3 ms·

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.

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.