See post 575 here: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/intel-comet-lake-thread.2562275/post-40151692
I further commented on what I meant by that.
See post 575 here: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/intel-comet-lake-thread.2562275/post-40151692This is not correct and I have to comment since it's coming from a mod on a respected website. You should know better. Or ask someone.
Single-thread performance will always be important. It's the foundation of computing.
The reason why today we see CPUs evolving more in core count than in per-core performance is very simple.
Having a multi-core CPU in a PC is a fairly young idea. They've only been around for ~15 years.
We're not saturated on the core count yet, so the easiest way to make a CPU faster today is by adding cores. But this won't last forever.
And of course we have technologies that will let us make CPUs running at 10GHz or safely operate well over 100*C.
But they are more expensive than adding cores, so they have to wait for their turn.
The problem is that most cpu architectures name it x86, power pc, arm, ... all are hitting some kind of wall in single thread performance where all architectures perform about the same.Single-thread performance will always be important. It's the foundation of computing.
In this listing right here:Just curious how you know that, since I did not see it anywhere officially.
OK, I don't speak french, so I have no idea what that says.In this listing right here:
Intel Core i9 10900K (BX8070110900K) : achat / vente Processeur sur PC21.FR
PC21.FR : Intel Core i9 10900K (BX8070110900K) . Achat en ligne de Intel Core i9 10900K (BX8070110900K). Processeur pas cher, Retrouvez sur PC21.FR toute la gamme Processeurwww.pc21.fr
The 10 series does look like a fun overclocking platform. I like that Intel is adding these nifty features like per-core HT toggling. Intel XTU being a requirement is a bummer as it is on Windows only.
I want to see the new XTU features in action for an overclock. I am curious on how many 'weak' or 'strong' cores are in the 10 core on average. Intel is giving us a lot more control and I like it.
Some of the cores will clock higher and with less power draw when HT is disabled and you don't need it enabled for all tasks and on all cores at the same time.I wonder what the intent behind per core HT is. I guess more options are always nice. I wonder if it will work like Renoir or the new Xbox where without HT a core can clock say 200-300MHz higher.
Seriously, don't plan to use a CPU bought today for the next 10 years. Not with all the tech that we might see in this decade.
OK, I don't speak french, so I have no idea what that says.
BX8070110900K INTEL i9-10900K Comet Lake-S LGA1200 (BX8070110900K) *8623 NDA13/05
No,just because there are benchmarks that have been "ported" to all the architectures and use the same amount of IPC in all versions doesn't mean that all architectures have hit the same wall.The problem is that most cpu architectures name it x86, power pc, arm, ... all are hitting some kind of wall in single thread performance where all architectures perform about the same.
The differentiation is long ago outside of that single thread performance, its the number of cpu cores, power (consumption), features, integration (soc/accelerators/gpu/...), ...
It's already 2020.
Some of the cores will clock higher and with less power draw when HT is disabled and you don't need it enabled for all tasks and on all cores at the same time.
Push your 6(example) fastest and "lowest power drawest" cores to the max without HT to run your game the best way possible,have all the others with HT on and clocked at stock to deal with your background crap.
Run some games on ultra others on medium others on high just to make your point look valid..the video.This is how little Intel has done since the 6000 series if anything to really demand upgrades unless you need threads.
They already have this(determining which core can clock highest with the least power) for X CPUs,As far as I've seen Intel has not confirmed that. It is purely reasonable speculation based on the fact that HT can be turned on/off per core.
Run some games on ultra others on medium others on high just to make your point look valid..the video.
Intel's TDP =! AMD's TDP. And Zen 2's IPC advantage over Skylake is well in the margin of error (even the Stilt's extensive clock for clock ipc tests produced a virtual tie), and most likely due to reviewers bowing to pressure from rabid AMD fans insisting on Intel chips running at lower memory speeds, mitigation patches, and clock for clock ipc tests, all for that hollow "victory." This, when most DIYers, and especially gamers; heck, these same AMD fans download Ryzen DRAM Calculator the first chance they get. Point being, in the real world, gamers, and enthusiasts in general, hardly run anything at stock, and here, the Intel platform gains a lot more through RAM and CPU overclocking. The latter is virtually dead with Zen 2.Even look at the 8c parts. Intel's 65w 8c parts have a 2.9GHz base clock. AMD's 8c 65w part has a 3.6Ghz clock. Stock-for-stock, the 3700X will deliver significantly higher sustained throughput with the factory HSF.
Also, I don't hear anyone talking about idle power consumption (where most systems spend their time until a task is being performed). The Zen 2 chips are mostly burning double the power at idle, while doing nothing, which in the long run could add up significantly.Thats true for the top 8-10 Core SKUs, but the 4-6 cores are not that much more power costly than the competition.
Also, I don't hear anyone talking about idle power consumption (where most systems spend their time until a task is being performed). The Zen 2 chips are mostly burning double the power at idle, while doing nothing, which in the long run could add up significantly.
Intel's TDP =! AMD's TDP. And Zen 2's IPC advantage over Skylake is well in the margin of error (even the Stilt's extensive clock for clock ipc tests produced a virtual tie), and most likely due to reviewers bowing to pressure from rabid AMD fans insisting on Intel chips running at lower memory speeds, mitigation patches, and clock for clock ipc tests, all for that hollow "victory." This, when most DIYers, and especially gamers; heck, these same AMD fans download Ryzen DRAM Calculator the first chance they get. Point being, in the real world, gamers, and enthusiasts in general, hardly run anything at stock, and here, the Intel platform gains a lot more through RAM and CPU overclocking. The latter is virtually dead with Zen 2.
strange everyone came to this thread to talk about how great amd is ;/
this is a anti intel thread you can say what ever you like! the last intel chips i bought are either xeon or sandybridge 3930k / 2500k/2600k of course you can use a cpu for 10 years ((switched to a 2700k and then to a 3600 amd in hopes of using less power)) now if we start needing to control robots or some strange task that requires a new awesome cpu in 5 years then sure you wont be able to use your 3900x hehe.I often wonder why this isn't brought up, i am not bugged by it but your right though. I can't defend this as a 3900x owner either. My tower really never does sit idle though as even when i go to bed the monitor is off and the 1080ti is folding. On my 7700k its loading upwards of like 19% at times just doing that. Obviously will be less when the 3900x is installed but its usually only pushing 1 good thread anyways.
I would ask why it idles higher but not wanting this to go off topic, maybe a good conversation for the 3000 builders thread in the cpu section? I would really like to see why and i would follow the conversation there.
5-7% is not margin of error.And Zen 2's IPC advantage over Skylake is well in the margin of error
Clock-for-clock testing is flawed, we've gone over this multiple times in the past.even the Stilt's extensive clock for clock ipc tests produced a virtual tie
Gamers!=enthusiasts. If by enthusiasts you mean those who overclock anything at all, then they constitute an overwhelming minority and are not representative of the gamer demographic.Point being, in the real world, gamers, and enthusiasts in general, hardly run anything at stock,
Except we aren't.The problem is that most cpu architectures name it x86, power pc, arm, ... all are hitting some kind of wall in single thread performance where all architectures perform about the same.
It's precisely 2020, not "already". As I said: at this moment improving CPUs by adding cores is cheaper and still makes sense.The differentiation is long ago outside of that single thread performance, its the number of cpu cores, power (consumption), features, integration (soc/accelerators/gpu/...), ...
It's already 2020.
This only applies to DIY PCs (so like 5% of the market?).This is no longer the Sandy Bridge era, both vendors considerably improve their offerings every year, and today's $300+ CPU is very likely to be matched and/or beaten in one or two years by the $200 model. People looking to maximize value over time will buy according to their needs and upgrade more often, at equal or lower TCO.
Can you PLEASE provide some basic information so I and many others here don't have to suffer through 45 minutes of erratic loading for a 15 minutes video? Thank you very much in advance.
Missing the good old Intel-only times, eh?strange everyone came to this thread to talk about how great amd is ;/
Can you PLEASE provide some basic information so I and many others here don't have to suffer through 45 minutes of erratic loading for a 15 minutes video? Thank you very much in advance.