| ▲ | alt227 an hour ago | |
Why do people care so much about single core performance? We are all professionals here and I bet most of our workloads are multi core. I get that these new arm chips from Apple and Qualcomm are great at one thing at a time, but for professional workloads high end x64 chips still cannot be beaten on the desktop. | ||
| ▲ | dagmx 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |
What x86 chips have the same or higher number of cores in the form factors that these chips are available in and are also more performant? Strix Halo is 16 cores. Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is 24. Apple is 18. Qualcomm is something similar too but I can’t recall. NVIDIA is 20. Until you get to threadripper/epyc or Xeon territories (completely different form factors and TDPs) the arm chips are ahead on both power and perf than the x86. And even when you get to those areas, arm is equivalent or out performs them as can be seen by the recent neoverse x3 and Vera benchmarks. | ||
| ▲ | Remnant44 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
I agree with you, but also: outside of anything else, amdahls law means that as the parallel performance grows, we become _more_ limited by the inherently serial code, and thus single core performance, not less. Given that single core performance is "harder" (can't just throw more cores/sockets at the problem), it's also critically important. | ||
| ▲ | hulitu an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> Why do people care so much about single core performance? Because that't the only part this chip excels. People are comparing apples with oranges since ages. | ||