 <p>The problem is that your test does a poor job to migrate some factors in the hardware that make benchmarking hard. To test this, i've made my own test case. Something like this:</p> <pre><code>for blah blah: sleep(500ms) std::copy sse axv </code></pre> <p>output:</p> <pre><code>SSE: 1.11753x faster than std::copy AVX: 1.81342x faster than std::copy </code></pre> <p>So in this case, AVX is a bunch faster than std::copy. What happens when i change to test case to..</p> <pre><code>for blah blah: sleep(500ms) sse axv std::copy </code></pre> <p>Notice that absolutely nothing changed, except the order of the tests.</p> <pre><code>SSE: 0.797673x faster than std::copy AVX: 0.809399x faster than std::copy </code></pre> <p>Woah! how is that possible? The CPU takes a while to ramp up to full speed, so tests that are run later have an advantage. This question has 3 answers now, including an 'accepted' answer. But only the one with the lowest amount of upvotes was on the right track.</p> <p>This is one of the reasons why benchmarking is hard and you should never trust anyone's micro-benchmarks unless they've included detailed information of their setup. It isn't just the code that can go wrong. Power saving features and weird drivers can completely mess up your benchmark. One time i've measured an factor 7 difference in performance by toggling a switch in the bios that less than 1% of notebooks offer.</p>