this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
10 points (81.2% liked)

Hardware

625 readers
229 users here now

All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.

Rules (Click to Expand):

  1. Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about

  2. Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.

  3. No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.

  4. Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.

  5. Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).

  6. If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.

Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:

Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Alphane_Moon
CSFFlame
10
Chinese chipmaker's new 7nm CPUs reportedly outperform Intel's Raptor Lake — Loongson adopts "tock-tock-tick" strategy to close the gap with Intel (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 6 days ago by Alphane_Moon to c/hardware
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cubism_pitta 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

IPC parity at lower clock speeds is still something. It would be interesting to see how they bench mark when controlling for clock speed differences as similar IPC would indicate that they should scale up

[–] Alphane_Moon 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This Tomshardware article provides more context:

Given that the 3A6000 has such a low clock speed by today's standards (even the Pentium Gold G7400 has a boost clock of 3.7GHz), it wasn't surprising that Geekwan's benchmarks showed that Loongson's CPU wasn't an impressive performer. It couldn't even catch up to Intel's 2020-era Core i3-10100, which enjoyed roughly a 20% to 40% performance advantage. Efficiency wasn't impressive either, as the 3A6000 consumed about 40 watts to the 10100's 30 or so watts. It's not a great result for the 3A6000 considering the 10100's underlying technology is actually from 2016.

[–] cubism_pitta 1 points 6 days ago

That would be one hot potato :)