3 ms·

> I don’t completely agree. A MacBook Air M1 is 25% faster than a 10th generation Intel 10700K Why is everyone insistent on comparing Apple’s latest CPUs to In

> I don’t completely agree. A MacBook Air M1 is 25% faster than a 10th generation Intel 10700K Why is everyone insistent on comparing Apple’s latest CPUs to Intel’s parts from multiple generations back? Intel is on 12xxx series now. AMD also has new generation laptop CPUs that perform very well. Let’s compare to those. The M1 is power efficient but much of that is due to the TSMC process they used. I really don’t understand this desire to make arbitrary comparisons to old Intel CPUs.

bayindirh 4y ago
Because that’s what I had access when I did the tests. I’ll do a series of tests on our cluster and post these. Will these be meaningful for you? The thing is, M1 on air is a relatively low clock speed CPU with passive cooling. 10200K is actively cooled, unlimited beast of its generation. The libraries I use are X86 optimized. Yet the code I’ve written is 25% faster on ARM. This is significant.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  I'm not saying it isn't, but the "low clock speed" part is often brought up in a discussion like this, implying that Apple could make a M1KFS running at much higher clocks.
- mhh__ 4y ago
  X86 optimized doesn't actually mean that much on a lot of workloads because the memory hierarchy completely dominates performance. Apple knew this so the M1 has an extremely fast memory system.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    It’s a scientific code which manipulates a lot of relatively big matrices, which saturates the FPUs pretty well (I made the analysis back then). Intel’s memory architecture can keep up with the load until I utilize all cores. When I start to use HT cores, neither cache, nor memory can keep up. I do the both tests (Intel and Apple) both with physical core counts to keep it fair. So it’s not some run of the mill code.
- ac29 4y ago
  > 10200K is actively cooled, unlimited beast of its generation Curious what you meant here since that part doesnt exist, and if it did it would be near the bottom of the stack for the generation (101xx and 103xx are the low core count i3 and i5 parts).
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    I meant 10700K. Written that comment on mobile on a plane, before take-off, so I either typo'd and didn't see, or auto-correct changed it deeming 10200K is more correct than 10700K. If you look to the original comment where I sparked the discussion, I've mentioned it as 10700K already.
frostwarrior 4y ago
Because it's a huge step compared to most ARM SoCs. Being able to compete against a consumer high end desktop, even if it's an older one, it's a feat all by itself

bayindirh 4y ago

Because that’s what I had access when I did the tests. I’ll do a series of tests on our cluster and post these. Will these be meaningful for you? The thing is, M1 on air is a relatively low clock speed CPU with passive cooling. 10200K is actively cooled, unlimited beast of its generation. The libraries I use are X86 optimized. Yet the code I’ve written is 25% faster on ARM. This is significant.

formerly_proven 4y ago
I'm not saying it isn't, but the "low clock speed" part is often brought up in a discussion like this, implying that Apple could make a M1KFS running at much higher clocks.
mhh__ 4y ago
X86 optimized doesn't actually mean that much on a lot of workloads because the memory hierarchy completely dominates performance. Apple knew this so the M1 has an extremely fast memory system.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  It’s a scientific code which manipulates a lot of relatively big matrices, which saturates the FPUs pretty well (I made the analysis back then). Intel’s memory architecture can keep up with the load until I utilize all cores. When I start to use HT cores, neither cache, nor memory can keep up. I do the both tests (Intel and Apple) both with physical core counts to keep it fair. So it’s not some run of the mill code.
ac29 4y ago
> 10200K is actively cooled, unlimited beast of its generation Curious what you meant here since that part doesnt exist, and if it did it would be near the bottom of the stack for the generation (101xx and 103xx are the low core count i3 and i5 parts).
- bayindirh 4y ago
  I meant 10700K. Written that comment on mobile on a plane, before take-off, so I either typo'd and didn't see, or auto-correct changed it deeming 10200K is more correct than 10700K. If you look to the original comment where I sparked the discussion, I've mentioned it as 10700K already.

frostwarrior 4y ago

Because it's a huge step compared to most ARM SoCs. Being able to compete against a consumer high end desktop, even if it's an older one, it's a feat all by itself