If it's for a laptop then a lower tdp, more powerful igpu with better driver support. If it's for a desktop then price and not being tied to Intel's platform limitations.
AMD's better SMT? Do you really think AMD's first crack at it, after mocking Intel for using the technique back in 2011/2012, will be superior to a 4th gen implementation in Broadwell?
You cannot pick Blender as THE benchmark to measure how SMT works on both platforms. You need more, heterogeneous tests to be performed.My hypothesis is that ST is inferior and that AMD's better SMT makes up for the differences plus that 2% seen in blender test...
You cannot pick Blender as THE benchmark to measure how SMT works on both platforms. You need more, heterogeneous tests to be performed.
BTW, I want to stress one thing: the Blender test has only "measured" (with quotes because nobody knows exactly the platforms' settings, and nobody actually can reproduce the results) the IPC.
So, it's not a measure of possible performances, since there are missing two important things: frequencies AND Turbo (which was disabled, AFAIK). Don't underestimate the influence of Turbo on the real performances.
You cannot pick Blender as THE benchmark to measure how SMT works on both platforms. You need more, heterogeneous tests to be performed.
BTW, I want to stress one thing: the Blender test has only "measured" (with quotes because nobody knows exactly the platforms' settings, and nobody actually can reproduce the results) the IPC.
So, it's not a measure of possible performances, since there are missing two important things: frequencies AND Turbo (which was disabled, AFAIK). Don't underestimate the influence of Turbo on the real performances.
It only measured the CPU Throughput capability at fixed 3GHz, not the IPC.
You forgot the maximum of 6 uops/cycle that the Micro-op cache can deliver to the schedulers, which limits the usage of the 10 ports/units.Every FP code requires also some INT code, for jump, loop, load/store. AMD has 4 INT PLUS 4 FP ports. INTEL has 4 SHARED ports for INT and FP.
While for ST code these can be enough (i don't expect AMD ST be superior to INTEL's for this fact alone), for MT code this can be not enough...
2% in ONE test?Here comes AMD's advantage.
As I said before, it's only ONE test. And it tested only the IPC: not real-world performances.Anyway, given blender results, either AMD's ST is superior or AMD's SMT... Your choice... No way otherwise...
You forgot to qualify that with "in this specific benchmark". It is promising but far from conclusive evidence.Every FP code requires also some INT code, for jump, loop, load/store. AMD has 4 INT PLUS 4 FP ports. INTEL has 4 SHARED ports for INT and FP.
While for ST code these can be enough (i don't expect AMD ST be superior to INTEL's for this fact alone), for MT code this can be not enough...
Here comes AMD's advantage.
Anyway, given blender results, either AMD's ST is superior or AMD's SMT... Your choice... No way otherwise...
Having fixed the frequency, the IPC is only a division ahead...
With fixed frequency and turbo disabled, your target is the IPC.It only measured the CPU Throughput capability at fixed 3GHz, not the IPC.
Well, Intel has also a very long tradition of power-saving techniques and Turbo technologies. So, let me doubt a bit of what you stated.Yes, but we both agreed we were talking about IPC. And given AVFS and many power saving features, i think that Zen can even turbo more than INTEL...
Ehm... no. AotS didn't show a similar outcome, and BTW it didn't measured the IPC.Regarding the sole benchmark... THis is what we have... Yes, we have also AotS that shows similar outcome, but we'll see...
Nevertheless, you're still measuring the IPC. Only one more division required...Only if they would run the benchmark with a Single Core Single Thread. The test was performed with all 8Cores 16Threads, that measured the entire CPU Throughput (CPU MT Scaling, CPU IPC, CPU SMT etc etc).
Nevertheless, you're still measuring the IPC. Only one more division required...
take a look at the definition of IPCDivision by what? You don't know MT scaling, you don't know SMT scaling and without those, you can't divide.
take a look at the definition of IPC
Sure, now you may ignore MT/SMT scaling but you don't know amount of instructions executed. What now?Wikipedia copypaste said:In computer architecture, instructions per cycle (IPC) is one aspect of a processor's performance: the average number of instructions executed for each clock cycle.
You were asked a different question: since you consider the test was indicative of IPC as the appropriate values are one division away, please develop on this further and explain how division is to be applied. Otherwise having people "read up" on what IPC means is hardly helpful for the purpose of this conversation.take a look at the definition of IPC
Nothing. I do have Ivy Bridge CPU.People who are hoping for a quad core Zen with Ivy IPC, what exactly has stopped you from buying an IVY BRIDGE CPU???
You forgot the maximum of 6 uops/cycle that the Micro-op cache can deliver to the schedulers, which limits the usage of the 10 ports/units.
2% in ONE test?
As I said before, it's only ONE test. And it tested only the IPC: not real-world performances.
Let's wait for more tests, with final frequencies AND Turbo activated.
Ehm... no. AotS didn't show a similar outcome, and BTW it didn't measured the IPC.
Also a geekbench result. Take with a grain of salt.
http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=273864&postcount=3883
If this is legit, Zen IPC is slightly worse than Broadwell's.
You forgot that GTX 1050 Ti will be locked by no 6 pin connector. It can be bottlenecked by this factor, not the process.Since we haven't had a proper derail for few days now: More information about nVidia GP107 (GTX 1050 / Ti) has been started to pop out, and it appears that the rumors about GP107 being manufactured on Samsung 14nm LPP were accurate. If it turns out to be true, it is pretty much ends the speculation about how the different processes compare between each other. If the GP107 is infact manufactured on 14nm LPP, it pretty much proves (together with the other available evidence) that Samsung process is inferior to TSMC 16nm FF+ in terms of Fmax. GP107 has 519MHz (or > 27%) lower maximum boost frequency than GP106 (GTX 1060), which puts the clocks to similar range as on AMD Polaris ASICs (< 1400MHz).
Last time I checked GB4 doesn't correctly report boost clocks.