4 ms·

The i7-1165G7 is within 20% on single core performance of the M1. The Ryzen 4800U is within 20% on multi-core performance. Both are sustained ~25W parts similar

by ece 6y ago

The i7-1165G7 is within 20% on single core performance of the M1. The Ryzen 4800U is within 20% on multi-core performance. Both are sustained ~25W parts similar to the M1. If you turned x64 SMT/AVX2 off, normalized for cores (Intel/AMD 4/8 vs Apple 4+4), on-die cache (Intel/AMD 12M L2+L3 vs Apple 32MB L2+L3) and frequency (Apple 3.2 vs AMD/Intel 4.2/4.7), you'd likely get very close results on 5nm or 7nm-equivalent same process. Zen 3 2666 vs 3200 RAM alone is about a 10% difference. The M1 is 4266 RAM IIRC. TBH, Laptop/Desktop level performance is indeed very nice to see out of ARM, after a few years of false starts by a few startups and Qualcomm. Apple designed a wider core they deserve credit for, but wider cores have been a definitive trend starting with the Pentium M vs Pentium 4. There is a trade-off here for die area IMO, AMD/Intel have AVX2 and even AVX512 and SMT on each core, and narrower cores (with smaller structures, higher frequency). Apple has wider cores (larger structures, less frequency, higher IPC). It's not that simple, but it kind of is if you squint a bit.

r00fus 6y ago
The M1 is a 10W part, no? I would kill to see the 25W M-series chip. Oh and the 10W is for the entire SOC, GPU and memory included.
- glasshead969 6y ago
  I have device with me and on full load on both CPU and GPU it can go up to 25 but for most use cases i see the whole SOC hovering around 15W
- ece 6y ago
  Nope. Anandtech measured 27W peak on M1 CPU workloads with the average closer to 20W+[1]. The Ryzen 4800U and i7-1165G7 also have comparable GPUs (and TPU+ISP for the i7) within the same ~15-25W TDP. The Intel i7-1165G7 average TDP might be closer to ~30W because of it's 4.7Ghz boost clock, but it's still comparable to the M1. The i7-1165G7 and 4800U have a few laptop designs with soldered RAM. You can get 17hrs+ of video out of a 4800U laptop with a 60Wh battery[2]. Also comparable with i7-1065G7/i7-1165G7 at 15hrs+/50Wh. [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste... [2] https://www.pcworld.com/article/3531989/battery-life-amd-ryzen-4000-mobile-cpus.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/3531989/battery-life-amd-ryz...
  - willyt 6y ago
    Wasn’t 27W for the whole Mac Mini machine using a meter at the wall plug? So that includes losses in the power supply and ssd and everything else outside the chip that uses a bit of juice whereas the AMD tdp is just the chip. I thought Anandtech said there was currently no reliable way to do an ‘apples to apples’ tdp comparison? Edit: quote from anandtech: “As we had access to the Mac mini rather than a Macbook, it meant that power measurement was rather simple on the device as we can just hook up a meter to the AC input of the device. It’s to be noted with a huge disclaimer that because we are measuring AC wall power here, the power figures aren’t directly comparable to that of battery-powered devices, as the Mac mini’s power supply will incur a efficiency loss greater than that of other mobile SoCs, as well as TDP figures contemporary vendors such as Intel or AMD publish.”
  - caribbeanblue 6y ago
    The M1 doesn’t use 24W, it uses 12-16 watts. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste... (CPU, GPU + DRAM combined)
- jtuente 6y ago
  18W CPU peak power, 10W is their power efficiency comparison point.
- sspiff 6y ago
  M1 is a 20W (max) CPU and a 40W SoC (whole package max). However, in most intense workloads it doesn't go near 40W, more like ~25W under high load. Still incredibly impressive.
p1necone 6y ago
My naive assumption would be that 4c big + 4c little would perform better than 4c/8t all other things being equal (and assuming software was written to optimize for each design respectively). Also no reason you can't have 4c/8t big + 4c/8t little too.
- caribbeanblue 6y ago
  Apple’s 4big + 4LITTLE config performs better than Intel’s 8c/16t mobile chips right now.
rayiner 6y ago
The i7-1165G7 boosts to 4.7 GHz, 50% higher than the M1. A 75% uplift in IPC (20% more performance at 2/3 the clock speed) compared to Intel’s latest Sunny Cove architecture is enormous. Especially since Sunny Cove is itself the biggest update to Intel’s architecture since Sandy Bridge a decade ago.
- ece 6y ago
  Like I said, this is absolutely a die-size tradeoff IMO. That 75% IPC gain is only around a ~20% difference in geekbench and at similar sustained power levels. If you want AVX2/512+SMT, a slightly narrower core of realistically 6+ wide with uOP-cache upto 8-wide is an acceptable tradeoff. We have seen Zen 3 go wider from Zen 1/2[1], so wider x64 designs with AVX/SMT should be coming, but this is the squinting part with TSMC 5nm vs 7nm. [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-di...
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Intel’s 10nm is equivalent to TSMC’s 7nm, so we’re just talking one generation on the process side. I don’t think you can chalk a 75% IPC gain to a die shrink. That’s a much bigger IPC uplift than Intel has achieved from Sandy Bridge to Sunny Cove, which happened over 4-5 die shrinks. The total performance gain, comparing a 4.7 GHz core to a 3.2 GHz core, is 20%. But there is more to it than bottom line. The conventional wisdom would tell you that increasing clock speed is better than making the core wider because of diminishing returns to chasing IPC. Intel has followed the CW for generations: it has made cores modestly wider and deeper, but has significantly increased clock speed. Intel doubled the size of the reorder buffer from Sandy Bridge to Sunny Cove. Intel increased issue width from 5 to 6 over 10 years. If your goal was to achieve a 20% speed-up compared to Sunny Cove, in one die shrink, the CW would be to make it a little wider and a little deeper but try to hit a boost clock well north of 5 GHz. It wouldn’t tell you to make it a third wider and twice as deep at the cost of dropping the boost clock by a third. Apple isn’t just enjoying a one-generation process advantage, but is hitting a significantly different point in the design space.
caribbeanblue 6y ago
The M1 doesn’t use 24W, it uses 12-16 watts. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste... (CPU, GPU + DRAM combined) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MUTS7xvKhQ&list=PLo11Rczpzuj2OJ8mIZjT2dyV6kP2mUbWr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MUTS7xvKhQ&list=PLo11Rczpzu... Check this out, 12.5W power consumption for the M1 CPU vs. 68W CPU power consumption for the Intel i9 CPU of the 16” Macbook Pro, and yet the M1 is 8% faster in Cinebench R23 in multi-core score.

by ece 6y ago

r00fus 6y ago

The M1 is a 10W part, no? I would kill to see the 25W M-series chip. Oh and the 10W is for the entire SOC, GPU and memory included.

glasshead969 6y ago
I have device with me and on full load on both CPU and GPU it can go up to 25 but for most use cases i see the whole SOC hovering around 15W
ece 6y ago
Nope. Anandtech measured 27W peak on M1 CPU workloads with the average closer to 20W+[1]. The Ryzen 4800U and i7-1165G7 also have comparable GPUs (and TPU+ISP for the i7) within the same ~15-25W TDP. The Intel i7-1165G7 average TDP might be closer to ~30W because of it's 4.7Ghz boost clock, but it's still comparable to the M1. The i7-1165G7 and 4800U have a few laptop designs with soldered RAM. You can get 17hrs+ of video out of a 4800U laptop with a 60Wh battery[2]. Also comparable with i7-1065G7/i7-1165G7 at 15hrs+/50Wh. [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste... [2] https://www.pcworld.com/article/3531989/battery-life-amd-ryzen-4000-mobile-cpus.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/3531989/battery-life-amd-ryz...
- willyt 6y ago
  Wasn’t 27W for the whole Mac Mini machine using a meter at the wall plug? So that includes losses in the power supply and ssd and everything else outside the chip that uses a bit of juice whereas the AMD tdp is just the chip. I thought Anandtech said there was currently no reliable way to do an ‘apples to apples’ tdp comparison? Edit: quote from anandtech: “As we had access to the Mac mini rather than a Macbook, it meant that power measurement was rather simple on the device as we can just hook up a meter to the AC input of the device. It’s to be noted with a huge disclaimer that because we are measuring AC wall power here, the power figures aren’t directly comparable to that of battery-powered devices, as the Mac mini’s power supply will incur a efficiency loss greater than that of other mobile SoCs, as well as TDP figures contemporary vendors such as Intel or AMD publish.”
- caribbeanblue 6y ago
  The M1 doesn’t use 24W, it uses 12-16 watts. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste... (CPU, GPU + DRAM combined)
jtuente 6y ago
18W CPU peak power, 10W is their power efficiency comparison point.
sspiff 6y ago
M1 is a 20W (max) CPU and a 40W SoC (whole package max). However, in most intense workloads it doesn't go near 40W, more like ~25W under high load. Still incredibly impressive.

p1necone 6y ago

My naive assumption would be that 4c big + 4c little would perform better than 4c/8t all other things being equal (and assuming software was written to optimize for each design respectively). Also no reason you can't have 4c/8t big + 4c/8t little too.

caribbeanblue 6y ago
Apple’s 4big + 4LITTLE config performs better than Intel’s 8c/16t mobile chips right now.

rayiner 6y ago

The i7-1165G7 boosts to 4.7 GHz, 50% higher than the M1. A 75% uplift in IPC (20% more performance at 2/3 the clock speed) compared to Intel’s latest Sunny Cove architecture is enormous. Especially since Sunny Cove is itself the biggest update to Intel’s architecture since Sandy Bridge a decade ago.

ece 6y ago
Like I said, this is absolutely a die-size tradeoff IMO. That 75% IPC gain is only around a ~20% difference in geekbench and at similar sustained power levels. If you want AVX2/512+SMT, a slightly narrower core of realistically 6+ wide with uOP-cache upto 8-wide is an acceptable tradeoff. We have seen Zen 3 go wider from Zen 1/2[1], so wider x64 designs with AVX/SMT should be coming, but this is the squinting part with TSMC 5nm vs 7nm. [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-di...
- rayiner 6y ago
  Intel’s 10nm is equivalent to TSMC’s 7nm, so we’re just talking one generation on the process side. I don’t think you can chalk a 75% IPC gain to a die shrink. That’s a much bigger IPC uplift than Intel has achieved from Sandy Bridge to Sunny Cove, which happened over 4-5 die shrinks. The total performance gain, comparing a 4.7 GHz core to a 3.2 GHz core, is 20%. But there is more to it than bottom line. The conventional wisdom would tell you that increasing clock speed is better than making the core wider because of diminishing returns to chasing IPC. Intel has followed the CW for generations: it has made cores modestly wider and deeper, but has significantly increased clock speed. Intel doubled the size of the reorder buffer from Sandy Bridge to Sunny Cove. Intel increased issue width from 5 to 6 over 10 years. If your goal was to achieve a 20% speed-up compared to Sunny Cove, in one die shrink, the CW would be to make it a little wider and a little deeper but try to hit a boost clock well north of 5 GHz. It wouldn’t tell you to make it a third wider and twice as deep at the cost of dropping the boost clock by a third. Apple isn’t just enjoying a one-generation process advantage, but is hitting a significantly different point in the design space.

caribbeanblue 6y ago

The M1 doesn’t use 24W, it uses 12-16 watts. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste... (CPU, GPU + DRAM combined) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MUTS7xvKhQ&list=PLo11Rczpzuj2OJ8mIZjT2dyV6kP2mUbWr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MUTS7xvKhQ&list=PLo11Rczpzu... Check this out, 12.5W power consumption for the M1 CPU vs. 68W CPU power consumption for the Intel i9 CPU of the 16” Macbook Pro, and yet the M1 is 8% faster in Cinebench R23 in multi-core score.