CPU Single Thread Performance

How come Intel completely dominates single thread performance?

There's literally not a single AMD CPU in the top 100.

Other urls found in this thread:

agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Actually LULZ Intel completely dominates in multi-thread performance too, although all the processors are like $2000.

Ayymd is low end shit for poorfags only

Because you're looking at pissmark, the most garbage simulated benchmark on the planet.

>Pissmark

xd

It's literally the same on every benchmark I checked

Quad-core results here

Ryzen's quite good

It's only #86 and that's in multi-core

Why are you trying to shill passmark results when you've been told it's a terrible benchmark?

Why are you not looking at multiple benchmark and real program reviews? Are you 12? Are you retarded?

lol amd btfo

Uhh you might want to look above you, I already posted multiple benchmarks.

intel shills are this desperate with the i9 housefire benchmarks results?

top kek

It's doing a lot better than any similarly priced Intel CPU

It's almost like you're a fucking moron.

O wait

The Ryzen looks like a good value for multi-thread, but still bad value for single-thread

There you go, now you can stop your shilling collect your shekels and leave us in peace

Because pissmark is a terrible benchmark for CPUs that has no bearing to real world performance.

AMDs zen chips now have a bit more IPC than intel kaby lake processors which is why the i7-7700K and skylake-x housefores exist at all.

At the same frequency ryzen outperforms kaby lake.

I guess. I like the Pentium g3258 for that reason.

These charts are missing a lot of processors, I don't see any E5 v4

>Because pissmark is a terrible benchmark for CPUs that has no bearing to real world performance.

This isn't true though, it lines up with all the other tests I see too.

That is immaterial to your fraudulent claims in your paid shill OP. The dishonest question you posed has been answered. The answer is that AMDs $300 mainstream processors for home users spanks the shit out of Intels server processors.

>Ryzen 7 1700X @ 4.5GHz
in what wet dream? You're damn lucky if you manage to hit 3.9-4.0, but forget about 4.5 until Zen 2 arrives

What are you even talking about, look at the charts. AMD is not even in the top 50 for multi-core and not even in the top 100 for single-core.

>AMD pioneers multi cores
>Microsoft Devs and Program Devs don't implement multi core enabled processes
>OS's that utilize multi-core show AMD at huge advantage while Intel dominates single thread
>fast forward a decade
>Intel gets multi cores
>Softare catches up with advanced technology
>AMD/Intel at even ground again while Intel has all the capital and finacial momentum.

AMD creates
>freesync
> _64,
>keeping socket the same for multiple generations
>internalizing the north/southbridges
>APU's
>Mantle(now Vulkan)
>open capable GPU's
>adoption or creation of advanced and sometimes controvercial technologies
>willing to take the risk to advance the industry while undercutting the competition

yet they never got the recognition they deserved

v.happy with devils canyon, interested with threadripper for the best of both worlds

>IPC
How about you compare performance on base frequency, you disgusting ayymd shill?

Who care about price/performance ratio?!?

I WANT DAT BIIIIG CPU SONN
U FEEL ME??!?

INTEL INSIDE(TM)

No, it doesn't. Look at real world usage like HEVC video encoding.

R7 1700: 8c16t @ 3.0 - 3.7 GHz
i7-6950X:10c16t@ 3.0 - 3.5 GHz

Yet despite more fucking cores the i7 is only 25% faster. AMDs advantage here isn't much but when you factor in the price of the i7 ($1,700) vs the R7 ($300) you'd have to be batfuck insane to consider intel at all.

how about you compare the shelf price to the performance you disgusting intel shill

>pay 2-3x more
>oh em gee iz festur

AMD seems to have good multi-core value, but your chart just shows the exact same thing as mine, but with fewer processors listed.

Intel still on top with performance.

>no i5-6600k

;_; is that bad? I believed it was a good cpu. I have it over locked at 4.4.

not in the same price bracket though

It's not bad, just not stellar single-thread

Although overclocked it should be a lot better, but then again you could overclock most of these CPUs

>being poor
oh look, maybe you should find a job and live on your own instead of draining your parent's money???????

>Intel still on top with performance.
Yes I never denied that but it doesn't matter any more because of the pricing. Intel barely gives you better performance for a higher price.

i7-7700K: 4c8t @ 4.2 - 4.5GHz
>$325 + $100 AIO

R5 1500X: 4c8t @ 3.5 - 3.7 GHz
>$189 + $0 stock cooler

So, is paying more than twice really worth 20% faster single thread performance?

AMD didn't create freesync, its a proprietary version of adaptive sync that didn't qualify as adaptive sync because they wanted to cheap out, its basically a hack to prevent vsync from causing frame drops.

G-Sync on the other hand was created before adaptive sync was part of the displayport spec and uses an ASIC in the monitor for true fps on demand low latency gaming.

Yeah value is a different thing altogether, but it's kinda a stupid metric because low-end processors will always win in value. You can get a $5 processor that beats almost all other processors in value (pic related).

20% faster every single core. You got 4 cores there, senpai.
Not to mention you're talking about benchmark """performance""" while most programs are designed and compiled (optimized) for intel cpus. So this 20% will transform into 50% faster performance in real life.

Sure thing but that didn't answer my question I gave you.

Also how is the R5 1500X a "low end" processor? It has 4 physical cores and 8 logical cores just like the i7-7700K albeit running at lower frequencies.

source?

agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49

No, I want the source on:
>most programs are designed and compiled (optimized) for intel cpus. So this 20% will transform into 50% faster performance in real life.

It's not low end, which is why it's not even anywhere near the top in value

As far as whether it's worth it to pay more, I'd say it just depends on your budget. Generally the more you spend, the faster it's gonna be.

>Date:2009-12-30 10:22
This is almost a decade old. Do you have any recent proofs?

With the multi-threaded rush, is higher single-threaded performance realistically achievable since 7700K is already tapping out?

Can you please stop posting the pissmark scores, they're worthless m8. He just proved it to you with the hevc benchmark.

Kill yourself.

Hevc benchmark shows exact same thing as these benchmarks, just has fewer CPUs listed.

Relax, he's the official clown of Sup Forums. He's just joking around.

Because AMD focuses on multi-core performance. This is the way to the future. Advances in transitor technology will slow down, meaning that we won't be able to improve cores and such. The answer? Multi core improvements and optimisations, both in hardware and software. AMD have the future, while intel are going to be stuck in the past.

Oh look, it's Sup Forums's mascot. At least you had the decency to put your trips back, faggot.

>is higher single-threaded performance realistically achievable

I have no idea, I imagine yes?

What's really interesting to me is that a cheap $150 processor has the #2 best single thread score.

No it doesn't, at all.

i7-6950X is only 25% irl than the R7 1700 yet in pissmark it's 50% faster.

Fucking dumbass.

I don't know the exact percentages, I'm just saying the lineup looks the same, with all the Intel high-end multicores on top

One battery can have two different watt hour ratings depending on the voltage its discharged at moron.

>50% looks like 25%
Are you literally retarded?

I don't think you understand what I said

Can you elaborate, it sounded like you were defending pissmark scores.

lol

I'm just saying look at the order of the CPUs ranked here: cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

vs Hevc benchmarks or any other highly threaded benchmark

Same order, just Passmark has more CPUs listed.

Oh ok. Well anyway stop mentioning pissmark, I can't see any legit use for it except 9gagers or reditors thinking they know anything about tech.

We should honestly have people reviewing processors by running them through cinebench/HEVC encoding benchmarks on stock settings for at least an hour. Then again most people flock to pissnark and geekbench scores because actually benchmarking the processors is just too much work.

>pissmark

I like you

Those CPUs are not stock

>caring about value for something you own for at least 4 years when it only costs ~$350
Kids these days, tsk.

Passmark actually seems to match up pretty well with real world benchmarks, but it's not going to get the exact percentages the same.

Also it's separated into single-thread and multi-thread, while most programs are a mix of both.

No shit negro, he's comparing IPC. Are you gonna do that while the intel chips run at 5 GHz and the AMD ones don't?

Comparing non-stock CPUs is pretty useless.

All CPUs are clocked at 4.2GHz

AKA they're underclocked and overclocked

This is how you do IPC benchmarks.

le poor maymay xD

i think u shud use the austits maymay itds more epicc XD

IPC benchmarks are worthless for real world performance though.

Yes and in real world the i5s are dead and the locked 7700 is trash. You'll have to delid the 7700k and overclock it to hell and back in order to beat Ryzen.

dumbfucks

Uhh what? Look at the charts in OP

>pissmark

It's actually accurate, compare it to others

Just as accurate as CPU-Z

then explain and you dumb fuck

CPU-Z seems to be missing a lot of processors

1. is the same, look at the order, same as Passmark

2. is underclocked and overclocked processors, not even sure why you'd post that

...

Amazing argument

Surely if something's not running optimally it's always the fault of the hardware, not the software? You should use source based benchmarking so you can bisect the issue.

7700K clocks 13% higher on per core boost than the 1800X; it should come as no surprise that Ryzen is behind. It has more integer and the same floating point computational resources per core with Kaby-Lake, has the same decode width - Ryzen is practically prefetcher limited on single core. Showing quad core results shouldn't be surprising if single core results are greater when comparing two processors with the same number of cores. Many people also overclock the 7700K well beyond that which skews the Userbenchmark results. Linux benchmarks (check phoronix) show that single threaded performance trade blows in general applications excluding AVX2 accelerated programs and Ryzen is much more comparable with 6950/6900 in thread heavy applications e.g. C-ray, Blender, x264. 1700/1700X should correspond closely with those results as well. Some outliers are out there and I suspect unoptimized software (e.g. Apache, Redis).

Simply upon the basis of some arbitrary benchmark that something runs slower than the other doesn't show particular insight on whether or not the software is poorly optimized or if the hardware has inherent flaws.

The point of posting that is to show that IPC is roughly the same (it's not a perfect benchmark due to nonlinear scaling and obviously Zen can't make it to 4.2GHz reliably), so it provides an accurate gauge of why an processor with a 500MHz clock advantage has a performance lead? Regarding the first point, the i7 6950X has 2 more cores and a 12% and is achieving the same performance as a 4GHz 1700X. It's also 4x the price and requires a 50% more expensive platform (assuming X370).

ah passmark a totally unbiased and well written benchmark...

you know when sysmark and passmark bias explodes for being anti consumer the vw scandal will be as nothing compared to this

>2015

missing the point by some light years
or
you are the usual intel shill

>780ti that high
Lol

Go ahead and explain the point.

>1060>480
Dam, I knew pissmark was bad but not this bad.

780 above a z
970 above a fury z and a titan black
a 980ti which is a cut down slower titan x is above an actual titan x and above an m6000 which is a full maxwell chip...

>passmark is biased anti consumer
>cpu-z is biased anti consumer
>userbenchmark is obsolete

AMDrones' truth shields deflect all facts that don't align with their ideals

Umm 1060 is faster than 480

1060 is faster in anything but vulkan, all benchmarks reflect this

maybe on launch cause now 480 is certenly a lot faster...

Not true, both have had a lot of driver improvements

uhhhhn...