4 ms·

Yes, if you overclock the 7590x, ignoring any "system tuning" you can get a better GB6. If we could overclock the M3 Max, we could achieve the same. The perfor

Yes, if you overclock the 7590x, ignoring any "system tuning" you can get a better GB6. If we could overclock the M3 Max, we could achieve the same. The performance loss of the 7590X in 65W eco mode isn't 10-20% compared to stock. It's more like 20-30%: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6aKQ-eBFk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6aKQ-eBFk0 If we use an overlocked 7590X – ignored the additional power draw – in 65W eco mode, using a rounded up 22K GB6 score, and assume a 20% performance loss (~17600 GB6), the 7950X, at 40% higher TDP than the M3 Max, is still 10% slower than the M3 Max. Which is especially insane considering the 7950X is a desktop-class CPU, and the M3 Max is sitting in a laptop.

jeswin 3y ago
Since we agree on the non-linear relationship between TDP and benchmark scores, can we also agree that further reduction in power (to say 45w) would only cause a small drop in performance? For argument's sake, let's triple the 10% to 30% and also assume that TDP = avg power draw during the benchmark. The 5nm 7950x is then 30% slower than 3nm M3 Max. My original argument was that Apple's advantage is mostly just TSMC. > Which is especially insane considering the 7950X is a desktop-class CPU, and the M3 Max is sitting in a laptop. 7945HX3D is a 5nm 55W laptop part, and it scores 15-16k on GB6.
- Sparkyte 3y ago
  Next year is going to be SEXY!
- etchalon 3y ago
  You haven't proven your argument then, and it shouldn't be a hard one to prove, as the 7940 and Apple's M2 Max both exist. AMD's 7940 used TSMC's 4nm FinFET while the M2 used their older 5nm process. And yet: https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=7940hs https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=7940hs https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=M2+Max https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=M2+Max So, even when AMD has a process advantage over Apple (however slight), Apple still wins.
  - jeswin 3y ago
    1) M2 uses N5P. N4 has little advantage over N5P. 2) 7950HS is 35-54w. You'll see several results above/around 14k.
    - etchalon 3y ago
      1. Little, or none, and it's as close as a comparison as possible, and why it'd be useful to prove your "It's all TSMC!" point, yet fails to. 2. … and there are M2 Max results above/around 15k.
- wtallis 3y ago
  > Since we agree on the non-linear relationship between TDP and benchmark scores, can we also agree that further reduction in power (to say 45w) would only cause a small drop in performance? You're confusing actual power with the system's configured power limit. When the default power limit is higher than the actual power draw during a given workload, then you obviously have headroom to lower that power limit quite a bit without severely reducing performance. That doesn't mean further reductions in the power limit will have similar impact, once you're working in the range where the power limit actually starts to kick in. And as you get to even lower power limits, a smaller fraction of that power budget is available for doing useful work as subsystems like the memory controller cannot reduce their power consumption as readily as the CPU cores.

jeswin 3y ago

Since we agree on the non-linear relationship between TDP and benchmark scores, can we also agree that further reduction in power (to say 45w) would only cause a small drop in performance? For argument's sake, let's triple the 10% to 30% and also assume that TDP = avg power draw during the benchmark. The 5nm 7950x is then 30% slower than 3nm M3 Max. My original argument was that Apple's advantage is mostly just TSMC. > Which is especially insane considering the 7950X is a desktop-class CPU, and the M3 Max is sitting in a laptop. 7945HX3D is a 5nm 55W laptop part, and it scores 15-16k on GB6.

Sparkyte 3y ago
Next year is going to be SEXY!
etchalon 3y ago
You haven't proven your argument then, and it shouldn't be a hard one to prove, as the 7940 and Apple's M2 Max both exist. AMD's 7940 used TSMC's 4nm FinFET while the M2 used their older 5nm process. And yet: https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=7940hs https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=7940hs https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=M2+Max https://browser.geekbench.com/search?q=M2+Max So, even when AMD has a process advantage over Apple (however slight), Apple still wins.
- jeswin 3y ago
  1) M2 uses N5P. N4 has little advantage over N5P. 2) 7950HS is 35-54w. You'll see several results above/around 14k.
  - etchalon 3y ago
    1. Little, or none, and it's as close as a comparison as possible, and why it'd be useful to prove your "It's all TSMC!" point, yet fails to. 2. … and there are M2 Max results above/around 15k.
wtallis 3y ago
> Since we agree on the non-linear relationship between TDP and benchmark scores, can we also agree that further reduction in power (to say 45w) would only cause a small drop in performance? You're confusing actual power with the system's configured power limit. When the default power limit is higher than the actual power draw during a given workload, then you obviously have headroom to lower that power limit quite a bit without severely reducing performance. That doesn't mean further reductions in the power limit will have similar impact, once you're working in the range where the power limit actually starts to kick in. And as you get to even lower power limits, a smaller fraction of that power budget is available for doing useful work as subsystems like the memory controller cannot reduce their power consumption as readily as the CPU cores.