CPU Benchmark Performance: Intel vs AMD

Here are the graphs you've probably be wanting to see. Here we've listed Intel's last few flagships, along with AMD's Zen 3 offerings. In no particular order, here is the CPU performance.

It's hard to miss a lot of blue bars at the top of these charts. ST performance usually reigns supreme, and it shines though. Intel does take a few other wins here in multi-threaded as well, and users will point to CineBench. CB loves lightweight threads and cores, and with the combined improvements in the out-of-order window in both cores as well as memory access improvements into the L2 caches.

Gaming Performance: DDR5 vs DDR4 Gaming Performance: Intel vs AMD
Comments Locked

474 Comments

View All Comments

  • mode_13h - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    > Consumers deserve non-broken products that aren’t sold via smoke and mirrors tactics.

    What's broken, exactly? They said you wouldn't have AVX-512. That someone figured out how to enable it is just bonus.
  • mode_13h - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    Why are you convinced it's so consequential?
  • mode_13h - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    Oops, that was a response to:

    OG> The current situation is inexcusable.
  • Oxford Guy - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    That question is meritless.
  • mode_13h - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    If the issue isn't terribly consequential, then why is it inexcusable? The gravity of alleged misconduct usually derives from its impacts.
  • Oxford Guy - Monday, November 8, 2021 - link

    I have been suspicious that you’re some sort of IBM AI. Posts like that go a long way toward supporting that suspicion.

    You were the poster who claimed it’s of little consequence. I was the poster who said it’s inexcusable. Either you’re AI that needs work or your mind is rife with confusion in your quest to impress the community via attempts at domination.

    Not a good look, again. Posting your own claims as if they’re mine and using my claims to create a false incompetence situation is a bit better than your pathetic schoolyard taunts. So, perhaps I should praise you for improving the quality of your posts via being merely incompetent — like Intel’s handling of this situation you’re trying to downplay. I shouldn’t make that equivalence, though, as lying to the community in terms of a retail product is worse than any of your parlor tricks.
  • mode_13h - Tuesday, November 9, 2021 - link

    > I have been suspicious that you’re some sort of IBM AI.

    No way. Their artificial intelligence is no match for my natural stupidity.
    :D

    > You were the poster who claimed it’s of little consequence.

    No, I asked *you* why it's so consequential.

    > I was the poster who said it’s inexcusable.

    Which sort of implies that it's very consequential. If it's of not, then why would it be inexcusable?

    > Either you’re AI that needs work or your mind is rife with confusion in your quest to
    > impress the community via attempts at domination.

    If you wouldn't waste so much energy posturing and just answer the question, maybe we could actually get somewhere.

    I don't honestly care what the community thinks of me. That's the beauty of pseudonymity! I don't even need people to believe I'm somehow affiliated with a prestigious university. Either my points make sense and are well-founded or they aren't. Similarly, I don't care if you're "just" the Oxford garbage collector. If you contribute useful information, then we all win. If you're just trolling, flaming, or pulling the thread into irrelevant tangents, then we all lose.

    The main reason I post on here is to share information and to learn. I asked what should be a simple question which you dismissed as meritless, and without explaining why. As usual, only drama ensues, when I try to press the issue. I always want to give people the opportunity to justify their stance, but so often you just look for some way to throw it back in my face.

    This kind of crap is extremely low value. I hope you agree.
  • mode_13h - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    > and the sentence about how it could be eliminated in the future.

    It's true. Intel can disable instructions in microcode updates and in future steppings of the CPU. So, even having the BIOS option is no guarantee.
  • mode_13h - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    > Since the silicon is there, if they can get the scheduler to manage
    > heterogeneous (P/E) cores there is now no down side with enabling AVX-512.

    This will not happen. The OS scheduler cannot compensate for lack of app awareness of the heterogeneous support for AVX-512. I'm sure that was fiercely debated, at Intel, but the performance downsides for naive code (i.e. 99%+ of the AVX-512 code in the wild) would generate too many complaints and negative publicity from the apps where enabling it results in performance & power regressions.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    So, Alder Lake is a turkey as a high-end CPU, one that should have never been released? This is because each program has to include Alder Lake AVX-512 support and those that don’t will cause performance regressions?

    So, Intel designed and released a CPU that it knew wouldn’t be properly supported by Windows 11 — yet the public was sold Windows 11 primarily on the basis of how its nifty new scheduler will support this CPU?

    ‘The OS scheduler cannot compensate for lack of app awareness of the heterogeneous support for AVX-512’

    Is Windows 11 able to support a software utility to disable the low-power cores once booted into Windows or are we restricted to disabling them via BIOS? If the latter is the case then Intel had the responsibility for mandating such a switch for all Alder Lake boards, as part of the basic specification.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now