Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Danjour t1_j42qups wrote

Someone tell me why this doesn’t matter

21

Amazingawesomator t1_j42wt0j wrote

This is regularly checking single-core-only performance (multi-core boost is regularly lower than that. Multi-core is what is normally used under most loads nowadays), it is on intel's flagship "KS" processor so it will be extremely expensive, and the amount of power required for this is extremely inefficient in most cases.

It will still be fast, but it will be very difficult for a normal person to tell the difference between this inefficient monster and putting it in eco mode to save 20% of your power budget for something like 2% performance.

15

RunnBunnyRunn t1_j4a0mv2 wrote

Most if not all processors from series 3 through 13 are multicore. The 13th Gen Intel Core I9 processor family advances performance hybrid architecture with up to 8 P-cores and up to 16 E-cores for a total of 24 cores.

1

FreezingRobot t1_j43e498 wrote

First off, it's a processor that nobody in their right mind would pay for.

Secondly, clock speed isn't the most important thing when it comes to actual processor speed, or the work it does.

6

oodelay t1_j44jeho wrote

Autocad is still single core process.

12

BasilExposition75 t1_j44mm7f wrote

We have simulation environments at work which are single core. The next state requires knowledge of the previous one. Can’t pipeline. This might work for us.

6

oodelay t1_j44n6cc wrote

Having the right tool is so much more important than having the best tool.

9

RunnBunnyRunn t1_j4a0t6i wrote

depends on what tool you are using and if that tool is for the purpose intended

1

cth777 t1_j4700ue wrote

I still question if this is a better option than the non-S version. You’re spending a ton of power and likely running into thermal problems without excellent cooling for a very small improvement in single core performance

1

BasilExposition75 t1_j49cnqx wrote

You should see the cost of what we did otherwise. We water cooled a bunch of gaming machines and that worked well until the ac broke and the machines got soaked. Still cheaper than time.

1

aquarain t1_j44bi93 wrote

At 350 watts for just the two cores. It's a toaster. I mean, bragging rights. Fine. Kill the planet.

4

silverbolt2000 t1_j43rok8 wrote

Because the graphics card is usually the main bottleneck for the overwhelming majority of consumer related performance issues, not the CPU.

And the new CPU requires 150W of power! All they’ve done is made the existing Intel hardware more tolerant to overclocking. The architecture appears to be unchanged.

2

pinkfootthegoose t1_j48l7bz wrote

most processing can be run in run in parallel meaning that most problems can be split up and solved on several processors at once. Some problems can only done in series meaning they have to solved one math problem at a time in a sequence. You use the faster processor for the problems that have to run in sequence and the rest can be sent to the slower ones to be run in parallel. (simplified explaination)

1