4 ms·

And directly above that graph says: > please keep in mind that for single-threaded tasks, a single core doesn’t consume all 95W TDP headroom of the CPU. Based

And directly above that graph says: > please keep in mind that for single-threaded tasks, a single core doesn’t consume all 95W TDP headroom of the CPU. Based on Anandtech’s analysis, a single 5800X core only consumes 17.3W at 4850 MHz Remember these are single-threaded benchmarks.

glasshead969 6y ago
M1 with all its CPUs pegged to 100% only hits 20W, so M1 still uses way less power than single core in Zen. Edit: In fact I just ran Cinebench R23 single thread test and package power barely crossed 5W.
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  Yup, the MacMini M1 maxes out at 10.5W on single threaded workloads https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...
- imtringued 6y ago
  > M1 with all its CPUs pegged to 100% only hits 20W, so M1 still uses way less power than single core in Zen. So do Ryzen CPUs. The 16 core Ryzen only needs 5W per core. It's purely a matter of frequency management. These comparisons are meaningless because you can say stupid things like "Ryzens are more power efficient than Ryzens" and still be right.
  - my123 6y ago
    At 5W per core, you don't get anywhere near the single-threaded perf needed to beat an M1... (20W per core is what it reaches on ST tests, with 17W more for the I/O die on desktop Ryzen, an overhead that'll be much lower on Cezanne hopefully)
gzer0 6y ago
Interestingly, the conclusion states the following: > While M1 is indeed very powerful for its size, when comparing it to the high-end x86 desktop, it is still slower. Okay, great. I'm not sure what to expect when you compare the lowest end first generation processor from Apple to one of the more high-end of the spectrum x86. Edit: Forgot to mention how the power draw on the M1 is still significantly less; m1 with all cores @ 100% is ~20W whereas the x86 ryzen was at 17.3W for 1 one core > To conclude that it performs better than the existing x86 CPUs, is a mistake. True, no denying that. Exciting times in this market; I wonder how much better gen 2 of Apple's chips will be if the lowest end can do this.
- p1necone 6y ago
  The reason people are making these comparisons between CPUs that are basically in entirely separate market segments is because of apples marketing suggesting that the M1 beats everything, rather than just other low power CPUs, and people taking said marketing at face value.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    Well, not quite. They claimed that their own processor designs will beat everything. They made significantly less bold claims about the M1. While obviously neither of us can predict exactly what they’re planning for the rest of the product line, I think it would be naive to assume they haven’t at least internally validated that they can improve performance above these entry level offerings. Otherwise they just axed almost their entire Mac brand, and quite likely the rest would falter before too long.
    - barkingcat 6y ago
      I think it's very naive to assume that the marketing department of a megacorporation isn't going to say anything to make more sales. It's likely that no-one has validated anything when it comes to future tense comparisons. Read all, believe nothing, especially don't believe the future predictions of someone trying to sell you a laptop today. Apple has future M1 samples for sure, but they don't have future AMD samples to benchmark against, unless somehow Apple has done some industrial espionage... In car terms, it's like Tesla trying to persuade someone not to buy a Porsche Taycan. Of course Tesla's going to say their battery lasts longer, even longer than the second generation Taycan no-one has seen that's coming out in a few more years.
htk 6y ago
Does anyone know how many watts a single core can consume on the M1?
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  The Firestorm core uses 10.5W under heavy load and memory consumption.
  - my123 6y ago
    10.5W is the whole system power draw. What's actually reached is https://twitter.com/andreif7/status/1328777888213110793?s=21 https://twitter.com/andreif7/status/1328777888213110793?s=21 6.6W CPU power, 9.3W package power (including DRAM)
echlebek 6y ago
Yeah, that's irrelevant. One M1 core is not going to use its entire package power either, because there are other powered cores in there like the GPU. Look at the chart again. One Ryzen core active, 37 watts total package power. It doesn't matter what the per core wattage is, because you can't get that one core without the package.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > One Ryzen core active, 37 watts total package power. It doesn't matter what the per core wattage is, because you can't get that one core without the package. This is the desktop Zen 3 which is still using the 12nm I/O die. It uses more power as a result, which nobody really cares about on the desktop. The Ryzen laptops use a single die which is entirely 7nm and thereby less power with no corresponding reduction in performance.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  37W because it's a desktop chip which has its I/O on 12nm. The laptop chips don't have that issue. Also, if you want to do an apples-to-apples comparison, the 5800X package handles vastly more I/O.

glasshead969 6y ago

M1 with all its CPUs pegged to 100% only hits 20W, so M1 still uses way less power than single core in Zen. Edit: In fact I just ran Cinebench R23 single thread test and package power barely crossed 5W.

scoopertrooper 6y ago
Yup, the MacMini M1 maxes out at 10.5W on single threaded workloads https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...
imtringued 6y ago
> M1 with all its CPUs pegged to 100% only hits 20W, so M1 still uses way less power than single core in Zen. So do Ryzen CPUs. The 16 core Ryzen only needs 5W per core. It's purely a matter of frequency management. These comparisons are meaningless because you can say stupid things like "Ryzens are more power efficient than Ryzens" and still be right.
- my123 6y ago
  At 5W per core, you don't get anywhere near the single-threaded perf needed to beat an M1... (20W per core is what it reaches on ST tests, with 17W more for the I/O die on desktop Ryzen, an overhead that'll be much lower on Cezanne hopefully)

gzer0 6y ago

Interestingly, the conclusion states the following: > While M1 is indeed very powerful for its size, when comparing it to the high-end x86 desktop, it is still slower. Okay, great. I'm not sure what to expect when you compare the lowest end first generation processor from Apple to one of the more high-end of the spectrum x86. Edit: Forgot to mention how the power draw on the M1 is still significantly less; m1 with all cores @ 100% is ~20W whereas the x86 ryzen was at 17.3W for 1 one core > To conclude that it performs better than the existing x86 CPUs, is a mistake. True, no denying that. Exciting times in this market; I wonder how much better gen 2 of Apple's chips will be if the lowest end can do this.

p1necone 6y ago
The reason people are making these comparisons between CPUs that are basically in entirely separate market segments is because of apples marketing suggesting that the M1 beats everything, rather than just other low power CPUs, and people taking said marketing at face value.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  Well, not quite. They claimed that their own processor designs will beat everything. They made significantly less bold claims about the M1. While obviously neither of us can predict exactly what they’re planning for the rest of the product line, I think it would be naive to assume they haven’t at least internally validated that they can improve performance above these entry level offerings. Otherwise they just axed almost their entire Mac brand, and quite likely the rest would falter before too long.
  - barkingcat 6y ago
    I think it's very naive to assume that the marketing department of a megacorporation isn't going to say anything to make more sales. It's likely that no-one has validated anything when it comes to future tense comparisons. Read all, believe nothing, especially don't believe the future predictions of someone trying to sell you a laptop today. Apple has future M1 samples for sure, but they don't have future AMD samples to benchmark against, unless somehow Apple has done some industrial espionage... In car terms, it's like Tesla trying to persuade someone not to buy a Porsche Taycan. Of course Tesla's going to say their battery lasts longer, even longer than the second generation Taycan no-one has seen that's coming out in a few more years.

htk 6y ago

Does anyone know how many watts a single core can consume on the M1?

scoopertrooper 6y ago
The Firestorm core uses 10.5W under heavy load and memory consumption.
- my123 6y ago
  10.5W is the whole system power draw. What's actually reached is https://twitter.com/andreif7/status/1328777888213110793?s=21 https://twitter.com/andreif7/status/1328777888213110793?s=21 6.6W CPU power, 9.3W package power (including DRAM)

echlebek 6y ago

Yeah, that's irrelevant. One M1 core is not going to use its entire package power either, because there are other powered cores in there like the GPU. Look at the chart again. One Ryzen core active, 37 watts total package power. It doesn't matter what the per core wattage is, because you can't get that one core without the package.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> One Ryzen core active, 37 watts total package power. It doesn't matter what the per core wattage is, because you can't get that one core without the package. This is the desktop Zen 3 which is still using the 12nm I/O die. It uses more power as a result, which nobody really cares about on the desktop. The Ryzen laptops use a single die which is entirely 7nm and thereby less power with no corresponding reduction in performance.
sudosysgen 6y ago
37W because it's a desktop chip which has its I/O on 12nm. The laptop chips don't have that issue. Also, if you want to do an apples-to-apples comparison, the 5800X package handles vastly more I/O.