5 ms·

...except that A12x Bionic is itself comparable to desktop CPUs

by k_bx 8y ago

hajile 8y ago
Hardly. It is closer to Intel U series processors which are much slower than their desktop counterparts both in peak performance (desktops clock higher) and in sustained performance (desktops dissipate heat better). It is additionally slower in mult-core workloads where desktops have access to 30+ cores (none of them "little") and over 20x as much RAM (without even considering multi-socket systems with up to 3 orders of magnitude more RAM). Most people don't need the extra power a desktop offers, but the performance advantage over mobile systems is enormous.
- skellera 8y ago
  Pretty sure they were comparing it to an i3/i5, not 30+ core servers. I don’t think anyone is making that comparison.
  - StillBored 8y ago
    Considering both intel an amd are selling "desktop" single socket machines with >16 cores, I'm not sure where you got the idea he was talking about servers. TR is now at 32 cores, 64 threads so definitely >30 cores and classified as a desktop. It might be more useful to argue "workstation" but I think his point remains, people calling their 5W 8 core part "desktop" class are referring to the "laptop without a battery" class of devices that exist in the low end space and don't take advantage of the capabilities of the desktop form factor.
    - saberience 8y ago
      It absolutely is comparable to desktop processors. The latest A12 bionic is more powerful than the average desktop CPU in use across the world. That's not saying it's better than the BEST desktop CPUs, but then, 99.99% of people don't have a 16 core Threadripper or whatever. The point is, Apple's mobile chips have reached a point where they are absolutely desktop class processors and most normal users wouldn't notice a thing if you replaced their laptop or Desktop CPU with them. This is because most normal users use their home computer for web browsing, photos, music, and Netflix. For example, the A12 bionic is absolutely more powerful than my 2015 Macbook Pro and my PC which I built in 2014. You might not like this reality, but unless you're a "power user", this processor is desktop class. End of story.
      - StillBored 8y ago
        Ok, so we are moving the goalposts from what you can currently buy as a desktop machine, to what you bought as a desktop machine 5 years ago, which likely wasn't even top of the line. Then because you can run a web browser on it that makes it desktop class? Please that argument doesn't hold an ounce of anything. For that matter the processor in the original iphone was desktop class because it was capable of surfing the web better than the Pentium II's common in desktop machines in 2000. Which is why tons of people just bought ipads and stopped upgrading their desktops. I never made an argument that you couldn't replace a desktop with a phone/tablet/whatever, that wasn't what this was about. It was about claiming that apple's products were performance competitive with (current) desktop class machines. Which for some use cases they probably are, for others like heavy gaming, engineering work, or basically most of what people actually have desktop machines for these days (as opposed to laptops which is probably a better comparison) its not really a comparison outside of some great marketing. Of course this is the usual apple crap, I've been hearing it since the PPC in the mac was a "supercomputer".
  - hajile 8y ago
    When you start to scale performance, the core starts to matter a lot less. A standard 95w desktop processor has the TDP to push clocks much higher. It has the TDP to add loads of extra cache and reduce those misses. It has extra memory channels and the memory can operate at higher speeds. It has much more RAM reducing HDD read penalties. When you start scaling out cores, interconnect starts to eat a huge amount of the power budget. All the extra PCIe and other IO eat even more. When you start to ramp up into the 3+GHz clockspeed range, things start to get really hard and you have to make IPC tradeoffs. The idea that a 5-10w A12 beats the performance of a 95w x86 processor is talk from a place of extreme ignorance. Add all the features even a workstation laptop chip has and the A12 will start to struggle just like every other architecture does. There's no magic in chip design. There aren't really big competitive edges to be found anymore as all the low-hanging fruit has already been picked a decade ago.
    - ksec 8y ago
      When the word Desktop is used, most would assume it means vast majority of Desktop, not Prosumer Desktop, Gamer Desktop ( Despite a huge amount of sales are coming into it now ) or Workstation Desktop. And I can assure you most don't have have Quad Core, or even Quad Thread, let alone 32 Core. Most don't have more than 8GB Memory. And my guess is the OP was using the word Desktop as being PC, Laptop + Desktop. I am just guessing but He should have been more clearer in that.
      - hajile 8y ago
        That's just moving the goalposts and is a non-argument. A 13" ipad pro starts at $999 and goes up over $2,000. Any desktop in a similar price range will stomp the ipad processor without much issue.
        ksec 8y ago
        Moving Goal Post? No one buys $2000 Desktop anymore. Majority don't. And you had to pick the most expensive 0.1% Market Desktop compared to A12X. The A12X here is a specific comparison, while the words "Desktop" is an generalisation. When I say my X Bike is comparable to Road Cars, Road Cars here means everyday cars, not your Lamborghini or Ferrari 455. Which we ALL KNEW would be faster than this Bike anyway. But you had to nitpick on the word "Desktop". And then decide to use Similar price range as an argument which was never the intention nor what we started to compare it with.
- k_bx 8y ago
  iPhone XS is faster than iMac Pro on Speedometer 2.0 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1043277162676072449 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1043277162676072449 What makes you say it's closer to Intel U?
  - StillBored 8y ago
    I would hesitate to draw conclusions about the general ability of the processor from a browser interactivity benchmark running on two differing OS's, with two likely differing browser builds, etc. Apple obviously spends a lot of time optimizing graphical interactivity/safari performance on the iphone and its shown for years. It might be interesting to try the same version of firefox on both platforms... or just a broader set of benchmarks. Its really too bad that no one has managed to get a stock linux running on an iphone....
    - k_bx 8y ago
      The point I am making in this thread is that they are comparable, I never recommended drawing general conclusions.
  - hajile 8y ago
    The slowest iMac Pro has a max clockspeed of 4.2GHz. The fastest has a max clockspeed of 4.5GHz. The max clockspeed of the A12 is 2.49Ghz. What magic allows Apple to get an almost 200% IPC boost? If that kind of performance improvement is actually possible in the general case, then Apple should exit the consumer market and start selling their chips to everyone. They'd make way more money than they do now. If something in chip design seems too good to be true, it is.
    - k_bx 8y ago
      This is what a lot of people including myself are actually expecting, yes. The most interesting part is that the test is quite real world, not some microbenchmark. It runs to-do list app implemented with modern popular frameworks like Angular.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
rubatuga 8y ago
I think it would be better to say it is comparable to laptop cpus, not desktop
- k_bx 8y ago
  How so, if iPhone XS is faster than iMac Pro on Speedometer 2.0? https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1043277162676072449 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1043277162676072449
  - opencl 8y ago
    Running a Javascript benchmark and not even specifying which browser was used is not a great way to compare CPUs. It's also entirely single threaded. Geekbench for example puts the A12 about 15% above the 8650U in single threaded performance and 9% below it in multithreaded performance. I would say that is pretty close to U-series performance. https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2064 https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2064 https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/55 https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/55
    - k_bx 8y ago
      You are shifting a point of conversation. The point is, they are comparable and should be compared. Single-threaded is an important comparable point.
      - opencl 8y ago
        But if you're talking about desktop vs laptop performance, single thread performance is very similar and the only large difference is multithreading where desktop chips are something like 2-4x faster. If somebody is saying that it's more similar to laptop chips than desktop chips, the only reasonable interpretation of that is talking about multithreading performance. Sure it's 'comparable' to the iMac Pro if the comparison you want to make is that it is 1/4 as fast.

...except that A12x Bionic is itself comparable to desktop CPUs

by k_bx 8y ago

...except that A12x Bionic is itself comparable to desktop CPUs

Hardly. It is closer to Intel U series processors which are much slower than their desktop counterparts both in peak performance (desktops clock higher) and in sustained performance (desktops dissipate heat better). It is additionally slower in mult-core workloads where desktops have access to 30+ cores (none of them "little") and over 20x as much RAM (without even considering multi-socket systems with up to 3 orders of magnitude more RAM). Most people don't need the extra power a desktop offers, but the performance advantage over mobile systems is enormous.

skellera 8y ago
Pretty sure they were comparing it to an i3/i5, not 30+ core servers. I don’t think anyone is making that comparison.
- StillBored 8y ago
  Considering both intel an amd are selling "desktop" single socket machines with >16 cores, I'm not sure where you got the idea he was talking about servers. TR is now at 32 cores, 64 threads so definitely >30 cores and classified as a desktop. It might be more useful to argue "workstation" but I think his point remains, people calling their 5W 8 core part "desktop" class are referring to the "laptop without a battery" class of devices that exist in the low end space and don't take advantage of the capabilities of the desktop form factor.
  - saberience 8y ago
    It absolutely is comparable to desktop processors. The latest A12 bionic is more powerful than the average desktop CPU in use across the world. That's not saying it's better than the BEST desktop CPUs, but then, 99.99% of people don't have a 16 core Threadripper or whatever. The point is, Apple's mobile chips have reached a point where they are absolutely desktop class processors and most normal users wouldn't notice a thing if you replaced their laptop or Desktop CPU with them. This is because most normal users use their home computer for web browsing, photos, music, and Netflix. For example, the A12 bionic is absolutely more powerful than my 2015 Macbook Pro and my PC which I built in 2014. You might not like this reality, but unless you're a "power user", this processor is desktop class. End of story.
    - StillBored 8y ago
      Ok, so we are moving the goalposts from what you can currently buy as a desktop machine, to what you bought as a desktop machine 5 years ago, which likely wasn't even top of the line. Then because you can run a web browser on it that makes it desktop class? Please that argument doesn't hold an ounce of anything. For that matter the processor in the original iphone was desktop class because it was capable of surfing the web better than the Pentium II's common in desktop machines in 2000. Which is why tons of people just bought ipads and stopped upgrading their desktops. I never made an argument that you couldn't replace a desktop with a phone/tablet/whatever, that wasn't what this was about. It was about claiming that apple's products were performance competitive with (current) desktop class machines. Which for some use cases they probably are, for others like heavy gaming, engineering work, or basically most of what people actually have desktop machines for these days (as opposed to laptops which is probably a better comparison) its not really a comparison outside of some great marketing. Of course this is the usual apple crap, I've been hearing it since the PPC in the mac was a "supercomputer".
- hajile 8y ago
  When you start to scale performance, the core starts to matter a lot less. A standard 95w desktop processor has the TDP to push clocks much higher. It has the TDP to add loads of extra cache and reduce those misses. It has extra memory channels and the memory can operate at higher speeds. It has much more RAM reducing HDD read penalties. When you start scaling out cores, interconnect starts to eat a huge amount of the power budget. All the extra PCIe and other IO eat even more. When you start to ramp up into the 3+GHz clockspeed range, things start to get really hard and you have to make IPC tradeoffs. The idea that a 5-10w A12 beats the performance of a 95w x86 processor is talk from a place of extreme ignorance. Add all the features even a workstation laptop chip has and the A12 will start to struggle just like every other architecture does. There's no magic in chip design. There aren't really big competitive edges to be found anymore as all the low-hanging fruit has already been picked a decade ago.
  - ksec 8y ago
    When the word Desktop is used, most would assume it means vast majority of Desktop, not Prosumer Desktop, Gamer Desktop ( Despite a huge amount of sales are coming into it now ) or Workstation Desktop. And I can assure you most don't have have Quad Core, or even Quad Thread, let alone 32 Core. Most don't have more than 8GB Memory. And my guess is the OP was using the word Desktop as being PC, Laptop + Desktop. I am just guessing but He should have been more clearer in that.
    - hajile 8y ago
      That's just moving the goalposts and is a non-argument. A 13" ipad pro starts at $999 and goes up over $2,000. Any desktop in a similar price range will stomp the ipad processor without much issue.
      - ksec 8y ago
        Moving Goal Post? No one buys $2000 Desktop anymore. Majority don't. And you had to pick the most expensive 0.1% Market Desktop compared to A12X. The A12X here is a specific comparison, while the words "Desktop" is an generalisation. When I say my X Bike is comparable to Road Cars, Road Cars here means everyday cars, not your Lamborghini or Ferrari 455. Which we ALL KNEW would be faster than this Bike anyway. But you had to nitpick on the word "Desktop". And then decide to use Similar price range as an argument which was never the intention nor what we started to compare it with.
k_bx 8y ago
iPhone XS is faster than iMac Pro on Speedometer 2.0 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1043277162676072449 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1043277162676072449 What makes you say it's closer to Intel U?
- StillBored 8y ago
  I would hesitate to draw conclusions about the general ability of the processor from a browser interactivity benchmark running on two differing OS's, with two likely differing browser builds, etc. Apple obviously spends a lot of time optimizing graphical interactivity/safari performance on the iphone and its shown for years. It might be interesting to try the same version of firefox on both platforms... or just a broader set of benchmarks. Its really too bad that no one has managed to get a stock linux running on an iphone....
  - k_bx 8y ago
    The point I am making in this thread is that they are comparable, I never recommended drawing general conclusions.
- hajile 8y ago
  The slowest iMac Pro has a max clockspeed of 4.2GHz. The fastest has a max clockspeed of 4.5GHz. The max clockspeed of the A12 is 2.49Ghz. What magic allows Apple to get an almost 200% IPC boost? If that kind of performance improvement is actually possible in the general case, then Apple should exit the consumer market and start selling their chips to everyone. They'd make way more money than they do now. If something in chip design seems too good to be true, it is.
  - k_bx 8y ago
    This is what a lot of people including myself are actually expecting, yes. The most interesting part is that the test is quite real world, not some microbenchmark. It runs to-do list app implemented with modern popular frameworks like Angular.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

rubatuga 8y ago

I think it would be better to say it is comparable to laptop cpus, not desktop

k_bx 8y ago
How so, if iPhone XS is faster than iMac Pro on Speedometer 2.0? https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1043277162676072449 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1043277162676072449
- opencl 8y ago
  Running a Javascript benchmark and not even specifying which browser was used is not a great way to compare CPUs. It's also entirely single threaded. Geekbench for example puts the A12 about 15% above the 8650U in single threaded performance and 9% below it in multithreaded performance. I would say that is pretty close to U-series performance. https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2064 https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2064 https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/55 https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/55
  - k_bx 8y ago
    You are shifting a point of conversation. The point is, they are comparable and should be compared. Single-threaded is an important comparable point.
    - opencl 8y ago
      But if you're talking about desktop vs laptop performance, single thread performance is very similar and the only large difference is multithreading where desktop chips are something like 2-4x faster. If somebody is saying that it's more similar to laptop chips than desktop chips, the only reasonable interpretation of that is talking about multithreading performance. Sure it's 'comparable' to the iMac Pro if the comparison you want to make is that it is 1/4 as fast.