Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scheduler Changes For Linux 5.15 - Still No Sign Of Any Intel Thread Director Optimizations

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

  • #11
    Intel makes it clear that desktop Linux is completely irrelevant.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

      How could it be 250W?! A lot of cores I may understand, but otherwise... what?
      At 8p + 8e cores, that seems about right to me.

      Maybe 24w per performance core, and 6w per efficiency core, or something similar?

      Seems about right given what Intel has done the last few gens to try and keep up with AMD, and what we've seen from Intel's 10nm architecture so far in Tiger Lake. It's not exactly low power.
      Last edited by smitty3268; 30 August 2021, 11:05 PM.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

        At 8p + 8e cores, that seems about right to me.

        Maybe 24w per performance core, and 6w per efficiency core, or something similar?

        Seems about right given what Intel has done the last few gens to try and keep up with AMD, and what we've seen from Intel's 10nm architecture so far in Tiger Lake. It's not exactly low power.
        But AMD can do 64 cores with 280W...

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

          But AMD can do 64 cores with 280W...
          AMD's chips are more efficient, and Intel doesn't really care as long as they can retake the performance lead. Plus that's a server chip with lower single-threaded performance, so not exactly a fair comparison. The 5950X is still better, but more representative with 16 cores at 140 watts and it could use more than that pretty easily.
          Last edited by smitty3268; 30 August 2021, 11:31 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

            But AMD can do 64 cores with 280W...
            With low single threaded performance. All of those 64 cores are fighting for 280 W. They also don't run at the rated turbo frequency on a full load. With Ryzen, you're only guaranteed the base frequency on an all-core full load. And only one of the cores is actually guaranteed to reach the rate turbo frequency.

            So it's all luck of the draw with Ryzen, you don't know what you're getting, and where it will actually top out. You have to unlock limits, tune and tweak to actually get the full performance for your hardware.

            Also, just like Intel, that 280W TDP is only for an all-core full load at base frequency. It actually consumes more.

            For example, my 3900X is said to have 105W TDP, but that's only at base frequency of 3.8 GHz. Actual frequency at all-core full load is 4.05 GHz and that uses 142W. To actually unleash the full performance of the CPU, I have to unlock the TDP and current limits in the UEFI so that it can actually go higher (which means more power).

            AMD isn't as efficient as you think, and Intel isn't as bad as you think. There's just a lot of hyperbole from AMD fans, and shadows and curtains by AMD.

            Comment

            Working...
            X