EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]

Hear me out, working from home. No need for any commute, and then you can just send the meeting out as the email it should have been anyway

Not really. That’s sort of the whole point of benchmarks: that they do not need to account for optimizations. They show raw power. Unfortunately they chose to highlight some really old benchmarks. Spec cpu 2006 is from 2006. Unixbenchmark is even older. These tools don’t really portray the type of tasks that are going to be needed to support modern use cases. There’s also SpecCPU 2017 benchmarks, but those aren’t as close, about 10% slower than the slightly less underclocked i3-10100 at 3.6 GHz rather than at 2.5 GHz. The 10100 normally runs at 4.3 GHz out of the box though and is significantly faster.

All in all, really poor benchmarking, not really showing any usable information aside from the generation bump from the 3A5000.

I really want to see Loongson and Zhaoxin do some true market-crushing magic at least enough to put the fear of God Intel and AMD

They’re making progress, but it really feels slow-going. They’re reaching parity on IPC but that’s kinda meaningless without higher core clocks. I get that they’re targeting normal office machines, but these are really old benchmark specs and in modern tests without unnecessarily underclocking the competition, they’re like 10% behind the $90 i3-10100. I dunno, I guess they’re reaching the “good enough” phase, but I really just want some disruption in the market.

Is cooling the issue? Uncle Tony did a test with Liquid Nitrogen and only got it up to 3 GHz (limited by the board, but still.)

And instead they’re moving production to also-Communist Vietnam.

Where’s the Comrade Ho emojis?