Gameguru Mania

ggrobot · Elite Member Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 45820

ed customer price starting at $513. This special edition processor will be available for a limited time only and can be found at retailers worldwide.

uot;Intel has raised the bar for desktop gaming with the new 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900KS Special Edition processor. Based on the 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K archite

Read more...

Source: GGMania headlines
GGMania.com - Daily Gaming and Tech news

Csimbi · Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:30 am Post subject:

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2545

do you seriously think that deliding your cpu magically made it faster? AIDA? dude...So many variables...Granted, if I had 4790 I wouldn't bother with getting skylake for ~5% perf. increase overall, but still....

Also, doubling performance of the cpu each year is very unrealistic. That task can't be done with GPU, let alone with CPU...It doesn't matter if it's intel or amd.

Csimbi · Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:20 pm Post subject:

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2545

I have no clue why your cpu ran that hot. It's not supposed to. Especially in AIDA test that is quite mild tbh.

AIDA's benchamrks are stupid, there is no better way to put it. Look at the memory configurations of systems you are competing against. for dd4 there are even 2133 and 2400 RAM modules on HEDT cpu's and X motherboards. Then my CPU is often faster than higher clocked hyperthreaded i7 8700K (I have i5 9400 lol) because r am is at 2400, mine is at 3333 and like I said, a lot of variables.
It's fine just don't take it too seriously.

As for performance doubling in CPU industry, they can't do that within the year even if they wanted to throw everything they made last year into trash. It took AMD 10 years and everything they had to make Ryzen. And do you see 100% perf. increase in ryzen, say, 2800 over 1800? 3800 over 1800? Nope. You wont see it on 5800 vs 1800 either. It impossible. It requires whole new fab, new chip design etc. Intel has been toying with similar chip design since first "I" series. Now they are at the end of the road, and AMD is going to be doing the same thing with Ryzens for years to come.

PS. Some bigger improvements on intel you see only under some circumstances. I had IvyBridge i5 @4.4GHz. When I upgraded to this i5 9400, I was actually amazed at how much better some games played (much more fps, like, going from "medium" to "very high" settings, same GPU. Some games just worked the same so...yea.

Csimbi · Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:14 am Post subject:

Just run it like I did - Stress FPU only; that makes is the hottest.

AIDA might look stupid to you, but taking memory speeds into account does give a better reflection of a systems' overall performance.
You can shove your fast CPU up where the sun don't shine if you have a weak memory controller or cheap RAM.
Another good test I use to compare is the WinRAR benchmark - that is sensitive to memory speeds, too.

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2545

they are just outdated synthetic tests. There is no real life scenario where Opteron from 2000s is going to be actually faster than any ryzen or i5/i7 8xxx, yet, it rules supreme in several AIDA tests...

PS. Memory Controller is on a CPU, both on intel and AMD. AMD Bulldozer and chips before it had it on motherboard chipset, but you don't need any test to tell you what trash they are.

PPS. Just ran stress test, FPU only, ~50C . LinPack or Lynx easily push it into 70s

tub0rg69 · Contributor Joined: 24 Sep 2019 Posts: 12

Neither Intel nor AMD have been able to double permance for about 15 years now.
not because they do not want to, believe me they would love to make a 3 year old pc obsolete if they still could.

They cant increase frequencies anymore, we had 4ghz 20 years ago,
and they cant drop voltages anymore, we ran around 1.3 vcore 15 years ago.

That is why they started throwing cores at the problem. Remember Adding cores to cpus costs them money the dies become bigger and bigger instead of smaller and smaller. Is having 2x 3ghz better then having one core running 6 ghz for a cpu? no of course not but it was the only way they still could increase performance in a meaningfull way. well at least for things that can run parallel.

Microprocessor running doped silica chips, like harddrives using magnetic metal disk are at the end of their development. to really increase the performance a new technology insteat of an iterrated will be required. for hdds its probably going to be ssd drives, for Microprocessor it remains to be seen.

doodah · Junior Member Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Posts: 239

Moores law says nothing about performance, what the heck are you on about? Processors only doubled in MHz back in the early 00's but that didn't double their performance..

tub0rg69 · Contributor Joined: 24 Sep 2019 Posts: 12

Who is talking about Moores law?

they didnt double in mhz only in the 00s, they pretty much did since the 70s.
and they have not increased since around 2005.

if you compare 2 cores of the same architecture double frequency equals double performance.

since they cant do that since 2005 they started doubling cores instead, that works for somethings, not for all.

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2545

the problem is "not for all". The software witch doesn't benefit from more threads is either at limit, or needs to be re-written.
It's akin to having two 1TB drives, 2TB total. You can store a bunch of small files on them, but you can't store one 1.2TB file. In this scenario the drives represent the cpu with 2 threads, and the 1.2TB file represents a code written by a monkey.

tub0rg69 · Contributor Joined: 24 Sep 2019 Posts: 12

sure but of course there are many things that can not be parallelized and more cores or "drives" mean more power and material comsumption.

further increase of density and frequency would be more desirable.

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2545

I am pretty sure that almost everything can be parallelized. I am not sure everything needs to be tho.
Most things are parallelized fortunately so with each core we add, we do get more performance out of such applications. Up until a point where some application simply do not benefit from more cores because instructions hit bottleneck somewhere else in the system, or in the CPU. But anyway, I am pretty sure that latest intel i5 is at least twice as fast as the first intel i5 was (overall).

tub0rg69 · Contributor Joined: 24 Sep 2019 Posts: 12

any serial calculation by defalult can never be parallelized because you need the last result for the next step.

and even if you can parallelize something it does not mean it will benifit greatly.

Amdahl's law and Gustafson's law for refrence.

clock for clock that may be true for the i5 but that still is only a doubling in 10 years, before 2005 a decade would have seen a tenfold increase.

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2545

I didn't mean just clock for clock. It is clock for clock and you now have 6 cores, not 4, and things work faster across the board. Adobe package which a lot of people use for living - works a lot better. Sony vegas too. Games...3D modeling and rendering...it's all waaay ahead oh 2005 i5/7.

Sure, windows calc.exe doesn't need more performance, but even archivers (multi thread) benefited from faster CPUs. Hell, I'd hard to press what did not.