5 ms·

In other words, Apple needs to just add 4 more cores to M1 to absolutely mop the floor with the Ryzen?

by ivoras 6y ago

new_realist 6y ago
Exactly. This is apples to oranges; laptop power envelope and budget to desktop power envelope and budget.
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  The original test linked at the beginning of the article is telling that multicore is not that relevant for the tested performance. The article is mentioning the power envelope and the fact that 5nm is temporary exclusive to Apple, but not for long - AMD will utilize it and that would be a closed test. In the end, if you want to compare performance before you buy, you care less about the internal and more about performance and price.
  - new_realist 6y ago
    I look forward to an M1 processor comparison to something with a similar core count, similar total power envelopes, and similar cost. The Ryzen processor benchmarked here costs more than the entire Mac Mini M1 system.
    - FpUser 6y ago
      They're 2 different CPU with the different market. The only reason I think that this comparison is being made is that it is a response to an avalanche of articles claiming that M1 beats everything speed wise and is the best thing since sliced bread.
  - new_realist 6y ago
    The first test listed is Renaissance, which, from https://renaissance.dev/resources/docs/renaissance-suite.pdf https://renaissance.dev/resources/docs/renaissance-suite.pdf, is a concurrency benchmark. It likely benefits from multiple cores. All in all I'm not sure the author has the relevant expertise.
- imtringued 6y ago
  How many times does it take for people to understand this... Comparing single core performance between laptops and desktops is an apples to apples comparison. The Ryzen uses 20W on a turbo boosted core, it uses less when you utilize all cores. Same for Apple which needs 10W for a single core and the whole package is 35W. There is way enough headroom to turbo boost to 20W. The reason why there is a 20W vs 10W difference between the Ryzen and Apple chip is that Apple uses 5nm and the Ryzen clocks way higher (and thereby performs better). There is no free lunch where Apple can double their performance and mop up anything because AMD can just manufacture with 5nm and reduce their clock boost to reach the same per core power consumption. And it turns out this is exactly what they do on their laptop chips. Just reduce the clock speed and watch the power efficiency pour in. If anything it's Apple that is backed into a corner because they are in a local optimum from which they can only escape by sacrificing their primary competitive advantage. Ramping up the clock speed ruins power efficiency.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
In the real world, no one is debating between an Apple Mac Mini with an M1 chip and an AMD Windows/Linux desktop box in the first place. But keep in mind that the author didn't even select AMD's top parts for this comparison. The Zen 3 series has 12 and 16 core parts as well.
- ben-schaaf 6y ago
  > The Zen 3 series has 12 and 16 core parts as well. And don't forget zen 2 goes all the way to 64 cores on threadripper, epyc to 128 cores (dual-socket).
russli1993 6y ago
I don't see which tests done were multi-threaded/single threaded tests. The author should really clarify that.
amluto 6y ago
You’re making a bit assumption that may or may not be true: that M1 will scale well to 8 performance cores. x86 vendors (and POWER) and Linux have put a lot of effort into multi core scaling in the last 15 years or so. Building a fast and efficient core is not the same thing as building one that scales well. I’m sure that Apple is capable of making an effective 8- or 16-core machine, but it may not be as simple as just adding cores. Look at the recent AMD machines’ complicated core organization for examples. As far as I know, other than Graviton and other very new N1 designs, there haven’t been many big ARM systems at all.
- sroussey 6y ago
  Core and cache organization gets more difficult, yes. So do thermals and layout, which is not where Apple has experience (they don’t make any custom chip that requires a fan that I know of). That said, they have had a looong time to think out this, so I have confidence they will make it work over the next two years.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Well, Apple TV 4K has one technically ;)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Rapzid 6y ago
    The M1 mac mini is air cooled and I believe that's the setup most are benchmarking against? The proc pulls just over 20W max load IIRC(best on estimates because Apple never talks about it so everyone just assumes all m1s perform at the Mac mini level but draw the air power).
    - sroussey 6y ago
      Yeah, but what about having it pull 120W to get better performance? It’s always plugged in. They don’t have experience there (but will hopefully figure it out quickly). This is the right example, thanks.
adkadskhj 6y ago
> In other words, Apple needs to just add 4 more cores to M1 to absolutely mop the floor with the Ryzen? By that logic could we not "just" double Ryzen cores to mop the floor with the M1? What kind of logic is this lol
- imtringued 6y ago
  Yeah and since Ryzen with 8 and 16 cores and Epyc with up to 64 exist it is an obvious loss because Apple has yet to release products in these categories.
mhh__ 6y ago
"Just"
spamizbad 6y ago
Yep, all they gotta do is that thing they're not going to be doing for a while.
trynumber9 6y ago
First, many of these benchmarks are single threaded. Secondly, in the same power envelope as the 5800X you can also find the 16 core 5950X. So perhaps Apple would have to add even more cores. Finally, in a core count war AMD has an easier task. They scale up their designs with multiple chips. A Zen 3 CCD is about 80mm^2 on 7nm, which is already much smaller than the M1 SoC on 5nm. If Apple adds 4 more cores, their chip size will increase. Meanwhile AMD can add more cores without increasing chip size like Apple's current integrated approach. This is why AMD is already shipping 64 core CPUs (EPYC 7763) using multiple of the Zen 3 CCD as these desktop CPUs.

In other words, Apple needs to just add 4 more cores to M1 to absolutely mop the floor with the Ryzen?

by ivoras 6y ago

In other words, Apple needs to just add 4 more cores to M1 to absolutely mop the floor with the Ryzen?

new_realist 6y ago

Exactly. This is apples to oranges; laptop power envelope and budget to desktop power envelope and budget.

AdrianB1 6y ago
The original test linked at the beginning of the article is telling that multicore is not that relevant for the tested performance. The article is mentioning the power envelope and the fact that 5nm is temporary exclusive to Apple, but not for long - AMD will utilize it and that would be a closed test. In the end, if you want to compare performance before you buy, you care less about the internal and more about performance and price.
- new_realist 6y ago
  I look forward to an M1 processor comparison to something with a similar core count, similar total power envelopes, and similar cost. The Ryzen processor benchmarked here costs more than the entire Mac Mini M1 system.
  - FpUser 6y ago
    They're 2 different CPU with the different market. The only reason I think that this comparison is being made is that it is a response to an avalanche of articles claiming that M1 beats everything speed wise and is the best thing since sliced bread.
- new_realist 6y ago
  The first test listed is Renaissance, which, from https://renaissance.dev/resources/docs/renaissance-suite.pdf https://renaissance.dev/resources/docs/renaissance-suite.pdf, is a concurrency benchmark. It likely benefits from multiple cores. All in all I'm not sure the author has the relevant expertise.
imtringued 6y ago
How many times does it take for people to understand this... Comparing single core performance between laptops and desktops is an apples to apples comparison. The Ryzen uses 20W on a turbo boosted core, it uses less when you utilize all cores. Same for Apple which needs 10W for a single core and the whole package is 35W. There is way enough headroom to turbo boost to 20W. The reason why there is a 20W vs 10W difference between the Ryzen and Apple chip is that Apple uses 5nm and the Ryzen clocks way higher (and thereby performs better). There is no free lunch where Apple can double their performance and mop up anything because AMD can just manufacture with 5nm and reduce their clock boost to reach the same per core power consumption. And it turns out this is exactly what they do on their laptop chips. Just reduce the clock speed and watch the power efficiency pour in. If anything it's Apple that is backed into a corner because they are in a local optimum from which they can only escape by sacrificing their primary competitive advantage. Ramping up the clock speed ruins power efficiency.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

In the real world, no one is debating between an Apple Mac Mini with an M1 chip and an AMD Windows/Linux desktop box in the first place. But keep in mind that the author didn't even select AMD's top parts for this comparison. The Zen 3 series has 12 and 16 core parts as well.

ben-schaaf 6y ago
> The Zen 3 series has 12 and 16 core parts as well. And don't forget zen 2 goes all the way to 64 cores on threadripper, epyc to 128 cores (dual-socket).

russli1993 6y ago

I don't see which tests done were multi-threaded/single threaded tests. The author should really clarify that.

amluto 6y ago

You’re making a bit assumption that may or may not be true: that M1 will scale well to 8 performance cores. x86 vendors (and POWER) and Linux have put a lot of effort into multi core scaling in the last 15 years or so. Building a fast and efficient core is not the same thing as building one that scales well. I’m sure that Apple is capable of making an effective 8- or 16-core machine, but it may not be as simple as just adding cores. Look at the recent AMD machines’ complicated core organization for examples. As far as I know, other than Graviton and other very new N1 designs, there haven’t been many big ARM systems at all.

sroussey 6y ago
Core and cache organization gets more difficult, yes. So do thermals and layout, which is not where Apple has experience (they don’t make any custom chip that requires a fan that I know of). That said, they have had a looong time to think out this, so I have confidence they will make it work over the next two years.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Well, Apple TV 4K has one technically ;)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Rapzid 6y ago
  The M1 mac mini is air cooled and I believe that's the setup most are benchmarking against? The proc pulls just over 20W max load IIRC(best on estimates because Apple never talks about it so everyone just assumes all m1s perform at the Mac mini level but draw the air power).
  - sroussey 6y ago
    Yeah, but what about having it pull 120W to get better performance? It’s always plugged in. They don’t have experience there (but will hopefully figure it out quickly). This is the right example, thanks.

adkadskhj 6y ago

> In other words, Apple needs to just add 4 more cores to M1 to absolutely mop the floor with the Ryzen? By that logic could we not "just" double Ryzen cores to mop the floor with the M1? What kind of logic is this lol

imtringued 6y ago
Yeah and since Ryzen with 8 and 16 cores and Epyc with up to 64 exist it is an obvious loss because Apple has yet to release products in these categories.

mhh__ 6y ago

"Just"

spamizbad 6y ago

Yep, all they gotta do is that thing they're not going to be doing for a while.

trynumber9 6y ago

First, many of these benchmarks are single threaded. Secondly, in the same power envelope as the 5800X you can also find the 16 core 5950X. So perhaps Apple would have to add even more cores. Finally, in a core count war AMD has an easier task. They scale up their designs with multiple chips. A Zen 3 CCD is about 80mm^2 on 7nm, which is already much smaller than the M1 SoC on 5nm. If Apple adds 4 more cores, their chip size will increase. Meanwhile AMD can add more cores without increasing chip size like Apple's current integrated approach. This is why AMD is already shipping 64 core CPUs (EPYC 7763) using multiple of the Zen 3 CCD as these desktop CPUs.