3 ms·

An intel 12900k (Gen 12) compared to a 2600k (Gen 2, launched 2011) is about 120% faster or a bit over 2 times in single threaded applications, those +5-15% upl

An intel 12900k (Gen 12) compared to a 2600k (Gen 2, launched 2011) is about 120% faster or a bit over 2 times in single threaded applications, those +5-15% uplifts every generation add up over time but its nothing like the earlier years when they might double in performance in a single generation. It really depends if that application uses AES 256 bit and other modern instructions. The 12900k has 16 cores vs 4 of the 2600k, although 8 of those extra cores are E-cores. This performance increase doesn't necessarily come from free given the application may need to be adjusted to utilise those extra cores especially when half of them are slower to ensure the workload is distributed properly. Even within a vertical scaling by getting a new processor for just single threaded applications its interesting that much of the big benefits come from targeting the new instructions and then the new cores. Both of which may require source updates to get significant performance uplift from. https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_12700k-vs-intel_core_i7_2600k https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_1270...

einpoklum 2y ago
> is about 120% faster or a bit over 2 times in single threaded applications 1. Doesn't that also account for speedups in memory and I/O? 2. Even if the app is single-threaded, the OS isn't, so unless it's very very inactive other than the foreground application (which is possible), there might still be an effect of the higher core count.
- jaggederest 2y ago
  Unless you're multitasking, the OS on a separate thread gets you about 5-10% speedup. It's not really noteworthy. Unless you lived through the 1990s I don't think you understand how fast things were improving. Routine doubling of scores every 18 months is an insane thing. In 1990 the state of the art was 8mhz chips. By 2002, the state of the art was a 5ghz chip. So almost a thousand times faster in a decade. Are chips now a thousand times faster than they were in 2015? No they are not.
  - sidewndr46 2y ago
    What does "the OS on a separate thread" mean? I'm also not aware of any consumer chips running 5 GHz in 2002
    - klodolph 2y ago
      When the parent comment says “OS on a separate thread”, they’re talking about the fact that even if your user-space workload is single-threaded, the OS has a separate set of threads, which can run on separate cores from the user thread. The P4 was famously overclocked to 5 GHz in 2003.
      - sidewndr46 2y ago
        Overclocked CPUs aren't really relevant to what is actually available for use.
        bee_rider 2y ago
        Well, in any case, we’re only going to quibble our way down to an 500x-800x speedup, right? It was still a pretty crazy era to live through.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  Funnily enough, most apps aren't taking enough advantage of multi-core multi-threading environments that are common across all major platforms. The single biggest bottleneck to improvement is the general lack of developers using the APIs to the fullest extent when designing applications. Its not really hardware anymore. Though, to the points being made, we aren't seeing the 18 month doubling like we did in the earlier decades of computing.
antisthenes 2y ago
> This performance increase doesn't necessarily come from free given the application may need to be adjusted to utilise those extra cores especially when half of them are slower to ensure the workload is distributed properly. It especially doesn't come for free when you consider that 12900k uses nearly 2.5x the power of a 2600k at peak. I'm not even sure 12900k can operate at full load under air cooling for longer than a few minutes.

einpoklum 2y ago

> is about 120% faster or a bit over 2 times in single threaded applications 1. Doesn't that also account for speedups in memory and I/O? 2. Even if the app is single-threaded, the OS isn't, so unless it's very very inactive other than the foreground application (which is possible), there might still be an effect of the higher core count.

jaggederest 2y ago
Unless you're multitasking, the OS on a separate thread gets you about 5-10% speedup. It's not really noteworthy. Unless you lived through the 1990s I don't think you understand how fast things were improving. Routine doubling of scores every 18 months is an insane thing. In 1990 the state of the art was 8mhz chips. By 2002, the state of the art was a 5ghz chip. So almost a thousand times faster in a decade. Are chips now a thousand times faster than they were in 2015? No they are not.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  What does "the OS on a separate thread" mean? I'm also not aware of any consumer chips running 5 GHz in 2002
  - klodolph 2y ago
    When the parent comment says “OS on a separate thread”, they’re talking about the fact that even if your user-space workload is single-threaded, the OS has a separate set of threads, which can run on separate cores from the user thread. The P4 was famously overclocked to 5 GHz in 2003.
    - sidewndr46 2y ago
      Overclocked CPUs aren't really relevant to what is actually available for use.
      - bee_rider 2y ago
        Well, in any case, we’re only going to quibble our way down to an 500x-800x speedup, right? It was still a pretty crazy era to live through.
no_wizard 2y ago
Funnily enough, most apps aren't taking enough advantage of multi-core multi-threading environments that are common across all major platforms. The single biggest bottleneck to improvement is the general lack of developers using the APIs to the fullest extent when designing applications. Its not really hardware anymore. Though, to the points being made, we aren't seeing the 18 month doubling like we did in the earlier decades of computing.

antisthenes 2y ago

> This performance increase doesn't necessarily come from free given the application may need to be adjusted to utilise those extra cores especially when half of them are slower to ensure the workload is distributed properly. It especially doesn't come for free when you consider that 12900k uses nearly 2.5x the power of a 2600k at peak. I'm not even sure 12900k can operate at full load under air cooling for longer than a few minutes.