Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News , or add us as a preferred source , to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.
Jake Roach is the Senior CPU Analyst at Tom\u2019s Hardware, writing reviews, news, and features about the latest consumer and workstation processors. ","collapsible":{"enabled":true,"maxHeight":250,"readMoreText":"Read more","readLessText":"Read less"}}), "https://slice.vanilla.futurecdn.net/13-4-19/js/authorBio.js"); } else { console.error('%c FTE ','background: #9306F9; color: #ffffff','no lazy slice hydration function available'); } Jake Roach Social Links Navigation Senior Analyst, CPUs Jake Roach is the Senior CPU Analyst at Tom’s Hardware, writing reviews, news, and features about the latest consumer and workstation processors.
bit_user Nice of them to be transparent about their findings. Reading between the lines, I sense they're a little insulted by how much performance it's implying they left on the table through poor usage of vectorization, in some of those workloads. Now, a nice question to answer would be whether the compilers for ARM CPUs was also more aggressive at vectorization, as that could help explain some of the giant lead in GB6 scores that Apple an Qualcomm have pulled vs. x86. Reply
wakuwaku bit_user said: Nice of them to be transparent about their findings. Reading between the lines, I sense they're a little insulted by how much performance it's implying they left on the table through poor usage of vectorization, in some of those workloads. You mean reading between Tom's lines? Because there are no lines to read in between if you read the source. Geekbench staff clearly said that that Geekbench was designed to reflect workloads using different techniques. If that is their philosophy, then using more of a single technique, vectorization in this case, just because it ekes out more performance in their workloads make zero sense. That doesn't reflect the real world. If the real world uses more a lot of vectorization sure it makes more sense. But for now it might as well be a purely synthetic benchmark that tests one kind of workload. Reply
bit_user wakuwaku said: Geekbench staff clearly said that that Geekbench was designed to reflect workloads using different techniques. If that is their philosophy, then using more of a single technique, vectorization in this case, just because it ekes out more performance in their workloads make zero sense. That doesn't reflect the real world. If the real world uses more a lot of vectorization sure it makes more sense. They said the big gains were: "object removal at a 24.6% jump and HDR processing at a 28.5% jump" I'm not sure how knowledgeable you are about those sorts of algorithms, but they align closely with standard use cases for vectorization. The only surprising thing here is that the source code wasn't more explicitly vectorized, from the outset. It's pretty much a baseline expectation for code like that to be vectorized. Reply
powwow84 Some of the replies here seem a bit backwards, maybe intentionally so. The issue geekbench has is it's supposed to tell you how you can expect the hardware to perform and Intel is trying to game things for benchmarks but a user wouldn't see if they bought and deployed the product. To put this in simple terms, imagine a task generally takes 3 seconds on a CPU and runs occasionally. You can make it take take 2.2 seconds, but it will have to precompile the task into an optimized function which will take 20 seconds. Makes a benchmark look faster especially if you are struggling in benchmarks, but your occasionally-run task now takes dramatically longer for the user when they encounter it so there's no way it will actually be used. Hence why nobody else is doing it, and Intel is trying to portray an apples to oranges comparison as apples to apples. Reply
TerryLaze wakuwaku said: You mean reading between Tom's lines? Because there are no lines to read in between if you read the source. Geekbench staff clearly said that that Geekbench was designed to reflect workloads using different techniques. If that is their philosophy, then using more of a single technique, vectorization in this case, just because it ekes out more performance in their workloads make zero sense. That doesn't reflect the real world. If the real world uses more a lot of vectorization sure it makes more sense. But for now it might as well be a purely synthetic benchmark that tests one kind of workload. ibot can not change the amount of type of workload there is……. geekbench already had all of the vectorization workload in it, it just did it in a bad way, either because that's what they found in most real apps or…because they are the bad app…so same thing. powwow84 said: Some of the replies here seem a bit backwards, maybe intentionally so. The issue geekbench has is it's supposed to tell you how you can expect the hardware to perform and Intel is trying to game things for benchmarks but a user wouldn't see if they bought and deployed the product. To put this in simple terms, imagine a task generally takes 3 seconds on a CPU and runs occasionally. You can make it take take 2.2 seconds, but it will have to precompile the task into an optimized function which will take 20 seconds. Makes a benchmark look faster especially if you are struggling in benchmarks, but your occasionally-run task now takes dramatically longer for the user when they encounter it so there's no way it will actually be used. Hence why nobody else is doing it, and Intel is trying to portray an apples to oranges comparison as apples to apples. It doesn't precompile, it's real time. Reply
usertests TerryLaze said: It doesn't precompile, it's real time. I think the point is that iBOT only works with a handful of games/apps, so it's not representative of the CPU's performance. If Intel "games" almost everything that runs, we could just call it a special IPC increase. Maybe Intel will move towards that but they have to avoid triggering anti-cheat detectors and other security measures. Reply
icebox768 Additionally, it found no performance improvement with Geekbench 6.7. iBOT computes a checksum against the executable, which means it's trying to find out if a specific binary is optimized. So even a minor software update will disable this feature. It interferes with the normal operation of the software and requires an unknown number of Intel personnel for targeted adaptation, and it's limited to specific versions of specific software. I don't know what you guys think, but I usually call this kind of behavior "cheating." Reply
patriotpa …almost like GB was compiled to deliberately de-optimize the workload on certain CPUs for an easily guessed reason. $$$$ Reply
Gururu Seems pretty cool. Not sure Geekbench is the mark to get all twisted on about. It’s the real applications that matter and if it works for the reviewers should work for us the same way. There will be plenty of reviewers that scour the archives to find games not supported for “fairer” comparisons. I’d say that that would be cheating… Reply
King_V TerryLaze said: It doesn't precompile, it's real time. What, then, is that initial 40 second delay on the first run? Reply
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/geekbench-investigates-up-to-30-percent-jump-with-intels-ibot-performance-gain-attributed-to-newly-vectorized-instructions#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com
- AMD Zen 6 'Venice' ES chips break cover with up to 192 cores, 32 per CCD, in early stress test — Kenya, Congo, Nigeria platforms leaked
- Last chance to buy a PlayStation 5 Digital Edition for $399 and save $200 before Sony's price hikes — secure your savings today before MSRP skyrockets from $499
- Modder gets Intel's OEM-only 'Bartlett Lake' CPU to post on a regular Asus Z790 motherboard — BIOS was edited by Claude AI to make Core Ultra 9 273QPE boot
- GTC Spotlights NVIDIA RTX PCs and DGX Sparks Running Latest Open Models and AI Agents Locally
- Starlink satellite 34343 disappears in ‘fragment creation event’ — observation 'immediately detected tens of objects in the vicinity of the satellite after the
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.