It's over for AMD.
ocaholic.co.uk
It's over for AMD
Ryan Hughes
Nathaniel Cox
at the low low price of your pituitary gland!
Jonathan Hernandez
ITS NOT FAIR GUYS
THIS CANT BE HAPPENING
Henry Foster
>*only if workloads fits into L2 cache which is almost never
B R A V O Intel. Now suck some dicks.
>servethehome.com
Evan Evans
So actual performance will be 2.9% faster?
Eli Jackson
0.29% faster.
Henry Powell
actual performance will be 30% less, as it's never going to clock as high as 7700k
Aaron Flores
>if workloads fits into L2 cache
yeah why don't we just benchmark all processors on their L2 caches?
jeesus
we're left to assume that L2 cache misses are responsible for 30% of our performance?
shittel
Charles Anderson
Wait(tm) for Zen 2.
Justin Bailey
>yeah why don't we just benchmark all processors on their L2 caches?
Then Zen rapes every consumer Intel CPU ever and Intel's PR is dead.
Brody Allen
Did you really have to dig up the most no-name literally who website flat out lying about this shit for clicks?
Jonathan Russell
Actually, that's misleading because Intel's "IPC" isn't the "Instructions Per Clock" we all know and use.
I shit you not.
Anthony Clark
>Nevertheless, the there are huge differences regarding the gains in IPC performance between the two upcoming Core i9 parts and that actually makes us question either the results we’re looking at here or the reliability/stability of the benchmark that was used.
Even they know it's bullshit, but they post it anyway with clickbait headline. Tech enthusiast "journalism" needs to burn to the ground. Worse than Gawker. Worse than Kotaku. Fuck off forever.
Nicholas Diaz
It's a pretty well known website user.
Benjamin Lewis
Let me guess, Intel Performance Counter?
Christian Cooper
29% higher SysMark score
1% higher IPC in reality.
Jackson Hernandez
Just use bigger L2. :^)
Anthony Murphy
>AMD zen ipc higher by 40%
>when using 5 instructions per clock, which is also never
Anthony Robinson
>instructions per clock are higher when having more instructions per clock
Thomas Wood
Intel can we benchmark on L2 cache?
>benchmark in L2 cache?
>why you wanna benchmark in L1 cache?
>only benchmark in prefetch
Grayson Hall
(OP)
LOL Skylake-X has less L3 cache than Broadwell-E. Don't be surprised when the 7920X is barely faster than a 6950X you enormous kike faggot.
Doesn't matter anyway since Threadripper is going to put the whole Skylake-X line directly into the fucking oven. Sorry, kiketel shekelchaser, but the second shoah has begun.
Zachary King
>LOL Skylake-X has less L3 cache than Broadwell-E.
While having 4 times the L2. Why did Intel change cache hierarchy? Who the fuck knows.
Wyatt Martinez
Mainly for AVX, and large blocks of l3 are power hungry and yield badly.
Adrian Adams
>Sir, people are buying Ryzen despite low AVX performance, what do?
>MAEK MOAR AVX
Jason Cruz
>low
It's adequate. AVX is extremely niche anyway.
Mason Cooper
How? SRAM is a very simple circuit, how can it yield badly?
Jose Robinson
really makes no sense since its just skylake. maybe they're basing that off the MOAR COORRRSSSSSSSEESSSSSS!!! or wait, larger l2 cache? lmao really intel. man they are grasping at straws.
Jack Fisher
Wonder what kind of price hike they'll give it
Jaxson Nelson
>Only if the application fits in 1MB of Cache but isn't smaller than 256K so basically rarely ever*