3 ms·
To be fair they're both 8 core big.LITTLE processors but the Apple chip is running the benchmark under x86 emulation and thus isn't able to use asymmetric cores
by ArgyleSound 6y ago
To be fair they're both 8 core big.LITTLE processors but the Apple chip is running the benchmark under x86 emulation and thus isn't able to use asymmetric cores, only the four performance ones.
- qayxc 6y agoI was under the impression that Rosetta 2 is install-time translation and thus not emulation at all...
- ArgyleSound 6y agoI think it does both, but I'm not familiar with what Geekbench 5 actually does and whether it can be fully translated ahead of time. Regardless the translation doesn’t seem to be able to make use of both sets of cores.
- qayxc 6y agoMaybe Apple will release more detailed information in the near future. I'm curious to learn what the differences between Rosetta 2 and Microsoft's emulation technique are.
- ArgyleSound 6y agoYeah. Presumably more information will also trickle out from the developers who are using the DTKs.
- saagarjha 6y agoTrickle, of course. The details are still under NDA.
- brigade 6y agoWhat is the difference supposed to be anyway? It's user-mode emulation of x86_64 whether the translation happens just-in-time or ahead-of-time. AOT just can afford to spend more time optimizing out redundant emulation operations in each basic block. It's not emulating privileged modes or devices, but neither is Microsoft's emulation (or user-mode QEMU for that matter.)
- waon 6y agoEven if you ignore the problem of self-modifying code, a completely static translation of x86 binaries is impossible. Things get hard real quick when indirect branches are involved, so you have to rely on a runtime solution when ahead of time solutions won’t work.
- duskwuff 6y agoIt's both. Install-time translation, plus runtime emulation for code that the system didn't get to translate (JIT, newly compiled applications, runtime loaded or obfuscated code, applications running from non-local storage, etc).