3 ms·

Why did you choose to ignore the 2.22x faster multi-core score of the 9900k? Tests like these are also very questionable if they are constrained to sub-60s mic

by qayxc 6y ago

Why did you choose to ignore the 2.22x faster multi-core score of the 9900k? Tests like these are also very questionable if they are constrained to sub-60s microbenchmarks, which ignore power-limits and cooling. I'd rather wait for the actual product in a comparable package (e.g. laptop chassis vs. whatever unspecified environment the Geekbench test was run in) before drawing conclusions...

nojito 6y ago
Because the benchmark is currently the only way to compare two devices using different chassis and give an answer to a specific workload. Yours is nothing but theoretical. The Multicore benchmark compares a 8 core with a dualcore which is a bad faith comparison.
- qayxc 6y ago
  > The Multicore benchmark compares a 8 core with a dualcore which is a bad faith comparison. How so? Are we comparing real-world performance or artificially limited what-if-scenarios? That's my critique with these benchmarks in general. I don't care what a single A13/A14 BIG-core does in a short burst load situation when the context is code compilation that takes a minute or more on a system with multiple cores. Multi-core is a bad faith comparison you say? I'd say it's an Apples-to-apples comparison if anything, since I usually don't artificially restrict my machine when trying to get work done as fast as possible. So I'd argue that it's actually your perspective that's just theoretical: oh look - this dual-core [technically hexa-core while we're on the topic of being theoretical] SoC is faster than this octa-core, provided we choose a short, bursty workload and limit ourselves to a single core. You know, as one does when compiling Chrome or a any big software... Like, contexts where compilation times actually matter as supposed to compiling this small utility takes only 0.89s on the A13X as opposed to 1.2s on the i9. I know, I know, the difference adds up quickly, like to an whole hour after just 11600 compilations. Theoretically, that is. sigh
  - mytherin 6y ago
    > How so? Are we comparing real-world performance or artificially limited what-if-scenarios? That's my critique with these benchmarks in general. Remember the point of this thread: speculating on how fast ARM chips will be for compilation workloads compared to Intel chips when shipped as part of Macbooks. It seems that you are mistaking the point of the parent poster - nobody is arguing that an iPhone is better at compiling code than a desktop with an i9 chip. The comparison of an 8-core chip to a current 2-core chip is pointless because it is an artifact of comparing a $500 stand-alone chip to a chip that is sold as part of a complete $400 phone. Adding more cores is easy - it just costs more money, and Apple has opted not to do it for the iPhone because it is not necessary for standard iPhone workloads. It is a very reasonable assumption that the chip that will ship with a Macbook will have at least as many cores (but probably more as the individual cores are cheaper) than the equivalent Intel chip. > I don't care what a single A13/A14 BIG-core does in a short burst load situation when the context is code compilation that takes a minute or more on a system with multiple cores. ARM chips are more energy efficient and run less hot than Intel chips. In an equivalent chassis they have the advantage in this situation. The intel chip will overheat and throttle faster. > So I'd argue that it's actually your perspective that's just theoretical: oh look - this dual-core [technically hexa-core while we're on the topic of being theoretical] SoC is faster than this octa-core, provided we choose a short, bursty workload and limit ourselves to a single core. You know, as one does when compiling Chrome or a any big software... Again, it's speculation. Obviously it's theoretical. The point is that current benchmarks indicate that ARM chips are very good for compilation workloads - relatively comparable to Intel chips for a much lower cost.
- imtringued 6y ago
  It's not a bad faith comparison if the vendor forces you to make it. If only 2 cores are available then that's something the vendor is to blame for.
acidbaseextract 6y ago
Nobody's drawing conclusions here. All I'm saying is that it isn't crazy to think that an A14 part will be competitive with Intel's lineup, especially from a core performance perspective. Power limits and memory hierarchy both benefit the 9900k heavily in this comparison, which is why I went with the single-core score. I'd be surprised if an iPhone 11 Pro Max will floor all its cores even for a short microbenchmark. A desktop/laptop A14 will likely look much more competitive in these respects.
- dahauns 6y ago
  >Power limits and memory hierarchy both benefit the 9900k heavily in this comparison, which is why I went with the single-core score. But then you're leaving out the actual interesting scenarios for the question of Apple ARM performance in laptops/desktops. We've already known for a while that the A1x family is an IPC beast. But it's sustained power and memory subsystem performance that are the hard part in scaling up.
deleuze 6y ago
I agree with you regarding the methods, but wouldn't power/thermal limits favor the ARM chip?

by qayxc 6y ago

nojito 6y ago

Because the benchmark is currently the only way to compare two devices using different chassis and give an answer to a specific workload. Yours is nothing but theoretical. The Multicore benchmark compares a 8 core with a dualcore which is a bad faith comparison.

qayxc 6y ago
> The Multicore benchmark compares a 8 core with a dualcore which is a bad faith comparison. How so? Are we comparing real-world performance or artificially limited what-if-scenarios? That's my critique with these benchmarks in general. I don't care what a single A13/A14 BIG-core does in a short burst load situation when the context is code compilation that takes a minute or more on a system with multiple cores. Multi-core is a bad faith comparison you say? I'd say it's an Apples-to-apples comparison if anything, since I usually don't artificially restrict my machine when trying to get work done as fast as possible. So I'd argue that it's actually your perspective that's just theoretical: oh look - this dual-core [technically hexa-core while we're on the topic of being theoretical] SoC is faster than this octa-core, provided we choose a short, bursty workload and limit ourselves to a single core. You know, as one does when compiling Chrome or a any big software... Like, contexts where compilation times actually matter as supposed to compiling this small utility takes only 0.89s on the A13X as opposed to 1.2s on the i9. I know, I know, the difference adds up quickly, like to an whole hour after just 11600 compilations. Theoretically, that is. sigh
- mytherin 6y ago
  > How so? Are we comparing real-world performance or artificially limited what-if-scenarios? That's my critique with these benchmarks in general. Remember the point of this thread: speculating on how fast ARM chips will be for compilation workloads compared to Intel chips when shipped as part of Macbooks. It seems that you are mistaking the point of the parent poster - nobody is arguing that an iPhone is better at compiling code than a desktop with an i9 chip. The comparison of an 8-core chip to a current 2-core chip is pointless because it is an artifact of comparing a $500 stand-alone chip to a chip that is sold as part of a complete $400 phone. Adding more cores is easy - it just costs more money, and Apple has opted not to do it for the iPhone because it is not necessary for standard iPhone workloads. It is a very reasonable assumption that the chip that will ship with a Macbook will have at least as many cores (but probably more as the individual cores are cheaper) than the equivalent Intel chip. > I don't care what a single A13/A14 BIG-core does in a short burst load situation when the context is code compilation that takes a minute or more on a system with multiple cores. ARM chips are more energy efficient and run less hot than Intel chips. In an equivalent chassis they have the advantage in this situation. The intel chip will overheat and throttle faster. > So I'd argue that it's actually your perspective that's just theoretical: oh look - this dual-core [technically hexa-core while we're on the topic of being theoretical] SoC is faster than this octa-core, provided we choose a short, bursty workload and limit ourselves to a single core. You know, as one does when compiling Chrome or a any big software... Again, it's speculation. Obviously it's theoretical. The point is that current benchmarks indicate that ARM chips are very good for compilation workloads - relatively comparable to Intel chips for a much lower cost.
imtringued 6y ago
It's not a bad faith comparison if the vendor forces you to make it. If only 2 cores are available then that's something the vendor is to blame for.

acidbaseextract 6y ago

Nobody's drawing conclusions here. All I'm saying is that it isn't crazy to think that an A14 part will be competitive with Intel's lineup, especially from a core performance perspective. Power limits and memory hierarchy both benefit the 9900k heavily in this comparison, which is why I went with the single-core score. I'd be surprised if an iPhone 11 Pro Max will floor all its cores even for a short microbenchmark. A desktop/laptop A14 will likely look much more competitive in these respects.

dahauns 6y ago
>Power limits and memory hierarchy both benefit the 9900k heavily in this comparison, which is why I went with the single-core score. But then you're leaving out the actual interesting scenarios for the question of Apple ARM performance in laptops/desktops. We've already known for a while that the A1x family is an IPC beast. But it's sustained power and memory subsystem performance that are the hard part in scaling up.

deleuze 6y ago

I agree with you regarding the methods, but wouldn't power/thermal limits favor the ARM chip?