3 ms·

I am about to run the GeekBench with my main laptop. https://valid.x86.fr/u8b004 https://valid.x86.fr/u8b004 I believe - it will OBLITERATE M2.

microtonal 4y ago
No need: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=&q=AMD+Ryzen+9+5900HX https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=&q=AMD+Ryze... Also doesn't really obliterate the M2: https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-air-2022 https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-air-2022 Seems like multi-core scores are all over the map (probably depending on the cooling of the laptop), but not really impressive when comparing to a passively cooled CPU. Single-core scores are meh compared to the M2.
- SantiagoElf 4y ago
  Yeah, not what I expected. Here is my result: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/16820778 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/16820778 Given that I didn't stop anything and was playing Dota 2 while running it ... Still, I believe at some point once newer iterations of X86-64 drop support for legacy instructions (they still have to support code running on 8080/8086 through 486) - we will have smaller, more efficient X86-64 chips. Actually, it is darn impressive that the latest Intel/AMD chips keep up with the brand new M1/M2 chips that have zero legacy instructions and the Intel/AMD chips carry 50 years of legacy :)
  - SantiagoElf 4y ago
    Noticed that I ran the previously GeekBench on balanced power plan. Here are the results on Performance Power Plan - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/16821908 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/16821908 Summarized results - https://i.imgur.com/X5vKtFn.png https://i.imgur.com/X5vKtFn.png Overall, with the new results - AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX is 18% slower in Single Core, 4% faster in Multi Core. Not that bad ...
    - hajile 4y ago
      That's not such a good result when you're talking about a chip with a 54w TDP (even more peak) vs a ~20w peak TDP for the M2. 4% faster for 2.5x more power isn't a win. The fact that 95% of users care more about that 18% single-threaded performance makes this even worse.
      - SantiagoElf 4y ago
        The TDP of the 5900HX is 45W. Don't forget we are comparing last-gen AMD vs current gen M2. M2 on Mac makes 1884/8717, but on Paralles -> 1681/7260. So, the penalty is 11% on single, 17% on multi because of running on Windows via Paralles. APPLE M1 average Single Core is 1706, average multi is 7421 on MAC. If we apply the above penalty becomes -> 1706/7421 -> 1522/6180. AMD 5900HX average Single Core is 1413, average multi is 7656. So, AMD - 1413/7656 | Apple M1 - 1522/6180 -> Amd is 8% slower in single, 19% faster in multi.
        hajile 4y ago
        > The TDP of the 5900HX is 45W. The TDP according to AMD's website is "45+W" which they clarify to be a cTDP up to 54w TDP. https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-9-5900hx https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-9-5900hx
    - elteto 4y ago
      Not that bad? Those are absolutely terrible. 4% is probably close to noise level, so essentially you are a couple of percentage points faster on multicore with TWICE the total power envelope. Think about that. And almost 1/5th slower in single core. Also, you went from "It will OBLITERATE M2" to moving the goal post "not that bad" pretty quickly. I love it.
      - SantiagoElf 4y ago
        True. But still, pointless to me - I don't care about power efficiency, battery life or any synthetic benchmarks. I have two concerns with a laptop: 1. Can it run the latest Visual Studio at blazing fast speed? 2. Can it run Dota 2 on Full HD @ >144 fps? So far ... M2 doesn't fulfill fully neither point 1 nor point 2 :)
  - viraptor 4y ago
    > once newer iterations of X86-64 drop support for legacy instructions (...) - we will have smaller, more efficient X86-64 chips. Don't get too excited about it. The old compatibility is going to be tiny in the die space compared to even basic Intel extensions. And it's not just the old code - new code may well contain a "mov al..." so you can't just drop it. All of those instructions will stay with us for decades.

microtonal 4y ago

No need: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=&q=AMD+Ryzen+9+5900HX https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=&q=AMD+Ryze... Also doesn't really obliterate the M2: https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-air-2022 https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-air-2022 Seems like multi-core scores are all over the map (probably depending on the cooling of the laptop), but not really impressive when comparing to a passively cooled CPU. Single-core scores are meh compared to the M2.

SantiagoElf 4y ago
Yeah, not what I expected. Here is my result: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/16820778 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/16820778 Given that I didn't stop anything and was playing Dota 2 while running it ... Still, I believe at some point once newer iterations of X86-64 drop support for legacy instructions (they still have to support code running on 8080/8086 through 486) - we will have smaller, more efficient X86-64 chips. Actually, it is darn impressive that the latest Intel/AMD chips keep up with the brand new M1/M2 chips that have zero legacy instructions and the Intel/AMD chips carry 50 years of legacy :)
- SantiagoElf 4y ago
  Noticed that I ran the previously GeekBench on balanced power plan. Here are the results on Performance Power Plan - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/16821908 https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/16821908 Summarized results - https://i.imgur.com/X5vKtFn.png https://i.imgur.com/X5vKtFn.png Overall, with the new results - AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX is 18% slower in Single Core, 4% faster in Multi Core. Not that bad ...
  - hajile 4y ago
    That's not such a good result when you're talking about a chip with a 54w TDP (even more peak) vs a ~20w peak TDP for the M2. 4% faster for 2.5x more power isn't a win. The fact that 95% of users care more about that 18% single-threaded performance makes this even worse.
    - SantiagoElf 4y ago
      The TDP of the 5900HX is 45W. Don't forget we are comparing last-gen AMD vs current gen M2. M2 on Mac makes 1884/8717, but on Paralles -> 1681/7260. So, the penalty is 11% on single, 17% on multi because of running on Windows via Paralles. APPLE M1 average Single Core is 1706, average multi is 7421 on MAC. If we apply the above penalty becomes -> 1706/7421 -> 1522/6180. AMD 5900HX average Single Core is 1413, average multi is 7656. So, AMD - 1413/7656 | Apple M1 - 1522/6180 -> Amd is 8% slower in single, 19% faster in multi.
      - hajile 4y ago
        > The TDP of the 5900HX is 45W. The TDP according to AMD's website is "45+W" which they clarify to be a cTDP up to 54w TDP. https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-9-5900hx https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-9-5900hx
  - elteto 4y ago
    Not that bad? Those are absolutely terrible. 4% is probably close to noise level, so essentially you are a couple of percentage points faster on multicore with TWICE the total power envelope. Think about that. And almost 1/5th slower in single core. Also, you went from "It will OBLITERATE M2" to moving the goal post "not that bad" pretty quickly. I love it.
    - SantiagoElf 4y ago
      True. But still, pointless to me - I don't care about power efficiency, battery life or any synthetic benchmarks. I have two concerns with a laptop: 1. Can it run the latest Visual Studio at blazing fast speed? 2. Can it run Dota 2 on Full HD @ >144 fps? So far ... M2 doesn't fulfill fully neither point 1 nor point 2 :)
- viraptor 4y ago
  > once newer iterations of X86-64 drop support for legacy instructions (...) - we will have smaller, more efficient X86-64 chips. Don't get too excited about it. The old compatibility is going to be tiny in the die space compared to even basic Intel extensions. And it's not just the old code - new code may well contain a "mov al..." so you can't just drop it. All of those instructions will stay with us for decades.