4 ms·

Just to humor you I looked it up - your Xeon W-11955M is the same chip as a consumer 11980HK, which is one of the processors in Anandtech’s benchmark. Same core

by paulmd 5y ago

Just to humor you I looked it up - your Xeon W-11955M is the same chip as a consumer 11980HK, which is one of the processors in Anandtech’s benchmark. Same cores, same cache, same clocks, slightly lower TDP limit - the consumer one has a 65W boost configuration. It is the same TGL-H die with (very slight) variations in what feature fuses are blown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Lake#List_of_Tiger_Lake_CPUs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Lake#List_of_Tiger_Lake_... So based on Anandtech’s benchmark you can pretty much extrapolate how that is going to go - slightly lower performance and slightly higher efficiency due to TDP limiting clocks a bit, but same cache, same core configuration, etc mean that it’ll be identical to if you went into bios on a 11980HK and set a lower power limit. By the way the 11980HK is specifically the chip they called out the M1 Max as being a factor-of-6 more power efficient than. And in fact they said exactly what I just said - that limiting TDP will reduce performance on the 11955M and the perf/W gap will close a bit, but the performance gap will get even wider. > 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. https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performance-review/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/17024/apple-m1-max-performanc... What’s your dealie, why so toxic?

soylentnewsorg 5y ago
The m1 max TDP is projected to be 90W. The Xeon is 45W. https://newsbeezer.com/franceeng/the-tdp-of-the-apple-m1-max-should-approach-90w/ https://newsbeezer.com/franceeng/the-tdp-of-the-apple-m1-max... Now here's that Xeon beating that 11090HK. Hmm, same CPU according to you. Wonder why that is. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Xeon-W-11955M-vs-Intel-Core-i9-11980HK/4419vs4355 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Xeon-W-11955M-vs-... Sorry, I stopped reading after your first line.
- paulmd 5y ago
  > Sorry, I stopped reading after your first line. I can tell, because you obviously didn’t read: > 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 at the wall Meanwhile the M1 max: > In multi-threaded scenarios, the package and wall power vary from 34-43W on package, and wall active power from 40 to 62W So it’s over twice as fast (2.2X), at about 1/2 the power - hence Anandtech’s conclusion of “about 6x perf/watt”. It’s ok, you can still complain that obviously a higher clocked processor should have lower efficiency, and Anandtech addressed that too, in the very next sentence! > 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. Yep, that’s the picture. Lose by a factor of 2.2X in performance and by a factor of 2-3x in power consumption, or lose by a factor of 4 in performance (made up number but probably about right) at equal power. Apple is way out ahead here, far more than can be explained by “being a node ahead” or “using tighter pitches”. Their design is ahead.
  - soylentnewsorg 5y ago
    Again, the Xeon is not the same CPU, is faster than the 11980HK, and has a lower TDP. What is it that you are not understanding here? Let me explain: the same CPU would have the same metrics. These two have different metrics. So they are not the same, because they are different. Does ya got it now?
    - paulmd 5y ago
      Yes, it is the same cpu die with a few enterprise feature flags turned on, it’s no faster, it’s actually slower due to the lower TDP you note. You don’t understand what you’re talking about and you’re openly hostile to the person who tried to explain it to you lol.
      - soylentnewsorg 5y ago

by paulmd 5y ago

soylentnewsorg 5y ago

The m1 max TDP is projected to be 90W. The Xeon is 45W. https://newsbeezer.com/franceeng/the-tdp-of-the-apple-m1-max-should-approach-90w/ https://newsbeezer.com/franceeng/the-tdp-of-the-apple-m1-max... Now here's that Xeon beating that 11090HK. Hmm, same CPU according to you. Wonder why that is. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Xeon-W-11955M-vs-Intel-Core-i9-11980HK/4419vs4355 https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Xeon-W-11955M-vs-... Sorry, I stopped reading after your first line.

paulmd 5y ago
> Sorry, I stopped reading after your first line. I can tell, because you obviously didn’t read: > 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 at the wall Meanwhile the M1 max: > In multi-threaded scenarios, the package and wall power vary from 34-43W on package, and wall active power from 40 to 62W So it’s over twice as fast (2.2X), at about 1/2 the power - hence Anandtech’s conclusion of “about 6x perf/watt”. It’s ok, you can still complain that obviously a higher clocked processor should have lower efficiency, and Anandtech addressed that too, in the very next sentence! > 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. Yep, that’s the picture. Lose by a factor of 2.2X in performance and by a factor of 2-3x in power consumption, or lose by a factor of 4 in performance (made up number but probably about right) at equal power. Apple is way out ahead here, far more than can be explained by “being a node ahead” or “using tighter pitches”. Their design is ahead.
- soylentnewsorg 5y ago
  Again, the Xeon is not the same CPU, is faster than the 11980HK, and has a lower TDP. What is it that you are not understanding here? Let me explain: the same CPU would have the same metrics. These two have different metrics. So they are not the same, because they are different. Does ya got it now?
  - paulmd 5y ago
    Yes, it is the same cpu die with a few enterprise feature flags turned on, it’s no faster, it’s actually slower due to the lower TDP you note. You don’t understand what you’re talking about and you’re openly hostile to the person who tried to explain it to you lol.
    - soylentnewsorg 5y ago