3 ms·

Processor aren't getting that faster - per core - anymore because of miniaturization limits. I think comparing old MacBooks with new ones, most performance gain

Processor aren't getting that faster - per core - anymore because of miniaturization limits. I think comparing old MacBooks with new ones, most performance gains just came from additional cores/hyperthreads. (Before around 2014 it was really common to have just one thread per core.) Also there is little reason to put in cheap processors into iPads, people use it for games, so there must be a lot of performance. > It makes zero sense to compare like this. Geekbench is closed source. But probably there are remarkable differences in Integer vs. Floating point performance or Hardware acceleration. I assume iPad/iPhone have good HW acceleration for anything video/crypto/3D/...

aloknnikhil 7y ago
> But probably there are remarkable differences in Integer vs. Floating point performance or Hardware acceleration. I assume iPad/iPhone have good HW acceleration for anything video/crypto/3D Processor are definitely stalling in IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) improvements. But I don't think it's fair to call the A13 the fastest chip ever in an Apple device based on heavily hardware accelerated tasks. That's like saying an ASIC is faster than an AMD/Intel. Of course the ASIC will perform faster in certain tasks since they're purpose built for that. But the AMD/Intel are general purpose processors that are meant to do anything. The iPad most definitely has crypto/video/image processing hardware offloads and those are as fast as an Intel. But if I run a workload that makes extensive use of AVX (Instructions for processing Vectorized data), the Intel processors will blow the Apple A13 out of the water. The point here is, these kinds of click-baity tweets are the ones that end up on articles and reach the general public. It's irresponsible.