5 ms·
> The dissimilarity between tests is intentional, by design, and is precisely what makes it useful as a general benchmark. That's fine, if those numbers mean s
by smoldesu 3y ago
> The dissimilarity between tests is intentional, by design, and is precisely what makes it useful as a general benchmark.
That's fine, if those numbers mean something to you then don't let me take that from you. My point is more that Geekbench has always been about cooking the books and avoiding objective comparisons. A number of their tests have been shown to instead rely on memory and SSD bandwidth, which kinda makes the whole "CPU score" concept bunk.
Most benchmarks will indeed rank the 2021 RISC CPU above the 2014 CISC CPU. My point is more that Geekbench has always been a dubious point of comparison for hardware differences. The meaning behind those scores is pretty pointless when you actually see how they're weighed and aggregated.
- xcv123 3y ago> A number of their tests have been shown to instead rely on memory and SSD bandwidth These are simulating common CPU workloads, so of course they will be partly constrained by the processors memory controller bandwidth and latency, as in real workloads. The fact that this is the case makes it even more useful as a general processing benchmark. Modern processors include a memory controller in the package. What you see as "cooking the books" is actually the correct and expected approach for this purpose. It should rely on memory bandwidth for some of the tests. The entire Geekbench data set is ~1GB so would be cached by the OS in RAM on any of systems we care about benchmarking. If you need a specialized benchmark then run a specialized benchmark. Geekbench is not pretending to be something like a LINPACK benchmark.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]