Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Great CPU Stagnation

databasearchitects.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 222 posts

Re: The Great CPU Stagnation

#201

Post by Dalewyn »

senttoschool wrote: post #198
MindSpunk wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not saying you're wrong, because intel stagnation was very real, but please don't use userbenchmark as a source of numbers for anything. They're a terrible source with biased benchmarks and reporting. Just look at the dribble they write for basically any AMD product on their site ( https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/1817839/AMD-Ryzen-7-... , or this https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/2081998/AMD-Ryzen-7-...…

Likewise, please don't use Cinebench. It's a poor general purpose CPU benchmark that first favored Zen architecture (many slow cores) and now favors Intel's Raptor Lake. It's hand optimized for x86 instructions and is highly parallel, which is not how most applications run. Use Geekbench instead of Cinebench or Userbenchmark.

>It's a poor general purpose CPU benchmark that first favored Zen architecture (many slow cores) and now favors Intel's Raptor Lake.

Would you advise the same if the colors were reversed?

The majority of people here are AMD fanbois, so it's sometimes hard to discern whether something is rooted in objectivity or subjectivity.

Re: The Great CPU Stagnation

#202

Post by skavi »

senttoschool wrote: post #198
MindSpunk wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not saying you're wrong, because intel stagnation was very real, but please don't use userbenchmark as a source of numbers for anything. They're a terrible source with biased benchmarks and reporting. Just look at the dribble they write for basically any AMD product on their site ( https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/1817839/AMD-Ryzen-7-... , or this https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/2081998/AMD-Ryzen-7-...…

Likewise, please don't use Cinebench. It's a poor general purpose CPU benchmark that first favored Zen architecture (many slow cores) and now favors Intel's Raptor Lake. It's hand optimized for x86 instructions and is highly parallel, which is not how most applications run. Use Geekbench instead of Cinebench or Userbenchmark.

Geekbench generally lines up with SPEC, the industry standard. (at least for consumer stuff)

Re: The Great CPU Stagnation

#203

Post by nehal3m »

bhouston wrote: post #83

This "stagnation" is nothing like the stagnation during AMD's poorly performing Bulldozer era (the post Athlon era) where they were consistently beat by Intel's offerings and there was a general lack of innovation in the prosumer space. During that era for the most part Intel's i7 prosumer CPUs started with 4 cores with the Bloomfield Nehalem chips in 2008 (which at the time were awesome and a game changer) and ended…

Checking in as the awesome game changer.

Re: The Great CPU Stagnation

#204

Post by amiga-workbench »

dmarchand90 wrote: post #116
amiga-workbench wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only just upgraded from my i5 3570K to a Ryzen 7 5800X3D. Not because anything I was currently doing with my computer was becoming too slow, but because I wanted to do new things (VR). A shame, I wanted to run that thing into the ground. I've got my old system sat spare, I'm not sure what to do with it.

Nice processor choice... vrchat in mind? Haha

Yeah, but mostly Neos which loves all that L3 cache.

Re: The Great CPU Stagnation

#205

Post by nyanpasu64 »

Osiris wrote: post #195
nyanpasu64 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the recent Gamers Nexus videos on CPU overvolting and catching on fire? You should update your BIOS to prevent potential further damage.

That issue currently appears to be relevant only to the AM5 series boards and CPUs. The 5900X is an AM4 part.

I was replying to a comment mentioning a 7800X3D.

Re: The Great CPU Stagnation

#206

Post by FpUser »

didgetmaster wrote: post #129
lynx23 wrote: post #44

The perfect time to shed ourselves of the idea that "optimisation is a waste of dev-time". Mobile computing was the last godsent t actually rethink performance a little bit, but we still have a lot of relatively low-hanging fruit. I sometimes dream about a month-of-no-new-features, where everyone would just have a bit of time to clean up and improve on existing stuff.

It would be nice if every developer had to run their latest build on 10 year old hardware while testing it out. Instead of their high-powered development machine with the latest CPU, tons of high speed memory, and the fastest SSD; they would get to experience what many of their customers have to endure on slower hardware with capacity constraints. Nothing spurs optimization like seeing first hand how your code creeps…

>"It would be nice if every developer had to run their latest build on 10 year old hardware while testing it out."

That is exactly what I do with my desktop product. I test it on really crappy hardware first.

Re: The Great CPU Stagnation

#207

Post by zirgs »

fbdab103 wrote: post #186
pornel wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does require software taking advantage, but this was a chicken-egg problem caused by Intel's stagnation. When most CPUs had only 4 cores, developers had an easy excuse: two of the cores were "fake" HT cores so they didn't count, they'd use one core, and the other core was for the OS or other apps, so there's basically no point complicating software for so little gain. Only recently AMD has opened the floodgates an…

I mean Microsoft did just brag about cutting the Teams launch time to 9 seconds. Progress, baby!

Imagine if something like a digital camera booted up in 9 seconds.

Re: The Great CPU Stagnation

#208

Post by bhouston »

MindSpunk wrote: post #166
bhouston wrote: post #83

This "stagnation" is nothing like the stagnation during AMD's poorly performing Bulldozer era (the post Athlon era) where they were consistently beat by Intel's offerings and there was a general lack of innovation in the prosumer space. During that era for the most part Intel's i7 prosumer CPUs started with 4 cores with the Bloomfield Nehalem chips in 2008 (which at the time were awesome and a game changer) and ended…

Not saying you're wrong, because intel stagnation was very real, but please don't use userbenchmark as a source of numbers for anything. They're a terrible source with biased benchmarks and reporting. Just look at the dribble they write for basically any AMD product on their site ( https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/1817839/AMD-Ryzen-7-... , or this https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/2081998/AMD-Ryzen-7-...…

What the hell is that write up? I never noticed that before but it makes userbenchmark look really bad.

Re: The Great CPU Stagnation

#209

Post by JackSlateur »

f6v wrote: post #25
mhh__ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The leading Arm chip (by apple) is arguably the best in class.

I'm well aware of Apple’s success since I’m surrounded by their devices at home. It seems to me it can’t be attributed only to ARM. What I wonder is where’re someone can match Intel on Intel’s playing field, like supplying ARM chips to laptop manufacturers that are better than Intel.

Is there anything ISA-related in this ? Hardly

Using the last ASML's technology is a big part of the situation Using on-chip memory is another

Re: The Great CPU Stagnation

#210

Post by senttoschool »

Dalewyn wrote: post #201
senttoschool wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise, please don't use Cinebench. It's a poor general purpose CPU benchmark that first favored Zen architecture (many slow cores) and now favors Intel's Raptor Lake. It's hand optimized for x86 instructions and is highly parallel, which is not how most applications run. Use Geekbench instead of Cinebench or Userbenchmark.

>It's a poor general purpose CPU benchmark that first favored Zen architecture (many slow cores) and now favors Intel's Raptor Lake. Would you advise the same if the colors were reversed? The majority of people here are AMD fanbois, so it's sometimes hard to discern whether something is rooted in objectivity or subjectivity.

If you're an AMD fanboy, you'd only care about Cinebench despite the fact that its results do not correlate with gaming or other common applications such as browsing, Excel, video editing, etc.

There's a reason why x86 CPU users will only want to compare Apple Silicon using Cinebench. It's because Cinebench uses Intel Embree, which is hand optimized for x86 instructions. It's like testing Ryzen or Core CPUs on software optimized for ARM instructions, and then making a conclusion on how fast they are for x86 applications.

Use Geekbench.

Post reply on HN