Nintendo Maniac 64 Wrote:All I know is, Dolphin seems to like the L3 quite a bit if you reference the new Dolphin CPU benchmark, in particular Vishera is noticably faster than Richland and Trinity per-GHz.
Use mine, it sucks less:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9V1dG6cTJDnVWVDaDhiaGdQYlU/edit?pli=1
Just because the complete absence of L3 improves performance a bit doesn't mean a drop in L3 latency (and we don't even know how much of a drop) will have a big impact on performance. Dram latency is so much higher than L3 that any L3 at all will help. But we don't know whether dolphin is favoring higher hitrate or lower latency L3.
No it doesn't. Look more closely.
It's on the 3rd page but not the 1st?
...this makes sense.
(02-06-2014, 10:54 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]kinkinkijkin Wrote:"Single-Core Performance" does not refer to how the CPU performs when it is only using one core.
Yes it does.
Simple miswrite; "'Single-Core Performance' does not refer to how the CPU performs when only one core is loaded, in this context", it should say, or something similar.
(02-06-2014, 10:54 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]kinkinkijkin Wrote:It refers to how well it performs each thread.
That would be single thread performance. Not single core performance.
The "in this context" bit from the last one is sort of important for understanding my garbled sleep-english here.
(02-06-2014, 10:54 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]kinkinkijkin Wrote:Because of some random people who hardly know what they're talking about confusing that, I, myself, use "Per-Core Performance", shortened to PCP.
Which is the same thing as single core performance except that nobody will know what you're talking about since you just made up that acronym which is not used in the industry. I don't see how that could possibly be less confusing.
Because someone was obviously confused by the standard. Ever heard of changing standards? It's sometimes nice to do that when the current standard is needlessly unintuitive.
(02-06-2014, 10:54 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]kinkinkijkin Wrote:Dolphin cannot use high parallel performance, because there's just not enough things to split off without per-game hacks,
Wait. What things could we "split off" with per-game hacks?
Dolphin doesn't use more than 2-3 cores because the Wii has only 3 primary microprocessors to emulate. And emulation of a processor is inherently a serial task.
I seriously have no idea what could be split of in per-game hacks. And, well, I'm not an expert on emulation by any means, as you can tell.
(02-06-2014, 10:54 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]kinkinkijkin Wrote:and, even then, the speed boost will be negligible on anything but the most perfectest parallelism ever put in a processor.
How would a "most perfectest parallelism processor" (whatever that means) boost performance in a situation where parallelism doesn't boost performance? That makes no sense to me.
You're thinking of it backwards. Also, "in a processor" is a little bit more sleep-english.
(02-06-2014, 10:54 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]kinkinkijkin Wrote:IPC is a theoretical measurement, SCP/PCP is an arbitrary, relative, and realistic measurement, and also not a measurement.
Since when is IPC theoretical? Last time I checked it's an easily measurably real quantity.
Sleep-memory seeping through; forgot IPC was final and real.
I wish you would've understood what I was actually TRYING to say with these a little bit more, then you wouldn't have had to over-quote me in a post denouncing peoples' intelligence. There's really only two or three things in there of note that wouldn't have been fixed by some slight leniency towards logical inconsistency when context clues point that they may have been one-time mistakes, on your part. In fact, if you're going to openly denounce someone on a logical mistake in a sentence, I'd suggest you understand what the sentence is meant to say, instead of only what it actually does say. This would probably help you with your faith in humanity problem, and might help me not have to deal with your insistence on acting as if every inaccuracy, even those of sleight, to pass my fingers into a post make me an idiot.
[size = -5]also, keep in mind that I'm very tired right now, so there might be slips in this post as well, which I acknowledge[/size]
^^You don't know NV very much, do you?
I don't take the time to know people on forums anymore, I'm a member of way too many of them.
(02-06-2014, 03:01 PM)kinkinkijkin Wrote: [ -> ]I wish you would've understood what I was actually TRYING to say with these a little bit more, then you wouldn't have had to over-quote me in a post denouncing peoples' intelligence. There's really only two or three things in there of note that wouldn't have been fixed by some slight leniency towards logical inconsistency when context clues point that they may have been one-time mistakes, on your part. In fact, if you're going to openly denounce someone on a logical mistake in a sentence, I'd suggest you understand what the sentence is meant to say, instead of only what it actually does say. This would probably help you with your faith in humanity problem, and might help me not have to deal with your insistence on acting as if every inaccuracy, even those of sleight, to pass my fingers into a post make me an idiot.
You do realise that the whole reason we have language at all is to make sure that whenever someone wants to transfer an idea to someone else they can say/write something that says what it is meant to say. If we only care about intended meaning, rather than actual meaning there's very little point in not just holding down one key for a while and pressing post. If you feel you should take intended meaning over what's actually written, then the following should be appropriately offensive to you:
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
NV you're right. I'm slowing losing faith in people knowing about computers at all. Speaking of which NV is basically one of the biggest members on the forums...
(02-07-2014, 11:07 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-06-2014, 03:01 PM)kinkinkijkin Wrote: [ -> ]I wish you would've understood what I was actually TRYING to say with these a little bit more, then you wouldn't have had to over-quote me in a post denouncing peoples' intelligence. There's really only two or three things in there of note that wouldn't have been fixed by some slight leniency towards logical inconsistency when context clues point that they may have been one-time mistakes, on your part. In fact, if you're going to openly denounce someone on a logical mistake in a sentence, I'd suggest you understand what the sentence is meant to say, instead of only what it actually does say. This would probably help you with your faith in humanity problem, and might help me not have to deal with your insistence on acting as if every inaccuracy, even those of sleight, to pass my fingers into a post make me an idiot.
You do realise that the whole reason we have language at all is to make sure that whenever someone wants to transfer an idea to someone else they can say/write something that says what it is meant to say. If we only care about intended meaning, rather than actual meaning there's very little point in not just holding down one key for a while and pressing post. If you feel you should take intended meaning over what's actually written, then the following should be appropriately offensive to you:
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
I was tired.
(02-07-2014, 11:36 AM)DolphinFan505 Wrote: [ -> ]Speaking of which NV is basically one of the biggest members on the forums...
That rationalises absolutely nothing. Saying that as possible rationalisation for his slight overreaction is like saying that Justin Bieber is allowed to break laws because he's famous.