Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Tarkin77 · Feb 15, 2021

if ADL-U only has double the MT performance of TGL-U, than AMD has nothing to worry about

AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX vs. Ryzen 7 5800H Review

The new Ryzen 9 5900HX is bound to be widely used across high-end gaming laptops. While not the outright fastest processor in the series, it should be...

www.techspot.com

coercitiv · Feb 15, 2021

Sigh, MLID... or how to pretend you have leaks.

Gideon · Feb 15, 2021

coercitiv said:
Sigh, MLID... or how to pretend you have leaks.

Yeah, I was just about to say: "If you think you're afraid you've got news but MLID is the only source, you have nothing to worry about"

Tarkin77 · Feb 15, 2021

MLID is BS all over the place - i know that

mikk · Feb 15, 2021

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.

RTX2080 · Feb 15, 2021

Intel is listing a new Comet Lake-S processor, Core i9 10900KS

Intel is listing a new Comet Lake-S processor, Core i9 10900KS

Um yeah, a little unusual it is. That would be to release a Comet Lake-S processor so shortly before the new 11th Gen processor release. But it's listed at Intel, the SKU would be a Core i9 10900KS....

www.guru3d.com

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

Borealis7 · Feb 15, 2021

i want to make a joke about how Intel stretched out 14nm, but the punchline would get me banned.

Hulk · Feb 15, 2021

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%

Clock	2.93	3
Sysmark 2004	X6800	Pentium D 930	Normalized	IPC
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 Average	82.7%

	Nahalem	Conroe
SYSmark 2007	i7-965-3.2GHz	QX9770-3.2GHz	IPC
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%

Clock	3.4	3.33
Sysmark 2007	2600K	i7-975	Normalized	IPC
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%

Clock	3.9	3.8
SYSmark 2012	3770K	2600K	Normalized	IPC
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%

	4770K	3770K	IPC
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%

Clock	3.4	3.33
	6700K	4770K	Normalized	IPC
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%

Clock	3.9	4.2
	1065G7	8650u	Normalized	IPC
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 · Feb 15, 2021

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 · Feb 15, 2021

bumble81 said:
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.

mikk · Feb 15, 2021

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 · Feb 15, 2021

mikk said:
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 · Feb 15, 2021

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 Conroe	2.93	3	Clock
Sysmark 2004	X6800	Pentium D 930	Normalized	IPC
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 Nahalem	Nahalem	Conroe
SYSmark 2007	i7-965-3.2GHz	QX9770-3.2GHz	IPC
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 Bridge	3.4	3.33	Clock
Sysmark 2007	2600K	i7-975	Normalized	IPC
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 Bridge	3.9	3.8	Clock
SYSmark 2012	3770K	2600K	Normalized	IPC
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 Haswell	4770K	3770K	IPC
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 Skylake	3.4	3.33	Clock
	6700K	4770K	Normalized	IPC
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 Cove	3.9	4.2	Clock
	1065G7	8650u	Normalized	IPC
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%

majord · Feb 16, 2021

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 · Feb 16, 2021

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.

mikk · Feb 16, 2021

Hulk said:
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%.

itsmydamnation · Feb 16, 2021

Ian is betting Q5 for ADL on desktop, will give rocketlake some time......

DrMrLordX · Feb 16, 2021

itsmydamnation said:
Ian is betting Q5 for ADL on desktop, will give rocketlake some time......

Q5? You mean Q1 2022?

uzzi38 · Feb 16, 2021

DrMrLordX said:
Q5? You mean Q1 2022?

I believe that's the joke.

DrMrLordX · Feb 16, 2021

uzzi38 said:
I believe that's the joke.

Yeah now that I think about it. It would be funnier if BK were still there though.

Hulk · Feb 16, 2021

Borealis7 said:
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 · Feb 16, 2021

mikk said:
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.

Hulk · Feb 16, 2021

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.

Eight-Core : Processors/CPUs : Micro Center

Microcenter.com has the best deals on CPUs, both Intel & AMD Processors, to start your PC build off right! Stop by and shop for one at you local Micro Center Computer Store!

www.microcenter.com

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 · Feb 16, 2021

Hulk said:
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.

Eight-Core : Processors/CPUs : Micro Center

Microcenter.com has the best deals on CPUs, both Intel & AMD Processors, to start your PC build off right! Stop by and shop for one at you local Micro Center Computer Store!

www.microcenter.com

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.

For example Mindfactory prices in euro.

Sockel AM4

AM4 CPU | Hier sparen :: Bis 8 Kerne :: Bis 4.30GHz Turbotakt :: Für DDR4-Speicher geeignet :: AMD ++ Einfache Bestellung und schnelle Lieferung

www.mindfactory.de

Hulk · Feb 16, 2021

Okay strange. All prices at my MC back to normal.

Eight-Core : Processors/CPUs : Micro Center

Microcenter.com has the best deals on CPUs, both Intel & AMD Processors, to start your PC build off right! Stop by and shop for one at you local Micro Center Computer Store!

www.microcenter.com

Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread

Member

Diamond Member

Platinum Member

Member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Platinum Member

Diamond Member

Junior Member

Elite Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Senior member

Platinum Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Platinum Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Golden Member

Diamond Member