A plain reading indicates that such is irrelevant, because these are the two tiny cases that he selectively chose to demonstrate the "IPC gap" of AMD. If some AMD booster posted hand-selected micro-benchmarks that gave AMD a lead, and boasted with exclamations and pejoratives how terrible the alternative is, we would rightly question it. This deserves no more.
And to the other defense of "Well there are AMD people claiming the same in reverse, so that legitimizes this", I've seen exactly zero of those posts on here. None. They would be laughed off the site.
What we do have is that traditionally at a given frequency, per core AMD has long trailed on major benchmarks of significant, user-realistic loads. This is the the first generation in a long time where it actually doesn't, and where you don't need additional cores to make up the gap.
I feel like you are intentionally being thick in order to get mad at me.
I am only talking specifically about the 2/3 claim at the bottom of the article, which for the avoidance of doubt, is simply a summary of the final measurement made in the article, i.e., the result of dividing 1.4 by 2.1. I know this because of its positioning in the article, because the numbers line up, because a different % IPC is given for the earlier measurement, and because an earlier version of post, with different results for the last experiment (with IPC of 2.8 and 1.4), showed a different ratio (50%).
How you are somehow interpreting the small clarification of the one line which was being discussion as wide-ranging defense of the article, I'm not sure. My broader thoughts are available here [1] and the comments on the article.
