Personal computing discussed
Krogoth wrote:AMD will implement their own benchmark called "Gluebench" in response. Spoiler alert: AMD specializes in gluing.
chuckula wrote:NOBODY CARES ABOUT RENDERING ON CPUS AND TR IS BIASED AGAINST AMD FOR USING CINEBENCH!!
-- AMD fanboys, March 5, 2019
synthtel2 wrote:(I usually run SMT-less now because apparently Windows' scheduler is hot garbage,
just brew it! wrote:synthtel2 wrote:(I usually run SMT-less now because apparently Windows' scheduler is hot garbage,
It's not just the fault of the scheduler; SMT is really hard to schedule for optimally. Blaming the scheduler when SMT performs poorly on certain workloads is, in a sense. blaming the messenger.
Krogoth wrote:I don't think it will change the game by much.
synthel2 wrote:AFAICT, the scheduler's design isn't lacking, it's just buggy.
synthel2 wrote:I ought to put together a proper test to repro it at some point anyway. I probably won't get around to it before the weekend, but if y'all are interested, I'll see if I can get it done this weekend.
just brew it! wrote:There will always be corner cases which behave non-optimally.
derFunkenstein wrote:Amusingly (based on the thread title), or perhaps not, my Ryzen 5 2400G system is faster than the entry level 2017 MacBook Pro 15" with the Core i7-7700HQ. The AMD system scored 1740 and the MacBook rang in at 1685. I expected it to be kind of close but I figured the Mac would win. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
anotherengineer wrote:HA
Called it.
Read the title. Guessed the author, guessed right.
No point reading this thread.
chuckula wrote:derFunkenstein wrote:Amusingly (based on the thread title), or perhaps not, my Ryzen 5 2400G system is faster than the entry level 2017 MacBook Pro 15" with the Core i7-7700HQ. The AMD system scored 1740 and the MacBook rang in at 1685. I expected it to be kind of close but I figured the Mac would win. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Was that running Windows on the Mac?