Eh?
My 5950x (measured) flops are ~2 TFLOPS in single-precision, ~1TFLOPS in double precision (obviously, due to half the SIMD vector size). This is a desktop-class 16-core machine.
My 5950x (measured) flops are ~2 TFLOPS in single-precision, ~1TFLOPS in double precision (obviously, due to half the SIMD vector size). This is a desktop-class 16-core machine.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9uswbz/how_much_gflops...
https://github.com/Mysticial/Flops/
You can also get a theoretical computation of the Flops, which matches nicely with the experimental measurement. You have to take into account:
- the clock frequency (~3.9 GHz on multithreaded workloads on my machine)
- the number of cores (16)
- the reciprocal throughput of the FMA instruction (~.5, that is, 2 instructions per clock cycle)
- the number of flops per instruction (2 for the FMA instruction, that is, 1 multiply + 1 add)
- the SIMD vector width (4 for double, 8 for float).
Putting it together:
3.9e9 * 16 * 2 * 2 * 4 = 998.4 GFlops (double)
3.9e9 * 16 * 2 * 2 * 8 = 1996.8 GFlops (single)
The measured values on my machine are a bit different, but close (1070 and 2151 respectively).
References:
https://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf
https://www.agner.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56
https://gadgetversus.com/processor/amd-ryzen-9-5950x-gflops-...
The vector flops for the 3090Ti are 33 TFlops for single precision, 0.5 TFlops for double precision. So, 16x faster than the 5950x in single precision, 2x slower for double precision. At almost 3x the price and >4x the power consumption.
Of course, if all you care about is AI, then there's no argument - but then we are not really talking about a general-purpose device any more.
The narrative of GPUs being "hundreds of time" faster than CPUs is vastly blown out of proportion for general-purpose computing.
It is you who barged into the thread with unrelated GPU performance numbers, but whatever :)
Here's the comment I assume you are allegedly trying to "correct":
> with full training you are out of luck with CPUs, the gap is much bigger. 64c TR could only get to roughly 1TFlops
1TFlops is not the main part of that statement, and it is qualified with "roughly" which I suppose is not too far from the truth in the context. And the context is "training ... the gap is much bigger", and in this case "much" is at least 30x even with the updated number.