5 ms·

I think you're getting a bit confused. The 3990x is not designed for energy efficiency, on an older node, and on an older architecture... uses 3kWh vs Apples 2

I think you're getting a bit confused. The 3990x is not designed for energy efficiency, on an older node, and on an older architecture... uses 3kWh vs Apples 2kWh (using a very flawed methodology). An yet you're claiming Apple has a 3-6x power efficiency advantage. I'm not sure how that makes any sense.

paulmd 5y ago
Hmm? Perf/watt isn’t the same thing as task energy, it sounds like you’re the one confused here. As I said, task energy (which is what’s measured in the OP) heavily favors “getting it done quicker” as well as this task being embarrassingly parallel such that the 3990WX can get all 128 threads into play. It’s basically a “race to sleep” benchmark not a perf/watt benchmark with processors that are that disparate. For a task energy test - which is not the same thing as a perf/watt test - this is completely loading the dice in favor of x86 and M1 still manages to match it. That is an extremely good result for putting a laptop chip against a top of the line HEDT processor in a test that is normally all about race to sleep. > An yet you're claiming Apple has a 3-6x power efficiency advantage. I’m not the one claiming anything, if you disagree with Anandtech’s numbers go take it up with them. The numbers don’t change just because you find them uncomfortable. > In multi-threaded tests, the 11980HK is clearly allowed to go to much higher power levels than the M1 Max, reaching package power levels of 80W, for 105-110W active wall power, significantly more than what the MacBook Pro here is drawing. The performance levels of the M1 Max are significantly higher than the Intel chip here, due to the much better scalability of the cores. The perf/W differences here are 4-6x in favour of the M1 Max, all whilst posting significantly better performance, meaning the perf/W at ISO-perf would be even higher than this. > In the SPECfp suite, the M1 Max is in its own category of silicon with no comparison in the market. It completely demolishes any laptop contender, showcasing 2.2x performance of the second-best laptop chip. The M1 Max even manages to outperform the 16-core 5950X – a chip whose package power is at 142W, with rest of system even quite above that. It’s an absolutely absurd comparison and a situation we haven’t seen the likes of. https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performance-review/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performanc... And again, that’s with it running at half the clock and half the threads of its laptop peers, so IPC is something like 8x higher in those scenarios. That is not the kind of gap you close up with a node shrink or tightening pitches a bit. Hackernews experts know best though. Next year Zen4 and A16 will be on the same node, and then it’ll be another excuse for why x86 is still getting dumpstered. Just keep the goalposts on wheels, you’ll need it.
- nathanielarmer 5y ago
  > Perf/watt isn’t the same thing as task energy, it sounds like you’re the one confused here. How do you calculate Perf/watt if not Task/Task Energy? > As I said, task energy (which is what’s measured in the OP) heavily favors “getting it done quicker” Which x86 can do. > It’s basically a “race to sleep” Oh no, it gets the task done faster! > I’m not the one claiming anything, if you disagree with Anandtech’s numbers go take it up with them. I have no issue with Anandtech, since they made no such claim. I read the article, you're badly misquoting it. > And again, that’s with it running at half the clock and half the threads of its laptop peers, so IPC is something like 8x higher in those scenarios. None of which is ultimately important. > That is not the kind of gap you close up with a node shrink or tightening pitches a bit. Hackernews experts know best though. Look at the results again. For example for SPEC2017 ST the Apple M1 MAX is essentially tied with the 5950x. Sure the M1 Max might be more energy efficent (though by how much you'd need to measure) - but remember it's a massively larger chip, a whole year newer, and on a newer node. For MT we see the M1 max bearely beat a 5800X for int, and do significantly better for floating point - which shows different priorities of design. Again, take a 5800X, shrink it down, add another FPU, and it beats a M1 max hands down. > Next year Zen4 and A16 will be on the same node, and then it’ll be another excuse for why x86 is still getting dumpstered. Except x86 isn't getting dumpstered. You're just cherry picking specific comparisons that make M1 look great, and then ignoring all contrary information. I mean, I could the the Borderlands 3 1080p benchmark, and say that the M1 got 21.1FPS to the GE76's 100, and therefore x86 is ~8 times faster. It wouldn't be honest (I'm deliberately chosing the worst M1 chip, and picking a workload that really favors x86) - but I could do it. But I don't, because it's not honest nor is it helpful.
hajile 5y ago
Energy scales very badly with clockspeed. Anandtech mentions this in their review https://www.anandtech.com/show/15483/amd-threadripper-3990x-review/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/15483/amd-threadripper-3990x-... Chip Core# TDP 1-Core 1-Core All-Core All-Core Power Freq Power Freq 3990X 64 280 W 10.4 W 4350 3.0 W 3450 3970X 32 280 W 13.0 W 4310 7.0 W 3810 3960X 24 280 W 13.5 W 4400 8.6 W 3950 3950X 16 105 W 18.3 W 4450 7.1 W 3885 As you can see, going from 4.35GHz down to 3.45GHz reduces power consumption by over 3x. Further, per-core power usage of the 3990x is very low overall. This lower clock and lower per-core performance gives higher overall performance per watt.

paulmd 5y ago

Hmm? Perf/watt isn’t the same thing as task energy, it sounds like you’re the one confused here. As I said, task energy (which is what’s measured in the OP) heavily favors “getting it done quicker” as well as this task being embarrassingly parallel such that the 3990WX can get all 128 threads into play. It’s basically a “race to sleep” benchmark not a perf/watt benchmark with processors that are that disparate. For a task energy test - which is not the same thing as a perf/watt test - this is completely loading the dice in favor of x86 and M1 still manages to match it. That is an extremely good result for putting a laptop chip against a top of the line HEDT processor in a test that is normally all about race to sleep. > An yet you're claiming Apple has a 3-6x power efficiency advantage. I’m not the one claiming anything, if you disagree with Anandtech’s numbers go take it up with them. The numbers don’t change just because you find them uncomfortable. > In multi-threaded tests, the 11980HK is clearly allowed to go to much higher power levels than the M1 Max, reaching package power levels of 80W, for 105-110W active wall power, significantly more than what the MacBook Pro here is drawing. The performance levels of the M1 Max are significantly higher than the Intel chip here, due to the much better scalability of the cores. The perf/W differences here are 4-6x in favour of the M1 Max, all whilst posting significantly better performance, meaning the perf/W at ISO-perf would be even higher than this. > In the SPECfp suite, the M1 Max is in its own category of silicon with no comparison in the market. It completely demolishes any laptop contender, showcasing 2.2x performance of the second-best laptop chip. The M1 Max even manages to outperform the 16-core 5950X – a chip whose package power is at 142W, with rest of system even quite above that. It’s an absolutely absurd comparison and a situation we haven’t seen the likes of. https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performance-review/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performanc... And again, that’s with it running at half the clock and half the threads of its laptop peers, so IPC is something like 8x higher in those scenarios. That is not the kind of gap you close up with a node shrink or tightening pitches a bit. Hackernews experts know best though. Next year Zen4 and A16 will be on the same node, and then it’ll be another excuse for why x86 is still getting dumpstered. Just keep the goalposts on wheels, you’ll need it.

nathanielarmer 5y ago
> Perf/watt isn’t the same thing as task energy, it sounds like you’re the one confused here. How do you calculate Perf/watt if not Task/Task Energy? > As I said, task energy (which is what’s measured in the OP) heavily favors “getting it done quicker” Which x86 can do. > It’s basically a “race to sleep” Oh no, it gets the task done faster! > I’m not the one claiming anything, if you disagree with Anandtech’s numbers go take it up with them. I have no issue with Anandtech, since they made no such claim. I read the article, you're badly misquoting it. > And again, that’s with it running at half the clock and half the threads of its laptop peers, so IPC is something like 8x higher in those scenarios. None of which is ultimately important. > That is not the kind of gap you close up with a node shrink or tightening pitches a bit. Hackernews experts know best though. Look at the results again. For example for SPEC2017 ST the Apple M1 MAX is essentially tied with the 5950x. Sure the M1 Max might be more energy efficent (though by how much you'd need to measure) - but remember it's a massively larger chip, a whole year newer, and on a newer node. For MT we see the M1 max bearely beat a 5800X for int, and do significantly better for floating point - which shows different priorities of design. Again, take a 5800X, shrink it down, add another FPU, and it beats a M1 max hands down. > Next year Zen4 and A16 will be on the same node, and then it’ll be another excuse for why x86 is still getting dumpstered. Except x86 isn't getting dumpstered. You're just cherry picking specific comparisons that make M1 look great, and then ignoring all contrary information. I mean, I could the the Borderlands 3 1080p benchmark, and say that the M1 got 21.1FPS to the GE76's 100, and therefore x86 is ~8 times faster. It wouldn't be honest (I'm deliberately chosing the worst M1 chip, and picking a workload that really favors x86) - but I could do it. But I don't, because it's not honest nor is it helpful.

hajile 5y ago

Energy scales very badly with clockspeed. Anandtech mentions this in their review https://www.anandtech.com/show/15483/amd-threadripper-3990x-review/2 https://www.anandtech.com/show/15483/amd-threadripper-3990x-... Chip Core# TDP 1-Core 1-Core All-Core All-Core Power Freq Power Freq 3990X 64 280 W 10.4 W 4350 3.0 W 3450 3970X 32 280 W 13.0 W 4310 7.0 W 3810 3960X 24 280 W 13.5 W 4400 8.6 W 3950 3950X 16 105 W 18.3 W 4450 7.1 W 3885 As you can see, going from 4.35GHz down to 3.45GHz reduces power consumption by over 3x. Further, per-core power usage of the 3990x is very low overall. This lower clock and lower per-core performance gives higher overall performance per watt.