6 ms·
> specifically efficiency AMD is already significantly faster than M series, and has been so for a long time. Efficiency is the only place Apple still has an a
by kramerger 3y ago
> specifically efficiency
AMD is already significantly faster than M series, and has been so for a long time. Efficiency is the only place Apple still has an advantage
- manuelabeledo 3y agoBy which metric?
- diffeomorphism 3y agoWhatever metric apple uses. They freely admit that their chips are less powerful. Efficiency you can look up, e.g. whatever benchmark value per watt.
- manuelabeledo 3y agoI'm running Cinebench 24 right now on my M3 Max, because I'm genuinely curious about that. So far it is looking OK. In single core, it handily beats a 7900X3D at a fraction of the power draw.
- xcv123 3y agoApple currently has the fastest single core performance according to Cinebench, Geekbench, and PassMark benchmarks https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tester756 3y agoWhat about price? it seems to be waay more expensive than competition check e.g those https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html AMD and Intel beat Apple hard in perf and price benchmarks.
- xcv123 3y ago> hard in perf and price benchmarks I just showed you that Apple is equal or better in terms of single core performance. This thread is a bunch of childish fanboy nonsense, attaching egos to some brand of CPU manufacturer and ignoring actual benchmarks. Personally I don't care about $20 price differences. On a developer salary who gives a shit about price? I own Apple, Intel, and AMD cpus. They're all good.
- tester756 3y ago>I just showed you that Apple is equal or better in terms of single core performance. This thread is a bunch of childish fanboy nonsense, attaching egos to some brand of CPU manufacturer and ignoring actual benchmarks. So, just because you used one metric, then I shouldnt look at the other metrics?
- xcv123 3y agoYou said "perf and price". Benchmarks show they are not beating Apple hard at performance. For price there is no straightforward way to compare since you can't buy standalone Apple CPUs.
- tester756 3y ago>Benchmarks show they are not beating Apple hard at performance So how should I understand this other ranking from the website that you've provided? https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html
- xcv123 3y agoYeah that's a multi-core rating. Apple doesn't lead on that currently, but for some reason that list doesn't include the M2 Ultra which would have their highest multi-core rating. Apple beats them on single-core ratings. You can see the single-core rating if you click on one of those results.
- 3y ago
- FullyFunctional 3y agoExactly. There are so many dimensions across which to evaluate it. What I care about the most is 1) ST thread (running my personal workload which is inherently single threaded), and 2) Rust compilation (MT compile/ST link). For 1) my fastest iron is i9-13700KS and Apple M2. They are very close. My Zen 3 is great and is notably more power efficient, but I'll evaluate 14700KS-Zen 5-M3 when possible. ADD: because of winter I'm loving my i9-13700KS (not kidding, my office would be freezing without it), but come summer I'll care about efficiency.
- xcv123 3y agoAMD is marginally slower per core. Practically the same performance. https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apple-m3-cpus-hit-405-ghz-challenge-raptor-lake-in-geekbench https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/apple-m3-cpu...
- kramerger 3y agoThe AMD Ryzen strategy has always been many but less powerful cores. Single core performance is only useful for artificial benchmarks. And even there Apples lead is less than 2%.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agoSingle core performance is the primary thing that determines responsiveness for many programs.
- snvzz 3y agoYet it won't matter at <2%, especially when multi-core is actually slower.
- xcv123 3y ago> Single core performance is only useful for artificial benchmarks That is nonsense that none of the CPU competitors would agree with. In most applications single core performance matters very much. Not every algorithm can be multi threaded and there is an unavoidable overhead with those that can be multi threaded. Only some parts of some applications can be multi threaded. For example, a 20 core 500 MHz CPU is much less capable and responsive for real world usage than a 5 core 2 GHz CPU, despite having the same instruction count per cycle. A 100 core 100 Mhz CPU would take forever to boot up and feel unusably slow.