute-intensive tasks. If you only consider "8 performance cores, 2.1 GHz Base" vs "4 cores, 4.0 GHz base" and you also discount the 'efficiency cores', a person might think performance had barely changed.