Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 5.16's New Cluster Scheduling Is Causing Regression, Further Hurting Alder Lake

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    If this was true, there would be no need for more than one or two p cores on desktop chips.

    pretty sure its not true or there wouldnt be a minimum of 6 on every chip they just released.
    It is true, and there are plenty of benchmarks out there to prove it if you don't believe me. Just go look at some of them. Try anandtech's, for a start.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
      I just want to point out one thing to everyone that is bitching about Intel cpu's power consumption: since Sandy Bridge Intel cpu's have had igpu's that are always active, even when you use a discrete gpu. Consequently, comparing the power draw of a cpu with an igpu against a cpu sand igpu (AMD's non apu offerings) is disingenuous at best.

      A proper comparison is with either an system that uses an Intel cpu that has an igpu against a system that is powered by an AMD APU or an Intel cpu sand igpu against an AMD cpu sans igpu and in both cases measuring total system power draw using a kill-a-watt.
      An unused iGPU shouldn't use more than 1W of power, so it's not really meaningful when you're comparing CPU's that take 100W more power than the competition.

      And if it does take more than 1W of power, that's just bad design and deserves to be criticized.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by mSparks View Post

        Theres an easy way to tell when a benchmark graph is paid for by intel/not telling the truth.
        TPU paid by Intel? Sorry, didn't bother to read the rest of your comment

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

          It is true, and there are plenty of benchmarks out there to prove it if you don't believe me. Just go look at some of them. Try anandtech's, for a start.
          anandtech compares the 12900K with EPYC 7763 or Threadripper 3960X?

          Or just stick with existing benchmarks.

          https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

          AMD EPYC 7763
          (86%)
          87,767
          $7,890.00


          first Intel

          Intel Xeon Platinum 8380 @ 2.30GHz
          (61%)
          62,317
          $8,099.00*

          ....

          AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
          (54%)
          55,085
          $1,599.00

          Intel Xeon W-3265M @ 2.70GHz
          (39%)
          39,765
          $6,353.00*

          AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
          (39%)
          39,524
          $524.00

          Intel Core i9-12900K
          (36%)
          37,231
          $818.91

          ~twice the price, less performance, ~3 times the power consumption "for the gamers"

          You can watch "the market speak" here
          https://www.cpubenchmark.net/share30.html

          I have a lot less faith than Intel it seems that gamers are that stupid.
          Last edited by mSparks; 16 November 2021, 09:11 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Michael View Post

            AFAIK, there was never a 'performance' regression from the cluster scheduling on the AMD side... IIRC from what came up on the kernel mailing list, it was a regression over spamming of dmesg with topology information due to not being supported.
            Indeed, but there could be some performance implications by this post in the LKLM thread: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/k...0.2/05938.html

            After all basing scheduling decisions on nonsensical topology information could lead to disaster.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by mSparks View Post
              anandtech compares the 12900K with EPYC 7763 or Threadripper 3960X?
              This entire discussion was about Intel e-cores vs Intel p-cores.

              Nobody is comparing a desktop part against servers for good reason. Same with HEDT.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                This entire discussion was about Intel e-cores vs Intel p-cores.

                Nobody is comparing a desktop part against servers for good reason. Same with HEDT.
                What good reason?

                Why not compare an $820 CPU that requires everything else new with a $1,600 CPU that requires everything else new, and is also one of the top selling high end CPUs?

                What truth is there in claiming Intel now has the top performing CPU when the top performing CPU is AMD last gen and more than twice as fast as it?

                Is that the same good reason they benchmarked an $820 CPU against a $280 CPU then act like its ground breaking that its only a few percent faster than it? (even though both can play all titles at 144fps on a 144hz 4K monitor, and both a long way from being the most powerful CPU you can buy)
                Last edited by mSparks; 16 November 2021, 11:31 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by mSparks View Post

                  What good reason?
                  Because they're completely different markets? It's like comparing it to a laptop chip and determining that the desktop cpu is faster. Well, obviously.

                  What truth is there in claiming Intel now has the top performing CPU
                  Again, the entire conversation was about Intel p-cores vs Intel e-cores. You seem to be trying to change the conversation now to a completely different topic. Which is fine if that's what you want to do, but every post I made above was specifically about the Intel side only. I never even mentioned AMD or any other non alder lake chip.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    Because they're completely different markets?
                    Not anymore, AMD changed that paradigm 5 years ago, and left Intel with nearly zero market share since.
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z7EzcADIJM

                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    Again, the entire conversation was about Intel p-cores vs Intel e-cores. You seem to be trying to change the conversation now to a completely different topic. Which is fine if that's what you want to do, but every post I made above was specifically about the Intel side only. I never even mentioned AMD or any other non alder lake chip.
                    Exactly, So this is competing with the Threadripper range, which competes with zen3 - more cores for people who also game, except Intel don't seem to have grasped that even 5 years later.
                    You mentioned benchmarks, specifically ones where
                    Originally posted by jaxa View Post

                    The 12900K flagship draws 250+ Watts in part so it can beat AMD in more benchmarks,
                    Except it doesn't beat AMD in any way sense or shape. Either by drawing 250W, or adding E-cores to target people who are buying Threadrippers.

                    You also quote a benchmark that clearly shows there is a need for more than one or two p cores on desktop chips, while saying its true there isn't.
                    Last edited by mSparks; 17 November 2021, 01:10 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by mSparks View Post
                      ...
                      You're now claiming i'm saying things I absolutely never did, so this conversation is over.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X