4 ms·
Do you have any evidence for this claim? The actual concrete performance numbers for the M1 and Zen3 don't agree with you at all: M1: https://images.anandtech.
by byefruit 6y ago
Do you have any evidence for this claim? The actual concrete performance numbers for the M1 and Zen3 don't agree with you at all:
M1: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16252/latency-m1_575px.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16252/latency-m1_575px.png
Zen3: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16214/lat-5950.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16214/lat-5950.png
If anything the M1's ram has _higher_ latency than the Zen3.
(Can't reply to the sibling comment but Intel's numbers are even better: https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16214/lat-10900.png https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16214/lat-10900.png)
- sooheon 6y ago> like doing said editing smoother with fewer dropped frames than far more powerful Intel machines with a lot more RAM Just noting Zen3 is not Intel.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sliken 6y agoWell exactly how are you defining latency? Is it random accesses you want to test? Or TLB thrashing? The R per RV prange benchmark accesses memory randomly, but in a TLB friendly pattern (TLB thrashing real world workloads aren't particularly common). The M1 gets 30ns, the 5960X is 55ns and still climbing at the max array size. The 5950X does better on "full" random, although that's unclear if that's a faster TLB, or the testing with a different page size. With Linux for TLB thrashing workloads you can always use HUGE pages, not sure if the M1 hardware supports that though.