Quote from: Don't Fear the Future on February 13, 2025, 03:09:04"Depends on how you count it. Hyperthreading is really only expected to give an increase of 20-30% in most, even highly parallel, workloads. Thus a 12-core part like the HX 370 will behave as though it were a 14-16 core part with no hyperthreading. I believe Tom's Hardware did do a hyperthreading on/off test for CB 24 and if I remember correctly it was around the 25% mark."
Hahaha, yes, this is exactly how I remember reading that too.
But while I too thought of that analogy, it's more of hyperthreading can increase the performance of a Core by 25%; which isn't exactly the same as increasing the amount of cores by 25% (though it does make sense)
So, lets take the HX 370 score of 1167 at 55 watts. Without hyperthreading the score may very well be 875. (1167 x.75); as all of the cores of the HX 370 have hyperthreading.
So, with hyperthreading turned off, the HX 370 with 12 cores could get a score of 875, versus the score of the 285H with 14 cores of 1042. (like I said above, the 2 lp-e cores are not on the compute tile)
For me, the AMD is going to be much better where hyperthreading is truly utilized; which is basically used in every synthetic benchmark used today.
But in instances where hyperthreading doesn't work, the Intel is going to shine pretty good.
But this just my 2 cents.
Quote from: Don't Fear the Future on February 13, 2025, 03:15:53"So, lets take the HX 370 score of 1167 at 55 watts. Without hyperthreading the score may very well be 875. (1167 x.75); as all of the cores of the HX 370 have hyperthreading."
ooops again. I did the math wrong. I would be 934 (1167/1.25), but I think I got the idea across.
Aye as I said in my second post normalizing MT scores for processor size across processors with very different architectures is pretty difficult. When it is extreme, it is obvious, but it's not immediately clear how 4 Zen 5 + 8 Zen 5c cores with "24" threads should be compared to 6 Lion Cove + 8 Skymont + 2 LP Skymont cores. If available, sometimes I like to compare CPU die areas but then you still have to account for differences in fabrication. So yeah ... non-trivial and agreed, it can be very test specific. Even for this test, it's power level specific.
As power level drops, performance drops faster for the MSI Arrow Lake than for the Zen. Unfortunately, unlike in some previous analyses articles they didn't also measure wall power as they changed power levels. But assuming they AMD and Intel machines are drawing roughly the same power when set to the same TDP, at 20-28W the AMD processor is indeed ahead by 19-28% (in this one test). At higher power, as you noted, Intel closes the gap.
I have to admit I am a little confused by this power-performance relationship in the Intel chip though. This is especially apparent in the 285H Zenbook MT results compared to the MSI where we have wall power measurements. The Zenbook's MT clocks are obviously down clocked but it didn't get any efficiency increase - i.e. MT performance fell linearly with power
which shouldn't happen. In all the other devices with the same processor at different power levels, efficiency goes up as power/performance goes down as power should fall faster than performance when one lowers clocks. And yet it didn't for the Zenbook (which otherwise had the same/better single threaded efficiency than the MSI machine so it isn't like the Zenbook is just bad). Just comparing the TDP/performance chart, we do also see a much bigger performance drop off for MSI than the HX 370 as power is lowered (though again no wall power measurements), so maybe that's just the way Arrow Lake H performs at low power. But, it seems ... odd.
========
Small typo in the article: the Arrow Lake H GPU tile is manufactured on 5N
P not 5N
B.
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
Magyar