It would be nice to compare efficiency (performance/watts), as they always mention it when announcing new CPUs. I am still wondering if their claims are true or just a marketing!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A Look At Alder Lake Against Older CPUs Going Back To Sandy Bridge, Kaveri
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by free2create View PostYes ditto would it be possible to add a part 2 and look at performance/power consumption.Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by birdie View PostIn some tests, e.g. Blender 3.0, 12900K is more than 10 times (!) faster than 2500K. That's insane. "4 cores vs 16 cores (24 threads)" doesn't sound like it could lead to such a massive difference.
A 3.7 GHz max turbo frequency vs 5.2 GHz max turbo, or more importantly the 5x larger cache of 6MB vs 30MB? Uses up to 2.4x the amount of wattage, more than 3x the memory bandwidth. Plus probably a bunch of other architectural improvements over that decade delta between them.
I know that the CPU cache can make a big difference for stuff like this though. It's considerably faster than having to access main memory, so having more room there brings significant speedups for workloads that can leverage it.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment