7 ms·
Interesting that when limited at 15W on geekbench multithread this ryzen 9 5980HS is faster than Apple M1 (and even faster at 35W), but below in single thread.
by guerby 6y ago
Interesting that when limited at 15W on geekbench multithread this ryzen 9 5980HS is faster than Apple M1 (and even faster at 35W), but below in single thread.
- top_sigrid 6y agoWell several things. The M1 does not have 8 equally performant cores. The M1 has only 4 of those who are faster in single core performance. Also it performs at 10W, not at 15W and does so without a fan (in the case of the MacBook Air). Hence I don't know if your comparison makes sense.
- merdadicapra 6y ago> Also it performs at 10W, not at 15W and does so without a fan (in the case of the MacBook Air The comparison is with a Mac Mini that uses a fan. 15W is not far from 10W, considering Ryzen are still 7nm IMO even 35W is not much at all, for 18 hours on battery and that kind of performances (especially the multi core). The difference is negligible for users, assuming 8 hours a day for 365 days straight the 15W APU would consume 15KW more, in Italy it would cost about one euro more.
- kllrnohj 6y agoIn this case the 15w was actual measured power draw not made up marketing numbers (actual measurement was 12W though I assume Anandtech opted to round up there in the other slides). The M1's actual multicore power draw is more like 20W, at least in the Mac mini being compared against here.
- hu3 6y agoAnd that's with 7nm. Still faster than desktop mac mini M1 despite both having fans and AMD having to deal with x86 cruft. I can wait to get my hands on one of these speed demons for my compilation workloads.
- ksec 6y agoFew things. 1. M1 in Mac Mini is estimated to be 20W to 25W. 2. M1 is 4 Performance Core + 4 Efficient Core. Compared to 8 Performance Core in Ryzen 3. Ryzen is 8 Core 16 Thread. M1 is 8 Thread. 4. Worth mentioning again, M1 is on 5nm, Ryzen is on 7nm.
- alpanka 6y agoNote that AMD has been beating Apple on single core performance since day 1. See the comparison between 4700u, M1 and micromagic Risc-v: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/12/new-risc-v-cpu-claims-recordbreaking-performance-per-watt/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/12/new-risc-v-cpu-claim... I assume the efficient cores on M1 gives it an edge on power usage.
- stefan_ 6y agoPower usage follows directly from the 5nm process.
- alpanka 6y agoIt's a factor, but not the only one. It also depends on the foundary and the exact process and of course the CPU design.
- agumonkey 6y agoIn which case will make a very nice marketing speech for AMD
- osti 6y agoSo you decide to cherry pick one single thread benchmark out of many to decide that AMD wins in single thread lol. In most benchmark, m1 is much faster than 4800u in ST.
- api 6y agoApple just entered an extremely competitive market with the M1, which is good because we win if this market is more competitive.
- i_am_proteus 6y agoPlenty of comments noting that this isn't quite an oranges-to-oranges comparison between the AMD and the Apple hardware. In any case, maybe the real story here is one of Intel's complacency, and AMD and Apple are both exploiting it, just in different ways.
- nknealk 6y agoIf you look at the fourth table, the 15W config allows for 6 seconds of turbo at 42W. Which probably explains why the benchmark isn't very different between the 35W and 15W configurations. The processor probably just draws 42W for the duration of the benchmark in both cases. I don't know if comparisons to the Apple M1 are apples-to-apples (no pun intended) which tops out at like 20-25W. That said, AMD's offering in this space is very impressive and really makes you question what Intel has been doing the last three years.
- sudosysgen 6y agoGeekbench lasts much, much more than 6 seconds. AMD TDPs aren't like Intel. The chip will average out 15W if in a 15W TDP setting.