• 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."

Info TOP 20 of the World's Most Powerful CPU Cores - IPC/PPC comparison

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

itsmydamnation

Platinum Member
Feb 6, 2011
2,114
1,584
136
Don't treat us like idiots. You know full well that Apple chips have been benchmarked via SPEC, via browsers, via my own Mathematica tests, and all results are consistent with GB5.
To keep whining that "GB5 is a single mobile focused benchmark" says a lot more about you than about GB5 or Apple chips.
If that's what you took from his post you just made yourself actually look like an idiot because you obviously lack comprehension. Is your name Donald?

User insults are not allowed. Additionally, this is not
the P&N forum. If you want to talk about Donald, post
there.

AT Mod Usandthem
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,494
5,474
136
So no, Blender is a far inferior benchmark to SPEC unless rendering is the main thing you care about.
Except that Blender can't be gamed by compilers (oops) and that unlike SPEC, Blender is actually multithreaded while SPEC just loads multiple instances of single-threaded benchmarks. Would you like to be the next one who gets to lecture the forum on why reviewers like Anandtech should scrap their entire benchmark suite and just run SPEC and Geekbench 5?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and lobz

Doug S

Senior member
Feb 8, 2020
356
510
96
Except that Blender can't be gamed by compilers (oops) and that unlike SPEC, Blender is actually multithreaded while SPEC just loads multiple instances of single-threaded benchmarks. Would you like to be the next one who gets to lecture the forum on why reviewers like Anandtech should scrap their entire benchmark suite and just run SPEC and Geekbench 5?
If Anandtech was running Blender as their only benchmark I would be saying they need to scrap that and go with a wider variety of tests. Either SPEC or GB would be superior to that single benchmark. I'm not saying SPEC or GB are better than an entire benchmark suite, of course they aren't, I'm saying either is better than Blender alone. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that running a benchmark suite that contains a couple dozen tests that all do different things is better than running a single test that does only one thing. Getting a couple dozen numbers to look at is better than getting one number to look at.

SPEC2006 has had compiler writers break a couple of the benchmarks, but those benchmarks were fixed/removed in the next version and AFAIK none of SPEC2017's tests have been broken yet. If you want to look at a single benchmark number that's game-proof, instead of Blender look at the gcc/llvm numbers in SPEC/GB5 and ignore the rest. Compilers have lots of difficult to predict branches and a large icache footprint, and provide probably the closest analogue to modern browser/GUI code.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,494
5,474
136
If Anandtech was running Blender as their only benchmark I would be saying they need to scrap that and go with a wider variety of tests.
They aren't. Are we just now learning how sites like Anandtech conduct their benchmarks, and why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

itsmydamnation

Platinum Member
Feb 6, 2011
2,114
1,584
136
So AMD claimed they have wider execution for Zen3 ( we will have to wait and see if more issue ports or just more capability per port) and it only accounted for ~3% of the ~20% IPC increase. With the biggest gains from decode and load+store. This must be really disappointing news for the arbitrary unit counters :eek:o_O:screamcat:
 

Doug S

Senior member
Feb 8, 2020
356
510
96
They aren't. Are we just now learning how sites like Anandtech conduct their benchmarks, and why?
You're the one who threw out the ridiculous strawmen, then try to criticize me when I start a sentence with IF.

Is your day job political spin?
 

itsmydamnation

Platinum Member
Feb 6, 2011
2,114
1,584
136
What does more "capability per port" mean in this context?
so AMD has 4 ALU ports but not all operations exist on all ports. AMD could increase number of issue ports or make each ALU more symmetric/capable . Both could be classed as widening the execution engine. My bet is more issue ports, it is probably cheaper to have extra simple ALU's that can absorb simple arithmetic/logic ops leaving more fully functional ALU's to handle complex ops then it is to make all ALU's handle all complex ops for example.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,494
5,474
136
So AMD claimed they have wider execution for Zen3 ( we will have to wait and see if more issue ports or just more capability per port) and it only accounted for ~3% of the ~20% IPC increase. With the biggest gains from decode and load+store. This must be really disappointing news for the arbitrary unit counters :eek:o_O:screamcat:
Oh don't worry. Facts never stopped them.

Is your day job political spin?
No. Is yours?

How many people posting here honestly looked at anything I posted and thought, "gee this man is endorsing benchmarking a CPU with only Blender" when I have gone out of my way multiple times to indicate that any CPU-to-CPU comparison should involve multiple different applications, preferably those relevant to the target readership.

How could anyone possibly post here on Anandtech and not be familiar with how CPU benchmarking is normally carried out on a site like AT? Anyone who has followed AT over the decades should immediately be able to spot the problem with an IPC list that uses only one data point as its basis.

This isn't even remotely true.
Elaborate. I was upbraided in the Graviton2 thread for thinking otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,679
2,354
106
Elaborate. I was upbraided in the Graviton2 thread for thinking otherwise.
Anandtech(and others) run in in that way(multiple instances of SPEC_rate) because it saves them time and has lower memory requirements. SPEC_speed is purely multithreaded and is an inverse ratio of system wall time over the reference time.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,494
5,474
136
Anandtech(and others) run in in that way(multiple instances of SPEC_rate) because it saves them time and has lower memory requirements. SPEC_speed is purely multithreaded and is an inverse ratio of system wall time over the reference time.
Ah okay. See that improves the quality of your reply considerably. It's hard getting anyone to actually run SPEC_speed for their comparisons. To the best of my knowledge, SPEC_speed data hasn't been used in any of the IPC threads to date.

I'm missing Tiger Lake in this list? How is willow cove on average vs sunny cove?
I noticed it isn't there. Willow Cove actually has variable IPC vs Sunny Cove thanks to the way Intel changed the cache layout. It's faster in some things at the same clocks and slower in others.
 
Last edited:

Spartak

Senior member
Jul 4, 2015
330
238
116
Ah okay. See that improves the quality of your reply considerably. It's hard getting anyone to actually run SPEC_speed for their comparisons. To the best of my knowledge, SPEC_speed data hasn't been used in any of the IPC threads to date.



I noticed it isn't there. Willow Cove actually has variable IPC vs Sunny Cove thanks to the way Intel changed the cache layout. It's faster in some things at the same clocks and slower in others.

yes i know but on average I believe it was about 2-3% faster in Geekbench..?

what i also dont understand in this list is the big performance delta between skylake and coffee lake (~7%). What I remember between kaby lake and skylake IPC was identical and coffee lake vs kaby/skylake was about 2-3%. Something is off.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,494
5,474
136
what i also dont understand in this list is the big performance delta between skylake and coffee lake (~7%). What I remember between kaby lake and skylake IPC was identical and coffee lake vs kaby/skylake was about 2-3%. Something is off.
Well if the IPC is derived from ST scores only, then GB5 may be feeding off the larger L3 cache of the 9900k.
 

Spartak

Senior member
Jul 4, 2015
330
238
116
Well if the IPC is derived from ST scores only, then GB5 may be feeding off the larger L3 cache of the 9900k.
My point is this 7% difference doesn't show in the geekbench 5 processor charts so it seems the OP is cherry picking GB5 results and not the median results provided by Geekbench themselves.

The 9900K scores an average of 1334, which scales pretty good from the baseline 3.6Ghz 1000 score for skylake processors.
The 6700K scores 1150.

1334/5 gives 266,8 and 1150/4.2 gives 273,8. So using the median results gives the 6700K a 3% higher IPC result than the 9900K.

Bottom line, the OP shouldnt be using cherry picked results since his results are 10% off from those provided by GB themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,494
5,474
136
My point is this 7% difference doesn't show in the geekbench 5 processor charts so it seems the OP is cherry picking GB5 results and not the median results provided by Geekbench themselves.

The 9900K scores an average of 1334, which scales pretty good from the baseline 3.6Ghz 1000 score for skylake processors.
The 6700K scores 1150.

1334/5 gives 266,8 and 1150/4.2 gives 273,8. So using the median results gives the 6700K a 3% higher IPC result than the 9900K.

Bottom line, the OP shouldnt be using cherry picked results since his results are 10% off from those provided by GB themselves.
Your post highlights much of what's wrong with the idea of using results from disparate clockspeeds in a single application that (for the purpose of this discussion) only runs on one core. Even within the same uarch, you have the absurd notion that a 6700k is somehow a faster/better CPU than a 9900k (hint: it isn't). Of course, on top of that, he's cherry-picking results while also rejecting allegedly cherry-picked results from other posters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97

Thala

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2014
1,096
430
136
Intel's cache ratio is ~9/10, not 1/4. That was really just a side note anyway, the main thing is that the whole core was custom designed for high frequency compared to a standard A72 core.
There were NO design changes to the architecture, only backend changes. It was a standard A72 architecture wise.
 

Thala

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2014
1,096
430
136
If we assume that Apple's A14 is running at 2.99/3.00 GHz as the leaked GB5 benchmarks indicate, they should be able to reach at least 3.6 GHz in a higher power design. HPC cells will buy you about 10%
In TSMC N7 using low Vth cells gives your more than just 10%. And don't let me get started on the memory cells. There is easily factor 2 between the slowest low leakage and fastest high leakage cells.

You also completely ignoring the fact that a standard Cortex A72 could be clocked up to 4.2GHz as has been demonstrated by TSMC - of course with doing some backend optimizations.
 

Doug S

Senior member
Feb 8, 2020
356
510
96
You also completely ignoring the fact that a standard Cortex A72 could be clocked up to 4.2GHz as has been demonstrated by TSMC - of course with doing some backend optimizations.
That is a lot less impressive than you make it out to be, because it was designed for what, 28nm? Of course it will clock higher in an improved process - especially when you can cherry pick the die and don't have to disclose how much power it was fed or what sort of cooling it was provided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Markfw

ASK THE COMMUNITY