4 ms·
“ Lets start with the M1 Mac mini. It’s a nice baseline as it’s the Mac i was developing on up untill recently. The Mac mini completed the tests in 45.13 second
by chaboud 5y ago
“ Lets start with the M1 Mac mini. It’s a nice baseline as it’s the Mac i was developing on up untill recently. The Mac mini completed the tests in 45.13 seconds across 8 cores.
…………
The AWS Graviton instance (c6g.metal to be specific) delivered a score of 14.63 seconds across its 64 cores. Around 68% faster than the Mac mini.”
“Faster” would be a matter of rate.
So if we have times and we know D = R*T, we’d have:
(D/T2)/(D/T1) as the speed up of R2, which is just (T1/T2), or 3.08. If we were to say how much “faster” c6g.metal is than a Mac Mini, wouldn’t we say 208% rather than 68% if the speed of the Mac Mini is our baseline? Am I missing something?
- lostmsu 5y agoJust never use percentages to show ratio. Graviton instance is approximately 3 times faster.
- chaboud 5y agoI completely agree. X times the rate of Y is unambiguous.
- samhw 5y agoI highly recommend this blog post, which makes the same point among many (great) others: https://sled.rs/perf.html https://sled.rs/perf.html > When we speak about comparative metrics, it is also important to avoid saying commonly misunderstood things like “workload A is 15% slower than workload B”. Instead of saying “faster” it is helpful to speak in terms of latency or throughput, because both may be used to describe “speed” but they are in direct opposition to each other. Speaking in terms of relative percentages is often misleading. What does A (90) is 10% lower than B (100) mean if we don’t know their actual values? Many people would think that B is 1.1 * A, but in this case, 1.1 * 90 = 99. It is generally better to describe comparative measurements in terms of ratios rather than relative percentages. > The phrase workload A is 20% slower than workload B can be more clearly stated as workload A was measured to have a throughput of 4:5 that of workload B. Even though many people will see that and immediately translate it to “80%” in their heads, the chances of improperly reasoning about the difference are lower.
- alanfranz 5y agoI would say 2 times faster or 3 times the speed of the mac mini. Faster implies a delta already; I can say X is 0.5x faster than Y and it means its speed is 1.5x that if Y.
- hackerfromthefu 5y agoIn common usage I believe 3 times faster is what most people understand for these figures.
- dotancohen 5y agoIn common usage people refer to their mass as weight. Nobody says "I mass 75 kilos". I'm divided if that's an argument in favor or against your point, though.
- stackbutterflow 5y agoIs there a language where people don't use weight for mass?
- dotancohen 5y agoTerrific question! https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/44134/is-there-a-language-where-people-do-not-use-weight-for-mass https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/44134/is-the...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- alanfranz 5y agoCommon usage doesn’t mean it’s correct or clear. Yes, a lot of people say 2 times faster but it isn’t. The whole point of this comment thread is just that.
- lostmsu 5y agoYou are definitely wrong. 1 times faster is not even a thing.
- Panzer04 5y agoThe time was reduced by 68%. Typical confusing factor, lots of people get a "reduction" mixed up with "rate of work". Happens all the time in games.. I would agree with you, 200% faster is more appropriate, or time reduced by 68%.
- stouset 5y agoI'd actually go with "108% faster than the M1", since the "baseline" of the M1 is 100%. Alternatively, "208% of the rate of the M1" since that explicitly includes the baseline.
- chaboud 5y agoIt’s 308% the rate of the M1. I already subtracted out the 100% for baseline to get to 208%.
- stackbutterflow 5y agoPercentage increases will never not confuse people. Just like double negatives.
- ksec 5y ago>Am I missing something? You are not. It is very common mistakes.
- throwaway4good 5y agoWe developers can always compensate for our lack of math skills with a very large test suite.
- laktak 5y agoIn the mini each core takes 45.13 to complete the work of 8 (64/8) cores of the Graviton. So if you devide the "sequential" time by 8, the mini core is actually faster as it does the work of 1 Graviton Core in 1/8 of the 45.13sec time: 5.64 sec for the Mini vs 14.63 sec of the Graviton for one unit of work (which is total/64)
- throwaway4good 5y agoYou can't really deduce anything without knowing more about the test suite: How much network and file system does it do? How well can it use the full core count?
- ungamedplayer 5y agoThis guy benchmarks.
- laktak 5y agoFrom the article: > The test suite is embaressingly “parallel”. Each test can run on its own core so the more cores we have the faster the tests will run.
- cycomanic 5y agoFaster is used both in the context of time spend and rate. In sports for example we say someone was x seconds faster across the course all the time. There really is no definition that ties faster to only be associated with rate, so I would say this is just pointless nickpicking. It's like complaining that people use higher/lower when talking about price