▲ | DrNosferatu 7 hours ago | |||||||
But single core performance has been stagnant for ages! Considering ‘Geekbench 6’ scores, at least. So if it’s not a task massively benefiting from parallelization, buying used is still the best value for money. | ||||||||
▲ | bob1029 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Single core performance has not been stagnant. We're about double where we were in 2015 for a range of workloads. Branch prediction, OoO execution, SIMD, etc. make a huge difference. The clock speed of a core is important and we are hitting physical limits there, but we're also getting more done with each clock cycle than ever before. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
▲ | DrNosferatu 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
I certainly will not die on this hill: my comment was motivated by recently comparing single core scores on Geekbench6 from 10 years apart CPUs. Care to provide some data? | ||||||||
▲ | TiredOfLife 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
Single core performance has tripled in the last 10 years | ||||||||
| ||||||||
▲ | PartiallyTyped 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
I don’t think that’s true. AMD’s ****X3D chips are evidence that’s not true, with lots of benchmarks supporting this. |