3 ms·
> We'd have to look at actual Intel benchmarks to see, but if the AVX2 to AVX512 improvements are marginal, a multithreaded AVX2 version across more cores would
by kllrnohj 1y ago
> We'd have to look at actual Intel benchmarks to see, but if the AVX2 to AVX512 improvements are marginal, a multithreaded AVX2 version across more cores would likely outperform a multithreaded AVX512 version across fewer cores.
Look at any existing heavily multithreaded benchmark like Blender rendering. The E-cores are so weak that it just about takes 2 of them to match the performance of an AMD core. If the only difference was AVX512 support then yeah, 24 AVX2 cores would beat 16 AVX-512 cores. But that's not the only difference, not even close.
That's not to say a 24 core Core 9 Ultra Whatever would be slower than a 16 core 9950X in this workload. Just that the E-cores are kinda shit, especially in the wonky counts Intel is using (too many to just be about power efficiency, too few to really offset how slow they are)
- zozbot234 1y ago> The E-cores are so weak that it just about takes 2 of them to match the performance of an AMD core. That's not "weak". If you look at available die-shot analyses, the E-cores are tiny compared to the P-cores, they take up a lot less than half in area and even less in power. P-cores are really only useful for the rare pure single-threaded workload, but E-cores will win otherwise.
- kllrnohj 1y agoWe're not comparing to Intel's P cores but AMDs cores. 8 of AMDs cores fit in 70.6mm2 on a high performance process, and take up a fraction of that space on a high density process (see the 192 core Zen 5c chips)