Youtube nerd claim: intel 4 core + 4 fake/hyper cores, beats AMD 6 core ?

Hello,

I just saw a funny nerd/nerd video on youtube.

The somewhat cute/shy nerd claims that an intel 4 core + 4 fake/hyper cores
can beat amd 6 core.

(4 fake cores being hyper threading).

Now the nerd is not showing any benchmarks or anything... but his hypothesis
is kinda interesting.

The 4 fake cores/hyper cores are only used if the 4 real cores or busy/or
waiting for something but some resources still available.

However the challenge is clear:

4 real + 4 fake = 8 vs 6

So it's kind of an interesting claim.

Also it can be interesting for the futu

For example:

A 32 real core + 32 fake core vs a 48 real core or so...

Personally I'd think the 6 core would run circles around the intel 4 core...

But perhaps there is some merit to this whacky nerd story !

Shed some light on this ?

I'd like to see some benchmarks of 4 core + 4 hyper cores vs 6 core amd.

Spending a little bit of extra money to get the hyper-threaded version...
would that than beat an 6 core ? hmmm...

Bye,
Skybuck.

Skybuck Flying wrote:

The somewhat cute/shy nerd claims that an intel 4 core + 4 fake/hyper
cores can beat amd 6 core.

It's easier to just look them up.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

Paul

On 10/09/2015 12:16, Paul wrote:
Skybuck Flying wrote:

The somewhat cute/shy nerd claims that an intel 4 core + 4 fake/hyper
cores can beat amd 6 core.

It's easier to just look them up.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

Paul

I am surprised quite how far down the list the AMD CPUs are these days.

I am no great fan of hyperthreading but it does work OK for some sorts
of computation provided the memory bandwidth can keep up.

Although depending on the nature of the problem you might find that
memory IO goes bandwidth limited if the threadcount is more than 6 or 7.

Complex chess analysis runs faster with threads limited to 6 or 7 on my
i3770 as a concrete example. It slows down with the final 8th thread
enabled and just generates more heat for a slightly slower answer.
(on the standard Fritz benchmark set)

I suspect the same might well be true of LTSPice too but I have never
bothered to benchmark it systematically since it is fast enough for me.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown writes:

I am surprised quite how far down the list the AMD CPUs are these days.

I'm not. I think AMD was able to catch and surpass only because they got
rid of the FSB and added 64 bit with plenty of registers; that gave them a
huge gain bigger than Intel's process advantage and with their lack of
investment at that time, in the "IA-32" architecture, putting
a money in the Itanium instead.

Interesting is that AMD got nearly 50% marketshare at that time but when
Intel finally realized why AMD was eating their lunch, they quickly
started to build AMD64 CPUs and later got rid of the FSB and came out
with much more efficient CPUs because of their better processes.

Complex chess analysis runs faster with threads limited to 6 or 7 on my
i3770 as a concrete example. It slows down with the final 8th thread
enabled and just generates more heat for a slightly slower answer.
(on the standard Fritz benchmark set)

All modern CPUs start to throttle fairly quickly when they start to
get too hot. The 8 thread might help but only if you added better
cooling.

Casper

It would be a whole lot easier if these charts mentioned core counts and
hyper core counts !

Too lazy to decode all those model numbers or whatever ?! =D

Yes, I am lazy nowadays and when I look at these charts for good reason too
!

This is fricking tiring LOL.

The nerd did mention some fokking model number.

But quite frankly they can go shove their model numbers up their arses.

Name it "INTEL CPU CORE 4" or **** off ! lol =D

Bye,
Skybuck.

Skybuck Flying wrote:
It would be a whole lot easier if these charts mentioned core counts and
hyper core counts !

Too lazy to decode all those model numbers or whatever ?! =D

Yes, I am lazy nowadays and when I look at these charts for good reason
too !

This is fricking tiring LOL.

The nerd did mention some fokking model number.

But quite frankly they can go shove their model numbers up their arses.

Name it "INTEL CPU CORE 4" or **** off ! lol =D

Bye,
Skybuck.

You use the search box and type in the model number here.

http://ark.intel.com

*******

The AMD page has gone downhill. Not as good as it used to be.

http://products.amd.com

http://products.amd.com/en-us/search...ktopProcessors

HTH,
Paul

"
I am surprised quite how far down the list the AMD CPUs are these days.
"

It's probably a deception.

All those xeons on the top of the list are many cores, very hot processors,
like 16 cores or so... or even more.
140 watts or more... rack-like-processors, probably not suited for desktops.

Not realistic to compare those to 8 core amd's of 95 watts.

I'd like to see a chart where intel's quad core chips or their finest 8 core
chip at around 95 watts takes on amd's 8 core 95 watts chip ?!

Not that I am looking into buying a 95 watts chip... cause that's what I am
running for the last 10 years or so... and I want lower TDP cause I think it
will be nice.. less noise of fans.

Entire system has to be low TDP though... if that's not possible than might
as well get 95 TDP watts chip... or I would have to scale down other
components too.

Bye,
Skybuck.

Weird, why does this benchmark site say 4 cores for this AMD processor ?!

https://browser.primatelabs.com/geek...&q=AMD+FX-9590

Isn't it supposed to be 8 ?!?

I can vaguely remember reading something about bad core detection or
something.

Or is something else going on here ?

Is this actually AMD's hyperthreading and AMD lying ?

Hmmm...

Bye,
Skybuck.

Ohoh I think I just caught AMD lying their filthy fat asses off:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...t-Core&id=2014

This benchmark site says: "number of cores 4" (2 logical cores per physical)

AMD FX-9590 Eight-Core
Average CPU Mark
Description: Socket: AM3+, Clockspeed: 4.7 GHz, Turbo Speed: 5.0 GHz,
No of Cores: 4 (2 logical cores per physical), Max TDP: 220 W


Now look what AMD says on their site:

http://shop.amd.com/en-us/components...ecxOffUS100389

"AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition FX-8370E (ecx-Off-US-100389)
a.. Manufacturer: AMD
b.. Processor Line: AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition2
c.. Processor Model: FX-8370E
d.. Cores: 8
e.. Frequency: 3300
f.. Socket: AM3+
g.. L2 Cache: 8192
h.. Wattage: 95
"

Nowhere does it say that these are not true 8 physical cores only 4 true
physical cores.

There better be a damn fine explanation for this, otherwise I am definetly
not going to do bussiness with a company which lies about such a MAJOR BIG
DETAIL/NUMBER/FACT/VALUE/IMPORTANCY =D

Bye,
Skybuck.

Casper H.S. Dik writes:
Martin Brown writes:

I am surprised quite how far down the list the AMD CPUs are these days.

I'm not. I think AMD was able to catch and surpass only because they got
rid of the FSB and added 64 bit with plenty of registers;

AMD already caught up and overtook Intel with the K7 which had no
integrated memory controller and did not implement AMD64. The Pentium
III reached only 1133MHz, while the contemporary Thunderbird reached
1400MHz (at roughly the same IPC). The Pentium 4 had higher clock
rate, but lower IPC.

The integrated memory controller of the K8 helped a bit, but I did not
have the impression that it had a big influence for the stuff I did.
And while 64 bits was certainly attractive to me and a few others,
most people did not use it, because they did not run 64-bit OSs at the
time.

I think they just had a good design with the K7/K8, while the Pentium
4 was not so great. Intel has steadily improved the P6-based
microarchitecture since then, and it looks like AMD could not keep up.
Let's hope they have another good one with Zen.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html