3 ms·

Because the low power laptop part has rather different characteristics to the desktop part, according to CPUmark benchmarks. It's not surprising that the low po

• menaerus 1y ago
  I mean, the base and turbo frequency are about the same on both parts, and the workload is very very simple. Case where TDP would matter is with the workload sucking up all the power budget of a whole chip in which case frequency would have to be downscaled in order to remain within the limits. I doubt this is the case here but I guess this can also be measured if one is curious enough. In my case, only sqrt was slower, the rest was 2x faster on a more modern CPU. I reran the experiment in a VM, on a company's Xeon server clocked @2.2GHz, and results are again pretty much the same as before: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benchmark Time CPU Iterations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- bench_getuid 778 ns 778 ns 901999 bench_getpid 774 ns 774 ns 902699 bench_close 779 ns 779 ns 896939 bench_syscall 761 ns 761 ns 916941 bench_sched_yield 1121 ns 1121 ns 566012 bench_clock_gettime 22.1 ns 22.1 ns 31579512 bench_clock_gettime_tai 22.0 ns 22.0 ns 31502402 bench_clock_gettime_monotonic 22.1 ns 22.1 ns 31848177 bench_clock_gettime_monotonic_raw 22.4 ns 22.4 ns 30953415 bench_nanosleep0 57424 ns 6967 ns 98218 bench_nanosleep0_slack1 6342 ns 6340 ns 110862 bench_nanosleep1_slack1 6310 ns 6308 ns 111064 bench_pthread_cond_signal 3.23 ns 3.23 ns 216726274 bench_assign 0.323 ns 0.323 ns 1000000000 bench_sqrt 2.64 ns 2.64 ns 265275643 bench_sqrtrec 4.40 ns 4.40 ns 160328959 bench_nothing 0.000 ns 0.000 ns 1000000000