Yotsugi
Golden Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 1,029
- 487
- 106
I dunno what he was talking about, but IPC varies with clocks.LOL...
I dunno what he was talking about, but IPC varies with clocks.LOL...
I dunno if gutting L2$ would net them any speed back, since AMD's clocks pretty fast.
But they're axing it off TGL-U, where space isn't the problem.It'd be more for space than performance
But they're axing it off TGL-U, where space isn't the problem.
SRAM is easy to yield, and with gigantic iGPU which can eat defect and getting binned, yield is not the answer.possible, it wouldn't surprise me if Intel enabled the ability to cut the L2 in half in all cores for yield reasons.
What's odd about LPDDR4x being fast?And the 1065G7 is equipped with 3733MHz memory compared to 2133MHz? Odd.
By definition that statement makes no sense.I dunno what he was talking about, but IPC varies with clocks.
I can't be bothered to link Andrei so whatever.By definition that statement makes no sense.
Well I'm sure 10nm was yielding SRAM just fine ages ago.On an actual functioning node, yes.
Nothing odd about it being fast but it's not very interesting for desktop folks. Many are already running memory that fast so the small improvements in application performance would be even smaller in reality.What's odd about LPDDR4x being fast?
The main good thing about LPDDR isn't performance, but its low power idle and deep sleep states.Nothing odd about it being fast but it's not very interesting for desktop folks since many of us are already running memory that fast so the small improvements in application performance would be even smaller in reality.
I'm sure the 75% higher memory bandwidth is why they went with it. They delayed doing it until the power issues with LPDDR4 were sorted out. JEDEC (PDF) claims up to 40% lower pj/bit with LPDDR4X vs LPDDR4. But with the all the added bits per second it ends up about about equal in power consumption with LPDDR3.The main good thing about LPDDR isn't performance, but its low power idle and deep sleep states.
It's promising but the current state is not impressive, because of the low clock rates squandering the IPC increase. And the 1065G7 is equipped with 3733MHz memory compared to 2133MHz? Odd.
The integrated graphics are more impressive. But a comparison to Vega 11 would be interesting, despite its memory bandwidth disadvantage.
Are you talking memory frequency or CPU frequency? IPC can be influenced by memory frequency, but not by CPU frequency. That has to do with latency reduction and keeping cache feed through bandwidth, etc.I can't be bothered to link Andrei so whatever.
You see, your memory does not go faster if you up the CPU clockrate.
Hence why IPC varies with it.
CPU freq affects your average IPC because your memory doesn't go faster together with CPU.But if you meant CPU frequency effects IPC, you are incorrect.
I don't know what's funny because 1 CYCLE = 1 CLOCK CYCLE. Power budget is not a consideration in an IPC test. Jesus!!LOL...
I'm happy you said this, at least, and not that IPC is determined by power budget.I dunno what he was talking about, but IPC varies with clocks.
This is easily solved by making sure the memory subsystem is not a bottleneck in your test. Or, you could simply stick to manufacturer specs.CPU freq affects your average IPC because your memory doesn't go faster together with CPU.
.
This is easily solved by making sure the memory subsystem is not a bottleneck in your test. Or, you could simply stick to manufacturer specs.
This is easily solved by making sure the memory subsystem is not a bottleneck in your test.
CPU freq affects your average IPC because your memory doesn't go faster together with CPU.
There's at best a 2% difference in scores running from 4.5 to 2.5 GHz fixed in bios, same RAM speed and timings. Myth busted?
Well for this benchmark sure, maybe at 5GHz it decreases noticeably but I won't test that with my crappy cooling… anyone interested open another thread and find out with more benches, also more CPUs!
Yes CPU-Z and CB - both known to have tons of memory pressure amirite?I was always curious of this notion so today I quickly tested with CPU-z to check if the myth stands (on a 8700k):
View attachment 9143
There's at best a 2% difference in scores running from 4.5 to 2.5 GHz fixed in bios, same RAM speed and timings. Myth busted?
Well for this benchmark sure, maybe at 5GHz it decreases noticeably but I won't test that with my crappy cooling… anyone interested open another thread and find out with more benches, also more CPUs!