That's incorrect reasoning.That's an improvement of 12.5%, that's not that much (especially considering the skipped Gen 10).
Something like that.It means Gen11 is making better use of available bandwidth.
Architectural improvements(larger caches, tiling) are why it can perform greater than specs suggest.That's nice and all. My point was that whereas the platform balancing optimizations are all commendable the architecture improvements appear to be negligible. That the Cores are even worse doesn't make it any better.
Hmm, do we have any idea what kind of average clock it's hitting in ST and MT?Gemini Lake Refresh J5040 gets 95 points in Cinebench R15 1T. That's a 15% improvement. That's a 3-4% higher than specs suggest. It must not having been reaching boost as reliably.
Improvement will be less in MT. Seems to be 5-7%.
It is close to impossible to design an x86-64 CPU with the same relative performance in the same power and area range compared to ARM...so i pretty much have doubt in your claim.So its actually comparable to ARM cores with similar uarch/performance using 7nm process.
relatively impossible to tech calculated output or the current and "D+1" software connected to it?It is close to impossible to design an x86-64 CPU with the same relative performance in the same power and area range compared to ARM...so i pretty much have doubt in your claim.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|D||News [intel] Jim Keller resigns from Intel||CPUs and Overclocking||128|
|L||Question Intel i7-6700k 4ghz upgrade suggestions||CPUs and Overclocking||5|
|Question Does switching the display settings daily affect intel hd graphics||CPUs and Overclocking||1|
|R||Question Intel CEO says the industry should stop using benchmarks [PCGamer]||CPUs and Overclocking||149|
|Question Intel 7th to 10th gen||CPUs and Overclocking||21|