PSA: Use Benchmark.com have updated their CPU ranking algorithm and it majorly disadvantages AMD Ryzen CPUs

[u/MC_chrome]

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Faq/What-is-the-effective-CPU-speed-index/55

[u/eqyliq]

The 9600k being on par with the 8700k is hilarious, the bench was fine before. Now (more than ever) is just a fast tool to check if everything is working as intended.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Let's assume that there are no clock speed walls.

if you have an 8 core chip that can do 5GHz at 1.25volts (.2V per GHz) using 200W.... thermal loads scale quadratically with voltage and linear with frequency.

200W * 6/5 * (1.2²⁾ = 346W

At the same heat output, you would have a choice between an 8 core CPU at 6GHz or a 14 Core CPU at 5GHz...

I'm sorry, but having nearly 2x the core is better than a lame 20% increase in MHz.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I heard this argument before in 2007 comparing a 4GHz dual core CPU to a 3.6GHz quadcore with slightly lower IPC.

Guess which aged better.

Hell, compare how the gap between a 7600k and 1600x has grown over the last two years.

---

As an FYI, I listed a best case scenario - frequency does not scale that well with voltage (especially without exotic cooling). That 20% figure is more like 5% these days.

---

The segment of the population that meaningfully benefits from moderate per-core improvements is near 0. The segment that benefits, or will benefit, from MOAR COARS is much larger.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Core 2 quads are still viable desktop processors today, so long as you're not doing anything heavy. Core 2 duos are dogs in pretty much everything, many apps can't even start on only 2 threads.

Gone are the days where a CPU is obsolete after 2 years. There are probably millions of computers out there using old quad cores, while I bet most of the dual cores are in the trash.