• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question Zen 6 Speculation Thread

Page 348 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Caching might drive performance with RAM at the ridiculous prices. Of course every reviewer has buttloads of RAM rather than accurate reflections of Joe Consumer.
 
Hulk said:
ST "turbo" clocks aren't important. It's MT clocks that win the day.
Click to expand...
What.
You do realise that designers of mobile SoCs spend 3-4mm^2 worth of area on a single core with the sole goal of bursting up to 4.7 GHz for a thousandth of a second to deliver responsive experience? Every time you open a web page, or interact with $chatAppName in any way, you're essentially running a 1t burst workload.
 
511 said:
rare usage compared to ST For client ST matters the most if MT was superior we would be getting 48C Skymont not 8+16 ARL
Click to expand...
I meant aren't important for the comparison of top parts, they are important for performance of course. I was referring to the comparison of parts that was carrying through the last few posts. For most top end parts today they will boost for a couple of cores within a few hundred MHz of one another. When it comes to frequency I'm more concerned with how high they clock when all of those cores are loaded.

To better illustrate my point see the charts below. Both start at 5.7GHz for ST. No difference. But by the time all cores are loaded there is a 500MHz gap. Now to be fair I don't think they put much if any load on these cores when running this test, but it does show at stock how high the core will clock as it gets loaded.

This, more than ST peak for a core or two is also very important to some people, like myself.

That's what I get for not fully communicating my thought!


1769097244355.png
1769097284098.png
 
msj10 said:
ah yes Intel is paying all this money for N2 just to get the same frequency as N3B lmao. sure thing buddy.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s a new core and design compared to ARL. There’s no reason that it can’t clock the same (or even lower) on a better node. Presumably, the implication is that Intel messed up the physical design or what have you. No idea whether the 5.7GHz figure is accurate or not, to be clear.
 
exquisitechar said:
Well, it’s a new core and design compared to ARL. There’s no reason that it can’t clock the same (or even lower) on a better node. Presumably, the implication is that Intel messed up the physical design or what have you. No idea whether the 5.7GHz figure is accurate or not, to be clear.
Click to expand...
When's the last time a new intel core lost 10%+ frequency iso-node?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top