No, but there is a strong relation between the ST and the MT score, regardless of the actual amount of cores present. Which makes the latter effectively meaningless.
No, it just shows that multithreading has overhead and does not scale all that well with the number of cores. And it also shows that Intel's E-cores are only useful for trivial parallel workloads.
Beyond a rather small amount GB6's MT score is highly tuned to be agnostic to the amount of cores present.
Not really. It's just how CPUs are marketed. Higher-end CPUs usually have both more cores and higher single-core boost. Which is why for many of the current models the two scores appear correlated. Well, because they are, that's how the chip is configured to begin with.
It becomes a bit more clear with Apple who is probably the only manufacturer that ships CPUs with consistent clock configuration across models. If you look at MT scores of M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra you will see that every additional cluster of four cores adds about 50% of the original MT score. That's your locking/cache coherency overhead. Makes sense to me.
Yeah, single specific workload run in isolation. That's not what happens in reality. That's also not what users looking at 7950X, Threadripper, workstation or server chips usually want. Instead they want to run a higher amount of workloads concurrently without hitting bottlenecks. For that purpose GB6's MT score is completely misleading while GB4's and GB5's MT scores were rather serviceable.
For some workloads, sure. But GB6 also includes trivially parallelizable tasks that scale very well with the number of cores, like RT. And of course, if you have some specific use case in mind you should benchmark that use case.
Reminder that before Ryzen
Intel actually started with Cinebench as marketing benchmark (wtftech article and slide from 2011). Cinebench was
known as Intel-optimized to boot, so obviously once AMD could showcase beating Intel with it using Ryzen they did just that.
Cinebench massively favours high core counts (trivially parallel work) as well as fast/wide SIMD units and caches (long data dependency chains, SIMD heavy). It overestimates performance in any kind of workload that doesn't use SIMD that much or actual needs some cooperation between the cores.
Luckily we have a ton of other, more useful benchmarks for that, so I'm OK with GB 6 showing MT performance as it is, as long as people understand that is not what you look at to evaluate CPU's for HPC/heavy CPU transcode/Code Compile/Scientific and many more.
I don't think it's that much off for code compile. Compilation is known to show diminishing returns with increasing core count.
openbenchmarking.org
Here you can see how doubling the amount of cores (with the same power/frequency per core) doesn't reduce the time in half. The scaling observed there isn't that different from what we see in GB6.
www.computerbase.de
Facebook
Twitter