Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by AA-BA-94-2A-56 | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

AA-BA-94-2A-56

Clock speed is not an indicator of performance.

View on HN

But good indicator of TDP. Those 6GHz could fry an egg.

I have a 13900k and can confirm, its basically an air fryer.

For per core performance, it surely is.

Clock only translates to performance when combined with Instructions-Per-Clock.

It used to be clocks per instruction, we are spoiled nowadays.

You say that, but applications use up orders of magnitude more system resources these days due to being built upon several layers of abstractions. Some modern applications feel more sluggish than their feature-complete counterparts from back in the day.

Correct, we somehow lost grip on things, still we aspire at a simpler ecosystem. But I wouldn’t give up on python that helps me powering so much of my digital life, with only SciTe and a command prompt.

There are no dramatic shifts in IPC recently and within the same family of processors like Intel core. That makes clock speeds a pretty decent proxy for (peak single core) perf. You can compare a 4GHz from a couple of years ago and know with some accuracy what to expect from 6Gz.

That's tautological. Commenter above is saying that IPC may have gone down. You're asserting that it didn't without any evidence.

There are also plenty of other reasons speed doesn't translate well to performance, like thermal limits and memory bottlenecking.

Since there are small yet positive IPC improvements each generation it’s a reasonable assumption/expectation that at least IPC is no worse in gen 14 than in the generations immediately before it.

Sure, until there are benchmarks we can’t know this. If I knew thus I’d no doubt be under NDA or embargo. But I’d be willing to bet that IPC difference is pretty small.

> There are also plenty of other reasons speed doesn't translate well to performance, like thermal limits and memory bottlenecking.

Indeed, the more interesting unknown for a new CPU gen these days isn’t what’s happened to IPC but how long and how many cores can actually run at peak clock. In terms of real perf that’s probably a much bigger unknown factor in the performance. When I see 6GHz I wonder if that’s for 1 core for one second…

But that’s exactly why the thing that’s reasonably easy to guess is exactly that: the peak/instantaneous/theoretical single core perf. And actual “real world” perf is much harder to make any guesses about.

If you take the IPC of the last gen and the clock of the next gen you have a pretty good value if you want to guesstimate the peak single core perf.

no it's not, it's practical.

causality does not imply causation but it sure as shit points a gigantic neon sign at it.

Assuming you're comparing two chips with the same architecture.

Intel Prescott chips hit just shy of 4ghz and their performance certainly doesn't hold up.

The reality is that Intel is back to kicking ass in the CPU market and it's a glorious thing to see. Good competition is a wonderful thing.

AMD has its work cut out for it, Intel is awake and desperate again.

Would still take a 7800x3d over anything Intel currently. Only if they can cut the power usage in half with the same performance would i consider them kicking ass.

Kicking ass by relabelling last year's CPU with a new label and a small overclock?

this has to be satire right?

I am the target market for these chips, I have a 5 year old i9 gaming PC that needs replacing... I'll wait until the next generation

all they've done is pump even more power into last year's design and add some more pointless e-cores (into an ENTHUSIAST line that doesn't care about them, they're gaming desktops, not laptops)

if this is kicking ass I'd like to see what failure looks like

From the sidelines it looks like Intel just keeps cranking up the TDP to chase higher numbers.

I don't see where in the link it does say that clock speed is an indicator of performance.

Well, it's implied. Why else would it be notable?

Higher clock speeds in processors always come with additional self-interference (crosstalk), signal degradation, signal reflection, etc. so such a significantly higher clock speed than typical desktop processors indicates interesting strategies and problem-solving. This article doesn't really talk about why, but performance being irrelevant, a 6GHz clock is notable. It's not implied unless you're not familiar with the problems of higher clock speeds.

Did you look at the title?

Yes, it just comments that the I9 chip has speeds up to 6GHz. It doesn't imply a relation to performance unless you don't know what clock speed does in a processor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com