6 ms·
The high-end processor on the 2011 Macbook Pro was the 2860QM. Current options on the 15" are the 6700HQ, which is about 1% faster on single threads and 14% fas
by ewzimm 10y ago
The high-end processor on the 2011 Macbook Pro was the 2860QM. Current options on the 15" are the 6700HQ, which is about 1% faster on single threads and 14% faster on multiple threads, and the 6920HQ, which is about 23% faster on single threads and 36% faster on multiple threads.
- sqeaky 10y agoFor the C++ codebase I work with my 6700 compiles 4.5 MLOC of code in a little less than half the time my 2nd gen i7 does. Hardly scientific, but the 6th i7s are really fast.
- zdw 10y agoThis is probably due to the improved storage iops of a PCIe flash drive more than the CPU.
- bonzini 10y agoAnd more available memory, letting the OS cache more files in RAM.
- x0x0 10y agothe 2011s may not have offered it as configured by apple, but they will use 16g ram if you buy 8g dimms.
- mcv 10y agoThey do. Apple claims 8 GB is the max, but mine works fine with 16 GB.
- sqeaky 10y agoThe older machine as 32 GB of RAM and the newer has 64gb. This could potentially be an issue, but generally the build consumes no more than 6GB leaving a leaving amount unused. Memory bandwidth is more likely. But really I am building C++, all the parsing and re-parsing is stupidly CPU intensive. most 5400 rpm drives can feed the compiler fast enough to keep them saturated.
- slededit 10y agoThe remaining memory will be used as a crazy fast file cache. As far as 5400rpm drives that may be true if it was just a linear read, but the real problem is latency.
- sqeaky 10y agoThe rest of the RAM could be used as a file cache, but it is a moot point. 100% CPU use on each of the 4/8 cores/threads. Nothing but more CPU horsepower will significantly speed that up.
- slededit 10y agoIf you look at a detailed graph of CPU usage you should see a pumping action as the CPU goes full bore and then stalls out waiting for data. Filling in those stalls is what gives you the extra performance.
- sqeaky 10y agoWhat is your preferred tool for gathering this kind of detailed data?
- slededit 10y agoOn windows It's WPR and WPA. In sure Linux/Mac has similar system wide profilers. WPA will give you detailed wait analysis.
- sqeaky 10y agoI don't have windows. I will google for "systemwide profilers". Thank you. I doubt this will change anything, (because the compilation time decreased as CPU time was added) but the information could be helpful in other situations.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sqeaky 10y agoBoth machines have a RAID 1 of the same model of SSD (2x Corsair force 3 GTs) and no PCIE involved. Each gets about 1.1 gb/s when I benchmark it in Bonnie++. That and all 8 cores (I am counting the HT threads as cores) in the system monitor are fully saturated on both machines until the the linking stage of the build. I have a great deal of confidence the newer CPUs are significantly for at least building C++ code when disk bandwidth is not an issue.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mrpippy 10y agoSource? Or did you just compare clock rates? Intel has improved single-thread performance by much more than 1% from Sandy Bridge to Skylake
- ewzimm 10y agoGoing by benchmark aggregates from PassMark. 2860QM: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2860QM+%40+2.50GHz&id=886 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2860QM... 6700HQ: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-6700HQ+%40+2.60GHz&id=2586 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-6700HQ... 6920HQ: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-6920HQ+%40+2.90GHz&id=2699 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-6920HQ...
- mrpippy 10y agoInteresting. For comparison, Geekbench 4 single/multi-core results (from https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks): MacBook Pro (17-inch Late 2011, i7-2860QM): 3180 / 9593 MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2016, i7-6700HQ): 3968 (+24%) / 12189 (+27%) MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2016, i7-6820HQ): 4093 (+29%) / 12883 (+26%)
- ewzimm 10y agoNice comparison, thanks. I wanted to stress "about" since no benchmark is going to be identical to real world performance.