5 ms·

Top intel mobile processor appears to be https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10431820 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10431820 M1 Max gives 9% boost for s

Top intel mobile processor appears to be https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10431820 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10431820 M1 Max gives 9% boost for single-core and 34% for multicore, with similar or larger (?) TDP -- Intel is 35-45 W, M1 Max is 60W but I assume some of it (a lot?) goes to GPU. Impressive, but probably wouldn't be called revolution if came from Intel.

Weryj 5y ago
At first glace yeah, but that's 45W at 2.5Ghz, but TDP isn't the power rating of the CPU. That benchmark lists the Intel CPU as up to 4.9Ghz, I would say it's actual power draw was closer to the 100W mark for CPU only.
- EvgeniyZh 5y ago
  4.9 GHz should be single-core max freq, not applicable in multicore benchmark. All-core turbo is lower, but also AFAIK there is a limit on time it run on this freq (tau for PL2, i think around half a minute by default).
  - klelatti 5y ago
    Is there any reason why the Intel CPU wouldn’t run at 4.9 GHz for the single core benchmark though - whilst the M1 would be limited to a much lower frequency which it can sustain for much longer?
    - EvgeniyZh 5y ago
      I think, but I'm not 100% sure, that limits are on overall TDP, i.e., single-core workloaad can run on turbo indefinitely. Then aalso I'd assume benchmarks are much longer than any reasonable value of tau which means it integrates out (i.e., Intel performance may be higher in short-term). Edit: that is probably one of the reasons single-core gap is smaller
      - klelatti 5y ago
        Thanks - this all highlights some of the interesting trade offs in CPU design!
cush 5y ago
It might be called a revolution if Intel could get that performance boost while nearly doubling battery life and eliminating thermal throttling
hmottestad 5y ago
If you look up other laptops with the same processor you get a very large variation. The Lenovo you point to has a 280 watt power brick, maybe the results aren’t as good when it’s not plugged in.
neogodless 5y ago
Just to throw AMD in the mix, Ryzen 9 5980HX (35-54W). https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10431820 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10431820 M1 Max leading 17% single core, 50% multi-core. https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10496766?baseline=9350041 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10496766?baseli...
- bjoli 5y ago
  I wonder how much a performance hit not having "hyperthreading" would be for the AMD cpu. Back when the openBSD guys disabled it I did the same, and I havent really noticed much difference in the workloads I have. Considering the m1 lacks it it seems it is not necessary for good multithreading performance, and the implications of it has always been a can of worms.
hajile 5y ago
M1 only uses around 15-18w with all 8 cores active according to Anandtech's review (with E-cores using 1/10 the power, that's equivalent to just a little less than 4.5 big cores. I'd guess 30w for all cores would be the upper-end power limit for the cores. Intel's "TDP" is a suggestion rather than reality. Their chips often hit 60-80 watts of peak power before hitting thermals and being forced to dial back.
- pja 5y ago
  Anandtech measured the max TDP of the CPUs in the M1 as being around 28W, with the GPU adding ~17W to that figure. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...
  - hajile 5y ago
    That figure is compute workloads. Also, those measurements are “at the wall” and include RAM, SSD, and everything else. At the very least, you must subtract most idle power, but you also need to subtract more when DRAM/SSD kicks up from low power state.
    - pja 5y ago
      That figure is after subtracting idle power. It’s right there on the chart. The workload is described as "Compute MT" (i.e. multithreaded), compared with "Memory MT (i.e., memory intensive Multi-threaded workload), with a third bar on the chart being the average of the two. It seems to me that the "Compute MT" is the closest to the measurement that Intel or AMD would describe as TDP. The M1 is a ~25+W chip, not a 10W chip, if we’re going to make a fair comparison with Intel or AMD equivalents. It’s still a great CPU of course, but it’s not magic pixie dust.
      - hajile 5y ago
        Compute MT is using both CPU and GPU together. To compete, any other CPU needs to use a dedicated GPU. Also, at idle, the DRAM and SSD are powered off. Samsung 980 uses 4.5 watts of power when active. I'd guess a similar power consumption applies here. LPDDR4x ranges from 0.6v to 1.8v This should give 2-3w per 8gb chip at full-power. Anandtech's article agrees with ST Memory adding 4.2w of power over their other ST benchmarks. Now, 26.8 - 4.5 - 4.2 = 18.1w at PEAK. For just CPU loads, we get 22.3 - 4.5 - 4.2 = 13.6w.
foldr 5y ago
If the TDP was really the same we’d be seeing Intel laptops with 20 hour battery lives.
- EvgeniyZh 5y ago
  Battery life is more about idle/low load TDP, not full load TDP. It's not like MBP has 60*20=1200 Wh battery (100Wh is FAA limit)
  - foldr 5y ago
    Yes, and the M1 is consuming less power at low loads, enabling longer battery lives. What other explanation do you think there could be for the long battery lives of the M1 laptops?
    - EvgeniyZh 5y ago
      What does it have to do with geekbench which test processors on max load, i.e., highest possible TDP, which I referred to?
      - foldr 5y ago
        Depends on how you look at it. What's impressive about the M1 is that it gets highly respectable Geekbench scores while also being able to deliver 20 hours of battery life in a small form factor laptop. If there is an Intel chip that can do that, where are the laptops with comparable battery life? We can nerd out about the exact definition of TDP all day, but ultimately these benchmarks are only useful insofar as they tell us something about real world performance and power consumption.
        EvgeniyZh 5y ago
        Well, I hear a lot of claims that M1 is significantly outperforming Intel (either by raw computing power or per watt). All I saying that both are at level of maybe single generation improvement, nice but not revolutionary. Of course they also those low-power cores that allow long battery life, which is very nice, but thats a separate story

Weryj 5y ago

At first glace yeah, but that's 45W at 2.5Ghz, but TDP isn't the power rating of the CPU. That benchmark lists the Intel CPU as up to 4.9Ghz, I would say it's actual power draw was closer to the 100W mark for CPU only.

EvgeniyZh 5y ago
4.9 GHz should be single-core max freq, not applicable in multicore benchmark. All-core turbo is lower, but also AFAIK there is a limit on time it run on this freq (tau for PL2, i think around half a minute by default).
- klelatti 5y ago
  Is there any reason why the Intel CPU wouldn’t run at 4.9 GHz for the single core benchmark though - whilst the M1 would be limited to a much lower frequency which it can sustain for much longer?
  - EvgeniyZh 5y ago
    I think, but I'm not 100% sure, that limits are on overall TDP, i.e., single-core workloaad can run on turbo indefinitely. Then aalso I'd assume benchmarks are much longer than any reasonable value of tau which means it integrates out (i.e., Intel performance may be higher in short-term). Edit: that is probably one of the reasons single-core gap is smaller
    - klelatti 5y ago
      Thanks - this all highlights some of the interesting trade offs in CPU design!

cush 5y ago

It might be called a revolution if Intel could get that performance boost while nearly doubling battery life and eliminating thermal throttling

hmottestad 5y ago

If you look up other laptops with the same processor you get a very large variation. The Lenovo you point to has a 280 watt power brick, maybe the results aren’t as good when it’s not plugged in.

neogodless 5y ago

Just to throw AMD in the mix, Ryzen 9 5980HX (35-54W). https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10431820 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/10431820 M1 Max leading 17% single core, 50% multi-core. https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10496766?baseline=9350041 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/10496766?baseli...

bjoli 5y ago
I wonder how much a performance hit not having "hyperthreading" would be for the AMD cpu. Back when the openBSD guys disabled it I did the same, and I havent really noticed much difference in the workloads I have. Considering the m1 lacks it it seems it is not necessary for good multithreading performance, and the implications of it has always been a can of worms.

hajile 5y ago

M1 only uses around 15-18w with all 8 cores active according to Anandtech's review (with E-cores using 1/10 the power, that's equivalent to just a little less than 4.5 big cores. I'd guess 30w for all cores would be the upper-end power limit for the cores. Intel's "TDP" is a suggestion rather than reality. Their chips often hit 60-80 watts of peak power before hitting thermals and being forced to dial back.

pja 5y ago
Anandtech measured the max TDP of the CPUs in the M1 as being around 28W, with the GPU adding ~17W to that figure. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...
- hajile 5y ago
  That figure is compute workloads. Also, those measurements are “at the wall” and include RAM, SSD, and everything else. At the very least, you must subtract most idle power, but you also need to subtract more when DRAM/SSD kicks up from low power state.
  - pja 5y ago
    That figure is after subtracting idle power. It’s right there on the chart. The workload is described as "Compute MT" (i.e. multithreaded), compared with "Memory MT (i.e., memory intensive Multi-threaded workload), with a third bar on the chart being the average of the two. It seems to me that the "Compute MT" is the closest to the measurement that Intel or AMD would describe as TDP. The M1 is a ~25+W chip, not a 10W chip, if we’re going to make a fair comparison with Intel or AMD equivalents. It’s still a great CPU of course, but it’s not magic pixie dust.
    - hajile 5y ago
      Compute MT is using both CPU and GPU together. To compete, any other CPU needs to use a dedicated GPU. Also, at idle, the DRAM and SSD are powered off. Samsung 980 uses 4.5 watts of power when active. I'd guess a similar power consumption applies here. LPDDR4x ranges from 0.6v to 1.8v This should give 2-3w per 8gb chip at full-power. Anandtech's article agrees with ST Memory adding 4.2w of power over their other ST benchmarks. Now, 26.8 - 4.5 - 4.2 = 18.1w at PEAK. For just CPU loads, we get 22.3 - 4.5 - 4.2 = 13.6w.

foldr 5y ago

If the TDP was really the same we’d be seeing Intel laptops with 20 hour battery lives.

EvgeniyZh 5y ago
Battery life is more about idle/low load TDP, not full load TDP. It's not like MBP has 60*20=1200 Wh battery (100Wh is FAA limit)
- foldr 5y ago
  Yes, and the M1 is consuming less power at low loads, enabling longer battery lives. What other explanation do you think there could be for the long battery lives of the M1 laptops?
  - EvgeniyZh 5y ago
    What does it have to do with geekbench which test processors on max load, i.e., highest possible TDP, which I referred to?
    - foldr 5y ago
      Depends on how you look at it. What's impressive about the M1 is that it gets highly respectable Geekbench scores while also being able to deliver 20 hours of battery life in a small form factor laptop. If there is an Intel chip that can do that, where are the laptops with comparable battery life? We can nerd out about the exact definition of TDP all day, but ultimately these benchmarks are only useful insofar as they tell us something about real world performance and power consumption.
      - EvgeniyZh 5y ago
        Well, I hear a lot of claims that M1 is significantly outperforming Intel (either by raw computing power or per watt). All I saying that both are at level of maybe single generation improvement, nice but not revolutionary. Of course they also those low-power cores that allow long battery life, which is very nice, but thats a separate story