• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Page 371 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,116
936
136
Imho he has no real clue about the gains, I would agree ADL-S will be something big but saying like there is a 20% IPC improvement is just a guess or speculation at the moment. Initially he said 10-20% and may be he saw the Geekbench leak and thought it could be bigger than usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tarkin77

cortexa99

Member
Jul 2, 2018
159
225
86
Intel is listing a new Comet Lake-S processor, Core i9 10900KS


Intel's MIGHTY 14nm should be written in semiconductor history because of its particularity. /facepalm/
 

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,982
421
126
For those of you interested in IPC calculated from Anandtech reviews read on.

For the rest of you, move along, don't waste your time here.

I went back through all of the Anandtech reviews and compiled the following core-to-core comparisons. In some cases minor normalization of clocks was required, but it was minimal, the worst case was 100MHz.
Except for Skylake to Sunny Cove all comparisons were desktop-to-desktop. For Skylake to Sunny Cove I compared 1065G7 to 8550u.
The MOST objective part of this was I had in some cases where I didn't just average all of the benchmarks I had to pick some to use for the final average. In my original spreadsheet they are represented by bold font but in the copy/paste that doesn't come through. If you are interested in the original spreadsheet PM me.
I tried to average benches so they were unfairly weighted to a particular set of benchmarks.
I have the least faith in the Skylake to Sunny Cove comparison due to the variation in clocks during benchmarks due to thermals. I tried to stay with Dell laptops in hopes their thermal solutions would be comparable. When Ian tests Rocket Lake we'll know the true IPC increase from Skylake to Sunny Cove.

Haswell doesn't look as good as it should because there were actually architectural improvements in Ivy Bridge, which mitigate the Haswell improvement from Sandy Bridge. Sandy to Haswell would actually be more like 16% if Ivy was a normal die shrink without architectural changes. This seems about right as Haswell was a big update.

Everybody will have their opinion on what bench/application is most relevant. Having done this work myself, and using a verified source I trust (Anandtech) I'm going with these numbers for my future reference.

Here are my final results with the data below.

P4 to Conroe​
82.7%​
Conroe to Nahalem​
21.2%​
Nahalem to Sandy Bridge​
13.7%​
Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge​
6.8%​
Ivy Bridge to Haswell​
8.9%​
Haswell to Skylake​
9.5%​
Skylake to Sunny Cove​
21.3%​


Clock2.933
Sysmark 2004X6800Pentium D 930NormalizedIPC
Overall
371​
211​
206​
80.0%​
Internet Content Creation
482​
256​
250​
92.8%​
Office Productivity
285​
174​
170​
67.7%​
3D Content Creation
447​
232​
227​
97.3%​
2D Content Creation
568​
302​
295​
92.6%​
Web Publication
442​
240​
234​
88.6%​
Communication And Networking
202​
142​
139​
45.7%​
Document Creation
380​
206​
201​
88.9%​
Data Analysis
302​
180​
176​
71.8%​
Average
80.6%​
PC WorldBench 5
Overall WorldBench Score
156​
99​
97​
61.3%​
3D Rendering
2dsmax7
4.11​
2.13​
2​
97.6%​
Cinebench 1CPU
486​
256​
250​
94.4%​
Cinebench XCPU
892​
460​
449​
98.5%​
Average
96.8%​
Video Encoding
Xmpeg 5.03 with DivX 6.1
19.4​
12.2​
12​
62.8%​
Windows Media Encoder WMV9
61.6​
32.4​
32​
94.7%​
QuickTime v7.1H.264 (sec to encode)
120​
223.2​
229​
86.0%​
Average
81.2%​
Audio Encoding
iTunes 6 MP3
26​
48​
49​
84.6%​
P4 to Conroe Average82.7%

NahalemConroe
SYSmark 2007i7-965-3.2GHzQX9770-3.2GHzIPC
SysMarks
238​
222​
7.2%​
E-Learning
208​
198​
5.1%​
Video Creation
277​
265​
4.5%​
Productivity
234​
224​
4.5%​
3D
239​
207​
15.5%​
Average
7.3%​
3D Rendering
POV-Ray 3.7 beta 29
4202​
2641​
59.1%​
Cinebench R10 - 1CPU
4475​
3937​
13.7%​
Cinebench R10 - XCPU
18810​
14065​
33.7%​
3dsmax CPU Composite
17.6​
13.1​
34.4%​
Average
35.2%​
Encoding
x264 HD pass 1
85.8​
73.2​
17.2%​
x264 HD pass 2
31.6​
21.3​
48.4%​
DivX (seconds)
32.8​
42.4​
22.6%​
Windows Media Encoder (sec)
24​
29​
20.8%​
iTunes MP3 (seconds)
26.4​
25.2​
-4.5%​
Average
20.9%​
Conroe to Nahalem
21.2%​

Clock3.43.33
Sysmark 20072600Ki7-975NormalizedIPC
Overall
274​
251​
245​
11.8%​
Photoshop CS4
Retouch Artists Benchmark (seconds)
11.3​
14.4​
14​
27.4%​
File Compression/Decompression
PAR2 Multithreaded (seconds)
17.3​
23.7​
23​
37.0%​
WinRAR 3.80 Compression (sec)
59.6​
74​
72​
24.2%​
7-Zip Benchmark
19744​
20217​
20642​
-2.3%​
7-Zip Compression
4611​
4447​
4540​
3.7%​
Average
15.6%​
3D Rendering
Blender 3D Character Render (sec)
40.1​
46.8​
46​
16.7%​
POV-Ray 3.7
4875​
4379​
4471​
11.3%​
3dsmax 9
20.1​
17.7​
18​
13.6%​
Cinebench 10 1CPU
5991​
4651​
4749​
28.8%​
Cinebench XCPU
22875​
20407​
20836​
12.1%​
Average
16.5%​
Video Encoding
Xmpeg+DivX Encode (seconds)
29.1​
31.3​
31​
7.6%​
Windows Media Encoder WMV9 (sec)
20​
23​
23​
15.0%​
x264 HD 1st Pass
106.4​
91.7​
94​
16.0%​
x264 HD 2nd Pass
36.3​
33.1​
32​
12.0%​
Average
12.6%​
Visial Studio 2008 (minutes)
18.6​
21​
21​
12.9%​
Flash video - Sorenson Squeeze (sec)
72.7​
90.4​
89​
24.3%​
Excel Math - Monte Carlo Sim (sec)
11.1​
12​
12​
8.1%​
Excel Math Operations (seconds)
3.4​
3.183​
3​
-6.4%​
Nahalem to Sandy Bridge
13.7%​

Clock3.93.8
SYSmark 20123770K2600KNormalizedIPC
SysMarks Overall
228​
212.0​
217.6​
4.8%​
Office Productivity
189​
176.0​
180.6​
4.6%​
Media Creation
218​
197.0​
202.2​
7.8%​
Productivity
235​
221.0​
226.8​
3.6%​
Data/Financial Analysis
277​
268.0​
275.1​
0.7%​
3D Modeling
260​
234.0​
240.2​
8.3%​
System Management
200​
187.0​
191.9​
4.2%​
Average
4.9%​
SYSmark 2007
SysMarks Overall
303​
274.0​
281.2​
7.7%​
Productivity
276​
283.0​
290.4​
-5.0%​
E-Learning
308​
244.0​
250.4​
23.0%​
Video Creation
293​
255.0​
261.7​
12.0%​
3D
340​
318.0​
326.4​
4.2%​
Average
8.4%​
3D Rendering
POV-Ray 3.7 beta 29
Cinebench R11.5 - 1CPU
1.66​
1.5​
1.6​
6.4%​
Cinebench R11.5 - XCPU
7.61​
6.9​
7.0​
8.1%​
3dsmax R9
21.8​
20.1​
20.6​
5.7%​
Average
6.7%​
Encoding
x264 HD pass 1
104.2​
94.9​
97.4​
7.0%​
x264 HD pass 2
41​
36.0​
36.9​
11.0%​
Average
9.0%​
Build Chromium Product Visual Studio (min)
17.7​
18.6​
18.1​
2.4%​
Photoshop CS4 - Retouch Artist (sec)
10.3​
11.3​
11.0​
6.9%​
Compression and Encryption
7-zip - 32MB Dictionary
22810​
19744​
20263.6​
12.6%​
AES-128 - True Crypt 7.1
3.7​
3.4​
3.5​
6.0%​
Average
9.3%​
Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge
6.8%​

4770K3770KIPC
POV-Ray 3.7
1541.3​
1363.6​
13.0%​
Cinebench R11.5 - 1CPU
1.78​
1.7​
7.2%​
Cinebench R11.5 - XCPU
8.07​
7.6​
6.0%​
7-zip single thread
4807​
4716.0​
1.9%​
7-zip multithreaded
23101​
22810.0​
1.3%​
Kraken Java Script (Chrome) ms
1218.3​
1313​
7.8%​
PCMark-7 Overall
6747​
6268.0​
7.6%​
x264 HD 1st Pass
79.1​
74.8​
5.7%​
2x64 HD 2nd Pass
16.5​
14.6​
13.0%​
TrueCrypt AES
4.4​
3.7​
18.9%​
Visual Studio 2012 - Build Firefox (minutes)
20.1​
23.1​
14.9%​
Ivy Bridge to Haswell
8.9%​

Clock3.43.33
6700K4770KNormalizedIPC
WinRAR 5.01 Compression (sec)
48.97​
54.5​
51​
3.3%​
7-Zip Compression
26370​
24100​
25954​
1.6%​
3D Particle Movement single thread
140.7​
129.37​
139​
1.0%​
3D Particle Movement multithread
803.68​
727.64​
784​
2.6%​
Cinebench 10 1CPU
9052​
7718​
8312​
8.9%​
Cinebench 10 XCPU
36747​
30095​
32410​
13.4%​
x264 HD 1st Pass
133.48​
112.43​
121​
10.2%​
x264 HD 2nd Pass
55.9​
46.7​
50​
11.2%​
Google Octane v2
45345​
32193​
34669​
30.8%​
WebXPRT
2949​
2594​
2794​
5.6%​
Dolphin Emulation (minutes)
6.47​
7.63​
7​
9.5%​
Fastone Image Viewer 4,9 (seconds)
34​
40​
37​
9.2%​
Sunspider (ms)
127​
121​
112​
-11.5%​
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 (ms)
735​
1091​
1013​
37.8%​
Haswell to Skylake
9.5%​

Clock3.94.2
1065G78650uNormalizedIPC
PCMark 10 - Essentials
9325​
8413​
7812​
19.4%​
PCMark 10 - Productivity
7008​
6480​
6017​
16.5%​
PCMark 10 - Digital Content Creation
3902​
3035​
2818​
38.5%​
PCMark 10 - Overall
4546​
3875​
3598​
26.3%​
Cinebench R15 single thread
181.14​
170​
158​
14.7%​
Cinebench R15 multithread
826.7​
658.84​
612​
35.1%​
x264 HD 1st Pass
73.72​
68.81​
64​
15.4%​
x264 HD 2nd Pass
14.37​
13.85​
13​
11.7%​
Google Octane v2
40002​
35532​
32994​
21.2%​
WebXPRT 3
223​
208​
193​
15.5%​
WebXPRT 2015
593​
557​
517​
14.7%​
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 (ms)
956.9​
1123​
1209​
26.4%​
Skylake to Sunny Cove
21.3%​
 

bumble81

Junior Member
Feb 14, 2021
7
1
16
Thanks for the nice data. AFAIK Intel uses a GeoMean for their IPC summaries. GeoMean is commonly used for growth rates. Might be more comparable if you would too.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
22,742
990
126
Thanks for the nice data. AFAIK Intel uses a GeoMean for their IPC summaries. GeoMean is commonly used for growth rates. Might be more comparable if you would too.
It helps to describe why people use geometric means. Geometric means are almost always slightly lower than averages. But when you need to eventually multiply effects, such as multiplying increases in IPC, the geometric mean yields the correct result when averages overestimate the final result. Geometric means are based on multiplication while averages are based on addition. So anything that you want to multiply effects together does better with geometric means.

For example, suppose the initial IPC was 100. Suppose there is a 30% gain, then a 10% gain, then a 20% gain. The final IPC is 100*1.3*1.1*1.2 = 171.6.

Average gain: (1.3 + 1.1 +1.2) / 3 = 1.2. Try the IPC calculation using averages: 100 * 1.2 * 1.2 * 1.2 = 172.8. This is slightly higher than the true result of 171.6.

Geometric gain: (1.3*1.1*1.2)^(1/3) = 1.1972. This 1.1972 geometric mean gain is just slightly lower than the average gain of 1.2. Try the IPC calculation using geometric mean: 100 * 1.972 * 1.972 * 1.972 = 171.6. This exactly matches the IPC gain if you used the actual numbers.
 
Last edited:

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,116
936
136
Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge wasn't 6.8%, more like 3-4% and if you round it to 5% it's fine, actually all should be rounded because depending on the apps and games IPC gains will alyways differ from test to test.
 

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,982
421
126
Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge wasn't 6.8%, more like 3-4% and if you round it to 5% it's fine, actually all should be rounded because depending on the apps and games IPC gains will alyways differ from test to test.
I'm not making the numbers up. They are coming directly from the Anandtech review. The limited tests he choose resulted in that number.
I'm recalculating using geomeans now...

And yes, benchmarks can fluctuate wildly. That's why I stay with Anandtech results only, and only compare numbers contained within the same review. Things can change from review-to-review with the same processor. I have lived through all of these releases and more unfortunately:( I'm saying this because I remember these results being considered quite valid and almost canonical when the reviews were published.
 

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,982
421
126
This is a "throughput" analysis of Intel CPU architecture from P4 through Sunny Cove computed from Anandtech benchmark results.

Notes:
This is not IPC as my colleagues have pointed out but a measure of the speed a processor computes a workload as compared to another at the same frequency.

Only CPU's from within the same testing review are compared.

I tried to maintain 3 significant digits because that is is how most results were reported. That being said precision and accuracy are unknown with these benchmarks.

If Ivy Bridge results seems higher than expected, keep in mind Ivy Bridge was a "Tick+" and had as Anand wrote "a more aggressive turbo" than Sandy Bridge. This could skew results.

Here are the Ivy Bridge core changes:
- Data structures previously statically shared between threads can now be dynamically shared (e.g. DSB queue), improves single threaded performance
- FP/integer divider delivers 2x throughput compared to Sandy Bridge
- MOV instructions no longer occupy an execution port, potential for improved ILP when MOVs are present

I personally have the least faith in the Skylake to Sunny Cove calculations because due to thermal throttling clocks are most likely wildly fluctuating, meaning large performance variation among the same CPU in different laptops. I compared Sunny Cove to the fastest 8550u in each test. We will have better Skylake to Sunny Cove data when RKL is released and I will update these results then.

Intel Generational "throughput" Comparison Results​
Geomean​
Average​
P4 to Conroe
82.7%​

83.4%​
Conroe to Nahalem
20.2%​
22.4%​
Nahalem to Sandy Bridge
11.8%​
12.2%​
Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge
6.7%​
6.9%​
Ivy Bridge to Haswell
8.7%​
8.9%​
Haswell to Skylake
8.9%​
9.5%​
Skylake to Sunny Cove
21.0%​
21.3%​
P4 to Conroe2.933Clock
Sysmark 2004X6800Pentium D 930NormalizedIPC
Overall
371​
211​
206​
80.0%​
Internet Content Creation
482​
256​
250​
92.8%​
Office Productivity
285​
174​
170​
67.7%​
3D Content Creation
447​
232​
227​
97.3%​
2D Content Creation
568​
302​
295​
92.6%​
Web Publication
442​
240​
234​
88.6%​
Communication And Networking
202​
142​
139​
45.7%​
Document Creation
380​
206​
201​
88.9%​
Data Analysis
302​
180​
176​
71.8%​
PC WorldBench 5
Overall WorldBench Score
156​
99​
97​
61.3%​
3D Rendering
2dsmax7
4.11​
2.13​
2​
97.6%​
Cinebench 1CPU
486​
256​
250​
94.4%​
Cinebench XCPU
892​
460​
449​
98.5%​
96.8%​
Video Encoding
Xmpeg 5.03 with DivX 6.1
19.4​
12.2​
12​
62.8%​
Windows Media Encoder WMV9
61.6​
32.4​
32​
94.7%​
QuickTime v7.1H.264 (seconds)
0.0083​
223.2​
0.0044​
90.8%​
82.8%​
Audio Encoding
iTunes 6 MP3 (seconds)
0.0385​
48​
0.0204​
88.5%​
61.13​
33.47​
83.4%​
P4 to Conroe (Geomean)82.7%
Conroe to NahalemNahalemConroe
SYSmark 2007i7-965-3.2GHzQX9770-3.2GHzIPC
SysMarks
238​
222​
7.2%​
E-Learning
208​
198​
5.1%​
Video Creation
277​
265​
4.5%​
Productivity
234​
224​
4.5%​
3D
239​
207​
15.5%​
7.3%​
3D Rendering
POV-Ray 3.7 beta 29
4202​
2641​
59.1%​
Cinebench R10 - 1CPU
4475​
3937​
13.7%​
Cinebench R10 - XCPU
18810​
14065​
33.7%​
3dsmax CPU Composite
17.6​
13.1​
34.4%​
35.2%​
Encoding
x264 HD pass 1
85.8​
73.2​
17.2%​
x264 HD pass 2
31.6​
21.3​
48.4%​
DivX (seconds)
0.0305​
0.0236​
29.3%​
Windows Media Encoder (seconds)
0.0417​
0.0345​
20.8%​
iTunes MP3 (seconds)
0.0397​
0.0379​
4.8%​
50.24​
41.80​
24.1%​
22.4%​
Conroe to Nahalem (Geomean)
20.2%​


Nahalem to Sandy Bridge3.43.33Clock
Sysmark 20072600Ki7-975NormalizedIPC
Overall
274​
251​
245​
11.8%​
Photoshop CS4
Retouch Artists Benchmark (seconds)
0.0885​
14.4​
0.0714​
23.9%​
File Compression/Decompression
PAR2 Multithreaded (seconds)
0.0578​
23.7​
0.0431​
34.2%​
WinRAR 3.80 Compression (seconds)
0.0168​
74​
0.0138​
21.6%​
7-Zip Benchmark
19744​
20217​
20642​
-4.4%​
7-Zip Compression
4611​
4447​
4540​
1.6%​
13.2%​
3D Rendering
Blender 3D Character Render (seconds)
0.0249​
46.8​
0.0218​
14.3%​
POV-Ray 3.7
4875​
4379​
4471​
9.0%​
3dsmax 9
20.1​
17.7​
18​
11.2%​
Cinebench 10 1CPU
5991​
4651​
4749​
26.2%​
Cinebench XCPU
22875​
20407​
20836​
9.8%​
14.1%​
Video Encoding
Xmpeg+DivX Encode (seconds)
0.0344​
31.3​
0.0326​
5.3%​
Windows Media Encoder WMV9 (seconds)
0.0500​
23​
0.0444​
12.6%​
x264 HD 1st Pass
106.4​
91.7​
94​
13.6%​
x264 HD 2nd Pass
36.3​
33.1​
32​
12.0%​
10.9%​
Flash video/Excel
Visial Studio 2008 (minutes)
0.0538​
21​
0.0486​
10.6%​
Flash video - Sorenson Squeeze (seconds)
0.0138​
90.4​
0.0113​
21.8%​
Excel Math - Monte Carlo Sim (seconds)
0.0901​
12​
0.0851​
5.9%​
Excel Math Operations (seconds)
0.2941​
3.183​
0.3208​
-8.3%​
274.00​
245.14​
12.2%​
Nahalem to Sandy Bridge
11.8%​
Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge3.93.8Clock
SYSmark 20123770K2600KNormalizedIPC
SysMarks Overall
228​
212.0​
217.6​
4.8%​
Office Productivity
189​
176.0​
180.6​
4.6%​
Media Creation
218​
197.0​
202.2​
7.8%​
Productivity
235​
221.0​
226.8​
3.6%​
Data/Financial Analysis
277​
268.0​
275.1​
0.7%​
3D Modeling
260​
234.0​
240.2​
8.3%​
System Management
200​
187.0​
191.9​
4.2%​
4.9%​
SYSmark 2007
SysMarks Overall
303​
274.0​
281.2​
7.7%​
Productivity
276​
283.0​
290.4​
-5.0%​
E-Learning
308​
244.0​
250.4​
23.0%​
Video Creation
293​
255.0​
261.7​
12.0%​
3D
340​
318.0​
326.4​
4.2%​
8.4%​
3D Rendering
POV-Ray 3.7 beta 29
Cinebench R11.5 - 1CPU
1.66​
1.5​
1.6​
6.4%​
Cinebench R11.5 - XCPU
7.61​
6.9​
7.0​
8.1%​
3dsmax R9
21.8​
20.1​
20.6​
5.7%​
6.7%​
Encoding
x264 HD pass 1
104.2​
94.9​
97.4​
7.0%​
x264 HD pass 2
41​
36.0​
36.9​
11.0%​
9.0%​
Miscellaneous
Build Chromium Product Visual Studio (minutes)
0.0565​
18.6​
0.0552​
2.4%​
Photoshop CS4 - Retouch Artist (seconds)
0.0971​
11.3​
0.0908​
6.9%​
4.6%​
Compression and Encryption
7-zip - 32MB Dictionary
22810​
19744​
20263.6​
12.6%​
AES-128 - True Crypt 7.1
3.7​
3.4​
3.5​
6.0%​
58.14​
54.48​
6.9%​
Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge (Geomean)
6.7%​

Ivy Bridge to Haswell4770K3770KIPC
POV-Ray 3.7
1541.3​
1363.6​
13.0%​
Cinebench R11.5 - 1CPU
1.78​
1.7​
7.2%​
Cinebench R11.5 - XCPU
8.07​
7.6​
6.0%​
7-zip single thread
4807​
4716.0​
1.9%​
7-zip multithreaded
23101​
22810.0​
1.3%​
Kraken Java Script - Chrome (ms)
0.0008​
0.0008​
7.8%​
PCMark-7 Overall
6747​
6268.0​
7.6%​
x264 HD 1st Pass
79.1​
74.8​
5.7%​
2x64 HD 2nd Pass
16.5​
14.6​
13.0%​
TrueCrypt AES
4.4​
3.7​
18.9%​
Visual Studio 2012 - Build Firefox (minutes)
0.0498​
0.0433​
14.9%​
26.14​
24.04​
8.9%​
Ivy Bridge to Haswell
8.7%​
Haswell to Skylake3.43.33Clock
6700K4770KNormalizedIPC
WinRAR 5.01 Compression (sec)
0.0204​
54.5​
0.0198​
3.3%​
7-Zip Compression
26370​
24100​
25954​
1.6%​
3D Particle Movement single thread
140.7​
129.37​
139​
1.0%​
3D Particle Movement multithread
803.68​
727.64​
784​
2.6%​
Cinebench 10 1CPU
9052​
7718​
8312​
8.9%​
Cinebench 10 XCPU
36747​
30095​
32410​
13.4%​
x264 HD 1st Pass
133.48​
112.43​
121​
10.2%​
x264 HD 2nd Pass
55.9​
46.7​
50​
11.2%​
Google Octane v2
45345​
32193​
34669​
30.8%​
WebXPRT
2949​
2594​
2794​
5.6%​
Dolphin Emulation (minutes)
0.1546​
7.63​
0.1411​
9.5%​
Fastone Image Viewer 4,9 (seconds)
0.0294​
40​
0.0269​
9.2%​
Sunspider (ms)
0.0079​
121​
0.0089​
-11.5%​
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 (ms)
0.0014​
1091​
0.0010​
37.8%​
31.59​
29.00​
9.5%​
Haswell to Skylake
8.9%​
Skylake to Sunny Cove3.94.2Clock
1065G78650uNormalizedIPC
PCMark 10 - Essentials
9325​
8413​
7812​
19.4%​
PCMark 10 - Productivity
7008​
6480​
6017​
16.5%​
PCMark 10 - Digital Content Creation
3902​
3035​
2818​
38.5%​
PCMark 10 - Overall
4546​
3875​
3598​
26.3%​
Cinebench R15 single thread
181.14​
170​
158​
14.7%​
Cinebench R15 multithread
826.7​
658.84​
612​
35.1%​
x264 HD 1st Pass
73.72​
68.81​
64​
15.4%​
x264 HD 2nd Pass
14.37​
13.85​
13​
11.7%​
Google Octane v2
40002​
35532​
32994​
21.2%​
WebXPRT 3
223​
208​
193​
15.5%​
WebXPRT 2015
593​
557​
517​
14.7%​
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 (ms)
0.0010​
1123​
0.0008​
26.4%​
316.66​
261.68​
21.3%​
Skylake to Sunny Cove
21.0%​
 
Last edited:

majord

Senior member
Jul 26, 2015
367
358
136
Solid. Only thing id mention is you're not really comparing IPC with Penryn to Nehalem because there's so many MT tests in there which are taking advantage of HT , making them more of a throughput comparison.

Technically this is a problem with comparing the others too, but they're all running a similar implementation of HT at least.
 

Borealis7

Platinum Member
Oct 19, 2006
2,756
102
106
actually, you're not comparing IPC at all. its semantics, but you're measuring performance uplift, unless you can correlate #CPU instructions to 1 point in test X, which you obviously cannot.
furthurmore, results are not normalized for "X pts per Mhz" because not all workloads scale with frequency and all CPUs run different frequencies and different cache structures. we all know what you mean, but call it "speed up" or "improvement", just not IPC.

Captain obvious - out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Pilum

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,116
936
136
I'm not making the numbers up. They are coming directly from the Anandtech review. The limited tests he choose resulted in that number.
I'm recalculating using geomeans now...

And yes, benchmarks can fluctuate wildly. That's why I stay with Anandtech results only, and only compare numbers contained within the same review. Things can change from review-to-review with the same processor. I have lived through all of these releases and more unfortunately:( I'm saying this because I remember these results being considered quite valid and almost canonical when the reviews were published.

All other reviews have shown Ivy Bridge with IPC gains in a range of 3-4%, for example here: https://www.hardware.fr/articles/863-12/performances-frequence-egale-ddr3-2133-pci-express-3-0.html

This is the problem, never use such exact digits, they are pointless. You have to round it. For Ivy Bridge it makes sense to round it up to 5%.
 

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,982
421
126
actually, you're not comparing IPC at all. its semantics, but you're measuring performance uplift, unless you can correlate #CPU instructions to 1 point in test X, which you obviously cannot.
furthurmore, results are not normalized for "X pts per Mhz" because not all workloads scale with frequency and all CPUs run different frequencies and different cache structures. we all know what you mean, but call it "speed up" or "improvement", just not IPC.

Captain obvious - out.
Yes you are right. It is more like "throughput." Strictly speaking it's not IPC. Maybe "efficiency" as defined by compute/cycle or something like that.
 

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,982
421
126
All other reviews have shown Ivy Bridge with IPC gains in a range of 3-4%, for example here: https://www.hardware.fr/articles/863-12/performances-frequence-egale-ddr3-2133-pci-express-3-0.html

This is the problem, never use such exact digits, they are pointless. You have to round it. For Ivy Bridge it makes sense to round it up to 5%.
Most of the tests were reported with 3 significant digits so that is generally what I carried through. I wasn't rigorous though because as you correctly state there are many problems scientifically with the precision and accuracy of benchmark results. I leave it to the reader to interpret the correct rounded result.

As for those French testing results, as I stated, I'm using Anandtech results. I checked the Ivy Bridge numbers a few times because I was surprised as well.

As reported by Anand, Ivy Bridge was designed by Intel as a "Tick+" with 5 to 15% performance gain over Sandy Bridge. Also Anand noted "more aggressive turbo" with Ivy Bridge, which could be artificially inflating the throughput numbers a bit. Here are the Ivy Bridge core changes:
- Data structures previously statically shared between threads can now be dynamically shared (e.g. DSB queue), improves single threaded performance
- FP/integer divider delivers 2x throughput compared to Sandy Bridge
- MOV instructions no longer occupy an execution port, potential for improved ILP when MOVs are present

I have added a disclaimer of sorts to the results post. Please keep in mind it's only an analysis of the Anandtech results.
 
Last edited:

Hulk

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,982
421
126
I posted this information in the "Ryzen availability thread" but I also think it is relevant to Intel pricing so I'm posting it again here.

So this is interesting.
I noticed my Microcenter (St. Davids, PA) has 25+ 5800X's listed last night at $500.
I checked today and they are listed at $650 each.
I guess that's one way to stop the ebay reseller gouge. I guess I'd rather be gouged by Microcenter.
Also the "out of stock" 5950X and 5900X are listed at $1000 and $800, respectively.

Ain't it funny how the market works? You can set a price but ultimately supply and demand determine pricing.
I'm thinking at these prices Microcenter will be able to keep up with demand, once the higher end parts actually get in stock.

First, are vendors allowed to price products higher than MSRP?

If other vendors start to follow suit then there could be quite a market opening for RKL at the $650 and lower price point, right?

I just noticed that the Comet Lake parts also returned to their pre-sales prices.
 

Asterox

Senior member
May 15, 2012
498
721
136
I posted this information in the "Ryzen availability thread" but I also think it is relevant to Intel pricing so I'm posting it again here.

So this is interesting.
I noticed my Microcenter (St. Davids, PA) has 25+ 5800X's listed last night at $500.
I checked today and they are listed at $650 each.
I guess that's one way to stop the ebay reseller gouge. I guess I'd rather be gouged by Microcenter.
Also the "out of stock" 5950X and 5900X are listed at $1000 and $800, respectively.

Ain't it funny how the market works? You can set a price but ultimately supply and demand determine pricing.
I'm thinking at these prices Microcenter will be able to keep up with demand, once the higher end parts actually get in stock.

First, are vendors allowed to price products higher than MSRP?

If other vendors start to follow suit then there could be quite a market opening for RKL at the $650 and lower price point, right?

I just noticed that the Comet Lake parts also returned to their pre-sales prices.
Microcenter scalpers, yes it is legit. :grinning: For example Mindfactory prices in euro.

 

firewolfsm

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2005
1,841
20
81
Does anyone have an idea about what percentage of multicore workloads will scale properly with assymetrical cores? I know some programs divide a workload evenly between cores but need to wait for all threads to finish before moving forward. Might this be a common problem for Alderlake?
 

SAAA

Senior member
May 14, 2014
502
104
116
Does anyone have an idea about what percentage of multicore workloads will scale properly with assymetrical cores? I know some programs divide a workload evenly between cores but need to wait for all threads to finish before moving forward. Might this be a common problem for Alderlake?
I think that should be solved on the OS front, just like multicore CPUs, SMT or even Bulldozer approach with modules (that were loaded in a poor order till they threated them as 1-2-3-4 cores + SMT).

A purely parallel load? Well, the small cores won't be that much slower in the first place, at worst I believe half the speed:
Goldmont 1.5 IPC x 5GHz = 7.5 units of work
Gracemont 1.0 IPC x 3.5 to 4 GHz = 3.5 to 4 units of work

Making asymmetrical loads scale well might be hard but if every smartphone can do this (even on 3 different clusters) I don't see Microsoft and Intel not pulling it off.
A good idea would be to run something like OS and other apps on the small cores constantly (think anti-virus, mail or background apps), then every other program will see only big cores with SMT threads.
Ideally when the load is light enough the big cores could be turned off and the workload go into the small cores clusters only, just as today cores throttle to idle clock speeds when they are not doing much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7

ASK THE COMMUNITY